Hellenistic coinage at Scepsis after its refoundation in the third century B.C. / Jonathan H. Kagan

8/18/2019 Hellenistic coinage at Scepsis after its refoundation in the third century B.C. / Jonathan H. Kagan

1/17

THE AMERICAN

NUMISMATIC

SOCIETY

MUSEUM

NOTES

29

■

i

THE

AMERICAN

NUMISMATIC SOCIETY

NEW YORK

1984

This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Sun, 31 Jan 2016 16:58:47 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions


2/17


3/17

ANSMN

29

(1984)

© 1984TheAmerican umismaticociety

HELLENISTIC

COINAGE AT

SCEPSIS

AFTER ITS REFOUNDATION

IN

THE THIRD

CENTURY B.C.

(Plate

3)

Jonathan

H.

Kagan

Except

for a

brief ssue

of Seleucid tetradrachms nder

Antiochus

Hierax,

a few

bronzes

f

the

second nd first

enturies

.C.

and

imperial

issues,the coinageof the cityof Scepsis in the Troad is traditionally

believed o have cometo

an end n

310

B.C.1

At that

time he nhabitants

of the

city

were removed

by Antigonus

o

participate long

with the

townsof

Larissa, Colone,

Cebren,

Hamaxitus

and Neandria

n

the

synoe-

cism

connected

with

the

founding

f

Antigoneia,

he later Alexandria

Troas.2

The exile

of

the

Scepsians,

however,

roved

temporary.Lysimachus

gave

the

city

a

new

lease

on

life when

he allowed the

inhabitants o

return

o their

former

home.3

Henceforth,

cepsis

was

occupied

for

many centuriesand became an importantcultural center€ Natives

1

For

xample,

MCTroas,

.

xxiii-xxiv;

NGCopTroas

69-92;

WS^^,

pp.

346-

47.

My

hanks

oes

o

Jeffrey

pier

or

ntroducing

e

to the

oinage

f

Scepsis.

Sallie

Fried,

Arthur

oughton,

yla

Troxel

nd

Nancy

Waggoner

ead

drafts

of

this

paper

nd

provided

ital omments. aterial

as

graciously

upplied y

H.

Nicolet

Paris),

M. Price

London)

nd Eric McFadden

NFA).

The

ANS

staff

as been

onsistently

elpful.

2

Strab.

3.1.47, 3.1.32,

3.1.33.

3

Strab. 3.1.52.

11



4/17

12 Jonathan H. Kagan

of

the

city

in

hellenistic imes included

the

geographer

nd

Homeric

commentator

Demetrius,

who

was an

important

ource

for

Strabo,

and the

philosopher

etrodorus,

n associate ofMithradates.4Louis

Ro-

bert

has collected

he

epigraphical

ocuments

elating

o

the

refounded

city,

which

provide

evidence for a

rich civic life.5

Also,

the

physical

layout

of the town

may

have

been

impressive.

Our

evidence,

unfor-

tunately,

s

meager.

An

English

traveler,

Dr. E.

D.

Clarke,

n

1801

recorded"veryremarkableruins" at Scepsis which, n his judgment,

were

both Greek

and Roman.

Ry

1819 when

Rarker

Webb

visited the

city,

he site was all but

destroyed.6

n

this

context,

he ack

of

coinage

in

both

precious

and base

metals from he third

century

o 188

R.C.,

when

(according

to

Strabo) Scepsis

became

subject

to

Pergamům

s

somewhat

surprising.

A. R.

Rellinger

n

his

publication

f the coins found

t

Troy

credited

the dearthof

coinage starting

n

the

early

third

entury

t

Scepsis

and

at other smallercities

n the

Troad to

the dominance

of

the

mints of

Alexandria nd Ilium, itiescapable ofsupplyinghe bulkoftheregion's

coinage.7

It should

be

noted,

for

example,

that

while

Lysimachus

established

royal

mint

after297

at Alexandria

Troas,

he did

not do

so at

Scepsis

despite

being

instrumental

n

the

refounding

f

that

city.8

Nevertheless,

here

is

evidence for

mint

activity

in

the

third

century

t

other cities of the Troad

apart

from

he

major

centers

of

Alexandria nd

Ilium.9

Of

particular

nterest

s the

minting

f

bronzes

in

the third

entury y

two of he other

ities,

Cebren

nd

Larissa,

whose

inhabitants

were removed

along

with those of

Scepsis

to take

part

in the founding fAntigoneia n 310.

