The evidence of coins has much to tell us about markets and trade in the Ancient Greek world. There are primarily two kinds of numismatic evidence relevant to the topic of markets. First, there is the evidence of coin hoards. The presence of coins from one city in a hoard found in another city may reveal trade links between the two cities. Second, a common weight standard shared by two or more cities may reveal commercial ties. A common weight standard makes it easier for merchants from one city to exchange coins in another city and thus facilitates commercial relations and helps to expand markets.1 Common weight standards may therefore reveal a city’s commercial policy. But we must be careful when interpreting numismatic evidence. Coins may travel from one city to another for the purposes of trade, but it is also possible that coins served to pay for mercenaries or for other military purposes. Two or more cities may also have shared a common weight standard to facilitate military finances. When interpreting numismatic evidence, therefore, one must always take into account all available literary, epigraphic, numismatic and archaeological evidence.2
The Greek cities issued their coinages on different standards that either derived from weight standards in use before the invention of coinage,3 or were created afterwards, sometimes by adopting a reduced version of one of the main monetary standards.4 During the Archaic and the Classical periods the main monetary standards of the Greek world were the Lydo-Milesian, the Persian, the Euboic, the Aeginetan and the Corinthian.5 These standards have something to tell us about our subject because they were adopted by cities far away from their original Heimat. From this point of view, the choice of a monetary standard by an issuing authority may say more about trade than hoards, while hoards sometimes reflect the impact of a monetary standard in an area.6
Some other standards in use during the Archaic and Classical periods either derived from or were connected to these weight-standards.7 Reduced versions of the main standards were created in areas with significant natural resources such as Southern Italy and Aegean Thrace.8 We will try to show that trade and markets often influenced the choice of weight standards and also of their reduced versions.
The Milesian Standard
We begin with the oldest weight standard, the so-called Lydo-Milesian. This was the local standard of Lydia and was adopted by Miletus for its electrum and early silver coinage.9 This was also the standard of the earliest electrum coinages of the cities of Ionia. The division of the stater of 14.2 g followed the duodecimal system – that is, the stater was divided into thirds, sixths, twelfths, and so on.10 Sometime later the Mainland system of division was followed (with fourths – that is, drachms – and obols).11 The Milesian standard was adopted by the Ionian cities of Erythrai, Ephesus, Clazomenae, Teos and Samos,12 by cities in Caria, such as Poseidion [?] of Carpathos, Lindos and Ialysos on Rhodes,13 by cities of the Chalcidic peninsula (Torone, Sermylia, Argilos and others) and by some Cycladic islands.14
The cities in Ionia that adopted this standard were often neighboring cities, and this adoption may easily be explained by the fact that this was the standard with which some of these cities issued their electrum coinages.15 Ionia’s links to Caria are also revealed by the use of the Milesian standard by the cities previously mentioned.16 The various resources of Ialysos and Lindos, cities of the island of Rhodes, could be either exported to Miletus or transported elsewhere by Milesian traders: fish, wine, cabbages, balsam, raisins, figs and other agricultural products as well as metals, bread, honey, marble and sponges.17 Cnidos, whose earliest silver was also on this standard, had a variety of agricultural and manufactured products.18 Silver coins that are attributed to Miletus were part of a number of hoards buried in Western Asia Minor, Ionia, Caria and Cilicia.19
We find a reduced version of the Milesian standard in the electrum of a number of cities in Thrace and the earliest silver coinages of some cities of the Chalcidic peninsula.20 Dikaia par’ Abdera, Maroneia and possibly some other cities in Thrace issued early electrum fractions on this standard.21 Small cities of the peninsula of Pallene (Aigantioi et alii), Torone, Sermylia and cities situated in Sithonia or in the middle of the Gulf of Singos and Torone, as well as Argilos west of the estuary of the Strymon river, issued their early silver on the Milesian standard.22 The significance of this standard in this area is reflected in monetary circulation. The earliest hoard from the Chalcidic peninsula, CH VIII 39, was found at Gerakini, in the chora of Sermylia, and contained staters and fractions on the Milesian standard.
As I have shown elsewhere, Alexander I, the king of Macedonia, adopted a reduced version of the Milesian standard for tetradrachms (staters) and smaller fractions.23 The king clearly decided to use this standard because of his commercial relations with the Chalcidic peninsula, in particular with the cities of Pallene that issued staters and fractions on this standard.24 For his largest denomination (triple staters), Alexander I adopted the standard of the cities of the Thasian Peraea.25 Here he was following Abdera and local ethne. This was a way to export silver from the newly acquired mines of the Pangaeum mint and also to pay for commodities.26 One recalls that some triple staters of Alexander I were buried in Egypt from where the king imported grain as Bacchylides reports.27 In other words, for short distance and local trade he used the Milesian standard of his neighbors, but for long-distance trade he used the standard in which traditionally triple staters were issued.
