Large Ptolemaic Bronzes in Third-Century Egyptian Hoards / Catharine C. Lorber

/';-=09
)(8*=-0/']
This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 11:28:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CONTENTS
James A. Schell. Observationson the metrologyof the precious
metal coinage of Philip II of Macedn: the "ThracoMacedonian"standardor the Corinthianstandard?
Peter G. van Alfen. The "owls" fromthe 1973 Iraq hoard
Melh Arslan and Aya zen. A hoard of unpublishedbronze

coins of PtolemyCeraunus
59
Catharine C. Lorber. Large Ptolemaic bronzesin third-century

67
Egyptianhoards
Brian Kritt, Oliver D. Hoover, and Arthur Houghton.
Three Seleucid notes
93
Michael L. Thomas. An imitativeunsealed semisfromnorthern

113
Etruria
Martin Beckmann. The early gold coinage of Trajan's sixth
consulship
119
David Woods. Julian,Gallienus,and the solar bull
157
Stuart D. Sears. An 'Abbsid revolutionhoard fromthe western

Jazra (al-Raqqa?)
171
L. A. Saryan. An unpublishedsilverdouble tramof GosdantinI

(1298-1299),kingof CilicianArmenia
195
Warren C. Schultz and Haim Gitler. A Mamlukbronzeweight

in the Israel Museum, with furthercommentson this rare
metrologicalspecies
John M. Kleeberg. Three notes on the private gold coinage of
the United States
205
215
BOOK REVIEWS
Ian Carradice, Greekcoins. N. K. Rutter, The Greekcoinagesof
southernItaly and Sicily. CarmenArnold-Biucchi
239
SoHEiR Bakhoum, ed., SyllogenummorumGraecorumFrance 4.

des monnaies,mdailleset antiques,AlexandrieI.
Dpartement
Auguste-Trajan.William E. Metcalf
247
Philip Grierson, Catalogue of the Byzantine coins in the

DumbartonOaks collectionand in the Whittemore
collection,
volume 5. Robert Hallman
249
Philip Grierson and Lucia Travaini, Medieval European
coinage,witha catalogueofthecoinsin theFitzwilliamMuseum,
(South Italy, Sicily, Sardinia).
Cambridge14: Italy (III)
William R. Day, Jr.
254
ACQUISITIONS FOR 1999 IN THE

AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY COLLECTION
Greek.CarmenArnold-Biucchi
261
Roman and Byzantine.William E. Metcalf
265
Islamic and East Asian. Michael L. Bates
266
Medieval.
267
Medals and decorations.
269
Modern,Latin American,and US. JohnM. Kleeberg
270
AJN Second Series 12 (2000) pp. 67-92

Numismatic
2001TheAmerican
Society
LARGE
PTOLEMAIC
THIRD-CENTURY
BRONZES
EGYPTIAN
IN
HOARDS
Catharine C. Lorber*
(Plates 12-17)
In recentyears two major findshave enlargedour already significant

Ptolemaic
inventoryof Egyptian hoards containinglarge third-century
bronzes. Both of the new hoards were unearthed in the course of
archaeological excavations in Egypt, and thus their integrityis
assured. A pot hoard of 456 Ptolemaic bronzes, hidden beneath the
foundationsof the settlementwall of Area 5 at Saqqra, was published
in 1988 by MartinPrice (Price 1988:66-70). Following Price, we shall
referto this importantfind as the Anubieion hoard. A hoard of 679
Ptolemaic bronzes, discoveredin the stairwellof Ptolemaic House D
at Elephantine, was published in 1993 by Hans-ChristophNoeske
(Noeske 1993:206-208). These new finds, considered together with
eight hoards published previously,offerfreshevidence for the chronologyof Ptolemaic bronze currencyin the thirdcentury,and forthe
denominationsof that currency.
Of the eightearlierhoards,two passed throughcommercialchannels
beforebeing analyzed by numismaticscholars:a hoard reportedlyfrom
Lower Egypt ( 1GCH 1691), published by Edward T. Newell, and a
hoard in the J. Paul Getty Museum, published by Paolo Vison
(Newell 1935:51-67; Vison 1978-79:153-162). The remaining six
hoards receivedmore summarytreatment.J. G. Milne brieflyrecorded
* 5450Fenwood
Woodland
Avenue,
Hills,CA 91367,USA.
67
68
Large Ptolemaic Bronzes
three hoards of uncertain Egyptian provenance stored in the Cairo

Museum ( IGCH 1696-98) (Milne 1908:32). Three additional hoards
came to light throughcontrolledexcavations: a hoard found in the
walls of the temple of Ramesses at Thebes ( IGCH 1699) (Quibell
1896:13; Newell 1935:64-67), a pot hoard from Birabi near Luxor
( IGCH 1700),1and a funeraryofferingplaced beneath the floorof the
vestibule of a brick-vaultedtomb at Birabi (Carnarvon and Carter
1912:43-45).2 The last find was described by its excavators as "new
coinage" that is, coinage unusuallyfreshforUpper Egypt (Carnarvon
and Carter 1912:46). Its intermentcan be placed, at least approximately, by two demotic papyri found in a nearby tomb, both dated
to year 4 of Harmachis,that is, 202/1 BC.3
These ten hoards comprise a solid body of evidence, more than
usually reliable because of the known provenance and archaeological
pedigreeof five of the ten. It is notable that fourof the provenances
are Upper Egyptian and the otherMiddle Egyptian. Thus these hoards
reflectconditionsin the south, and the conclusionsdrawn fromthem
may not necessarilybe applicable to Lower Egypt. In this respect
these hoards resemblethe papyrologicalevidence,whichalso originates
outside the Delta.
In the absence of an establishedterminologyforPtolemaic bronzes,
the hoards under consideration here were classified using several
differentapproaches. Newell referredto heavy and light units and
halves (Newell 1935:65). Price identifiedfourdenominationswhich he
labelled with Roman numerals I-IV (Price 1988:66).4 Other authors
provided weights and diameters,or simply cited catalogue numbers
fromSvoronos or SN G Copenhagen(Svoronos 1904-08; Kromann and
Morkholm1977). In orderto compare all the hoard contents,we shall
make use of the followingabbreviationsto indicate coins of similar
1
Museum
ofArt,leavingonlya
fromtheMetropolitan
Unfortunately
dispersed
Numismatic
inthephotofilesoftheAmerican
Society.
partialrecord
hoard.
to thislittle-known
drewmyattention
R.A. Hazzardkindly
3 Pestman
first
regnalyearto 205/4.
(1967:44)datedHarmachis'
4 In addition,
and
Priceperformed
a metrological
Newell,
studyontheAnubieion,
of
the
The
table
small
hoard
coins
(1988:68)contrasting weights
(1988:69).
Getty
withPrice'shistoII and III is inconsistent
underPtolemies
thesedenominations
grams(1988:69)andshouldbe overlooked.
Catharine e. Lorber
69
diameterand weight,that is, coins presumablyof the same denomination. The weightsare idealized to facilitaterecognitionof the metrological relationships.
module A
module B
module C
module D
module F
module G
module I
c.
c.
c.
c.
c.
c.
c.
45 mm, c. 96 g
40-43 mm, c. 72 g
38 mm, c. 48 g
35-36 mm, c. 36 g
30 mm, c. 24 g
27-28 mm, c. 18 g
24 mm, c. 12 g
RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY
The Anubieion hoard had an earlier closure than the comparable
hoardsknownat the time of its publication.Price used the comparison
to demonstratethat three bronze series representedin the Anubieion
hoard- one unmarked (Svor. 1002ff.),one marked with the letter E
and its variants E and t (Svor. 974ff.),and one marked with the
letterA (Svor. 1166ff.)-had to precede the familiarseries of Ptolemy
III markedwith the monogram& (Svor. 964ff.).By analogy with the
precious metal coins, he proposed the followingsequence of controls:
unmarked,E and variants, A (no precious metal equivalent), and &
forPtolemy III; and ZE (with variants 2E and Z) followedby Al (and
Al) forPtolemy IV (Price 1988:68, 70).
The Elephantine hoard, in contrast to the others cited here,
consisted predominantlyof bronzes of Ptolemy II belonging to the
expanded denominationalsystemintroducedafter c. 261 BC.5 It had
an earlier closure than even the Anubieion hoard (see Table 1). The
only coins in the Elephantine hoard later than Ptolemy II were
markedwith the controlletterA between the legs of the eagle on the
5 For a
of thiscoinage,see Morkholm
conspectus
(1991:105);see also Hazzard
(1995:64).
70

