Greek coin die study

This paper gives the first die-study (86 tetradrachms and 31 drachms) for the silver Hellenistic coinage of Tenedus (Tenedos) with the types "Janiform's head/ Double axe". Tetradrachms have been struck with c. 25 obverse dies (there are 21 different obverses for 86 coins) and this is put into perspective with other mints of the mid-second century (Aegeae, Lebedus, Smyrna are less productive; Kyme and Myrina are by far more). The traditionnal dates given for this coinage ('after 189 BC' or '2nd-1st c. BC') are severely revised through the study of weights and overstrikes (on Thasian type tetradrachms). The bulk of this coinage looks to belong to the first decades of the 1st c. BC and a connection with the Mihtridatic wars is not to be excluded.

This paper aims to describe and comment what has been achieved for the period 1997-2009 in quantifying monetary production for Greco-Roman times. It classifies 94 recent studies in three categories: a) no quantification; b) quantification of the original number of obverse dies and c) quantification of the number of struck coins (with an increasing number for this third category). It deals then with academic perspectives for numismatists (with fear that the amount of new die-studies will decrease in the future), historians (who are no more devoted to economy as they were in the 1970s) and economists. In the third part of the paper, we focus on historical perspectives for economists, numismatists (and their two strategies to discard hypotheses: there is not enough, or there is too much), and historians (putting numismatic estimates in perspective with other data).

This essay summarizes the chronology of the dated Alexander tetradrachms of Sidon and Tyre (Ake of Newell and Price), including the implications of recent analysis of the Achaemenid dating era applicable to Tyre. It details a newly identified die link between the first issue of each mint, one that sheds light on the approach of the Macedonians to the establishment of a mint at Tyre following the successful siege of the city. In recent years there has been a growing acceptance of the reattribution to Tyre 1 of Alexander the Great's coinage attributed to Ake by Newell and Price, 2 and the reattribution from Sidon to Tarsos of a group of gold staters (Price 3456-3466) that were formerly placed ahead of the dated tetradrachm sequence at Sidon. 3 These reattributions have implications for our understanding of the operation of the mints and Sidon and Tyre, and the relative chronology of the two dated series from these mints. The early Alexander coinage of Sidon and Tyre is dated according to an era that is specific to each city. That of Sidon is dated initially with Phoenician and then Greek letters. It commenced with year 1 in 333/2 BC, 4 the date of transfer of the city to Macedonian rule 5 after which Alexander the Great appointed Abdalonymos the king of Sidon. 6 After a few undated issues, that of Tyre was dated in Phoenician numerals according to an Achaemenid regnal era that commenced in 349 BC, associated with the reign of the vassal king Ozmilk (Azemilkos in Greek). 7 The Phoenician lunar calendar underpinning this dating era is incompletely understood. It is not known whether the regnal year began in Spring (March/April), or in Autumn (September/ October), 8 nor is it known whether the era of Ozmilk was defined on the accession-year system, or dated from the first full year of the reign. These unknowns in the dating system of Tyre give rise to an irreducible uncertainty of at least ± six months in any attempt to calibrate it to the Gregorian solar calendar, a point that must be borne in mind when seeking to reconcile the dated issues of Tyre with those of Sidon. Additionally, within this uncertainty and dependent on the variable timing of mintage of any issue within a single era year at Tyre, the dated issues of the latter could fall across different Macedonian years, although within a single Tyrian era year. This has been acknowledged incompletely by previous scholars who have sought a precise calibration between the dated eras of Tyre and Sidon, something which is impossible to achieve with the current state of knowledge.

On possède aujourd’hui de très nombreuses études de coins de monnayages grecs. Très rares cependant sont les auteurs qui explicitent la terminologie à laquelle ils recourent pour classer ces monnayages. Se fondant sur le dépouillement de près de 150 monographies, cet article entend faire l’inventaire des termes utilisés  (« période », « série », « groupe » et « émission » mais aussi « atelier », « classe », « famille », « officine », « phase », « section », « style », « symbiose », « type », « variante » ou « variété ») en définissant pour chacun le ou les sens qu’on leur prête, la fréquence de leur utilisation ainsi que leur puissance relative, c’est-à-dire la proportion d’occurrences où ils sont en position dominante. Un intérêt particulier est prêté aux termes « Groupes » et « Séries », employés dans des sens contradictoires.