The common weight standard shared by Alexander I and the cities of the Chalcidic peninsula has nothing to do with joint military action. The king’s army had moved successfully to the East and occupied the territories of Anthemous and Crestonia, north of lakes Bolbe and Pyrrolia,28 but these areas were distant from the cities that issued on the Milesian standard. The link between the king and the cities of the Chalcidice was commercial, not military. Torone and the cities of the Pallene produced wine of excellent quality and in very large quantities.29 This was a commodity that the Macedonians appreciated the most and imported from the Chalcidic peninsula. The term Mendaios oinos is used to denote wine from the wider area that passed through the port of Mende to Pydna, Methone and Pella and found its way to Aigeai and all other Macedonian poleis and palaces.30 Wine exports from Mende to the Macedonian court continued during the Hellenistic period, as amphora stamps from Mende found in very large quantities in the palace of Pella reveal.31
The adoption of the Milesian standard in this area well before the late sixth century BCE is connected with the fact that this was the oldest monetary standard and that there were links between Ionia and this area. Although there are no colonies of Miletus in the Chalcidic peninsula, commercial links between the Greek North and Ionia are revealed by excavations.32 Miletus, which contributed eighty ships to the battle at Lade (Hdt. 6.8), could import timber of very good quality for shipbuilding, grain, wine, olive oil and silver from Aegean Thrace. These natural resources were well known to the Milesians and Histiaeus. According to Herodotus (5.23), Megabazus said to Darius: ‘[T]here is abundant wood for ship-building and the making of many oars and also the silver mines and a big population, both Greek and barbarian.’ It was to Myrkinos that Aristagoras of Miletus later retreated and made this his headquarters (Hdt. 5.126).33 Further evidence for the presence of Ionians in the area of the Strymon river during the first half of the sixth century BCE is provided by Suda, which notes Colophonians and other Ionians involved in mining activity in this area.34 We recall also that Samians, Erythraeans and Parians were involved in the international arbitration (diaitesia) between Chalcideans and Andrians for colonizing Acanthos.35
The Milesian standard also had a significant impact in the Cycladic islands.36 Melos, a Dorian colony (Str. 10.5.2) in the Cretan Sea, issued its coinage on this standard.37 The links of Miletus with the Cycladic islands are revealed by Herodotus, who mentions Parian arbitration at Miletus (Hdt. 5.28–31), and also from Polyaenus about Milesian efforts to get control of Naxos (Polyaen. Strat. 8.36.1).38 Miletus’ thalassocracy and trade networks may have had an impact on the monetary habits of some Aegean islands. Melos, which issued its staters on the Milesian standard, was well known for its goats, its honey and most significant, for its metals, the Meliake ge being the most significant of them.39 Melos continued to strike its coinage on the Milesian standard, although this standard lost its significance after the destruction of Miletus in 494 BCE and the end of the Ionian revolt.40 There are also some other early Cycladic coinages on this standard whose attribution is difficult.41 This is the short but glorious history of the earliest Greek coin standard.
The Phocaic Standard
The standard (16.5 g) of the city of Phocaea may have been a reduced version of the Euboic. As the earliest coinages issued on the Euboic standard, it was divided on the duodecimal system, with halves, hektai, hemiekta, and so forth.42 The significance of this standard may be deduced by its early adoption by Cyzicus, the Milesian colony in Mysia.43 This was also the weight of the later electrum coinages of Phocaea and Mytilene and of the famous Cyzicene staters.44 From the second half of the fifth century and during most of the fourth century BCE, Cyzicene staters were the most prominent currency in the Black Sea area as rich hoard evidence and the well-known fourth-century BC decree of Olbia reveal.45 They found also their way abroad and are often mentioned in Athenian financial documents, temple inventories and literary sources.46 Cyzicus’ choice of this standard is clearly connected with trade. The emblem of the city, the tuna fish, occurs on the earliest electrum fractions of this city and reveals the significance of fish trade.
It might be that this standard, on which electrum coinage was mainly issued, had an impact on the fractional coinages of cities of Aeolis, Troas and Mysia.47 However, there are still no systematic studies of these coinages, and we know only small fractions of most of them. The Phocaic may have also been the earliest monetary standard of Ainos, an Aiolian colony, with population from Alopeconnesus, Methymna and Mytilene.48 Ainos, at the mouth of the Hebros’ delta, was a significant centre for trade, from where trade routes led to inner Thrace. The city also commanded fertile lowlands (Plin. HN 18.7.70).49
The Phocaic standard is also found in Southern Italy at Velia, a colony of Phocaea, and at Velia’s neigbor, Poseidonia, a colony of Sybaris.50 Massalia, another colony of Phocaea, also followed this standard.51 This Phocaic standard had an influence on the coinages of the Greek cities of Campania, and a slightly reduced version of it was adopted by Cyme and Neapolis.52 Empurias, a Phocaic settlement, also adopted the Phocaic standard.53 The adoption of this standard by Velia and Massalia, both colonies of Phocaea, says a lot about the relation between colonies and mother city.54 These relations included trade.
The Chian Standard
The rich island of Chios, with its important agricultural production and a large number of slaves, issued its Archaic and Classical coinage on its own standard with staters of 7.9 g and hemistaters of 3.9 g.55 As I have shown elsewhere, a reduced version of this standard was also adopted by Abdera, a joint colony of Clazomenae and Teos, and also by its neighbor, Maroneia.56 Both cities were situated on the Aegean coast of Thrace. According to Pseudo-Scymnos, Maroneia was a colony of Chios (Ad Nicomed. reg. 676). Contacts with Chios are revealed by the very significant presence of Chian pottery at the site of Archaic Abdera and also at other sites in Aegean Thrace.57 Abdera, followed by Maroneia, further reduced this standard, while both cities issued silver staters and fractions down to the 330s (Maroneia), and fractions even later (Abdera).
Chios continued to use its own standard. One-third staters of 2.6 g were struck from the 430s and these were the coins Thucydides (8.101.1) refers to as tessarakostai.58 Electrum and silver of 15.6 g were issued in the late fifth century BCE and later silver drachms, tetrobols and tetradrachms down to the 330s. The standard of Chios had an influence on the monetary practices of Western Asia Minor, Thrace and a number of issuing authorities under the Great King during the fourth century BCE. We will return to this standard while discussing changes of weight standards.
