The earliest triobols of Megapolis / Jennifer Warren

8/20/2019 The earliest triobols of Megapolis / Jennifer Warren

1/15

THE

AMERICAN

NUMISMATIC SOCIETY

MUSEUM

NOTES

THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC

SOCIETY

NEW

YORK

1969

This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 05:21:14 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions


2/15


3/15

CONTENTS

GREEK

Hyla A. Troxell and

William

F.

Spengler.

A

Hoard of

Early

Greek Coins from

Afghanistan

I

Nancy

M.

Waggoner. The

Early

Alexander

Coinage

at

Seleucia

on the

Tigris

21

Jennifer

Warren.

The

Earliest

Triobols of

Megalopolis

31

ROMAN ND

BYZANTINE

Richard E.

Mitchell. The

Fourth

Century

Origin

of

Roman

Didrachms

41

J.

R.

Jones.

Vettienus Monetalis

73

Joan

M.

Fagerlie. Roman

and

Byzantine

Medallions in the

Collection ofthe AmericanNumismatic Society 77

Eugene Dwyer. An

Alexander/Macedonia

Contorniate

93

Arthur F.

Johnson.

A

New

Anonymous

Bronze

of

Constantine

X

97

MEDIAEVAL

D.

M. Metcalf.

A

Hoard

of

Porcupine

Sceattas 101

ORIENTAL

Richard W. Bulliet. A MuctaziliteCoin ofMahmūdofGhazna 119

Paul Z.

Bedoukian. The

Copper

of the

Later

Kings

of

Cilician

Armenia

131

L.

N.

Kukuranov. The

Urdù Issues of

Emperor

Akbar

137

iii



4/15


5/15

THE EARLIEST TRIOBOLS OF MEGALOPOLIS1

(Plate

VI)

Jennifer

Warren

In

his

recent

study

of the

triobols

of

Megalopolis2

the three

groups

of

Zeus

Lykaios/seated

Pan

triobols

whose

reverses

are

essentially distinguished

by showing i)

and no

eagle; 2) eagle;

3)

MET and

eagle;

and

the Achaean

League

triobols

James

Dengate

dated all

four

series to the

second

century

b.c.

and in

his tentative

chronology3 uggested

that the no

eagle

triobols

could be

put

ca.

195-

182 B.c. togetherwith the earliest triobols with the eagle on the

reverse

his Group

Period

IIA).

Further

xamination of the

evidence,

however,

raises serious

objections

to

such a late

date forthe no

eagle

triobols,

and

although

there is

no

clear

pointer

to

an exact

date,

it

remains

highly probable

that

they,

unlike all

the other

seated

Pan

triobols,

were

struckbefore

Megalopolis

entered the

Achaean

League

in

235

b.c.4 If

so,

though

there

s no

call to

abandon the attribution

of

the no

eagle

triobols to the

mint

of

Megalopolis,5

properly

they

will

rate

as Arcadian

League

coinage

(see

below

p.

39).

As

Dengate observed,6 he

no

eagletriobols are on a higherweight

standard than

the

triobols

of

the

eagle,

MET,

and Achaean

League

groups.

The

former,

with a definite

frequency

table

peak

at

2.70-

2.80

gr.,7

are

regular

aeginetic

triobols;

the latter

with individual

peaks

at

around

2.35-2.40

gr.8

re

on

the reduced

aeginetic

standard

1

I am

grateful

o MichaelCrawford

nd Martin rice for

helpful

riticism,

and n

particular

o Martin ricefor

his commentsn

hoardmaterial.

2

ANSMN

13 (1967),pp. 57-110.

8

ANSMN

13,

p.

109.

4

They

were

husdated

by Margaret

rosby

nd

Emily

Grace,

An

Achaean

LeagueHoard,NNM 74 (NewYork,1936),p. 29,andMargaret hompson,

A

Hoard

of

Greek

ederal

ilver/'

Hesperia

939,

. 134.Margaret hompson

continues

o

consider

t

likely

hat

they

re earlier han

the second

entury;

see

now

p.