Table 1.
Control Module
Anubieion Newell
Elephantine
No.ofspecs.Cat.no(s). Cat.no(s).a
II,reformed
Ptolemy
coinage
5
Unmarked
B,c. 72g (Sv.413)
4
F,c.24g (Sv.415)
A
28
B,c. 72g (Sv.422)
6
F,c.24g (Sv.423)
A
88
B,c. 72g (Sv.437)
"early
group"
29
1-7
F,c.24g (Sv.438)
8
I,c. 12g (Sv.439)
E
8
B,c. 72g (Sv.447)
13
13-15
F,c.24g (Sv.449)
16(1)
F,c.24g (Sv.449var.) 2 (3)
2
I, c. 12g (Sv.450)
Z
2
F,c.24g (Sv.458)
2 (VW)
0
A,c.96g (Sv.462)
83
B,c. 72g (Sv.463)
14
8-12
F,c.24g (Sv.465)
5
I,c. 12g (Sv.467)
0 - ME B,c. 72g (Sv.464)
19
4
F,c.24g (Sv.466)
116
A
B,c. 72g (Sv.479)
5
F,c.24g (Sv.481)
3
I, c. 12g (Sv.482)
26
O
B,c. 72g (Sv- )
5
F,c.24g (Sv- )
95
P
B,c. 72g (Sv.497)
2
F,c.24g (Sv.498)
3
c.
24
F,
g
y
Y
28
B,c. 72g
35
X
B,c. 72g (Sv.514)
III
Ptolemy
355-356 29(VG)
A
c.
96
A,
g (Sv.478)
Getty
Cat.no(s).b
3 (W)
4-5(W,G)
a Newell's
VW = "veryworn";W
areabbreviated
as follows:
indications
ofcondition
= "worn";
G = "good";VG = "verygood;"F = "fine."
b Parenthetical
of
andestimate
countofeachvariety
theauthor's
entries
represent
those
of
Vison.
cases
from
in
some
which
wear,
varyslightly
average
Catharine e. Lorber
C,c.48g (Sv.1166)
D,c.36g (Sv.1167)
G,c. 18g (Sv.1169)
A,c.96g (Sv.446)
C,c.48g (Sv.974)
D,c.36g (Sv.944a)
G,c. 18g (Sv.975)
E
E
A,c.96g
C,c.48g
C,c.48g
G,c. 18g
Unmarked
A,c.96g (Sv.412)
B,c.72g (Sv.1002)
C,c.48g (Sv.1172)
G,c. 18g (Sv- )
B,c. 72g (Sv.964)
D,c.36g (Sv.965)
F,c.24g (Sv.966)
Al
Al
B,c.72g (Sv.1126)
D,c.36g (Sv.1128)
B,c.72g (Sv.1125)
D,c.36g (Sv.1127)
B,c.72g (Sv.992)
D,c.36g
B,c.72g (Sv.992)
D,c.36g (Sv.993)
IE
B,c.72g (Sv.992)
C,c.48g (Sv.1148-49)
D,c.36g (Sv.993)
71
357-386
130-132
(4,worn)
133(- )
26
13
388-409
410-438
19-34
4-11
8-20
(7W,5G,1VG) (8,some
wear)
35-185
21-24
106-123
some
(2W,2G)
(15, wear,
toworn)
tending
186
187-217
134
(1,some
wear)
218-219
220-313 25-28
124-129
wear,
(IG,3VG) (10,some
toslight)
tending
314-323
324-325
1 (G)
1-3
(3,some
wear)
35(1,slight
wear)
104-105
wear)
(1,sl.-some
18
30-37
(1W,1G, 12-28
(17.slight
wear
tofresh)
2VG,
4F)
38-39
29-33
(1VG,
1F)
(5,slight
wear)
34(1,some
wear)
IV
Ptolemy
40-41
55-63
(1VG,
1F)
(9,some
wear)
42-43
(IG,IF) 64-66
(3,worn)
44-57
(1W,7G,6F)
36-50
(18,some
wear)
51-53
(4,slight
wear)
66-69
89-100
tosome
(2G,1VG,
1F) (10,slight
wear)
101
to
(1,slight
some
wear)
58-60
to
(F) 67-76
(9,slight
some
wear)
77-81
(4,slight
wear)
61-65
82-87
(IG,2VG,
2F) (6,slight
wear)
102-103
(2,slight
wear)
88
(1,slight
wear)
72
reverse.6This suggeststhat Price placed the A series too late in his

sequence of controlsforPtolemy III. The presentauthor foundconfirmation in her reexaminationof the Gettyhoard, deemingthe coins of
the A seriesto be moreworn,overall,than any othercomponentof the
hoard. The series marked E and E (with variants) showed somewhat
less wear, and the unmarkedseriesappeared to be yet more recent.7
The * series is confidentlyattributedby all authoritiesto Ptolemy
III, because its control is shared by Attic-weightpentadrachmsof
Berenice II in gold and silver (Svor. 962-963). This series is decidedly
the freshestcomponentof the Getty hoard, a fact that on its surface
would seem to suggest that the series was that last issued before
deposit of the hoard. Yet the Getty hoard contains coins fromseries
generally attributed to the fourth Ptolemy. Vison attempted to
account forthe discrepancyby characterizingthe later coins as a circulation componentwithin a savings hoard (Vison 1978-79:156-157).
The Newell hoard seems to presenta similaranomaly. Newell assigned
comparablegrades to the * series and to later componentsattributed
to Ptolemy IV. But a glance at Newels plates reveals more wear on
coins (Newell 1935:pl. ix, 41,
the coins of Ptolemy IV than on the
as "fine."Price wrote of
all
described
and
42, 49, 63,
pl. viii, 30, 39),
the dramatic improvementin the style and alloy of the * bronze
series,which he characterizedas a reform(Price 1988:68). A superior
alloy mightindeed help to account forthe ratherbrilliantconditionof
this group in the Gettyand Newell hoards.
6 Noeske
IV, withtheresultthatmostof
gavethisseriesto Ptolemy
(1993:207)
to
to Ptolemy
hoardcoinswereattributed
theElephantine
II, anda smallremainder
of
of
coins
absence
for
the
remarkable
IV.
As
Ptolemy
explanations
possible
Ptolemy
he suggested
coinfinds,
III, notonlyfromthehoardbutalso fromtheindividual
produced;
(1993:208)thatthe coinsof PtolemyIII wereperhapsratherscantily
to UpperEgypt;or
thattheymaynothavehad timeto travelfromAlexandria
them.
forexcluding
thattheremayhave beenpoliticalreasonsat Elephantine
hoardare takenintoaccount,reattribution
of theAnubieion
Whenthecontents
to thelacuna.
solution
seemsthemostsatisfactory
from
thatofVison,who
results
different
Theauthor's
grading
yieldedslightly
leastwearand 6
from1 to 6, with1 representing
a numerical
system
employed
bronzeseries
the
various
to
Vison's
most
wear.
system,
According
representing
av.
av. 3.5; E series,
av. 4; A series,
ofwear:E series,
degrees
displaythefollowing
av. 3.
series,
3.2;andunmarked
Catharine e. Lorber
73
Price's relativechronologyforthe bronzeissues of PtolemyIV is also

