Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
1997
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
This paper puts into perspective recent literature (126 bibliographic references published during the years 1985-1990) for Hellenistic coinages struck in Asia Minor. Besides generalities and main topics (such as the coinages of Alexander the Great, the cistophoric coinage and the wreathed coinages struck c. 150 BC) or the publication of important hoards (such as Meydancikkale), the paper deals specifically with main areas (Pontus, Paphlagonia, Bithynia, Mysia, Troad, Aeolis, Ionia, Caria, Phrygia, Lycia, Pisidia-PLycaonia-Pamphylia, Cilicia, Cappadocia, Armenia and Commagene).
A full die-study is given of the royal Bithynian tetradrachms for the years 98/7-74/3 BC. Monograms (control-marks) show that two mints were at work at the same type but with no connection (die-link) between themselves during the years 93/2-89/8 BC. Moreover, it seems likely to recognize two different portraits during these years. Hence the hypothesis that one is representing Nicomedes IV Philopator while the other would be for Socrates Chrestos, the usurper supported by Mithridates of Pontus. Surprisingly enough, the last Bithynian royal tetradrachms were struck in 75/4 and 74/3 BC, after many years with no strikes at all. We know that Mithridates of Pontus struck suddenly and intensively from February 75 BC. Instead to consider that Nicomedes IV was kind enough to make a last strike in order to help modern historians to date his death (then in 73 BC), it seems more appropriate tothink that the se last strikes are posthumous and that the intense preparations made by Mithridates in February 75 BC must coincide with the recent news of the death of Philopator and the bequest of his kingdom to Rome.
A Hellenistic tetradrachm of Maroneia recently sold in Paris shows clear marks of overstrike. These marks allow to identify with certainty the overstruck type: a tetradrachm of Mithridates Eupator, king of Pontus, not struck before 88 BC (and likely to date to August 85 BC). This has important and damaging consequences for the chronology of Maroneian tetradrachms as established by E. Schönert-Geiss which is to be lowered from half a century. We also discuss another overstrike (kept in Berlin) of a tetradrachm of Maroneia on Aesillas which also strongly invites us to substantially lower the accepted chronology (most of these Maroneian tetradrachms were issued during the first decades of the 1s c. BC and not during the 2nd c. BC). A connection with the first Mithridatic war is therefore not to be excluded. We gives a review of all the Pontic monetary evidence found on the western shores of the Black Sea.
The Pontic area was monetized much later than the neighbouring Bithynia. To realize how much it was the case, we need to go further than to consider the simple existence of monetary issues. We need to observe what kind of coins were issued, what kind of hoards were recovered and not to forget the testimony of Xenophon
There is a general agreement that, as a rule (but with exception), ancient coinages were mostly issued to match state expenditures and that military expenses generally come first in any budget before the 19th c. This paper focuses on two particularly well documented cases for the Hellenistic kingdoms: Alexander the Great and Mithridates Eupator. For Alexander, not only the peak of strikes in the years 325-323BC has been related with the paying of the disbanded mercenaries but the very pattern of strikes seems to indicate the geographical origins of these mercenaries. It does not seem random indeed if the mints of Lampsacus and Abydus specialized producing gold staters (for the Thracians on their way back home) while the coastal mints of Western Asia Minor mainly issued drachms (for the continental Greek mercenaries). Since the silver tetradrachms of Mithridates are dated by month, they represent a unique opportunity to study the rhythm of their issues. It turns out that the link with military expenditures is extremely strong (if not the only one in this particular case). Soldiers were paid before or after (if successfull), not during the campaigns. Not all the soldiers were paid (as a quantitative analysis tends to demonstrate) and some actions, as the building of a fleet or the so-called second Mithridatic war (led only with tributary troops), didn't necessitate fresh issues of coins. We are thus left with the following statement: coins were struck for military purposes, but first to pay mercenaries.
2003, O. PICARD et al. (eds.), Royaumes et cités hellénistiques de 323 à 55 av. J.-C., Paris, 2003, p. 218-234.
The paper aims to gather and put into perspectives studies published during the years 1990-1995 for coinages produced in Hellenistic Asia Minor. Beyond general topics such as the coins of Alexander the Great, Lysimachus and the Attalids (including the cistophori), main areas have been systematically investigated (Pontus, Paphlagonia and Bithynia, Mysia, Troad and Aeolis, Ionia, Caria [Karia], Phrygia, Lycia, Pamphylia, Pisidia and Lycaonia, Cilicia, Cappadocia, Armenia and Sophene. The bibliogtraphy amounts 196 entries.
2013, Revue Numismatique, 170, 2013, p. 247-277.