116,

n.

1 in

her

publication

f

the

Agrinion

oard,

NNM

159

(1968),

which as

appeared

ince his

rticlewas first

ritten.

5

Cf.NNM

74,

pp.

12-13,

n-

3

»

Hesperia

939,

.

142.

6

ANSMN

13,

p.

99.

?

ANSMN

13,

p.

98.

8

ANSMN

13,

pp.

98-99.

Frequency

eaks

of

ndividual

roups:Group

,

Per.

IIA

(eagle,

miscellaneous ontrol

etters): .40 gr.

small group);

Per.

31


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


6/15

32 JENNIFER WARREN

employed

by

the

Achaean

League

and

by

Peloponnesian

cities

for

their

utonomous

second

century

ssues,

e.g., Argos, Sicyon,

Messene

and Lacedaemon. Now the one

no

eagle

triobol n the

Western

Greece

hoard

published by

Margaret Thompson

weighed only

2.43

gr.

and

was

worn,9

nd there can be little

question

that the hoard was buried

ca.

146

b.c.,

perhaps

within

the

preceding

decade.

Yet for the

same

variant,

with control

letters

I/

or

1,

38

of the coins

recorded

by

Dengate weighed2.7 gr. or over, and only7 under2.7 gr.10 hat the

Western Greece hoard triobol

may

have lost as much as

.27~.37 gr.

(10-13.7%)

of

its

original weight mplies

ntensive

handling, engthy

circulation,

r

both,

and raises

the

nagging

doubt

that the coin

could

hardly

have been

in

circulation

for so

relatively

short

a

time

as

the

50

years

which

Dengate's

dating

for

the

no

eagle

triobols would

require.11

IIB

(idem):

2.35

gr.;

Per.

Ill

(eagle,

no control

etters):2.40 gr.;

Group

I

(Achaean eague)

2.40 gr. Group

II

(eagle

nd

MEI ,

with

ontrol

etters)

2.35gr.9

Hesperia

939,

. 134,

n.

144,

nd

pl.

Ill, 6;

weight: .

153.

10

ssue

2:

pp.

61-3,

88.

That

so few

xamples

were

of

ightweight uggests

that

ertainly

or

his

ssue coinswere truck

o

weight.

11

Compare

he loss of

weight

hown

by

the

undoubtedly

ourth

entury

aeginetic

riobols

f

Opuntian

ocris

with

OPONTIñN

BMCCent.Gce.ca.

369-338

b.c.)

in

the

same

hoard,

nos.60-68.

n

descending

rder he

weights

were:

2.64,

2.49, 2.40,

2.40,

2.39,

2.35,

2.32, 2.30,

2.18

grams.Weights

f

the

OPONTIñN

triobols n

BMCCent.Gce.

pp. 2-4,

nos

9-13,

19,

24-26,

29)

arranged

n

descending

rder,

nd converted

o

grams,

re:

2.75, 2.72, 2.72,

2.66,

.64,

2.64,

2.64,

2.56,

2.50,

2.40

grams.

he

OPONTIfìN

riobols

n

the

Arcadia

1929

hoard

weighed

.33, 2.33,

2.26,

2.13

grams NN

M

74, p.

32,

nos.214-218).To attempt o establishmore ccuratelyheweight t whichthese riobolswere truckt wouldbe necessaryocompile frequencyable

from s

many

unworn

pecimens

s could be

traced;

but it

is clear

enough

that

all but

one

of

these riobols

n the WesternGreece

nd Arcadiahoards

have

probably

ost ome

3gr.

rmore

hrough

ear.

onversely

t

s

nteresting

to

consider he

weights

f the reduced

eginetic

rachms

f Elis in the hoard

published y

Schwabacher

n NC

1939,

pp.

238-265.

They

were truck rom

23

obv.

dies,

42

rev.

dies,

nd fall ntofour

roups.

he hoardburial

nd

the

conclusion f the serieshave been dated

ca.

