An Introduction to Archaic Coinage

Working Paper: v.31.12.
2014 ©Peter van Alfen
An Introduction to Archaic Coinage

Peter van Alfen
Introduction
Coins are only one of many forms of money, which in itself is a complex social
construct that aids people in making valuations of objects, conducting transactions, and
storing their wealth. There are numerous definitions of money, most of which include the
central precepts of money being a medium of exchange, a store of wealth and a unit of
account. When and how the abstract money concept itself was invented is a problem that
has vexed social historians, economists, and philosophers, including Aristotle
(Nicomachean Ethics, V, v, 10-16 (1133a-b); Politics, I, iii, 12-17 (1257a-b); cf. Dodd
2014; Peacock 2013). Because the Aegean world before the late archaic period (c. 700-
480 BC) does not seem to have been fully engaged with the money concept—there is, for
example, no clear expression of the money concept in the Linear B tablets of the Late
Bronze Age or in the Homeric epics—some scholars have argued that the money concept
and coinage were invented simultaneously within the Greek world (Seaford 2004;
Schapps 2004). There was, in other words, no money before (Greek) coinage; exchange
systems relied instead on gift giving, barter, quasi-monetized exchange. These arguments,
however, downplay evidence from the Near East, particularly Mesopotamia, where we
read cuneiform records, some dating to the Bronze Age, that list transactions, both private
and official, that were valued in measures of silver and that used silver as one form of
payment (Jursa 2010). The money concept, it would seem, was invented long before the
first coins appeared, in a region that was to have increased contact with the Greek world.
By c. 800 BC, the practice of using precious metals, especially silver as a
monetary instrument extended from Mesopotamia to the Phoenician cities and other
communities on the Levantine coast where the practice then went westward following
Phoenician trade routes, most notably into the Aegean. There, it has been argued, the
practice of using precious metals in exchange came to be used alongside more traditional
forms of exchange, such as the type of elite gift-giving that is prevalent in the Homeric
epics (Balmuth 2001; Kroll 2008; Kroll 2012; Le Rider 2001). The type of silver used in
exchange, however, was often far from standardized; states and other organizations, as
1
Working Paper: v.31.12.2014 ©Peter van Alfen
well as individuals, were free to produce silver objects, whether ingots or jewelry, of
different shapes, sizes, and fineness. Such variations in size and fineness caused problems
for those using silver as money, where weight and fineness mattered most. To acquire the
correct value of silver for a transaction, the payer and payee would have to spend time
testing fineness and weighing pieces of silver, sometimes resorting to cutting smaller
pieces off of larger pieces of jewelry or ingots to achieve the desired weight. The money
supply was then made up primarily of this type of anonymously produced cut silver,
which is generally referred to by the German word “Hacksilber”. In many places around
the Mediterranean, this practice of using Hacksilber was so engrained that even after the
introduction of coinage Hacksilber use continued; many archaic hoards found in Asia
Minor, Italy, Egypt and the Levant contain a mix of coins and Hacksilber (Kroll 2008;
Kroll 2012). Transactors, of course, found ways around the problems of using non-
standardized monetary metals of this sort. To avoid the time-consuming hassles of
weighing and testing Hacksilber, pre-weighed and pre-tested small sacks of silver might
be assembled, which then would be closed with the seal of the person guaranteeing its
contents. Collections of such small sacks of sealed silver have been found in excavations
in the Levant, mostly dated to the 10-7th c. BC (fig. 1; Thompson 2003). These acts of
pre-assembling a monetary instrument and guaranteeing its value played directly into the
concept of the coin, which, in the archaic period, was to become little more than a small,
guaranteed ingot of precious metal, one that was standardized as to its weight and metal
fineness, both of which were guaranteed by the authority whose seal appeared on the
coin. The denominations of the coins were still, however, based on weight, and the
weight standards used were, for the most part, those traditionally used within the
community producing the coin. Thus, for example, the Athenians produced coins on their
indigenous weight standard, which was based on the drachm (= c. 4.3 g) and obol (= c.
0.72 g), with six obols making one drachm. The Athenians produced a number of
denominations during the archaic period including tetradrachms (4 drachms), didrachms
(2 drachms), drachms, obols, and hemiobols (1/2 obols). Their rivals, the Aeginetans, by
contrast, used a different system based on a drachm of 6.1 g and an obol of 1.0 g.
Elsewhere, such as in Miletus, the standard was based on a stater (a general term meaning
the largest coin in the series) of 14.2 g with a number of fractions of this weight down to
2
1/96th of a stater. This meant that there generally were at any given time many different
standards in use across a region, which often made it impossible to use the coinage of one
community for transactions in another. The advantage, presumably, of using coins over
Hacksilber was that transactions would have required much less time and effort than
before; one could now simply count out money rather than weighing and testing it. As we
shall see, however, it is far from certain that coins were introduced simply to ease
transactional problems in markets; they served other functions as well, which may have
had as much or more importance. And, while the state was to become the guarantor of
these small coin-ingots, it is also far from certain what exactly the role of the state was in
the production of the first coins vis-à-vis individual elites.
The First Coins

