THE

AMERICAN

NUMISMATIC

MUSEUM

THE

AMERICAN

SOCIETY

NOTES

NUMISMATIC

SOCIETY

NEW YORK
1969

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

CONTENTS
GREEK
Hyla A. Troxell and William F. Spengler. A Hoard of
I
Early Greek Coins fromAfghanistan
Nancy M. Waggoner. The Early Alexander Coinage at Seleucia
on the Tigris
21
Jennifer Warren. The Earliest Triobols of Megalopolis
31
ROMANAND BYZANTINE
Richard E. Mitchell. The Fourth Century Origin of Roman
Didrachms
R.
J.
Jones. Vettienus Monetalis
Joan M. Fagerlie. Roman and Byzantine Medallions in the
Collection of the American Numismatic Society
Eugene Dwyer. An Alexander/MacedoniaContorniate
Arthur F. Johnson. A New AnonymousBronze ofConstantineX

41
73
77
93
97

MEDIAEVAL
D. M. Metcalf. A Hoard of "Porcupine" Sceattas

101

ORIENTAL
Richard W. Bulliet. A MuctaziliteCoin of Mahmd of Ghazna 119
Paul Z. Bedoukian. The Copper of the Later Kings of Cilician
Armenia
131
L. N. Kukuranov. The "Urd" Issues of Emperor Akbar
137

iii

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

THE

EARLIEST

TRIOBOLS

OF MEGALOPOLIS1

(Plate VI)
Jennifer Warren
In his recent study of the triobols of Megalopolis2- the three
groups of Zeus Lykaios/seated Pan triobols whose reverses are
and no eagle; 2) eagle;
essentially distinguishedby showing i)
3) MET and eagle; and the Achaean League triobols- James Dengate
dated all fourseries to the second centuryb.c. and in his tentative
chronology3suggestedthat the no eagle triobolscould be put ca. 195182 B.c. together with the earliest triobols with the eagle on the
reverse(his Group I Period IIA). Furtherexaminationofthe evidence,
however,raises serious objections to such a late date forthe no eagle
triobols, and although there is no clear pointer to an exact date, it
remains highly probable that they, unlike all the other seated Pan
triobols,were struckbeforeMegalopolis enteredthe Achaean League
in 235 b.c.4 If so, though there is no call to abandon the attribution
of the no eagle triobols to the mint of Megalopolis,5 properly they
will rate as Arcadian League coinage (see below p. 39).
As Dengate observed,6the no eagle triobols are on a higherweight
standard than the triobols of the eagle, MET, and Achaean League
groups. The former,with a definitefrequency table peak at 2.702.80 gr.,7 are regular aeginetic triobols; the latter with individual
peaks at around 2.35-2.40 gr.8are on the reduced aeginetic standard
1 I am gratefulto MichaelCrawford
and MartinPriceforhelpfulcriticism,
and in particularto MartinPriceforhis comments
on hoardmaterial.
2ANSMN 13 (1967),pp. 57-110.
8 ANSMN 13,p. 109.
4 Theywerethusdated by MargaretCrosbyand Emily Grace,An Achaean
LeagueHoard,NNM 74 (New York, 1936),p. 29, andMargaretThompson,
"A HoardofGreekFederalSilver/'Hesperia1939,p. 134.Margaret
Thompson
continuesto considerit likelythattheyare earlierthanthesecondcentury;
see now p. 116, n. 1 in her publicationof the AgrinionHoard, NNM 159
sincethisarticlewas firstwritten.
(1968),whichhas
5 Cf.NNM 74,pp.appeared
12-13,n- I3 'Hesperia1939,p. 142.
6 ANSMN 13, 99.
? ANSMN 13,p. 98.
8 ANSMN 13,p.
pp. 98-99. Frequencypeaks of individualgroups:GroupI,
Per. IIA (eagle,miscellaneouscontrolletters):2.40 gr. (small group); Per.
31

This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 05:30:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