The Samian Standard
The Samians adopted a reduced version of the Milesian standard and reduced it further. Samian staters are mentioned in a sixth-century BCE dedication to Hera by two citizens of Perinthus, a Samian colony on the Northern coast of the Propontis (IG XII 6, 2, 577, lines 15–19). Samos issued a full range of denominations down to hemiobols following the division of the stater in drachms (fourths) and obols (twenty-fourths).59
Like other cities of Asia Minor and the Propontis, Samos issued ΣΥΝ tridrachms with Heracles the snake killer on the obverse and the lion’s scalp on the reverse.60 These coins date after the end of the Peloponnesian war, Samos’ capitulation, the establishment of a decarchy and the return of the oligarchs (Xen. Hell. 2.3.6–9). They were on the Chian standard, and as many cities of Western Asia Minor, Samos issued its fourth-century BCE silver on this standard.61 There was a gap in the coinage of the city during the period of Athenian occupation (366–322 BCE). When Samos reopened its mint in the late fourth century BCE, the local standard was reintroduced. The term stateres patrioi found in the Grain Law (IG XII 6, 1, 172A, line 8), an inscription of early Hellenistic date, refers to this standard. The re-adoption of its own standard may be easily understood as the city desired to have its own monetary policy during a period Alexanders were the coinage par excellence all around Eastern Mediterranean.62
We now turn to Mainland Greece where coinage was introduced during the second half of the sixth century BCE.63 No matter which city was the first to introduce coinage, literary, epigraphic and numismatic evidence point to three distinct standards in this area: the Aeginetan, the Corinthian and the Euboic, which was another old weight (and later monetary) standard.64 The standards of Corinth and Athens were adjusted to the Euboic,65 their staters being the half of the Euboic stater of 17.2 g. Double staters began to be issued by Athens before the end of the sixth century and were called tetradrachma, referring to their equivalence to four drachmas.66 Both the Aeginetan and the Euboic standards followed the duodecimal system, but at Aegina a terminology based on a drachma divided into six obols was adopted.67 Corinth followed the division in thirds and sixths, but for these the terms drachma and hemidrachmon were used, as revealed by epigraphic evidence.68 As at Aegina, at Corinth, Athens and the cities that followed the now so-called Euboic-Attic standard, the drachma was divided into six obols.69
The Aeginetan Standard
The Aeginetan standard was adopted by all issuing authorities in the Peloponnese with the exception of Corinth and some small neighbors,70 by the city of Delphi and the Phocians, by the cities of Boeotia, by Malis, the Opountian Locrians, the cities of Thessaly, most of the Cycladic islands and Crete.71 We find it also at Teos in Ionia, Cyme of Aeolis, a number of cities of Caria72 and in the Black Sea.73 In many cases, it was slightly reduced, most probably to obtain a profit in exchange.74
Aegina may have produced perfumes and pottery for everyday use, as in modern times, but nothing else.75 The adoption of the Aeginetan standard may be explained by what Ephorus says about the sea trade of Aegina.76 Aristotle reports that the Aeginetans were mainly traders (Pol. 1291b24). Aeginetans were involved in slave trade, as is revealed in the explanation offered for the expression ‘cargo from Aegina’ (Steph. Byz. s.v. Αἴγιναι).77
Aegina’s silver coinage served as a commodity to buy local products in one area and sell them in another.78 The Aeginetans transported all sorts of commodities.79 After the battle of Plataea, one could find in the port of Aegina ships leaving for many different destinations.80 Aeginetan ships brought products to the port of Cyllene in Elis and then transported these with mules to Arcadia (Paus. 8.5.8).81 The earliest hoards buried in Arcadia and Elis contained only Aeginetan currency (IGCH 15, 20). Both Pollux (9.74) and Hesychius (s.v. χελώνη) refer to the turtle as Peloponnesion nomisma.82 Large numbers of Aeginetan turtles are also found in hoards of Thessaly, an area well known for its rich agricultural production and wealth.83 The earliest silver coinage of Crete was pseudo-Aeginetan and was issued by Aegina’s colony, Cydonia.84 Aegina is heavily represented with its staters in the earliest hoard of Archaic date from Crete (IGCH 1), and also in early hoards buried on the Cycladic islands (IGCH 6, 7, 8). These hoards also contained silver coins from Cycladic mints and also silver on the Aeginetan standard from South West Asia Minor.85 This has been viewed as an indication of a well-organized trade route linking these islands to South-West Asia Minor. Aeginetan merchants could have transported marble from Paros and other islands to this area.86
Remaining in South-West Asia Minor, one recalls that Cnidos, Chersonnesus and Cos as well as Camiros of Rhodes also adopted the Aeginetan standard.87 Hoards contain staters of Aegina that reached these areas and traveled far to the East, as the Apadana (Persepolis) foundation deposit, dated ca. 514–511 BCE reveals (IGCH 1789).88 There is good evidence for trade between Aegina and Southern Asia Minor: after the battle of Plataea a noble lady from Cos who was freed by Pausanias of Sparta had no trouble finding a ship at Aegina to bring her back home (Hdt. 9.76). Cnidos, Cos and the island of Rhodes produced many different commodities that could be transported by Aeginetans.89
The impact of Aeginetan currency in South-Western Asia Minor is apparent in a series of staters depicting a sea turtle on the obverse and two distinct incuse squares on the reverse.90 There were significant links between Camiros and Chersonnesus as the decree of Camiros (Syll.3 339) referring to ktoinai of the Camireis both on the island and the mainland shows.91 A number of coinages issued by Astyra, Halicarnassos, Caunos and some other cities in Caria also reveal the influence of the Aeginetan standard.92 Halicarnassus could export wine while Mylasa could export different agricultural products, marble and hemp (kannabe).93 Teos in Ionia switched from the Milesian to the Aeginetan standard before the end of the sixth century BCE.94 Cyme in Aeolis also issued its coinage on the Aeginetan standard.95