open to question.Assumingthat Philopatoremployeda consistentalloy
forhis bronze coinage,the relativewear of different
seriesin the Getty
hoard suggeststhe followingsequence: Al, Al, 2, 2E, IE. Newell had
already rejected the notionthat the controlsof the bronze coinage ran
strictlyparallelto those of the preciousmetal coinage,insistingthat the
style of the bronze coins must preclude placing 2E beforeAl (Newell
1935:63-64). Vison recordedthreedie linksamong twelve coins of the
Al series, and two links among fifteencoins of the 2E series (Vison
1978-79:156). These linksconfirmthat these seriesare among the latest
representedin the Getty hoard, but are probably inconclusivewith
respectto the relativechronologyof the two controls.
The hoard evidenceis not perfectlyconsistent,but on a whole seems
to supporta revisionof Price's sequence of emissionsas follows:A, E,
E and variants,unmarked,&, Al, Al, 2, 2E, 2E.
THE BRONZE DRACHM
This group of hoards raises questions about the largest bronze coin
ever struckby the Ptolemies,our module A, with a weightof about 96
grams. The obverse type is a head of Zeus Ammon right,and the
reverse type eagle with spread wings standing left on thunderbolt,
head reverted.The elementsof the legend are transposedfromtheir
usual positions,with the kinglytitle on the left and the royal name
on the right. Only a handful of emissions of module A have been
recorded:unmarked(Svor. 412); issues marked with the controlletter
E (Svor. 446) and its variants E ( Anubieion218-219), t (Mit Rahineh
hoard, IGCH 1714, photo in ANS photo file), and (observed by the
author in the Gettyhoard); and issues marked 0 (Svor. 462), A (Svor.
478), and 2 (Svor. [addenda] 502a). The last, in fact, must be considered questionable.The only example recordedthus far (HunterIII, p.
364, 17) has a quite worn controlletter.Macdonald's readingof 2 can
be accepted only provisionally, pending publication of a better
preservedspecimen.8
8
theoriginal
form
ofthecontrol
wasE or C. However
J.D.Batesonwas
Possibly
74
varietiesof moduleA to the reign

Svoronosattributedall then-known
of PtolemyII. However no example of this module was includedin the
Elephantinehoard,the only one of our ten hoardsformedlargelyunder
Philadelphus.Close studyofthe Lower Egypt hoardpromptedNewellto
reassignexamples of module A marked A and E to Ptolemy III. He
observed that they were of "distinctlybetter"average conditionthan
the hoard coins listed under Ptolemy II, which he describedas "very
much wornindeed." Newell noted that the same argumentcould apply
to the unmarkedspecimenof module A in the hoard, but that stylistic
considerationshad caused him to leave it among the issues of the
second Ptolemy,whereas affinitiesof style and execution drew the A
and E issues into relation with other bronzes of Ptolemy III (Newell
1935:58-59). Also included in the hoard was a single specimen of
module A marked with 0, the only example of its denominationthat
displayedheavy wear consistentwithan attributionto PtolemyII.
The Anubieionhoard too displayed a clear divide between an early
group,showingconsistentwear, and a largergroup of freshcoins that
had apparentlycirculatedonly briefly(Price 1988:67). Module A was
not representedin the early group, but specimensmarked with A, E,
and E were included in the second group.9 Further evidence comes
fromthe Gettyhoard, whose specimensof module A (unmarkedand E
series)were the only coins attributedto PtolemyII by Vison. They do
not in fact stand out as morewornthan the rest of the hoard contents.
This hoard was actively marketedbeforecomingto rest at the Getty,
so we cannot be certain of its original contents;but if specimensof
module A were sold off,they were likelythe freshestexamples of the
denomination.The Getty hoard as now constitutedreflectshoard
formationbeginningonly under Ptolemy III. This is consistentwith
bronze hoards summarized
the makeup of the remainingthird-century
in Table 2.
to agreewith
himself
inclined
kindenoughto examinethe coinand pronounces
Z (noteof9 June1997).
Macdonals
reading
a reform
ofthebronzecoinageunderPtolemy
Price(1988:68)hypothesized
III,
fromc. 96 g to c.
was increased
denomination
oftheheaviest
in whichtheweight
is notconfirmed
increase
105g. Thissupposed
by Price'sownmetrological
weight
on p. 69 andshouldbe rejected.
datacollected
75
Catharine e. Lorber
Table 2.
Coin
emissions
A
C, c. 48 g (Sv. 1166)
D, c. 36 g (Sv. 1167)
G, c. 18g (Sv. 1169)
E
A, c. 96 g (Sv. 446)
C, c. 48 g (Sv. 974)
t
C, c. 48 g (Sv. 974v)
Unmarked
A, c. 96 g (Sv. 412)
*
B, c. 72 g (Sv. 964
D, c. 36 g (Sv. 965)
Luxor8 RamesseumIGCH IGCH IGCH Carnarvon

(Birabi) (Thebes, 1697b 1696b 1698b c(Birabi)
IGCH nearLuxor)
1700 IGCH 1699
III
Ptolemy
V
7
y/
V
1"
2
13
V
7
3+
Ie
7
J
8
5
5
9
10
8
24
21
J
V
8 TheLuxorhoardwasa
157coins;it found
excavations,
pothoardfrom
comprising
The contents
itswayto theMetropolitan
andwas subsequently
Museum
dispersed.
herearebasedon photosoffifteen
coinson filewiththeANS,butprecise
reported
numbers
cannotbe specified.
obviously
b FromMilne
ofmodule
brief
(1908:32).Milne's
synopsis
lumpedtogether
specimens
C withthecontrols
A and E. The totalswereIGCH 1697,13; IGCH 1696,13;
IGCH 1698,40.
c Carnarvon
and Carter(1912)recorded
thehoardcoinsby denomination,
listing
of
control
varieties
without
thebreakdown.
16 specimens
specifying
Theyreported
module
of73
intotwogroups,
onewithan averageweight
A,whichtheysubdivided
of67 g and
of42 mm,theotherwithan averageweight
g andan averagediameter
an averagediameter
of
of 40.5 mm.ModuleC was represented
by 17 specimens,
whichtheoneillustrated
in fig.13 (withcontrol
morewornthanthe
E) wasvisibly
otherthreedenominations
all ofwhichborethecontrol Specimens
of
illustrated,
moduleD totalled14.
d Thiscontrol
wasrecorded
as A byQuibell(1896).TheA reading
wassuggested
by
Newell(1935:65).
e
thecontrols
on thiscoinwereillegible.
Milne(1908:32)listedthree
Apparently
Svor.412,446,or 462,corresponding
to theunmarked,
references,
E, and
possible
0 emissions.
76
Coin
emissions
Luxor RamesseumIGCH IGCH IGCH Carnarvon