Sometime around 625 BC, the first coins were struck in Asia Minor, in what is
today western Turkey. At the time, most of western Asia Minor was under the control of
Lydian dynasts, the Mermnads, who ruled from their capital city of Sardis. Over the
course of several generations, from the beginning of Gyges’ rule c. 680 BC to the end of
Croesus’ reign in c. 547 BC, the Mermnads expanded the territory they ruled to include
most of the Greek poleis along the Aegean coastline, including the major Greek poleis of
Ephesus and Miletus. Their rule, like that of the Persians who followed them, appears to
have been minimally intrusive, allowing the poleis a large degree of internal self-
determination, provided of course that they support the Lydians in battle and with tribute.
We cannot say for certain who, in fact, struck the first coins, Lydians or Greeks,
or what their reasons for doing so were (Price 1983; cf. Howgego 1990). What is certain,
however, is that all first generation coins shared some rather unusual features. Most
notably, the coins were struck in electrum, an alloy of gold and silver. Previously it had
been thought that the choice to strike in electrum had to do with the Lydians’ inability to
separate the gold from the silver in naturally occurring electrum that they panned from
the River Pactolus, which flows next to Sardis (Ramage and Craddock 2000). Because
gold and silver in antiquity, much as they do today, had a widely divergent value ration of
c. 1:13, coins were the Mermnads’ solution to easing transactional problems in using
small pieces of electrum (Le Rider 2001; Wallace 1987). Instead of testing to determine
3
both the exact gold-silver ratio and the weight of the electrum, the Mermnads simply pre-
weighed the ingots, stamped them, and then set their exchange value. This value, like all
coins issued today, was well above the commodity value of the metal within the coin,
thus giving the state a tidy profit from the production of coinage. Recent studies,
however, now make clear that this theory is incorrect (Gitler et al. forthcoming). Not only
did the Lydians have the ability to separate gold and silver at an early stage, but there is
no naturally occurring electrum in western Asia Minor, only pure gold. From the
beginning then coin producers were deliberately mixing the two metals in proportions
that range between roughly 40 to 70% gold. While some series of early electrum coins
display rather consistent gold proportions, other do not. This variation is most perplexing
since in almost all early coin series, the weights of the coins were very carefully
measured, from the largest staters, which weighed between c. 14 and 16 grams,
depending on the standard used, to the tiniest 1/192nd staters, weighing c. 0.8 g. Many of
the early electrum series were produced in a broad range of denominations—staters, ½
staters, 1/3 staters, 1/6 staters, 1/12 staters, 1/24 staters, 1/48 staters, and 1/96 staters—
suggesting that these coinages were designed to cover a broad range of transactions, from
the most to least expensive. Studies that have calculated the purchasing power of these
coins, however, suggest that that this is not the case; even the smallest coins would have
the purchasing power of c. 2-days wages, while the staters had the purchasing power
equivalent to 6 months wages; the most common denomination, the 1/6 stater or hecte,
had a purchasing power equivalent to 1 month’s wages (Gitler et al. forthcoming). None
of these coins then could be easily used for daily, small transactions, which raises
questions about their purpose. If not really usable within retail markets, what then were
they used for, and by whom? These are questions with no ready answers. It is worth
noting, however, that the most important finds of early electrum coins have been made in
excavations at the Artemision, a large temple dedicated to Artemis located just outside of
Ephesus Gitler at al. forthcoming; Wallace 2006). In addition to numerous loose finds of
coins, excavators there also uncovered hoards of electrum coins that in all probability
were placed there as offerings to the deity, a practice known from later periods.
Unlike later coinages, which generally featured civic or royal designs which
immediately linked the coinage to the political authority responsible for its production,
4
the earliest electrum coinages have a plethora of types, very few of which can be
immediately associated with a known political authority (Wallace 2006). Also unlike
later coinages, which featured developed designs, or types, on both the obverse and
reverse, the earliest coins had types only on the obverse, the reverse was generally
marked by one, two, or three incuse punches. To date over 300 discrete obverse types
have been recorded on early electrum coins; some of these types have no real design at
all, but rather are completely smooth, or rough, or have striated lines (figs. 2-5). The vast
majority of the types, however, feature animals, lions, horses, and boars being the most
popular, but mythological creatures like winged horses and harpies also appear. Very few
of these early types, however, are representations of humans or deities. All in all there are
far more types than recognized political authorities, like the Mermnads or Greek poleis,
which has in turn raised questions about the nature of the authority behind the coins.
Some scholars have proposed that coins at this stage were not produced solely by the
state, but also by private individuals; the many types that appear on these coins are not
then state seals, but rather the seals of those elites with the resources and inclination to
issue coinage (Gitler et al. forthcoming). Support for this view may be found in an
extensive series of coins featuring a stag as its obverse type, but also with the inscription
in Greek: “I am the seal of Phanes” (fig. 6; Rebuffat 2000). Nothing in the historical
record indicates who this Phanes was, or which city he called home. While Phanes may
have been a city official of some sort acting on behalf of the community at large, the
possibility remains that he produced this coinage using his own resources for his own
purposes. Those scholars who are less comfortable with the idea of privately produced
currency have sought to explain the multiplicity of types within the rubric of a state
monopoly of coin production, which they believe existed from the very beginning. In this
view, the many types reflect, for example, the seals of the annual magistrates responsible
for the coinage; in later periods such magistrates would place their names on the coins
they were responsible for. There is, unfortunately, no direct evidence for how coin
production was arranged or supervised in the archaic period, and it is not necessarily the
case that later practices reflect earlier ones.
5
The Spread of Silver Coinage: Asia Minor and the Northern Aegean
For the first 50-70 years of coinage, the coins did not circulate widely nor did the
idea of coinage spread far beyond the Lydian Empire. This was to change in due course.
The rapid spread of coinage throughout the Greek world, which took place in the second
half of the 6th c. BC, probably had in large measure to due with the adoption of a new
coining metal: silver. Valued at roughly 1/13th the value of gold, silver allowed coin
producers to offer coins that suited a broader range of transactions, especially those at the
lower end of the scale, where purchasing daily food needs, for example, required lower
value coins. In the classical period, the adoption of bronze coinage lowered this
transactional range still farther as the value of bronze was approximately 1/100th that of
silver. The Mermnads appear to have struck the first silver coins not long before their
kingdom fell to the Achaemenid Persians, who were pushing their Empire’s boundaries
ever westward. A series of pure gold and pure silver coins, traditionally called “croesids”
after the last Lydian king, Croesus, the authority presumably responsible for the coinage,
first appeared sometime around 550 BC (fig. 7; Cahill and Kroll 2005). Adorned with a
confronted lion and bull on the obverse, the “croesids”, much like the earliest electrum
issues, prompt more questions than provide answers. Why the Mermnads decided to
completely abandon the production of electrum coinage, in favor of gold and silver
issues, may have had something to do with the problems associated with enforcing a
presumed overvaluation of electrum coinage, or other transactional inefficiencies
associated with electrum (Le Rider 2001). Even though most coin producers rapidly
followed the Lydian lead, not every one gave up producing electrum, indicating that
whatever problems there may have been with electrum coinage they were surmountable.
The city of Cyzicus, in the Sea of Marmara, for example, continued to produce an
important series of electrum coins down to the time of Alexander the Great, as did the
cities of Phokaia and Mytilene, with their joint series of hektai (more on this below)(figs.
8-9). All these later electrum coinages retained archaizing features, like the incuse reverse
punch, and changing types. They also seem to have been produced for particular markets,
notably those in the Black Sea, pointing to a specialized use for electrum coinages
generally that might reflect earlier specialized uses. In all likelihood, early electrum coins
were simply one form of money used alongside Hacksilber, each type of money
6
earmarked for certain types of transactions. The gold and silver croesids may have
formalized such distinctions further, reducing the need for anonymous Hacksilber and its