191

B.c.;

the

beginning

f the

series s linked o

the

burial date of the

1922

Olympia

hoard

NN

M

39),

whichNewell

put

ca.

250/225

.c.,

because

that hoard ontained

rachms

f

Schwabacher'sirst

roup nly,

nd

in brilliant ondition.

n

Schwabacher's

hoard he four

roups

f drachmsssuedtherefore

on

Newell's

dating)

ver

a period fpossibly pto60years, howprogressiveear,yet hefrequency

table

peak

for heearliest

roup

s

only

a.

.1

gr.

ower han hat

for he atest

group ca. 4.8gr.).

On the

probable

orrectness

f

Newell's

ating

fthe

1922




7/15


8/15

34 JENNIFER WARREN

clear,

both are

certainly

of

Dengate's Group

I,

Period

I,

the

no

eagle

series.21The date

of

the hoard is not

certain,

but would

appear

to

belong

to

the middle or later third

century,

and not

to

the

second

century.22

Three

supporting arguments

may

be

adduced for

dating

the

no

eagle

triobols earlier than the

second

century.

The

following

table

shows the

representation

of the varieties of

Megalopolitan

triobols

21

Bothobverses

how he

form

f

moustache

hich

haracterizes

he

no

eagle

series

see

below,

.

39)

The

firstriobol

Plate

VI,

A)

has he

monogram

a

clear

on

the

reverse,

nd

too closeto the

upraised

rmfor

here o

be

space

for

n

eagle.

Letter

r

etters o

right

Obverse

may

be

from

ame

die

as

ANSMN

13,

pl.

XX,

8b. The obverse

f

the econd riobol

Plate

VI,

B)

is from

he ame

die as ANSMN

13,

pl.

XX,

13a.

The

reverse

hows

hefaint

utline f he

fa

to the1.

t

is

just

possible

hat

X

appears

o

the

right

f

he

rock.

am

grateful

to

Martin rice

for

he

photographs.

othhe and

I,

independently

nspecting

thehoard

omefive

years

go

(for

which ur

thanks o Mme.

Varoucha),

ad

noted he

presence

f

the

monogram

ithout

agle,

and wear.

Martin

rice

rated othpieces wear4 on his scale from ear1 (f.d.c) o6 (heavilyworn).22MmeVarouchaBCH

1956,

.

227)

proposed

hethird

uarter

fthethird

century.

artin rice ommentshathe would ave

hought

hewhole

niform

enough

o makethe

deposit

probably

ot aterthan

250

b.c. In

addition o

the 2

Arcadian

Megalopolitan)

riobols,

he

hoard

contained:

Alexander-

1

tetradr.

Noe,

The Alexander

oinage

f

Sicyon,

Group

I,

no.

23),

1

dr.

(Sardis); Lysimachus-i

r.

Thompson,

The Mints

f

Lysimachus,

ssays

n

Greek

oinage

resented

o

Stanley

obinson

p.

170,

no.

35:

299/8-297/6.c.);

Ptolemy

I-

tetradr.

Svoronos 46; early

n

reign)

Aetolia-i riob.

obv.

AQ,

early tyle,

oar's

hind

eg forward)

Locris-i

riob.

serpent

n shield f

Ajax,

crest

etween

egs;

egend

bscured,

ut

must

have been

OPONTIßN,

so

ca.

369-338

b.c.,

not

338-300

b.c.);

Boeotia-i

dr.

(shield/amphora);

halcis-

8 drs. 5withno ymbol, with rophy)Aegina-i t. turtle), triob.turtle),2 st.

(tortoises),

dr.

(tortoise/in

ncuse,

Ain

dolphin);

Hermione-i

riob.;

Sicyon-

st.

wreath/N,

a.

330

B.c.),

1 dr.

5th ent.),

4

triobs.

4th~3rd ent.).

(Additionally,

drachm

f

Chalcis

with

aduceus

ymbol,

hichwas

among

some

miscellaneous aterial

n the

same

tray,

was

blackened ike

a

number

of oins n thehoard if

his

belongs

t

brings

he otal

up

to

50.)