(Birabi) (Thebes, 1697 1696 1698 (Birabi)
IGCH nearLuxor)
1700 IGCH 1699
IV
Ptolemy
Alf
B, c. 72 g (Sv. 1125)
D, c. 36 g (Sv. 1127)
Ie
B, c. 72 g (Sv. 992v)
D, c. 36 g (Sv. 993v)
ZE
B, c. 72 g (Sv. 992)
D, c. 36 g (Sv. 993)
8
5
5
6
6
6
14
9
J
V
V
V
V
V
11
13
5
5
6
8
7
6
' Milne
Svor.1125-28.
theAl andAl emissions,
(1908:32)lumped
together
8 Notdistinguished
and by mostoftheearlyhoardreports.
fromIE by Svoronos
hoard.
oftheCarnarvon
is Carter's
Theexception
description
The controls0 and 2 were employedonly underPtolemyII, while the
hoard evidence suggeststhat all the othervarietiesof module A were
issued under Ptolemy III. This is a reattributionof some consequence,
because module A was identifiedby J. G. Milne as the bronze drachm,
and some subsequent scholarshiphas reiteratedthis opinion (Milne
1938:204; Thompson 1951:366; Hazzard 1995:65). Since only a few
issues were struck,the corollaryhas been that the weight standard
was subsequentlyreduced, so that module B became the new bronze
drachm (Hazzard 1995:65; Weiser 1995:42, 48-52 [placing the reduction in 256 BC], cf. p. 30, 19-21; Maresch1996:52-55). This reconstruction becomes fairly implausible if the bronze drachm, a key
denominationof the Ptolemaic currencysystem,was struckfor only
two of the numerousseriesissued under Ptolemy II.10 Worse, of these
10Oneserieswasunmarked
A
thecontrols
employed
(Svor.413-418).Theothers
I
E
A
B
447-453),
(Svor.
(Svor.422-427), (Svor.431-431a), (Svor.437-442), (Svor.
457-458), (Svor.462, 463, 465, 467-470),0- PE (Svor.464, 466), I (Svor.
I (Svor.491,Kln31),O (Elephantine
hoard,Curium
472-474),A (Svor.479-485),
Catharine e. Lorber
77
Table 3. Bronze denominationsof Ptolemy II and

Ptolemy III by series
A
E, etc.
Unmarked jfc
C
DD
F
G
III
B (scarce) B
C
D
D
FF
G
I
I
K
L
L
M
N
AI
AI
IE
D
F
B
CC
D
F
D
F
to themodules
defined
in thetext,thistablelistssmaller
Note:In addition
denominations
whichdo notoccurinthehoards:moduleK, c. 20-21mm,c. 6 g; module
L,
c. 17-20mm,c. 4-4.5g; moduleM,c. 16 mm,c. 3 g; andmoduleN, c. 13 mm,c.
1.5g.
two emissions,only one was substantial; as noted above, module A
markedwith the controlletter2 has thus far been recordedin only a
single,doubtfulexample.
The author has urged elsewhere that module B, produced abundantly under Ptolemy II, must have been the bronze drachm, and
that module A must have represented a bronze octobol (Lorber
1995-96). But the sequence of emissions derived from the hoard
evidence presentsproblemsfor this interpretationas well (see Table
3). Module B was not minted for the series marked with A, E, or E
(and variants). Examples of module B fromthe unmarkedseries are
very rare. The single specimen in the Getty hoard seems closer in
style,fabric,and conditionto the & seriesthan to the otherunmarked
coins in the hoard (Vison 1978-79:156); conceivably it representsa
later cycle in the mintingof the unmarkedseries. Beginningwith the
P (Svor.497-501),I (Svor.502a,S. Hustoncoll.[modules
F andI]), T
excavations),
Y (Svor.509-511),
X (Svor.
(Svor.504-507),Y (Kln23-24,28,Elephantine
hoard),
514-516),andQ (Svor.519).
78
series,whose styleand alloy suggesta coinage reform,module B was

restoredto regular productionand reigned again at the head of the
bronze currencysystem.The impressionthus gleaned fromthe hoards
is frankly inelegant: module B was the largest and presumably
standardbronze coin duringmost or all of the latterreignof Ptolemy
II. Under his successor,at least in the firsthalf of his reign,the largest
and presumablystandardbronze coin was module A. Later in the reign
module B was reintroduced,
replacingmodule A as the principalbronze
coin of the monetarysystem.
Do these phenomenareflectactual changesin the weightstandardof
Ptolemaic bronze coinage? Or was monetaryproductionsimplyorganized in cycles that emphasized differentdenominations, without
entailingchanges in the weight standard? The smaller denominations
associated with modules A and B in the hoards argue in favor of the
formerinterpretation(see below under "MetrologicalBiases"). Final
judgment must neverthelessbe suspended pendinga thoroughreview
of Euergetes'coinage.
Any attemptto explain the apparent increase in the bronze weight
standard under Ptolemy Euergetes and/or his later return to the
standard of his fatherare merelyspeculative,given the presentstate
of our knowledge.The economic dislocationsresultingfromthe failed
Nile inundationsof 245 and 241 may have inspiredadjustmentsto the
monetarysystem.The temporaryrestorationof the Attic standardfor
gold and silvercoinage in the name of Queen Berenice may representa
correspondingadjustmentin the precious metal coinage. The congruence between the weightof module A and the Egyptian deben, if not
simplyfortuitous,may make more sense under Euergetes than under
Philadelphus11:the famineof 245 provokeda rebellionin the countryside severe enough to recall the king fromhis foreignwar, and his
policies showed a new solicitudefor the
subsequent religious-dynastic
native population.12Eventual depletionof the kingdom'ssilversupply
11Onthe
to thedeben,seePicard
bronze
Ptolemaic
ofthelargest
correspondence
Morkholm
earlier
literature,
(1991:11,105),andHazzard(1995:65with
(1998),citing
n. 23).
wereaddedto theEgyptian
III andBerenice
II, theTheoiEuergetai,
Ptolemy
ofthelivingPtolemies
theworship
rulercultin238,inaugurating
bytheirEgyptian
Catharine e. Lorber
79
forceda greaterrelianceon bronze as opposed to silvercoinage.13This

shift may somehow be associated with the eventual reversionto a
lighterbronze weightstandard.
METROLOGICAL BIASES
The Elephantinehoard is composed almost exclusivelyof module B
and its thirds and sixths, modules F and I; only under Ptolemy III
were different
fractionsadded, modules D and G, the half and quarter
of module B. The absence of module A may perhaps support the
hypothesisthat this denominationwas produced only scantily under
Ptolemy II. Its half denomination,module C, is also excluded, again
perhaps reflectinglimited productionunder Ptolemy II.14 While it is
far from conclusive evidence, the makeup of this hoard would be
more consistentwith identificationof module B ratherthan module A
as the bronze drachm.
The Anubieionhoard shows a metrologicalbias in favorof module A
and especially its half denomination,module C. Modules D and G, if
their ideal weights are reckoned slightlylower, at c. 32 and c. 16
grams,could have passed as the thirdand sixth of module A. Only a
single denominationof Ptolemy II (module F) found its way into the
hoard, perhaps as the quarter of module A. Module B does not fit
comfortably into this metrological system and this presumably
accounts for its absence fromthe hoard: eitherit had been officially
withdrawnfromcirculation,or it was excluded by the hoarder.
TheTheoiEuergetai
weremadeavwaoi(temple
withall Egypsubjects.
associates)
tiangodsthroughout
thekingdom;
theirnameswereaddedto thetitlesofall Egyptian priests,
and a newclassof Egyptianpriestswas createdfortheirworship
A naturalcorollary
was increased
(Koenen1994:52f).
supportforEgyptiancults
andtemples
III.
by
Ptolemy
13For the textualevidence,
see Hazzard(1995:80-81)and Maresch(1996:56,
76-80).
14Svoronos
recorded
of moduleC forthefollowing
series:unmarked
specimens
T and Y (Svor.
(Svor.414,2 listed),E (Svor.448,4 listed),A (Svor.480,1 listed),
Y (Svor.509,5 listed),
andX (Svor.515,1 listed).
505,8 listed),
80
The remaininghoards all seem to reflectan original metrological