associated problems by means of a new silver coinage. The idea was clearly successful.
Long after the Persians sacked Sardis in 547 BC they continued to mint croesids little
changed from the Lydian predecessors. Finally, sometime around 520 BC, they replaced
the Lydian-type gold and silver coinages with a coinage of their own, introducing the so-
called darics, a gold coinage named after the Persian Great King Darius, who was said to
have introduced the coin, and the corresponding silver siglos, both on a Persian weight
standard, in the course of various fiscal reforms (fig. 10; Alram 2012; Le Rider 2001).
The darics and sigloi were the only royal coinages to be produced by the Persians over
the next two centuries and during that time their weights, limited denominations, and
archaic style saw little change. The production and circulation of these coins was
restricted primarily to Asia Minor; none were produced in the Persian heartland, where
few coins circulated anyway until after Alexander the Great conquered the Persian
Empire. Instead, monetary transactions in Persia and Mesopotamia continued to be
conducted in Hacksilber, as they had for centuries (Jursa 2010).
Although the Persian Kings themselves had a limited need for coinage outside of
Asia Minor, they did not impede others under their suzerainty from producing coins as
they saw fit. In Asia Minor, many of the Greek poleis, like Miletus, Ephesus, and
Phokaia, which had been important producers of electrum coinage, began to produce
silver coinages from about 540 BC onward (Konuk 2012). To this roster were added a
number of new coin producers, such as the Lycians, a powerful people with a language
and culture quite distinct from the Greeks and Lydians. They began producing a
significant amount of silver coinage around 520 BC on indigenous weight standards,
adopting a variety of types, and occasionally inscribing their coins with Lycian letters
(fig. 11). While our understanding of Lycian political arrangements is limited, and in
some cases is derived partly from the numismatic evidence, it would appear that these
coins were not produced by a central Lycian administration, but rather by individual
dynasts located in various parts of southwestern Asia Minor, some of whom were more
powerful than others, but none of whom had an exclusive monopoly on coin production
within the region (Vismara et al. 1989). There were as well coins produced by other
7
powerful individuals within Persian controlled territories, presaging the so-called satrapal
coinages produced by Persian governors (or satraps) in Asia Minor beginning towards the
end of the 5th c. BC. The Athenian statesman and general Themistocles, for example, an
exile from Athens was made governor by the Persian King of a number of cities in Asia
Minor, including Magnesia, where he produced coins in his name beginning around 470
BC (Cahn and Gerin 1988). Similarly, another Athenian, Miltiades, was invited to rule
the Thracian Chersonnesus by locals and there either he or another member of the Philaid
clan, produced coins near the end of the 6th c. BC, around the time that the Persians had
taken control of the lands extending across the northern edge of the Aegean Sea (cf.
Babelon 1907, cols. 1223-1235).
Inhabited primarily by native ethnê, a Greek word generally translated as “tribes”,
the coastal regions along the northern Aegean had long attracted Greeks as colonists and
settlers who were drawn to the abundant natural resources, including shipbuilding timber
but also silver and gold mines. As one of the key sources for precious metals in the
eastern Mediterranean, these mines were heavily exploited from the 6th c. BC on and fed
massive amounts of coin production well into the Hellenistic period. While this region
produced some of the earliest coins outside of Asia Minor, these coinages remain poorly
understood. It now seems certain that electrum coins were produced in the Thraco-
Macedonian region before c. 550 BC, perhaps as an extension of Lydian and Ionian
interests there (Gitler et al. forthcoming). But like the electrum issues of Asia Minor,
these were minted with many types and most cannot be securely linked to any specific
people or settlement. Once the hugely important silver mines in the region began to be
systematically exploited after 550 BC, silver coinages began to appear as well, again
minted with a plethora of types many of which cannot yet be attributed. Indeed, one
significant problem with archaic numismatics generally are these “incerti”, the hundreds
of types of coins, like many electrum and Thraco-Macedonian silver issues that defy
attribution to any place or person because their types lack any specificity and they carry
no inscriptions. Some of these incerti, however, especially those on the Euboian weight
standard, are likely linked to Euboian settlements in the Chalcidike in the western part of
the Thraco-Macedonian region (Psoma 2001a). We know that Euboian settlers there were
minting coins since some of these, like the coins from Dikaia in the Chalcidike, share
8
types with coins from the Euboian city of Eretria (figs. 12-13). It has been argued, in fact,
that these northern coinages began before their counterparts to the south, tracing a line of
development that curved from Asia Minor, through northern Greece, to the mainland
below (van Alfen forthcoming). Farther to the east, a similar situation may have occurred
with the Teians from Asia Minor, who settled Abdera around 545 BC (Chryssanthaki-
Nagle 2007; Kagan 2006). Although produced on a different weight standard, the Teian
coin types mirrored those produced in the colony of Abdera, again drawing attention to
the close political and economic ties between the two related communities, and to the
priority of northern minting (figs. 14-15). Other early northern coinages are also tied to
the activities of Parian colonists on the island of Thasos and in the coastal region directly
opposite; many of these coinages also share similar types—a satyr and a nymph—
underscoring the ties between the peoples producing the coins (Kagan 2008; Psoma
2006).
While Greek settlers played an important role in propagating northern coinages,
arguably a more important role was played by the non-Greek indigenous ethnê. At some
point around 500 BC—the date is disputed—some of these, including the Orescii,
Derones, and Edones, began to produce coinage, which included very large silver
denominations: tristaters weighing over 30 g, many examples of which have been found
in hoards in Egypt and the Near East (fig. 16). Why these ethnê adopted coinage as a
form of money and produced the largest coins then in circulation are questions that resist
easy explanations: one train of thought is to ascribe the impetus for coining to demands
for tribute from their Persian overlords (Tzamalis 2011). These large coins then served as
a means of paying tribute to the Persians. But if so, then why bother to coin in the first
place, why not simply send large ingots of silver to the Persians, who, as we know from
Herodotus (III.96.2), melted their tribute payments anyway and created ingots to store the
precious metal (Zournatzi 2000). Other scholars have called these large coins commodity
coins or trade coins, suggesting that they were produced primarily for export as a
commercial commodity and then shipped to places like Egypt and the Levant, which had
no natural silver sources (Kroll 2011). Regardless of the correct answer, like other
northern coinages, many of these ethnic coinages shared types, indicating some sort of
relationship between those producing the coins (Tzamalis 2011), but whether this sharing
9
indicates familial ties, as between Teos-Abdera and Eretria-Dikaia, for example, a formal
legal arrangement of some sort, or just simply artistic borrowing we do not know. One
thing is certain, however. The Greek inscriptions that appear on many of these coins with
the names of the ethnê inscribed were meant to be read by a Hellenic or Hellenized
audience. A small number of these coins also name the ruler, but add a curious feature:
the ruler Maxon, for example, added the term “stater” to the inscription reading
“Maxon’s stater” (fig. 17; Psoma 2001b). Although normally a denominational term,
stater here might simply be another way of expressing the idea of “coin”, i.e., “Maxon’s
coin”. Such a reading finds support in another unusual ethnic inscription. King Getas
inscribed on some of his coins the word “nomisma” (fig. 18), a Greek word derived from
a root that means “custom”, but also “law,” that later became the common word for
“coin”; in fact, this coin has the first attested use of this word anywhere in the ancient
world, the second occurring in Herodotus’ Histories written decades later. The inscription
on the coin can be translated: “Coin of King Getas”. The significance of Getas’s use of
the word cannot be emphasized enough; not only did he adopt the foreign practice of
converting his precious metal stores into pre-weighed, micro-ingots with his seal upon
them, but he underscores the conceptual link between these objects and his legal power to
declare them nomisma, currency, a type of money whose usage could be enforced.
Whatever role private producers may or may not have played in the production of the
earliest coins, by c. 500 BC the state, whether as a civic body or sole ruler, was asserting
itself as the sole legal entity with the power to mint. Coins were no longer just another
form of money, but an expression of law and ruling power.
Coinage in the Southern Aegean Region