32

JENNIFER

WARREN

employed by the Achaean League and by Peloponnesian cities for

theirautonomous second centuryissues, e.g., Argos, Sicyon, Messene
and Lacedaemon. Now the one no eagle triobolin the Western Greece
hoard published by Margaret Thompson weighed only 2.43 gr. and
was worn,9and therecan be little question that the hoard was buried
ca. 146 b.c., perhaps within the preceding decade. Yet for the same
variant, with control letters I/1 or 1, 38 of the coins recorded by
Dengate weighed 2.7 gr. or over, and only 7 under 2.7 gr.10That the
Western Greece hoard triobol may have lost as much as .27~.37 gr.
(10-13.7%) of its originalweight implies intensive handling,lengthy
circulation,or both, and raises the naggingdoubt that the coin could
hardly have been in circulation for so relatively short a time as the
50 years which Dengate's dating for the no eagle triobols would
require.11
IIB (idem):2.35 gr.; Per. Ill (eagle,no controlletters):2.40 gr.; GroupII
(AchaeanLeague): 2.40 gr.; GroupIII (eagleand MEI",withcontrolletters):
2.35 gr.
9 Hesperia1939,p. 134,n. 144,and pl. Ill, 6; weight:p. 153.
10Issue 2: pp. 61-3, 88. That so fewexampleswereoflightweightsuggests
forthisissue coinswerestruckto weight.
thatcertainly
11Comparethe loss of weightshownby the undoubtedlyfourthcentury
: ca.
aeginetictriobolsof OpuntianLocris(withOPONTIN : BMCCent.Gce.
ordertheweights
369-338b.c.) in the samehoard,nos.60-68. In descending
were:2.64,2.49,2.40,2.40,2.39,2.35,2.32,2.30,2.18 grams.Weightsofthe
OPONTIN triobolsin BMCCent.Gce.(pp. 2-4, nos 9-13, 19, 24-26, 29)
arrangedin descendingorder,and convertedto grams,are: 2.75,2.72,2.72,
2.66,2.64, 2.64, 2.64, 2.56, 2.50, 2.40 grams.The OPONTIfNtriobolsin the
Arcadia 1929 hoardweighed2.33, 2.33, 2.26, 2.13 grams(NNM 74, p. 32,
nos. 214-218).To attemptto establishmoreaccuratelythe weightat which
table
thesetriobolswerestruckit wouldbe necessaryto compilea frequency
fromas manyunwornspecimensas could be traced;but it is clear enough
thatall but one of thesetriobolsin theWesternGreeceand Arcadiahoards
wear.Conversely
it is interesting
haveprobablylostsome.3gr.ormorethrough
of Elis in thehoard
to considertheweightsofthereducedaegineticdrachms
in NC 1939,pp. 238-265.Theywerestruckfrom
publishedby Schwabacher
23 obv. dies,42 rev.dies,and fallintofourgroups.The hoardburialand the
of the
conclusionof the serieshave been dated ca. 191 B.c.; the beginning
seriesis linkedto the burialdate of the 1922 Olympiahoard (NNM 39),
whichNewellput ca. 250/225
b.c., becausethathoardcontaineddrachmsof
Schwabacher's
firstgrouponly,and in brilliantcondition.In Schwabacher's
hoardthe fourgroupsof drachmsissuedtherefore
(on Newell'sdating)over
a periodofpossiblyup to 60 years,showprogressive
wear,yetthefrequency
tablepeakfortheearliestgroupis onlyca. .1gr.lowerthanthatforthelatest
ofNewell'sdatingofthe 1922
group(ca. 4.8gr.).On theprobablecorrectness

This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 05:30:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