emphasison modules A and C in the earlierstages of hoard formation
(althoughmodule A itselfis typicallyweakly represented,even absent
fromsome hoards), supersededby a preferencefor module B and its
half denominationD. To a considerabledegree the hoards reflectthe
modules actually minted in particular series. A possible exception
occurs with the last series, those marked 2E and 2E, which included
modules B, C, D, and F, all reasonably abundant. For some reason
only B and D were selected by the hoarders,although they had set
aside many examples of module C struckby Ptolemy III.
It is notable that the introductionof module A as the standard
bronze coin seems to have renderedmodule B either unavailable or
undesirablefor the Anubieion deposit, whereas the later reintroduction of module B as the standard bronze coin did not have the
same effecton module A, to judge from the contents of the eight
later hoards reviewedhere. This contrastmay supportthe hypothesis
that the two denominations alternated as the bronze drachm:
modules A and B stand in a metrologicalrelation of 4:3. If module
A was the bronze drachm,module B did not representan established
fractionaldenomination.If module B was the bronze drachm,module
A mightfunctionas an octobol, an unusual denominationonly rarely
struck in silver by a small handful of states, notably at Ephesus
duringthe thirdcentury.
THE HOARDS AS EVIDENCE FOR MONETARY REFORM

UNDER PTOLEMY IV
The most strikingfeatureof this group of hoards is that eightof the
ten close at precisely the same point in the reign of Ptolemy IV.
Conceivably,as Newell suggested,the simultaneousloss of so many
hoards could be attributedto the "very serious internaltroublesand
rebellionswhich broke over the kingdomin the course of Philopator's
reign"(Newell 1935:66f). Newell's explanationgains credencefromthe
fact that all of the later hoards with documentedfindspotsare from
Upper Egypt, a center of the disaffection.Alternatively,J.G. Milne
Catharine e. Lorber
81
wroteof a completebreak in Ptolemaic bronze hoards,to be associated

with a reformof the currency.15Three aspects of the numismatic
evidence point toward a monetaryreformat this juncture:
1. The coin types representedin the hoards describedhere are almost
completely absent from later hoards. Thus the phenomenon under
study is not merely the simultaneousloss of many hoards, but the
disappearanceof major categoriesof coinage fromcirculation.
2. An episode of countermarking
occurredat roughlythe same time
as the closureof these hoards. A cornucopiaecountermarkwas applied
to selected coins fromthe reignof Ptolemy IV.16 This countermarkis
concentratedon module C, not only in the 2E and IE
overwhelmingly
series(Svor. 1145, 1149) but also on issues of module C withthe monogrammaticcontrolsTE,fi, and f (Svor. 1140, 1142, 1144).17Within
the IE seriesmodule F (Svor. 994, 1146, 1151) is occasionallycountermarked with the same cornucopiae,but modules B and D appear to
have been exempt. The cornucopiae countermarkoccurs only rarely
on coins of the Al series and has so far not been recordedfor the Al
series;neitherof these seriesincludesmodule C.
15Milne
was clearlyreferring
to the samebreakin the hoards
(1938:205-206)
documented
was different.
Milnedatedthebreakto
here,thoughhis chronology
theearlysecondcentury
it witha currency
reform
effected
sometime
andassociated
before
182.
16Noeske
datestheapplication
ofthecornucopiae
countermark
to the
(1995:203)
VI. Weiser(1995:86,140)seemsto agreewiththisdatebut
earlyreignofPtolemy
thatthecountermark
was appliedbefore
180.Noeskebelieves
opensthepossibility
thatall cornucopiae
those
countermarks
wereappliedin a singleepisode,
including
on Svor.1375.Jungfleisch
twoepisodesof counter(1947-48:57-58)
distinguished
basedon thestyleofthestamps,
thecarewithwhichtheywereapplied,
marking
andthecoinsaffected.
The
observation
is confirmed
Jungfleisch's
byhoardevidence.
first
withthebreakinthehoardsunderPtolemy
IV, citedhere.
episodeis associated
Formoredetailed
ofthesecondepisode,
see Price(1981:159-160).
Price
exploration
ofSvor.1375andNecropolis
hoardF 68-72,which
arguedthatthecountermarking
he placedearlyin the reignof PtolemyVI, probably
revaluedthesecoinsand
enabledthemto circulate
as theequivalents
of thefamiliar
doubleeaglevariety
Svor.1424,whichfollowed
inthenextemission.
17Noeske
ofmoduleC withthecornuco(1995:198)cites33 published
examples
andhis"Korrekturzusatz"
piaecountermark,
(1995:206)adds11 more.
82
3. A bronze hoard in commercein autumn 1992 ( CH VIII, 413)18

included many specimens of module C fromthe 2E, IE, TE,and ft
series (Svor. 1145, 1148-49, 1140, 1142), all of them countermarked.
The later hoard contents comprisedlarge denominationsof Ptolemy
V, notablythe double eagle varietiesSvor. 1423 and 1424, whichapparently represent successive reductions of module C. With average
weights of c. 40 and c. 29 g, their metrologydoes not fit into the
hoards.
patternof weightsseen in third-century
In light of these facts, we may now venture an interpretation:a
major reformof the bronze coinage occurred under Ptolemy IV.
Modules B and D were demonetized.Savers who had hoarded these
denominationswere at a disadvantage,unable eitherto spend them in
privatetransactionsor to redeemthem forthe new currency.Recently
minted specimens of module C, however, could be validated for
continuedcirculationby countermarking,
no doubt in exchange for a
fee. This accounts for their almost complete absence fromthe thirdcenturyhoards. The exception is the Getty hoard, whose full original
contentsare unknownbut which presentlyincludes two examples of
module C fromthe IE series (Svor. 1148); significantly,
they are not
countermarked.
PAPYROLOGICAL EVIDENCE AND
HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION
There are few financial documents securely dated to the reign of
Ptolemy III, and papyrologistsgenerally assume that prices and
wages remainedat the levels documentedfor Ptolemy II.19 The crises
associated withthe failedNile inundationsof 245 and 241 warn against
accepting this assumption uncritically.We may speculate that an
increasein the bronze weightstandard early in the reignof Euergetes
helped to stabilize the bronze currency,whereas his ultimatereversion
18CoinHoardsVIII,413is a
in Stephen
M. Huston
ofthehoardreported
portion
morefully
FPL 130,May1994,p. 1 and4. Thehoardwillbe published
byC. Lorber
andS. Hustonin Numismatic
Chronicle
(2001).
19This
sse
divisions
is implicit
in thechronological
byClary
employed
assumption
andLanciere
(1996).
(1989)andMaresch
Catharine e. Lorber
83
to an earlierand lighterweightstandard would have tended to shake

confidencein the bronze currencyand may have contributedto inflation underhis successor.
By the early reign of Ptolemy Philopator economic affairsin the
chora were normallytransacted in bronze, apparently because of a
shortageof silver. The establishedrelation between silver and bronze
currencyceased to obtain, as the silver stater ("tetradrachm")began
to exchange for significantlymore than four drachms in bronze
(Maresch 1996:70-77).20 Papyrological sources suggest a sharp rise in
commodityprices and wages expressed in terms of bronze currency.
Based on an approximate doubling in the penalties for breach of
wheat contractsdated c. 214, and on a very few additional papyrological data, T. Reekmans hypothesizeda doublingin the face values of
Ptolemaic bronze coins in the firsthalf of Philopator'sreign,a reform
he believed was effectedbetween 221 and 216 without any recall of
coinage or external marks of its new value (Reekmans 1951:61-69).21
Though Reekmans' opinion became virtual orthodoxyamong papyrolas a basis for
ogistsforover fourdecades, it is extremelyunsatisfactory
numismaticinquiry because it is essentially unverifiable.The most
recent studies, by Klaus Maresch and by Hlne Cadell and Georges
Le Rider, see marketforcesbehind both silver-bronzeexchange rates
and these early increases in price levels (Maresch 1996:4, 27, 58-59,
70-74; Cadell and Le Rider 1997:74-86).22
20Maresch
citesSB XVIII 14013(5 June222) as evidence
thatthisprocess
was
underwayat theveryoutsetof thereign.The earliestunambiguous
evidenceis
UPZ I 149,line32, whichrecords
a priceof sixteendrachms
(plusagio)forone
silverstater("tetradrachm").
Thisdocument
was datedbyitseditorto thereignof
and wouldappearto precedetheintroduction
of theso-calledcopper
Philopator
standard.
The priceof the staterultimately
reachedtwentydrachms(Maresch
to Maresch
thisdevelopment
is indicated
1996:36-37,
58, 72-73,82). According
by
demotic
from
theturnofthecentury,
198
papyri
e.g.P. Berlin13593(Elephantine,
be identified
as earlyas 214/3in P. KlnVI 269.
BC),andcanperhaps
a quadrupling
of thefacevaluesof Ptolemaic
Segr(1942:178)hypothesized
bronzecoins,basedon theexchange
raterecorded
in UPZ I 149,line32 (see note
thisrateas theeffect
of 100% inflation
in combination
20). Reekmans
explained
withthedoubling
ofthenominal
valuesofthebronzecoinage.
22Hazzard
an official
reform
of theexchange
ratewithout
(1995:82)describes
in thebronzecurrency.
mentioning
changes
84
Truly extraordinaryprice increases are recorded in other primary

documents,some arguably datable to the reign of Ptolemy IV, others
securelyfixedin the reignof Ptolemy V. For example the price of an
artaba of wheat rose froman average of 5-6 drachms in the earlier
reign of Ptolemy IV to 150-180 drachms- a thirty-foldelevation
(Cadell and Le Rider 1997:60). The extremityof the increases led
papyrologiststo deduce that the originalsystemof reckoning,with a
silver stater ("tetradrachm")divisible into four drachms or twentyfour obols, was ultimatelyreplaced by a new system of reckoning
("the copper standard") based on a very small theoreticalunit, the
copper drachmor drachmof account (Heichelheim1930:12-13; Reekmans 1948:17-23, 1951:69-75; Maresch 1996:1-7, 21-23).23 F.M.
Heichelheim placed the transitionfrom the old to the new system
between 214 and 210 (Heichelheim 1930:16-18). Reekmans sought to
date the firstintroductionof the new system very precisely,to 13
the
April-2 July 210 (Reekmans 1951:19-23). Maresch has reaffirmed
24
positionthat it was in use perhaps as early as 214 or 213. According
to this school of thought,the new reckoningdid not supplant the old
either immediatelyor universally.Occasional small transactionswere
reckonedon the silver standard at least as late as 209.25 And use of
the new systemcannot be clearly documentedfor Upper Egypt until
considerablylater, leading to the suspicion that it was adopted only
afterthe collapse of the rebel state.26Experts in papyrologyare not
normally in a position to determine for themselves whether the
23Fora recent
discussion
in English,
see Hazzard(1995:83-84
withn. 53).Allof
thesescholars
a ratioof 1:60between
theoriginal
bronzedrachm
and
hypothesize
or so-calledcopperdrachm.
The traditional
termcopperdrachmis
thereformed
in thatit mayseemto implya changein alloy;theGerman
somewhat
infelicitous,
ofaccount,
seemspreferable.
termRechendrachmon,
drachm
24Maresch
theearliestdocu(1996:21,72-73)citesP. KlnVI 269 as possibly
thenewsystem
ofreckoning.
mentto employ
Maresch
(1996:6,21 n.3)citesP. Heid.VI 383 [8] and20 (209BC) fora wheat
priceonthesilverstandard.
26Thisideawasfirst
in 1891(Reekmans
1948:23n. 1).
proposed
byE. Rvillout
silver
standard
for
small
sumsin
continued
use
of
the
Reekmans
cites
(1951:80n.l)
reiterations
O. Tait.I 39 (207or 190BC) andO. Tait.I 96 (181-180BC). Forrecent
andMaresch
andLanciers
ofthisview,see Clarysse
(1996:39).
(1989:119-120)
Catharine e. Lorber
85
change in accounting practices was accompanied by changes in the

coinage, but generally have assumed that it was not (Reekmans
1951:72).27
The dates proposedforthe earliestintroductionof the new systemof
reckoningdepend on controversialdatings of a group of ostraka from
Philadelphia in the Arsinoitenome (BGU VII, 1500-1562) which to
the extent that they bear dates at all record regnal years without
specifyingthe reign. Cadell has criticallyreassessed the documents
relatingto grain transactionsbetween c. 305 and 173, arguing that
the price levels attested in BGU VII 1505, 1532, and 1536 are incompatible with grain prices securelydated to the reignof Philopatorbut
consistentwith those fromthe early second century;in consequence
she dates these ostraka to the 180s (Cadell and Le Rider 1997:47-49).
She tentativelysuggestsa date c. 208-206 forthe firstclear indication
of a rupturein the fixedrelationbetween silverand bronze currencies
(Cadell and Le Rider 1997:52-56). But Cadell and Le Rider reject the
notion of a "copper standard" or a new systemof reckoning,submitting that the price increases under Ptolemy IV and V can be understood in termsof natural,if extreme,pulses of inflationdue to forces
of supplyand demand (Cadell and Le Rider 1997:59-64, 70-86).
As we have seen, however,hoard evidence points unequivocallyto a
demonetizationof circulating bronze currency during the reign of
Ptolemy IV. So extreme a measure can hardly be unrelated to the
perturbationsrecordedin papyri and ostraka. The numismaticrecord
thus vindicates papyrologistswho have surmisedsome sort of monetary manipulationat the root of these sharp price increases,though
the specificsof theirclaims may be unacceptable. The demonetization
cannot be dated too early in Philopator'sreignbecause of the quantity
of bronze coinage that preceded it: the substantial issues marked Al
and Al; furthersubstantialissues marked 2, 2E, and IE; and the issues
with monogrammaticcontrolsTE,ft, and I*1(Svor. 1140, 1142, 1144),
not representedin our hoards but definitelyprior to the episode of
27The recentcollaboration
of the papyrologist
Mareschand the numismatist
Weiseralso seemsnotto positany significant
changein thecoinageof
physical
as a
discusses
thisreform
IV
Hazzard
(1995:83)
Ptolemy (Weiser1995:58-63).
without
allusion
to thecoinsinvolved.
specific
changein accounting
practices
86
The papyrologists'dates of c. 214/3-210 for introcountermarking.28