Whether inspired by their colonists in the northern Aegean, or by contacts from
Ionia, the Greeks of the mainland and island poleis began to produce coinage, almost
exclusively in silver, sometime around the third quarter of the 6th c. BC. The silver used
initially for their coinages very likely came from the northern Aegean, but sources closer
to home, on the island of Siphnos, for example, and within Attic territory at Laurion,
began to be exploited in the later decades of the 6th c. Whatever the exact source of the
silver used, within a short space of time, dozens of Greek poleis in and around the
10
southern and western part of the Aegean were producing coins (Sheedy 2006; 2012). We
do not have firm archaeological or other evidence for when these coinages began, but it
would appear that the poleis of Aegina, Athens, and Corinth, were among the earliest and
most important of the Greek producers, probably beginning to mint sometime in the 540s
BC (Kroll and Waggoner 1984). From the start the coinages of Aegina and Corinth
adopted obverse designs, a turtle at Aegina and Pegasos at Corinth, that were to remain
constant for generations afterwards, serving as an easily recognizable badge of the city’s
coinage (figs. 19-20). While the choice of Pegasos at Corinth can be tied to the city’s
mythological connections with Bellerophon (his father Glaucus was king of Corinth), the
Aeginetans choice of a turtle is perplexing, underscoring the fact that archaic coin
iconography could have more exclusive and even personal, rather than civic meaning. As
important trading centers, with members of their communities involved in long distance
trade crossing the Mediterranean, it comes as no surprise that both Cortinthian and
Aeginetan staters are found in archaic hoards in the western as well as eastern reaches of
the Mediterranean (s.v., IGCH). Aeginetan coinage especially was to have a significant
impact on coin use and development throughout the Aegean region. Many of the islands
in the Cyclades, for example, adopted the Aeginetan weight standard as well as
Aeginetan style reverse punches for their own coinages, as did communities in Thessaly,
Boiotia, and in the Peloponnesus (Psoma 2012; Sheedy 2006, 2012). Although we cannot
say for certain why such a large number of communities adopted this standard, it likely
had to do with the huge volume of coinage produced by the Aeginetans, which
subsequently flooded through trade channels. It may as well as had to do with a favorable
political disposition towards the Aeginetans as opposed to their main rivals, the
Athenians. By aligning their coin standard with Aegina’s, communities would allow for
easier economic interactions not only with one of the most important trading centers, but
also with each other, creating, in effect, a large economic zone, one that could potentially
exclude non-particpants. The spread and importance of the Aeginetan standard rapidly
declined following the take over of the island by the Athenians in 457 BC; by the end of
the 4th c. BC, the Athenian standard had become the most important single standard in the
eastern Mediterranean.
11
Although their famed owl coinage was to become one of the most widespread and
important coinages ever produced in the ancient world, the Athenians had rather humble
numismatic beginnings (Flament 2007; van Alfen 2012). Because of its later political and
cultural importance, more information has been preserved about ancient Athens than any
other Greek polis. We are therefore better informed about later 6th c. Athenian politics
than we are about politics elsewhere, so can better situate early Athenian coinage within
its political, if not economic mileau. At roughly the same time the Athenians began
producing coinage in the 540s, the tyrant Peisistratus at last managed to consolidate his
hold on power, which after his death in 527, his sons managed to retain until the downfall
of their tyranny in 510. Before coming to power, Peisistratus had spent time in the
northern Aegean collecting resources, including very likely silver, to help his bid for
supreme political power. The first Athenian coins, the so-called Wappenmünzen, share,
unsurprisingly, traits of some northern coinages, including the distinctive X-style reverse
punch, but like the earliest electrum coinages, they also have varying obverse types; over
a dozen types have been recorded (fig. 21; Flament 2007; Kroll 1981). This stands in
sharp contrast to the solitary civic badges adopted by the Aeginetans and Corinthians.
Earlier commentators thought that these various Athenian types were the emblems
(German “Wappen”) of powerful families who were given or assumed a concession to
mint coins. Current thinking has shifted slightly from this: these are probably personal
emblems of the (elite) magistrates given responsibility for minting the city’s coinage
within a particular period of time, perhaps a calendar year (Flament 2007; Kroll 1981). If
so, this practice was similar to that adopted by the Roman Republic, in which the three
moneyers for the year were allowed to adorn the coinage with whatever personal or other
symbols they felt appropriate. By allowing potential political rivals to adorn his regime’s
coinage with their personal symbols, Pesistratus may have found a means for defusing
some of the political tension within the community. In any event, the Wappenmünzen did
not last much beyond the end of his reign. A new series of coins, the gorgoneia, named
after the gorgoneia obverse type (fig. 22; Kroll 1981), introduced as well a new, large
denomination, the tetradrachm, twice as heavily as the previous largest coin, the
didrachm. With this new coinage also came an entirely new addition to the physical
presentation of archaic coinage: a full reverse type. This change, it would seem, had
12
something to do with finding a way to continue to recognize individual magistrates, if