EARLIEST

TRIOBOLS

OF MEGALOPOLIS

33

Again, in the Arcadia Hoard of 1929 the sole no eagle triobol

(Dengate 17b) weighed only 2.39 gr.,12showing this time a weight
loss of .31-.41 gr. froma presumed strikingweight of 2.70-2.80 gr.
It is true that forthis issue only one out of the eight coins listed in
Dengate's catalogue weighed over 2.7 gr.,13but comparison of the
condition of four of the coins with their weight suggests that this
particular issue can hardly have been struck to a weight far below
the average strikingweightforthe whole group.14Emily Grace dated
the burial of the hoard ca. 185-182 b.c.; Margaret Thompson has
now argued that it should probably be twenty to twenty-fiveyears
later.15 In any case, since the Arcadia Hoard contained Achaean
League triobols of Elis, the burial date must be well after 191 b.c.
when Elis joined the Achaean League.
It is true that the weights of the three no eagle triobols in the
Agrinionhoard16are higher (2.76 gr., 2.74 gr., 2.54 gr., = Dengate
8b, 2 ib, 26a), but again it is the lowest weight of the three which is
significant.For the single no eagle triobol in the Olympia hoard
(Dengate 11a)17 no weight is given, and there were none of the no
eagle triobols in the Caserta hoard.18
This doubt as to the correctnessof a second centurydating forthe
no eagle triobols is confirmedby the Malamata-Kyparissia hoard
fromDokimion in Acarnania.19The two Arcadian coins in this pot
hoard (Plate VI, A and B) were listed by Mme. Varoucha as
"2 trioboles de la ligue arcadienne, Tun de 350-300 av. J.C., l'autre
du commencementdu lile, sicle: BMC, pl. xxxii. 11."20Both coins
show a fair degree of wear and though as a result not all details are
thatratesof
Olympiahoardsee below,n. 27. We mustof courseremember
hoardsmayhave
wearreceivedby groupsof coinsin the same or different
beenfarfromconstant.
12NNM 74,p. 29, no. 161 (notillustrated).
13Issue 5, controlmarkH5: ANSMN 13,p. 63.
142.74 gr.: veryfine;2.61 gr.: somewear; 2.56 gr.: verygood;2.48 gr.: fairto
worn.
15NNM 159,p. 91.
16NNM 159.pp. 107-9: burialca. 150 b.c. or ca. 135 b.c.
17ANSMN 13,pp. 63, 104-5.
18ANSMN 13,p. 106.
19Mme. Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou,
Chroniquedes Fouilles,BCH 1956,
p. 227,and pl. VI; notmentioned
by Dengate.
20Thisis theno eagletype.
3

This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 05:30:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

34

JENNIFER

WARREN

clear, both are certainlyof Dengate's Group I, Period I, the no eagle

series.21The date of the hoard is not certain, but would appear to
belong to the middle or later third century,and not to the second
century.22
Three supporting arguments may be adduced for dating the no
eagle triobols earlier than the second century. The followingtable
shows the representationof the varieties of Megalopolitan triobols
21Bothobversesshowtheformofmoustachewhichcharacterizes
thenoeagle
series(seebelow,p. 39).Thefirst
triobol(Plate VI, A)hasthemonogram
fa clear
on thereverse,and too closeto theupraisedarmforthereto be space foran
eagle.Letterorlettersto right? Obversemaybe fromsamedieas ANSMN 13,
pl. XX, 8b. The obverseofthesecondtriobol(Plate VI, B) is fromthesame
die as ANSMN 13,pl. XX, 13a.Thereverseshowsthefaintoutlineofthefa
tothe1.It is justpossiblethatX appearsto therightoftherock.I am grateful
to MartinPriceforthephotographs.
Bothhe and I, independently
inspecting
thehoardsomefiveyearsago (forwhichourthanksto Mme.Varoucha),had
notedthe presenceof the monogram
withouteagle,and wear.MartinPrice
ratedbothpieces"wear4" on hisscalefromwear1 (f.d.c)to 6 (heavilyworn).
22MmeVaroucha(BCH 1956,p. 227) proposedthethirdquarterofthethird
MartinPricecomments
thathewouldhavethought
thewholeuniform
century.
enoughto makethe depositprobablynotlaterthan250 b.c. In additionto
the 2 Arcadian(Megalopolitan)triobols,the hoard contained:Alexander1 tetradr.(Noe, The AlexanderCoinageof Sicyon,GroupII, no. 23), 1 dr.
dr.(Thompson,
"The MintsofLysimachus,"
(Sardis);Lysimachus-i
Essaysin
toStanleyRobinson
GreekCoinagePresented
, p. 170,no. 35: 299/8-297/6
b.c.);
PtolemyII- i tetradr.
(Svoronos546; earlyin reign); Aetolia-itriob.(obv.AQ,
; Locris-itriob.(serpentin shieldofAjax,
earlystyle,boar'shindlegforward)
but musthave beenOPONTIN, so ca.
crestbetweenlegs; legendobscured,
Chalcis369-338 b.c., not 338-300 b.c.); Boeotia-i dr. (shield/amphora);
8 drs.(5 withnosymbol,3 withtrophy)
; Aegina-ist. (turtle),1 triob.(turtle),
2 st. (tortoises),1 dr. (tortoise/in
incuse,Ain dolphin);Hermione-itriob.;
1 st. (wreath/N,
ca. 330B.c.),1 dr.(5thcent.),24triobs.(4th~3rdcent.).
Sicyona drachmof Chalciswithcaduceussymbol,whichwas among
(Additionally,
somemiscellaneous
materialin the same tray,was blackenedlike a number
ofcoinsinthehoard; ifthisbelongsitbringsthetotalup to 50.) Bestpreserved
werethe Ptolemytetradr.(MartinPrice: wi-2), and the Sicyonstater;the
two Alexandercoinsand the Lysimachusdr. showedsomewear (M. Price:
dated
However,the Aetoliadr. (conventionally
w3, W3,W2-3respectively).
worn(see BCH 1956,pl. VI, 8), and the wear
after279 b.c.) is considerably
and weight-loss
oftheSicyontriobols(ofwhichmostvarietiesare represented
in thehoard)seemedto me fairlycomparableto thewearand weight-loss
of
thoseinsecondcentury
hoards.Evenif,conceivably,
thedateoftheMalamataKyparissiahoardshouldhaveto be droppeddownto theearlysecondcentury,
thewearofthetwoArcadiantriobolsensurestheirdatingto thethirdcentury
at least.

