Archaeological Institute of America American Journal of Archaeology

Dating the Earliest Coins of Athens, Corinth and Aegina
Author(s): John H. Kroll and Nancy M. Waggoner

Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 88, No. 3 (Jul., 1984), pp. 325-340
Published by: Archaeological Institute of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/504555
Accessed: 19-05-2017 10:22 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/504555?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to American Journal of Archaeology
This content downloaded from 161.116.100.31 on Fri, 19 May 2017 10:22:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Dating the Earliest Coins of Athens,
Corinth and Aegina*
JOHN H. KROLL AND NANCY M. WAGGONER
Abstract
early electrum coins from the Central Basis deposit in
An article recently published in this journal (D. Ka-
the Artemisium at Ephesus were buried around the
gan, AJA 86 [1982] 343-60) proposes to revive a seventh
middle of the seventh century, that the invention of
century B.C. dating for the earliest coinages of Aegina,
coinage in western Asia Minor consequently goes
Corinth and Athens, in keeping with the ancient testimo-
nia that connect coinage with Pheidon of Argos and back
the to around 700, and that all chronological diffi-
culties are therefore removed for accepting the view,
reforms of Solon. Apart from such testimonia, however,
the only chronological argument adduced for this dating
widely held by numismatists and historians until the
is Kagan's contention that coinage began in Lydia and
1950s, that coinage spread to Aegina before ca. 650
Ionia near the beginning of the seventh century. B.C. and thence to Corinth and Athens later in the
Here we review the very considerable body of literary,
seventh century.2
typological, contextual, metallurgical, stylistic and com-
parative numismatic evidence that bears on the chrono-It would be premature at this time to arbitrate be-
logy of archaic Aeginetan, Corinthian and Athenian
tween Kagan's discussion of the Artemisium Central
coinage, and conclude that, regardless of when in the sev-
Basis deposit and the opposing position advocated by
enth century coinage developed in western Asia Minor, it
was not introduced at Aegina, Corinth and Athens until
E.S.G. Robinson and most recently by M.J. Price
the sixth century B.C. that the deposit was not closed until around or after
600.3 On March 23-24, 1984, a colloquium was held
Some 20 years ago, D. Kagan defended the ancient at the British Museum for the explicit purpose of re-
historical tradition that the coinage of Aegina was viewing
in- the finds and related architectural, historical-
stituted by Pheidon, the relatively obscure tyrantliterary,
of and numismatic evidence for the absolute
Argos whose career is most commonly placed in the chronology of the earliest stages of the Artemisium.
The papers presented at the colloquium are being
first half of the seventh century B.C.' Now Kagan has
broadened his defense in a paper that argues that published
the together, and when they appear all future
* The authors gratefully acknowledge the interest and Kagan 1960 D. Kagan, "Pheidon's Aeginetan Coin-
sugges-
tions of S. Brunet, R.R. Holloway, M.J. Price, and A.S. Walker. age," TAPA 91 (1960) 121-36.
Kagan 1982 D. Kagan, "The Dates of the Earliest
Special abbreviations used are:
Coins," AJA 86 (1982) 343-60.
ACGC C.M. Kraay, Archaic and Classical Greek Kroll J.H. Kroll, "From Wappenmfinzen to
Coins (Berkeley and Los Angeles Gorgoneia to Owls," ANSMN 26
1976). (1981) 1-32, pls. 1-2.
Cahn 1946 H.A. Cahn, "Zur frihattischen Minz- "Owls" C.M. Kraay, "The Archaic Owls of
praigung," MusHelv 3 (1946) 133-46; Athens: Classification and Chronolo-
reprinted in Cahn, Kleine Schriften gy," NC ser. 6.16 (1956) 46-68, pl. 13.
zur Miinzkunde und Archiiologie (Ba- Price and Waggoner M. Price and N. Waggoner, Archaic
sel 1975) 70-80. Greek Coinage, The Asyut Hoard
Cahn 1971 H.A. Cahn, "Dating the Early Coinages (London 1975).
of Athens," lecture given at the Ameri- Seltman C.T. Seltman, Athens, Its History and
can Numismatic Society, April 17, Coinage before the Persian Invasion
1971; Kleine Schriften 81-97. (Cambridge 1924).
Cahn 1977 H.A. Cahn, "Asiut, kritische Bemerkun- SKagan 1960. The chronology of Pheidon is notoriously prob-
gen zu einer Schatzfundpublikation,"
lematic (Kagan 1960:125-28; A.R. Burn, CR 33 [1983] 252); but
SNR 56 (1977) 279-87. Kagan (1982:344, 359) has recently shown a preference for the first
HN2 B.V. Head, Historia Numorum2 (Oxford half of the seventh century, the dating preferred by most historians
1911). and numismatists and hence provisionally accepted here.
Holloway R.R. Holloway, "An Archaic Hoard from 2 Kagan 1982.
Crete and the Early Aeginetan Coin-
3 E.S.G. Robinson, "The Coins from the Ephesian Artemision
age," ANSMN 17 (1971) 1-21, pls. Reconsidered," JHS 71 (1951) 156-67; "The Dates of the Earliest
1-8.
Coins," NC ser. 6.16 (1956) 1-8; and M.J. Price, "Thoughts on the
IGCH M. Thompson, O. Morkholm and Colin Beginnings of Coinage," in C.N.L. Brooke, I. Stewart, J.G. Pollard
and T.R. Volk eds., Studies in Numismatic Method Presented to
M. Kraay, An Inventory of Greek Coin
Hoards (New York 1973). Philip Grierson (Cambridge 1983) 1-4.
325
American Journal of Archaeology 88 (1984)
326 JOHN H. KROLL AND NANCY M. WAGGONER [AJA 88
discussions of this complex problem

ATHENS will rest on a
much better informed and up-to-date footing.of the high chronology argue tha
Proponents
In the meanwhile, we believe that
nian is
it necessary
coinage must haveto begun in the seventh c
address the contentions with which
since Kagan concludes,
Androtion and the Aristotelian Athenaion Poli-
namely, that, given an early seventh century
teia both date
attest that for
Solon was responsible for a re-
the earliest electrum coinage of Lydia and Ionia, the
form of the coinage in the early sixth century. But
literary testimonia regarding a Pheidonian
while Androtion coinage at Pol. do clearly attribute
and the Ath.
Aegina and a Solonian reform of
to coinage at inAthens
Solon a change the nomisma (money in general
can and should be admitted as reliable evidence for
or coinage proper), the surviving coinage of the sixth
dating the earliest coinages of these states and of Cor- B.C. cannot be connected with their accounts.
century
inth before 600. In contesting this conclusion,Androtion
we (fourth century B.C.), quoted in Plu-
make very little claim to originality. Most of the evi- Life ofSolon 15, speaks of Solon's
tarch's
dence and arguments that we cite for a sixth century
augmentation of the measures and the purchasing
beginning of these silver coinages have been set forth
power of the nomisma. For he made the mina to consist
in the numismatic literature of the past three decades.
of a hundred drachmas, which before had contained
Kagan in fact freely quotes from this literature, while
only seventy, so that by paying the same amount (sc. of
money), but (money) of a lesser value, those who had
passing over its substance in silence, apparently per-
debts to discharge were greatly benefited, and those
suaded, as he says, that numismatists have yet to pre-
sent their case convincingly.4 Whether or not this is accepted such payments were no losers.6
who
so, it is true that-as in all areas of scientific In other words, the change in the nomisma apparently
re-
search-the fundamental technical studies have been consisted of a 100:70 or 30 percent reduction in the
weight standard of the drachma.
addressed primarily to specialists in the field. And,
even among these specialists, a small minority ledThe by slightly later Ath. Pol., chapter 10, attributes
to Solon
H.A. Cahn has continued to champion the traditional
"high" chronology based on the literary referencesantoaugmentation of the measures and the weights and
the nomisma. For under him (a) the measures became
Pheidon and Solon.5 Therefore, we here summarize
greater than the Pheidonian measures and (b) the mi-
the case for the "low" chronology for a wider, non-
na, previously having the weight of seventy drachmas,
specialist audience and underscore certain key argu-
was filled up to one hundred drachmas. (c) The an-
ments that unconvinced scholars have either underes-
cient denomination was the didrachma. (d) He also es-
timated or overlooked.
tablished weights corresponding to the nomisma, at the
In general terms, the traditional "high" chronology rate of 63 minas to a talent, and the three (additional)
begins with the literary testimonia regarding Pheidon minas were distributed among the stater and the other
and Solon and simply develops a numismatic chrono- units of weight.7
logy to fit these references. The "low" chronology, on According to some commentators, the clause that ex-
plains the augmentation of the nomisma is (c), which
the other hand, starts with the fact that particular late
stages in the archaic coinages of Aegina, Corinth andwould imply that the augmentation was an increase
Athens are empirically anchored in the late sixth and in denomination from the old didrachm coins to the
early fifth centuries B.C., and proceeds to work back tetradrachm.A Other scholars, however, have various-
from these points as far as the evidence of the coinage ly seized on (d), which deals with the relation of
allows. Such evidence is especially plentiful and infor-trade weights to coin weights, or (b) to explain
mative in the case of the archaic coinage of Athens, Solon's reform as either an increase or (in keeping
which we take up first before turning to Corinth and with Androtion) a reduction of the weight standard
Aegina. of the drachma.9
4 Kagan 1982:360.
5 Cahn 1971:86-88; Cahn 1977:283-84. avflrvw. 7T'w' EELvov yap EY4vEro KaL rT /irpa /tlEco rOv QEL~BO-
vElCv, KaL / a, 7TpOTEpov E'X[o]vOa [o]raOtpbv pbot/jKovra
6 Translation of B. Perrin, Plutarch's Lives 1 (Loeb Classical
Library, Cambridge, Mass. and London 1914), with minor altera- bpayjdtc, avEr7rApc8O6? rarc EKardv. ?v &' b hpxatoo XaparITlp
tions. Emended text as printed by P.J. Rhodes, A Commentary onLibpaytJov. "rotlorE b KaL OvraOta 7rpoS r[b] vodytrta, r[p]E'L a K a
the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford 1981) 164: 4?Kxovra /tva b rTO TavroP ayoOrar, KaL EprseLvEtjOBlOrav [aI
T....r&v
P TEre/IE~pCOV
girprov Tradhew sa roSKaL
E7Ta?4?)OLV volpToy
ror POtCArtaTo~
up. ?nb ' r]peiL
TLljj..ValT rO TrrariTpt Kal roL aiAAoS OraBo.~t. (Teubner ed.).
8 See, EaToPv
e.g., Cahn 1946:136-38; C.M. Kraay, "An Interpretation
of Ath. Pol. Ch. 10," in Kraay and G.K. Jenkins eds., Essays in
yhp o7Tol7To apaX(,v T7lv t#vav, 7rpOEpov E ifO/rKO T' 'yovoav, Greek Coinage Presented to Stanley Robinson (Oxford 1968) 5-9.
CorT' rptO~Bi p P 'LOov, vvdg/t L' 'AaTrrov haOL~oBdroy, 0g4e-
9 For increase, see, e.g.: K. Kraft, "Zur solonischen Gewichts-
AEiOaL /V To or EvKTVv ..tEyAa, tv bE 'A7TTOBeaL ToVs und Muinzreform," JfNG 19 (1969) 7-24; for reduction (which
xoptzollgvove. would cause an increase in the number of drachmas obtained from
7rv rT? T v TC Z/rEp Ov KCaL OTraBtcv KaL rTV roT vo,.lLO.aror
1984] DATING THE EARLIEST COINS OF ATHENS, CORINTH AND AEGINA 327
When we turn to the extant coinage of Athens,