Best

preserved

were

he

Ptolemy

etradr.

Martin

rice:

wi-2),

and the

Sicyon

tater;

he

two Alexander oins and

the

Lysimachus

r. showed ome

wear

M.

Price:

w3, W3,

W2-3

respectively).

owever,

he Aetoliadr.

(conventionally

ated

after

79

b.c.)

is

considerably

orn

see

BCH

1956,

pl.

VI,

8),

and

the wear

and

weight-loss

fthe

Sicyon

riobols

of

which

most

arietiesre

represented

in

the

hoard)

eemed o me

fairly omparable

o the wear nd

weight-loss

f

those n econd enturyoards. ven f, onceivably,hedateof heMalamata-Kyparissia oard hould aveto bedropped own othe arly econd entury,

the

wear f

he

woArcadian riobols nsures heir

ating

o the hird

entury

at

least.




9/15

EARLIEST TRIOBOLS OF MEGALOPOLIS 35

in the

second

century

hoards as

analysed by Dengate,

and the

number of

obverse

and

reverse dies which he identified for

each

group.23

$

s* 8 2

_

H

*

¡-s

is

•2

§

g

-2

-S

s


10/15

36 JENNIFER WARREN

decades after he

ceiling

date of 280 b.c. when the

League

was

recon-

stituted,25

and

Margaret Thompson

has now demonstrated

the

likelihood

that

the

coinage

did not start

until after

196

B.c.26 But

earlier evidence for

the reduction of the

aeginetic

standard can be

found

n

the

coinage

of

Elis whose

prolific

eries

of

Achaean

League

varieties

presumably

started

relatively

soon after she entered the

League

in

191

b.c. But

Elis was

already using

the

reduced

aeginetic

standard forherseries ofdrachms eagle holdinghare /FA thunder-

bolt)

which the

evidence of the

1922 Olympia

hoard

points

to

having

started

in

the latter half

of the third

century,

and

probably

in the

third

quarter

at

that.27Yet

the

same

hoard

surely

shows

that Elis

was

striking

utonomous

triobols

of

reduced

weight

even earlier

than

the reduced

drachms,28

o that

even on

a

conservative estimate

it

would

not be

unreasonable to

suppose

that

coins were

already

being

struck

n

the

Peloponnese

on the

reduced

aeginetic

tandard

at a date

not much ater

than

the

22o's.

The unreduced

triobols

of

Megalopolis

shouldsurelybe earlier hanthisdate for heproximity fMegalopolis

to

Olympia,

f

not to

Elis,

suggests

hat

she

could

hardly

have

ignored

25

NNM

74, pp.

19-20.

26

NNM

159,

p.

90.

The small seriesof

anepigraphic eague

triobols

s of

course arlier

see

NNM

159,

p.

85);

their

weight

s

notreduced.

27

NNM

39,

see

above

p.

32,

n.

11. The

slightly

ornGaza

tetradrachm

f

Ptolemy

I

dated

254/3

.c.

securely laces

the

burial

of the

hoard

n

the

second

half f

the third ent.

Martin

rice,

or

whose omments

n the

regal

issues

am

grateful,

elieves

hat Newell's

ating

o before

25

b.c. remains

fairly

ertain,

nd

that the

hoard

might

ave

been

deposited

s

early

s ca.

240b.c.We must ememberowever hat hehoardmaynotbecompleteNNM39,

pp.

i, 2,

24).

Ofcourse, ince hestart fthe Athenian ew

Style

etra-

drachms

Margaret

hompson,

he New

Style

ilver

Coinage

f

Athens)

nd,

as

I

hope

to

show

lsewhere,

he

Sicyon

riobolswith

Z

reverse

reboth o be

downdated

o the econd

entury,

heir bsence rom

he

1922

Olympia

oard

is no

longer

o relevant o the

assessment f ts date

(cf.

Newell,

NNM

39,

p. 22).

ncidentally,

he atestElis

staters

Seltman,

emple

oins

f

Olympia,

Group

)

must

lso

date before

91

b.c.

28

NNM

39.

Six reduced

rachms

of

Schwabacher's

irst

roup nly)

were .f.

or brilliantalmost

s

well

preserved

ere he atest

f

hree

roups

f

reduced

triobols

Zeus

head/FA agle

on Ionic

capital,

A:

7 examples,

orn

o

good;

Zeus head

r./FA

hunderbolt

n

wreath

4

examples,

omewhat

orn

o

very

fine

similar,

ut more

nd

smaller eaves n

wreath

7 examples,mostly eryfine.)t is thereforeossible hatElis assimilated heweight fher riobols

to that

ofthetriobols

f

he

Aetolians,

ithwhom he was

allied

n

the

third

century.




11/15


this

reduction

of

what was

pre-eminently

he

Peloponnesian

weight

standard.

Finally,

there s

a

further

nd

important

point

of difference etween

the

no

eagle Megalopolitan

triobols

and the

issues

with the

eagle

or

the

eagle

and MET.

Only

for the

no

eagle

triobols

s there a series

of

corresponding

obols

(head

of

Pan/A'

and

syrinx).29

Four control

marks are common

to both triobols and obols:

I/I

and

I),

M, A,

and

Nfì.30 ut certainly by the second century,and apparently by the

second

half of the

third,

ilver

obols

and

other fractions

f the

triobol

ceased

to be struck

in the

Peloponnese

31

small silver

coinage

was

replaced

by

bronze.

It would be

extraordinary

f

these Arcadian

obols,

most

of which are

contemporary

with

no

eagle

triobols,

were

an

exception.

One

of

Dengate's

two

reasons

for

dating

all the Zeus

head/seated

Pan

triobols,

ncluding

those

with

no

eagle,

to the second

century,

s

the absence

of

Megalopolitan

triobols

from

he

Olympia

1922

hoard

(see above p. 32, n. 11) in contrast to the second centuryOlympia

1939

hoard

in

which

there were 60.32

n

fact,

only

one

of the 60

was

a no

eagle

triobol

nd,

with

regard

to the

Olympia

1922

hoard,

it is not

too

surprising

hat

there

should have been

none of the

Megalopolitan

triobols.

Apart

from the

31

coins of

Elis,

1)

two-thirds

of the

re-

mainder

(33

out of

51)

were

staters

or

tetradrachms,33

)

about

half

29

BMCPelop.

p.

174,

nos.

55-61;

not mentioned

y Dengate.

The

syrinx

appears

n some ssues

of the no

eagle

riobols,

ropped gainst

he rock.

30

bol

with

M

McClean

934, i-234>

with

Nñ:

McClean

935, l.

234,

19.

Three f henoeagle riobolssueshavecontroletters otfound n theobols,and

apart

from he obols withno control etters here re three areobol

issueswith ontrol etters ot

found n the

triobols. hese

observations

re

based on coins

n

the

BM

trays

nd

photographic

ollection

nd n

published

collections

a

wider earch

might

xtend

he

ist

of

controletters

ommon o

both

denominations.he fact hat s

many

s four ets

including

he

unusual

Nß)

are common o both

effectively

ulesout the

possibility

f

coincidence,

nor

s

the

repetition

f

he

ame controlmarks t

a

laterdate at

all

probable.

So

far

s dissimilar

ypes

an be

compared tyle

eems o offer

o

difficulty.

31

At

any

rate

so far s I

know here

s no

Peloponnesian

raction

hich an

be

datedwith

ertainly

fter

a.

250

b.c. For

Argos

he atest

group

f

obols

and trihemiobolsccurs n the

Mycenae

oard

Noe 716)

which

ontains,

s

G. K. Jenkinsaspointed uttome, wo etradrachmsfPtol. I (not

Ptol.

)andmayhavebeenputawayca. 250b.c.

32

ANSMN

13,

p. 107.

33

Hoards

often

xhibit,

r tend

oward,

omogeneity

n size of

unit.




12/15

38 JENNIFER WARREN

that remainder

(28

out of

51)

were

regal

issues

(Alexander,

Lysi-

machus,

Ptolemy

and

II),

and

3)

the not

immediately

ocal

Pelopon-

nesian

coinages

staters and drachms

of

Aegina

and

staters

of

Sicyon

are known

to have

enjoyed

a wide circulation

n

mainland

Greece.

In

short,

apart

from ts Elis content the flavor

of

this hoard

is not that

of a local

one;34

nd

in

any

case

it is far from

ertain

that

the hoard was

complete.35

Dengate's other argument for dating all Zeus head/seated Pan

triobols,

ncluding

hose

with no

eagle,

to the second

century

s drawn

from

a

'

'comparison

of the condition

of the

earliest

Megalopolis

strikings

of

the

catalogue

and the earliest Achaean issues of

Elis,

because

the

two

coinages

appear

together

n a

numberof

hoards. The

Elis coins cannot have been struck before

191

b.c.

when Elis was

joined

to

the

Achaean

League

and

few,

if

any,

of the

Megalopolis

triobols

show

more wear

than the

Elis

coins .36

On

the

evidence

of

the

Agrinion

Hoard,

this

conclusion

might

seem

justified;37

owever,

as we saw above (p. 32), the single no eagle triobol in the Western

Greece hoard is

visibly

worn,

while even the earliest

Achaean

League

triobols

of Elis

illustrated re

in

bettercondition

38

Of the 12 Achaean

League

triobols

of

Elis in the Arcadia hoard the

5

illustrated do

not

show much

wear;39

the

single

no

eagle Megalopolis

triobol

is not

illustrated,

but as noted above it

may

be

presumed

to have lost

weight

and

therefore

o

be

worn.

I

have not

been able to

compare

the wear of

the

two

groups

of

coins

in

the

Olympia 1939

hoard;

there

were

no no

eagle

triobols n

the Caserta

hoard.40

84SimilarlyheSparta1908hoard Noe1004;86fa) andtheEpidaurus 903

hoard

Noe

392;

61

fir),

oth hird

entury,

ontained

n addition

o

regal

nd

Athenian

oins

nly

mmediately

ocal ssues

7

Lacedaemon

nd

4

Epidaurus

respectively).

t

should

be

emphasized

hat unlikethese

and

otherthird

century eloponnesian

oards

uch

as the

Patras and

Sophikon

oards

Noe

795»

997)»

he second

entury

oards f the

Peloponnese

nd N. W.

Greece

contain

quite

sizable

quantities

of hemidrachms

f,

e.g.,

Sicyon,

Argos,

Locris,

nd drachms f

Chalciswhich

had

continuedn circulation rom

he

4th/3rd

enturies.

imilarly

heno

eagle

riobols

f

Megalopolis.On

the

third

century eloponnesian

oards and coin circulation ee now T. Hackens*

interesting

iscussion,

tudia

H

ellenistica

6

[1968], p.

69-95).

86

NNM

39,pp. i, 2,24.

86

ANSMN

13,p. 107.37Compare NM 159,pl. XV, 199-201withpl. XXVII, 330-pl.XXIX, 353.

38

Hesperia 939, .

128,

pl.

VIII,

I4fï.

39

NNM

74, pl.

I,

nos.

15-22.

40

ANSMN

13,

pp. 104-6.




13/15


Although,

as

Dengate

observed,41

he

die cutters of the no

eagle

triobols were

relatively

careful

craftsmen,

t

is

not

altogether

easy

to

distinguish

between the

style

and fabric of the

no

eagle

triobols

and that of the earlier

ssues,

at

any

rate,

of the

triobolswith

eagles,

though

the

style

of

the MET triobols s

degenerate

and

their fabric

spread.

However the treatment of one

detail characterizes

the no

eagle

triobols:

consistently

the moustache

appears

in

roughly

the

shape of a weak S, which was thewidespread (or standard?) form n

use

in

the fourth

century,

while on

the

eagle

and

eagle

with

MEr

triobols

it

is

crescent-shaped,

the common

(or standard?)

form n

the second

century.42

It is less

easy

to make a

positive

assertion about

the

dating

of the

no

eagle

triobols. The

style, certainly,requires

a

later date

than that

of the

aeginetic

staters

with

the same

types

( BMCPelop

.

pl.

XXXII,

10)

struck

probably

in the

36o,s

or soon

after,

and the seated

Pan

of

the reverse

is

significantly

ifferent

on

the

staters the

head is

frontal, he rock larger,and the lagobolon is held in the otherhand

and the other

way

up).

Cognizance

must

also be taken of

the third

century

Alexander

type

tetradrachms of

Megalopolis,

with M: and

syrinx and

no control etters n

common

with

the no

eagle

triobols).43

At

any

rate

the

probability

is

very high

that

the no

eagle

triobols

were

issued

at some time

during

the

period running

from the

later

fourth

entury

down to

235

b.c.,

for

which

the

evidence of the con-

tinued existence of the Arcadian

League

otherwise consists of

the

use

of

the

Arcadian

ethnic

n

inscriptions.44

When

Megalopolis

again

struck triobolswith the same types (but with the addition of the

eagle)

in

the second

century,

she

perhaps

used

these

types

for her

municipal

series

primarily

ecause

they

were

what

she had used before

41

ANSMN

13,

p.

100.

42

As

on

the oins f

heAchaean nd

Thessalian

eagues.

The

crescent-shaped

moustache

ppears

lready

n

tetradrachms

f

Antigonus

oson,

229-221

.c.

43

ee

Noe,

ANSMN

10,

pp. 39-41.

Noe

tentatively

ated he etradrachmso

the

period

etween he

tyrannies

f

Aristodemos

nd

Lydiadas, 51-244

b.c.,

or

alternatively

o the

tyranny

f

Lydiadas,244-235

b.c.,

assuming

hat

he

had

Macedonian

upport. engate p. 59,

n.

13)prefers

he atter lternative

as being onsistent ith he mount fwear hown ycoins n theSophikon,

Megalopolis

nd

Corinth

938

hoards.

44

Tarn,

CR

1925,

p. 105-7;

but see M.

Sordi,

BCH

1957, -

38»

n-

5-




14/15

40 JENNIFER WARREN

she

had

joined

the Achaean

League.45

The ffor

A

monogram ppears

on

only

two ssues with the

eagle,

and

according

to

Dengate's arrange-

ment not even on the earliest

(though

one,

certainly,

s an

exception-

ally

large ssue).46

t

may

be that in her revival

of the Arcadian ethnic

used

in

conjunction

with the

federalcoin

types

Megalopolis

was

being

cautious

or

half-hearted

in

proclaiming

her

eadership

of Arcadia.47

But we cannot

wholly

exclude the

alternative

possibility

that

those

monograms nstead representndividuals withnames beginningAp-,

'ApK-

who

exploited

the

ambiguity by

placing

their control mark to

the left of

the

type

where the federal

monogram

had

stood.48

45

As

Argos

id.

Cf.

Margaret hompson, esperia 939, . 143.

46

ee

ANSMN

13,

pp.

89-93.

And

on one ssuewith

M

Er

and

eagle,

ANSMN

13,

p.

96.

47

ee

Dengate,

ANSMN

13,p.

108.

48

Unless

is

a

grossly

areless

orm,

r

stands

for

Ap[Ka6iKÒv]

[0voç],

t is

difficult

o

see how t can

be

resolved

s

the

Arcadian

thnic.

Names

tarting

'Ap-

are

remarkably

ommon;

moreover

olybius (28.6.2)

mentions wo

Megalopolitans,rkesílaos nd Ariston,who,appropriately,ereactive atthetime fthewarwithPerseus.




15/15

VI

EARLIEST TRIOBOLS OF MEGALOPOLIS

^

5

^

6

7

^

8

^

9

ORIGIN OF ROMAN

DIDRACHMS

Documents

The earliest triobols of Megapolis / Jennifer Warren