This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 05:30:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

EARLIEST

TRIOBOLS

OF MEGALOPOLIS

35

in the second century hoards as analysed by Dengate, and the

number of obverse and reverse dies which he identifiedfor each
group.23
$
s*
_ H *
g
2
a
O
p
s
^
^ o ^
Group I Period I (no eagle)
Period IIA (misc. controls)
Period IIB (A, AA controls)
Period III (no controls)
II
Group
(Achaean League)
Group III (MET)

3
11
103
34
56
-

1
1

-2
*2
S
O
^
1

8 2
-s is

<0
<s
-S
s
^
I
C/5
O
o H
27/45

5
19 43 30 9
4 16 5 3
12 28 11 5
19 1 - 9

7 /12
35/150
8/ 21
6/ 46
74/120

Given the relatively large number of known dies of the no eagle

triobols, their representationin the hoards is remarkably low. A
possible explanation could be that they were struck considerably
earlier than the suceeding issues, and that fewerof them were still
in circulationwhen the hoards were buried.
Another argument may be drawn from the unreduced weight
standard ofthe no eagletriobols,forit seems improbable that Megalopolis would have struck on this standard if neighboringmints were
already issuing coins of reduced weight. The reductionof the weight
standard is interestingand deserves furtherstudy. The uniformity
of the Achaean League coinage which Polybius asserted24plainly
refersto the coin types, but it must furthermean a common weight
standard for federal issues adopted by the League. If this is not
actually implied by Polybius' mention of the coinage in the same
phrase as the uniformityof weights and measures, it is only to be
expected, since the federal issues must have been struck primarily
to maintain the federal army. Unfortunatelywe do not know when
(or even that) such a decree was passed by the League. Undoubtedly
EmilyGrace's view was rightthat the firstissues must be dated several
23ANSMN 13,pp. 104-6 (hoards),pp. 89-97 (die statistics).
24II.37. 10-11.
3*

This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 05:30:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

