Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T19:20:58.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coinage of the Athenian Empire

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

P. Gardner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The ordinary silver coinage of Athens from B.C. 480 to 400 is almost unvaried. By the former date a head of Athena and an owl of fixed and conventional archaic type had been adopted for the coin (Pl. XIII. 1). The olive-wreath which adorns the helmet of the goddess seems to have been adopted during the glow of triumph after Marathon. At the end of the century there were certain issues of gold coins, of which we shall speak later. But the great mass of the coinage was in silver. The Athenians obtained silver in abundance from the mines of Laurium and those of Thrace, and it was part of Athenian policy to circulate the coins as widely as possible, and to make them the standard currency of the Aegean. Silver was to Athens what gold was to Persia, the backbone of the finance of the state, and, together of course with the tribute of the allies, the source whence came the plentiful wealth which Athens used for great building-works at home and for expeditions abroad.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 33 , November 1913 , pp. 147 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1913

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Frogs, line 730.

2 Poole, in Num. Chron. 1883Google Scholar; Furtwängler, Masterpieces, p. 104Google Scholar; Evans, , Num. Chron. 1912, p. 21Google Scholar, and elsewhere.

3 Proceedings of the British Academy, vol. v.

4 Head, Br. Mus. Cat. Athens. Pl. V

5 Birds, 1106.

6 I.G. V. i. No. 480, p. 123; Weil, R., Münzmonopol Athens im ersten attischen Seebund in the Zeitschrift für Numismatik, xxv. p. 52Google Scholar.

7 The Editor of the Corpus writes ‘fuit inter marmora Arundeliana sicut chronicon Parium.’ But certainly this marble was never among the Arundel marbles, which have been at Oxford since 1667, including the Parian Chronicle.

8 Olophyxus was a small town in Chalcidice. Why it is chosen for the present context is unknown.

9 Traité, ii. 2, p. 18.

10 I.G. vol. i.; U. Köhler, Delisch-attischer Band; Cavaignac, Hist. financière d'Athènes.

11 op cit. pp. 49 and foll.

12 Cavaignac, p. 184.

13 C.I. ii. 546.

14 Thuc. vii. 91.

15 See J.H.S. 1911, p. 156.

16 Thuc. iv. 52.

17 Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice.

18 Num. Chron. 1887, p. 185.

19 Anab. i. 3, 21.

20 Anab. v. 6, 23.

21 Anab. vii. 3, 10.

22 Anab. i. 5, 6.

23 Zeit. f. Num. 26, p. 47.

24 Onomasticon, ix. 62. The half hecté mentioned must be of Mytilene or of Cyzicus.

25 p. xliv.

26 See especially Num. Chron. 1884, Pl. XII. p. 269.

27 Kiepert's Formae Orbis antiqui, Pl. XII.

28 See Hist. Num. 2 p. 486; Rev. Num. 1908, pp. 301 and foll. and 1909.

29 Hist. Num. 2 p. 397.

30 I have written a treatise on Samos and its coinage: Samos and Samian coins: Macmillan, 1882. (Reprint from the Numismatic Chronicle.)

31 Samos and Samian Coins, Pl. II. 1, 2.

32 Ibid. Pl. II, III.

33 J.H.S. iv. 335. (Michaelis).

34 iv. 75.

35 viii. 21.

36 J.H.S. 1911, p. 158; 1913, p. 105.

37 Thuc. viii. 101.

38 Hellen. i. 6. 12.

39 Babelon, , Traité, ii. 2, p. 1134Google Scholar.

40 Head, , Hist. Num. 2 p. 600Google Scholar.

41 Traité, ii. 2, p. 1194.

42 Br. Mus. Cat. Troas, &c., p. xviii.

43 Traité, ii. 2, p. 1241.

44 M. Babelon calls these coins Aeginetan diobols, Mr. Head Phoenician tetrobols. The analogy of Cos would lead us rather to regard them as coins of Attic weight, used only for small currency.

45 Traité, ii. 2, p. 1050.

46 Cnidus, however, after B.C. 412 issued silver coin. Br. Mus. Cat. Caria, p. xlix.

47 Br. Mus. Cat. Caria, p. lxi.

48 These coins bear marks of value ΗΜ and ΤΕ (half and quarter obol). This fact is important as proving that the coins are really of Persian weight. The obol they give is somewhat heavy in proportion to the drachm.

49 iii. 34.

50 Koehler, , Del.-attisch. Bund, p. 156Google Scholar,

51 Hdt. i. 142.

52 Hdt. i. 18.

52a C.I. i. 9–11.

53 As to this see above.

54 Babelon, , Traité, ii. 2, p. 1458Google Scholar. Types, Fore part of boar = Lion's head.

55 Hist. Num. Ed. 2, p. 271.

56 Reasons for this attribution are given by Tacchella, (Rev. Num. 1898, p. 210)Google Scholar; the alternative attribution to Apollonia ad Rhyndacum in Mysia, once held by Imhoof-Blumer, (Br. Mus. Cat. Mysia, p. 8Google Scholar) and Six, J. is now given up by Head, and Babelon, . See Hist. Num. Ed. 2, p. 278Google Scholar.

57 vi. 46.

58 So Br. Mus. Cat. Parthenos is a better identification. Cf. Schöne, Griech. Reliefs, Pl. VII., where Parthenos appears as the representative of Neapolis.

59 Cf. Br. Mus. Cat. Thrace, p. 218.

60 Hist. Num. 2 p. 250.

61 Hist. Num. 2 p. 254, 5.

62 Hist. Num. 2 p. xliii.

63 This is a slip: naturally the Rhodian standard did not exist in the fifth century, before the city of Rhodes was founded. It is really the standard of Phocaea and Chios that Mr. Head means.

64 L'histoire par les monnaies, p. 50.

65 De Vectig. iv. 10.

66 xiii. 72.

67 Die ant Münzen N. Griechenlands, ii. 36. This writer (Dr. M. L. Strack) does not call the standard of these coins the Aeginetan.

68 Syracusan Medallions, p. 70

69 Diodorus xii. 11.

70 Num. Chron. 1883, p. 269.

71 Meisterwerke, p. 143.

72 Thuc. iii. 86.

73 J.H.S. 1911, p. 151; 1913, p. 105.

74 Mionnet, Suppl. vi. No. 183.

75 There are also published gold coins of similar fabric and Attic weight: according to Mr. Head they are forgeries. (Ephesus, p. 22.)

76 v. 47.

77 Att. Goldprägung; Z.f.N. 1898.

78 Frogs, line 730 and foll. and Scholiast.

79 Hist. Num. 2 ed. p. 375.

80 Z.f.N. 1898 (p. 13. of reprint) I.G. ii. 843 The inscriptions cannot, unfortunately, be more exactly dated.

81 xxix. (1909) p. 172. Cf. Num. Chron. 1911. The reading (or ) is conjectural: but it seems to be fairly certain, as the number of letters fills a gap.

82 Proc. Brit. Acad. 1907–8, p. 128.

83 Num. Chr. 1905, p. 3, Pl. I.

84 Journal intern. d'archéologie numismatique, 1912, p. 123.