Cet article aborde sous un angle nouveau le problème de la chronologie des émissions syllaniennes aux légendes L. SVL(L)A IMP(E) (RRC 367-368) et L. SVLLA IMPER ITERVM (RRC 359). La première partie est consacrée à la signification du titre d’imperator, qui désigne Sylla a priori comme « commandant détenteur de l’imperium ». Le classement traditionnel des séries implique une utilisation arbitraire de l’itération, qui n’est pas la plus vraisemblable. La suite de l’article propose donc une réévaluation des éléments fondant les datations communément adoptées. Au terme de cet examen, l’hypothèse suivante est mise à l’épreuve : l’émission 'L. Sulla imperator' aurait été produite vers 90-89, durant la guerre sociale, et les monnaies 'L. Sulla imperator iterum' à partir de la fin de l’année 84, pour financer la campagne en Italie. This paper sheds new light on the problem of the chronology of the Sullan issues with the legends L. SVL(L)A IMP(E) (RRC 367-368) and L. SVLLA IMPER ITERVM (RRC 359). The first part deals with the meaning of the title imperator, which a priori designates Sulla as a “commander cum imperio”. The traditional order of these series involves an arbitrary use of the iteration, which is not especially probable. The following sections of this paper intend therefore to reassess the elements on which the common dating rests. Finally, the following hypothesis is tested: the coins 'L. Sulla imperator' could have been issued ca. 90-89, during the Social War, and those of the series 'L. Sulla imperator iterum' issued from the end of 84 onwards in order to fund the campaign in Italy.
This full die-study (93 obverse dies for 554 tetradrachms) of the coinage in the name of Aesillas (now superseded in terms of size of sample by the one given by R.A. Bauslaugh) aims to put into historical perspective this intriguing coinage. It is important to notice that these tetradrachms didn't circulate outside the Roman province of Macedonia. To the name of Aesillas (which doesn't look Roman) are associated those of Suura (Sura) and Cae.Pr. (Caesar). The die-study shows that Sura is to be associated with the first phase of coinage, while Caesar comes at the end of the second phase. Between these two groups, we observe clear differences in terms of diameters (31mm versus 28mm) and weights (median at 16.75g versus 16.40g). Moreover and besides stylistic differences of engraving, coins of these two groups are exceptionnaly found together in published hoards. we are left thus with a huge coinage (c. 100 obverse dies for tetradrachms) issued in two phases: c. 20 obverse dies for the years c. 95-87 BC (here is to be placed Sura) and c. 80 obverse dies for the years c. 75-65 BC (here is to be placed Caesar). Most of this coinage cannot thus be linked with the first Mithridatic war. This scenario offers at least a satisfactory frame for two overstrikes (Aesillas on Athens [c. 73/2 BC] and Byzantium [before 75 BC] on Aesillas).
Before the publication of the book Les guerres mithridatiques vues par les monnaies (1997), this paper gives a first full die-study for the late posthumous Alexanders struck at Mesembria and Odessos (or Odessus). 226 tetradrachms for Odessos and 490 for Mesembria have been catalogued. For Mesembria, the main provenances are New York (66), Sofia (60), Burgas (43), Varna (38), London (33) and Paris (25). Tables are given for the hoards, the weights (with a clear decreasing for the last groups) and an attempt to quantify the volume of issues. Two main conclusions are worth to be noticed: 1) the proposed chronology is very similar with the one argued sepoarately by Ivan Karayotov and 2) these last issues of Alexander tetradrachms are not best understood as struck for the Mithridatic wars (only the last groups [Group 4 at Mesembria and Groups 2 and 3 at Odessos] may have been contemporary, i.e. less than 60 obverse dies).
This paper comments the recent book of Ilya Prokopov on Thasian-types tetradrachms. We put in a quantified perspective this coinage (ca. 400 obverse dies) with other contemporary large coinages for tetradrachms in the area: Maroneia (ca. 110 obverse dies), First region of Macedonia (ca. 150 obverse dies) and Aesillas (ca. 100 obverse dies). Maroneia (through style) and Athens (through hoards) are especially important to establish a chronological frame. Possibly the most usefuf tool at our disposal is the huge network of overstrikes (31 cases dealing with Odessos, Mesembria, Byzantium, the king Mostis, Maroneia, Aesillas, Athens, Alexandreia Troas, Tenedos and Ephesus). The study of weights is also illuminating to establish the sequence of issues, with a clear distinction between Groups I to VIII and Groups XI to XX. At least, working on die-links between different groups, matrix calculation gives a different order than what is proposed by Prokopov for Groups XII-XX, with as a result, a presumption for a shorter time of issue (ca. 100-80 BCE ? instead of ca. 148-90/80 BCE as proposed by Prokopov).