36

JENNIFER

WARREN

decades afterthe ceilingdate of 280 b.c. when the League was reconstituted,25and Margaret Thompson has now demonstrated the
likelihood that the coinage did not start until after 196 B.c.26 But
earlier evidence for the reduction of the aeginetic standard can be
found in the coinage of Elis whose prolificseries of Achaean League
varieties presumably started relatively soon after she entered the
League in 191 b.c. But Elis was already using the reduced aeginetic
standard forher series of drachms (eagle holding hare / FA thunderbolt) which the evidence of the 1922 Olympia hoard points to having
started in the latter half of the third century,and probably in the
third quarter at that.27Yet the same hoard surely shows that Elis
was strikingautonomous triobolsof reduced weighteven earlierthan
the reduced drachms,28so that even on a conservative estimate it
would not be unreasonable to suppose that coins were already being
struckin the Peloponnese on the reduced aegineticstandard at a date
not much later than the 22o's. The unreduced triobolsof Megalopolis
should surelybe earlierthan this date forthe proximityofMegalopolis
to Olympia, ifnot to Elis, suggeststhat she could hardlyhave ignored
25NNM 74,pp. 19-20.
26NNM 159,p. 90. The small seriesof anepigraphic
League triobolsis of
courseearlier(see NNM 159,p. 85); theirweightis notreduced.
27NNM 39, see above p. 32, n. 11. The slightlywornGaza tetradrachm
of
PtolemyII dated 254/3b.c. securelyplaces the burialof the hoardin the
secondhalfofthethirdcent.MartinPrice,forwhosecomments
on theregal
issuesI am grateful,
believesthatNewell'sdatingto before225 b.c. remains
fairlycertain,and thatthe hoardmighthave been depositedas earlyas ca.
howeverthatthehoardmaynotbecomplete(NNM
240b.c.Wemustremember
39, pp. i, 2, 24). Of course,sincethe startofthe AthenianNew Styletetradrachms(MargaretThompson,TheNew StyleSilverCoinageofAthens)and,
as I hopeto showelsewhere,
theSicyontriobolswithZ reversearebothto be
downdatedto thesecondcentury,
theirabsencefromthe 1922Olympiahoard
is no longerso relevantto the assessmentof its date (cf.Newell,NNM 39,
the latestElis staters(Seltman,TempleCoinsofOlympia,
p. 22). Incidentally,
GroupL) mustalso date before191 b.c.
28NNM 39. Six reduceddrachms(ofSchwabacher's
firstgrouponly)werev.f.
orbrilliant
werethelatestofthreegroupsofreduced
; almostas wellpreserved
wornto good;
triobols(Zeus head/FAeagle on Ionic capital,A: 7 examples,
in wreath: 4 examples,somewhatwornto very
Zeus head r./FAthunderbolt
fine; similar,but moreand smallerleavesinwreath: 7 examples,mostlyvery
possiblethatElis assimilatedthe weightofhertriobols
fine.)It is therefore
to thatofthetriobolsoftheAetolians,withwhomshewas alliedin thethird
century.

This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 05:30:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

EARLIEST

TRIOBOLS

OF MEGALOPOLIS

37

this reduction of what was pre-eminentlythe Peloponnesian weight

standard.
between
Finally, thereis a furtherand importantpoint of difference
and
the
with
the
triobols
issues
no
the
eagle or
eagle Megalopolitan
the eagle and MET. Only forthe no eagle triobols is there a series of
corresponding obols (head of Pan/A' and syrinx).29Four control
marks are common to both triobols and obols: I/I (and I), M, A, and
Nf.30But certainly by the second century,and apparently by the
second half of the third,silver obols and otherfractionsof the triobol
ceased to be struck in the Peloponnese :31small silver coinage was
replaced by bronze. It would be extraordinary if these Arcadian
obols, most of which are contemporarywith no eagle triobols,were
an exception.
One of Dengate's two reasons for dating all the Zeus head/seated
Pan triobols,includingthose with no eagle, to the second century,is
the absence of Megalopolitan triobols fromthe Olympia 1922 hoard
(see above p. 32, n. 11) in contrast to the second century Olympia
1939 hoard in which there were 60.32In fact, only one of the 60 was
a no eagletrioboland, withregard to the Olympia 1922 hoard, it is not
too surprisingthat thereshould have been none of the Megalopolitan
triobols. Apart from the 31 coins of Elis, 1) two-thirdsof the remainder (33 out of 51) were staters or tetradrachms,33
2) about half
29BMCPelop. p. 174, nos. 55-61; not mentionedby Dengate.The syrinx
appearson someissuesoftheno eagletriobols,proppedagainsttherock.
30ObolwithM : McClean6934,pi-234> withN: McClean6935,pl. 234,19.
Threeofthenoeagletriobolissueshave controllettersnotfoundon theobols,
and apart fromthe obols withno controllettersthereare threerare obol
are
issueswithcontrollettersnot foundon the triobols.These observations
collectionand in published
based on coinsin the BM traysand photographic
collections
; a widersearchmightextendthelistofcontrolletterscommonto
theunusual
The factthatas manyas foursets(including
bothdenominations.
rulesout the possibilityof coincidence,
N) are commonto botheffectively
ofthesame controlmarksat a laterdate at all probable.
noris therepetition
no difficulty.
So faras dissimilartypescan be comparedstyleseemsto offer
31At anyrateso faras I knowthereis no Peloponnesian
whichcan
fraction
be datedwithcertainlyafterca. 250 b.c. For Argosthelatestgroupofobols
and trihemiobols
occursin the Mycenaehoard (Noe 716) whichcontains,as
G. K. Jenkins
has pointedoutto me,twotetradrachms
ofPtol.II (notPtol.I)
and mayhave beenput away ca. 250 b.c.
32ANSMN 13,p. 107.
33Hoardsoftenexhibit,or tendtoward,homogeneity
in size ofunit.