The Aeginetan standard of a fifth-century BCE silver coinage issued in Northern Asia Minor reveals contacts between Aegina and this area.96 Later, in the fourth century, Sinope, located on the southern coast of the Black Sea, issued its silver coinage on the Aeginetan standard and shared standard and reverse types with Istria and Olbia, two other colonies of Miletus, situated on the western and the northern coasts of the Black Sea.97 Olbia and Istros were significant suppliers of grain during the fourth century BCE.98 From the early fifth century BCE, the Bosporan cities also issued their coinages on a slightly reduced version of the Aeginetic system.99 The use of the Aeginetic standard during the fourth century BCE for their coinages reveals traditional contacts with Aegina. From these areas the Aeginetans transported grain; Herodotus mentions Aeginetan cargo ships with grain in the area of Abydus when Xerxes was in the city (7.147.2). This area also supplied slaves to the Greek world, as the names Paphlagon and Sinope given to slaves in Greece indicate (Ath. 13.67.28).100 Sinope linked Greek cities on the eastern coast of the Black Sea to Greek cities in the Aegean because it laid on the route to Phasis (Polyb. 4.56). For instance, Xenophon saw merchant ships at Sinope sailing from Trapezous (Xen. An. 5.4.11).101 Aeginetan commercial activity in Paphlagonia may be also reflected in the name of Aeginetes, a polichnion and a river of Paphlagonia.102 Commodities that could be transported from this area were nuts (Ath. 2.43.27), fish (kestreis: Ath. 3.87.12; 7.77.35), ruddle (miltos: Hsch. s.v.), maple, oil (Str. 12.3.12) and slaves.
A common Aeginetan standard also links Paros with its colonies, Thasos and the cities of the Thasian Peraea. Parians were active in this area down to the first decades of the fifth century BCE, as epigraphic evidence reveals.103 Paros’ silver coinage on the Aeginetan standard consists only of staters. It also resembles the coinages of Thasos and the Peraea on iconographic, stylistic and technical grounds.104 We have suggested that the standard of Thasos and the cities and tribes of the so-called Thasian Peraea is a reduced version of the Aeginetan standard.105 During the fourth century BCE, the Aeginetan system was used at Thasos for calculating amounts of money.106 Thasos and the cities of the so-called Thasian Peraea could export different products, including timber, metals, marble and wine.107
Coins of Aegina are extremely rare in the North, but this is not an indication that Aegina did not have trade links with this area. One can explain the absence of Aeginetan coins in hoards from this area by the fact that most cities in this area minted their own coins from an early period. One recalls that in Asia Minor, the presence of Aeginetan currency is also very limited.108 This is also the situation in Boeotia and the Cycladic islands, where coinages were issued on this standard from the last decades of the sixth century BCE.109But early hoards from areas as Thessaly, Elis and Arcadia that introduced coinages some decades later, and relied for a period only on the coins of Aegina, included only Aeginetan currency.110 These hoards all date before the introduction of the local coinages.
The new coinages in the Peloponnese that began after Leuctra were all on the Aeginetan standard, which was also the standard of their great ally, the Thebans.111 The electrum drachms and obols of Thebes depicting Dionysus’ head on the obverse and Heracles Drakontopnigon on the reverse corresponded to five staters and a stater of Aeginetan weight.112 During the fourth century the Achaean League and the Opountian Locrians issued their splendid silver coinages with their own types but on the Aeginetan standard in use in these areas from the sixth century BCE.113
There were no coinages on the Aeginetan standard in southern Italy and Sicily.114 This corroborates hoard evidence; there are few turtles in hoards buried in these areas.115 However, the arrival of Aeginetan merchants bringing most probably Attic pottery in Etruria may be deduced from the dedication of Sostratus.116
The Euboic Standard and the Euboic-Attic Standard
The Euboic standard with a stater of 17.2 g was one of the earliest standards.117 It shares with the Corinthian standard the division of the stater into thirds and sixths and follows the duodecimal system.118 This was the standard of the earliest coinages of the Euboean colonies in southern Italy (Campania), Sicily and the Chalcidic peninsula.119
It is striking that the cities of Euboea did not issue their early coinages on this standard.120 Chalcis, Eretria and Carystos issued their coinages after a significant change took place before the end of the sixth century BCE: the Euboean stater was then divided in the same way as the Attic121 and the Boeotian staters.122 This standard is called the Euboic-Attic standard. Scyros and Peparethus followed the Euboean cities.123 Cythnos, Seriphus and at times Siphnos struck coins of 4 g, that could be exchanged with coins on both the Aeginetan and the Attic-Euboic standards.124 The cities of Sicily and the Chalcidic peninsula, two areas where Euboean presence was significant, also adopted this Attic-Euboic standard.125 Delos, an island with strong ties to Athens issued its silver coinage on this weight standard.126 It was also true for the earliest coinage of the Thracian Chersonnese and of Methymna on Lesbos.127
