No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
The following notes and queries have been mainly suggested by Professor Percy Gardner's recent article on the Coinage of the Athenian Empire. They do not claim to do more than elucidate one or two small points with the aid of rather fuller use of epigraphical evidence than is to be found in his article, and at the same time raise other questions of secondary importance in the same connexion. If no solution is offered here to some of these queries I see no cause for regret, for it may be found convenient by others to have here collected references to such inscriptions as seem to deserve further investigation from the standpoint of the numismatist. The inscriptions here mentioned belong both to the 5th and 4th centuries and so are not confined within the chronological limits of the Athenian Empire.
In the first place it may be as well to distinguish roughly the classes of Attic inscriptions in which numismatic evidence is found, in particular that for the circulation of non-Athenian coins in the Athenian Empire. ‘Treasure-lists,’ which record the receipt and transmission of sacred objects of value by their successive boards of curators, frequently, especially in the fourth century, make mention of coins, giving their denomination and number.
1 J.H.S. xxxiii. (1913), pp. 147–188; I am also indebted to his article ‘The Gold Coinage of Asia before Alexander the Great,’ Proc. British Academy, iii. (1908); and to his criticism and encouragement during the preparation of these notes.
2 See § 1 (a).
3 Some examples appear below, in §§ 1 (b), 3.
4 See pp. 280, note 22, 286.
5 See pp. 278, note 17, 282, note 24.
6 P. Gardner, J.H.S. op. cit., p. 155, l. 17.
7 See Dinsmoor's brilliant and convincing restoration of the fragments of this record, A.J.A., xvii. (1913), pp. 53 ff.
8 Cf. Cavaignac, Le Trésor ďAthènes, Introd. p. lxvii.; B.S.A. xvi. p. 190; P. Gardner, op. cit. p. 154, alludes apparently to these staters as ‘in the treasure-lists of Athens.’
9 Dinsmoor, op. cit. p. 63.
10 I.G. i. 180–183: Dittenb. Syll. 2 37 = Hicks-Hill, 70.
11 Ll. 12, 13.
12 Ll. 48, 49.
13 Ll. 54, 55.
14 So we should probably read the ΛΙΑΝ on the stone, regarding the Α as an error for Λ, with the editor of the Corpus; cf. Dittenberger's note ad loc.
15 11 T. 3787 dr. 4½ obols + (248 staters × 25 =) 6200 dr. = 12 T. 3987 dr. 4½ ob., which is but little less than 12⅔ Talents. But see below, where there seems evidence for a different proportion (24:1).
16 I.G. i. 188, 189a = Syll. 2 51.
17 I.G. i. 184, 185; i. Suppl. (p. 34) 184, 185.
18 Here, as throughout these notes, I use Dittenberger's system of transcription, e.g.-ο and not -ον in the genitive singular if it is so written on the stone, and η for Η, not for Ε, in inscriptions earlier than Euclides' archonship.
19 This is quite incredible in view of the other evidence for their relative values.
20 Cf. P. Gardner, ‘The Gold Coinage of Asia,’ Proc. Brit. Academy, iii. p. 18; in note 5 read (for C.I.A. i. 196, 649, 660) I.G. (= C.I.A.) i. 196, ii. 649, 660. For a completer list of epigraphical allusions to these staters of Phocaea see below, p. 292, Postscript.
21 I.G. ii. 843; below, p. 286.
22 I.G. i. Suppl. p. 70, 191a; this seems to belong to the same series as i. 184, 185, cf. i. Suppl. p. 33.
23 The figures preserved are 
the sixth figure was either 
or 
24 Inscr. Or. Sept. Ponti Euxini i. p. 21, No. 11 (= Syll. 2 546, = Michel, Recueil 336). The first publication by Mordtmann, Hermes xiii. p. 373, is not satisfactory for restorations of the text.
25 Cited by P. Gardner, J.H.S. loc. cit. p. 156.
26 Or [δωδεκά]το i.e. 10½ or 11½ staters.
27 Hist. Num. 2 p. 272; cf. Pick, Antike Münzen. Nordgriechenlands, i. Pl. IX, 1, 18.
28 As Professor Gardner has kindly pointed out in a letter.
29 Note also that a similar flaw is found in the l. edge of both stones.
30 As in I.G. i. Suppl. 298.
31 The maximum is quite uncertain. We know that the total weight of gold on the statue was 40 talents (Thucyd. ii. 13), or 44 (Philochorus, quoted by Schol. on Aristophanes, Peace, l. 605), of which the purchase of rather more than six and a quarter is alluded to in i. Suppl. 298, ll. 14 ff.; if the new fragment contained the record of the purchase of all the remainder, which is highly unlikely, the maximum here would be nearly 33 T., 4,500 dr. (or 37 T., 4,500 dr.).