This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 05:30:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

38

JENNIFER

WARREN

that remainder (28 out of 51) were regal issues (Alexander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy I and II), and 3) the not immediatelylocal Peloponnesian coinages- staters and drachms of Aegina and staters of
Sicyon- are known to have enjoyed a wide circulation in mainland
Greece. In short,apart fromits Elis content the flavorof this hoard
is not that of a local one;34and in any case it is far fromcertain that
the hoard was complete.35
Dengate's other argument for dating all Zeus head/seated Pan
triobols,includingthose with no eagle, to the second centuryis drawn
'
from a 'comparison of the condition of the earliest Megalopolis
strikingsof the catalogue and the earliest Achaean issues of Elis,
because the two coinages appear togetherin a numberof hoards. The
Elis coins cannot have been struck before 191 b.c. when Elis was
joined to the Achaean League and few, if any, of the Megalopolis
triobols show more wear than the Elis coins".36On the evidence of
the AgrinionHoard, this conclusion might seem justified;37however,
as we saw above (p. 32), the single no eagle triobol in the Western
Greece hoard is visibly worn,while even the earliest Achaean League
triobolsof Elis illustratedare in bettercondition38Of the 12 Achaean
League triobols of Elis in the Arcadia hoard the 5 illustrateddo not
show much wear;39 the single no eagle Megalopolis triobol is not
illustrated, but as noted above it may be presumed to have lost
weight and thereforeto be worn. I have not been able to compare
the wear of the two groups of coins in the Olympia 1939 hoard; there
were no no eagle triobolsin the Caserta hoard.40
84Similarly
the Sparta1908hoard(Noe 1004;86 fa) and theEpidaurus1903
hoard(Noe 392; 61 fir),boththirdcentury,
containedin additionto regaland
Atheniancoinsonlyimmediately
localissues(7 Lacedaemonand 4 Epidaurus
It should be emphasizedthat unlikethese and otherthird
respectively).
hoardssuchas the Patrasand Sophikonhoards(Noe
centuryPeloponnesian
795997)the secondcenturyhoardsof the Peloponneseand N. W. Greece
containquite sizable quantitiesof hemidrachms
of, e.g., Sicyon,Argos,
fromthe
Locris,and drachmsof Chalciswhichhad continuedin circulation
centuries.
theno eagletriobolsofMegalopolis.(On thethird
4th/3rd
Similarly
centuryPeloponnesianhoards and coin circulationsee now T. Hackens*
16 [1968],pp. 69-95).
discussion,StudiaH ellenistica
interesting
86NNM 39,pp. i, 2, 24.
86ANSMN 13,p. 107.
37CompareNNM 159,pl. XV, 199-201withpl. XXVII, 330-pl.XXIX, 353.
38Hesperia1939,p. 128,pl. VIII, I4f.
40ANSMN 13,pp. 104-6.
39NNM 74,pl. I, nos. 15-22.