verses of the owl coins, etc.) and by the sequence
however, we find that no change in weight standard
which the various groups of the coinage entered in
hoards.12
can be documented. The coinage began with a drach- We summarize this hoard information in
ma of "Euboic-Attic" weight of about 4.3 g., and this it can be seen at a glance that the ear-
Table I, where
standard remained in effect down through liest
thegroup
Hel- (I) appears alone in two hoards, that it is
lenistic period.10 There was a change in thejoined
majorby the following typological group (II) in a
de-
nomination from the didrachm to the tetradrachm,
subsequent hoard, that Groups I and II are later
but it occurred long after Solon, as did thejoined
beginning
by III, and so on. Since the relative chronology
of Athenian coinage itself. This last point suggested by typological considerations is confirmed
is particu-
larly critical. For if the coinage did go back toidentical
by the the relative chronology implied by the
early sixth century, some scholars might behoards, Kraay's
tempted to arrangement of the groups must be
judged correct.
argue that prior to Solon the Athenians employed Ae-
Some of
ginetan coins, which were heavier than Athenian bythe hoards are of course more securely
the same 7:10 ratio mentioned in the above passages,
dated than others, but for our purposes it is enough to
noteinstitut-
and that Solon was therefore responsible for that most of the hoards listed in Table I are firm-
ing the lighter Attic coins in their place.11lySince this

anchored in the early part of the fifth century. The
hypothesis is the only one that can plausiblycrucial Taranto
allow for hoard, for example, contained a
a Solonian reform of coinage, it is necessaryThebes/Chalcis
to survey alliance coin probably of 506 and
the numismatic evidence for chronology. coins of Metapontum that had technically advanced
beyond the
At the outset we cannot emphasize too strongly stage of thin, wide flans that was current
that
such evidence is entirely self-contained and, contrary
throughout South Italy at the time of the destruction
to the impression given by Kagan, independent
of Sybaris
of the
in 510; a hoard date after 506 and probably
dating of the earliest coins of Ionia and around
Lydia.or aThe
little later than 500 is thus assured.13 The
evidence consists in the first instance of 1) later Gela, Asyut, South Anatolian and Zagazig
the relative
chronology of the unusually varied and well studied
hoards all have as termini post quos one or more coins
archaic Athenian coins themselves, 2) the hoards
minted by in the Samians who briefly took over Zancle
which many of the coins have been found and through
in the late 490s14; and the Asyut hoard contained a
which certain later stages of the relative chronology
coin of Alexander I of Macedon, whose reign began
can be fixed in time, and 3) the relative volume
also inof
thethe
490s.i" The coins from the Athenian Acro-
coinage in its several stages insofar as thispolis
canhoard
be de-
must date before 480 since they were ex-
duced from the number of dies expended cavated
in thefrompro- the Persian destruction debris of that
duction of the coins. The relative chronology, based
year and were badly damaged, presumably by fire.'16
on the typological and stylistic groupings of Athenian
Seltman's coinage begins with the so-called Wap-
1924 corpus, was established by Kraay by analysis
penmuinzen of (Group I), a series of didrachms and ac-
various typological and technical details (e.g., size andsmaller denominations that were struck
companying
with
thickness of the flans, the letter-forms of the A?E a changing
leg- device on obverses and a typeless in-
ends, the arrangement of the olive sprayscuse on square
the re-punch on reverses."17 There are 14 differ-
a given quantity of silver): F. Jacoby, FGrHist 3b (suppl.) II

Roman numerals, after the precedent of Price and Waggoner
466-67, citing Festus, s.v. Sextantari asses. Although it is not56-68.
our
purpose here to attempt any final interpretation of the Ath. Pol. and13 For full bibliography (to 1972) of this and all other hoards
listed in Tables I and II, see the entries in IGCH, to which should
Androtion texts, it will be clear from our remarks infra that we find
Jacoby's approach the most persuasive in terms of what Solon may be added the important chronological review of these hoards in
have actually accomplished. Price and Waggoner 16-22. For the Thebes/Chalcis coin: ACGC
'o Seltman (7-15) got around this difficulty by attributing 90,topl. 15.266. For the post-510 date of the reduced-flan coins of
Athens a group of Aeginetan-weight coins with an amphoraMetapontum: ob- ACGC 162-66, 170, pl. 34.589-92.
verse and incuse-square reverse (Seltman pl. I, Group A) and pro- 14 J.P. Barron, The Silver Coins ofSamos (London 1966) 40-45,
posing that they antedated Solon's monetary reform. But although and ACGC 213, n. 2.
such coins bear a superficial resemblance to the Attic Wappen- 15 There are reasons for dating the coin of Alexander I after ca.
munzen with amphora obverse (Seltman pl. I.A6-7; ACGC475 pl.(C.M. Kraay, "The Asyut Hoard: Some Comments on Chro-
nology," NC ser. 7.17 [1977] 190-93; Cahn 1977:284), which
9.161), the design of their reverse punch so clearly dissociates them
from the Wappenmunzen that Seltman's attribution has beenwould uni- require a lowering of the date of ca. 475 for the Asyut hoard
versally rejected; see E.S.G. Robinson's review of Seltman, NCadvocated
ser. by Price and Waggoner.
5.15-16 (1924) 332-34, and J.H. Jongkees, "Notes on the Coinage 16 To the hoard bibliography in IGCH, add Kroll 18, n. 51,
of Athens," Mnemosyne ser. 3.12 (1945) 81-83. In all probability where it is suggested that the Wappenmanzen and the owls in the
the coins belong to Carthaea on Ceos. Acropolis find may represent two separate Acropolis dedications.
" So HN2 366; Jongkees (supra n. 10) 83-87. 17 Seltman pls. 1-4 (Groups B and D); ACGC pl. 9.161-72;
Kroll
12 "Owls" 44-55. Kraay's typological groups are here denoted by pls. 1-2.1-15.
TABLE I: Hoards Significant for the Chronology of Archaic Athe
Classifiable Athenian coins by Groups

(and, in parentheses, Seltman's Groups)
Wappenmuinzen "Unwreathed" Owls "Wreathed

Owls
Hoard IGCH No. Termini Date I II III IV V VI VII

(B, D, K) (H) (L) (M+G) (C+F) (E) (N)
Attica 2 ca. 525-515 18+
Sakha (Egypt) 1639 ca. 500-490 2
Taranto (Italy) 1874 after 506 ca. 500-490 2 5
Benha (Egypt) 1640 ca. 490-485 1 4 2
Asyut (Egypt) 1644 after ca. 475 2 7 154

ca. 490 or later
Gela (Sicily) 2066 after ca. 480 2-4 2 134 31

ca. 490
South Anatolia 1177 after ca. 480-475 6 13

ca. 490
Athens Acropolis 12 in or 480 17 1 2 4 30

before 480
Zagazig (Egypt) 1645 after after 470 3+ 4+ 18

ca. 490
ent, changing devices in the didrachm series, verse

repre-
incuse squares and are distinguished by the fine-
senting 14 separate issues of the coinage.'" During
nessthe
and diversity of their die-cutting.20 They first
last two issues the didrachms are joined byshow
tetra-
up in a dated context in the Taranto hoard,
drachms, which bore the innovation of a type around
on both 500-490. After another relatively fine but
sides: an unchanging emblem of Athens (the gorgo-
more homogeneous group (III),21 a decline in artistic
neion of Athena's aegis) on the obverse and thequality
chang-begins to set in at the same time as the volume
ing issue device now relegated to the reverse.19of production dramatically increases.
The coinage was then redesigned through the Speaking
sub- relatively, the Wappenmuinzen and the
stitution of the familiar Athena/owl types. The
Groupear-II and III owls were issued in small to moder-
liest of the archaic owl tetradrachms (Group ateII)quantities.
are According to Seltman's 1924 catalogue
technically related to the Wappenmuinzenand tetra-
Hopper's 1968 supplement, all but three of the 14
drachms through their wide, flat flans and small re-
Wappenmuinzen didrachm issues were minted from
18 Kroll 23, with 32, nos. 1-14. and accompanying didrachm issues, see Kroll 10-13.
19 Seltman pl. 14 (Group K); ACGC pl. 9.173-74. For the 20
signif-
Seltman pls. 13-14 (Group H); ACGC pl. 10.175-78.
icance of the gorgoneion type and the sequence of the tetradrachm
21 Seltman pl. 15 (Group L); ACGC pl. 10.179-80.
one to four known obverse dies.22 Thethey Wappen-