duction of a new system of reckoningpermit a possible correlation
with the demonetizationattested by the hoards, but require us to
posit intensebronze productionfromthe beginningof the reignto the
time of the reform.Ironically,it is the cautious chronologyof Cadell
and Le Rider that best fits our data, because it allows virtuallythe
entire reign of Ptolemy Philopator for productionof this extensive
bronze coinage. The demonetizationcan tentativelybe placed in the
period c. 208-206, assuming some relation to the abandonmentof a
fixed ratio between silver and bronze currency.A gap in the sources
leaves us ignorantof the immediateeffecton prices and wages, but a
increase in prices is apparent in documentsfromthe 190s
thirty-fold
and 180s.29Full publicationof CH VIII, 413 may shed some light on
the interveningdevelopments.
The evidence of our hoards supplementsthe documentsin another
way, showing that Philopator's reformswere effected throughout
Egypt: of the eight hoards that close in the reignof Ptolemy IV, the
threewith indisputablyknownfindspotshail fromUpper Egypt, which
seceded as a separate kingdomin 205.
Note Added in Proofs
More supportingevidence comes fromNoeske (1998). Noeske added
two new hoards,Egypt before1914 and Xios 1995 (his nos. 9 and 10),
whichclosed in the reignof Ptolemy IV at the same point as the eight
differedin important
latest hoards cited above. Noeske's interpretation
from
that
here.
presented
respects
APPENDIX: THE COST OF REFORM
We have speculated on the face values of modules A and B in our
hoards, hypothesizingthat module B served as the bronze drachm
28Newell
on theseissues.Milne
ofcountermarks
(1935:64)notedtheoccurrence
of
whichwouldimplyemissions
are common,
(1908:32)statedthatthesevarieties
somesizefortheseas well.
Thisgapis emphasized
byCadellandLe Rider(1997:75).
Catharine e. Lorber
87
under Ptolemy II and from the latter reign of Ptolemy III, while
module A was the drachmin the invervalbetween.We can thus calculate hypotheticalcash values of most of the hoards under consideration:
Elephantinehoard (intact): 580 drachms,5 Va obols
Anubieionhoard (intact): 134 drachms,4 obols
Newell hoard (incomplete):67 drachms,4 obols
Gettyhoard (incomplete):115 drachms,2 Va obols
Ramesseum hoard (intact): 53 drachms,1 obol
IGCH 1697: 35 drachms
IGCH 1696: 41 drachms,4 obols
IGCH 1698: 89 drachms,4 obols
Carnarvonhoard (intact): 34 drachms,2 obols
We have no way to estimate the original size of the Newell and
Gettyhoards,but the otherhoards that closed in the reignof Ptolemy
IV, presumablybecause of a currencyreform,have less value than the
two hoards depositedunderPtolemy III.
The losses incurredas a resultof currencyreformcan perhapsbe put
into perspectivethroughcomparisonwith some monetaryfiguresfrom
daily life. Pestman has calculated that an adult could survive on ten
artabai of wheat per year (Pestman 1993:347-349). Throughmuch of
the thirdcentury,the average price of wheat was about 1.5-2 drachms
per artaba,30meaningthat 15 to 20 drachmsper year could providea
bare subsistence.In the same period,the wage of a laborerrangedfrom
2.5 to 5 drachmsper month,or 30 to 60 drachmsper year (Clarysse
and Lanciers 1989:117). The values of the Elephantine hoard and of
the Anubieion deposit are multiples of these figures. By way of
contrast,fromthe inflationaryperiod under Ptolemy IV, beforeintroduction of the new system of reckoning,wheat prices averaged 5-6
drachmsper artaba (Cadell and Le Rider 1997:60).31Probably a subsistence income for a single person now lay in the range of 60 to 75
30
and Landers(1989:117)calculated
an averageof 1.5 drachms.
Cadell
Clarysse
andLe Rider(1997:59)propose
a meanpriceof2 drachms.
Maresch
(1996:181)citesUPZ I 149,24 fora priceof7.5 drachms
perartaba,
but Cadelland Le Rider(1997:52-53)arguethatthe passagedoes not referto
wheat,butto bread.
88
drachmsper year. The hoards abandoned in this period representsums

in this generalrange- some slightlymore,most ratherless.
It goes withoutsayingthat these hoards were not amassed by people
living at subsistencelevel, and thus their losses did not representa
year's livelihood. But the losses were still far fromnegligible.Could
the benefitsof currencyreformhave been great enough to compensate
for individual losses on this scale, or did such losses fuel the disaffection that culminated in armed revolt against the Crown? From his
study of the documentaryevidence, Reekmans concluded that introduction of the copper standard halted rampant inflationand restored
the balance betweenpricesand wages (Reekmans 1949:333). Curiously,
he alleged that only the workingclasses had sufferedfrominflation,
thoughit seems self-evidentthat the value of savings had also eroded,
a matter of obvious interestto our hoarders. Reekmans also documentedapparentlylasting damage to the availabilityof creditand to
investment,thoughhe creditedthe introductionof the copper standard
for a partial normalizationof social conditions as protest banditry
subsided (Reekmans 1949:327-329, 332, 338). In addition to these
economic and social effects,it is possible that the currencyreform
offeredcompensation on a strictlymonetary level, if the countermarkingof module C associated with the closureof these hoards represented an increase in value large enough to offsetthe loss of these
demonetizedsavings.
KEY TO PLATES
The coins illustratedare examples of the varietiesrepresentedin the
hoards, but are not actually fromthe hoards describedin this article
unless so indicated.
Plate 12, Ptolemy II
1. Module A: ANS (Newell) 1944.100.75948
2. Module B: ANS (Newell) 1944.100.76002
3. Module C: ANS (Newell) 1944.100.76309
4. Module I: ANS (Newell) 1944.100.75967
Plate 13, Ptolemy III, A series
Catharine e. Lorber
89

7. Module D: ANS 1935.117.1094
8. Module G: ANS (Newell) 1944.100.75966
Plate 14, Ptolemy III, E series(with variants)
9. Module A: ANS (Newell) 1944.100.76281 ex Lower Egypt
hoard ( IGCH 1691)
11. Module C: ANS (Newell) 1944.100.76302 ex Lower Egypt
hoard ( IGCH 1691)
13. Module I: ANS 1974.26.5539
Plate 15, Ptolemy III, unmarkedand & series
17. Module D: ANS (Newell) 1944.100.76321
18. Module F: ANS (Newell) 1944.100.76325
Plate 16, Ptolemy IV, Al and Al series
Plate 17, Ptolemy IV, IE and 2E series
27. Module B: ANS 1974.26.5583
28. Module D: ANS 1952.142.462
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am indebted to B.A. Hazzard, who read this article in several
stages and made invaluable suggestionsfor its improvement,without
necessarilyendorsingthe conclusionspresentedherein. My thanks to
Marit Jentoft-Nilson
of the Getty Museum for the opportunityto reexamine the Gettyhoard.
90

REFERENCES
Cadell, H. and G. Le Rider. 1997. Prix du bl et numrairedans

rgyptelagidede 305 173. PapyrologicaBruxellensia30. Brussels:
Fondation EgyptologiqueReine Elisabeth.
9
Carnarvon, Earl of and H. Carter. 1912. Five years explorationat
Thebes: a recordof workdone 1907-1911. London: OxfordUniversity Press.
Clarysse, W. and E. Lanciers. 1989. Currency and the dating of
Demotic and Greek papyri from the Ptolemaic period. Ancient
Society20:117-132.
ToHazzard, R. A. 1995. Ptolemaiccoins: an introduction
forcollectors.
Kirk
ronto:
& Bentley.
Heichelheim,F. M. 1930. Wirtschaftliche
Schwankungender Zeit von
Alexanderbis Augustus.Jena: Gustav Fischer.
Jungfleisch,M. 1947-48. Rflexionsde "practicien"sur les monnaies
ptolmaquesen bronze. Bulletinde TInstitutgypte30:47-60.
Koenen, L. 1994. The Ptolemaie king as a religious figure.In: A.
Bulloch, E. S. Gruen, A. A. Long, and A. Stewart, eds., Images
in the Hellenisticworld
: self-definition
and ideologies
, pp. 25-115.
Berkeleyand Los Angeles: Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Kromann, A. and O. Morkholm.1977. SyllogenummorumGraecorum.
The royal collectionof coins and medals,Danish National Museum.
Egypt: thePtolemies.Copenhagen:Munksgaard.
Lorber, C. C. 1995-96. Review of Hazzard (1995) and Weiser (1995).
AJN 7-8:266-267.
Maresch, K. 1996. Bronze und Silber: papyrologischeBeitrge zur
Geschichteder Whrung im ptolemischenund rmischengypten
n. Chr. Papyrologica Coloniensia XXV.
bis zum 2. Jahrhundert
Opladen: WestdeutscherVerlag.
Milne, J. G. 1908. The copper coinage of the Ptolemies. Annals of
1:30-40.
and Anthropology
Archaeology
Milne,J. G. 1938. The currencyunderthe Ptolemies.Journalof Egyp24:200-207.
tian Archaeology
1991.
O.
Morkholm,
Early Hellenisticcoinage from the accession of
the
Peace
to
Alexander
of Apamea (336-186 B.C.), P. Griersonand
U. Westermark,eds. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Catharine e. Lorber
91
Newell, E. T. 1935. Hoard of Ptolemaic bronze coins. In: Five Greek