32 See Dinsmoor's reading and interpretation of I.G. i. Suppl. 298, ll. 14 ff. in the light of an entry in the building-record of the Parthenon, , A.J.A. xvii. (1913), p. 76.Google Scholar
33 Where Η was cut on the stone one space to the r. of the last letter in the line above. It is not regarded by the editor of the Corpus as visible on the stone, but I see traces of it on a squeeze which Ι made.
34 110 staters at 127·27 drachmai each cost 14,000 dr., and 150 at 93·3 dr.
35 Cf. Hill, , Historical Greek Coins, p. 18, No. 7Google Scholar; Gardner, P., ‘Gold Coinage of Asia,’ pp. 9Google Scholar f. and references ad loc.
36 P. Gardner, op. cit. p. 10.
37 Gardner, P., J.H.S. xxxiii. (1913), p. 156.Google Scholar
38 Assuming the maximum number of 150: strictly speaking 149, 5 hekts is the maximum number.
39 J.H.S. xxxiii. (1913), p. 186. In his earlier paper, ‘The Gold Coinage of Asia,’ Proc. Brit. Acad. iii. p. 25 he had followed Köhler in dating the second issue to 339 B.C., this being written before the appearance of the second edition of Head's Historia Numorum.
40 Op. cit. pp. 186, 187.
41 Could this be χο[σ]ιν the end of ξυνἀρ- χοσιν (=ξυνάρχουσιν participle)? I do not like to make the change, though it is not easy to restore the remains of the word as it stands.
42 See Köhler, , in Hermes xxxi. (1896), p. 148, No. 6Google Scholar, who adds a new fragment to, and combines and restores these two texts; cf. Meyer, E., Forschungen, ii. p. 139.Google Scholar
43 Z. f. N. 1898, p. 13; the stone is I.G. ii. 5, 843 b.
44 Restored in ll. 7, 8, preserved in l. 14.
45 Cf. the mention of them in the first part (405/4) of the famous decree for the Samians I.G. ii. 1 (ed. min.), l. 39, where in the second part (403/2), l. 67, corresponding payments are to be made by the ταμίαι Aristotle, Ath. Pol. e. 30, l. 18 and note in Sandys' edition.
46 Hermes, loc. cit.
47 The resemblance of side B to the record of payments, under prytanies, in I.G. i. 188, 189a (‘Choiseul Marble’) makes me attribute both stones to the same series.
48 J.H.S. xxix. (1909), pp. 172 ff.; Num. Chron. 1911, pp. 351 ff.
49 Num. Chron. loc. cit. There is no doubt that τὸ χρυσίον would do equally well here, but it is one space too short for No. 665.
50 J.H.S. xxxiii. op. cit. p. 187.
51 Op. cit. p. 158; Hist. Num. 2 p. 486.
52 Valuable discussions of the arrangement of the fourth century Traditiones Rerum Sacrarum are to be found in Bannier's paper, Rhein. Mus. 1911, pp. 38 ff., but even now the dating of many of the fragments is uncertain.
53 J.H.S. xxxiii. (1913), pp. 158–9.
54 Loc. cit.
55 iii. 91; v. 84.
56 I.G. i. 37, fragment n; Busolt, Gr. Geschichte iii.2 p. 1119; for Melos, p. 1120, note 3.
57 Op. cit. 1268; for the earlier expedition, pp. 1062, 1063.
58 J.H.S. op. cit. p. 159.
59 Grundy, , Thucydides, and the History of his Age, p. 356.Google Scholar
60 Thucyd. iv. 56, 57.
61 Op. cit. p. 358.
62 Thucyd. v. 83; and I.G. i. 180, l. 9 which mentions a payment made for an expedition to Thrace early in 418/7, otherwise unknown, cf. Dittenb. Syll. 2 37, and note 8.
63 Thucyd. v. 84, where the names Cleomedes and Teisias agree with those given in l. 28 of the inscription mentioned in the previous note.
64 Alcib. c. 16.
65 ‘Urkunden des attischen Reiches’ in Anzeiger der phil.-hist. Klasse der kais. Akad. der Wissensch. Wien (April 28th, 1909), pp. 41 ff.
66 Op. cit. p. xlvii.
67 Wilhelm, op. cit.
68 I.G. i. 238 (442 B.C.), no figure for their earlier payments has survived.
69 I.G. i. 242.
70 B.S.A. xv. pp. 231, 233.
71 I.G. i. 258 (b), cf. B.S.A. l.c. p. 233.