This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 05:30:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

EARLIEST

TRIOBOLS

OF MEGALOPOLIS

39

Although, as Dengate observed,41the die cutters of the no eagle

triobols were relatively careful craftsmen,it is not altogether easy
to distinguishbetween the style and fabric of the no eagle triobols
and that of the earlier issues, at any rate, of the triobolswith eagles,
though the style of the MET triobols is degenerate and their fabric
spread. However the treatment of one detail characterizes the no
eagle triobols: consistently the moustache appears in roughly the
shape of a weak S, which was the widespread (or standard?) formin
use in the fourthcentury,while on the eagle and eagle with MEr
triobols it is crescent-shaped,the common (or standard?) form in
the second century.42
It is less easy to make a positive assertion about the dating of the
no eagle triobols. The style, certainly,requires a later date than that
of the aeginetic staterswith the same types ( BMCPelop . pl. XXXII,
10) struck probably in the 36o,s or soon after, and the seated Pan
of the reverse is significantlydifferent(on the staters the head is
frontal,the rock larger,and the lagobolon is held in the other hand
and the other way up). Cognizance must also be taken of the third
century Alexander type tetradrachms of Megalopolis, with M: and
syrinx(and no controllettersin common with the no eagle triobols).43
At any rate the probability is very high that the no eagle triobols
were issued at some time during the period runningfromthe later
fourthcenturydown to 235 b.c., forwhich the evidence of the continued existence of the Arcadian League otherwise consists of the
use of the Arcadian ethnic in inscriptions.44
When Megalopolis again
struck triobols with the same types (but with the addition of the
eagle) in the second century,she perhaps used these types for her
municipal seriesprimarilybecause theywerewhat she had used before
41ANSMN 13,p. 100.
42As on thecoinsoftheAchaeanand ThessalianLeagues.Thecrescent-shaped
moustacheappearsalreadyon tetradrachms
ofAntigonus
Doson,229-221b.c.
43See Noe,ANSMN 10,pp. 39-41.Noe tentatively
datedthetetradrachms
to
theperiodbetweenthetyrannies
ofAristodemos
and Lydiadas,251-244b.c.,
or alternatively
to the tyrannyof Lydiadas,244-235b.c., assumingthathe
had Macedoniansupport.Dengate(p. 59, n. 13) prefers
thelatteralternative
as beingconsistent
withtheamountofwearshownby coinsin the Sophikon,
Megalopolisand Corinth1938hoards.
44Tarn,CR 1925,pp. 105-7; but see M. Sordi,BCH 1957,P- 38n-5-

This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 05:30:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

40

JENNIFER

WARREN

she had joined the Achaean League.45The ffor A monogramappears

on only two issues with the eagle, and accordingto Dengate's arrangement not even on the earliest (thoughone, certainly,is an exceptionally large issue).46It may be that in her revival of the Arcadian ethnic
used in conjunctionwith the federalcoin types Megalopolis was being
- in proclaimingherleadershipofArcadia.47
cautious- or half-hearted
But we cannot wholly exclude the alternative possibilitythat those
monogramsinstead representindividuals with names beginning'Ap-,
'ApK-who exploited the ambiguityby placing their control mark to
the left of the type where the federal monogramhad stood.48
45As Argosdid. Cf.MargaretThompson,
Hesperia1939,p. 143.
46See ANSMN 13,pp. 89-93.Andon oneissuewithMEr and eagle,ANSMN
13,p. 96.
47See Dengate,ANSMN 13,p. 108.
48Unless
it is
is a grosslycarelessform,or standsfor'Ap[Ka6iKv]
e[0vo],
difficult
to see howit can be resolvedas theArcadianethnic.Namesstarting
'Ap- are remarkablycommon; moreoverPolybius (28.6.2) mentionstwo
Arkeslaosand Ariston,who,appropriately,
wereactive at
Megalopolitans,
thetimeofthewarwithPerseus.

This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 05:30:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

VI

EARLIEST

TRIOBOLS

ORIGIN

OF MEGALOPOLIS

OF ROMAN DIDRACHMS

This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 05:30:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions