Version classiqueVersion mobile

La monnaie dans le Péloponnèse

 | 
Charles Doyen
, 
Eva Apostolou

The coinage of Arsinoe-Methana1

Le monnayage d’Arsinoé-Méthana

Η νομισματοκοπία της πόλης Αρσινόη-Μέθανα

Andrew Meadows

Résumé

L’étude est consacrée à un inventaire par coins du monnayage en bronze d’Arsinoé-Méthana en Argolide, qui est frappé sous les deux appellations de la cité. La chronologie en est revue et, sur base du témoignage des trésors, on propose de placer les monnaies au nom de Méthana après celles d’Arsinoè, plutôt que l’inverse. D’où il résulte que Méthana n’émit aucun monnayage avant l’installation d’une base ptolémaïque dans la Péninsule. Disparaît ainsi toute preuve de l’existence d’une cité indépendante avant la création d’un établissement ptolémaïque.

Texte intégral

  • 1 For discussion of various topics connected with this paper, and for help with bibliography I must t (...)

1The city of Arsinoe was founded by the Ptolemaic king Ptolemy II Philadelphus. This much, though long suspected, has recently become certain thanks to a newly discovered inscription from the sanctuary of Kalaureia. Published in 2009, the text comes from the base of a statue of Ptolemy and his sister-wife Arsinoe dedicated by the polis of Arsinoe:

  • 1 J. Wallensten, J. Pakkanen, “A New Inscribed Statue Base from the Sanctuary of Poseidon at Kalaurei (...)

Βασιλῆ Πτολ̣εμαῖον καὶ Ἀρσινόαν Φιλαδέλ̣φον ἁ πόλις
ἁ τῶν Ἀρσιν̣οέων ἀπὸ Πελοποννάσου Π̣οσειδᾶνι1

  • 2 For a dedication made by Eirenaios at Methana ὑπὲρ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου | καὶ β̣ασιλίσσης Κλεοπάτρας (...)
  • 3 The precise date of Ptolemaic withdrawal remains unclear, but is often assumed to have coincided wi (...)

2Arsinoe remained a Ptolemaic possession for perhaps a century. Certainly it was still within the remit of a Ptolemaic commander by the name of Eirenaios during the reign of Ptolemy Philometor.2 Control lasted certainly into the 160s and perhaps as late as c. 145 BC.3 The duration of Ptolemaic control of this naval base so far from Alexandria, and so long after the collapse of the Ptolemaic empire at the end of the third century is remarkable. Its survival is testimony to the importance that the Ptolemaic kings placed on their involvement in the Peloponnese. But in the existence of this city there is a peculiarity that has not generally been noted.

  • 4 C. Habicht (supra), pp. 88-90, on IG II2 1024. The decree dates to the later 3rd century, but the b (...)
  • 5 Gill et al. 1997, p. 73; cf. Gill 2007, p. 94, n. 54. For an unspecified coin of Ptolemy II found n (...)
  • 6 For the link between these islands (Paus. 2.34.3) and Pelops, the eponymous priest at Alexandria (P (...)
  • 7 Pausanias 1.1.1 cf. 1.35.1, Strabo 9.1.21 C398. J.R. Mccredie, Fortified Military Camps in Attica ( (...)

3To understand this we need to take a look at the historical background to the creation of Arsinoe-Methana. As we have seen, the city was founded by Ptolemy Philadelphus. The most likely context for this foundation has generally seemed to be the Chremonidean War (268-263/2 BC), when Ptolemy joined Athens and Sparta against the Macedonian King Antigonus Gonatas. This was a period characterized by the establishment of Ptolemaic naval bases around the Saronic Gulf. Close to Methana, off the eastern coast of the Argolid on Hydra, the possibility of a Ptolemaic naval station has been raised by the rereading of a later third century inscription from Athens.4 It has also been suggested that the fortifications at Hermione were the work of a temporary Ptolemaic garrison.5 Off Methana itself, Ptolemaic naval possession is perhaps suggested by the naming of the “Islands of Pelops”.6 Literary sources inform us also of an island called Πατρόκλου Νῆσος or Χάραξ off the coast of Attica where Patroklos built a camp while bringing help to the Athenians during their war with Antigonus. Archaeologists have confirmed the location as Gaidouronisi, where the remains of two fortification walls c. 200 and 100 m long enclose an area only approachable by sea at a beach of considerable length suitable for the drawing up of a good sized fleet.7 Although the names survived in the last two cases, such military installations are likely to have been temporary, connected to specific military activity or requests for assistance on the part of the cities concerned.

  • 8 SEG 24.154. Cf.  1968, 247. Revised text in H. Heinen, Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschic (...)
  • 9 παρεσκεύασε δὲ καὶ τοῖς παρὰ Πατρόκλου | [πα] ραγενομένοις [στρα] τ̣ιώταις ἐπὶ τὴν βοήθειαν καὶ στέ (...)
  • 10 J. R. Mccredie (n. 7), pp. 41-46, 113-114.
  • 11 On the evidence of Ptolemaic coin finds for various Chremonidean War sites, see E. Varoucha-Christo (...)
  • 12 J. R. Mccredie (n. 7), pp. 30-32.
  • 13 Ibid., pp. 46-48.

4Our best evidence for Ptolemaic outposts within the territory of a polis comes from Attica, and here it is clear that the Ptolemaic presence was by invitation. A famous inscription from Rhamnous8 honours the Athenian Epichares, elected strategos ἐπὶ τὴν χώραν τὴν παραλίαν (l. 6) in the year of the outbreak of the war, the archonship of Peithedemos, amongst other things because he provided assistance and shelter to Ptolemaic troops.9 Quite possibly this Ptolemaic camp is to be identified with the fortifications known to have existed at nearby Kynosoura.10 Elsewhere on the coast of Attica two other fortified sites have been linked with this war by the proportionally large quantities of coinage of Philadelphus they have yielded.11 Koroni on the east coast of Attica was heavily fortified with a southern, landward wall 2.25 m thick, almost 1 km long, strengthened by nine towers at its weakest end. On the southern coast at Vouliagmeni, further finds of Philadelphus’ coin have led to the suggestion of a Ptolemaic base, though evidence for Hellenistic fortifications is uncertain.12 This evidence is supplemented by strong indications of an inland Ptolemaic fort at Helioupolis on the slopes of Hymettos. Again coin finds make the hypothesis attractive, and there is good reason to believe that the site was once fortified.13

5These bases divide, therefore, into two types: some were constructed on deserted islands, or at least on islands that were not home to civic entities (Hydra and the Island of Patroklos and Pelops). On the other hand, those in Attica were clearly present at the invitation of the Athenians and could be characterized as part of the effort to free Athens from Macedonian rule, and the short-term presence of Ptolemaic troops at Hermione, if true, was perhaps of the same nature.

  • 14 M. H. Hansen, T. H. Nielsen, An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (2004). Cf. Mee et al. 19 (...)

6But the history of Arsinoe-Methana, as usually constructed, is somewhat different. Methana is generally assumed to have been a polis, an independent civic entity, before it was renamed Arsinoe. It is listed, for example, in the Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis as no. 352.14 On this reconstruction, the Ptolemaic polis of Arsinoe (and it clearly was a polis, as the new Kalaureia text demonstrates) was not a foundation, but a refoundation of an existing city.

  • 15 IG II2 687, ll. 16-18: ὅτε βασιλεὺς Πτολεμαῖος ἀκολούθως τεῖ τ|ῶν προγόνων καὶ τεῖ τῆς ἀδελφῆς προ (...)

7And here is where the problem lies. The Chremonidean War was, ostensibly, a war about freedom: the freedom of the Greeks. Ptolemaic rhetoric on this subject is preserved in the famous “Chremonides decree” from Athens, where Philadelphus is described as “conspicuously showing his zeal for the common freedom of the Greeks”.15 So the question is: if Ptolemy were present in the Saronic Gulf as protector of Greek freedom, how was he able to take possession of a Greek polis, establish a naval base there, rename the city after his sister and wife, Arsinoe, and maintain military control throughout his reign, to be handed down to four generations of successors? This does not sound like the creation of a free city.

8The solution to this problem lies, I believe, in a careful consideration of the evidence for Methana before the creation of the Ptolemaic naval base. In fact, there is remarkably little evidence, and coinage occupies a significant place.

  • 16 Thuc. 4.45.2 and 5.18.7. The mss. read Μεθώνη in both places. The former passage contains the gloss (...)
  • 17 Ps Scylax 46. Müller (ad loc.) suggests that the mss. may here have corrupted the name of Ἀνθήνη, w (...)
  • 18 Olympia Museum 10. IvO 247 (SGDI 3369), LSAG p. 182 no. 4, pl. 33. MEΘΑΝΙΟΙ ΑΠΟ ΛΑΚΕΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΟΝ.
  • 19 Athens NM 14818, LSAG p. 206, no. 3, pl. 39. ΜΕΘΑΝ [ΙΟΙ] ΑΝΕΘΕ [Ν ΑΠ’] ΑΘΑΝΑΙ [ΟΝ ΤΑΣ] ΛΑΙΔΟ[Σ].
  • 20 LSAG, p. 177, 204.
  • 21 R. A. Bauslaugh, “Messenian Dialect and Dedications of the « Methanioi »”, Hesperia 59 (1990), p. 6 (...)

9There is no reference to a town on the peninsula by any fifth or fourth century historian. Thucydides refers to “Methana” once in the context of an Athenian expedition that fortified the Methana isthmus and once in the context of territory to be ceded to Sparta by the Peace of Nikias, alongside other toponyms that do not refer to established poleis.16 Pseudo-Scylax, writing in the 4th century BC, may have listed a Μέθανα πόλις καὶ λιμήν, which has been taken by some as a reference to the city in the Argolid. However, he lists it among the cities of Lakonia, and it seems far more likely that this is a reference to a location in the southern Peloponnese.17 The only inscriptions mentioning ΜΕΘΑΝΙΟΙ that have been attributed to a classical city of Methana are found on spear-butts dedicated at Olympia and at the sanctuary of Apollo Korythos in Messenia. The former was dedicated from the spoils of a victory over the Spartans,18 the latter from a victory over the Athenians.19 L.H. Jeffery was troubled by the notion that the city in the Argolid should have made a dedication at a sanctuary in Messenia, and suggested instead that the dedication be attributed to the perioecic town of Methone in Messenia.20 If Methana can stand for Methone then there is no reason why the dedication at Olympia should not be attributed to that city also. However, more recently, R. A. Bauslaugh has pointed out that we do not need to proceed to such extremes. ΜΕΘΑΝΙΟΙ, he shows, is a Messenian dialectal form for ΜΕΣΣΑΝΙΟΙ, “Messenians”21. On this basis, the spear-butts certainly disappear as evidence for the existence of a city of Methana in the 5th century.

  • 22 IG IV 800: Πραξιτέλει τόδε μνᾶμα ϝίσον ποίϝεσε θανό [ντι· | τ]οῦτο δ’ ἐταῖροι σᾶμα χέαν, βαρ̣έα στε (...)

10Otherwise, there are no civic decrees of any variety prior to the establishment of Arsinoe, and the only certainly archaic or classical inscription that has been found on the peninsula, a gravestone for a certain Praxiteles, gives no ethnic, and is generally classified with the inscriptions of Troizen.22

  • 23 See Mee et al. 1997, p. 69.
  • 24 Gill et al. 1997, p. 278.
  • 25 Leu 96 (2006), p. 315.

11As Gill, Foxall and Bowden put it, “The only hint that Methana was independent toward the end of the 4th century BC comes from the coinage”.23 This bronze coinage, which bears the head of Hephaistos on the obverse, and the first two or three letters of the city’s name on the reverse, is dated in most handbooks to the 4th century BC. Head, for example, offers the date “circ. 350-322 BC” (HN2, p. 442). Babelon, who included them in the Traité volume given to the classical period, clearly attributed their beginning to the 4th century BC also, though he is not explicit on the point. However he did allow that the coinage, although not long in duration, continued into the third century BC (cols. 492-494). Gill in his collection of the material in the publication of the Methana survey, describes them as “Hellenistic” but, like Babelon, places them before the issues in the name of Arsinoe.24 Walker in the catalogue of the BCD collection talks of a “minor coinage of bronze in the late 4th and 3rd century” and lists them under the heading of “late Classical and Hellenistic”.25

12In the reconstruction of the history of the city of Methana a lot rests on the dating of this coinage, and it is as well to ask how certain this 4th-3rd century date is. It is time to take a look again at the coinage of Arsinoe-Methana, to see what evidence actually exists. I shall begin, for reasons that will become clear, not with the coinage of Methana, but with that of Arsinoe.

Arsinoe

Group One (Pl. 1)

13Obv. Head of Aphrodite r.

14Rev. Ares standing r. with shield at feet and resting r. arm on spear; to l., A above P; to r., Σ above I.

1. A1/P1

a.

5.54 g

18 mm

London, HPB p. 79, n. 1. BMC 2. Gill et al. 1997, p. 279,
A6

b.

6.28 g

17 mm

New York, 0000.999.17027

c.*

17 mm

Löbbecke. Sv.p. 30, 2; pl. ii. 23

d.

5.59 g

18 mm

Cambridge, Leake 1856-1859, 8826-R. Gill et al. 1997, p. 279, A5

e.

5.26 g

18 mm

Athens (Christomanos)

f.

6.26 g

18 mm

New York, 1944.100.39707 (E.T. Newell bequest)

g.

17 mm

BM cast ‘P. Thorburn, 1908’

h.

5.19 g

18 mm

SNG Copenhagen 147. Gill et al. 1997, p. 279, A7

i.

5.05 g

19 mm

Paris, FG. 39

j.

4.49g

17 mm

Paris, FG. 40

2. A1/P2

a.

5.87 g

18 mm

Cambridge, McClean 6905, pl. 233, 27. Gill et al. 1997,

p. 279, A3

b.

5.58 g

17 mm

Vienna 14. 535 (Acq. 1862)

c.

4.67 g

330°

19 mm

LHS 96 (2006, BCD), lot 1331.3

d.

6.17 g

19 mm

Oxford (Milne 1947, ex Grantley Duplicates). Gill et al.

1997, p. 279, A1

e.*

6.16 g

18 mm

Paris, FG 38

f.

8.50 g

19 mm

Athens (Empedokles) ex H. Weber 4245, pl. 155, 4245 (ex. W.S. Lincoln 1887)

3. A2/P1

a.*

6.08 g

19 mm

London, B. 1841, 2020. BMC 1. Gill et al. 1997, p. 279, A2

b.

5.74 g

18 mm

Oxford (Baldwins, 1951). Gill et al. 1997, p. 279, A4

c.

4.88 g

18 mm

New York, 0000.999.17026 (rev. die uncertain)

4. A2/P2

a.*

6.07

18 mm

Paris, FG 1985, 446

5. A3/P3

a.*

18 mm

J. Hirsch 13 (1905, Rhousopoulos), lot 2907

Uncertain

dies

6. A1/P?

a.*

5.46 g

18 mm

CNG 81/2 (2009, BCD), 2527

7. A1/P?

a.*

3.69 g

18 mm

Cambridge, Leake 1856-1859, 5974-R

Group Two (Pl. 2)

15This group is characterized by poorer style than Group One, the appearance of a serpent around the spear of Ares and, apparently, a much lower survival rate than Group One.

16Obv. Head of Aphrodite r.

17Rev. Ares standing r. with shield at feet and resting r. arm on spear; around spear, serpent; ΑΡΣΙ with letters variously disposed.

1. A4/P4 (To l., A above P; to r. ΣΙ)

a.*

17 mm

Munich. Sv.p. 31, 2; pl. ii. 25

2. A5/P5 (To l., A above P; to r. ΣΙ)

a.*

3.56 g

19 mm

Imhoof. Sv.p. 31, 2; pl. ii. 24

3. A6/P6 (To l. A above P; to r., Σ above I)

a.*

4.49 g

18 mm

London, 1845-4-14-113. BMC 3. Wroth, NC 1884, p. 15, 1; Pl.i. 5. Sv.p. 31, 2. Gill et al. 1997, p. 279, B1.

4. A6/P7 (To r. downwards, ΑΡΣΙ)

a.*

2.45 g

16 mm

Athens. Sv.p. 31, 3 (legend wrongly described)

5. A7/P7 (To r. downwards, ΑΡΣΙ)

a.*

4.27 g

15 mm

London, B1841, 2019. BMC 4. Sv.p. 31, 4. Gill et al. 1997, p. 279, C1.

6. Uncertain dies (To l. A above P; to r., Σ above I)

a.

E. Harwood, Populorum et urbium selecta numismata Graeca ex aere; descripta, et figuris illustrata: Accedit Index generalis tum autonomorum, tum imperatoriorum, cum eorum raritate (1812), p. 52; pl. vii. 4.

b.

4.01 g

Berlin (Prokesch). RN2 5 (1860), p. 272; pl. xii. 9.

  • 26 The varieties were collected by I. N. Svoronos, Numismatique de la Crète ancienne, accompagnée de l (...)
  • 27 I. N. Svoronos, “Τα Μέθανα: Η Αρσινόη της Πελοποννήσου”, JIAN 7 (1904), pp. 397-400.

18The coinage in the name of Arsinoe bears on the obverse a female head facing to the right and on the reverse a male figure, naked but for a helmet, standing to the right with a shield standing on the ground to his left, and resting his raised right arm on a spear. Also on the reverse appears the abbreviated ethnic ΑΡΣΙ. The attribution of this coinage to a city by the name of Arsinoe is thus obvious. Until 1904 these coins were attributed to the city of Arsinoe in Crete.26 In that year, however, Svoronos published a specimen that had been found near Methana in the Argolid, and proposed a new, and surely correct, attribution to the city of Arsinoe known to have existed in the region.27

  • 28 For Aphrodite see I.N. Svoronos (n. 26); Diana is identified by Leake 1856, “Insular Greece”, p. 4; (...)
  • 29 I. N. Svoronos (n. 27), followed by, for example, B.V. Head, Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek Nu (...)

19The head on the obverse has been variously described. Prior to the attribution of the coinage to Peloponnesian Arsinoe, if identified at all, it was described as Diana or Aphrodite.28 The lack of attribute makes either identification uncertain. Following his re-attribution of the coinage, Svoronos suggested the identification of the head with Arsinoe, wife of Ptolemy IV. In this he was undoubtedly influenced by his (erroneous) view that the city had been renamed by Ptolemy IV in honour of his wife. Despite the subsequent revision of the date of foundation, this identification of the portrait has become entrenched in the literature.29 It is surely to be rejected. The head bears no particular resemblance to Arsinoe IV. Moreover, if a portrait of a Ptolemaic queen was adopted by the city for its coinage, it is surely more likely that the queen chosen would have been the city’s eponym, Arsinoe II. As we shall see, there is some variation in the features and style of this head which suggests that the “portrait” may have been in use for a lengthy period of time, and was thus not a portrait of a living queen, but perhaps rather the idealized representation of an eponymous founder.

Pl. 1. Arsinoe, Group One.

Pl. 2. Arsinoe, Group Two.

20The figure on the reverse is clearly a male warrior. The appearance of the snake or drakon entwined around his spear on some issues, suggests that this may be intended to represent the god Ares.

21The coinage in the name of Arsinoe breaks down into two groups both stylistically and in terms of its representation in modern collections.

  • 30 On the former see C. C. Lorber, “The Ptolemaic Mint of Ras Ibn Hani”, INR 2 (2007), pp. 63-75; they (...)
  • 31 Poseidippus 12 and 13G-P and 36 and 37A-B, and Callimachus Ep. 14G-P = 5Pf.
  • 32 L. Robert, “Sur un décret des Korésiens au Musée de Smyrne”, Hellenica 11-12 (1960), pp. 132-176. F (...)

22The female heads on the obverse of the first group are characterized by a slightly fleshy appearance to the face, hair swept back in what appear to be horizontal rows, and gathered in a bunch at the back of the head. On two of the obverses there also appears to be a relatively broad diadem. The intended effect may perhaps be the Melonfrisur that characterizes the portraits of Ptolemaic princesses of the mid third century, such as that which occurs on the Ptolemaic bronze issued at Ras Ibn Hani, or the silver produced in Cyrene [compare figs. 1-2].30 The correspondences are not exact, and the bronze of Arsinoe can hardly be considered to bear a portrait of good royal style, but it may be that in its provincial way it sought to convey a notion of Ptolemaic royalty. If it sought to portray the image of the city’s eponym, Arsinoe II Philadelphus, then assimilation of the queen with the goddess Aphrodite would be perfectly in line with the conceits of Alexandrian court poetry. Most famously, Arsinoe was identified with Aphrodite-Zephyritis, to whom a sanctuary was dedicated near Canopus in Egypt by the Ptolemaic admiral Callicrates of Samos. The dedication led to a poetic outpouring from the pens of, notably, Poseidippus and Callimachus.31 L. Robert sought to explain the dedication in conjunction with the creation of the various Arsinoe foundations/ refoundations in the reign of Philadelphus as a conscious policy of projection of royal power by sea.32

Fig. 1. Ras Ibn Hani, AE (CNG Electronic Auction 253 [2011], no. 199).

Fig. 2. Cyrene, AR (Gemini 5 [2009], no. 706).

23The reverse of Group One features the warrior, as already described. None of the reverses used within this group have the snake around the spear. The legend is disposed in the same way on all the reverses: to the sides of this male figure appear the letters alpha above rho to the left, and sigma above iota to the right.

24For Group One I have so far identified 23 specimens struck from 3 obverse and 3 reverse dies. The mean diameter of the group is 18 mm, the mean of the 20 recorded weights is 5.63 g. The axis is fixed at 12 o’clock.

  • 33 A fourth variation was described by I. N. Svoronos ( [n. 26], p. 31, no. 3) with the disposition A (...)

25Group Two essentially repeats the types of Group One, albeit with a different style. The obverse head looks very different. The profile is more angular, and the attempt at Melonfrisur is abandoned. The hair is clearly now depicted as a series of near vertical lines. On the reverse a snake appears around the warrior’s spear, and the disposition of the legend has three variations: to l., Α above Ρ; to r., Σ above Ι (as on Group One); to l., Α above Ρ; to r. ΣΙ; and to r. downwards, ΑΡΣΙ.33

26Coins of Group Two survive in much fewer numbers than those of Group One. I have recorded just 5 specimens, struck from 4 obverse and 4 reverse dies. Given this low ratio of specimens to dies it is nonetheless possible that Group Two was originally more substantial than Group One.

27The mean diameter of the five specimens is 17 mm, and of the five recorded weights is 3.76 g. Axis is fixed at 12 o’clock.

Weight

Diameter

0° Axis

Group One

5.63 g

18 mm

95 %

Group Two

3.76 g

17 mm

100 %

28Thus, while the two groups are likely to represent the same denomination, there does seem to be a moderate reduction in weight from Group One to Group Two. This combined with the stylistic “deterioriation” leads to the relative order of the Groups proposed here.

Methana

Group 1 (Pl. 3)

29Obv. Head of Hephaistos in conical cap r.

30Rev. ME within wreath.

31All in poor state of preservation. Obverse dies probably all different; reverse dies certainly different.

1.*

3.09 g

16 mm

London B1841, 1847. BMC Methana 1. Babelon, Traité, pl. 217, 27. Gill et al. 1997, 1B1

2.*

2.27 g

15 mm

Cambridge, McClean 6903, pl. 233, 25. Gill et al. 1997, 1B3

3.*

2.73 g

90°

14 mm

SNG Copenhagen 146. Gill et al. 1997, 1B2

4.*

2.60 g

120°

15 mm

Athens. SNG Soutzos 1102

5.*

2.33 g

270°

15 mm

Athens, ex IGCH 301

Group 2 (Pl. 4)

32Obv. Head of Hephaistos in conical cap r.

33Rev. ME and Θ within wreath.

1. A1/P1

a.*

4.14 g

60°

14 mm

Paris. Mionnet, Suppl. IV, p. 264, no. 172. Babelon, Traité, pl. 217, 28.

b.

2.38 g

240°

14 mm

Athens 4448

c.

2.67 g

14 mm

Cambridge, Leake 1856-1859, 4394. Gill et al. 1997, 1A1 (wrong coin illustrated)

2. A1/P2

a.*

1.99 g

300°

13 mm

London TC p. 169, n. 2. BMC Methana 2. Babelon, Traité, pl. 217, 29. Gill et al. 1997, 1A4

3. A2/P3

a.*

1.55 g

60°

13 mm

Athens 4447

4. A3/P4

a.*

2.29 g

180°

15 mm

Cambridge, McClean 6904, pl. 233, 26. Gill et al. 1997, 1A2.

5. A3/P5

a.*

2.05 g

330°

13 mm

Oxford (Milne, 1951, ex Baldwins)

6. A4/P6

a.*

3.30 g

120°

15 mm

Athens (Empedokles) ex H. Weber 4244 ex Sotheby 15.vi.1896 (Bunbury), lot 1123.

7. A5/P7

a.*

1.91 g

210°

15 mm

LHS 96 (2006, BCD), lot 1331.2

8. A?/P7

a.*

0.90 g

240°

12 mm

Cambridge, Leake 1856-1859, 4395-R. Gill et al. 1997, 1A5. Heavily worn.

  • 34 Contrary to some earlier descriptions, the theta always appears within the wreath.
  • 35 A third variety, with a similar obverse type and an ME on the reverse without a surrounding wreath, (...)

34By contrast with that in the name of Arsinoe, the coinage of Methana presents a more varied picture in a number of respects. The basic types chosen are entirely different from the coinage in the name of Arsinoe. On the obverse appears a bearded head of the god Hephaistos wearing a conical cap. This is a constant feature, although the head may point to the left or the right. On the reverse appears a monogram of the first two letters of the city’s name, mu and epsilon. This may be supplemented by the third letter, theta, but is not always.34 These letters are surrounded by a wreath, in the fashion of a number of mints in the region.35

35Methana’s coinage may thus be broken down into two varieties, depending on the form of the ethnic, with or without theta. The generally poor quality of surviving specimens makes it difficult to ascertain whether there is any obverse die-linkage across the coins exhibiting different ethnic forms. It is consequently difficult to determine whether this variation in ethnic constitutes a real subdivision within the production of the mint or is simply the result of contemporary variation in die-cutting. The five coins without theta have a mean weight of 2.6 g, diameter of 15 mm and variable axis. The nine coins with theta in comparable condition have a mean weight of 2.48 g, diameter of 14 mm and variable axis.

Pl. 3. Methana, Group 1.

Pl. 4. Methana, Group 2.

Weight

Diameter

0° Axis

Methana Group 1 (ΜΕ)

2.60 g

15 mm

40 %

Methana Group 2 (ΜΕΘ)

2.48 g

14 mm

11 %

Methana all

2.52 g

14 mm

21 %

36On the basis of the current evidence there is no clear way to establish the relative chronology of the two groups of Methana’s coinage, if indeed there is a chronological distinction between the use of the two ethnic types. As to the absolute chronology, we have already noted that there has been a tendency among modern scholars to assign it to the 4th or early 3rd century BC. The initial judgements on the date of these coins had little firm basis. There is certainly nothing in the style of these coins, which veers from the competent to the crude, to suggest a 4th century date. In fact, we do not need to rely on such arbitrary criteria to suggest a general date for these coins. There is, happily, some hoard evidence.

  • 36 The most complete listing so far published is that of I. Touratsoglou, E. Tsourti, “Συμβολή στην κυ (...)

37The hoard in question was acquired, without recorded find-spot, by the Numismatic Museum in Athens in 1937. It has never been fully published, but has been examined and discussed by a number of scholars and appears as number 301 in the Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards.36

38Its contents are as follows:

Aetolia:

1 triob. Tsangari (n. 36), V. 76c, no. 1373a, pl. lxxxi (200-150 BC)

Chalcis:

2 dr. Picard (n. 36), 8 and 26 (338-308 and 290-273/1 BC)

Sicyon:

– 1 triob. (chimaera/dove)

– 12 triob. (dove/Σ + name)

– 1 AE (Dove flying l./ΣΙ in wreath)

Patrae:

– 6 triob.

– 4 as SNG Copenhagen 152 (ΑΓΥΣ ΑΙΣΧΡΙΩΝΟΣ)

– 2 as SNG Copenhagen 154 (ΔΑΜΑΣΙΑΣ ΑΓΗΣΙΛΑΟΥ)

Achaean League:

132 triob.; 1 AE

– Sicyon:

1 early

– Patrai:

– 7 early

– 7 post-Agrinion

– Argos:

– 1 early

– 1 late

– Corone:

1 early

– Messene:

3 early

– Elis:

– 6 early

– 2 late

– 25 post-Agrinion

– Antigoneia:

9 early

– Megara:

4 late

– Megalopolis:

5 late

– Sparta:

– 1 late

– 5 post-Agrinion

– Aigion:

– 1 late

– 29 post-Agrinion

– Dyme:

5 post-Agrinion

– Pallantion:

10 post-Agrinion

– Tegea:

4 post-Agrinion

– Unidentifed:

5

Messenia:

– 1 triob. Grandjean 2003, Ser. X em. β 133d (D75/R113)

– 2 AE. Grandjean 2003, Ser. XI em. θ, p. 173

– 1 AE. Grandjean 2003, Ser. XI em. ι, p. 175

– 1 AE. Grandjean 2003, Ser. XII em. γ 585a (D326/R518)

– 1 AE. Grandjean 2003, Ser. XII em. δ, p. 185 (2 exx.)

– 1 AE. Grandjean 2003, Ser. XIV 670a (D388/R593)

Lacedaemon:

2 triob. S. Grunauer-von Hoerschelmann, Die Münzprägung der Lakedaimonier (1972), Group VIII (1st cent. BC)

Argos:

2 triob.

Methana:

ae

Epidaurus:

ae

Megalopolis:

8 triob. J.A. Dengate (n. 36), Group I, period IIB and III; Group III

Cleitor:

ae

Tegea:

ae

39Included was a single coin of Methana with the shorter ethnic (ME only). The coin is heavily corroded but, to judge from the letters on the reverse, was not very heavily worn at time of deposition.

  • 37 A convenient survey of the battlefield is provided by J. Warren, “The Achaian League Silver Coinage (...)
  • 38 Cf. O. Picard (n. 36), p. 325. See J. Warren, “The Autonomous Bronze Coinage of Sicyon. Part 3”, NC(...)
  • 39 For the dates of these see J. Warren, “Towards a Resolution of the Achaian League Silver Coinage Co (...)

40The burial date of this hoard is problematic in the same way that a number of 2nd-1st century BC hoards are in the wake of the Boehringer and Warren “revolution”.37 It is not necessary here to go into the details of this revolution, or the counter-revolution discussed elsewhere in this volume. Suffice it to note that on the older “high” chronology the burial of this hoard has generally been taken to postdate 146 BC (so IGCH).38 It certainly seems to contain material later than the Agrinion hoard (IGCH 271), which most would date to c. 129 BC. On the low chronology, the issues of Patrae in the names of ΔΑΜΑΣΙΑΣ ΑΓΗΣΙΛΑΟΥ and ΑΓΥΣ ΑΙΣΧΡΙΩΝΟΣ look to be the latest elements in the hoard, and would date to the 30s BC.39 Thus, IGCH 301 is highly unlikely to have been buried before the 120s BC, and may be as late as the 20s BC. The important point is that this hoard strongly suggests that the bronze coin of Methana included in the hoard was not struck in the 4th century BC, for no other coin of similarly early date is included in the hoard. Rather, it supports a date for this coinage after the end of Ptolemaic control of the city, which, as we have seen, is likely to have occurred in the middle of the 2nd century BC.

  • 40 See e.g. E. Babelon, Traité, col. 494; B. V. Head (n. 29), p. 442; N.D. Papachatzis, Παυσανίου Ελλά (...)

41To move the coinage after the third century BC in fact solves a puzzle in the choice of types adopted by the people of Methana for their new coinage. As has long been realized,40 the image of Hephaistos which occurs on the obverse of this coinage is likely to be connected to the volcanic nature of the peninsula, and to the description of the city given by Pausanias as having hot springs. It is worth quoting the relevant passage in full:

  • 41 Pausanias 2.34.1: τῆς δὲ Τροιζηνίας γῆς ἐστιν ἰσθμὸς ἐπὶ πολὺ διέχων ἐς θάλασσαν, ἐν δὲ αὐτῷ πόλισμ (...)

Stretching out far into the sea from Troezenia is a peninsula, on the coast of which has been founded a little town called Methana. Here there is a sanctuary of Isis, and on the market-place is an image of Hermes, and also one of Heracles. Some thirty stades distant from the town are hot baths. They say that it was when Antigonus, son of Demetrius, was king of Macedon that the water first appeared, and that what appeared at once was not water, but fire that gushed in great volume from the ground, and when this died down the water flowed; indeed, even at the present day it wells up hot and exceedingly salt. A bather here finds no cold water at hand, and if he dives into the sea his swim is full of danger. For wild creatures live in it, and it swarms with sharks.41

42Pausanias is quite explicit that the hot-springs along with the fire from the ground appeared first (τότε πρῶτον) in the reign of Antigonus son of Demetrius, that is Antigonus Gonatas (277-239 BC). Methana, then, acquired its Hephaistian connotations in the 3rd century BC. Logically, the choice of this god for the obverse type of the coinage should follow the volcanic event described by Pausanias, not precede it.

43The hoard evidence and the iconography seem, therefore, to conspire to suggest that the bronze coinage of Methana was issued in the 2nd or 1st century BC, and that it should be dated after the coinage in the name of Arsinoe. Certainly it is likely to have been issued after the end of Ptolemaic control in the middle of the 2nd century BC (above n. 3), and provides us with evidence that fairly soon after the departure of Ptolemaic forces, the city dropped its dynastic name in favour of the new, local name of Methana. The legacy of Ptolemaic activity in the area was the existence of a new polis, whose history would continue long into the Roman period.

  • 42 Gill 2007, pp. 103-104 (quotation on 104). There appears to have been a subsequent reduction in agr (...)