did not begin very long before that date. Kraay,
impressed
miinzen tetradrachms are represented by only by the need to accommodate the volumi-
six ob-
verse dies in Seltman, and the Group II nous
and coinage
III owls
of Groups IV, V and VI before 480, esti-
by only 14 and 15 obverse dies respectively. In con-
mated that Group II began as early as ca. 525-520.29
trast, Seltman identified 124 obverse dies for the however,
Others, owls have argued that in view of the tre-
of Group IV.23 And although all these die-counts
mendous amount
will of silver being mined at Laurion in
the the
grow as new coins are added to Seltman's list, 480s,30 Groups IV-VI could be compressed and
only
substantial increase that has been noted over the near- that a date of ca. 515 or even 510 or 506 for the insti-
tution of the owl types is preferable on iconographic

ly sixty years since the publication of his catalogue has
been in Group IV, whose obverse dies are now esti- and historical grounds.31 The several iconographic in-
mated to have numbered probably well in excess of terpretations that have been adduced for linking the
200.24 The Group IV owls were clearly mass-pro-Group II or Group III owls with events in late sixth
duced in vast quantities, a circumstance that accountscentury Athens are necessarily speculative and need
for their progressive stylistic degeneration as well as
not delay us here. The important deduction is that the
for the large number of specimens in the Asyut and owl types are unlikely to have been adopted any ear-
Gela hoards (see Table I). lier than ca. 525.
The degeneration continues through Group V (31 A skeptic might reply that the Taranto hoard of ca.
obverse dies in Seltman)25 and reaches bottom in the 500-490 gives nothing more than a terminus ante
Group VI owls (28 dies),26 whose utterly "barbarous" quem and that the Group II owls could just as well be
die-cutting has been suggestively attributed to black-placed in the mid- or earlier sixth century. As Cahn
smiths pressed into service when a great amount ofand Kagan remind us, it is not uncommon to find in
silver had to be coined with all possible haste. On the
fourth century and Hellenistic hoards coins that had
evidence of the Acropolis hoard, the Class VI owls been circulating for as much as a century or more be-
must have been produced before the evacuation of At- fore being buried.32 But for the question at hand, this
observation would be irrelevant: such old coins show
tica in 480. The characteristic design of their reverse
olive sprays links them to the Group VII owls,27 to up also in much earlier hoards as well as in hoards of
which a new detail of a row of four olive leaves is the 300s or later, whereas the Group II owls appear
added on Athena's visor. Since these "wreathed" owls for the first time around 500. Moreover, whereas old
do not show up in any hoard datable before 480, and coins in fourth century and Hellenistic hoards are on
since the addition of the obverse olive leaves is plausi-
the whole heavily worn from their long circulation,
bly interpreted as commemorating Athens' success the five Group II specimens in the Taranto hoard are
over the Persians, there is good reason to conclude
uniformly in a mint-fresh or nearly mint-fresh condi-
that Group VII represents the resumption of Athe-
tion,33 having circulated little before being buried.
nian coinage after the Persian defeats of 480 and
One must remember finally that it is not just the
479.28 Accordingly, the inept die-cutting of GroupGroup
VI II phase of the owls whose initial time of circu-
presumably reflects the urgency of the final prepara-
lation is documented by several hoards of the early
tions for meeting the Persian attack. fifth century, but also the successive Group III and IV
The fact that the earliest (Group II) owls are phases.
not If one were to raise the date of Group II much
present in hoards before 500 strongly suggests that
before ca. 525, the dates of the later owl groups should
22 R.J. Hopper, "Observations on the Wappenmiinzen," in Es- (R.J. Hopper, "The Attic Silver Mines in the Fourth Century,
says... Robinson (supra n. 8) 26-36, 38. For a tabulation by is-
BSA 48 [1953] 227-31, 237-38), this revenue consisted only of the
sues, see Kroll 22. rents on the state-owned leases paid by the private speculators who
worked the mines, the actual amount of silver being produced be-
23 Seltman pls. 16-17 (Group M), 7-12 (Group G); ACGC pl.
10.181-82. fore 483/2 must have been many times greater than the 100 talents
24 Price and Waggoner 63; Cahn 1977:283, with reference to the in by the state. See W.P. Wallace, "The Early Coinages of
taken
154 Group IV tetradrachms in the Asyut hoard. Attica and Euboia," NC ser. 7.2 (1962) 28-31. It is reliably esti-
25 Seltman pls. 2-3 (Group C), 6-7 (Group F); ACGC matedpl.
that 15-25 obverse tetradrachm dies were needed to mint
10.183-84. 100 talents of silver (R.W. Mathisen, "Antigonus Gonatas and the
26 Seltman pls. 5-6 (Group E); ACGC pl. 10.185-86. Silver Coinage of Macedonia circa 280-270 B.C.," ANSMN 26
27 Seltman pls. 18-19 (Group N); ACGCpl. 11.187; C.G.[1981]
Starr,117-18, n. 66).
Athenian Coinage 480-449 B.C. (Oxford 1970) pls. 1-2 (Group I). of ca. 515: P. Bicknell, "The Date of the Archaic Owls
31 In favor
28 "Owls" 55-58; Starr (supra n. 27) 3-7, 11; ACGC 61-62, 65.
of Athens," AC 38 (1969) 175-80; Kroll 24-30. In favor of 510 or
29 "Owls" 55-58; Kraay, "The Early Coinage of Athens," NC
506: Wallace (supra n. 30) 23-28; Price and Waggoner 64-66.
ser. 7.2 (1962) 418, 420; ACGC 61, 355 (ad no. 175). 32 Cahn 1971:82; Kagan 1982:359, n. 144.
30 In 483/2 Athens had on hand a profit of 100 talents from the
33 E. Babelon, "Trouvaille de Tarente," RN 1912, pl. 1.9-12 (cf.
mines at Laurion and especially from the rich strike in theSeltmanMaro- 190, no. 287a).
neia district (Hdt. 7.144; Ath. Pol. 22.7). If, as in the fourth century
sculpture.35
rise with it, bringing at least part of the vastRarelyGroup
in numismatic
IV scholarship does
coinage before the time of theone Taranto hoard.
find the kind But that has attended the
of unanimity
specimens of this profusely mintedgeneral chronology
coinage areof the
con-Group II owls. Art histor-
spicuously absent from the latterical considerations
and convergein
do not appear with the independent im-
plications
fact until after 490 in the Gela hoard, of the hoards
making to establish their date in the
it prob-
able that, while Group II was fairly recent
last quarter around
of the sixth century.
500-490, Group IV did not commenceFrom hereuntil around
the absolute chronology of the Wappen-
500-490 or sometime thereafter. muinzen (Group I) is obtained by working backward.
The truth is that no one has ever proposed to date
As stated, the Wappenminzen tetradrachms are the
the Group II owls prior to ca. 525. Before Kraay's
immediate precursors of the Group II owls and, along
analysis, scholars commonly assumed that the archaic with the late Wappenmuinzen didrachms (with gorgo-
owls began much earlier and gradually evolved from neion obverses) that accompany the tetradrachms,36
the relatively crude-looking Group VI or IV coins at must date therefore in the vicinity of 525. Since the
the start of the series down to the fine Group II andtetradrachms were manufactured from only six
III coins at the end, in the late sixth and early fifth
known obverse dies and in only two issues (one with
centuries. Although Cahn still advocates this reversethe reverse device of a bull's head, the other with a
lion's head reverse), they are not likely to have been
relative chronology,34 it is disproved by the typolog-
ical and hoard evidence outlined above and can no minted for more than a few years. Their close rela-
longer be accepted. But even Cahn agrees that the to the early owl tetradrachms is underscored
tionship
owls of Group II must fall around the 520s, by and infact that specimens of the Wappenmunzen te-
the
tradrachms occur along with Group II or III owls in
this he is joined by Babelon, Seltman and all others
who have dated the highly artistic obverses of the
GroupTaranto, Benha and Asyut hoards.
II through comparisons with Attic vase-paintingAs and for the Wappenminzen coinage as a whole,
34 Cahn 1971, with Cahn 1946 and Cahn 1977:283-86. Cahn's
tal-i.e., in cleaning, the original surface of the coins has been re-
chronology rests on his contentions that (a) the Wappenmunzen moved do in many cases-and in part technical-i.e., in striking such
not entirely precede the owls but were minted for domestic thick con-
lumps of silver, the obverse in the anvil has not always re-
sumption as a parallel coinage alongside the owls, which were
ceived sufficient power in the blow to press the flan into the en-
struck exclusively for foreign trade; (b) the wear of the owls graved
in thetype. I would recommend that these coins be studied for
Gela hoard shows them to be much older than the Sicilian coins in wear particularly on the reverse, bearing in mind that the depth
the hoard; (c) the archaic owl coinage is throughout an "artistic"reached by the punch die must be at least equal to the depth of
coinage, whose obverse Athena heads may in every instance be engraving at the deepest point for the design to be struck without
dated absolutely with reference to Athenian vase-painting and any 'flattening' of the highest relief points." The greater overall
sculpture; and (d) on the authority of Ath. Pol. 10 (and, accord- "wear" of the Athenian material in the hoard noted by G.K. Jen-
ing to Cahn 1971:87, Androtion), Solon inaugurated the (owl)
kins, The Coinage of Gela (Antike Minzen und geschnittene Steine
tetradrachms. 2, Berlin 1970) 20-21, 151, pl. 36, would seem therefore to be the
Cahn (1971:85) concedes, however, that (a) has to be accepted as result of the hurried, mass production of the later archaic owls
an "anomaly" since it goes against reason. We would add that it alsorather than of any prolonged circulation.
goes against the evidence of the hoards (IGCH nos. 3, 5, 9 and 10, As for style, (c), since Athens' coinage in the later fifth, fourth
in addition to those here listed in Table I, which imply that the owls
and third centuries was never in step with the latest currents of
did not circulate until after the Wappenmunzen series was com- Greek artistic development, why should the bulk of her archaic
pleted), and against the results of metallurgical analysis whichcoinage be any different? Price and Waggoner (66-68) show that
show that until their latest phases the Wappenmunzen were struck the treatment of Athena's eye, ear and hair on the owls of Group II
from non-Attic silver, whereas the early owl coinage was produced through IV underwent a progressive stylization similar to the styli-
from Laurion silver (Kroll 13-15; N.H. Gale, W. Gentner, and zation one finds in the evolution of numerous other ancient coin-
G.A. Wagner, "Mineralogical and Geographical Silver Sources ofages, like the early denarius coinage of Rome, to take only the best
Archaic Greek Coinage," in D.M. Metcalf and W.A. Oddy eds., known example: once the denarius began to enjoy a wide circula-
Metallurgy in Numismatics [London 1980] 26 [Table 6], 29-33, tion and to be mass produced in increasing quantities, the exqui-
49). As remarked by M.J. Price ("The Uses of Metal Analysis insitely engraved dies of the earliest issues came to be copied by sec-
the Study of Archaic Greek Coinage: Some Comments," Metallur-
ond- and third-rate die-cutters, whose own hasty copies were in
gy in Numismatics 51), "(i)t is most unlikely that silver from a par- turn copied by others, causing a progressive degeneration of style
ticular source was reserved for the owls and other silver for Wap-(compare C.H.V. Sutherland, Roman Coins [New York 1974] fig.
penmunzen, and it is much more likely that the Wappenmunzen of 50 with figs. 54, 58, 60, 66 etc.). On this phenomenon, see further
different ores were in fact a chronologically different coinage." O.E. Ravel, "The Classification of Greek Coins by Style," NC ser.
6.5 (1945) 123-24.
(b) is more difficult to assess since so little of the Gela hoard has
been published and because it is frequently impossible to distin- 3 Cahn 1975:85, 88 (no. 5); Cahn 1977:285; E. Babelon, Traiti
des monnaies grecques et romaines 2.1 (Paris 1907) 742-62, with
guish genuinely worn coins from coins that were imperfectly struck
or minted from worn dies. The British Museum has silver foil im- plates; C. Seltman, Masterpieces of Greek Coinage (Oxford 1949)
pressions of 112 Athenian coins from the Gela hoard, and we are31. For further citations, see "Owls" 58, ns. 5-6. For complemen-
grateful to M.J. Price for examining them and communicating thetary chronological evidence involving details of helmets on the owls
following remarks (per ep., 15 March 1983): "The Athenian coinsand Attic painted pottery, see "Owls" 52; R.T. Williams, "The
have very much the look of the Asyut pieces, and I would entirely 'Owls' and Hippias," NC ser. 7.6 (1966) 9-12.
support your suggestion that signs of wear are in part environmen- 36 Kroll 11-13.
Greek civic coinages characterized by changing issue