that is what the previous coinage’s obverse types represented, but at the same time
adopting a new obverse type as an Athenian civic emblem. The gorgoneia, which was
associated with the goddess Athena, the patron deity of Athens, on the obverse of the
coin therefore stood for the Athenians, the changing reverse types, for the magistrates. If
this interpretation is correct, we see here the beginnings in Athens of the idea that coinage
belonged to and represented the community as a whole, not just a restricted number of
elites. This is an important shift in the broader semiotics of coinage, paralleling other
civic developments within archaic Greek poleis, that included moves towards more
inclusive forms of government, like democracy, the creation of written laws, and the
construction of elaborate public buildings. The fullest numismatic expression of these
civic developments in Athens came roughly a decade later with the introduction of the
famous owl coinage (fig. 23). Here for the first time was a coin that not only had on the
obverse the patron deity of the community, here the helmeted head of Athena, but also
had a civic reverse type; the owl was closely associated with Athena. To make clear the
communal nature of this coinage, it also carried an inscription, ΑΘΕ, an abbreviation for
“of the Athenians”. Here then for the first time in the Greek world was the template that
civic coinages would follow for centuries afterwards.
One critical problem with the owl coinage, however, is that we are not certain
which Athenian government was responsible for its introduction, something that has
ramifications for how we interpret the significance of this new template. The owl coinage
was introduced some time between c. 515 and 505 BC, a date range that incorporates
both the final years of the Peisistratid tyranny, which ended in 510, and the first years of
the newly born democracy, which came into existence in 508/7. Some scholars see in the
owl coinage, and its communal iconography and inscription, a deliberate attempt to
symbolize the radical change in government in Athens (Trevett 2001). In this view, the
ability of coinage to serve as a vehicle of political symbolism or propaganda is
emphasized, an aspect of coinage that would continue to develop in the centuries that
followed. Other scholars have explained the owl coinage as an attempt by the last of the
Peisistratids, Hippias, to further enhance the commercial brand of Athenian silver (Kroll
2011). This line of reasoning, which we have encountered before regarding some
13
northern ethnic coinages, assumes that silver-rich archaic communities produced coinage
for long distance trading purposes, either as a means for making large bulk purchases, or
as an export commodity in its own right. Because of their abundant supply of silver,
thanks to their Laurion mines, it is thought that the Athenians initially produced the large
tetradrachms as a trade/commodity coinage, a theory that receives some support from a
passage in a work on state revenues by the classical Athenian author Xenophon (Poroi
3.2; cf. van Alfen 2012c). Rather than serving as a political symbol, the owl coinage
instead was meant to make explicit the link between the silver commodity and its source,
something that the gorgoneia coinage could not do so well. Whatever the original intent,
the basic design of the owl coinage remained intact for nearly 500 years, until the
Athenians finally stopped minted silver coinage in the 1st c. BC.
Coinage in the Western Greek World and Monetary Unions