44With the removal of the coinage from the 4th to the 2nd century BC, all evidence for the existence of an independent polis of Methana before the foundation of Arsinoe disappears. The peninsula of Methana was undoubtedly inhabited before the arrival of Ptolemaic forces: archaeological survey has demonstrated this clearly. Survey has also suggested that the arrival of the Ptolemaic base led to “a renaissance in agricultural activity on the peninsula”, at least before the volcanic event of the mid 3rd century BC.42

  • 43 This is a story I plan to take up elsewhere. For some of the background see N. Robertson, “The Decr (...)

45But the advent of Ptolemaic control did not constitute the appropriation or suppression of an existing civic entity. Since Methana seems not to have been a polis before the 260s BC, then the chances are that the peninsula formed part of the chora of nearby Troizen, to which the contiguous territory to the south of the peninsula certainly belonged. The story of the Ptolemaic acquisition of the peninsula, and the ability to found a new polis there, thus becomes that of Ptolemaic relations with Troezen.43

Appendix: a group previously attributed to Methana

46The following coins bear sufficient resemblance to the coins of Methana discussed above, that they have in the past been catalogued with them as products of the same mint. However, the absence of the wreath on the reverse provides a clear typological difference, and the findspots of nos. 4 and 5 below speak strongly in favour of an Italian mint for these coins, perhaps in Bruttium or Sicily. See further G. Gargano (n. 35).

47Obv. Head of Hephaistos (?) in conical cap l.

48Rev. ME (no wreath).

49Nos. 1-3 seem to be struck from same obverse die. Reverse dies potentially all the same; but impossible to be certain.

50Obv. Head of Hephaistos in conical cap r.

51Rev. ME (no wreath)

1.

2.00 g

180°

14 mm

LHS 96 (2006, BCD), lot 1331.1

52The group may be subdivided according to whether Hephaistos’ head on the obverse faces right or left. It is possible that this variation is significant in terms of denomination. The four unbroken specimens with head left have a mean weight of 4.01 g, the five coins of this type have mean diameter of 14.8 mm and variable axis. The single recorded specimen with head right has a weight of 2 g, diameter of 14 mm and axis of 180°. Caution is required, given the tiny nature of the sample, it seems the left facing head type is the double of the right facing head type.

Bibliographie

Bibliographical abbreviations

Gill et al. 1997 = D. W. J. Gill, L. Foxall, H. Bowden, “Classical and Hellenistic Methana”, in Mee et al. 1997, pp. 62-76.

Gill 2007 = D. W. J. Gill, “Arsinoe in the Peloponnese: The Ptolemaic Base on the Methana Peninsula”, in T. Schneider, K. Szpakowska (eds), Egyptian Stories: A British Egyptological Tribute to Alan B. Lloyd (2007), p. 87-110.

Grandjean 2003 = C. Grandjean, Les Messéniens de 370-369 au 1er siècle de notre ère: Monnayages et histoire (2003).

Leake 1856-1859 = W. M. Leake, Numismata Hellenica: A Catalogue of Greek Coins Collected by William Martin Leake (1856); A Supplement to Numismata Hellenica: A Catalogue of Greek Coins (1859).

Mee et al. 1997 = C.B. Mee et al., A Rough and Rocky Place: The Landscape and Settlement History of the Methana Peninsula, Greece: Results of the Methana Survey Project, Sponsored by the British School at Athens and the University of Liverpool (1997).

Notes

1 J. Wallensten, J. Pakkanen, “A New Inscribed Statue Base from the Sanctuary of Poseidon at Kalaureia”, Opuscula 2 (2009), pp. 155-165: “The polis of the people of Arsinoe of the Peloponnese set up this statue of King Ptolemy and Arsinoe Philadelphos to Poseidon.” For earlier discussions of the city, its foundation and subsequent history see R. S. Bagnall, The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions Outside Egypt (1976), pp. 135-136; G.M. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor (1995), pp. 124-126; Mee et al. 1997, pp. 73-75; K. Mueller, Settlements of the Ptolemies: City Foundations and New Settlement in the Hellenistic World (2006), p. 65ff.; Gill 2007.

2 For a dedication made by Eirenaios at Methana ὑπὲρ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου | καὶ β̣ασιλίσσης Κλεοπάτρας θεῶν φιλομṇ|τόρων κạὶ τ̣ῶ̣ν τ [έ] κ̣νων̣ αὐτῶν θεοῖς το [ῖς] | μεγάλοις, see IG IV. 854 = OGIS 115 (for the text, see SEG 11.391a). Eirenaios’ command is described in IG XII.3.466 (= OGIS 102) 9-15: Εἰρηναῖος | Νικίου [Ἀλε] ξ{σ}ανδρεύς | ὁ γραμμα [τεὺ] ς τῶν κατὰ Κρήτην | καὶ Θήρα [ν κ] αὶ Ἀρσινόην | τὴν ἐν [Πε]λοποννήσωι | στρατιω[τ]ῶν καὶ μαχίμων | καὶ οἰκον[όμ]ος τῶν αὐτῶν τόπων. For the date see IG. XII.3 Suppl. 1390-1 and now C. Carusi, “Nuova edizione della homologia fra Trezene e Arsinoe (IG IV 752, IG IV2 76+77)”, in B. Virgilio (ed.), Studi ellenistici XVI (2005), pp. 127-129. To the reign of Philometor also may belong IG IV2.1.76+77 – a Ptolemaic arbitration in a land dispute between Troizen and Arsinoe. For a newly established text and full commentary see ibid., pp. 79-139. M.D. Dixon (Disputed Territories: Interstate Arbitrations in the Northeast Peloponnese, ca. 250-150 B.C. PhD Dissertation [2000], pp. 213-221; id., “Hellenistic Arbitration. The Achaian League and Ptolemaic Arsinoe [Methana]”, in E. Konsolaki-Giannopoulou, [ed.] ΑΡΓΟΣΑΡΩΝΙΚΟΣ. The Proceedings of the First International Conference on the History and Archaeology of the Argo-Saronic Gulf, Poros, Greece, 26-29 June 1998 [2003], vol. 2, pp. 81-87) suggests on historical grounds a date in the 180s. K. Tausend, Verkehrswege der Argolis: Rekonstruktion und historische Bedeutung (2006), pp. 48-49, notes the account in the Memoirs of Ptolemy VIII (FGrHist 234 F6) of a trip on the Kontoporeia, a road between the Argolid and Corinth, and suggests that this visit may have been made in the context of the embassy of 169/8 BC described by Polybius (29.23).

3 The precise date of Ptolemaic withdrawal remains unclear, but is often assumed to have coincided with the Ptolemaic withdrawal from Crete and Thera, c. 145 BC. For discussion see C. Habicht, “Athens and the Ptolemies”, ClAnt 11 (1992), pp. 68-90, p. 90 with n. 136; W. Huss, Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit 332-30 v. Chr. (2001), pp. 603-604.

4 C. Habicht (supra), pp. 88-90, on IG II2 1024. The decree dates to the later 3rd century, but the base may have been established as part of a system in the region that seems to date back to the time of the Chremonidean War.

5 Gill et al. 1997, p. 73; cf. Gill 2007, p. 94, n. 54. For an unspecified coin of Ptolemy II found near the city see M. H. Jameson et al., A Greek Countryside: The Southern Argolid from Prehistory to the Present Day (1994), p. 90, n. 32.

6 For the link between these islands (Paus. 2.34.3) and Pelops, the eponymous priest at Alexandria (Pros. Ptol. 14618), see W. Peremans, E. Vant Dack, “Notes sur quelques prêtres éponymes d’Égypte ptolémaïque”, Historia 8 (1959), p. 172.

7 Pausanias 1.1.1 cf. 1.35.1, Strabo 9.1.21 C398. J.R. Mccredie, Fortified Military Camps in Attica (1966), pp. 18-25. The picture of occupation at the site is more complex than McCredie initially allowed: see E. Winter, “Formen ptolemäischer Präsenz in der Ägäis zwischen schriftlicher Überlieferung und archäologischem Befund”, in F. Daubner (ed.), Militärsiedlungen und Territorialherrschaft in der Antike (2010), pp. 70-71.

8 SEG 24.154. Cf.  1968, 247. Revised text in H. Heinen, Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichte des 3. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Zur Geschichte der Zeit des Ptolemaios Keraunos und zum Chremonideischen Krieg (1972), pp. 152-154.

9 παρεσκεύασε δὲ καὶ τοῖς παρὰ Πατρόκλου | [πα] ραγενομένοις [στρα] τ̣ιώταις ἐπὶ τὴν βοήθειαν καὶ στέγα[ς] ὅπως ἔχωσιν ἱκανὰς | [— — —ca. 21-22— — —] ο οὐθένα ποήσας ἐν ἐπισταθμείαι τῶν πολιτῶν… . (ll. 23-25).

10 J. R. Mccredie (n. 7), pp. 41-46, 113-114.

11 On the evidence of Ptolemaic coin finds for various Chremonidean War sites, see E. Varoucha-Christodoulopoulos, “Les témoignages numismatiques sur la guerre chrémonidéenne (265-262 av. J.-C.)”, in Congresso Internazionale di Numismatica, Rome, 1961, II: Atti (1965), pp. 225-226, with the corrective of T. Hackens, “À propos de la circulation monétaire dans le Péloponnèse au iiie s. av. J.-C.” in Antidorum Peremans (1968), p. 83, n. 4.

12 J. R. Mccredie (n. 7), pp. 30-32.

13 Ibid., pp. 46-48.

14 M. H. Hansen, T. H. Nielsen, An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (2004). Cf. Mee et al. 1997, pp. 68-69; Gill 2007, p. 92.

15 IG II2 687, ll. 16-18: ὅτε βασιλεὺς Πτολεμαῖος ἀκολούθως τεῖ τ|ῶν προγόνων καὶ τεῖ τῆς ἀδελφῆς προ [α] ιρέσει φανερός ἐστ|ιν σπουδάζων ὑπὲρ τῆς κοινῆς τ [ῶν] Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθερίας.

16 Thuc. 4.45.2 and 5.18.7. The mss. read Μεθώνη in both places. The former passage contains the gloss ἐν ὧι ἡ Μεθώνη ἐστί, but this is almost certainly an interpolation. See K. Maurer, Interpolation in Thucydides (1995), p. 75.

17 Ps Scylax 46. Müller (ad loc.) suggests that the mss. may here have corrupted the name of Ἀνθήνη, well attested in other sources.

18 Olympia Museum 10. IvO 247 (SGDI 3369), LSAG p. 182 no. 4, pl. 33. MEΘΑΝΙΟΙ ΑΠΟ ΛΑΚΕΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΟΝ.

19 Athens NM 14818, LSAG p. 206, no. 3, pl. 39. ΜΕΘΑΝ [ΙΟΙ] ΑΝΕΘΕ [Ν ΑΠ’] ΑΘΑΝΑΙ [ΟΝ ΤΑΣ] ΛΑΙΔΟ[Σ].

20 LSAG, p. 177, 204.

21 R. A. Bauslaugh, “Messenian Dialect and Dedications of the « Methanioi »”, Hesperia 59 (1990), p. 661-668. He goes on to suggest that both dedications may be connected to the celebrated Messenian revolt from the Spartans in the 460s, centered at Ithome. Here, for a brief period, the Athenians and Spartans were ranged on the same side against the Messenians. Cf. N. Luraghi, The Ancient Messenians: Constructions of Ethnicity and Memory (2008), p. 186-187.

22 IG IV 800: Πραξιτέλει τόδε μνᾶμα ϝίσον ποίϝεσε θανό [ντι· | τ]οῦτο δ’ ἐταῖροι σᾶμα χέαν, βαρ̣έα στενάχοντες, | ϝέργον ἀντ’ ἀγ [α] θο̑ν, κεπάμερον ἐξετέλεσ (σ) α [ν].

23 See Mee et al. 1997, p. 69.

24 Gill et al. 1997, p. 278.

25 Leu 96 (2006), p. 315.

26 The varieties were collected by I. N. Svoronos, Numismatique de la Crète ancienne, accompagnée de l’histoire, la géographie et la mythologie de l’île... Première partie. Description des monnaies, histoire et géographie (1890), p. 29-31, nos. 1-4.

27 I. N. Svoronos, “Τα Μέθανα: Η Αρσινόη της Πελοποννήσου”, JIAN 7 (1904), pp. 397-400.

28 For Aphrodite see I.N. Svoronos (n. 26); Diana is identified by Leake 1856, “Insular Greece”, p. 4; 1859, p. 154.

29 I. N. Svoronos (n. 27), followed by, for example, B.V. Head, Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek Numismatics (1911), p. 442; S. W. Grose, Catalogue of the McClean Collection of Greek Coins (1923- 1929) ad no. 6905; SNG Copenhagen; Gill et al. 1997.

30 On the former see C. C. Lorber, “The Ptolemaic Mint of Ras Ibn Hani”, INR 2 (2007), pp. 63-75; they are likely to belong to the period of Ptolemaic occupation of Seleuceia Pieria after 246 BC. For the latter see most recently T. V. Buttrey, I. D. Macphee, The Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya: Final Reports Vol. 6, Part I: The Coins, Part II: Attic Pottery (1997), pp. 37-41, dating them to the period c. 261-258 BC.

31 Poseidippus 12 and 13G-P and 36 and 37A-B, and Callimachus Ep. 14G-P = 5Pf.

32 L. Robert, “Sur un décret des Korésiens au Musée de Smyrne”, Hellenica 11-12 (1960), pp. 132-176. For further discussion in the light of the new Poseidippus epigrams, see P. Bing, “Posidippus and the Admiral. Kallikrates of Samos in the Milan Epigrams”, GRBS 43 (2002), pp. 243-266; S.A. Stephens, “Battle of the Books”, in K. J. Gutzwiller (ed.), The New Posidippus. A Hellenistic Poetry Book (2005), pp. 243-248, and D. J. Thompson, “Posidippus, Poet of the Ptolemies”, ibid., pp. 270-271.

