Further Observations on
Sicilian Ptolemaic Bronzes and their Imitations
DANIEL WOLF - Copyright 2012 - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WORLDWIDE
THE MINTING of bronze coins on Sicily by Ptolemy II
Philadelphus, and their imitation by Hieron II of Syracuse, was established by
Wolf and Lorber[1] on
the bases of find spots, style and fabric, die axis distributions, and
metrology that distinguish them from contemporary Ptolemaic bronzes of other
mints. The coins in question are identified with Svoronos2 catalog
numbers 610, 612, 615, 619, 620, 623, and 624.
All weigh about 17 grams, with laureate Zeus obverse and an open-wing
eagle on thunderbolt with a Galatian shield to the left on the reverse. The 193 specimens of the Sicilian bronzes in
Wolf and Lorber’s die study (Wolf and Lorber, Appendix 1) divide into two groups
of almost equal quantity. One group
(Svoronos 610), produced on Sicily by a previously unrecognized Ptolemaic mint,
is characterized by fixed vertical die axes, stereotypical style, and absence
of secondary controls. Coins of the
second group (Sv 612 etc.), though in the name of Ptolemy, were attributed to
Hieron II because their variable die axes rule out issue by the Ptolemaic mint,
their styles differ from the Ptolemaic issue, and they share controls and
linear reverse borders with Hieron's portrait/horseman coins.
A newly observed specimen (Figure 1, 26.7-26.9mm, 14.668g, 1h,
Svoronos 619) now connects the Ptolemaic and imitative series. This specimen's
reverse, with N secondary control
near the eagle's tail, belongs to the imitation series. Its obverse, however, is the stereotyped Zeus
portrait style of the Sicilian Ptolemaic mint issue (Sv 610, Figure 2), not one of the imitation
series portraits. This is the first
observation of a Sicilian Ptolemaic mint portrait paired with an imitative series
reverse, which physically links the Ptolemaic mint coinage to its imitations by
Hieron II.
That
the new coin's obverse does not match any portrait identified in Wolf and
Lorber's die study is not especially surprising because that die study yielded an
estimate of at least 372 Ptolemaic mint obverses. Few of the Sicilian Ptolemaic mint's coins
observed share portrait dies. The new
specimen's reverse die, however, was identified in the earlier die study
(P41).
Wolf
and Lorber concluded that the purpose of the Sicilian Ptolemaic coinage was
payment to Ptolemaic troops supporting Hieron's military operations ca. 265
BC. A putative rationale for Hieron's
imitative coinage was that it filled a need for similar coins after the
Ptolemaic troops were withdrawn and the Ptolemaic mint closed, that the
imitative series was produced after the Ptolemaic mint ceased operations, and
paid a rump of Ptolemaic troops still left in Sicily or mercenaries previously
in Philadelphus' service.
The
hitherto unobserved direct connection between Ptolemaic and imitative coinages
can be interpreted in more than one way.
It is consistent with the ideas proposed by Wolf and Lorber to explain
both coinages. In this view the new coin
shows that Hieron's imitative-Ptolemaic coins imitate the Ptolemaic mint's Sv
610 issues; its obverse die made by the Ptolemaic mint but used later by
Hieron's mint. If that is indeed the
case then this new coin also suggests a different chronology of variations within Hieron's
imitative series than that suggested by Wolf and Lorber. We now examine the implications of this
interpretation of the new coin.
The
imitative series types exhibit a diverse multiplicity of secondary controls,
secondary control positions, reverse border types, and portrait and eagle
styles. Wolf and Lorber observed some
combinations of those features and segregation of die links that indicate the
imitative coins were produced in three subgroups (Table 1) of isolated die linkages and perhaps in a chronological
order. That sequence was difficult to
ascertain due to sparseness of the die linkages and an absence of die links
between imitation series coins and Ptolemaic mint coins. Wolf and Lorber inferred which subgroup
likely was issued first by noting a feature shared by all the Ptolemaic mint's
coins and one imitation type (termed '610A'), namely a lack of secondary
controls. A common absence of secondary
controls implied that '610A' was the most closely related to the Ptolemaic
mint's issue and that its subgroup was therefore issued first.
Table 1. Wolf and Lorber's Chronology of Hieron's
Imitative Ptolemaic Bronze Subgroups
Subgroup 1 -
First Issue
610A (no secondary control)
Sv - (1
above shield)
Sv 612, 624, 620 (1, F, or N below
shield)
Part of Sv 619 (N behind
eagle’s tail)
Subgroup 2 -
Second Issue
Part of Sv 615, 619, 623 (A, N, or F behind
eagle’s tail)
Subgroup 3 -
Third Issue
Part of Sv
615, 619, 623 (A, N, or F behind eagle’s tail)
one dotted-border reverse die (P41, Sv 619,
N control)
Wolf
and Lorber overlooked one aspect of that chronological order: it tells of
an increasing emission of imitative
coinage over time, that the imitative coinage ended at the height of its production, because the estimates of
obverse dies used for each imitative subgroup they reported were:
Subgroup
1 - minimum of 14 obverse dies
Subgroup
2 - minimum of 19 obverse dies
Subgroup
3 - minimum of 39 obverse dies
If
indeed the rationale for the imitative series was to issue coins resembling
the Ptolemaic coinage after it ceased
production, the need for imitations would have been greatest at the time of the
Ptolemaic mint’s closure and declined
thereafter. Wolf and Lorber's
proposed chronology is, however, inconsistent with a plausible declining
emission of imitative coinage.