Kraay, noting that the didrachm series is represented
by only "about a dozen types" and "by no more types or issue symbols. Like the changing names of
than
about forty obverse dies," reasoned in 1956 that magistrates that distinguish the successive issues of
the rate of use can hardly have been lower than otherone
Greek coinages, such types or symbols served in
generalbe
obverse die a year, and, if an allowance of ten years as administrative control marks for identify-
ing theno
added to cover the possibility that in some years batch of coins minted over a limited period of
coins were minted, a maximum period of about timefifty
under the authority of the particular official (or
years for the issue of "wappenmiinzen" is reached,
board of officials) responsible inter alia for maintain-
which would mean that they began about ing 575theor
coins' appropriate weight and fineness of al-
later.37
loy. The types or symbols thus changed with each
In a footnote, Kraay emphasized "that this is quite a change of minting officials or administrative period,
generous calculation, and that the period might well and since throughout Greece administrative arrange-
be shorter."38 Accordingly, in 1976, he opted for a ments were normally organized on an annual basis,
starting date around the middle of the sixth century, with magistrates holding office for a single year, one
i.e., during the early years of Peisistratus' tyranny, a assumes that the administrative periods denoted by
dating that had come to be advocated by others.39 changing types, symbols, or names were normally an-
To a certain degree this Peisistratid dating rests on nual as well. In fact in several instances-as with the
an argument from historical probability. With the changing types of Cyzicene electrum coins, the chang-
terminal date of the Wappenmuinzen fixed by the being types of the joint electrum coinage of Phocaea and
ginning of the owl coinage in the last quarter of the Mytilene, the changing reverse types of Abderite sil-
century, the Wappenmiinzen, as Kraay observed, ver coins, and the changing symbols of the New Style
"must be very largely the coinage of the Peisistratid silver coins of Hellenistic Athens, to cite only four
tyrants."40 And if largely a Peisistratid coinage, why cases-we have good evidence that changing types or
not wholly a Peisistratid coinage, especially since Pei- symbols did change annually in keeping with an an-
sistratus' innovative administration presents a plausi- nual term of mint administration.41
ble historical context for the establishment of coinage There is no reason why the changing devices of the
at Athens? But all such argumentation aside, the very Wappenmuinzen should be excepted from this general
fact that the Wappenmiinzen didrachms are conve- principle of annual change.42 On the whole, the di-
niently divided into 14 issues itself requires that the drachm issues were small, most of them having been
coinage could not have commenced much, if at all, be- manufactured from only one to three obverse dies,
fore mid-century. precisely as one would expect for issues of one year's
The Wappenmiinzen are only one of numerous duration. Thus if, on analogy with many other Greek
37 "Owls" 64-65. Today, however, the number of obverse di-

authority in the state (as argued for the changing types of Cyzicus,
drachm dies falls between 49 and 56 (Hopper [supra n. 22] 38, no.
Phocaea, Mytilene and Abdera by A.E. Furtwaingler, "Griechische
"e," and Kroll 19, n. 56). On the minimalist principle of one dieVieltypenpriigung
per und Mtinzbeamte," SNR 61 [1982] 19-24), the
year, see infra n. 64. essentially administrative purpose of the types for distinguishing
38 "Owls" 65, n. 1. successive issues remains unaffected.
9 ACGC 58, following Wallace (supra n. 30) 36; Price and Wag-
42 From time to time it has been suggested, although never se-
goner 66. riously discussed from a monetary point of view, that the Wappen-
40 ACGC 58. minzen were issued only at four-year intervals at the time of the
41 CyzicuS: ACGC 261-approximately 200 changing types in Greater
a Panathenaea, a supposition that would date their inaugu-
period of slightly more than 200 years. Phocaea-Mytilene: F. Bo-
ration to 566/5 (when the festival was organized on a quadrennial
denstedt, Die Elektronmiinzen von Phokaia und Mytilene (Tii- basis; L.A. Deubner, Attische Feste [Berlin 1932] 23). See N. Ya-
bingen 1981)-189 emissions in the 206 years of Periods II-III louris, "Athena als Herrin der Pferde," MusHelv 7 (1950) 52-55;
(521-326 B.C.). Abdera: R.R. Holloway, review of J.M.F. May,
"Owls" 65, n. 1; Hopper (supra n. 22) 26; Cahn 1971:84; ACGC
The Coinage of Abdera (London 1966), in AJA 71 (1967) 321;59. The argument, as detailed by Yalouris, is fundamentally icono-
ACGC 153-56. Athens New Style and the annual principle in gen- graphical and assumes that the Wappenminzen amphora, horse,
eral: Kroll 21. For a small sampling of other coinages, all from the
triskeles and wheel devices are necessarily agonistic in character.
pre-Hellenistic era, with changing symbols or changing magis- But are they? The associations of the olive-oil amphora with the
trates' names denoting issues probably of a year's duration (or less),
Athenian economy and of horses with the Athenian gentry are, for
see ACGC 100 (4th c. Sicyon), 112-14 (4th c. Boeotia), 129 (4th example,
c. too general to require a connection with the Panathenaic
Corcyra), 138 (4th c. Chalcidian League), 158-60 (5th-4th c. Ai- games. There is nothing agonistic in the beetle, bull's head and
nos), 241, 255 (5th-4th c. Samos), 256 (4th c. Ephesus, with magis-lion-head types. And the Greek agonistic symbol par excellence, a
trates' names lasting for less than a year), 257 (4th c. Rhodes). Nike, is missing from the list of Wappenminzen designs. The chief
Whether the Wappenminzen types were the personally selected weakness of the festival theory, however, is to be found in its im-
symbols of individual "moneyers" (as argued by Kroll 2-10, and plausible
O. monetary implications: could the needs of the quadren-
Picard, "Les monnaies marseillaises aux types d'Auriol, et les mon-nial festival have been so great and other ordinary economic needs
nayages grecs i types multiples," Bulletin de la Socidtd Frangaise de
of the state so insignificant that new coinage was required only at
Numismatique 36 [1981] 53-55) or were chosen by some higher the time of the festival?
to the lawseach
coinages with changing types or symbols, of Solon
Wap-that the Athenian economy in
Solon's time
penminzen device did denote the coinage of awas a monetary economy employing sil-
single
ver as the
year, Kraay's original 50-year maximum means of exchange.
estimate for At Ath. Pol. 8.3 we read:
the Wappenminzen would be overly generous
Therefore in-
in the laws of Solon that are no longer in
force it more
deed. The coinage need not have spanned is often written
thanthat "the naukraroi are to
levy..." andwhich
14 years, although a more realistic estimate, "are to al-
spend out of the naukraric
silver."45
lows for occasional years when no coinage was needed
Lysias
or struck and perhaps other years that 10.18 quotes
might in full a law of Solon on usury
be repre-
that similarly
sented by possible Wappenminzen types refers to money as "silver."46 And Plu-
on denomi-
nations smaller than a didrachm,43tarch's
should Lifeprobably
of Solon (23) contains a long and detailed
be in the neighborhood of two or (atdiscussion of certain
the most) threefines, prices and monetary
awardsIIfound
decades. Counting back from the Group owls in in
Solon's
thelaws, the prices of sacrificial
victims
last quarter of the century, the start beingWappen-
of the specifically cited from the sixteenth
miinzen would fall around the middleaxon of
of the
thelaws. The fines, prices and awards are all
century
or shortly thereafter. expressed in drachmas, which can hardly be other
than drachmas
It might be objected that the foregoing of silver, as Plutarch implies when he
chronology
refers
is essentially inferential and that the 14 to the monetary
didrachm fines as "silver fines" (argyri'as
is-
sues could still be stretched over 70 zamfas).
or 80 years
Inasmuchback to
as coinage proper was not intro-
the time of Solon's legislation in duced
the in590s. From
Attica until abouta half a century after Solon,
it follows
strictly logical point of view this is, of that these
course, true.drachmas
Yet must have been drach-
the methodological question here isma weights
not oneofof uncoined
logicalor bulk silver.47
We conclude
possibility, but of numismatic probability that,on
based while Solon could have had
nothing to dochrono-
what can be deduced from the comparative with coinage, a Solonian monetary re-
logies of better understood Greek formcoinages with within the context of the
is readily intelligible
pre-coinage
changing types or symbols. And within but silver-using
these terms, economy of early sixth
given the two alternatives-the 70-80 years
century needed
Athens. to of such a reform may well
The terms
extend the Wappenmiinzen backhave
tobeen written
Solon ordown
theas one of Solon's laws and
20-30 years that bring the coinage may well have involved
no farther than a 30% reduction of the weight
of the drachma, as Androtion
mid-century and the tyranny of Peisistratus-the lat- and a clause of the Ath.
Pol. conclusively
ter chronology is overwhelmingly and suggest. The drachma
to in question, however,
wouldpoint
be preferred, as it is from a technical have been
ofa view.
weight denomination, not a coin
denomination. And show
Prior to the tetradrachms, the Wappenminzen indeed the reform itself would
virtually no stylistic or technological

have development.
been essentially a reform of weights alone, since
in an decades
For a coinage lasting only two or three economy this
based ison transactions through the
understandable, but for a period weighing
of 70-80 years
out of silver, it
any modification of the weight
system
would be without parallel in any other was ipsoof
coinage facto
thea modification in the monetary
Greek world. system.
How then is one to understand the literary evidence The extent to which Androtion and the author of
pertaining to a Solonian reform of the nomisma? It the Ath. Pol. were aware of this is a matter of historio-
would be hazardous to maintain that the tradition of graphical rather than historical interest. Both writers
the reform was mere invention, for the laws of Solon connect Solon with nomisma, which after the intro-
duction of coins became the conventional term for
were available to scholars in the fourth century B.C.,44
and arguably served as the primary source for whatcoinage. But the root meaning was "anything sanc-
Androtion and, in part, the Ath. Pol. have to say about
tioned by current or established usage" (LSJ), and in
Solon's revision of the measures, weights and nomi-a monetary context nomisma could denote currency or
sma. From what other source, one wonders, could
legal tender of any kind. Plutarch's Life of Lysander
information about a Solonian revision have been(17.2-3) speaks of the iron nomisma of the Spartans,
known? Moreover, it is clear from ancient references
which was surely not iron coinage, but, as Plutarch
43 Kroll 23, n. 67.
Aaxo[i yE]yparrat, "robv vavKpapov E T7TpaTeL , K "2La-
44 E. Ruschenbusch, EOAfNOE NOMOI (Historia Einzel-
AlKELxv (K roV vavxpaptxoe Izpyvp[io]v" (Teubner ed.).
schriften 9, Wiesbaden 1966) 1-14; R. Stroud, "State Documents46 TO apyvptov OTTLf.Ov aL (4' OOC a? p JOVAlTaL 6
in Archaic Athens," in Athens Comes of Age (Papers of a Sympo-
4avd o av.
sium Sponsored by the AIA, Princeton 1978) 26-27. 47 Rhodes (supra n. 6) 152-53, 168.
45 srb KaL Cv oTi V/.lOLE To'iL IAwVvoS oL oVrKET Xpv7rat AroX-
usingnomi-
explains, a money of iron spits.48 To be sure, a bronze coinage in the fifth century B.C. be-
sma in Ath. Pol. 10 must be understood as cause
"coinage,"
penalties and manumission payments were ex-
since the passage goes on to speak about thepressed in bronze asses in the Law of the Twelve
character
Tables.52 Such monetary denominations, again, must
(coin "stamp," hence in this context coin "denomina-
tion") of the didrachmon (which is unknown as denominations
be the a de- of the weights used in weighing
nomination of Athenian weights) and about coin
money in the form of uncoined metal; for, although
the terminology
weights as distinct from trade weights. In the passage of these early law codes certainly
brings later
from Androtion, on the other hand, the generic, less coin denominations to mind, the numis-
matic record
prejudicial interpretation of nomisma as "money" fits proves that no shekel coins existed before
the sense admirably, as Perrin's Loeb translation
the Greek period and that the Romans did not mint as
("augmentation of the measures and the purchasing
coins until the third century.53 One could legitimately
connect
power of the money") makes clear. Androtion doesthe
not earliest coins of Athens with Solon's law-
say that Solon actually modified the nomisma,givingonly
only if the numismatic evidence for the chrono-
that there was a modification of the timr or valuethe

logy of of coins were ambiguous. But it is not, and
the nomisma along with the modification oftheirthe date
meas- around or, most likely, soon after the middle
ures. Indeed, by associating the revision of of
the metra,
the sixth century should stand as one of the more
which here presumably means measures ofsecure weightpointsas in the chronology of archaic Greek coin-
agenomisma,
well as of capacity, with a revaluation of the overall.
Androtion would seem to reflect accurately the gen-
CORINTH
uine circumstance of the Solonian reform in which the
latter was the immediate and inevitable consequence The chronology of the archaic Pegasus staters
of the former. Corinth is a good deal more straightforward.
The mid-sixth century date of the earliest Atheniancoins of the earlier series (Group I in Ravel's
coins therefore conflicts neither with Androtion as he pus54) have a simple incuse punch reverse, at
is quoted by Plutarch nor with the probable reality of
(Group I.1) with a pattern derived from the "Un
Solon's monetary reform. The only conflict is with the
Jack" reverses of Aeginetan coins, later (Group 1.
coinage nomisma of Ath. Pol. 10. But, as Rhodes hasa swastika configuration, and finally (Group 1.3)
written in his judicious discussion of that chapter, a simplified swastika design. In Group II, reverses
"(s)ince coins were named after the weights of silverstamped with a true reverse type-a helmeted he
which they represented, if there was no record Athena.55
of
when coinage had been introduced it was easy to as- In the late nineteenth and early twentieth cen-
sume that Solon must have reformed Athens' coinage turies, when the criteria for dating archaic coinages
as well as her weights."49 Surely there was no suchwere far more limited than they are today, the start of
record if Plutarch in his Life of Theseus (25.3) could
Group I was placed in the third quarter of the sev-
believe that coins were struck by this early king ofenth century, at the time of the tyrant Cypselus, and
Athens50 and if other writers could attribute the in- period II was believed to have begun as late as
vention of coinage to the still earlier Athenian heroes ca. 500 because of the similarities of the Athena
Erichthonius or Lycus (Pollux 9.83). heads of Group II to female heads on late sixth and
No one today would argue that shekel coins were early fifth century coins of Athens, Syracuse and
minted in second millennium Mesopotamia just be-some other Greek states.56
cause the Laws of Eshnunna and Hammurabi hap- The validity of this last determination is now fully
pen to specify prices, wages, compensation, interest onconfirmed by more objective evidence. A stater that
loans, etc. in silver shekels,5' or that the Romans werebelongs about midway in Group I.27 was struck over
48 See also Plutarch, Life of Lycurgus 9; Pollux 7.105, 9.77, 79. 54 0. Ravel, Les "poulains" de Corinthe 1 (Basel 1936).
49 Rhodes (supra n. 6) 168. ss ACGC 80-82, pl. 13.220 (Ravel Group I.1), 221, 223 (Group
50so See Jacoby, FGrHist 3b (suppl.) 1.566-69; Rhodes (supra n.1.2), 222 (Group 1.3), 225-26 (Group II).
6) 169. 56 B.V. Head, British Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins: Cor-
s51 J.B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East 1. An Anthology of inth, Colonies of Corinth, Etc. (London 1889) xviii-xx; HN2 400.
Texts and Pictures (Princeton 1958) 133-48. An alternate chronology, which begins Group II ca. 550, was ar-
52 E.H. Warmington, Remains of Old Latin 3 (Loeb Classical gued by P. Gardner, A History of Ancient Coinage 700-300 B.C.
Library, Cambridge, Mass. and London 1938) 476-77, 514-15. (Oxford 1918) 135-36, and adopted by Ravel (supra n. 54) 15-19.
53 Shekel coins: ACGC 287-90; M.J. Price, "The 'Porus' Coin- 7 The stater, now in Paris, is illustrated in the Basel sale cata-
age of Alexander the Great," in Studia Paulo Naster Oblata 1 logue 8, 23 Mar. 1937, 302, and was struck from the obverse die
(Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 12, Leuven 1982) 76. As coins: Ravel P36, the nineteenth die in Ravel's sequence of 42 Group II.2
Sutherland (supra n. 34) 20-26. obverse dies (P18-P60).
an Athenian Wappenminze which chaic

bore apattern of their scythe-shaped win
gorgoneion
obverse and which therefore was detailed
minted atanalysis,
the veryBrown observed that
end of the Wappenmunzen sequence, tions ofbefore
just the Group
the I.1 Pegasi and the
movements
Athenian owl coinage was introduced in the last of the Group I.1 Pegasi d
quar-
walking
ter of the sixth century. Since the Group pose are not paralleled in the r
1.2 Corin-
of horses
thian stater in question was followed on archaic
by further sta- painted pottery unt
quarter
ters of this group and by the staters of the
of Group 1.3,sixth
it is century and later;
cluded
certain that the Group I staters were that
still in "no reason really exists for
produc-
tion well after 525. The appearance of five
[Group Group before
I staters] II 575."62
staters in the Taranto hoard of ca. Very
500-49058
muchgives a
the same result is obtained
terminus ante quem of ca. 490 forto the
the known
start number of Group I obv
of Group
II coins with reverse Athena heads; and in
principle light of
employed by Kraay for estimat
both termini the start of this group can span
mum hardly
offall
thebe-
Athenian Wappenmin
fore ca. 515, the date conservatively proposed
that no by
Greek coinage is likely to have
from
Kraay, if it does not in fact belong less as
as late than
ca. one
500,new obverse die per
is nothing arbitrary about this principle,
the time preferred by Price and Waggoner.59
On the other hand, the traditional Cypselid
of Greek dating
civic coinages marked with ann
ing
for the start of Group I is now seen toissue
have letters, symbols or magistrate
been based
on at least one false premise. The their reverses
assumptions have been studied, and th
were
that Corinth must have begun to coin
consumption
after Aegina
of new
but obverse dies ranges
before Athens and that the earliest
0.8coinages of per
to 2.2 dies these
annum at the low end
up to
latter states dated respectively in the as half
first many of as
the9-10 dies per annum
seventh century (according to the shown above
testimony that the principle is fully
attribut-
ing the first Aeginetan coinage to the
Pheidon
case of of
theArgos)
Athenian Wappenmunze
and in or before 594 (according to theknown
odd testimonia re- dies65 were expende
obverse
garding Solon's monetary reformof at only
Athens).60 Withyears.
some 20-30
As Kraay
the downdating of the earliest Athenian coinshas
to remarked,
the the Group
middle of the sixth century, however,
Corintha seventh
was not cen-
appreciably more extens
Athenian
tury date for the start of the earliest Wappenmunzen.66
coinage at Cor- Sixty-five d
in mandatory.
inth is, on this reasoning, no longer Ravel's 1936 corpus: 17 dies for Grou
The only additional argument thatGroup has1.2everandbeen6 for Group 1.3; and, w
dies will doubtless
adduced in support of the chronological be added to these totals as the cor-
association
with Cypselus is Seltman's comparison between
pus is updated, we have no the
grounds for expecting that
these
Pegasi of Group I.1 staters and the numberson
Pegasus willabeLate
augmented significantly.
Protocorinthian aryballos in Boston
Working of about
backward from 650the terminal date of ca.
B.C.6' But the valid points of comparison
515-500 for the are limited
group, the 65 recorded dies give an
to the animals' galloping schema and the
outside typically
starting ar- approximately 580 and
date between
58 See Table II and supra p. 327. As shown in Table II, the Sam-
drachm (or octadrachm) dies fluctuates from 1.2 to 2.2 per annual
biasi, Mit Rahineh, Demanhur, Sakha and South Anatolian issue: May (supra n. 41) 72, 84-85, 144, 178. ACGC 19, 84 n. 1,
hoards contained Group I but no Group II Corinthian staters, notes
a the simultaneous use of two obverse stater dies at the mint of
further indication that Group II does not begin until very late in the
Leukas from the late sixth century to the mid-fourth century. The
sixth century. The fact that Group I (but, again, no Group II) sta-110 issues of the New Style silver coinage of second and first cen-
ters were often overstruck by coins of Metapontum belonging to the tury B.C. Athens were struck from an average of ten dies per issue,
period after 510 (supra p. 327) points in the same direction. See
with as many as 30-47 obverse dies being consumed in peak years
ACGC 81, pl. 13.224; Price and Waggoner 78, 132, n. 106. of minting (M. Thompson, The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens
9 ACGC 82; Price and Waggoner 78. [New York 1961] 650-54); if one accepts the revised chronology
60 Head (supra n. 56) xviii. that dates the coinage from the 170s down to the late 40s B.C. and
61 C. Seltman, Greek Coins2 (London 1955) 39. requires certain gaps in the annual sequence during the early and
62 W.L. Brown, "Pheidon's Alleged Aeginetan Coinage," NC ser. late periods (O. Picard, Chalcis et la Confidiration Eublenne [Bi-
6.10 (1950) 187-88, 201-202, ns. 44-48. bliothtque des Ecoles frangaises d'Athtnes et de Rome 234, Paris
63 Supra p. 331. 1979] 198-202; J.H. Kroll, "Two Hoards of First-century B.C.
64 E.g., Barron, (supra n. 14) 40-45, 178-79, lists ten obverseAthenian Bronze Coins," Deltion 27 [1972] Meletai 93-99), the
dies for the five years of tetradrachm coinage of the Samians overall
at expenditure of recorded obverse tetradrachm dies falls to an
Zancle in the late 490s and (Barron 48, 58-64) twelve obverse dies
annual average of nine.
for the Group VI-VII Samian tetradrachms that spanned fifteen 65 Supra n. 37.
66 ACGC 80.
years later in the fifth century. In the sixth, fifth and early fourth
century coinage of Abdera, the average number of known tetra-
B.C. employed
565 B.C. If, as is likely, the mint commonly scholarship, employing good documentary e
more than a single obverse die in certaindenceyears,
for the
a reforms of Solon, could be confus
somewhat later estimate for the beginning of nature
about the the of Athenian currency at the tim
Group I coinage would of course be calledthese
for. reforms,
And in it was not likely to have been any be
fact a slightly later and probably more dependable
informed about monetary matters at the much ea
outside calculation of ca. 560 is obtainedtime
by counting
of Pheidon of Argos.
back from the terminus of ca. 525 afforded According
by the to Strabo (8.6.16 and 8.3.33), the trad
above-mentioned Group II.2 Wappenminzen tion that Pheidon struck the first coinage at Aeg
over-
strike, which according to Ravel's Corinthian die
rests on se-authority of Ephorus, the fourth cen
the
historian
quence was preceded by 17 Group I.1 and 18 whose
Groupattributions of famous inventions to
1.2 obverse dies.67 Kraay has suggested famous
ca. 570-560
figures as
of the dim past were in some instances
the most probable time for the start ofrecognized
Group I, as and
anachronistic even by ancient writers.69
Price and Waggoner have proposed a date as lateversion
An expanded as of the tradition, found in the
ca. 550.68 In any case, a date within or very close (on
fifth century A.C. Etymologicum of Orion (s.v. /3E-
Xds), adds
either side) to the second quarter of the sixth that when Pheidon issued the coins he took
century
is assured. in the spits that had served as the previous currency
There being no literary testimonia or (aside from and dedicated them to Argive Hera.70
Seltman's superficial late Protocorinthian compari- The elements that gave rise to the tradition seem
son) any other evidence to the contrary, this sixth cen- apparent enough: 1) Just as Solon was well known for
tury chronology should cause no misgivings. The only his metrological reforms at Athens, Pheidon was re-
disagreement is with the beliefs of past scholarship, membered for "having made standard measures (me-
and here we would point out that the usual assump- tra) for the Peloponnesians" (Hdt. 6.127). These
tion that the earliest staters of Corinth necessarily measures undoubtedly involved measures of capacity,
precede the introduction of the Wappenmuinzen coin-and at least Ephorus-although we have no indepen-
age at Athens is itself open to question. The only sure dent literary or epigraphical evidence to this effect-
sequence is that the Corinthian Group I.1 staters with believed that Pheidon established measures of weight
the incuse "Union Jack" reverses must follow the ear-as well.7' 2) In the Classical period the popularity of
liest phase of coinage at Aegina in which the "Union Aeginetan coinage in Southern Greece was so wide-
Jack" reverse punch originally developed. This in spread that Pollux (9.74) and Hesychius (s.v. XEXW-
turn raises the question whether Aeginetan coins real-vrm) refer to it as "Peloponnesian nomisma." The
ly did begin in the first half of the seventh century,primitive appearance of archaic specimens, many of
some 75-100 years before coinage was adopted atwhich were still circulating in the fourth century
Corinth, or whether the chronology of early Aegine- B.C., showed them to be the oldest coins of Greece.
tan coinage too should be lowered considerably in or-And whether or not their weight standard corre-
der to bring it into a closer and more plausible tem- sponded to any Pheidonian metra, it was almost in-
poral relationship with the earliest issues of Corinth evitable that someone would have come to associate
and Athens. them with the metrological activities of Pheidon,
much as early Athenian coins came to be associated
AEGINA
with the weight reform of Solon. Thus, Pheidon re-
Our discussion of early Athenian numismatic chro-for introducing coinage in Greece. 3) A
ceived credit
nology illustrates the hazards of uncritically regard-
dedication of spits in the Argive Heraeum was known
ing ancient testimonia as unimpeachable orevidence
believed for
to have been made by Pheidon, and, be-
the early history of Greek coinage. If fourth century
cause (as the entry in Orion's Etymologicum empha-
67 Supra n. 57.
68 ACGC 80; Price and Waggoner 79. Theophrastus, AorxpoKd'pa1s 11. On the other hand, the sources
are silent about any specifically "Pheidonian" weights, and the as-
69 Brown (supra n. 62) 194. sumption made frequently by modern scholars that the weight stan-
70 For the relevant texts and extensive discussion of the Pheidon-
dard of Aeginetan coins went back to Pheidon is therefore very
Aegina tradition, see Brown (supra n. 62) 177-98; Kagan
much open to question; see J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte 1.2
1960:121-36; ACGC 313-15. (Berlin and Leipzig 1926) 347-49; J. Johnston, "Solon's Reform of
71 FGrHist 70, F 115 (apud Strabo 8.3.33): KaL /Lrpa &Evpa rh
Weights and Measures," JHS 54 (1934) 182-83; Kraay (supra n.
8) 4. Whatever its origin, the weight standard that was eventually
4eLwv8 a KXaAovLgva KaL o'raO8ow K~L vo/d.ouLa KeXapa-Y.Ivov rTO
re aAAo KaL Tb apyvpokv. That "Pheidonian" measures of capacity known as the Aeginetan standard must have been widely dissemi-
were known and still employed in some parts of Greece during the nated by the beginning of the sixth century if it was employed at
fourth century is clear from Ath. Pol. 10 (supra n. 7); M.N. Tod, Athens before the reforms of Solon (supra pp. 326-27, 332).
Greek Historical Inscriptions 2 (Oxford 1948) no. 140, line 82; and
sizes) the basic denominations stood. It consistscoins--obolos,