While the idea of coinage was rapidly gaining traction in the Aegean world, it
quickly spread elsewhere to more far-flung Greek communities. Well before coinage was
invented, the Greeks had been sailing to the western Mediterranean, some as far as
modern Spain, to trade, but more importantly to settle. Although we do not entirely
understand the motivation for Greek colonization in the west, by the 6th c. BC, major
Greek poleis were scattered across southern Italy, which came to be known as Magna
Greacia, “Great Greece” and the nearby island of Sicily. Many of these poleis, like
Sybaris and Syracuse, quickly gained fame their great wealth; the region as a whole also
came to be known for its innovations in architecture, governance, and coinage. At
roughly the same time that the coinages of Athens, Corinth and Aegina appeared, a
number of Greek poleis in southern Italy, including Caulonia, Croton, Metapontum,
Poseidonia, Sybaris, and Taras, began minting a highly unusual and distinctive coinage
(Rutter 2001; 2012). Unlike the typical coins minted in the Aegean, which were produced
on thick, often squat or dumpy flans, these cities produced wafer thins coins with each
city’s distinctive obverse design appearing on the reverse in intaglio (figs. 24-25). These
incuse coins were a technological tour de force, requiring highly specialized production
methods not used anywhere else. Besides sharing this distinctive production technique,
the coins were also minted on a highly unusual weight standard, one not used anywhere
14
else, of c. 8.0 g for the nomos, their highest denomination. Hoard evidence shows us that
these coins rarely travelled outside of southern Italy (cf. IGCH), although within southern
Italy, each cities’ coins did move about. Some scholars have interpreted all this evidence
as signs of an early monetary union: these cities formally agreed to mint similar coins on
the same standard for collective use to the benefit of all (Kraay 1976; cp. Rutter 2001;
Rutter 2012). Presumably, this union also entailed a regional monetary zone that allowed
for the circulation of the union’s coins, but not other coins. Those coming into the zone
intending to make purchases would first have change their foreign coins, something
which undoubtedly was set up to be profitable to the union at large. If this interpretation
is correct, this union came into existence around 540 BC and lasted roughly 30 years,
until hegemonic actions on the part of some members, like Croton, which besieged and
destroyed Sybaris, curtailed any desire to cooperate further, at least as equal partners.
We know from later periods that groups of poleis within a given region did
frequently form monetary unions, but generally as part of a larger movement to form a
federation, or, to use the Greek term, a koinon (Mackil 2013; Mackil and van Alfen 2006;
Psoma and Tsangari 2003). From the late classical and Hellenistic periods many such
koina and related coinages are known. Like modern coinages issued by monetary unions,
these koinon coinages typically had a common obverse shared by all, but reverses
denoting the individual cities. The koina aside, we know of a least one instance where a
formal cooperation was established early on between two otherwise unrelated
communities to produce a joint coinage, that between Mytilene, a polis on the island of
Lesbos, and Phokaia, a polis on the mainland in Asia Minor, about 80 km to the south.
Together they produced a single type of coin, an electrum hecte (fig. 9), and did so for
nearly 200 years, an amazing feat of diplomacy if nothing else. From the late 5th c. we
have an inscription found on Lesbos detailing some parts of their agreement, mostly
about the metal alloy to be used (IG XII 2, 1; cf. Mackil and van Alfen 2006: 210-219).
Knowing that such accords existed in later periods, it is easy to read back into archaic
coinages evidence for other cooperative coinages, but this is problematic. Besides the
strong circumstantial evidence for a monetary union in southern Italy, dozens of other
archaic monetary unions have been proposed based on the less secure evidence of shared
types and weight standards between coins. In some instances, as in Boiotia, where again a
15
multiplicity of poleis produced similar coins, in this case with the shared Boiotian shield
obverse type (fig. 26), we can be reasonably certain that some type of formal cooperation
existed, especially since we have evidence of these poleis later forming a koinon (Mackil
2013). But do such shared traits always indicate formal, cooperative arrangements?
Probably not. Many poleis borrowed designs for their coins from other cities without any
formal arrangement between them, as in fact, Mytilene and Phokaia often did for their
hektai, even producing on one occasion coins that looked like Athenian owls. This type
of numismatic borrowing, which was commonplace throughout antiquity, seriously
dilutes the message of coin types. One other serious problem with identifying archaic
monetary unions has to do with the nature of the political relationship between cities,
which in some cases were less than equal, and so less about union than about hegemonic
imposition.
To return to southern Italy: when Sybaris fell in 510 BC, Croton emerged as the
regional power, and subjected many poleis. A number of coins exist, again minted using
the unusual south Italian incuse technique, but which show Croton’s tripod on the
obverse, and the subjected polis’ badge or ethnic on the reverse, including in one instance
Sybaris’s bull (fig. 27). These coins were not produced by political equals or partners in a
joint enterprise, like Phokaia and Mytilene, but rather by a hegemon presumably dictating
the parameters of the coinage. Here the political symbolism of the coinage weighs as
heavily as its economic function, reminding users of the Sybaris’ diminished status. Such
numismatic symbolism, although of a somewhat different nature, was also in play in
archaic Sicily.
As in southern Italy and in the Aegean, silver coin production began in Sicily
around 540 BC with Selinous, Himera, Naxos, and Zankle being the earliest producers
there (Fischer-Bossert 2012). The latter three poleis also shared a distinctive weight
standard, with the highest denomination weighing c. 5.6 g, a standard that may be related
to the Euboian standard (3 x 5.6 = 17.2 g, the Euboian tetrdrachm) and thus traceable to
their common Euboian ancestry. Towards the end of the 6th c., other poleis on Sicily also
began to produce coins, most notably Syracuse, where a coinage featuring a quadriga
obverse and nymph head reverse was introduced on the Attic standard (fig. 28). The
political history of Syracuse throughout the archaic and classical period was tumultuous,
16
with regimes at times flipping back and forth between democracy, oligarchy and tyranny.
Despite the political upheavals, the quadriga type remained constant throughout, coming
to be recognized not only as a badge of the city, but also of the city’s extensive power on
the island. At the time it was introduced around 510 BC Syracuse was in the hands of an
oligarchy, who called themselves the Gamori. The quadriga no doubt symbolized one of
the favorite past times of these wealthy elites: high stakes, expensive racing, somewhat
analogous to today’s Formula 1 racing. The democracy that soon overthrew this
oligarchy curiously retained this symbolism, which in turn was retained by the tyrant,
Gelon son of Deinomenes, who overthrew the democracy, inaugurating decades of
monarchical rule. Rising to power in his native Gela, Gelon extended his rule over other
parts of Sicily in the 490s, conquering Syracusan forces and taking control of that key
city in 485. Leaving his brother Hiero to rule over Gela, Gelon continued his expansion,
which included forming a marriage alliance with Theron, the tyrant of Akragas. This
widespread extension of Deinomenid power in Sicily is reflected in the coinage: besides
Syracuse, other poleis including Gela, Himera, Aitna, and Leontini now produced coins
featuring a quadriga on the obverse and shifted to using the Attic weight standard as well.
Considering the close, familial connections between the rulers of these poleis, do we
ascribe these numismatic parallels to hegemonic action, equal cooperation, or some form
of imitation?
Conclusions
Much has been written in recent years on the socio-political impact of coinage in
archaic Greek poleis (von Reden 1995, 2002; Kim 2001; Kurke 1999; cp. van Alfen
2012b). Often written by social historians, these studies have underscored key problems
with the impact of money and coinage on archaic societies generally, notably the
potential for this new form of money to seriously disrupt older, traditional forms of elite
gift-exchange and thereby make it possible for non-elites to acquire wealth and political
power. A great deal of the extant Greek literature from archaic period, particularly the
poetic writings of Hesiod and the Athenian Solon, for example, emphasize the tensions
between those holding power and wealth and those who do not, as well as the importance
of acquiring wealth in order to live with a modicum of comfort. There is little doubt that
17
the period between roughly 800 and 500 BC were key formative years in the Greek
world, but the question remains to what extent money and by extension coinage was a
cause of tensions, or simply one solution among many to wider political, social and
economic issues. We have seen that coinage in the archaic period had the potential to
serve a number of functions, both economic and political. It should also be clear that
archaic coinage per se is not one thing, as it were, but host of different responses to
different economic and political stimuli. There can be no doubts, for example, that early
Lydian electrum coinage is something completely different from the Athenian owl, or a
Persian siglos.
When thinking about archaic coinage and its socio-political impact, there are as
well a few things to keep in mind. Despite the ready reception that the Greeks gave to the
idea of coinage, and its close association with the Greeks ever afterwards, it was not
simply a Greek invention. Born in a Lydian context, coinage also found a fertile reception
among a number of other non-Greek peoples early on, like the northern ethnê and
Lycians. Moreover, the number of Greek poleis across the Mediterranean that were
minting coins by c. 500 BC were not many. Only approximately 15-20% of the total
number of known archaic poleis were striking coins at this time, a proportion that is quite
far indeed from the majority, and the bulk of these were major cities located in coastal
regions. As to the function of early coinage, this continues to be a vexing question. While
most would agree that coins were produced by archaic states to meet their expenses (cf.
van Wees 2014), especially military expenses, there were few major wars in the archaic
period that would fuel the type of massive coin outputs that were associated with later
classical, Hellenistic, and Roman period wars. The production of coinage for trading
purposes, whether for long distance trade or internal retail trade, is a function that is also
often voiced, but one that has its detractors. There is little question that many coin
producers in the archaic period minted large numbers of small denomination coins
suitable for daily transactions, thus making coin use accessible to large proportion of a
city’s population (Kim 2001), but still there was a sizeable number of producers who
appear not to have minted any small denominations at all. Recall as well that most
electrum coins had values well beyond what most people would need on a daily basis.
Thus, despite the abundance of archaic coinage that we have at our to disposal to study,
18
we still are far from answering the most basic questions about them: who within a
community made the decisions to mint these coins, and what were their reasons for doing
so?
Bibliography
Alram, M. 2012. The coinage of the Persian Empire. In. W. Metcalf, ed. The Oxford
Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 61-87.
Babelon, E. 1907. Traité des monnaies grecques et romaines. Part II, vol. II. Paris: Ernest
Leroux.
Balmuth, M.S., 2001, Hacksilber to coinage: new insights into the monetary history of
the Near East and Greece. ANS Numismatic Studies 24 (New York: American
Numismatic Society).
Bodensted, F. 1981. Die Elektronmünzen von Phokaia und Mytelene. Tübingen.
Cahill, N. and J.H. Kroll. 2005. New archaic coin finds from Sardis. AJA 109.4: 589-617.
Cahn, H. and D. Gerin. 1988. Themistocles at Magnesia. NC 148: 13-20.
Chryssanthanki-Nagle, V. 2007. L'histoire monetaire d'Abdère en Thrace (VIe s. avant

J.-C.-IIe s. après J.-C.) Melethmata 51.
De Callataÿ, F. 2001. Sur les origines de la monnaie stricto sensu (nomisma). À propos
de deux livres récents (S. von Reden et L. Kurke). Revue numismatique 157: 83-93.
Dodd, N. 2014. The social life of money. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Fischer-Bossert, W. 2012. The coinage of Sicily. In. W. Metcalf, ed. The Oxford
Flament, C. 2007. Le monnayage en argent d’Athènes: de l’époque archaïque à l’époque

hellénistique (c. 550–c. 40 av. J.-C.), Etudes numismatiques 1. Louvain-la-Neuve:
Association de numismatique professeur Marcel Hoc.
Gitler, H., K. Konuk, and C. Lorber, eds. (forthcoming). White Gold: essays on early
electrum coinage. New York and Jerusalem: The American Numismatic Society and The
Israel Museum.
Howgego, C. 1990. Why did ancient states strike coins? Numismatic Chronicle 150: 1-
25.
19
IGCH: M.Thompson, O. Mørkholm, and C.M. Kraay, eds. 1973. An Inventory of Greek
coin hoards. New York: American Numismatic Society.
Jursa, M. 2010. Aspects of the economic history of Babylonia in the first millennium BC:
economic geography, economic mentalities, agruiculture, the use of money and the
problem of economic growth. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Kagan, J. 2006. The beginnings of coinage at Abdera. In: P. van Alfen, ed. Agoranomia:
studies in money and exchange presented to John H. Kroll. New York: American
Numismatic Society, pp. 49-60.
Kagan, J.H. 2008. Paros, Melos, and Naxos: archaic and early classical coinages of the
Cyclades. AJN 20: 105-111.
Kim, H. 2001. "Archaic Coinage as Evidence for the Use of Money." Money and its Uses
in the Ancient Greek World. A. Meadows and K. Shipton, eds. Oxford, Oxford
University Press: 7-22.
Kraay, C. 1976. Archaic and classical Greek coinage. Berkeley: University of Califonia
Press.
Kroll, J.H. 1981. From Wappenmünzen to gorgoneia to owls. ANSMN 26: 1-32.
Kroll, J.H. 2008. The monetary use of weighed bullion in Archaic Greece, In: W.V.
Harris, ed. The Monetary Systems of the Greeks and Romans, pp. 12-37 (Oxford).
Kroll, J.H. 2011. Minting for export. In: T. Faucher, M.-C. Marcellesi, and O. Picard,
eds. Nomisma. BCH Suppl. 53., pp. 27-38.
Kroll, J.H. 2012. The monetary background of early coinage. In. W. Metcalf, ed. The
Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.
33-42.
Kroll, J.H. and N. Waggoner. 1984. Dating the earliest coins of Athens, Corinth, and
Aegina. AJA 88.3: 325-340.
Konuk, K. 2012. Asia Minor to the Ionian Revolt. In. W. Metcalf, ed. The Oxford
Kurke, L. 1999. Coins, Bodies, Games and Gold: The Politics of Meaning in Archaic
Greece. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Le Rider, G. 2001. La naissance de la monnaie: pratiques monétaires de l’Orient

ancient. Paris.
20
Mackil, E. 2013. Creating a common polity: religion, economy, and politics in the
making of the Greek koinon. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mackil, E. and P. van Alfen. 2006. Cooperative coinage. In: P. van Alfen ed.,
Agoranomia: studies in money and exchange presented to John H. Kroll. New York:
American Numismatic Society (2006), pp. 201-247.
Peacock, M.S. 2006. “The origins of money in Ancient Greece: the political economy of
coinage and exchange.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 30: 637-650.
Peacock, M.S. 2013. Introducing Money. London and New York: Routledge.
Picard, O. 2011. La circulation monétaire dans le monde grec: le cas de Thasos. In: T.
Faucher, M.-C. Marcellesi, O. Picard, eds. Nomisma: la circulation monétaire dans le
monde grec antique: actes du colloque international, Athènes, 14-17 avril 2010. BCH
Suppl. 53. Athens, pp. 79-110.
Price, M.J. 1983. Thoughts on the beginning of coinage. In C.N.L. Brooke et al. eds.
Studies in numismatic method presented to Philip Grierson, pp. 1-10. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Psoma, S. 2001a. Olynthe et les Chalcidiens de Thrace. Etudes de numismatique et