It is

through

numismatic

vidence,

in

fact,

that we know

of

the

reestablishmentf Cebren

nd Larissa.

In

both

cases,

the cities

struck

4

W.

Leaf,

trabo

n theTroad

Cambridge,923),

pp.

280-84,

nd

"Skepsis,"

Anatoliantudies resented

oSir

W.

M.

Ramsay

1923), p.

280-81.

5

L.

Robert,

tudes

e

Numismatique

recque

Paris,

951),

p.

14-15

nd

more

recently,

ee J. and

L.

Robert,

Bulletin

pigraphique,"

EG

1972,

nos.371-72

and

1976,

nos.

572-73.

6

Leaf above,n. 4), pp.271-72.7A.R.

Bellinger,roy.

TheCoins

Princeton

1961), .

190.

8

M.

Thompson,

The

Mints

f

Lysimachus,"ssays

Robinson

p.

166.

9

Bellinger

above,

.

7),

pp.

190-91.



5/17

Hellenistic Coinage at Scepsis 13

coinages

with a new

city

name which must have been taken

in

honor

of

their

respective

benefactors,

oth of whom could

only

have

been

active after

he

synoecism

f 310. Bronze

coins nscribed

ANTIOXEQN

were

first dentified

y

Imhoof-Blumers

being

truck t Cebren.10

Ro-

bert

has

suggested

hat

the

letters

B K

on some of he coinsof

Antiochia

indicate that the

city

of

Birytis

was

joined

with

Cebren

n

this new

foundation.11

ebren

aking

the name

Antiocheiamust

surely

ndicate

that it was founded at the earliestby Antiochus I. More recently,

Roberthas established hat an

issue of

coins from

city

called

Ptolemais

were

truck

t

Larissa.12

Robert

uggests

he

reign

f

PtolemyEuergetes

III

as

the

proper

ontextforthis

restoration.13

oth

cities,

t is

worth

noting,

re also

known

from

n

inscription

ound t

Delphi

dated

some

time

in

the late

third or

early

second

century

before

188)

by

their

formernames.14

Robert

in

his

writings

n the

coinage

of

the

Troad

has

highlighted

a

tension

during

he third

nd

early

second centuries etween

move-

ment to consolidate he area and a desire for ocal autonomy.15Alex-

andria Troas

is

the best

known

xample

of

this

tendency

o concentrate

settlement,

ut

there are

others.

Lysimachus

is

reportedby

Strabo

to have

incorporated

nto Ilium

the cities in

the

neighboring

rea,

places

unfortunately

ot

identified. Later

after

Apamea,

Ilium had

the

two smaller

ities of

Rhoeteium

nd

Gergis

dded

to

it

by

the

Ro-

mans.16

We know that

the citizens

f

Scepsis

preferred

ndependence.

Strabo

tells us

that the

natives

of that

city

were

granted

permission

o return

to theirformer omeby Lysimachus. But as mentioned bove, numis-

matic

evidencehas

shown

that

they

were

not

alone;

citizens

of

Cebren

and

Larissa must

lso have

broken

way

from

Alexandria.

In

the

light

of these

discoveries,

t

remains

to be

seen if

a

reexamination

f

the

10

F.

Imhoof-Blumer,

Griechische

ünzenn

dem

Königlichen

ünzkabinet

m

Haag

und n

anderen

ammlungen,"

fN

1876,

p.

305-10.

11

Robert

above,

.

5),

pp.

25-31.

12

Robert,

Documents

'Asie

Mineure,"

CH

1982,

p.

319-33.

13

Robert

above,

.

12),pp.

327-30.

14Robertabove,n. 5), pp. 33-34.

15

For

example,

obert

above,

.

5),

pp.

34-36.

16

Robert

above,

.

5),

pp.

9-10.



6/17


coinage

of

Scepsis

provides any

further vidence

of this

striving

or

local

autonomy.

One

might

expect

a desire

for

independence

o be

coupled

with a

city's

desire

to

mint ts

own

money.

With

Scepsis,

we

are not aided

by

a name

change

as

in the

case of

Cebren

nd Larissa.

There s

no

hoard or excavation evidence

that is

decisive. One

coinage, although

not

autonomous,

deserves mention.

Newell

has identified n issue of tetradrachms

f

Antiochus Hierax

whichhe believes was minted at Scepsis. The seriesmusthave been

brief

s it has

only

one known obverse

die and two

reversedies.

The

basis for

he identification

s the

presence

n

the reverse f a

subsidiary

symbol

which also marks

the obverse

type

of

autonomous

coins of

Scepsis,

a

rhyton

n

the

shape

of the

forepart

f a

winged

horse.17

f

this identification

s

correct,

hen

we have

the recurrence f

a

symbol

of

Scepsis

on

coins at least 65

years

afterthe

last dated

issue

of

the

mint. We

do not knowwhat motivated

Hierax to

undertake his short-

lived

coinage

at

Scepsis.

His

decision,

however,

eads

one to

believe

that therewas a mint nfrastructuren existence t Scepsis prior o the

striking

f tetradrachms.

Perhaps

some bronzes

traditionally

dated

to before

10

belong

to

the third

century.

It is to

the silver

coins rather

than the

bronzes,

however,

that

we

should

turn

forevidence.

There

is

one

issue of

silver

that,

we

believe,

can be

firmly laced

after the refoundation

f

the

city.

The

issue

consists of

two

denominations,

hemidrachm

nd a

quarter

drachm

(trihemiobol).

Based

upon

a

survey

f

published

ollections

nd

auction

catalogues,

five

specimens

re known

to have

survived.

These

pieces

can be distinguished y fourdifferent haracteristics rom he other

silver

oinage

of

Scepsis

dated

in the standard

referenceso

before

10.

1. A bead-and-reel

border

fillet)

around

both obverse

and

reverse.

2.

A

weight

on

a different

tandard

from

he known

silver

with one

exception

which

will

be

discussed

ater.

3.

A different

orm

f

nscription:

KHY

contained

within

he border

on

the reverse

nclosing

he

pine

tree.

4. A

star located

under

the

pegasus-rhyton

n

the

quarter

drachm

and on one

of

the two

known

hemidrachms

nd

the

possible

presence

ofa thyrsus n the reverse fthe other pecimen.

17

WSM,

pp.

346-47.



7/17


8/17


lican

Rome.

Its earliest

use there was

as a

border

circling

he

head

of

Apollo

on

denariiof L. Piso

Frugi

n

90 B.C.18

Newell

followed

Babelon

in

associating

this

pattern

with

Apollo,

the

divinity

rom

whom

the

Seleucid

monarchs

laimed descent. The

fillet

has

a double

significance

or

the

figures

ncircledwithin t. It

expresses

oth

divine

protection

nd

the divine

right

o

rule,

a useful

design

n

an

age

of rebellion.19

his

may

well be

overstating

he im-

portanceof a commondecorativepatternfoundfrequentlyn archi-

tecture;

but it

should

be

noted

that the coins

of

Scepsis

are

exceptional

in

that the

type

s neither

human

figure

or

a

god

within he

border,

but

the

city's

emblem.

If the traditional

date of 310

is correct

orthe end of

silver

coinage

at

Scepsis,

then we must attribute

he

innovation f

applying

bead-

and-reel order

o that

mint,

not Antioch.

The

practiced

die

engravers

of

Antioch would either

have

independently

eveloped

it or been

in-

spired

by

a 90

year

old

fraction f

Scepsis

This

is difficult o con-

ceive. What motivationwould thedie cuttersof Scepsishave had for

making

this

change?

There

is not

even a

good

estheticreason.

The

bead

and reel

s

a

heavy

border

o

apply

to a

small fraction.

t is much

better

suited to

the

large

flans of

the Seleucid

tetradrachms.

Such

coins

certainly

irculated

n

the Troad and

tetradrachms

with a bead-

and-reel

border

were

minted t Sardes after

Antiochus

recaptured

he

city

fromAchaeus

n

215/213.20

t is of

course

mpossible

o

prove

that

the

Scepsis

die cutterswere

influenced

y

the

tetradrachms f

Antio-

chus

III,

but

it is

certainly

he most

plausible

of the alternatives

vail-

able.

The

weight

of

our

silver

fractions lso

points

to

the

special

nature

of

this series

within

he

coinage

of

Scepsis.

No other

coins

of

the

city

that have come

to our

attention re

close

in

weight

to

the 2.42-2.45

of

the

hemidrachms.

t

may

be

worthwhile,

t

this

point,

to record

the other known

silver coins

from

Scepsis

with

the

rhyton

obverse.