A critical review of Marie-Louise Vollenweider, Les portraits grecs du Cabinet des Médailles, Paris, 1995, dealing with the lack of up-to-dated bibliography, the way hypotheses become facts, the dangers of pyschological interpretations as well as the use of stylistic arguments to date, the propension to attribute everything, the way to see kings in the guise of gods (numismatists are by far less enthusiasts on that), the danger to interpretate monograms or letters as names of engravers, and the necessity to consider all the dies making monetary comparisons. Concrete examples discussed here include: Mithridates Eupator, Perseus of Macedonia, Rhodes, menads, Alexander the Great [wrongly recognized under the traits of Herakles], Philip V [and Polyrhenia], Antiochus III, the engravers Nikias and Sosis, the kings of Elymais [Tiraios, Attambelos], Ariarathes IX of Cappadocia.
A bronze coin of king Pylaimenes (Paphlagonia) kept at the Brussels Coin cabinet has been countermarked with the letters BA surrounded by an ivy wreath which makes immediately think to the king (Ba[sileus]) Mithridates Eupator. The last days of the history of the kingdom of Paphlagonia are evoked. Another bronze of Pylaimenes has been countermarked (British Museum) twice with monograms which both could be found on the royal series struck about the same time in Pontus and in Bithynia.
A die-study is given of the late posthumous staters in the name of Lysimachus struck by the cities of Istros (14 coins for 1 obverse die), Tomis (57 coins for 7 obverses) and Callatis (48 coins for 6 obverses). These issues which may be dated from the beginning of the 1st c. BC may have served the ambitions of Mithridates Eupator, king of Pontus, although it is unlikely that the portrait of Mithridates himself is to be recognized under the traits of Alexander.
2009, PUR : Presses universitaires de Rennes
Revue belge de Numismatique CLVIII, 2012, p. 328-330.
2010, F. Delrieux, Fr. Kayser, éd., Hommages offerts à François Bertrandy, Tome 1 : Des déserts d'Afrique au pays des Allobroges, Chambéry
This paper aims to estimate different parameters never really estimated before: the amount of Greek coins kept in public (c. 40%?) or private (c. 60%?) hands, the average number of Greek coins sold every year and the impact of new hoards on the stock already known. All these estimates are surrounded by a rather high degree of uncertainty. Starting with the contents of the 4 biggest public collections of Greek coins (Berlin, London, New York and Paris - c. 100,000 each) and after have built the metallic composition of a typical public collection (c. 1.5% for gold and electrum; c. 36% for silver and c. 62.5% for bronze), we dare to propose the following estimates: c. 40,000 gold Grek coins, c. 650,000 silver coins and 770,000 for bronze coins (but here the uncertainty is by far greater and the total is likely to be grossly underestimated). These results are the equivalent of c. 140 kg of gold, 40 kg of electrum and c. 6 tons of silver. Taking into account the sale's catalogue for the years 1993-1994, the total number of Greek coins sold every year approximates 40,000 while the number really negotiated is likely to be close to 70,000. At last, we estimate the amount of Greek coins coming from reported hoards. It turns out that c. 25,000 gold, c. 4,250 electrum, c. 450,000 silver and c. 130,000 bronze Greek coins have so far been published by the IGCH and the 8 first CH. For the 1980s only, about 50,000 coins have been officially reported in the Coin Hoards. All in all, one Greek coin out of two would come from a duly reported find.
2013, Revue Numismatique, 170
Revue belge de Numismatique CLVIII, 2012, p. 320-322.
Revue belge de Numismatique, CLVIII, 2012, p. 322-325.
This paper sums up how coinages were fundamental for the policy of Hellenistic kings competing between themselves. It exemplifies the common pattern along which coins were primarily struck for military expenditures, and above all to pay mercenaries. The Pangean mines first, the extravagant booty made by Alexander in the Persian treasuries second allowed to monetize precious metals on an unprecedented scale. Quotations are given to relevant literature in Plutarch, Pliny, Arrian, Diodorus, Saint Augustine, Atheneaus, Plautus, Terence and Polybius. In addition, Two poems of Cavafis (Orophernes and Philhellene) are fully given for the way they capture the spirit of these troubled times.
This thematic index gives an easy access to the many studies of Georges Le Rider for the years 1958-1998. Each entry has been detailed to facilitate the reading. It goes far beyond the simple input of isolated words.
Gnomon 85, 2013, p. 711-718
in TOPOI, 18, 2013, p. 545-550.
2014, Anatolia Antiqua, 22
L'artiste et l'antiquaire : L'étude de l'antique et son imaginaire à l'Epoque Moderne, dir. Emmanuel Lurin et Delphine Morana Burlot, Paris, INHA, 2017, p. 51-65.
Recherches sur les premières études de numismatique grecque à la Renaissance, sur les collections italiennes et françaises documentées dans les années 1550, entre autres grâce au corpus de Jacopo Strada, et sur les voyageurs qui ont fait connaître aux lettrés occidentaux les monnayages grecs de l'Antiquité.