33 A fourth variation was described by I. N. Svoronos ( [n. 26], p. 31, no. 3) with the disposition A above P to l. and ΣΙ to r. However, the example he adduces (now in Athens) is in fact struck from the same reverse die as BMC 4.

34 Contrary to some earlier descriptions, the theta always appears within the wreath.

35 A third variety, with a similar obverse type and an ME on the reverse without a surrounding wreath, has in the past been attributed to Methana. However, Italian provenances for two such coins strongly suggest that they should be attributed to a mint there. See G. Gargano, “Una moneta di Methana de Castellace? Nuove ipotesi su una zecca « ME » in Italia Meridonale”, SNR 87 (2008), pp. 23-44; ead., “Ipotesi di attribuzione di una moneta (di Methana?) rinvenuta a Torre Cillea”, in M. M. Sica (ed.), La media valle del Metauros tra VII e III sec. a.C. L’insediamento di Torre Cillea a Castellace (2009), pp. 203-227, and the Appendix below.

36 The most complete listing so far published is that of I. Touratsoglou, E. Tsourti, “Συμβολή στην κυκλοφορία των τριωβόλων της Αχαϊκής Συμπολιτείας στον Ελλαδικό χώρο: η μαρτυρία των « Θησαυρών »”, in Αρχαία Αχαΐα και Ηλεία: ανακοινώσεις κατά το πρώτο διεθνές συμπόσιο, Αθήνα 19-21 Μαΐου 1989 (1991), pp. 178-179. For discussions of various mints included therein, see D. I. Tsangari, Corpus des monnaies d’or, d’argent et de bronze de la Confédération étolienne (2007); O. Picard, Chalcis et la Confédération eubéenne: Étude de numismatique et d’histoire, ive-ier siècle (1979); Grandjean 2003; J. A. Dengate, “The Triobols of Megalopolis”, ANSMN 13 (1967), pp. 57-110.

37 A convenient survey of the battlefield is provided by J. Warren, “The Achaian League Silver Coinage Controversy Resolved: A Summary”, NC 159 (1999), pp. 99-109.

38 Cf. O. Picard (n. 36), p. 325. See J. Warren, “The Autonomous Bronze Coinage of Sicyon. Part 3”, NC 145 (1985), p. 57, no. 13 for “material certainly later than that of the Agrinion hoard”.

39 For the dates of these see J. Warren, “Towards a Resolution of the Achaian League Silver Coinage Controversy: Some Observations on Methodology”, in M. J. Price et al. (eds), Essays in Honour of Robert Carson and Kenneth Jenkins (1993), p. 96; ead., “More on the « New Landscape » in the Late Hellenistic Coinage in the Peloponnese”, in M. Amandry (ed.), Travaux de numismatique grecque offerts à Georges Le Rider (1999), p. 379; ead. (n. 37), p. 101.

40 See e.g. E. Babelon, Traité, col. 494; B. V. Head (n. 29), p. 442; N.D. Papachatzis, Παυσανίου Ελλάδος Περιήγησις (1974-1981), II, p. 265; R. Baladié, Le Péloponnèse de Strabon: Étude de géographie historique (1980), p. 159; Gill 2007, pp. 97-98.

41 Pausanias 2.34.1: τῆς δὲ Τροιζηνίας γῆς ἐστιν ἰσθμὸς ἐπὶ πολὺ διέχων ἐς θάλασσαν, ἐν δὲ αὐτῷ πόλισμα οὐ μέγα ἐπὶ θαλάσσῃ Μέθανα ᾤκισται. Ἴσιδος δὲ ἐνταῦθα ἱερόν ἐστι καὶ ἄγαλμα ἐπὶ τῆς ἀγορᾶς Ἑρμοῦ, τὸ δὲ ἕτερον Ἡρακλέους. τοῦ δὲ πολίσματος τριάκοντά που στάδια ἀπέχει θερμὰ λουτρά: φασὶ δὲ Ἀντιγόνου τοῦ Δημητρίου Μακεδόνων βασιλεύοντος τότε πρῶτον τὸ ὕδωρ φανῆναι, φανῆναι δὲ οὐχ ὕδωρ εὐθὺς ἀλλὰ πῦρ ἀναζέσαι πολὺ ἐκ τῆς γῆς, ἐπὶ δὲ τούτῳ μαρανθέντι ῥυῆναι τὸ ὕδωρ, ὃ δὴ καὶ ἐς ἡμᾶς ἄνεισι θερμόν τε καὶ δεινῶς ἁλμυρόν. λουσαμένῳ δὲ ἐνταῦθα οὔτε ὕδωρ ἐστὶν ἐγγὺς ψυχρὸν οὔτε ἐσπεσόντα ἐς τὴν θάλασσαν ἀκινδύνως νήχεσθαι: θηρία γὰρ καὶ ἄλλα καὶ κύνας παρέχεται πλείστους.

42 Gill 2007, pp. 103-104 (quotation on 104). There appears to have been a subsequent reduction in agricultural activity, perhaps the result of the volcanic eruption in the mid 3rd century. See further C. B. Mee et al., “Rural Settlement Change in the Methana Peninsula, Greece”, in G. Barker, J. Lloyd (eds), Roman Landscapes; Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Region (1991), p. 223; Mee et al. 1997, p. 74; K. Mueller (n. 1), pp. 66-68.

43 This is a story I plan to take up elsewhere. For some of the background see N. Robertson, “The Decree of Themistocles in its Contemporary Setting”, Phoenix 36 (1982), pp. 1-44.

Notes de fin

1 For discussion of various topics connected with this paper, and for help with bibliography I must thank Alexandros Andreou, Christian Habicht, Adonis Kyrou and Aaron Sizer. For assistance in studying material in their care I am very grateful to the following curators: Amelia Dowler (London), Frédérique Duyrat (Paris), Adi Popescu (Cambridge), Panagiotis Tselekas (Athens), Klaus Vondrovec (Vienna) and Bernhard Weisser (Berlin).

Table des illustrations

Légende Pl. 1. Arsinoe, Group One.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/7767/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 43k
Légende Pl. 2. Arsinoe, Group Two.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/7767/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 26k
Légende Fig. 1. Ras Ibn Hani, AE (CNG Electronic Auction 253 [2011], no. 199).
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/7767/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 3,3k
Légende Fig. 2. Cyrene, AR (Gemini 5 [2009], no. 706).
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/7767/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 4,0k
Légende Pl. 3. Methana, Group 1.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/7767/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 21k
Légende Pl. 4. Methana, Group 2.
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/7767/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 28k
URL http://books.openedition.org/efa/docannexe/image/7767/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 81k

Auteur

University of Oxford.

© École française d’Athènes, 2018

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search