This new standard was also adopted by the cities of Cyrenaica.128 The precious silphion was one of the commodities that this area could provide to traders. Attic currency arrived in this area, as some overstrikes of Attic tetradrachms reveal.129 Later in the 420s, the comic poet Hermippus reported the arrival at Athens of other products from Cyrenaica such as hides (derma boeion).130
Apollonia and Mesambria both issued their silver coinages on the Attic standard and adopted a reduced version for smaller fractions.131 The coinage of Mesambria was not of a very significant volume. Hoard evidence shows that Apollonia’ s silver coins circulated widely in the area west of the city,132 while the royal edict of Pistiros reveals the leading role of Apollonia in trade in Thrace.133
Clazomenae and some other Ionian mints adopted this standard during the fifth century BCE and continued to use it during the fourth century.134 The Athenians Themistocles and his son Archepolis struck their coinages on the Attic standard in Western Asia Minor.135 When the Athenian fleet was based on Samos during the Ionian war, Samos struck silver on the Attic standard and with its own types most probably to fulfill the needs of the ten Samian warships engaged in the war against Sparta and its allies (Xen. Hell. 1.6.25, 29; 1.7.30; Diod. Sic. 13.97.2). From the same period date silver tetradrachms on the Attic standard issued by an unknown satrap, possible Tissaphernes, with a bearded man’s portrait wearing the Median tiara, and an owl on the reverse. This money served the needs of the Ionian war.136 Later, most probably in the years Chares resided at Sigeion (335/334 BCE), the city issued a silver coinage with Athenian types and standard.137
In these cases, the adoption of this standard seems to reflect political and military needs rather than commercial ties. However, it reflects the growing significance of the Attic standard, which already had international character. Attic silver is found in a number of hoards buried in Attica and Euboea.138 There is little evidence for the circulation of Attic weight coinage in Asia Minor, Thrace, the Black Sea and Lycia.139 It is more frequent in Egypt, Syria and the Levant, and also in Sicily from the late 410s onwards. Imitations of Athenian tetradrachms started towards the end of the fifth century BCE and kept on being issued during the fourth century in the East, Egypt and the West (Sicily). These coins served various needs and also were used for military payments.140 The arrival of a large number of Athenian tetradrachms and imitations in Syria, Phoenicia and the Levant down to the arrival of Alexander points to trade links and special commodities and reflects, in my opinion, what Xenophon (3.9.2–3.10.4) says about Athenian coinage of the fourth century BCE.141
The Corinthian Standard
According to Thucydides (1.13.2-6), the Corinthians were well known for being great merchants, and Corinth was probably the most important centre for trade over a long period of time.142 Literary sources and archaeology provide plenty of information about Corinthian trade. Corinthian pottery is found in large quantities in the West.143 Corinthian ships were commoner in the West than any others; Herodotus (1.24) says that Arion leased a Corinthian ship in Tarentum. Thucydides reports (3.86.4) that the aim of the first Athenian expedition to Sicily in 427 BCE was to disrupt the transport of Sicilian grain to the Peloponnese.144 Corinth used this grain for local consumption but also for export to its neighbors.145 Corinth could export wool, bedclothes (Ath. 27D = Antiphanes fr. 236 Edmonds), textiles, roof tiles and architectural terracottas,146 as well as the surplus of its own agricultural production and of its neighbors, olive oil, wine and the apples from Sidous (Ath. 82a–c).147 Corinth may have also exported perfumes148 and, on a less significant scale, bronze objects of various kinds.149 From the fourth-century building accounts from Epidaurus and Delphi we learn that Corinthians were also involved in the stone and timber business.150 Most significant of all: silver in the form of Corinthian coinage was a sort of commodity that the city could use to buy the surplus production of cities in Southern Italy and Sicily.151
The influence of the Corinthian standard may be seen in the adoption either of the standard itself or of reduced versions of it. The adoption of the Corinthian standard and types by colonies of Corinth in Western Greece may have been voluntary and not dictated by Corinth, the mother city. For instance, Potidaea, the only Corinthian colony in the North, with strong ties to the metropolis, issued earlier in the late sixth and early fifth century a coinage on the Euboic standard with its own types.152 The coinages of the Corinthian colonies that were minted on the Corinthian standard and with Corinthian types during the fifth century BCE,153 the well-known Pegasi, served to finance common military operations of Corinth.154 Pegasi were issued by Leucas around 480, while the first issues of Ambracia shared reverse dies with Corinth, which points to their having been produced in Corinth ca. 480/79. The choice of the denomination sheds light on this unusual situation. Corinth issued an important number of fractions,155 whereas fractions are rather rare in its colonies.156 Epidamnus and Potidaea issued in the mid-430s silver coins with Corinthian types. The production of Pegasi by Anactorium, Leucas and Ambracia might have also served the needs of the war against Corcyra.157
After the mid-fourth century BCE, the Corinthian colonies of western Greece, Leucas, Corcyra, Argos Amphilochicum, Apollonia, Dyrrhachium, Anactorion and Thyrrheion issued Pegasi partly to support Timoleon’s efforts to re-establish democracy in Syracuse, impose peace and populate a devastated Sicily with Greeks (Kraay Reference Kraay1976). As a recent study has shown, the most significant part of these Pegasi served to facilitate the grain trade with Sicily during periods of shortage.158 Because these Pegasi were issued primarily to facilitate large-scale international trade, fractions are completely absent.
We need now to turn to Corcyra, Corinth’s rebellious colony.159 Corcyra minted its coinage with its own types on a standard that derives from the Corinthian.160 The stater of Corcyra is 11.4 g and therefore equivalent to four Corinthian drachms or to a reduced Aeginetan stater. The Corcyrean stater is divided into halves, quarters, and so on. This standard was also adopted by the Ionian islands of Cephallenia and Zacynthus, which both lay south of Corcyra.161 Zacynthus is off the coast of Elis where the Aeginetan standard was used.
The creation of this standard by Corcyra needs to be explained in terms of its geographical position. Corcyra was the gateway to the Adriatic Sea and a key point for communications with the West.162 The island had all sorts of natural resources163 and could exploit the rich resources of the coast opposite the island and develop a network of trade with this area.164 The coinage of Corcyra did not travel far and in some cases has been found in hoards buried in Illyria, southern Italy and Sicily. On the other hand, coins from other cities are rarely found in hoards buried in Corcyra.165 Like the wealthy Achaean colonies, Corcyra was a closed monetary zone.166
From Corcyra, we cross the Adriatic Sea to southern Italy and Sicily. Because the Attic stater shared the same weight with the Corinthian one (8.6 g), the Attic tetradrachm had the weight of the Euboic stater (17.2 g) and the Euboic stater began to be divided into fourths before the end of the sixth century BCE, it is difficult to say which standard was adopted in areas dominated by the colonies of Chalkis and Corinth. These areas were Sicily and the Chalcidic peninsula.167 What numismatists consider an Attic tetradrachm for cities of Sicily and the Chalcidic peninsula could be a Euboean stater, while Attic didrachms could also be seen as Corinthian staters or Euboean half-staters. This is proved, as far as the Chalcidic peninsula is concerned, by a silver coin issued with the types of Sermylia, the weight of a Euboean stater/ Attic tetradrachm and the legend ΣΤΑΤΕΡ.168 As far as Sicily is concerned, there is epigraphic evidence from Akrai of mid-fifth century BCE date.169
The influence of the Corinthian standard was strong in Sicily, where Corinth founded Syracuse in 734 BCE. The Dorian colonies of Selinus and Acragas issued Corinthian staters and later Syracuse struck what could be considered as a double Corinthian stater or a Euboean stater (Attic tetradrachm).170 These cities adopted the Corinthian standard to serve their own needs; these coins circulated locally, and it is the choice of the standard that reveals the impact of Corinthian merchant activity in this area. One recalls that these cities issued their coinages with their own types.
Sicily produced large quantities of grain but also clothing and other products as cheese and pigs.171 Euboean, Corinthian and Attic pottery has often been found in excavations in these areas and points to commercial relations with Mainland Greece. In Sicily three early hoards contained Attic tetradrachms; all other hoards with Attic tetradrachms are of much later date.172 In the Chalcidic peninsula there is only one hoard that might have contained Attic tetradrachms; its burial dates from the 420s (CH VIII 63).173Another hoard, this time from the excavations of Methone, might also be connected with military operations.174 This makes it clear that Athenian involvement in these areas is not of early date and the first appearance of Athenians was connected with military operations. One recalls that Thucydides says that in 415 BCE the Athenians knew almost nothing about Sicily (6.1.1; cf. 6.46.3–5). Although Attic pottery arrived in Sicily and in Etruria, Athenian merchants were not involved in their transport. Trade in the Ionian and the Adriatic Seas was dominated at first by the Euboeans and later by the Corinthians. The Athenians arrived in Sicily quite late and against the historical background of the Peloponnesian War. Some scholars have thought that Sicilian coinages were minted on the Attic standard, but it is more likely that they were minted on the Corinthian and Euboean standards.
We find reduced versions of the Corinthian standard in the earliest silver coinage of Phleious, Pheneos and Cleonae,175 neighbors of Corinth, the cities of Acarnania, situated very close to Corinthian colonies,176 and of the Achaean colonies of Southern Italy.177 Georges Le Rider explained the standard of the Achaean colonies of southern Italy with a stater of 8 g and peculiar features based on hoard evidence and on some overstrikes of Corinthian staters.178 He showed that the aim of the adoption of a reduced version of the Corinthian standard was to create a closed monetary zone from which all other currencies were excluded. By requiring one Corinthian stater of 8.6 g for a local stater of 8 g, these cities made a profit of 7 per cent.179 The resources of Sybaris, Metapontium, Croton and Caulonia are very well known: huge quantities of grain and leather from big animals, preserved fish and others.180 Corinth could acquire the surplus of these Achaean colonies with its Corinthian staters, which these cities also used to strike their own coinages, as the overstrikes reveal. Thus, trade provides a good explanation for the movement of Corinthian staters to Southern Italy.
The Persian Standard
The Persian standard was introduced by Darius I, who first followed Croesus’ standard (silver stater of 10.75 g, gold stater of 8.06 g), and later adopted a weight of 8.36 g for the gold stater (dareikos) and 5.5 g for the silver stater (siglos).181 This standard was popular in areas with strong ties to the central government of the Persian Empire and its subordinates such as the cities of Cilicia, Pisidia and Pamphylia.182 From ca. 380 BCE, Persian governors of Cilicia, such as Tiribazus, Pharnabazus, Datames and Mazaeus, issued double sigloi.183 Tiribazus’ staters may have been used to pay soldiers during his campaign against Evagoras of Cyprus. The double sigloi of Pharnabazus and Datames were minted for their campaigns against Tachos, the rebellious satrap of Egypt.184 In the late 360s, Datames issued two series of silver staters (double sigloi) during his revolt against the Great King.185 Datames’ successor, Mazaeus, also issued double sigloi with his name and titles.186 The city of Lampsacus in Mysia issued gold staters on the Persian standard that supplemented the royal currency in international payments.187 Mallos in Cilicia issued double silver sigloi under Artaxerxes III. Gold staters with the weight of a daric depicting an archer and a galley might have served as payments for the royal fleet.188
The adoption of the Persian standard may be explained in two different ways, both related to geography. We have two distinct zones where the Persian standard was adopted. The first includes the northern and southern coasts of Asia Minor, and the second is Ionia. During the fourth century BCE loyal (and disloyal) satraps and subject cities issued their coinages on this standard because they had to meet expenses related to armies mobilized by or against the Great King. From Xenophon we learn that the monthly payment of mercenaries under Cyrus was one daric, and later Cyrus offered his mercenary soldiers one and a half darics. One daric was the equivalent of twenty sigloi, and one siglos of seven and a half Attic obols (Xen. An. 1.5.6). The silver coinages on the Persian standard issued by Amisos and Trapezous can be explained in the same way. One recalls that Datames’ military involvement in this area is revealed by combined information from Ps.-Aristotle (Oec. 2.2.24a) and Polyaenus (Strat. 7.21.1).
A different explanation might be proposed for the Ionian cities of Ephesus and Colophon. These cities adopted the Persian standard, since this was the successor of the Lydo-Milesian standard.189 The ties of these cities with the Persians and their commercial relations with them may have had some influence on their choice of standard.190 The other Greek cities of Western Asia Minor did not use the Persian standard. Ephesus and Colophon had another common point besides the Persian standard: they were both excluded from the celebration of the Apatouria, a common festival for all cities of the Ionian Dodecapolis.191
Two distinct reduced versions of the Persian standard were adopted in Lycia.192 Tissaphernes also issued silver staters on this local Lycian standard during the years of the war against Agesilaus of Sparta.193 Another version of this same standard was introduced in Cyprus with a siglos of 11 g.194 The standard of the coinage of the Great King remained unchanged to the very end of the Persian Empire.195 This is a reflection of stability and refers to the adoption of the Persian standard for political and military reasons. By contrast the Greek cities and the colonies occasionally changed their weight standards.
Changes of Standard
Mainland Greece and the North
The reduced Milesian standard of the earliest silver and electrum of the Chalcidic peninsula was abandoned, and some of the cities that previously issued on this standard, Torone, Sermylia and Argilos, changed to the Euboic-Attic standard.196 This must be explained either by the impact Athenian tetradrachms had in international trade or by the links of the Euboean colonies with the Euboean standard. The Milesian was the earliest monetary standard, and after a period of experimentation the cities changed to their own nomima. In this same area some decades later the military help with which Perdiccas II provided the enemies of Athens during the Poteidaiatika brought his silver sixths (tetrobols) into the area and had an influence on local coinages.197 His allies adopted the Macedonian monetary practices in their efforts to meet military expenses. Thucydides (4.83.5–6) explicitly says that Perdiccas and his allies had to pay for the soldiers of Brasidas. These allies were the Chalcidians of Thrace and later Acanthus.198 Down to the sack of Olynthus in 348 BCE this standard dominated monetary circulation in the Chalcidic peninsula and was also adopted by Amphipolis and Philip II.199
Thucydides (2.100.2) informs us that king Archelaus of Macedonia introduced many innovations.200 He introduced staters of ca. 10.7 g (10.20–10.90 g), being the equivalent of five light tetrobols (2.15 g).201 By the adoption of a lighter standard than that of his neighbors, the cities of Thessaly and the Chalcidic peninsula, and of his main commercial partners, the Athenians, the king created a currency and a closed monetary zone for his kingdom.202 The only hoard of staters from early fourth-century Macedonia contained staters of the Macedonian kings from Alexander I to Amyntas III and no other currencies (IGCH 365 from Ptolemais, Macedonia).
Two changes in the weight standards of coins minted by the Euboean cities are probably connected to shifts in military alliances. After 371 BCE the Euboean cities adopted the Aeginetan standard used by the Boeotians, as a result of their new alliance with Thebes.203 In 357 the Euboeans brought up their ties with Thebes and became the allies of Athens. The Euboean cities passed then to a reduced Attic standard. The alliance with Athens may be of some significance as it involved the arrival of Athenian currency in Euboea and also military collaboration.204
The adoption of the reduced Attic standard in Euboea is almost contemporary with the introduction of new coinages on the same standard by the Cycladic islands. This reduced Attic weight remained the standard in use down through the Hellenistic period.205 The circulation patterns of these coinages show that they did not leave the wider area where they were produced. This reflects local economic patterns.206 During the Hellenistic period their coinages could be exchanged with some profit with the various international currencies on the Attic standard.
Asia Minor
The main innovation in Asia Minor before the arrival of Alexander III was the adoption of the Chian standard by a large number of cities. The financial support provided by Chios to the Spartans is attested by Thucydides (8.101.1). A number of coinages on the Chian standard were issued by cities that supported Lysander during the last years of the Ionian war. These are the well-known ΣΥΝ coinages depicting a baby Heracles strangling snakes on the reverse and civic types on the obverse.207 The ΣΥΝ staters were tridrachms on the Chian standard and double sigloi on the Persian. This ‘was particularly significant to Lysander, on account of the huge subsidies he received from Cyrus from 406 onwards.’208 Thus, the production of Chian weight coinage started from a ‘strong nucleus of major Greek cities,’ spread to the Hecatomnid dynasty in the early fourth century BCE and then to the majority of Greek cities in Thrace, Bithynia, Mysia, Troas, Aeolis, Ionia and Caria, but also in Paphlagonia and maybe Lydia. Silver on this standard was also struck by satraps and subordinates of the Great King for use in military payments.209
Although the Chian standard began to be adopted for military and political reasons, one cannot explain the spread of the new standard in the same way. The cities of Asia Minor were all subjects of the Great King after 387 BCE but were free to develop their own monetary policy. The cities that adopted the Chian standard in this period appear to be linked by trade and not by political ties. As has been recently shown, this was the standard that was also adopted by the islands of Rhodes and Cos, as well as by a number of cities in Thrace such as Thasos, Ainos and Byzantium.210 These cities were not subjects of the Persian king and had no political links with the cities of Asia Minor. The monetary union of Byzantium in Thrace and Calchedon in Bithynia on the opposite coast points also to an explanation involving trade and joint commercial activity.211 These two cities, which were both Megarian colonies and were situated at the entrance to the Black Sea, issued their silver coinages on the same standard and with very similar types from the end of the fifth century BCE. The adoption of the Chian standard by many mints that issued coinages during the fourth century BCE is best explained by large-scale transactions for long-distance trade.
It was during the last decades of the fourth century BCE that the Persian weight standard was adopted by a number of mints: Amisus and Trapezous of Pontus, Astacus, Calchedon, Cios and Heraclea Pontica in Bithynia.212 Lampsacus adopted the full Persian standard for its gold and silver coinages. Perinthus in Propontic Thrace, the Thracian Chersonnese, a significant number of cities in Mysia, Parion and the less significant cities of Atarneus and Pergamon, Antandros and Gargara in the Troad, and also Ephesus in the late 330s adopted the Persian standard.213 Byzantium might have followed Calchedon, as the two Megarian colonies struck their earlier silver coinages with very similar types on the Chian standard.214 A lighter version of the Persian standard occurs in the Tauric Chersonnese (Nymphaion, Chersonnesus, Panticapaeum, Theodosia and Phanagoria) during the late fourth century BCE.215 The Persian standard became popular again during the very last years of the fourth century BCE with the coinages of Alexandria Troas, Abydus, Mytilene and Scepsis.216
Le Rider explained this change as the result of increased military activity under Artaxerxes III.217 This may be the best explanation for the coinages of the cities of Asia Minor that were under the control of the Great King from 387 BCE. When Alexander III crossed the Hellespont and needed to meet military expenses, some of these cities may have issued coinages on the Persian standard. It might have also been the case under Lysimachus.218 During the third century BCE a number of civic coinages were issued on this standard.219
Conclusion
The adoption of a standard or the change to another standard may be caused by one of four factors:
1. Two or more cities may adopt a common standard to facilitate trade and to expend markets. The Aeginetan, the Milesian and the Phocaic standards provide examples of this phenomenon. In the areas where coinage(s) of a certain standard largely circulated and some significant cities also issued their coinages on this standard, all other cities tended to adopt this weight standard. This was the case of the Chian standard in Asia Minor and Thrace during the fourth century BCE. In some cases, cities adopted a reduced version of the standard in use with the aim of creating a clearly defined monetary zone where no other coinages circulated.220 This was the case of the Achaean colonies of Southern Italy.
2. Military involvement. In this case, coinages of different issuing authorities are minted in the same standard and they also share types. When cities had to collaborate to provide military help, they either followed their leader in terms of monetary standard and types (Corinth and colonies) or introduced new types (the ΣΥΝ coinage on the Chian standard). It might be that they issued their coinage with the weight standard of their ally but with their own types, as the allies of Perdiccas II in the Chalcidic peninsula, and Samos as an ally of Athens, in the late fifth century BCE.
3. Weight and monetary standards were part of the city’s life and one of its nomima. This is the reason, together with trade, that in many cases colonies adopted the weight standard of the metropolis but preferred their own types.221 This was the case of the Corinthian and Euboean colonies in the Chalcidic peninsula and Sicily, Phocaea and its colony Velia in southern Italy, as well as Massalia and Empurias. The foundation of colonies involved trade activities of the metropolis with the area where the colony was founded, and with the colony before its decision to strike its own coinage.
4. Political control of an area can impose the adoption of a monetary standard.222 This might be the case of Delos and Athens in the Archaic and Classical periods and was certainly the case of the Ptolemaic kingdom from the early third century BCE, as well as of Cyprus, Phoenicia and Cyrenaica.223 One also recalls the ties of a number of cities of Cilicia and Pamphylia with the Great King and his subordinates or local dynasts combined with military and other obligations towards them.
The adoption or the change of a coinage’s weight standard was a deliberate decision made by the issuing authority, that is, the city-state or monarch. As we have seen, this decision was often made for commercial reasons and therefore reveals the existence of a trade policy. This policy was aimed not only at securing the import of a few essential items; a common weight standard facilitated the flow of both exports and imports. Common weight standards also played a major role in reducing transaction costs for merchants moving their goods from one city to another. As it has been recently shown by Alain Bresson also for electrum, electrum coins issued in three standards (Lydo-Milesian, Phocaean and Euboic) are grouped in hoards per standard. Combined with the mid-fourth-century BCE anecdote about Persinos (Callisthenes FGrHist 124 F 4: apud Poll. 9.93.4–9), this points to low transaction costs within the zone of its standard.224 The use of common weight standards thus helped to create the necessary infrastructure for the expansion of markets and to lay the foundations for economic growth in the ancient Greek world.
