You are on page 1of 22

TEXT AND IMAGE: ALEXANDER THE GREAT,

COINS AND ELEPHANTS *


R. J. LANE FOX
Primary evidence for Alexander the Great is rare enough for any aaditions to deserve
historians attention, even if they reopen questions which are old rather than helping us to
answer questions which are new. Early in 1973, a coin hoard of exceptional interest was
brought to light in Iraq, reportedly from Babylon itself and thanks to the efforts of
N. Dun, Nancy M. Waggoner, H. Nicolet-Pierre, 0. Morkholm and M. J . Price, the
greater part of it has now been published, together with one or two additions to the main
bulk which had become separated before passing through the trade. Discussion of the
hoards contents owes a particular debt to the developing views of M. J . Price, beginning
in 1982,2 and a notable contribution by P. Bernard in 1985 which suggested Indian
analogies and a new date and context for the hoards most remarkable finds.3 Both of
them (and W. Hollstein in their wake)4 have added literary evidence to the debate and
tried to interpret the new finds historically. As yet, Alexander historians have taken little
notice in print of this new evidence: their suggestions have fallen behind the increased
range of the hoard and the ground gained by numismatists continuing researches. I owe
knowledge of the hoard to U. Wartenberg at the British Museum and here I wish to bring
its importance to wider notice among historians; to return to the theories and indications
of date and to consider whether literary evidence can help us to give the coins a context
and origin. There are questions of method here, which these new coins pose very clearly.
Various texts have been cited, on the assumption that what survives from what was
written can help us to interpret what survives from what was struck. I wish to explore this
assumption and to reconsider the texts in question before emphasizing the interest of the
one text, not cited, which fits facts about the coins themselves.
*I amgrateful to C. J. Howgego and U. Wartenberg for their help. I dedicate this paper to the
memory of M. J. Price whose work is its starting-point and whose discussions and criticisms have
improved it at various points.
N. Durr, Neues aus Babylon SM 94 (1974) 33-36; H. Nicolet-Pierre, Monnaies A
IElephant, BSFN 33 (1978) 401-03; 0. Mgrkholm, A Coin of Artaxerxes 111, NC XIV (1974)
1. Coin Hoards I (1975), no. 38 =VI I I (1994) no. 188 (as cited in Price p. 51).
* M. J. Price, The Porus Coinage of Alexander the Great: A Symbol of Concord and
Community, in S . Scheers, ed. Studia Paul0 Naster Oblata I, Orientalia Louvaniensia 12 (Leuven
1982) 75-88; M. J. Price, Circulation at Babylon in 323 B.C., in W. E. Metcalf ed., Mnemata:
Papers in Memory of Nancy M. Waggoner (1991) 63-72; M. J. Price, The Coinage in the Name of
Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus 1-11 (Zurich, London 1991) 51, 452, 456-57
(henceforward Price, Coinage ....).
3 P. Bernard, Le Monnayage dEudamos, Satrape Grec du Punjab et Maitre des Elephants, in
G. Gnoli and L. Lanciotti eds., Orientalia Joseph Tucci Memoriae Dicata I (Rome, 1985) 65-94.
4 W. Hollstein, Taxiles Pragung fur Alexander den Grossen, Schweiz. Numism. Rundschau 68
(1989) 5-18.
BICS-41 - 1996 87
88 BICS-41 - 1996
The hoards contents were scattered after discovery and their regrouping has required
time, international observation and careful research. Much of it has been the work of M.
J . Price who has published a list of contents, the culmination of more than a decade of
inquiry. All of the coins are silver and briefly, his list identifies the following types?
1. Eight Alexander decadrachms, of the usual types: Heracles in the lion-skin helmet
on the obverse; the seated Zeus with eagle and sceptre on the reverse. These fine coins
have always been rare and the new finds include several with a mint-mark unknown
previously.
2. Price reports a large number of Alexander tetradrachms, as yet unpublished. The
types, as usual, are similar to those on the decadrachms.
3. Seven examples of the silver decadrachms which historians have named the Porus
Medallion. The types will need further explanation, but they match those known since
the discovery of the first example in 1887.6 On the obverse, the same figure, armed with a
spear, attacks an elephant from the rear, on which two Indian figures are mounted. On the
reverse a figure in a plumed helmet holds a thunderbolt in his right hand and a spear in his
left, while a winged victory flies to crown him overhead.
These coins were not perfectly cut and struck and the distribution of the image varies
from piece to piece; the newly found examples make several details clearer. Price has
argued that a more apt description of their weight is five shekel pieces, not
decadrachms, and I will follow his argument on the point, although it has been ~ontested.~
Like the previously known examples, none of these coins carries an inscription or a
caption for its images. However, both the old and new examples have the same marks: Z
on the side with the elephant and the letters AB in monogram on the other side, the
reverse.
The lettering is not new, but there is an exciting new fact about it: it reappears on the
next items which I cite.
4.The coins in question are 11 silver tetradrachms or two-shekel pieces, as Price
more aptly describes them. The obverse shows a bowman who is bearded and whose hair
is gathered in a top-knot: his long bow rests on the ground. These features match
descriptions of the characteristics of Indian warriors which occur in the primary historians
of Alexander, as Price and Bernard have also recognized.* On the reverse stands another
Indian characteristic: an elephant, similar to the elephant on the Porus Medallions.
Coins of this type were not known to us before. They carry no inscription, but they are
linked to the Porus Medallions by more than a similarity between elephants. They share
the same marks but on different sides: Z on the side with the elephant (here, the reverse)
and the monogram AB on the other, the obverse. For the first time, therefore, the Porus
Medallions can be related with certainty to something else: to silver coins, manifestly of
Greek design, which show the two most distinctive Indian weapons of war.
5. The next item extends the imagery of Indian warfare. In 1978, Mme. Nicolet-Pierre
published a perceptive note on a type of silver tetradrachm, or two-shekel piece, which
had reached the Cabinet des Medailles in Paris and was evidently part of the 1973 hoard.9
Three examples are now known but their types, too, were unknown previously. The
5 Price, Circulation at Babylon ..., (n. 2) (1991) 69-72.
6 P. Gardner, New Greek Coins of Bactria and India, NC VII (1887) 177.
7 Price, The Porus Coinage .. .., (n. 2) (1982) 76 and n. 4.
Arr. Ind. 16.4-6; Price, The Porus Coinage ..., (n. 2) (1982) 81-82: Bernard, Le
Nicolet-Pierre (n. 1) 402-03.
Monnayage dEudamos . . . (n. 3) 72-79.
R. J . LANE FOX: TEXT AND IMAGE 89
obverse, in Prices words, shows an elephant r.; on which two figures, one turning
around and carrying a long standard, the other, in front, holding a goad.I0 The reverse
shows bowman and charioteer i n quadriga r.. This type recalls the scenes of royal war-
charioteering i n Pharaonic Egypt and especially those of the Assyrian kings. However, P.
Bernard has connected it to the style of Indian warfare in the Vedic period, as recovered
by modern scholarship. The bowman, the charioteer, the two-wheeled chariot and the
team of four horses relate neatly to descriptions i n Indian epics of a heros manner of
fighting. Chariots are also well-attested as an Indian weapon against Alexander. The
Indian context is clearly the right one, given the Indian nature of the scene on the obverse.
These coins, too, carry no inscription and lack any lettering: their style and design are
rather more crude. Their elephant and its gait are manifestly different from the elephants
on the other types in the hoard. We cannot, therefore, assume that they were struck from
the same source as the E / AB coins.
The two issues with Indian types and the seven further examples of the Porus
Medallion have attracted most interest i n published work to date, but the hoard contains
a wide range of other coins too.
6. A range of lion-staters whose type is well known: eighteen bear the name of
Mazaeus, the veteran satrap under the last Achaemenids who was reinstated as Satrap of
Babylonia by Alexander and died during Alexanders reign.
7. An imitation Athenian owl whose legend has been admirably deciphered by A. F.
Shore as Artaxerxes Pharaoh in Demotic script and assigned to Memphis in the later
years of Artaxerxes HI, reconqueror of Egypt.*
8. Another imitation Athenian owl, attributable to Sabakes, the Persians satrap in
Egypt before the defeat at Issus i n autumn 333 BC.
9. A further range of imitation Athenian owls, some of which bear an Aramaic legend
read as MZDK: numismatists identify its subject as the Mazaces of our Greek texts, the
satrap of Egypt who surrendered the country to Alexander i n 332. Price associates these
coins with two separate mints in Babylonia during Alexanders reign, developing a theory
advanced by E. T. Newell i n 1938.13 Historians of Alexander have nonetheless resisted
this notion and the point needs further discussion.
10. A silver shekel, attributed by Price to Hierapolis in Syria.
1 1. Some imitation Athenian owls from Phoenicia, of which one is certainly from Gaza
12. A Persian siglos from Sardis.
13. A silver tetradrachm of Philip I1 whose reverse shows the jockey type, with a
garlanded altar.
14. A silver coin from Cos whose presence at Babylon Price briefly describes as
exceptional and whose interest I wish to emphasize later.
Price has emphasized that nothing ascribed to this hoard belongs demonstrably to the
years after Alexanders death. Nonetheless P. Bernard has advanced a theory which
would place the Porus Medallions and the Indian types as late as 317/6. Whichever
and earlier, therefore, than Alexanders destruction of the city in 332 BC.
l o Price, Circulation at Babylon ..., (n. 2) 70; however, Price, Coinage I(1991) 452 n. 9 argues
that the standard-bearer on the elephant is also carrying a spear; Hollstein (n. 4) 12 n. 54 rejects this
spear, apparently correctly; Bernard (n. 3) 79 cites Indian parallels for the standard bearer.