The
newly observed direct link between imitative and Sicilian Ptolemaic mint coins
speaks to both the imitation series' chronological ambiguity and that
inconsistency with the very purpose of the coins. The new coin's reverse die (P41) was
identified earlier, paired with portraits of the 'elaborately curly beard'
style that defines Wolf and Lorber's Subgroup 3 (Figure 3). The new coin's
Ptolemaic style portrait paired with that imitative series reverse die links
Subgroup 3 to the Ptolemaic mint and indicates that Subgroup 3 was the first
imitative coinage. Other die links
within the imitation coinage series are consistent with reversal of the earlier
proposed chronological sequence. A
revised chronology of the subgroups in this light (Table 2) reverses their previously suggested order of issue,
consistent with both the new die link observation and likely temporal decline
of imitative coinage.
Table 2. Revised Chronology of Hieron's Imitative
Ptolemaic Bronze Subgroups
Subgroup 3 - First
Issue
one
dotted border reverse die (P41, Sv619, N control)
-
paired with Sv 610 Ptolemaic mint portrait
- paired with Subgroup 3 imitative
series portrait
Part of Sv 615, 619, 623 (A, N, or F behind
eagle’s tail)
Subgroup 2 -
Second Issue
Part of Sv 615, 619, 623 (A, N, or F behind
eagle’s tail)
Subgroup 1 -
Third Issue
Sv 610A (no secondary control)
Sv - (1
above shield)
Sv 612, 624, 620 (1, F, or N below
shield)
Part of Sv 619 (N behind
eagle’s tail)
The
new coin, however, admits a new interpretation altogether. Were this coin's die axis far from vertical
we could be sure it was produced by Hieron's mint because no Ptolemaic mint
coins have die axes far from vertical.
But this coin has a die axis (1h) within the range of coins produced by
the Sicilian Ptolemaic mint. We cannot
infer from a unique die paring with this die axis whether its source was a mint
producing coins with variable die axes or fixed, in other words whether it was
made by the Ptolemaic mint or Hieron's imitation mint. The new coin presents an irresolvable
ambiguity: we cannot tell if the
Ptolemaic mint obverse die was later used at Hieron's mint or, vice versa, if
this reverse die from Hieron's mint was also used by the Ptolemaic mint. Before this coin was observed, all coins
sruck from this reverse were unambiguously imitation series coins. But now we
must acknowledge other possibilities, the ultimate chronological ambiguity -
one that is circular. This single coin
could well indicate that the Ptolemaic and imitative coinages at least partly
overlapped, excluding any chronology that logically satisfies all the die-link
relationships that are now evident. It
could upend Wolf and Lorber's plausible explanation of relationships between the Sicilian Ptolemaic
coinage and that of Hieron's imitative mint and require we approach them anew.
Summary/Abstract
A
newly observed die pairing explicitly ties Hieron's imitative Ptolemaic bronze
coinage to that of a Sicilian Ptolemaic mint.
This new coin may suggest an improved chronology of the imitative
variants that better fits the rationale for their existence or it may lead to a
complete re-thinking of the putative relationships between the two coinages
that were proposed by Wolf and Lorber.
Recent recognition of a Sicilian Ptolemaic bronze issue and its
imitations by Hieron II should inspire further analysis of their places among
Sicilian coinage of the 3rd C. BC. The
coin presented here takes us a step closer to clarifying the relationship
between the Sicilian Ptolemaic coinage and its imitation by Hieron II.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Catharine Lorber for helpful suggestions on this article.
Thanks to Rob Freeman for observations and comments on coins.
Thanks to Richard Ashton for comments and editorial guidance.
FIGURE 1 – New Coin with Sicilian Ptolemaic Mint Portrait / Imitation
Style Reverse – Sv 619 – Same reverse die (P41) as Figure 3.
26.7-26.9mm, 14.668g, 1h
FIGURE 2 – Sicilian Ptolemaic Mint Portrait / Sicilian Ptolemaic Mint
Reverse – Sv 610
26.0-26.7mm, 17.638g, 12h
FIGURE 3 – Hieron Mint Imitation Ptolemaic Bronze / Imitation Style
Portrait and Reverse Sv 619 – Same reverse die (P41) as Figure 1.
26.9-28.4mm, 14.736g, 2h