of silver of a very small initial issue (two coins
literally a "spit," and drachma, extant, both from
literally a single obverse die),
a "handful" of whose reverse
spits-obviously derived from the punches are crisscrossed
early use of by randomas
spits lines reminiscent
currency, the Heraeum spits were of theassumed,
reverses of certain
quiteearlynat- Ionian electrum
urally, to relate to Pheidon's introduction
coins,75 and of threeof coinage.
small subsequent groups of coins
This very dedication of iron with
spits came
punches to alight
that bear in
rough, indeterminate design
1894 in the excavation of the temple of by
or are crossed Argive Hera.72
four lines in the pattern of the Union
Leaded together in a large bundle
Jack.'76 Itand
is clearaccompanied
that this earliest coinage of Aegina
by a massive iron bar, the spitsmust
must have been
have limited
beenin volume
a mon- and, however inter-
etary offering of some kind. If mittent,
they relatively
were short in duration since Holloway,
genuinely
dedicated by Pheidon and if their whoseoriginal
study was based on the examination
number or of 1067
weight conformed to some kind archaic
ofAeginetan
system,73 staters, was able to isolate only 44
they
would lend credence to the notion that Pheidon was coins from this period, all struck from a mere 15 ob-
involved with weights and currency in additionverse to dies. As Holloway notes, the fairly extensive die
measures of capacity. But even so, the more critical repetition among these 44 coins indicates that "we
notion that Pheidon minted the first Aeginetan coins possess a good sampling of the work of a very small
should still be regarded only with the greatest skepti- mint and that the losses in the earliest die sequence
cism since it would have us believe that the ruler of are insignificant."77
one city-state, no matter how imperialistic his career, In contrast, the output of coinage in Period ii was
would have undertaken to create his new coinage huge, at so much so that no estimate of the number of
the mint and with the local emblem of another state- obverse dies is available. This is the period to which
a phenomenon, so far as we know, without parallel in nearly all archaic Aeginetan coins belong, and in the
monetary history. Whether or not Pheidon actuallycourse of it the pattern of their reverse punches
controlled Aegina,74 no sophisticated argument evolved is through several stages. The sequence of pat-
needed to demonstrate that had he struck coins they terns is: "Union Jack" (eight sunken triangles, one or
would have been Argive coins. The tradition ofmore a of which are frequently filled in), "Five sunken
Pheidonian coinage at Aegina is thus just as hard totriangles," "Windmill sail" (four sunken triangles),
credit as historical fact as it is easy to understand as"Proto-skew"
a (two triangular and three trapezoidal
conjectural reconstruction of a later age, and provides sunken segments), and "Small skew" (in which the
no convincing foundation for the chronology of early "Proto-skew" arrangement is regularized).78 Evi-
Aeginetan coinage. dence of hoards and obverse die linkage between some
A more reliable foundation would be the terminus patterns indicate a considerable overlapping of the
patterns (largely, it would seem, as old reverse dies
post quem provided by the date of the earlier electrum
were continued in use alongside newer ones), so that
coinage of Lydia and Ionia, but since current opinions
date it from the late seventh century all the way back
only three meaningful phases of this period should be
to ca. 700, the implications for Aegina must wait until
distinguished79:
a new consensus is reached. Consequently, we are, atPeriod iia "Union Jack," joined by "Five triangles"
present, left to review what can be deduced about ar- and "Windmill sail"
chaic Aeginetan chronology from the coinage and iib "Five triangles" and "Windmill sail"
hoard contexts alone. joined by "Proto-skew"
iic "Small skew"
The earliest phase of the coinage, Holloway's
"Early Linked Series," which we have chosen to des-There is a certain ambiguity between late Period
ignate as Period i, is in some ways the best under-and early Period iib, but classification here is assi
72 C. Waldstein, The Argive Heraeum 1 (Boston74 1902)

The 61-63,
evidence is discussed by Kagan, 1960:129-30, who
fig. 31. J.N. Svoronos, "MaO 'uara NotLor-TaruTK," cludes:
JIAN9 "The fact is that it cannot be shown with certainty
(1906)
192-202; P. Courbin, "Le monnayage dans la GracePheidon
archaique:
everva-ruled Aegina."
leur comparie du fer et de l'argent," Annales. Economies, socidtts,
75 Brown (supra n. 62) 182 (Class I), pl. 11.1; Holloway 3,
civilisations 14 (1959) 209-33; A.E. Furtwangler,pl. "Zur
6.2;Deutung
ACGC 44, pl. 6.113.
der Obeloi im Lichte samischer Neufunde," in H.A.76 Cahn and E.9-13, pls. 7.1-11, 8.1-6.
Holloway
Simon eds., Tainia: Festschrift fiir Roland Hampe (Mainz 1980) 13.
77 Holloway
92-98; P. Courbin, "Obloi d'Argolide et d'ailleurs," 78 in
ForR.theHigg
patterns, see the catalogue and illustrations in
ed., The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B.C.
and(SkrAthens
Waggoner 69-73, pls. 19-21. Also ACGC 44, pl. 6.114 (U
30, Stockholm 1983) 146-56. Jack), 115 (Windmill sail), 116 (Five triangles), 117 (Small s
73 Furtwingler, (supra n. 72) 94, expresses doubts 79whether
Holloway the5-6; Price and Waggoner 74.
Heraeum spits did in fact conform to a fixed value system.
TABLE II: Early Hoards Containing Archaic Coins of Aegina and Corinth
Aeginetan Coins by Periods Corinthian Coins

by Groups
Hoard IGCH No. Date i iia iib iic iii I II
Persepolis Apadana 1789 517-514 1
Sambiasi (Italy) 1872 ca. 520 3
Cyclades 6 late 6th c. 3 (out of total 114 Aeginetan coins)
Mit Rahineh (Egypt) 1636 ca. 500 1 4
Demanhur (Egypt) 1637 ca. 500-490 16 6
Sakha (Egypt) 1639 ca. 500-490 2(+?) 8
Matala (Crete) 1 ca. 500-490? 68
Taranto (Italy) 1874 ca. 500-490 15 (1?) 10 5
South Anatolia 1177 ca. 480-475 4 6 1
Asyut (Egypt) 1644 ca. 475 1 63 53 10 6 33

or later
Isthmia Deposit 11 ca. 475 x x x x x x
by the careful study of hoard

Anatolian obverses
of ca. 480-475, butwhich
are not present revea
in
typical "Thin collar"the Taranto
turtle hoard of ca.
of500-490. "Small skews" areiia is
Period
Period iib by severalthe variant types:
latest variety in the Asyut hoard of ca.the "Hea
475 or later,
turtle, the "Trefoil but
collar"
since at least turtle,
one "Large skew" and (Period iii)the
was "
toise"with trefoil collar.80
present in the destruction debris of the archaic temple
The archaic coinage concludes
of Poseidon with
at Isthmia, a destruction dated bythe
context int
tion of the distinctive
pottery"Large skew"
to ca. 475, the "Large skews" mustissues
have begun of
which have conspicuously
by the early 470s.82 Theenlarged
stylistic break betweenrever
the
squares, enlarged turtles,
"Small skew" and "Largeandskew" coins ais therefore
new al- T-s
rangement of pellets on
most certainly the
a result spine
of the Persian presence in of
Cen- th
shells."81 tral Greece in 480-479, which inevitably would have
The hoard evidence summarized in Table II is un- caused an interruption in minting.
equivocal in dating periods iib and iic between ca. 500Three important deductions follow: 1) Period iia is
and 480. "Proto-skews" first appear in the South seen to come down at least as late as ca. 500. 2) The
80 Holloway 7-8; Price and Waggoner 70-76. Hence our Period and late "Proto-tortoise" group.
iia is equivalent to the "Thin collar" group of Holloway (16) and s' Holloway 8, pl. 6.4; ACGC 46, pl. 6.123.
Price and Waggoner (76); our Periods iib-c correspond to Hollo- 82 Holloway 8; ACGC 46.
way's and Price and Waggoner's "Heavy collar," "Trefoil collar,"
compression of the substantial Period

ginetaniib andbut
coinage, iic coin-
being the closer to Aegina it was
presumably
ages within the two opening decades of thethefifth
more influential,
cen- so that it would be
tury demonstrates that Aeginetansurprising
coining atexceptional
if its this time level of silver production
was extremely intensive, analogousinto
thethe
thirdprolific
quarter of out-
the sixth century was not
pouring of Athenian Group IV-VImatched
owls byduring these
a corresponding intensity in the volume of
coining at Aegina.
same decades. Such concentrated striking Such intensity could only fall
is reflected
somewhere
in the overlapping reverse patterns in Period
of Period iia; and
iib, inasmuch as the later, heav-
since the same overlapping occursilythroughout allfrom
concentrated coinage but this period comes down
the earliest, exclusively "Union Jack" phase
to or through theof end Period
of the sixth century, one may
iia, the conclusion follows that, 3) doubt
the whether
bulk of the
little, Peri-
if any, of the rest of the Period iia
od iia coinage was struck no less intensively
coinage and
need date before 550.so
was concentrated in the last decades of the sixth cen-
There is certainly nothing in the remaining hoard
evidence that even hints at an earlier dating, although
tury (if in fact it did not spill over into the fifth).
All these deductions are confirmed by the recently
the evidence here is very slight since none of the Peri-
published lead isotype analyses of 44 Aeginetan coins od iia staters from the Demanhur hoard have been
from the Asyut hoard.83 In this pioneering study, the published with illustrations and the three Period i sta-
silver of the seven analyzed "Union Jacks" of Period ters known from the Cyclades hoard and the two Peri-
iia was found to derive from two sources: the mines of od iia "Union Jacks" known from the Sakha find were
Siphnos and an as yet unidentified source, possibly selected from a much larger original total of Aegine-
Macedonian. In all later phases of the coinage, begin-tan coins in these hoards for their fine, i.e., relatively
ning with Period iia "Five triangles" and "Windmill unworn, condition.86 Still, the publication on Deman-
sails," however, some of the silver employed camehur notes that "Mill sails" were conspicuously absent
from the Laurion mines of Attica. This silver is not from that hoard,87 indicating once again that the fully
found in Athenian coins until near the end of the developed phase of Period iia belongs quite late in the
Wappenmiinzen series, ca. 530-520, and wassixth
not century. And there can be no question of modern
produced in optimum quantities until the massive ex-
selection regarding the "Union Jack" excavated with
pansion of the (Group IV-VI) owl coinage aafter tetradrachm of Abdera and four light-weight gold
ca. 500.84 Thus, at the least, a substantial part of the
Croesids from the foundation deposit of the Apadana
Period iia coinage of Aegina must date no earlierof
than
Darius I at Persepolis, buried according to the in-
the last quarter of the sixth century. scription in the deposit between 517 and 514.88 The
Abderite
What little is known about the history of silver ex- and Lydian coins were probably quite re-
ploitation on Siphnos may also have some significance
cently minted at this time,89 but in any event cannot
for the chronology of Period iia. Although the be dated before 550. Abdera was not founded until
Siph-
nian mines had been worked since the prehistoric
544, and the light-weight Croesids must follow the is-
era,85 Herodotus (3.57) informs us that the income
sues of heavier weight with which Croesus (560-545
from the mines reached its apogee at the time ofB.C.)
Poly-initiated his gold coinage. It stands to reason
crates of Samos (532-522 B.C.), when the Siphnians
that, especially in a royal, ritual burial such as this,
undertook expensive building projects at home and
the at
Period iia "Union Jack" ought to be contemporary
with these other coins and thus it too was minted in
Delphi and were forced to pay off attacking Samian
exiles with 100 talents of silver. Until Laurion silver
the second half of the century. Beyond this one cannot
became available in the last quarter of the sixth cen-
go, for the Persepolis deposit is the earliest absolutely
tury, Siphnos was one of two sources of silver for Ae-
dated context for any Greek silver coins on record.90
83 Gale, Gentner and Wagner (supra n. 34) 28 (Table 7), 33-43. Sasanian Mint-names," in J. Allan, H. Mattingly and E.S.G. Rob-
84 For the gradual changeover from non-Attic to Laurion silver ininson eds., Transactions of the International Numismatic Congress,
the late Wappenmiinzen with wheel and gorgoneion types, seeLondon 1936 [London 1938] 414, fig. B = E.F. Schmidt, Persepolis
Kroll 13-15; Gale, Gentner and Wagner (supra n. 34) 30-33, 49. II [Chicago 1957] pl. 84.27) is in a good state of preservation, i.e.,
85 N.H. Gale and Z.A. Stos-Gale, "Cycladic Lead and Silverthe pellets running down the turtle's carapace have not been worn
Metallurgy," BSA 76 (1981) 202, 211-17. away by long circulation.
86 Cyclades hoard: Holloway 9-11, pl. 7.1, 6, 10. Sakha find: H. 89 In his review of May, (supra n. 41) 321, Holloway plausibly
Weber, "On Finds of Archaic Greek Coins in Lower Egypt," NC argues for a date of ca. 517 for the Abderite coin. Light-weight
ser. 3.19 (1899) 273, pl. 15.6-7. Croesids continued to be struck after the Persian annexation of
87 H. Dressel and K. Regling, "Agyptische Funde altgriechischerLydia down into the reign of Darius I (ACGC 31-32).
Munzen," ZfN 1927, 55. 90 The ca. 550-525 date given in IGCH for the Matala hoard of
88 The Aeginetan coin (E. Herzfeld, "Achaemenid Coinage and 68 Period iia Aeginetan staters derives from T.J. Dunbabin's iden-
It is always possible, of course, that an earlier

Argos. There is, however, no corroborating evide
hoard may some day turn up and, if reliably and since thedated
historical value of the tradition is itself
(e.g., by excavation stratigraphy or the style of itsdubious,
intrinsically ce- so must be any chronology de-
ramic container), may require an earlier rived date
from it.for a
Period iia Aeginetan stater. But as a matter Although the outcome of the current discussion
of princi-
ple, one is obliged to work with the evidence that
over the dating of the earliest electrum coinage of
exists and to assume that, so long as it is Western
consistent, it
Asia Minor will provide a high or low ter-
should be meaningful. On this assumption, the
minus Period
post quem for Period i at Aegina, the terminus
iia coinage as a whole does indeed appearcan
tohave
haveverybeen
little effect on the independent chrono-
logical considerations
an intensively struck and relatively compressed coin- outlined above. A late seventh
age, like the demonstrably compressed Period iib-iic
century date for the electrum coinage would reinforce
coinage that succeeded it, and may well date
a sixthin its en-
century chronology for the beginning of Aegi-
tirety to the second half of the sixth century. Hence
netan coinage. An early seventh century date would
there is considerable justification for the Aeginetan
merely create a long interval in the spread of coinage
chronology developed by Holloway and Kraay,
from Ioniawhich
to Aegina and require numismatists and
places the start of Period iia around 550 historians
and therefore
to rethink their assumption that the spread
the beginning of Period i, with its 16 known obverse
of coinage was a rapid phenomenon. No matter how
dies, around 580 or 570.91 Both scholarslong,
were admit-
or short, the interval must allow for the change
tedly influenced by Robinson's late seventh
from century
coinage in a special and valuable alloy-elec-
trum-to
dating for the early development of coinage inone in pure silver; and this fundamental
East
Greece and Lydia, but it should be clear that
change alonetheir
relates the early silver coins of Aegina
chronology does not depend on that datingmuch since it is to the sixth century silver coinages
more closely
more broadly based on a reasoned assessment of and
of Corinth the Athens than to the electrum coinages
late sixth century evidence for Period iia.
of East Greece and Lydia, regardless of when in the
Against this chronology must be set the difficulties
seventh century these electrum coinages were first
of the traditional chronology that would produced.
stretch Aegi-
netan coinage back into the first half of the seventh
CONCLUSION
century in order to bring it into conjunction with the
preferred dating for Pheidon of Argos. As the welldid not spread widely throughou
Coinage
studied Period i coinage hardly admits of extension
Greek world until the second half of the sixth c
beyond about a quarter of a century andB.C., to later
as the which time the earliest silver coins of
Italy,
part of Period iia is anchored in the late sixth Sicily, Northern Greece and most Ce
century,
the only phase of the coinage left for expansion is thebelong. Primarily from stylistic co
Greek states
early, exclusively "Union Jack" part of Period
ations,iia, and
this chronological pattern was correctly
it in effect would have to be stretched back overinsome-
nized the nineteenth and earlier twentieth cent
thing like a century. For a coinage that shows no evo-
by numismatists who nevertheless felt obliged
lutionary change, such an extremely attenuated chro-
gard the first silver issues of Aegina, Corinth, A
nology is improbable enough; although it cannot
and at
a number of Aegean island states with coin
present be formally disproved, it would typologically
introduce the derived from Aeginetan coins as
further problem of a tremendous gap between
earlierthe in-
exceptions of the seventh century beca
auguration of coinage at Aegina before 650 and the
the testimonia pertaining to a Pheidonian coin
spread of coinage to nearby Corinth and Aegina
Athens and
somea Solonian reform of coinage at At
75 to 100 years later. One might be forced
Theto admit increasing numismatic evidence, h
steadily
ever, no
such an interval if the chronology itself rested on longer
any- allows the first coins of Corin
Athens to be dated
thing more than an unquestioning acceptance of earlier than ca. 575 and ca. 550
Ephorus and the tradition that the Aeginetans owed and points to a sixth century date for
B.C. respectively
their coinage to the intervention of an the
alien ruler
earliest of of Aegina as well.
coinage
hoard, ca. 500-490.
tification of the container as either "an Attic pot of ca. 525" (Brown
[supra n. 62] 186) or "an olpe of the type belonging to the mid-sixth "' Holloway 13-16, who suggests that the prolific Period ii coin-
century" (Holloway 3). But the lost pot was known to Dunbabin
age may be an indirect consequence of the increased commercial
only through an oral description and so provides no verifiable chro-
importance of Aegina after the Aeginetans were granted a trade
nological evidence. With justification Price and Waggoner (19) concession at Naucratis around the middle of the sixth century.
would date the find from its contents to the time of the Taranto ACGC 43, 354, ad no. 113.
These lowered dates for Aegina dent

and Athens
empirical run support of the full range o
numismatic
counter to opinions held by historians in thedocumentation.
fourth
century B.C. But as one sees immediately from Pol-
DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS
lux's (9.83) list of the alleged inventors of coinage,
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
which includes Pheidon, Demodice of Cyme (the
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78712
wife of King Midas), the Athenians Erichthonius
and Lycus, the Lydians, and the Naxians, ancient
views on the early history of coinage were NUMISMATIC
THE AMERICAN highly SOCIETY
speculative. None therefore should BROADWAY
be advanced AT as
156TH STREET
primary chronological evidence without the NEW
NEW YORK, indepen-
YORK 10032

Archaeological Institute of America American Journal of Archaeology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Archaeological Institute of America American Journal of Archaeology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Archaeological Institute of America American Journal of Archaeology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dating the Earliest Coins of Athens, Corinth and Aegina

Author(s): John H. Kroll and Nancy M. Waggoner

discussions of this complex problem

When we turn to the extant coinage of Athens,

ing the lighter Attic coins in their place.11lySince this

a given quantity of silver): F. Jacoby, FGrHist 3b (suppl.) II

TABLE I: Hoards Significant for the Chronology of Archaic Athe

Classifiable Athenian coins by Groups

Wappenmuinzen "Unwreathed" Owls "Wreathed

Hoard IGCH No. Termini Date I II III IV V VI VII

Attica 2 ca. 525-515 18+

Sakha (Egypt) 1639 ca. 500-490 2

Taranto (Italy) 1874 after 506 ca. 500-490 2 5

Benha (Egypt) 1640 ca. 490-485 1 4 2

Asyut (Egypt) 1644 after ca. 475 2 7 154

Gela (Sicily) 2066 after ca. 480 2-4 2 134 31

South Anatolia 1177 after ca. 480-475 6 13

Athens Acropolis 12 in or 480 17 1 2 4 30

Zagazig (Egypt) 1645 after after 470 3+ 4+ 18

ent, changing devices in the didrachm series, verse

one to four known obverse dies.22 Thethey Wappen-

tution of the owl types is preferable on iconographic

Greek civic coinages characterized by changing issue

37 "Owls" 64-65. Today, however, the number of obverse di-

virtually no stylistic or technological

that there was a modification of the timr or valuethe

an Athenian Wappenminze which chaic

sizes) the basic denominations stood. It consistscoins--obolos,

72 C. Waldstein, The Argive Heraeum 1 (Boston74 1902)

Aeginetan Coins by Periods Corinthian Coins

Hoard IGCH No. Date i iia iib iic iii I II

Persepolis Apadana 1789 517-514 1

Sambiasi (Italy) 1872 ca. 520 3

Cyclades 6 late 6th c. 3 (out of total 114 Aeginetan coins)

Mit Rahineh (Egypt) 1636 ca. 500 1 4

Demanhur (Egypt) 1637 ca. 500-490 16 6

Sakha (Egypt) 1639 ca. 500-490 2(+?) 8

Matala (Crete) 1 ca. 500-490? 68

Taranto (Italy) 1874 ca. 500-490 15 (1?) 10 5

South Anatolia 1177 ca. 480-475 4 6 1

Asyut (Egypt) 1644 ca. 475 1 63 53 10 6 33

Isthmia Deposit 11 ca. 475 x x x x x x

by the careful study of hoard

compression of the substantial Period

It is always possible, of course, that an earlier

These lowered dates for Aegina dent

You might also like