bronzecoin hoards, pp. 51-67. ANS NumismaticNotes and Monographs68. New York: AmericanNumismaticSociety.
Noeske, H.-C. 1993. Prmonetre Wertmesserund Mnzfunde aus
Elephantine. Mitteilungendes DeutschenArchologischenInstituts
(Kairo) 49:203-209.
Noeske, H.-C. 1995. Gegenstempelauf ptolemischenBronzemnzen.
Mitteilungen des Deutschen ArchologischenInstituts (Kairo)
51:195-206.
Bronzeschatzin deutschem
Noeske, H.-C. 1998. Ein frhptolemischer
: Edith SchPrivatbesitz.In: U. Peter, ed., Stephanosnomismatikos
Akademie
491-502.
Berlin:
zum 65. Geburtstag
nert-Geiss
, pp.
Verlag.
dmoles
textes
dt
Pestman, P. W. 1967. La chronologie
gyptienne aprs
453
av.
J.-C.
ap. J.-C.). Papyrologica Lugdunotiques (332
Batava 15. Leiden: Brill.
Pestman, P. W. 1993. The archiveof the Theban choachytes.Leuven:
Peeters.
Picard, 0. 1998. Remarques sur la monnaie de bronze dans l'Egypte
et artisanatdans TAlexanlagide. In: J.-Y. Empereur,ed., Commerce
du
et
romaine
actes
drie hellnistique
,
colloque Athnes, 11-12
dcembre
1988, pp. 409-417. Athens:Ecole Franaise d'Athnes.
Price, M. J. 1981. Appendix J: coins. In: G. T. Martin, The sacred
animal necropolisat North Saqqra , pp. 156-165. London: Egypt
ExplorationSociety.
Price, M. J. 1988. The coins. In: D. G. Jeffriesand H. S. Smith, The
Anubieion at Saqqra 1: The Settlement
and the Temple Precinct
,
66-76.
London:
Egypt Exploration Society.
pp.
Quibell, J. E. 1896. The Ramesseum. London: Egyptian Research
Account.
Reekmans, T. 1948. Monetary historyand the dating of Ptolemaic
papyri. Studia Hellenistica5:15-43.
Reekmans, T. 1949. Economic and social repercussionsof the Ptolemaic copper inflation.Chroniquegypte48:324-342.
Reekmans,T. 1951. The Ptolemaic copper inflation.Studia Hellenistica
7:61-118.
Segr,A. 1942. The Ptolemaic copper inflationca. 230-140 B.C. American Journalof Philology63:174-192.
92
Svoronos,J. N. 1904-08. Ta nomismatatou kratouston Ptolemaionldie

Mnzen der Ptolemer.Athens:P. D. Sakellariou.
Thompson,M. 1951. A Ptolemaic bronze hoard fromCorinth.Hesperia
20:355-367.
Vison, P. 1978-79. A hoard of Ptolemaic bronze coins in the J. Paul
GettyMuseum. J. Paul GettyMuseum Journal6-7:153-162.
Bronzemnzender Sammlung
Weiser, W. 1995. Katalog ptolemischer
der Universittzu Kln. Papyrodes Institutsfr Altertumskunde
logica ColoniensiaXXIII. Opladen: WestdeutscherVerlag.
Plate 12
Large PtolemaicBronzes
Plate 13
Plate 14
Plate 15
Plate 16
Plate 17

Large Ptolemaic Bronzes in Third-Century Egyptian Hoards / Catharine C. Lorber

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Large Ptolemaic Bronzes in Third-Century Egyptian Hoards / Catharine C. Lorber

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

/';-=09

Peter G. van Alfen. The "owls" fromthe 1973 Iraq hoard

Melh Arslan and Aya zen. A hoard of unpublishedbronze

Catharine C. Lorber. Large Ptolemaic bronzesin third-century

Michael L. Thomas. An imitativeunsealed semisfromnorthern

David Woods. Julian,Gallienus,and the solar bull

Stuart D. Sears. An 'Abbsid revolutionhoard fromthe western

L. A. Saryan. An unpublishedsilverdouble tramof GosdantinI

Warren C. Schultz and Haim Gitler. A Mamlukbronzeweight

SoHEiR Bakhoum, ed., SyllogenummorumGraecorumFrance 4.

Philip Grierson, Catalogue of the Byzantine coins in the

ACQUISITIONS FOR 1999 IN THE

Roman and Byzantine.William E. Metcalf

Islamic and East Asian. Michael L. Bates

Medals and decorations.

Modern,Latin American,and US. JohnM. Kleeberg

AJN Second Series 12 (2000) pp. 67-92

In recentyears two major findshave enlargedour already significant

Large Ptolemaic Bronzes

three hoards of uncertain Egyptian provenance stored in the Cairo

Large Ptolemaic Bronzes

Large Ptolemaic Bronzes

reverse.6This suggeststhat Price placed the A series too late in his

Price's relativechronologyforthe bronzeissues of PtolemyIV is also

Large Ptolemaic Bronzes

varietiesof moduleA to the reign

Luxor8 RamesseumIGCH IGCH IGCH Carnarvon

Large Ptolemaic Bronzes

Luxor RamesseumIGCH IGCH IGCH Carnarvon

Table 3. Bronze denominationsof Ptolemy II and

Large Ptolemaic Bronzes

series,whose styleand alloy suggesta coinage reform,module B was

forceda greaterrelianceon bronze as opposed to silvercoinage.13This

Large Ptolemaic Bronzes

The remaininghoards all seem to reflectan original metrological

THE HOARDS AS EVIDENCE FOR MONETARY REFORM

wroteof a completebreak in Ptolemaic bronze hoards,to be associated

Large Ptolemaic Bronzes

3. A bronze hoard in commercein autumn 1992 ( CH VIII, 413)18

to an earlierand lighterweightstandard would have tended to shake

Large Ptolemaic Bronzes

Truly extraordinaryprice increases are recorded in other primary

change in accounting practices was accompanied by changes in the

Large Ptolemaic Bronzes

The papyrologists'dates of c. 214/3-210 for introcountermarking.28

Large Ptolemaic Bronzes

drachmsper year. The hoards abandoned in this period representsums

6. Module C: ANS (Newell) 1944.100.76306

Large Ptolemaic Bronzes

Cadell, H. and G. Le Rider. 1997. Prix du bl et numrairedans

Newell, E. T. 1935. Hoard of Ptolemaic bronze coins. In: Five Greek

Large Ptolemaic Bronzes

Svoronos,J. N. 1904-08. Ta nomismatatou kratouston Ptolemaionldie

You might also like