These coins

survive

n

one

issue of two

denominations.

While

rare

the

18

WSM,pp. 138-39.19

WSM,

p.

139.

20

WSM,

pp.

375-77,

nd O.

MorkholmSome

eleucid

oins

rom

he

Mint

f

Sardes,"

NÄ

1969,

p.

15-19.



9/17


coinsare

well

known.

This series

s

considered

n

the standard

eferences

as the

final

autonomous

silver coins struck at the

mint.

(There

are

earlier ilver ssues

having

as an obverse either he

forepart

f

a

horse

or

a

pegasus

but

these

do

not

concern

s

here.)21

The coins re as

follows:

FOURTH

CENTURY

B.C.

Obv. Rhytonin formof forepart f wingedhorse.

Rev.

IKHYIQV

Pine

tree

in

linear

square;

to

1., crab,

to

r.,

A-

traces of incuse

square.

Drachms

al-pl

3.17.

BMC

8.

al-pl

2.99.

SNGCop

472.

al-pl

3.58.

Egger

46,

1914,

687.

al-pl

3.60.

ANS(Kelley).

Plate

3,

4.

al-pl AlexMalloy16,7 July1980,81.

Obv.

Rhyton

n

form

of

forepart

f

winged

horse.

Rev.

ZKHYIQV

Pine tree

in

linear

square;

to

1.,

A to

r.

K.

Hemidrachms

ai-pi

1.80.

Traité 2357.

ai-pi

1.63.

MonnGr

189.

Judging

rom he

weights,

hese

coins

were

minted

on the

Rhodian

(Chian) scale. This was the mostcommon tandard n use in western

Asia

Minor n

the

fourth

entury

B.C.22

While

it is

possible

that

the

coins

with

the

bead-and-reel

border

are

tetrobolsand

diobols

based

upon

the

same

standard,

hey

would

be on

the

heavy

side.

Moreover,

given

the

limited ize

of the

mint's

ssues,

t

does

not seem

likely

that

four

denominations

o

close

in

weight

would

have been

struck

imul-

taneously.

Instead the

bead-and-reel

oins are

of a

separate

series nd

may

best

be

considered

hemidrachms

nd

quarter

drachms,

minted

perhaps

on the

Persic

standard.

This

scale

was

widely

used

in

the

Hel-

21

Traité

vol.

2,

pt.

2,

pp.

1287-94.

C.

Kraay,ACGC,

.

247.



10/17


lespont region superseding

he Rhodian

standard

in

the mid

to late

fourth

entury

B.C.

and

was,

it

seems,

the

standard used

again

ca.

245-200 at

Byzantium

nd

Calchedon for a series of drachms

weighing

between4.6

g

and

5.4

g.23

On a

chronological

asis,

the

hemidrachms

from

Scepsis

on the

Persic

scale seem related to an issue

of

fractions

from

Alexandria Troas and

Ilium.

Bellinger,

who also considers hese

coins as

hemidrachms,

ates them to the

period following

he

death

ofAntiochusHierax (228). The Alexandria ssue consists of two spe-

cimens with

weights

of 2.35

g

and 2.41

g.

The

Ilium

specimens

re

lighter; eaving

aside

a

plated

coin,

the

three

recorded

pieces

range

between

2.09

g

and 2.33

g.24

It

is difficult

o

adduce

the

economicfactors

nvolved

n the

choice

of standardfor his eries. As

we are

dealing

with

a small

issue,

t need

not have been mintedwith

an

eye

toward

nternational

ommerce.

There is one other

silver coin that

should

be mentioned

here;

it

appears

to

belong

to

neither

f the two issues discussed

above:

MID TO

LATE

THIRD CENTURY

B.C.?

Obv.

Rhyton

n

the form

f

forepart

f

winged

horse

n

a circle.

Reu. SKH

Pine

tree;

beaded

square

border

enclosing

tree

between

K;

outside

of

square,

to

r.,

H;

to

1.,

an

ear of

grain

with

two leaves.

al-pl

1.22

g

MonnGr

190

(The

coin is

unfortunately

ot

illustrated).

The

weight

of this

coin is the

same as the

quarter

drachms of the

bead-and-reel ssue.

The

absence of this borderand

the

shorter orm

of

inscription see

further

elow),

however,

makes a

slightly

arlier

date

probable.

Perhaps

the

coin

is

contemporary

ith the autonomous

silver

of Alexandria

nd Ilium

discussed bove.

This would

then

place

it

between

the

fall of Hierax

(228)

and

the

beginning

f the

reign

of

Antiochus II

in

223.

Such

precision,

owever,

may

be unwarranted.

23

G.

Le

Rider,

Sur e

Monnayage

e

Byzance

u ve

iècle,"

N

1971,

p.

152-53.

24

Bellinger

above,

.

7),

pp.

21-22

nd

91-93.

See also

H.

Seyrig,

Statères

'Or

Pseudalexandrins,"

N

1969,

p.

36-39.



11/17


To

summarize,

here

ppear

to be four

eparate

ssues of

silver

coins

at

Scepsis

with the

rhyton ymbol.

The

first,

s we have

seen,

was

struck

n

the

Rhodian

scale and

can be dated

prior

o

the

founding

f

Antigoneia

n

310.

The second

issue is

not autonomous

but

consists

of a

brief

triking

f

Seleucid

tetradrachms

y

Antiochus

Hierax

(246-

228/7).

The third ssue consists of

only

one

specimen.

Its

dating

is

the most

nebulous of

the

four.

It has been

suggested

hat

the

period

shortly fterthe fall of Hierax may be appropriate. Finally there s

the

ssue with

he

bead-and-reel

orders.

The use

of

this device

suggests

a

date between the

beginning

f

the

reign

of

Antiochus

II

and the

Peace of

Apamea (223-188).

A discussion of

the

historicalcontext

may

allow

us to

place

this issue even

more

exactly.

First,

however,

t remains o consider

wo of the other

spects

of

the

bead-and-reel

ssue: the form f

nscription

nd

the starunder he

rhyton.

These

two

features

rovide mportant

inksto

the

bronze

coinage

of the

city.

A

catalogue

of

the

bronzes of

Scepsis,

however,

s

beyond

the

scope of this essay. Nevertheless, tylistic omparisonswith selected

pieces

may prove

fruitful.

The

four

etter

nscription

KHY

found on

the

bead-and-reel

ssue

does

not exist on

any

othercoins

of the

city,

bronzeor silver.

Normally

one

expects

nscriptions

o

increase

n

length

with

time.25

With

Scepsis

this s

not

the case.

The silver ssue

struckon

the Rhodian scale

with

the

rhyton

bverse,

discussed

above,

has

the

full

city

name inscribed

around the reverse.

The earlier silver coins of

the mint

also

display

the

full

egend

ofthe

city, lthough

n

their ase

it is

aroundthe obverse

(Plate 3, 6 [MFA 1636]).

The bronzes

with

the

rhyton

obverse,

however,

have

only

an ab-

breviated

nscription,

ither a

IK

or a

ZKH.

The

legend

is

placed

on

the

reverseof

the

coins

along

with

the

pine

tree. In

addition,

wide

variety

of

subsidiary symbols

e.g.

ear

of

grain,

thyrsus,

antharus,

star,

bucranium,

tc.)

is found on the reverses

f

many

of

the

pieces.26

The

bronze coins which

have the

shorter,

wo letter

inscription

re

found

n

some cases without

ubsidiary ymbols eading

one to conclude

25

ACGC,

p.

247.

26

For

selection

ee Traité

358-75.Also

t should

e

noted hat t least ne

small ronzeoin xists

ith

rhyton

bverse

ndno

nscription

t all

BMC

9).



12/17


that

the

ZK

legend

s

earlier27

Plate

3,

8

[ANS]).

The

coins whichhave

reverses

with

the

thyrsus,

tar and

other

econdary ypes

tend to

have

an

extra

letter,

H

added

to

the

inscription28

Plate

3,

5

[ANS].)

The

letters,

s with the

autonomous ilvercoins

we have

dated to

the third

century,

re

placed

on either

ide of the

pine.

When

the

H

is

added,

it is rather

rudelyplaced

just

outside the

square

border

nclosing

he

pine.

This

corresponds

o the

unique quarter

drachm

without

he bead-

and-reelborderdescribed bove.

We

began

this

discussion

by saying

that

Scepsis

did

not follow he

usual

pattern

of

moving

to

longer

and

longer nscriptions.

This

may

not be

entirely

ccurate. The

earliest silver

coins

certainly

have

the

fullest

nscription;

ut a

separate

development

xists. It

begins

with

the

bronzes

having

only

the

2K

on

either

ide of the

pine (Plate

3,

8),

and

then

progresses

ith he

addition f third etter

H

rather wkward-

ly placed

outside

the

border

nclosing

he

pine

(Plate

3,

5)

and

finally

ends with a return o

symmetry y

the

additionon

the

silver

bead-and-

reel fractions f a fourth etterY, with all the lettersneatly if tightly)

enclosedwithin he border

Plate

3,

1).

If

the ine visible on the reverse

of the

second hemidrachm f the

bead-and-reel eries

Plate

3,

2)

is

indeed

an

iota,

then this

might

represent

yet

a further

evelopment.

The

presence

f

a star under

the

pegasus

on one of the hemidrachms

and the

quarter

drachms

of

the

issue with the

bead-and-reel order

s,

as mentioned

bove,

another

of its

distinguishing

haracteristics.

We

need

not

venture

ny

hypothesis

s

to

its

meaning.

But the star

pro-

vides

an additional link

to

the

bronze

coinages.

One

bronze

with a

rhyton bverse nd a 1 KH legend n Paris has a similarlyocatedstar

(Plate

3,

7).

29

The

star,

as noted

earlier,

s

one

of

the

subsidiary ym-

bols that

appear

on the reverseof some of the

bronzes from

Scepsis;

on

one

group

t is

accompanied

by

a

thyrsus Plate

3,

5).

This

thyrsus

may

be similar

o the

symbol aintly

isible

on

the reverse

f

the second

hemidrachm f the bead-and-reel

ssue.

Given

the similarities nd the

apparent continuity

between

the

bronzes nd the silver

fractionswe

have

examined,

t

becomes

empting

27

E.g.

Traité

362,

BMC

15.

28

E.g.

Traité

364.

29

Traité

360.



13/17


to

bring

own

he

date of some

of the bronze

coinage.

The

change

to a

shorter

egendmay perhaps

be ascribed o

the

break

n the mintcaused

by

the removal

of the

population

n

310

and theirreturn

n the

early

third

entury.

If this s

correct

hen

he

bulk of

Scepsis's

bronze

oinage

should be dated to

the third rather han fourth

entury.

This leaves

to

the

pre-310

mint

only

the

production

f

a

group

of small

bronzes

with

the

forepart

f

a

pegasus,

not a

rhyton,

n

the

obverse.

The coins

have no inscriptionnd tracesofan incusesquarearevisible Plate 3, 9

[ANS]).

Coins

of the same size are found

with the

rhyton

bverse

and

the two and three etter bbreviations

making

t

very likely

that

the

pegasus

coins are an earlier ssue.

A

fourth

entury

date for

them,

therefore,

eems reasonable.30

Until a full

tudy

of the bronzes s

undertaken, owever,

t is best

not

to be

too certain

n

dating

the coins.

If

we are

right

n

putting

the

silver

oinswith he bead-and-reel orders

n

the

reign

f Antiochus

II,

then

we have

reason

to believe that some at least of the bronze

coins

of Scepsis were struck after the city's refoundation. Perhaps mint

activity

was

steady throughout

he third

century.

This would also

help explain

the

choice of Hierax to

mint tetradrachms t the

city,

as well as the

striking

f the issue

represented y

the lone

silver

uarter

drachm with

the

2KH

legend.

It remains to be seen

if

the historical

context would

support

the attributionof the bead-and-reel oins

to

the

reign

of Antiochus

II.

Although

Antiochus II

came

to

the

throne

n

223,

his influence id

not

immediately

xtend

to western

Asia

Minor.

Power rested

nitially

in thehands ofAchaeuswho,first s a servantofthegovernmentnd

then as

an

usurper,waged

war

against

Attālus. In this

endeavor

he

was

initially

uccessful

ecovering

ll the

ground

ost

since the Third

Syrian

War

with

he

exception

f

Alexandria

Troas,

Ilium

and

Lampsa-

cus,

citieswhich

Polybius

5.78.6) says

were

oyal

to Attālus.

Antiochus

III

did

not turn his

attention o Asia

Minor until 216.

At

that

time,

he

reached

n

understanding

ith

Attālus to

allow for

joint campaign

against

the

usurper

Achaeus

(Polyb.

5.107.4).

That

endeavor was

successfully

erminated

with the

capture

and

death of Achaeus

in

213.

30

For

he

egasus

ronzes,

ee

e.g.

BMC

7.

For he

hyton

bverse

n

coins f

similar

ize

see

e.g.

BMC 8 and

15.



14/17


Antiochus,

while

regaining

Sardis,

did

not recover the Troad

which

was

one of

the

areas that remained

n

the hands of Attālus due

perhaps

to

the

understanding

eached

with

Antiochus

n

216.31

The

years

213-199 are obscure

in

the Troad.

Pergamům

oosely

controlled

he

region.

One

may imagine

that Alexandria and

Ilium,

given

their

oyalty

o Attālus

n

the war

against

Achaeus

in

the

period

before

220,

would

have

been

the dominant ocal

power.

This

would

not be theproper ontextfor heissuance ofthe silver oins we are ex-

amining

at

Scepsis,

whether uch an issue

implies

full

autonomy

or

not.

The bead-and-reel

border,

given

the recent ntroduction f

the

design

nd

the

political

nd

religious mplications

f

t

(however

minor)

described

bove,

could not have

been

looked

upon favorably y

either

Scepsis's

Pergamene

overlords r

its

powerful

ocal

neighbors.

The situation

changes

drastically,

owever,

n

198.32 Antiochus

II

launched an attack

against

the

Pergamene kingdom.

By

the

fall of

197,

lium

appears

to have come

under

Antiochus's

ontrol,33

resumably

Scepsiswas his as well.34The return f Seleucidpowerwas notgreeted

favorablyby

the most

powerful

ity

of the

Troad,

Alexandria.

The

city

appears

(Livy 35.42.2)

in

192

along

with

Smyrna

nd

Lampsacus

resisting

Antiochus. Alexandria

must

previously

have

been

taken and

this

represents

revolt.35

For cities such

as

Alexandria,

Ilium and

Lampsacus,

Pergamům

may

have

been

a

more

ttractive lternative han

the return f

Seleucid

control. There

must have been a

good

deal of local

autonomy

sso-

ciated with

allegiance

to the Attalids. Alexandria

appears

to

have

celebrated ts liberation rom eleucidcontrol fterthe fall ofHierax

with an issue of

autonomous

gold

staters.36

A

city

ike

Scepsis,

however,

may

have had more to

gain

than lose

from he reassertion f control

y

a

major power

over the Troad. There

is

reason to

thinkthat

relations

between

Scepsis

and Alexandria

were

31

H. H.

Schmitt,

ntersuchungen

urGeschichte

ntiochos'

esGrossennd

einer

Zeit

Wiesbaden,

964), p.

264-67.

32

Livy

2.8

nd

Schmitt

above,

.

31),

pp.

269-70.

33Schmittabove, . 31),p. 293.34

Schmitt,

.

283.

35

Schmitt,

.

284.

36

Bellingerabove,

.

7),

pp.

21-22

nd

pp.

91-93;

H.

Seyrig

above,

.

24).



15/17

Hellinistic Coinage at Scepsis 23

marked

by

a

certain

rivalry. Scepsis,

of

course,

was refounded

when

its

native

citizenswere

permitted

o withdraw romAlexandria.

Deme-

trius of

Scepsis

made some

disparaging

remarks about

Ilium

which

are recorded

by

Strabo.

Alexandria,

despite

ts

importance,

s

barely

mentioned

n

Strabo's book on

the

Troad.

Here

too, Demetrius,

trabo's

main

source,

may

be

responsible.37

Scepsis

did not become a free

ity

after

he Peace of

Apamea

in

188.

Instead,we know from trabo that the citywas turnedover to Perga-

mům.38 Other cities

n

the

Troad fairedbetter. Alexandria

became

a

free

city

as did Ilium

and Dardanus.39

Livy reports 38.39)

that cities

which had taken the side

of

the

Roman

people

were

exempted

from

tribute while

supporters

f Antiochus or

tributaries f

Attālus were

ordered o

pay

tribute

o Eumenes. Ilium

and

Dardanus,

Livy

adds,

owed

their

favorable reatment

o

their

connection

with Rome's

origin

rather han for

any

recent

ervices.

Scepsis

too claimed a relationto

Aeneas. Strabo

reports

tories

f

Scepsis's origin.40

One

has it

being

foundedby Scamandriusthe son of Hector and Ascaniusthe son of

Aeneas. Demetrius claimed

Scepsis

as

the

royal

residence

of

Aeneas.

Whatever

the

connection,

t

did

not

help

Scepsis

in

the

settlement

after

Apamea.

Perhaps

the

city

could not

gloss

over ts record

f colla-

boration.

Scepsis

may

well

have

welcomed

he

coming

f Antiochus

nd

cooperated

fully;

no succor was

to

be

expected

from

the Romans.

Allegiance

to the

great king may

have been less

onerous for

Scepsis

than

economic

and

political

domination

by

Alexandria.

Antiochus,

s

expressedby

his

dealings

with

Smyrna

nd

Lampsacus

and his remarks t the conferencefLysimachia, eems to have used a

conciliatory

olicy

in

dealing

with

the

Greek

cities of

western Asia

Minor.41He was

not adverse

to

granting

avors nd

privileges

rovided

his

position

was

recognized.

The

striking

f silver

fractions

y Scepsis,

especially

since

they

bore

the

Seleucid

bead-and-reel,

hould not be

taken as

a hostile

act of

sovereignty.42

ore

likely

Antiochus

granted

37

Leaf

above,

.

4), pp.

xxvii-xlvii.

dS

Strab.

3.1.54.

39Schmittabove,n. 31), p. 284.40

Strab. 3.1.52-53.

41

Livy

33.38

nd

Polyb.

8.49-51.

42

See

theremark

y

H.

Seyrig

uoted

n

Bellinger

above,

n.

7), p.

21,

n. 9.



16/17


the

citypermission

o

coin,

perhaps

s a

reward

or ts

quick

submission.

It is

to this

period

then,

197-188,

that we

should date

the five

silver

coins from

cepsis

under discussion.43

In

conclusion,

here s

good

reason

to

believe that the

mintof

Scepsis

was active in

the third

and

early

second

century.

While

we have

no

firm

dates

for

any

of the

bronze

coinages,

t is

possible

that at

least

some f not

all of the

specimens

with he

rhyton

ate after

he refounda-

tion of the cityby Lysimachus. We can be morespecific bout one

issue

of silver

coins. The

bead-and-reel order hat

appears upon

them

makes

a

date between

197

and 188

likely.

This issue

is

not

only

mpor-

tant for

our

understanding

f the

history

f

the mint

of

Scepsis,

but

is

a

valuable

piece

of information

or

our

understanding

f the relations

between

Antiochus II

and

the

Greekcities of

westernAsia Minor

at

a

critical

period

n

history.

43An nscriptionasrecentlyome o ight romcepsismentioningfestival

called

Antiochia. .

Frisch

nd

Z.

Taslikioglu

"Inscriptions

rom

he

Troad,"

ZPE 19

1975],

.

219)

uggest

n

thebasis f

tyle

date

f

00

B.C. and

therefore

feel hat he

overeign

eing

onored

as

Antiochus

II

and

the

proper

ate

ome-

time

uring

eleucidontrolf

Scepsis

97-188.The

nscription

ay

e

connected

with n

mportant

ocumentound

t

Teos

recording

onors

aid

to

Antiochus

II

and

Laodice

hat an

be

dated o

204/3.

See

E.

Lanzillotta,

Un

Epigrafe

i

Scepsis

dell'Inizio

el

i

See.

A.C.,"

Scritti

ambelli

978,

p.

207-13.)

f

the

Scepsis

n-

scription

oes efer

o AntiochusII

then t

would

rovide

n

nteresting

ink

with

our

oins.

t

should

e

noted,

owever,

hatJ.

andL.

Robert

eel

hat hehonored

monarch

as much

more

ikely

ntiochus or II

(see

"Bulletin

pigraphique,"

REG1976, o.573). They oint utthat heAntiochus ho eestablishedebren

and

Birytis

nder

he

name

Antiochia

ould,

ue

o his

ctivity

n

the

egion,

ave

been

he

ikely

monarcho be honored

y

a festivalt

Scepsis.

J. and

L.

Robert

may

be

correct

ut

Cebren as the

ancestral

nemy

f

Scepsis Strab. 3.1.3);

Cebren's eestablishmentould

hardly

ave

pleased

he

Scepsians.

Regardless

f

thecorrect

ate,

he

nscription

s not

crucial o the

numismatic

rgument.

he

bead-and-reel

s

still

ur

best vidence

or

pplying

date

to the

coins.



17/17

Plate 3

3

4

5

6

7

(ļ|

#

#

Hellenistic

Coinage

of

Scepsis