d’histoire. Stuttgart.
Psoma, S. 2001b. STATER MAXON. The Sermylia group of coins. Nom.Chron. 20: 13-
44.
Psoma, S. 2006. The “Lete” coinage reconsidered In: P. van Alfen ed., Agoranomia:
studies in money and exchange presented to John H. Kroll. New York: American
Numismatic Society (2006), pp. 201-247.
Psoma, S. 2012. Greece and the Balkans to 360 B.C. In. W. Metcalf, ed. The Oxford
Psoma, S. and D. Tsangari. 2003. Monnaie commune et états fédéraux. La circulation des
monnayages frappés par les états fédéraux du monde grec. In: K. Buraselis and K.
Zoumboulakis, eds., The idea of European community in history, vol. 2: Aspects of
connecting poleis and ethne in ancient Greece, pp. 111-142. Athens: National and
Capodistrian University of Athens.
Ramage, A. and P.T. Craddock. 2000. King Croesus' gold: excavations at Sardis and the
history of gold refining. London: British Musem.
Rebuffat, F. 2000. Phanes: questions sans responses. In: O. Casabonne, ed. Mecahnismes
et innovations monetaires dans l’Anatolie achemenide. Numismatique et histoire. Actes
de la Table Ronde Internationale d’Istanbul, 22-23 mai 1997. Paris, pp. 225-233.
21
Rutter, N.K. 2001. Historia numorum. Italy. London: British Museum Press.
Rutter, N.K. 2012. The coinage of Italy. In. W. Metcalf, ed. The Oxford Handbook of
Greek and Roman Coinage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 128-141.
Schaps, D. 2004. The invention of coinage and the monetization of ancient Greece. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Seaford, R. 2004. Money and the Early Greek Mind: Homer, Philosopy, Tragedy.
Oxford.
Sheedy, K. 2006. The archaic and early classical coinages of the Cyclades. Royal
Numismatic Society Special Publication 40. London.
Sheedy, K. 2012. Aegina, the Cyclades, and Crete. In. W. Metcalf, ed. The Oxford
Thompson, C.M. 2003. Sealed silver in Iron Age Cisjordan and the ‘invention’ of
coinage. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 22.1: 67-107.
Trevett, J. 2001. Coinage and democracy at Athens. In: A. Meadows and K. Shipton, eds.
Money and its uses in the ancient Greek world, pp. 23-34. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Tzamalis, A. 2011. Monnaies “thraco-macédoniennes”: quelques observations sur les

monnaies au centaure et à la nymphe. In: T. Faucher, M.-C. Marcellesi, O. Picard, eds.
Nomisma: la circulation monétaire dans le monde grec antique: actes du colloque
international, Athènes, 14-17 avril 2010. BCH Suppl. 53. Athens, pp. 67-78.
van Alfen, P.G. (forthcoming) “The Chalkidikian beginnings of Euboian coinage.” In: M.
Amandry and U. Wartenberg Kagan, eds. Numismatic Studies in Honor of Basil
Demetriades. New York: American Numismatic Society.
van Alfen, P.G. 2012a. The coinage of Athens, sixth to first centuries B.C. In. W.
Metcalf, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 88-104.
van Alfen, P.G. 2012b. “Problems in the political economy of archaic Greek coinage.”
Notae Numismaticae / Zapiski Numizmatyczne, vol. 7: 13-36.
van Alfen, P.G. 2012c. “Xenophon Poroi 3.2 and Athenian ‘owls’ in Aegean-Near
Eastern long distance trade,” in: M. Astolati and G. Gorini, eds. I ritrovamenti monetali e
i processi storico-economici Padova: Esedra, pp.11-32.
van Wees, H. 2014. Ships and silver, taxes and tribute: a fiscal history of archaic Athens.
London.
22
Vismara, N., R. Martini, and O. Carruba. 1989. Monetazione arcaica della Lycia. Milan:
Ennerre.
von Reden, S. 1995. Exchange in ancient Greece. London.
von Reden, S. 2002. Money in the ancient economy: a survey of recent research. Klio 84:
141-174.
Wallace, R.W. 1987. The origin of electrum coinage. AJA 91: 385-397.
Wallace, R.W. 2006. “KUKALIM, WALWET, and the Artemision Deposit: Problems in
Early Anatolian Electrum Coinage,” in Agoranomia. Studies in Money and Exchange.
Festschrift for John H. Kroll, ed. P. van Alfen, The American Numismatic Society, pp.
37-48.
Zournatzi, A. 2000. The processing of gold and silver tax in the Archemenid Empire:
Herodotous 3.96.2 and the archaeological realities. Studia Iranica 29: 241-271.
23

An Introduction to Archaic Coinage

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

An Introduction to Archaic Coinage

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Working Paper: v.31.12.

2014 ©Peter van Alfen

An Introduction to Archaic Coinage

The First Coins

Coinage in the Southern Aegean Region

something to do with finding a way to continue to recognize individual magistrates, if

Coinage in the Western Greek World and Monetary Unions

Bodensted, F. 1981. Die Elektronmünzen von Phokaia und Mytelene. Tübingen.

Cahn, H. and D. Gerin. 1988. Themistocles at Magnesia. NC 148: 13-20.

Chryssanthanki-Nagle, V. 2007. L'histoire monetaire d'Abdère en Thrace (VIe s. avant

Flament, C. 2007. Le monnayage en argent d’Athènes: de l’époque archaïque à l’époque

Le Rider, G. 2001. La naissance de la monnaie: pratiques monétaires de l’Orient

Psoma, S. 2001a. Olynthe et les Chalcidiens de Thrace. Etudes de numismatique et

Tzamalis, A. 2011. Monnaies “thraco-macédoniennes”: quelques observations sur les

von Reden, S. 1995. Exchange in ancient Greece. London.

You might also like