I Bernard (n.3) 74-79 with S. D. Singh, Ancient Wagare with Special Reference to the Vedic
Period (Leiden 1965).
A. F. Shore, The Demotic Inscription on a Coin of Artaxerxes, NC 14 (1974) 5-8.
E. T. Newell, Miscellanea Numismatica, Cyrene to India:, ANSNNM 82 (1938) 62-75 and
82-88.
90 BICS-41 - 1996
view we prefer, the first remarkable fact is that Alexanders flood of new silver coins did
not drive older silver types out of circulation quite as rapidly or exclusively as historians
have sometimes implied: imitation Athenian owls may even have continued to be struck
in Babylonia during his reign. The second remarkable fact is that the Porus Medallion
was not a medallion at all. Seven examples, showing signs of use, existed i n this one
hoard among other silver currency: evidently they, too, were coins struck for use. Even
more remarkable is the fact that the Porus type is now linked by lettering to the
bowman-and-elephant two-shekel pieces. Any theory of the context of the Porus coins
must now account for this issue, previously unknown, with its imagery of Indian war-
arms.
The most heartening fact is that coins of a previously unknown type can still appear i n
the context of a datable hoard and can connect to events i n the lifetime of Alexander.
What has happened here can happen again. Another cache of new coin-evidence might
change our interpretations to a degree which is now unlikely for interpretations which are
based only on literary texts.
Beyond these facts, questions of interpretation extend across a wide field: what were
the origins of the two newly-found types with their images of Indian warriors? How do
we best explain the connection of one of these types to the big Porus pieces which share
its letter marks? In the light of this connection what is the likeliest origin of the Porus
types and what do they portray? On the reverse of the Porus coins, most historians have
seen Alexander himself holding a thunderbolt in his righi hand: if they are correct, was
this type struck in Alexanders lifetime and what does this symbol of Zeus mean? The
longest recent study of Alexanders divinity, by E. Badian, discusses the relevance of
coin-evidence from both local and imperial mints, but does not even mention the
relevance of the Porus pieces.14 As for their connection with one of the Indian types,
M. J . Price has advanced a theory which links them to the major themes of community
and concord in Alexanders dealings with barbarians. As a commentary on
contemporary political events, he concluded in 1982, the Porus coinage is one of the
most powerful statements in the history of numi~rnatics.~Divinity and concord are
certainly powerful themes i n modern studies of Alexander. The dating, imagery and
interpretation of this new evidence deserve historians further attention.
I1
The dating of the hoard requires knowledge of the latest coins contained within it and an
argument that the absence of any later coins is significant. Arguments from the physical
state of the coins and their degree of wear are much more hazardous. It may be tempting
to argue that the freshest coins ought to be the latest in date, while the worn ones must be
earlier, but hoarders can store, retain or acquire pieces for such a variety of indefinable
reasons that arguments from the coins condition to a closely-defined date are extremely
precarious. We should also remember that this particular hoard has had to be
reconstituted after parts of it had passed into the trade. It was not found and classified in
l 4 E. Badian, The Deification of Alexander the Great in H. J. Dell, ed., Ancient Mucedonian
Studies in Honor of Charles F. Edson (Thessaloniki 1981) 27-71; G. L. Cawkwell, The
Deification of Alexander the Great in I. Worthington eds., Ventures into Greek History (Oxford
1994) 293-307 also omits all reference to the coin.
l5 Price, The Porus Coinage . . .. (n. 2) 85; compare Price, Coinage . . . I 453: a visible record
of Alexanders policy of concord and community with the conquered peoples of the East.
R. J . LANE FOX: TEXT AND IMAGE 91
full by an archaeologist or numismatist when first brought to light. Bits may have been
lost, concealed or missed, despite careful researches since.
In 1982, Price emphasized two arguments for dating the hoard as then known. Those
coins which could be dated independently of the hoard were all coins originating not later
than 32312 BC. This argument applied especially to the lion staters, the Alexander
decadrachms and the large number of Alexander tetradrachms. The tetradrachms included
coins stamped with the letters MkAY: the accepted arrangement of these issues dates
coins with this mark as the latest from Alexanders major mint in the East.I6 The letters
continue on the first issues in the name of Philip 111, but none of these Philip I11
tetradrachms is reported to have been present in the hoard, according to sources whom
Price describes as reliable. Their presence in other hoards, datable after 32312, is so
widespread that their absence in this case is significant. Price concludes: on the evidence
of the Alexander coinage this hoard found at Babylon was buried almost certainly in
32312 BC before the coinage in the name of Philip had gained currency.17 We should not
be too precise about the date of burial, but a date in or before 323 BC does fit the contents
which we can best classify.
In 1985, P. Bernard argued nonetheless that this date did not fit the big Porus coinage
and its connected issue in the hoard. There is a constant risk of crediting innovations to
Alexander and forgetting to consider his immediate successors: Bernard, who has warned
against the risk elsewhere, proposed Eudamus, satrap of the Punjab, as originator of the
Porus coins during his visit westwards to Susa in 31716. In 1982, Price had advanced an
argument which would at once exclude such a dating: he had emphasized the worn
condition of the big Porus pieces, a feature which led him to date them even earlier in
Alexanders reign than anyone had previously considered. However, the degree to which
the big Porus coins are worn, rather than indistinctly struck, is a matter for argument, as
Bernard rightly observed.* Even if their wear was serious, it would not refute Bernards
dating. Across a span of ten years or so, evidence of wear is an uncertain basis for a
precise dating. In this particular hoard, some of the pieces which we know to be dated to
328/7 or earlier are in a particularly fresh condition. From wear alone, we would
seriously misdate them.
In discussions published in 1991, Price has not developed the argument from wear but
has rested his case on the dating of the hoard itself. Its other datable contents, he remarks,
discredit P. Bernards suggestion.19 Numismatically, Bernards position is not refuted
but it is extremely unlikely: he would have to argue that the Porus coinage was struck
six or seven years later than anything else in the hoard, that hoarders do odd things and
that this hoarder simply ignored all other silver coins struck between 323 and 317 and for
reasons which we cannot fathom, retained only the Porus issues out of all possibilities.
Numismatically, this position is forced, but it should not be rejected on coin-evidence
alone. Bernard argued for Eudamus on the strength of textual evidence and here his
theory runs into insuperable difficulties. In 3 1716, Eudamus brought elephants and several
hundred footsoldiers from India to Susa where he joined a coalition among several of
Alexanders successors.2o Eumenes is said to have given him 200 talents from Susas
treasury as a special favour, but these coins are nowhere said to have been struck
I6 Price (n. 2) 79; Price, Coinage . . . I 454.
Price (n. 2) 65.
Bernard (n. 3) 90 11.94.
I 9 Price (n. 2) 65 n.5; Price, Coinage .... 1.452 n.9.
*O D.S. 19.15.5.
92 BICS-41 - 1996
specially by or for Eudamus himself. The silence is not decisive because our texts
mention coinage haphazardly but more importantly, the types of the Porus coins and
their connected issue in the newly-found hoard do not suit Eudamuss known career. He
is nowhere said to have brought Indian bowmen with him, yet their image is clear on the
bowman-and-elephant coinage. As W. Hollstein has also observed, the striking of big
silver pieces showing Alexander, a thunderbolt and a Victory would have been an
extremely assertive act by a man who was only one member of a grand coalition.21 Its
imagery was also ill-suited to this time and author. In 317/6, when Eudamus arrived,
Eumenes was fostering cult before Alexanders empty throne during which the successors
paid him proskynesis as a god.22 However, the five-shekel coin showed Alexander i n
military dress, not divine apparel, and as we shall see, the thunderbolt in his hand did not
raise him unambiguously to divine status. In 317/6, an issue for Eudamuss
contemporaries would probably have been more explicit. As for its Indian warriors on
elephants, one of them (we shall also see) must be Porus, fighting valiantly. Eudamus,
however, had earlier killed Porus by treachery and would hardly have chosen or
welcomed a coin-type which showed Poruss finest hour of idealized combat with
Alexander.23 Bernard anticipates some of these problems, but his theory about Eudamus
is too fanciful to stand against alternative theories where much less has to be forced.
One alternative would be to date the Porus coinage within a year or so of Alexanders
death. Numismatically, the rest of the hoard cannot absolutely exclude such a date and
historically we can imagine (but not document) how these coin types might have been
struck to evoke Alexanders great victory i n India at a time when the retention of the
Indian conquests seemed desirable but precarious. Our sources various lists of the
provinces distributed to governors at Babylon and in 321 are unfortunately incomplete
and uncertain, but they do reveal the continuing importance of the two Indians, Porus and
Taxiles, in the lands of Alexanders Indian conquests.24 Even if we do not follow
Bosworths recent attempt to assign all southern India to Porus already in Alexanders
lifetime,25 it is clear that Porus and Taxiles were increasingly powerful. Immediately after
Alexanders death, when Poruss power was growing, might there perhaps be occasion
for a coin-type which emphasized his defeat by Alexander? The related coins showing
Indian archers and elephants might evoke the same victories or be struck in order to hire
Indian troops.
For the sake of an alternative hypothesis, two persons are worth considering in 323/2, a
time of uncertainty about the Indian territories. The first is Peithon son of Krateuas who
was sent against the rebellious Greeks in the upper satrapies soon after Alexanders
death.26 His march was reinforced by troops sent from the satraps27 and as Porus and
Taxiles were still recognized rulers of Indian areas and a third satrapy with Indians was
2 1 Hollstein (n. 4) 15-16.
22 D.S. 18.61.6.
23 D.S. 19.14.6.
z4 Sources listed by A. B. Bosworth, The Indian Satrapies Under Alexander the Great,
Antichthon 17 ( 1 983) 37-46 and L. Schober, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Babyloniens und der
Oberen Sutrupien von 323-303 B.C. (Frankfurt 1981) 11-26 whose discussion is rightly more
cautious.
25 Bosworth (n. 24) 39, forcing Photius 71B 40ff. which need only mean that Alexander had given
Porus and Taxiles areas of rule, not the particular area which they held, or received, in 321.
Schober (n. 24) 23-26 gives a more balanced view of the possibilities.
2h W. Heckel, The Marshals ofAlexunders Empire (London 1992) 276-79 lists all sources.
27 D.S. 18.7.3.
R. J . LANE FOX: TEXT AND IMAGE 93
adjacent to Taxiless rule, these troops might have included Indians. Was the bowman-
and-elephant type struck for them, while the big Porus coins were an issue for
Alexanders main army, struck at Babylon and re-emphasizing victory in India soon after
his death? No text, however, specifies Indians among Peithons helpers, although the
texts of his march are not detailed. Alternatively, we might think of the other Peithon, son
of Agenor, who was an emergent figure among Alexanders generals and satraps in India.
He had governed the southern Indian conquests on the Indus and received a satrapy next
to Taxiless realm after Alexanders death: finally he moved west to Babylon in 317/6.
Might he have struck the big Porus coins in India to exalt Alexanders victory over his
royal neighbour Porus, a rival with whom, perhaps, Peithons enmity ran high? Before
321, might he also have needed coins which would appeal to Indian troops and
mercenaries and might he have struck the Indian bowman-and-elephant type in 323/2?
These alternatives are pure speculations because no text supports them: I will argue
that the letter marks on the coins make better sense at an earlier date and place. Here, I
cite them only to air possibilities but if we look much further ahead in time or try to
connect the coin-types with events further west, two limiting points in the texts must be
borne in mind. Indians on elephants did feature in the early war between Ptolemy and
Perdiccas, but i n all the events in Asia and further west, Indian bowmen are never
mentioned after Alexanders death. In 32211, when the designs were laid for Alexanders
funeral chariot, quite a different image of Indian warfare to the one on the big Porus coins
was approved i n Alexanders honour. Elephants were shown, but an Indian was shown
riding in front and a Macedonian behind in customary armour on the same beast.** The
milieu from which this memorial to Alexander emerged is not one i n which coins with a
scene of Indians only on an elephant and Alexander attacking them on horseback seems
entirely at home.
If we credit one or other Peithon with striking the Porus coinage, we also have to
accept that specimens of the bowman-and-elephant type could have travelled back from
India to Babylon and joined our hoard, yet this return journey happened so quickly that
the hoarder, meanwhile, had no other silver coins struck later than 32312 which he wished
to include. Alternatively, the coin-types would have had to be struck at a central mint in
Asia, at Babylon or Susa perhaps, and sent out to Peithon on the Indian frontiers, while
some remained behind for our hoarder. Hypotheses have to be multiplied, whereas there
is a much simpler alternative: the Porus coins were struck at a date between spring 327,
when Alexander invaded India, and early summer 323, when he died.
Already by 1926, there was thought to be a consensus that the Porus medallions
originated in Alexanders lifetime. P. Bernard, conversely, believes that an origin under
Alexander is itself impossible to credit.29 Alexander (he argues) would surely have put
his own name on a coin showing him sous Iaspect 2 demi divinisC dun fils de Zeus; the
coins are poorly struck and designed by un artiste dun niveau bien infkrieur; despite the
royal corps of elephants outside Alexanders tent, elephants (Bernard thinks) were not
particularly important for him; why, too, would he show Indian warriors on coins of his
own? These objections are not cogent. Alexanders issues of double darics and lion
staters are near contemporaries of the Porus issue, but neither carries his own name.30 The
Porus coins might have been struck by a subordinate with royal approval, minting at a
place where the workmanship was not first class. Captions were not added because the
2x D.S. 18.27.1.
29 Bernard (n. 3) 80-8 1.
3o A. R. Bellinger, Essays on the Coinage of Alexander the Great (New York 1963) 66.
94 BICS-41 - 1996
imagery might have been so obvious to contemporaries that none was needed. As for the
elephants and Indian warriors, they could indeed represent foes or forces to whose
imagery, or reality, Alexander wished to appeal. He did, after all, conquer them both and
then employ them for the first time in Greek warfare.
Numismatically, a date in or just after Alexanders lifetime now seems virtually
certain. Textually, nothing in our evidence matches up with such a coinage i n (say) 322/1,
whereas the years 327-324 are full of textual possibilities. I will also argue that such a
date suits the coins lettering. Historically, therefore, the consensus is well founded and
although it is not proven, the alternatives in 323/1 require too many hypotheses to be
worth pursuing instead.
Among the hoards other bits and pieces, there are still some points to be emphasized
which support a dating before Alexanders death. Those coins which can be dated
independently are all coins from Alexanders years of rule in Asia or a period shortly
before it. Published discussions concern a coin of Artaxerxes from Egypt which
Morkholm and Shore correctly ascribed to Artaxerxes 111in the late 340dearly 3 3 0 ~~ A
coin of Sabakes and coins of Mazakes have been connected convincingly with the last
two Persian satraps in Egypt who governed the country before and after I SSUS.~* The
coins of Gaza and Philip I1 also point backwards before Alexanders conquests. In 1989,
a silver coin from Cos emerged and in 1991 was accepted by M. J . Price as a member of
the hoard. He describes its appearance at Babylon as exceptional but does not comment
further on its type.33 To judge from his photograph, there is more to be made of it.
On the obverse, a head in the lion-skin helmet of Heracles faces left; on the reverse, a
rectangular dotted border contains a crab with the word KRIRN above and a club
immediately beneath. Under the club is the name AIRN. Between the crabs claws, the
photograph shows a twisted object: to judge from other Coan coins with the crab symbol,
it ought to be a knucklebone or a snail-shell.
The names on Coss coinage have been understood as names of the states eponymous
magistrate, or monar~hos ;~~ the suggestion has been widely endorsed and it is nicely
supported for the period from c. 300-145 BC when about half of the names on Coan
coins are matched by the names of monarchoi attested i n surviving inscription^.^^In
1978, S. M. Sherwin-Whites lengthy study of the islands history accepted Hills theory
and its extension back into the fourth century BC as probable although no inscriptional
evidence could support it for the earlier period. She also inclined to a widely-held view,
that the institution of the monarchos had begun on Cos in the synoecism of 366/5, that its
tenure was annual (as attested for the Hellenistic period) and that from the 360s to 300,
these annual monarchoi issued coins stamped with their own names.36
After 300 BC, we have evidence: can we read back its pattern to coins of the earlier
period? Historians of Cos assume that we can, although we should perhaps be wary of
assuming that the monarchoi changed yearly when first instituted. If the Coan historians
are right, Dion becomes the senior magistrate on Cos; even if they are wrong, he is
presumably a person of influence. The name is no rarity, although Sherwin-Whites Coan
D1 Morkholm (n. 1) 1-4; Shore (n. 12) 5-8.
3* Price (n. 2) (1991) 67-68.
33 Price (n. 2) (1991) 69.
34 W. R. Paton, E. L. Hicks, Inscriptions ofCos (Oxford 1891) 348ff.
35 S. M. Sherwin-White, Ancient Cos (Gottingen 1978) 188ff.
36 Sherwin-White (n. 36) 187ff.; 70-71.
R. J . LANE FOX: TEXT AND IMAGE 95
prosopography lists very few known examples.37 It has appeared, however, in two very
suggestive settings.
In the Pityos hoard, found on Chios, Coan silver coins with Dions name occur i n a
hoard which includes coins of Pixodarus, the last Hecatomnid who ruled as satrap in
Caria before his deposition in 336 BC.38 The terminal date for this hoard is accepted as
the mid to late 330s: the upper date for individual pieces in it extends as far as the 350s
because coins of Mausolus were also present. Dions coinage on Cos must then belong
between these two dates. A full study of Coss coins in the fourth century is now in
progress: die-links and the evidence of further hoards may allow even greater precision.
Epigraphically, however, we already have an important Dion from Cos, attested since
1972 through the publication of an early third-century BC inscription from L abra~nda.~~
Its central section recites an earlier decree with honours for Dion son of Diodorus, the
Coan which were granted by the Plataseis, a Carian community: they include tax
exemptions, the right to own property and much else besides for Dion and his
descendants because Dion had been helpful, a benefactor and proxenos. These honours
were granted while Pixodarus rules as satrap in Caria, between 341 and 336, therefore,
fitting beautifully with the context for Dions coins which is given by the Pityos hoard on
Chios.
It is probable that a Dion was Coss monarchos; certainly, a Dion of Cos was active
for Carian interests and received a tax-free estate on Carian soil under the last of the
Hecatomnids. Dion, the honoured benefactor in Pixodaruss Caria, was a Coan who had
the power to work significant favours between 341 and 336. Dion, named on the silver
coinage, was a Coan of importance, probably monarchos on the island. His names
appearance on the coinage coincided, surely, with his time of influence during
Pixodaruss reign: the silver coin, found i n Babylon, should have been struck between
341 and 336, fitting neatly with the dating of other stray coins in the hoard.
If G. F. Hill was right in proposing a further connection, more favours from Dion may
yet be ~isible.~O In 1900, Hill argued ingeniously that several portrait heads of Heracles in
a lion skin cap on Coan coins from the mid fourth century strongly resemble the features
of Mausolus himself, as portrayed in the famous Mausolus-statue from the Mausoleum.
The main similarities lie in the line of the nose and the downward sweep of the
moustache, although Hill went further: the silky Oriental moustache, the treatment of the
eye, the slight tinge of melancholy all combine to recall the likeness of the satrap. The
theory was accepted without reservation by Sherwin-White in 1978 and repeatedly cited
as probable or fact i n S. Hornblowers Muusolus in 1982;41 it has become one of the
building-blocks in attempts to write a history of Hecatomnid rule abroad. Numismatists
would nowadays be much more wary.42 The question of human portraiture and its
influence on the features of a god or hero on coins is highly speculative and the
37 Sherwin-White (n. 36) 434.
38 A. Lobbecke, Munzfund auf der Insel Chios, Zts. fur Num. XIV (1887) 149-57.
39 J. Crampa, ed. Labraunda: The Greek Inscriptions iii.2 (Stockholm1972) no. 42 lines 8-18; S.
Hornblower, Mausolus (Oxford 1982) 178.
40 G. F. Hill, Some Coins of Southern Asia Minor in W. H. Buckler, W. M. Calder (eds.),
Anatolian Studies Presented to W. M. Ramsay (Manchester 1923) 207-09, pll. ix-x.
41 Sherwin-White (n. 36) 70-71; Hornblower (n. 40) 134,272 n. 404; plate 36C (probably).
42 R. A. Moysey, Observations on the Numismatic Evidence Relating to the Great Satrapal
Revolt of 362/1 BC, REA 91 (1989) 107-39, at 127-30 and 134-36; on portraits of
Tissaphemes, M. J. Price, REA 91 (1989) 106; onHeracles-Alexander, 0. Palagia, Imitation of
Herakles in Ruler Portraiture. A Survey, Boreas 9 (1986) 137-51; on Zeus-Antiochus IV: R. R. R.
Smith, Hellenistic Royal Portraits (Oxford 1988) 39-66.
96 BICS-41 - 1996
Mausolan label has certainly been applied too hastily to too many different heads of
Heracles since Hill wrote. The likeness which impressed Hill needs to be tested against a
full study of Coss coinage and a comparison with other heads of Heracles on other cities
coins.
Perhaps the heads which Hill picked out will survive such study and still stand out as
special: here, I wish only to emphasize that the same studies should extend to Dions
coinage too. From photographs published in the main sources, it is already evident that
several coin-types were struck on Cos in Dions name. Some have the crab alone, some
have the crab with the shell or knucklebone; some have a Heracles head which faces
right; on others, it faces left.43 The features vary, but to judge from Prices photograph,
the head on the new Babylon coin is not like those on other Dion issues. If Hills eye for
Mausolus as Heracles turns out to have any foundation, perhaps we should think in
Dions case of the influence of a later Hecatomnid, Pixodarus, perhaps, as Heracles on
this distinctive issue.
With or (probably) without a complimentary portrait, Dions coin fits neatly with the
Babylon hoards chronology. The hoard also contained a significant number of coins with
an Aramaic legend which numismatists identify with the Mazaces of Greek sources, the
satrap of Egypt who surrendered to Alexander. Here, there are no problems of
chronology, because these coins of the 330s fit neatly with the pattern of the hoards other
contents. Instead there are historical problems, worth revisiting because numismatists and
historians have been proceeding independently on the point and this new evidence
excludes the latest historical theory.
Since 1938, numismatists have usually followed E. T. Newell i n dividing coins with
the Aramaic legend MZDK between Egypt and Babylonia and attributing both to the
Mazaces of our Alexander historians.4 The Egyptian issue coincided with Mazacess
brief satrapal rule in Egypt during 333/2 which is deducible from our texts; on this theory,
the Babylonian issue is placed outside Babylon after Alexanders conquest in 331 BC.
The new hoard has reinforced the theory of two separate regions for these coins and M. J .
Price has even identified two distinct Mazaces mints in Babylonia itself.45
For historians, these theories are difficult because none of our texts gives Mazaces any
role in Babylonia under Alexander. In 1965, E. Badian declared the notion part of a
numismatists myth (which i t is not) and i n 1976, A. B. Bosworth proposed an
alternative which has passed into his standard commentary on Arrian.46 Bosworth
suggested ingeniously that the Mazaros whom Arrian is alone in mentioning as a
commander of the garrison in Susa was in fact the commander under Darius, that
Mazaces struck coins only in Egypt and only as satrap under Darius and that the
Mazaces-issues in Alexanders Babylonia are in fact issues of Arrians Mazaros, the
governor of Susa under Darius: on this view they have appeared similar to Mazacess
only because of the similarity of name. On the Babylonian issues, he argues, the Aramaic
legends are too indistinct for MZDK to be read with confidence.
43 E. Babelon, Traite des Monnaies Grecques et Romaines 11 (Paris 1910) 1038-39, esp. no. 1748
(Dion coin? Head facing right); B. M. C. Cos, 195 nos. 13 +14; Lobbecke (n. 39) 155 +plate VI
no. 9 (Dion: head facing left; no knucklebone device). H. Ingvaldsen of Oslo University is
preparing a full catalogue of the coinage of Cos, including the 4th c.
44 Newell (n. 13) 62-75.
45 Price (n. 2) (1991) 68.
46 E. Badian, The Administration of the Empire, G&R 12 (1965) 173 n. 4; A. B. Bosworth,
Errors in Arrian, CQ 26 (1976) 1 17-39.
R. J . LANE FOX: TEXT AND IMAGE 97
The new hoard proves that this ingenuity is wrong. MZDK is clearly legible on coins
of Babylonian origin; their dies are linked with imitation Athenian owls which were
certainly struck in Babylonia. Furthermore, these coins are manifestly of a different fabric
from the Egyptian issues, struck under the same name.47 Historians may still feel uneasy
about accepting an unattested job for Mazaces of sufficient prestige to permit him to coin
in Alexanders Babylonia. The point is not, as Badian implied, that a satrapal coinage
under Alexander is historically implausible under a satraps own name: the issues of
Balakros in Cilicia refute that claim.48 The problem is that our texts do not give Mazaces
any job in Babylonia, although they name quite a cluster of Alexanders major appointees
at this point. I suspect there is simply a gap in their information, but other alternatives are
possible. Mazaces may perhaps have coined in Babylonia under Darius in late 333 BC
and then moved west to coin again in Egypt after Issus in 33312: further hoard-evidence
may bear on the likelihood of this sequence.49 Or, as Mme Nicolet-Pierre proposed in
1979, the Mazaces coinage in Babylonia was simply a local imitation of the one which
he issued in Egypt: if people in Babylonia could imitate Athenian owls, could they not
imitate Mazaces-pieces from Egypt too?s0 However, his Egyptian issue was brief and the
proposed imitations in Babylon in the new hoard outnumber the Egyptian originals.
Bosworths further. solution, a change in the text, is the least appealing:s1 he suggests
emending Arrians Mazaros to Mazaces, the ex-satrap of Egypt, and credits him with a
job at Susa under Darius I11 when he had silver owls coined in Babylonia. The job is
unattested, the emendation arbitrary, and why did an official at Susa coin i n Babylonia?
The coins of Dion and Mazaces thus bear on wider horizons in the period from
341-331 BC. Further hoards and die-studies may refine the possibilities, but the main
point still stands: like the hoards coins of Artaxerxes 111, Sabaces, Gaza, Philip I1 and
Mazaeus, these coins of Dion and Mazaces belong in or before Alexanders years of
conquest. Their presence in the hoard reinforces the view that its contents all originate in
Alexanders lifetime.
I11
We can now turn to the bigger questions of origin and meaning: if the Porus coinage
originated during Alexanders lifetime, what did its images signify and where were they
struck? There are questions of method here too: how can we fix the meaning of a unique
image without a caption? How reliably can we relate literary texts to a coins occasion
and context?
In all probability, the first known example of a big Porus coin derived from the Oxus
treasure, found (we now know) at Takht-i-Qobad, near the meeting of the Wakhsh and
Oxus rivers.52 In 1887, when publishing it, P. Gardiner drew attention to the coarse and
47 Price (n. 2) (1991) 68.
48 H. von Aulock, Die Pragung des Balakros in Kilikien, JNG 14 (1964) 79-82 and Price,
Catalogue . . . 1.370.
49 M. J. Price has remarked to methat unpublished evidence of a hoard from Syria makes this
notion unlikely; M. J . Price, New Owls for the Pharaoh, Minerva 1 (1990) 39-40, for advance
notice.
H. Nicolet-Pierre, Monnaies des deux Derniers Satrapes dEgypte avant Alexandre ..., in 0.
Morkholm, N. M. Waggoner (eds.), Greek Numismatics and Archaeology (Wetteren 1979) 229-30.
5 1 Bosworth (n. 46) 123 n. 37.
52 Bernard (n. 3) 92 n. 99, citing the 1979 establishment of this point by E. V. Zejmal.
98 BICS-41 - 1996
brutal types of features of the two figures on the elephant and decided that they must
therefore be Scyths, not Indians. His decision caused him to misdate the new find but he
did confess that looking for the first time at this extraordinary coin or rather medal - for
it is clearly a historical monument - everyone will be tempted to exclaim, Alexander
and Po~us . ~~ Historians are used to misnomers. Like the Edict of Milan, which was
neither an edict nor issued at Milan, the Porus medallion is now known not to be a
medallion: does it relate to Porus or not?
Its interpretation rests on a sequence of inferences, beginning from the images
themselves, whose details have been clarified by the newly found examples. The key to
them is the figure on the reverse who is holding a thunderbolt. He was both clothed and
booted: the newly-found Babylon coins tell against the previous possibility that he was
shown bare-footed, as if he was a hero or a figure of divine status. He is human, therefore,
and i n Alexanders lifetime he must be Alexander himself, the only human to deserve
such an attribute. We also know from texts that Alexander was shown holding a
thunderbolt by his court artist Apelles in a painting displayed at Ephesus (probably, but
not certainly, in his lifetime).54
This specific textual reference fits the interpretation and supports it, but even without
it, the thunderbolt would be the decisive element because at this date it is exceptional.
Clearchus, tyrant of Heraclea, is alleged to have called himself a son of Zeus and named
a son Keraunos; he is also said to have been escorted by a golden image of an eagle.55
These allegations may be false, but none concerning a thunderbolt is known even to
posterity. Two further connections between the coins human figure and other images
have been proposed, each of which would prove its identity: one, however, is uncertain
and the other should now be rejected. In 1981, M. J . Price drew attention to a small
bronze coin from Egypt, struck probably at Memphis soon after 332 BC: he championed
the helmeted head on its obverse as a portrait of Alexander, the successor to the portraits
on previous bronze issues of this type.56 If so, it is the first lifetime portrait of Alexander
which survives from antiquity. His arguments have yet to attract fellow numismatists
comments, and the matter can hardly be decided from reproduced photographs: Price also
suggests that this helmeted head resembles the head of the figure with the thunderbolt on
our big Porus coin. The indistinctness of its features makes it too hard to be sure: as yet,
Prices important theory is uncertain at either end.
In 1962, W. B. Kaiser had already advanced a reasoned case for connecting the
thunderbolted figure on our coin with a figure which is also thunderbolted and stands on
the Neisos gem, now in St Petersburg. Both figures, he believed, were Alexanders,
derived from Apelless lost painting.57 His study is regularly cited and widely accepted,
but its arguments are very forced and closer study of the new Porus coins undermines
53 P. Gardiner, New Greek Coins of Bactria and India, NC vii (1887) 177-78.
54 Pliny, NH 35.192; the eccentric study by E. Schwarzenberg, The Portraiture of Alexander, in
E. Badian (ed.), Alexandre le Grand (Geneva 1976) 223 argues that the portrait was really of Zeus,
mistaken for Alexander later, and that it showed a figure on horseback (he cites Ael. VH 2.3:
however, Pliny, NH 35.95 tells this story without connecting it to Alexander). His arguments are
unconvincing. The Schwarzenberg Head which hepromotes does not impress R. R. R. Smith (n.
43) 62 and despite A. Stewart, Faces of Power (Berkeley 1993) 165-71 and 429 has been
diagnosed as a fake by W. Fuchs, Eine Unbekannte Gemme mit Darstellung Alexanders des
Grossen, Ancient Macedonia V. 1 (Thessaloniki) 455-57.
55 J ustin, Hist. Phil. 16.5.7-10; Memmon, FGH 434 F1.18ff.
56 M. J. Price, A Portrait of Alexander the Great from Egypt, Meddelelser fra Norsk Numismatik
Forening 1 (1981) 30-37.
57 W. B. Kaiser, Ein Meister der Glyptik aus demUmkreis Alexanders, JDAI 77 (1962) 227-39.
R. J . LANE FOX: TEXT AND IMAGE 99
them further. Kaiser emphasized the two figures pose, the thunderbolt in the right hand,
the turn of the head and (he believed) the wearing of a diadem. The newly found coins
make it clear that their Alexander is not wearing a diadem at all and they further weaken
Kaisers arguments from the scale and spacing of the figures. Kaiser has shown no more
than that the Neisos gem may reflect the Apelles portrait. The Porus coins figure exhibits
more differences than similarities. On the Neisos gem, the diademed Alexander is naked;
on the Porus coin, he is not diademed and is clothed in a breastplate, boots (probably) and
a crested helmet with a feather. This helmet is not a Persian cap as suggested in previous
studies. Price and others have emphasized that it is a crested helmet, of a type attested in
northern Greece and Thrace.58
The next move is to connect the coins helmeted Alexander with the figure on
horseback who is shown on its obverse. They are certainly the same person: but whom is
the Alexander of the obverse attacking on the elephant? The two figures on the animal are
bearded Indians, with the characteristic Indian hair style: nothing identifies either of them
as a royal person, but the scene ought to symbolize a victory, because a Victory crowns
Alexander on the coins reverse. We know from our textual framework that Alexanders
great victory over elephants occurred against Porus on the Hydaspes river in 326 BC. In
the texts, the legend of his personal combat with Porus grew: a famous story in Lucian
shows this legend of a duel with Porus being used (rightly or wrongly) against the
reputation of Aristobulus, an eye-witness source.59 The victory coin could perfectly well
depict an encounter which never happened, like the close encounter shown between
Darius and Alexander in the Alexander Mosaic. In the literary sources, however, Porus is
said to have defended himself valiantly against anyone sent to defeat him: how can this
textual tradition fit a scene in which the elephants driver, not his back-seat companion, is
the one who is armed and combatting Alexander?
Here, P. Bernard has made admirable progress by adducing evidence from Indian art
and literature, later in date, admittedly, than this coin but indicative (he would argue) of
Indian custom and tradition.60 In his examples, a king drives his own elephant and sits in
the front position.61 Contrary to modern interpretations, therefore, the driver on the coin
is Porus; he is also the taller of the two figures, matching the sources eye-witness
tradition that the king was of great height. Behind him sits a squire, warding off
Alexanders spear with his bare hands. Bernard rightly rejects the opinion of B. V. Head
that the coins artist misrepresented an elephants legs and gait: like the Aristotelian
author of Historia Animalium 498A, he has aptly rendered the curve in the animals lower
limb.62 Plainly, the artist had seen an elephant and had good sources for what he depicted.
So much for the coin-types reference: Alexanders presence is certain and Poruss is
overwhelmingly likely, although neither is captioned. As for the coins wider meaning, it
hails a great victory for Alexander over a great Indian enemy; Porus is not belittled,
although his elephant is turned away from its attacker, because he himself (as Bernard
58 M. C. J. Miller, The Porus Decadrachm and the founding of Bucephala, Anc. World 25 (1994)
109-20, at 110-1 1.
59 Lucian, How to Write History 12.
6o Bernard (n. 3) 76-79.
61 Price; Catalogue ... 1.452 n. 9 argued that on the Indian archer-and-chariot coins, published by
Nicolet-Pierre, it is the rear figure who holds a spear at the ready, contradicting Bernards new
view. But Hollstein (n. 4) 12 n. 54 denies that a spear is shown and Price (n. 2 ) (1991) 70 no longer
refers to this spear, either.
62 Bernard (n. 3) 89 n. 85, with his brilliant pages 93-94 on the Eastern root of the further word
p&pplSused by Aristotle; Miller (n. 58) wrongly cites Heads objections.
100 BICS-41 - 1996
explains) is shown fighting valiantly. On the reverse, however, victorious Alexander
holds a thunderbolt: like the combat of the two kings, this image is certainly not drawn
from life. What does it mean?
On a coin struck i n Alexanders lifetime, the thunderbolt is highly relevant to
discussions of his divine honours. According to the unknown Hellenistic author
Derkyllos, Poruss elephant counselled Porus to submit to Alexander because Alexander
was the son of Zeus.63 Both M. J . Price and P. Bernard have understood the thunderbolt
in a similar way: it portrays Alexander as the son of Zeus sous Iaspect demi-divinisC.@
For P. Goukowsky, the scene goes further: it evokes apotheosis, connected with the
personal conquest of India and thus with the exploits of Heracles and the theme of a
theos ani ket~s . ~~ If these scholars are right, this solid primary evidence is most
important for Alexanders developing status beside the gods.
We must, however, remember that the coin has no captions. Without them, I suggest,
its meaning for contemporaries can only have been open, especially as the image had no
precedent. Some of those who had heard of Alexanders publicity since Siwah might
agree with Price and Bernards reading of the scene as an image of the son of Zeus;
those who wished to see more might even choose to see Alexander as equated with Zeus
himself. As Alexander returned from India, such an equation was implied in the flattery
of one such extravagant correspondent, Theopompus no less, who wrote as if the honours
fit for Alexander were already honours which would assimilate him to a god.66 It is also
significant that on present knowledge, Alexanders successors avoided this image
altogether: none of them is shown in art or on the coinage with a thunderbolt in one hand
although they were not averse to other allusive, divine attributes6 Unless such images
have failed to survive, it seems that in their milieu, the image was felt excessive.
However, the artists own design may have been more subtle and originally, the coins
imagery may have been intended to say rather less.
For awareness of the possibilities, we need to look ahead, to the images later
recurrence. Rulers and thunderbolts surface again on coinage at Rome in the 30s BC
where silver denarii of Octavian show Octavians head on one side and a herm of J upiter
on the other with a thunderbolt below it: the herm has Octavians own features.68 In a
Roman context, this image can hardly be an unambiguous claim to divine status and
honours but it certainly implies a special relationship with Zeus. As princeps, however,
Augustuss coinage was more restrained, a pattern observed until Domitian. Then,
thunderbolts appear on Imperial coins in the mid-80s. An issue for Trajan repeats the
theme, as does the Arch at Bene~entum. ~~ None of these coins was modelled directly on
our Alexander coinage, but how explicit is their divine imagery?
It is tempting to read them in the extravagant terms of contemporary poetry. Poets in
the Greek world naturally wrote of Augustus as equal to the gods, and in a Roman
context, too, Ovid writes without qualification of Augustus as bearer of J upiters
63 Derkyll. ap. Plut. De Fluviis 1.6.
64 Price, Coinage ... 1.34; Bernard, (n. 3) 80.
65 P. Goukowsky, Essai sur l es Origines du Mythe dAlexandre I (Nancy 1978) 6G63.
66 Theopomp. FGH 115 F 253 with R. Lane Fox, Alexander the Great (London 1973) 412-13;
neither Badian nor Cawkwell (n. 14) even discuss the passage.
67 R. R. R. Smith (n. 43) 40-45.
68 L. Cerfaux, J . Tondriau, LR Culte des Souverains (Louvain 1957) 334.
69 J . R. Fears, Princeps A Diis Electus ... (Rome 1977) 222-23 (Domitian); 228 (Trajans coin);
228-33 (the Arch).
R. J. LANE FOX: TEXT AND IMAGE 101
thunderbolt. Statius and Martial were every bit as explicit about D~mi ti an.~~ However,
what was written in poetry was not necessarily the message of uncaptioned, offical coin-
types. Images were not so explicit and hence they still provoke discussion. Domitians
coinage is particularly relevant because it shows him i n military dress, like Alexander,
being crowned by a Victory. The fullest recent discussion by J . R. Fears, emphasizes a
supposed reference to divine election or investiture of a vice-regent, terms which are
more formal and more suggestive of a coronation than the evidence requires: Fears also
cites the Porus coinage and interprets it as a sign of Alexanders sonship of Zeus and his
use of the concept of divine election as a means for legitimizing his kingship over his
vast newly-conquered Empire.71 These interpretations are excessive, but Fears is right to
emphasize that neither Domitian nor Trajan is portrayed as a god and that in art the
thunderbolt is not to be seen as a statement of the Emperors assimilation to J upiter.72
The coin which shows Trajan holding a thunderbolt is captioned Optimo Principi
SPQR, no less. The Arch of Beneventum has been much discussed, but the recent
comments by G. E. M. de Sainte Croix are pertinent.73 He notes how Trajan, a good
Roman Emperor is shown receiving a thunderbolt (almost certainly, although some have
seen the object as a globe): it is bestowed by the hand of Zeus himself. Although de
Sainte Croix does not mention the Alexander precedent, or the coinages of Domitian and
Trajan, he cites a cautious reading of the scene by I. A. Richmond.74 The awesome
conception of this thunderbolt is not advanced at all in the form of a claim to identity
with J upiter. In the other half of the scene Trajan is shown as solemnly accompanied in
his round of duties by the protector deities of the Roman state . . . A claim to divine right
is thus transformed into a proclamation of divine recognition. As de Sainte, Croix rightly
reminds us, we must still ask recognition for what? Is the scene an adventus, i n which
case the handing-over of the thunderbolt (if that is what it is) must be a general
concession of power, or is it a profectio, i n which event the thunderbolt might perhaps
symbolize no more than military power over external barbarians? The latter certainly
seems more relevant to Domitians thunderbolted coin type which was struck i n
connection with barbarian wars.
These questions are highly pertinent to the Porus coin. It does not show an adventus,
nor (surely) a profectio: rather, Victory crowns Alexander i n honour of an achievement.
Even so, Alexander is wearing his military clothing and on the obverse, he is shown
without any divine imagery, attacking a brave enemy as one human warrior against
another. This clear context of human victory limits the scope of the thunderbolt: it need
only signify that Alexander conquered barbarian India with the special aid of Zeus. Other
observers, then or later, might choose to over-interpret the image as Alexander wielding
the power of a god, but the coin by itself does not impose this strong interpretation. Once,
when Alexander was wounded in India, the Athenian athlete, Dioxippus, is said by
Aristobulus to have greeted the sight of his blood by quoting Homers line about the
gods i ~h o r . ~~ This wound is usually identified with his chest wound among the
70 F. Sauter, Der Romische Kaiserkult bei Martial und Statius (Stuttgart 1934) 54-78.
7 1 Fears (n. 69) 222-27 and 60-61 (Alexander).
72 Fears (n. 70) 226 and 235; Trajans coin, 228.
73 G. E. M. de Sainte Croix, Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World (London 1981) 397.
74 I. Richmond, Archaeology and the After Life in Pagan and Christian Imagery (Oxford 1950)
75 Aristob. FGH 139 F 47.
16-17.
I02 BICS-41 - 1996
Assacenians, when Alexander is said to have remarked, it is not ichor: i t is bl0od.~6 As
it survives, this remark does not happen to be addressed to Dioxippus, but it fits his
flattery neatly and makes up a story whose form and content have other parallels. No
doubt the two comments were given as a pair by Ari~tobulus.~7 The anecdote, like others,
catches very well the two ways of reading the Porus coins image: one is over-
interpretation, the other is minimalist and (according to the favourable contemporary,
Aristobulus) Alexander only endorsed the latter.
V
So much for the reference of the big Porus coins imagery: can we now fix their origin
and account for the related Indian issues and the unrelated type with the chariot and
elephant? Are any literary texts relevant to this problem?
In 1982, M. J . Price worked from the imagery of the coins alone and proposed a novel
dating.78 The big pieces are linked by their lettering to the smaller coins with the Indian
bowmen and elephants. Images of the main weapons of a conquered enemy would be
unprecedented, he suggests, on ancient coinage: these types must therefore symbolize
Indian power at a time when it was still highly estimated or even used by Alexander. He
therefore dates the smaller coins to 327, before the defeat of the Indians at the Hydaspes
where (he adds) the texts show us that the long Indian bows proved useless, as did the
Indian chariots which stuck in the mud. The dating to 327 suits his view (in 1982) of the
big Porus coins, which are linked to them. By emphasizing the coins apparent wear, he
inferred that they must have originated several years before the Babylon hoard closed (in
323/2): a date of 327 suits this feature too.
This dating of the big coins is paradoxical because they show Victory crowning
Alexander and a clear encounter with a warrior who must be Porus. I n 327, there had
been no victory and no Porus. As the argument from wear has been dropped, nothing now
requires this date to be considered. The meaning of the smaller, related coins is also open
to argument. As their types are unique, they might, therefore, depart from the pattern of
coinages which we know elsewhere: why could not the bowman and elephant evoke
hazards, or wonders, confronted in India (as already at Gaugamela) and be issued for
Macedonians in Alexanders own army during or after the campaign? They do not have
to be issued before the Hydaspes battle showed up the weaknesses of bowmen, chariots
and .elephants. Price and others have not remarked that Indian archers, chariots and
elephants continued to trouble (and accompany) Alexander on his way down the Indus.
An Indian archer nearly killed him at the town of Malloi; Musicanus and Sambus had
elephants and Oxicanus maintained elephants but lost them to Alexander; the Oxydracae
even gave him 500 Indian war-chariots which he took with him in 326.79 Indian warriors
on the coinage were not necessarily a symbol of concord or a mark of respect for the
armys Indian recruits. They evoked the Macedonians most exotic victories. In 324/3, on
76 Plut., Al ex. 28.3; Mor. 180E (a leg wound) 341B (an ankle wound among the Assacenians). Arr.
4.23.3 specifies a chest-wound there, showing that Mor. 180E and 341B reflect a small slip (of
memory?) by Plut.
77 Phylarchus, ap. Ath. 6.251C and Satyrus, ap. Ath. 6.251A; Badian, (n. 14) 64 tries nonetheless
to separate Alexs remark from Dioxippuss, claiming that i t was altered precisely to acquit
Alexander of the charge that he believed in his own divinity!
7R Price (n. 2) (1982) 79-82.
79 Arr. 6.10.1 (archers); 6.15.4-6, 16.4, 17.3 (elephants in 325 BC): 5.24.5 and 6.14.3 (chariots,
3261.5).
R. J . LANE FOX: TEXT AND IMAGE I03
the tomb proposed for Hephaestion, Macedonian arms were to be shown separately from
Persian arms, but only so as to emphasize the Macedonians superiority.80 If there is a
hint of Alexanders concord in the coinage, it is better sought i n the long-known double
darics, struck to the old Persian royal type but enlarged to a new weight.81
Inferences from the coins alone are not exact, and so Price and others have turned to
surviving texts, trying to be more specific. Of course a coincidence of text and coin is
gratifying, but it has to be specific in order to carry weight. The odds, however, are
heavily against its presence. The texts which survive are incomplete witnesses and their
overlap with any surviving issue of coin would be a considerable matter of chance. Price
has proposed, nonetheless, one highly attractive connection. In early 324, according to
Plutarch, Alexander gave the coin to the women of Persis which the previous kings had
made customary: whenever they came to Persis, they gave each woman a gold piece. Late
i n Alexanders reign, an eastern mint began to strike gold darics, the traditional coinage of
Persian kings. Are they not the traditional coin which Alexander would have distributed
to the Persian women?82 The connection is attractive but not certain, and even so, it need
not account for the entire purpose of the Alexander darics.
Can a similar text throw light on the origin of the Porus coinage? Several have been
proposed, and the most specific case has been developed by W. Hollstein, following a
note to M. J. Prices article of 1982.83 When Alexander approached Taxila i n 327, its
Indian ruler Omphi (later to be known as Taxiles) greeted him with a wide array of
presents. In Curtius (but not Arrian) they included 80 talents of argentum signatum. The
phrase certainly means coinage, not ingots or bullion, as a passage i n Plinys Natural
History proves.84 Hollstein suggests that Omphi was bringing both the big Porus coins
and the smaller bowman-and-elephant coins which he had struck for Alexanders sake.
This suggestion is not compelling. The big Porus coins show an idealized encounter
between Alexander and Porus on an elephant and also celebrate victory: when Alexander
met Omphi, this encounter was still i n the future. The Porus coins and the bowman-and-
elephant coins are linked by Greek lettering, yet Omphi was an Indian who is most
unlikely to have had a Greek designer. Price suggests that we should think of the
argentum signatum as punchmarked coins, attested i n India before Alexander.8s
Alternatively, we might think of the Indian chariot-and-elephant coins, revealed by the
new Babylon hoard. Their types are not obviously of Greek design and have no Greek
lettering, but once we drop Prices notion that these coins, too, must have originated
before the Hydaspes battle had exposed these weapons weaknesses, we have no reason
to fix them to this particular mention of coinage at Taxila.
The other side of the exchange with Omphi has also attracted comment. Accoi-ding to
Curtius, Alexander gave him 1000 talents from the booty he was carrying: these talents
could have been bullion,darics or anything, but Plutarch refers to this huge gift as
v&zo,a.86 The gift of 1000 talents to an Indian was certainly notorious, because the
texts describe how Macedonians protested at it. However, Plutarch was writing centuries
after the event and its original source, and his use of the word coin is probably loose;
8n D.S. 17.1 15.4.
x2 Price, Coinage ... 1.452 n. 7, with Plut. Alex. 69.1-2 and Ctesias, ap. Plut. Mor. 240 A-B for
Cyruss institution.
83 Hollstein (n. 4) 8-1 1; Price (n. 2) (1982) 84.
84 Q.C. 8.12.15-16; Pliny, N. H. 33.42-46.
x5 Price, Coinage .... 1.452 n. 9.
R6 Q.C. 8.12.16;Plut.Alex.59.5.
A. R. Bellinger (n. 30) 66-68; 72.
1 04 BICS-41 - 1996
Curtiuss mention of the booty which he was carrying is more specific and possibly
nearer to his source: perhaps that source also knew what really happened. In this case, one
word in Plutarch does not help to fix a coinages origin. The Greek lettering AB and Z on
this issue is also inexplicable i n India and even more problematic because it recurs on thc
big Porus coins at least a year later.
Abandoning the texts about Omphi, we should return to the Porus coins themselves.
We need a historical context for two issues, linked by Greek lettering, one of which is
fixed by its victory-type to a date in or after 326. Numismatists now accept that the big
coins are poorly struck, i n comparison with the fine Alexander decadrachms which were
issued at a major mint in the East during the final years of his life. They were probably
not part of a small issue. The seven examples now known have revealed the use of five
separate dies for the reverses, suggesting that they belong to a very considerable
Five-shekel pieces are coins struck to a high value. Between late 326 and 323, therefore,
we also need an occasion when an issue of high value was required. On grounds of
quality the issue ought to be a separate one from the big issues struck i n Alexanders own
name at a major eastern mint which was probably Babylon. Nonetheless, the coin-types
were designed by a Greek artist who was well informed about Indians and elephants and
no doubt the types were meant to be to Alexanders liking.
In a recent study, M. C. J . Miller has reasoned from the horse on one side of the coin
and connected the issue with a newly-founded city.88 The image, he observes, shows
Alexander on Bucephalas, the famous horse who died at the Hydaspes: might not the
coin-issue commemorate him? A city, Bucephala, was founded i n his honour and Miller
suggests a settlement of veterans and mercenaries, needing to be paid off the
decadrachm, therefore, depicts the last charge of Alexanders steed and was minted to
commemorate the death of his beloved friend and the foundation of the city.s9 There is
also a text (which he does not cite) which might bear more interestingly on this
suggestion. Curtius tells us that after founding Bucephala and Nicaea on either bank of
the Hydaspes river, Alexander gave,the leaders of his forces crowns and 1000 gold
pieces each: honour was paid to the others, too, according to the degree or rank which
they held in his friendship, or for work which they had accornpli~hed.~~ If there was ever
a pay-out to mark Bucephala, it was this one, not an unattested gift to veterans and
mercenaries: might our coins be part of this honour, offered to the others i n silver, not
gold, to reflect their lower status? The idea is not unattractive, but Curtius does not
actually specify silver coins: lesser friends may merely have received fewer gold pieces
(darics or Indian booty?). Curtiuss text is thus not explicit, but i t is a better context than
Millers suggestion. Bucephalas surely did not inspire the issue: the horse is only one
figure among several on one side of the coinage; some authors said that Bucephalas died
earlier i n the battle, before the duel with Porus91 (though the artist could be inventing
here, too): Bucephala is not known to have included warriors who were paid off
Alexander founded many cities, in some of which mercenaries were settled, but none of
them can be linked to any issue of coin. The Curtius passage is tempting, but it does not
say that anything new was struck for the donation. Otherwise, the Bucephala theory is
unconvincing.
87 Stewart (n. 55) 201 n. 35, with bibliography.
x8 Miller (n. 58) 109-20.
x9 Q.C. 9.1.6. Arr. 5.14.4: contrast 5.19.5 and Plut. Alex. 61.1
H) Price (n. 2) (1982) 84.
9 I Arr. 5.14.4.
R. J. LANE FOX: TEXT AND IMAGE 105
Nonetheless an origin in India i n or after 326 might seem the natural supposition. It
has, however, been rejected on technical grounds of the bigger coins fabric; it is
unsupported by any text about new coinage (instead of gifts) and it confronts the
notorious problem that we have no evidence that any new coins were struck for
Alexander at any mint i n India itself. Leaving India, therefore, previous numismatists had
already looked back to Susa in 324 as a likely context. Alexander returned to the former
Persian palace, paid off his soldiers debts (at a cost, it was said of 20,000 talents) and
celebrated the weddings of Macedonians and Iranians with further gifts (up to 10,000
talents) and a tent whose splendours are preserved for us i n the words of Chares, his
Master of Ceremonies. These payments were part of a pattern of extravagance which
lasted until 323 and whose variously reported figures have caused F. de Callatay to
compare their cost with the entire sum of silver bullion brought from the New World into
Spain throughout the sixteenth century.92 The Porus coins have often been seen as
medallions, struck to commemorate a royal occasion, perhaps the wedding at Susa. Now
that we know they are coins, they need only belong in the greatest distribution of coin
known in all Greek history. It was well able to account for any number of five and, two
shekel pieces which, in turn, must have coloured contemporary impressions of this year
of royal bonanzas.
It needs emphasizing that the types of Indian warriors and victory fit into this phase as
neatly as i n India itself. Shortly before reaching Susa, so the eye witness Aristobulus tells
us, Alexander stopped in Carmania and paid thank offerings for victory i n India and on
behalf of his army saved from Gedr~si a. ~~ Each of these thanks left a large failure
unsaid: from Carmania, Alexander then marched straight on to Susa, the journey which
romancers soon connected with the theme of a Dionysian triumph i n honour of the Indian
campaign.94 The romancers exaggerated, but Indian coin-types were certainly appropriate
to his general publicity at this stage of his career.
Perhaps historians should not be more specific, but a detail on the coins invites a closer
look. The two types are linked by the lettering AB and E which earlier scholarship
connected with Alexandros Basileus or with a place name (Babylon, perhaps, if the
lettering is read i n reverse, or even Baktra, as Miller has now suggested, on weak
e~i dence).~~ Price has justly criticized each of these interpretations and Bernard has
further observed that AB occurs at a wide range of eastern mints on Seleucid coinage of
the third century.96 He therefore declines to pursue its meaning any further. The presence,
however, of Z on one side and AB on another is unique; practice in Alexanders reign
need not conform to mint-practice i n the third century. In 1982, Price already proposed
that the letters ought to refer to persons connected with the issue: in Alexanders reign
and its aftermath, can we cite examples?
In Cilicia, we have coins with the name or symbol of the satrap Balakros, since the
early 320s; in Prices view, we have the enigmatic Mazaces in Aramaic in Mesopotamia;
we have Aspeisas at Susa, c. 316; we also have Nicocles of Paphos, probably after
Alexanders death, whose name appears almost surreptitiously on the obverse, not
reverse, of his coinage.97
92 F. de Callatay, Les TrCsors Royaux AchCmenides et les A4onnayages dAlexandre, REA 91
(1989) 259-74, at 262; Arr. 7.4.8-7.5; Chares 125 F4; Price, Coinage .... 1.27.
93 Arr. 5.28.3.
94 Arr. 6.28.2 (only a story); Plut., Alex. 67.
95 Miller (n. 58) 115-17.
96 Price (n. 2) (1982) 83-84; Bernard (n. 3) 91; Miller (n. 58) 115-16.
97 Price, Coinage .... 1.34.
I06 BICS-41 - 1996
Among the previous coinage of Philip 11, abbreviated references to individuals is also
accepted.98 What about AB and Z?
In Alexanders lifetime, we have on the reverse of coins which were probably struck at
Abydos, but there is no accompanying AB.99 We have ABs from various mints i n the
third century, but i n Alexanders lifetime the only candidates are coins struck at Susa with
AB in monogram on their reverse.loO We also have Z at Susa, never with AB, but on
other reverses, struck c. 320-316 BC.Iol Believing that these marks might refer to
individuals in the years of Alexanders reign, Price remarked brilliantly i n 1982 on the
claims of Abulites and Xenophilus, attested as the satrap and the garrison-commander at
Susa under Alexander. Io2
He has not developed this neat conjecture and i n 1985, Hollstein simply rejected it as
inadmissible because Abulites did not govern obediently i n the Macedonians interests
during Alexanders absence and Xenophi1us;as a garrison-commander, is not known to
have had authority over any treasure. I o3 Interestingly, each of these objections misses
further evidence which refutes it and strengthens Prices tentative suggestion. According
to Curtius 5.2.16-17, Xenophilus held a cura arcis at Susa already in late 331.
Xenophilus certainly took over the job i n Susa: he was firmly i n post under the
Successors and in Diodorus 19, we meet him repeatedly as master of the monies in Susa
or guardian of the treasure, to whom officers had to apply if they wanted sums to be
released for payments at their discretion.lW Although the Alexander-historians might
seem to imply that the Persian treasures in Susa had all been convoyed to Ecbatana after
Alexanders initial conquest, the implication is plainly wrong. In 317/6 at Susa, we are
told of 15,000 talents of art-works and 5,000 talents of crowns, gifts and spoils under
Xenophiluss supervision. Io5 Plainly, the cura arcis involved a cura thesauri (Diodorus
calls Xenophilus the ~ 9 r p mp o q 6 Ac x ~ ; ~ ~ ~ Curtius says that Xenophilus served i n Susa
under Alexander; Arrians silence on a named appointment is no obstacle; Xenophilus
served in Alexanders later years and survived into the next decade. As the X on a coin
from Susa, struck between 326 and 324/3, he would (despite Hollstein) be the ideal
candidate. Further Xs occur on the reverse of Susa coins, struck c. 320-316, and here,
too Xenophilus was still i n post to account for them. Thereafter, they disappear.
As for AB, Prices masterly catalogue of 1991 shows it nowhere other than Susa
during Alexanders lifetime.Io7 We have to be careful because AB and Z were not the
only letters on Susa coins during this period,I0* but nowhere else do we find them at one
and the same mint. So far from being disobedient, we have evidence for Abulites in
exactly the opposite style, ignored, however, by Hollstein. At Plutarch, Alex. 68.7, we
find Abulites as satrap of Susa, confronting Alexander on his return in 324. The meeting,
we infer from other sources, took place at the Kara Su river outside the old city: Abulites
had prepared none of the necessary supplies, but merely brought 3,000 talents of coin to
y8 Price, Coinage .... 1.370 (Balakros): 452 (Mazaces): 455-56 (Aspeisas);388 (Nicocles).
w Price, Coinage .... 1.226 nos. 1497-99; 1502.
O0 Price, Coinage .... 1.485 nos. 3836-40.
lo1 Price, Coinage . . .. 1.486-7: P216-P220.
Price (n. 2) (1982) 83-84: one might toy with the idea ...
Hollstein (n. 4) 8 n. 2D.
D.S. 19.17.3; 18.1 with 19.15.5.
D.S. 19.18.1.
Price, Coinage .... 2.572.
Price, Coinage .... 1.485-6: no known individual suits the AA for c. 320-316 BC.
(I5 D.S. 19.48.6-7.
R. J . LANE FOX: TEXT AND IMAGE I07
him. Alexander ordered the silver to be thrown to the horses. When they did not taste it,
he said, So what use to us is your preparation? And he arrested Abulites.
This anecdote has been aptly cited by numismatists as evidence that satraps had access
to coin under Alexander. In the context of possible mints in the east, Price has also cited it
and has recently emphasized the quantity of coins required for the 3,000 talents and the
likelihood, therefore, that Abulites struck some of them freshly for his purpose.109
Plutarch implies that the coins were silver (&p&ov), not gold: unlike his mention of
coin in 327, the mention of coins here must be precise. The story requires it, because
Alexander would hardly throw bars of bullion to his horses.
Price considered his proposal of Abulites and Xenophilus to be highly speculative.
Bernard rejected it, without emphasizing that Z and AB do not occur together on any later
coins and that the names of individuals do occur on issues under Alexander; Hollstein
rejected it too, missing the texts which Price did not cite but which revealed Xenophilus
as keeper of Susas treasures and Abulites as satrap with a huge issue of coins in 324. Can
Plutarchs story help us to fix the origin of the two types, the Porus coins and the related
bowman-and-elephant pieces? The risks of explaining the coinages by this text are not the
risks of explaining it by Curtiuss or Plutarchs reference to the gifts exchanged at Taxila
in 327. There, the texts were imprecise and their date did not fit the big coins imagery.
Here, the text fits observed facts about the coins themselves: their lettering (attested
nowhere else in combination in Alexanders lifetime, but explicable by the two Susa
officers names and attested separately on reverses at Susa during their years in power):
imagery of Indian victory (apt after summer 326, and especially apt in 324, as Arrian
shows); the likelihood that the coins were not struck at a major mint because their quality
is lower than the main Alexander decadrachms; the expert consensus that their striking
was poorly executed and that the big coins were struck from several dies, probably for an
issue of some size (Price has independently calculated the large number of coins needed
for Abulitess 3,000 talents, but without considering the striking of big decadrachms as a
possibility.)
Independently, Andrew Stewart has now suggested the relevance of Plutarchs
anecdote, but not all his proposals would be mine.1 If the 3,000 talents are an accurate
total, they cannot all have been newly struck for this sudden meeting with Alexander:
well over a million coins would have been needed in the five and two shekel sizes. In 330
BC, a huge cache of gold darics had been captured at Susa:I1I some of them could have
made up the bulk of Abulitess offering. The coin-types are most unlikely to have been
Susas unprompted idea, a desperate plea for survival, as Stewart suggests. Their
accurate rendering of Indian details, including elephants, and the pose of Alexander must
have been cut to an approved design, the work of a Greek who had served in India and
knew the tenor of Alexanders publicity. Perhaps such a design had been sent back from
India to Susa in or after 326, but Abulites had done nothing more to execute it;
alternatively it could have been sent ahead from Carmania in 324, and Abulites could
have brought the first striking as part of his peace-offcring. The smaller bowman-and-
elephant coins may have been part of this same offering, hastily struck with the issuers
letter marks on different sides of the coin. Alternatively, these smaller coins may have
Price, Coinage .... 1.26 and 456-7 with nn. 24-25.
Stewart (n. 55) 203-06, suggesting, however, that the Susa officials pioneered the design, as if
the implication would have been clear: Alexanders role as Zeus on earth could still leave room for
lesser men, in Persia as in India and as a desperate plea for survival it failed. But this implication
is not clear at all, and the design is hardly Abulitess own, let alone a plea.
D.S. 17.66.2; Plut.Alex. 36.
108 BICS-41 - 1996
been minted earlier, in 32615 perhaps, for despatch from Susa to India112 where
Alexander was still to use and encounter Indian archers and war-chariots. They might
have been part of a donative, perhaps a back-up to the very one in Curtius for 32615.
This general context cannot be made exact, but Plutarchs anecdote is attractive
evidence for the coinages origin. It was a coinage struck at Susa commissioned by
Alexanders staff; it was not an issue devised as a plea for survival by an unruly satrap.
In Plutarch, we glimpse its existence, but not its initiation. I hope to have established that
the Porus types were not struck i n 327; they were not commemorative medallions; they
were not unambiguous statements of Alexanders divinity; I also hope to have refuted the
textual contexts for their issue, aired since 1982: 32716 (Price and Hollstein); 326
(Miller, to commemorate Bucephalas); 3 1716 (Bernard, for Eudamus). An overlap
between a text and a coin-issue is a rare coincidence and except for the total lack of
evidence for any new minting in India, we might wish to think of an issue for one or other
donative to troops there, on the model of Curtiuss random reference at 9.1.6. The coins
lettering, however, would still need to be explained. In 1982, Price mentioned Abulites
and Xenophilus as a possible answer but did not cite the texts which do most to
strengthen his guess. Rejections of his view have not considered them, either, or have
merely referred to the lettering on much later coins. Texts, facts about the coins and their
fabric and a neat explanation of their lettering converge on the satrap and his treasurer.
They suggest that the Porus coins were struck at Susa, not to pay debts or dowries, and
that they existed there early in 324. Perhaps future examples should also be tested for
hoofprints.
New College, Oxford
112 D.S. 17.95.4 for goods (including many precious suits of armour) despatched to Alex. in India
fromhis Western conquests.

You might also like