The Late Hellenistic didrachms struck in the name of the people of Leukas form a spectacular heavy silver coinage – standing nearly alone for that size in that area at that time – characterized by a rich variety of Greek names. What Barclay V. Head summed up, after Postolakas and Imhoof-Blumer, in his Historia Nummorum more than a century ago has not been challenged up to now:

“In B.C. 167 Leucas was separated by the Romans from the Acarnanian Confederacy, but it continued to be a place of importance, and, like Corcyra, appears to have retained its autonomy under Roman protection. To this period may be ascribed the long series of silver coins with magistrates’ names (Prytaneis?), of which more than forty are known”. 

This paper aims to demonstrate that this coinage was a very compact one, characterized by many die-links between different names, and that, consequently, these names cannot be magistrates’ names (prytaneis or whatever). The compactness of this coinage as well as its heavy military flavor is likely to be linked with a major Roman involvement in the area. It is likely and argued that, as for the Ainianes, the bulk of these didrachms has to be connected with Sylla during the first Mithradatic war.

This study makes the case for the reattribution from Byblos to a second mint at Arados (Arados II) of the coinage of Alexander the Great bearing the  ligate AP mint mark. The majority of the early output from this mint was gold staters. Most probably the mint was established to accommodate the expansion of gold coinage production from c. 328/7 BC, while silver Alexandrine coinage remained the priority of the first mint (Arados I), which had its origins in the old Achaemenid mint at Arados. After the initial striking of a substantial gold stater coinage, accompanied by a minor silver tetradrachm mintage, Arados II then issued a sizeable silver tetradrachm coinage. Both mints at Arados produced Macedonian imperial coinage until c. 321/0 BC at which time Arados I ceased operation. Based on the hoard record, it is likely that Arados II continued to strike Alexander tetradrachms until around 301/0 BC when the city passed from Antigonid to Seleukid control following the Battle of Ipsos.

This paper is a reply to the by far too pessimistic view about numismatic quantification offered by T.V. Buttrey in a recent issue of the NC. It deals with extrapolation by hoard (master hoard of M.H. Crawford; Garonne hoard; cistophori from Pergamum, Ephesus, Tralles, etc.), the original number of obverse dies, number of coins struck per die (discussing the Delphic evidence put in broad perspective with Middle Ages and Modern times, but also favorable cirumstances of short reigns or precisely dated issues - Mithridates Eupator, Crepusius, joint reign of Justin and Justinian), attrition rate, and evoking the fortunes of Roman Republican Coinage.

Project funded by FWF (project number P 33344)
duration: 2020-2024

Abstract
Thurium is one of the most important Greek colonies in Magna Graecia, both for its connections to other cities and highly innovative coinage. However, the current arrangement and knowledge of Thurian coins has not yet reached a level that is comparable to other cities of similar importance. This oversight has repercussions on the understanding of the politics and economy of Magna Graecia.

The coinage of Thurium will be studied and arranged in the form of a modern die-study. From this point on, the rhythm and quantification of coin production are going to be connected with the city’s history. Furthermore, the project investigates how the coins of the polis of Thurium were connected to the history of Magna Graecia in the Classical and Hellenistic period. For the first part of this project, i.e. the die-study, the Department of Numismatics and Monetary History already contains an extensive amount of preparatory material, which makes a project of this extent possible in the first place: c. 4,000 photographs of Thurian coins, arranged in a preliminary catalog, were entrusted to the department by Michael Metlich. Building on this work, the following objectives are going to be tackled: (1) control and supplementation of the numismatic material; especially the coin cabinets in Italy and hoard finds are missing. (2) Preparation of a die-study and of a relative and absolute chronology by using numismatic (overstrikes, hoards, etc.) and historical methods. (3) Interpretation of the Thurian coin types between identity, economy and artistic influences; evaluation of the adoptions of these types in Italy and beyond. (4) Analysis of the mint administration, rhythm of coin production and quantification (i.e. number of coins issued). (5) Comparison and interpretation of the circulation of Thurian coins in southern Italy, Sicily and beyond; analysis of the circulation in Thurium and comparison with other cities in southern Italy. (6) Historical and economic evaluation of the coin finds.

This paper summerizes the hellenistic coin finds on sites BEY 002, BEY 006, BEY 004, BEY 026, BEY 145, BEY 125, BEY 133, BEY 142 and BEY 144 from Beirut. The full data presented the VXth INC Glasgow, 2009,  are consultable in the "Talks" section of the current page of Academia.

Friedrich Imhoof-Blumer (1838-1920) and Sylvester Sage Crosby (1831-1914) are often hold as the inventors, in the years 1870s, of the die-study as a new and fundamental tool for numismatic studies. This is not exactly true and this paper gathers evidence before them (Edward Herbert Bunbury [1811-1895] and even possibly Johann Joachim Winckelmann in 1767). What emerges for the first decades of the 20th c.is the fact that die-studies were made by young scholars below their forties (Regling, Lederer, Boehringer) and even their thirties (Newell, Seltman, Tudeer, Schwabacher) meannwhile older numismatists never ventured in this new approach (Babelon, Head, Hill, Svoronos, etc.).

During the second century BC, the Sidonian mint produced an undated civic coinage with no reference to the Seleucid authority. The following study attempts to establish, through a corpus of 113 coins, a refined dating of its production. Four various groups are identified based on stylistic and technical criteria as well as comparison with both municipal and dated civic coinage: group I (169/8–146/5 bc), group II (ca. 144/3–134/3 bc), group III (ca. 126/5–122/1 bc) and group IV (ca. 114/3–111/0 bc). The nature of relationship between the Sidonian authority and Seleucid administration is then revisited in the light of this particular coinage.

This paper starts with a die-study (19 coins instead of the 7 previously known, among which 3 overstruck) of the coinage with the name TERSIKON and the aramaci legend 'Cilicia' which is generally given to Pharnabazos at Tarsus. We then discuss the full coinage attributed to Pharnabazos and Datames/Tarkumuwa putting their volumes into perspective with the Hecatomnid coinages of Mausolos and Idrieus. The core of the paper is about the many countermarks found on Cilican as well as on Pamphylian staters of the beginning of the 4th c. BCE. We give a long list of 287 specimens detailing for each which kind of countermark(s) and on which isssue of which mint (Selge, Aspendos, Side, Nagidos, Kelenderis, Holmoi, Soloi, Tarsus, Mallos, Issos and even Lapethos on Cyprus). Since it is likely that each of these countermarks was applied at the same time and place, each could be taken as the equivalent of a virtual hoard, giving precious information about what then circulated. The countermak with a bull has been struck on coins from 11 different mints. Accepted chronologies must be adapted to this crucial evidence Many issues dated ca. 350 BCE have in fact been produced before 370 BCE. Many countermarked coins are die-linked prompting the idea that countermaks were applied soon after strike. It turns put that the 4 overstrikes we do have for the coinage of Pharnabazos and Tarkumuwa are all on the same obverse die (out of more than 600). And the four coins have been cointermarked with the bull to r. It is also likely that several coinagesq were produced at the same place.

This full die-study (93 obverse dies for 554 tetradrachms) of the coinage in the name of Aesillas (now superseded in terms of size of sample by the one given by R.A. Bauslaugh) aims to put into historical perspective this intriguing coinage. It is important to notice that these tetradrachms didn't circulate outside the Roman province of Macedonia. To the name of Aesillas (which doesn't look Roman) are associated those of Suura (Sura) and Cae.Pr. (Caesar). The die-study shows that Sura is to be associated with the first phase of coinage, while Caesar comes at the end of the second phase. Between these two groups, we observe clear differences in terms of diameters (31mm versus 28mm) and weights (median at 16.75g versus 16.40g). Moreover and besides stylistic differences of engraving, coins of these two groups are exceptionnaly found together in published hoards. we are left thus with a huge coinage (c. 100 obverse dies for tetradrachms) issued in two phases: c. 20 obverse dies for the years c. 95-87 BC (here is to be placed Sura) and c. 80 obverse dies for the years c. 75-65 BC (here is to be placed Caesar). Most of this coinage cannot thus be linked with the first Mithridatic war. This scenario offers at least a satisfactory frame for two overstrikes  (Aesillas on Athens [c. 73/2 BC] and Byzantium [before 75 BC] on Aesillas).

The heavy (c. 8.1g = didrachms) Hellenistic coins of Oinoanada (Lycia) were known by just one specimen up to 2002. The dispersal of a recent hoard (2002) makes this small issue nearly common (4 obverse dies, 9 reverse dies, 85 coins published by Ashton in 2005 but many more sold since then). For Richard Ashton, this issue is to be placed after the treaty of Apameia (188 BC), when Oinoanda was rattached to the Attalid kingdom. This paper argues for a much later chronology after the treaty of Dardanos (85 BC), mainly for epigraphical reasons (conjunction of lunar epsilon, alpha with broken horizontal hasta and cursive omega). The weights of these didrachms look also better placed after 85 BC than iafter 188 BC. For Ashton, this exceptional issue was motivated by the building of remparts after the annexion to the Attalid kingdom. I favour a Roman explanation, just like the no less exceptional issues (because not framed before or after by anything silmilar inside the coinage of the city and even in a near horizon outside the city) of didrachms by the Ainianes in Thessaly. The so-called "second Mithridatic war" lead by the Roman general Murena offers an appropriate context to these didrachms.

A full die-study is given of the royal Bithynian tetradrachms for the years 98/7-74/3 BC. Monograms (control-marks) show that two mints were at work at the same type but with no connection (die-link) between themselves during the years 93/2-89/8 BC. Moreover, it seems likely to recognize two different portraits during these years. Hence the hypothesis that one is representing Nicomedes IV Philopator while the other would be for Socrates Chrestos, the usurper supported by Mithridates of Pontus. Surprisingly enough, the last Bithynian royal tetradrachms were struck in 75/4 and 74/3 BC, after many years with no strikes at all. We know that Mithridates of Pontus struck suddenly and intensively from February 75 BC. Instead to consider that Nicomedes IV was kind enough to make a last strike in order to help modern historians to date his death (then in 73 BC), it seems more appropriate tothink that the se last strikes are posthumous and that the intense preparations made by Mithridates in February 75 BC must coincide with the recent news of the death of Philopator and the bequest of his kingdom to Rome.

This essay examines the impact of recent examples in commerce on our understanding of the Babylonian decadrachms bearing the image of the head Herakles (obverse) and Zeus enthroned (reverse) struck under Alexander the Great in 325-324 BC. The newly identified examples of the Alexander decadrachm when combined with the dozen previously known examples provide improved insight into the production of the coinage, which commenced in the earliest period of Alexander's Babylonian coinage in 325 BC. Potentially, decadrachm Series 1 was struck in parallel with the last of the Group 1.1 coinage. If not, it immediately followed on from the latter. Following this, the iconography and mint control conventions of decadrachm coinage continued to develop along the path established in the Group 1 tetradrachms, in parallel with the same trends in the earliest of the Group 2 tetradrachms. Occurring within the productive life of five obverse dies, in a compact die sequence, these developments are likely to have occurred over a period of months rather than years, but are sufficient to define four series in a continuum of artistic evolution that preceded the adoption of the crossed legs depiction of Zeus, which was to characterize the Group 3 and subsequent Babylon tetradrachm emissions. The observed pattern of development is consistent with the recently proposed model of the mint's operation in the transition from the Group 1 to Group 2 tetradrachm sequence.

KOINON IV (2021): 61-76

The coin cabinet of the Kunsthistorisches Museum (Vienna) possesses a Hellenistic tetradrachm of Abydus overstruck on Aesillas (Macedonia). It even seems that the tetradrachm of Aesillas belong to the second issues of these coins (c. 75-65 BC) with important consequences for the chronology of the Abydus coinage which must be lowered for nearly half a century. A large but incomplete die-study is given for the Abydus tetradrachms (35 obverse dies for 126 coins), as well as the hoard evidence (3 hoards only: IGCH 914, 971 and 1322). The main consequence of this overstrike is to show that these Hellenistic tetradrachms struck at Abydus, like those struck at Tenedus, are considerably later than the wreathed coinages issued by many cities around 150 BC (Aegeae, Heraklea, Kyme, Lebedus, Magnesia, Myrina and Smyrna).

Starting from the end of the 2nd c. BC, issues of tetradrachms rarefied in the eastern Mediterranean area with the exception of coastal Syria and neighbouring regions. There, in opposition to the above, production of tetradrachms develops. This seems to correspond with the desintegration of the Seleucid power. However, such an explanation is not entirely satisfying. A catalogue including productions from nine mints in the region and gathering 2,147 tetradrachms (including unpublished or enlarged die-studies for the mints of Elaiussa Sebaste [7 coins], Seleucia Pieria [171 coins] and Ladociea [95 coins]) allows to study the annual rhythm of production between 110/109 and 53/2 BC. It shows that Arados (Aradus) and mostly Tyre were prominent with their annual issues. Two periods are clearly characterized by more intense activity: the first decade of the 1st c. BC at Seleucia in Pieria, Arados and Tyre, and the years 64/3 and 63/2 during which the troops of Pompey favoured a regain of activities in all the mints of the area. These productions were therefore not really autonomous since they were partly dictated by external events and because they exceed the usual needs and requiremenbts of the cities. The study of weights and hoards confirm the existence of two monetary zones: Arados to the north (the Aradian standard) and Tyre to the south (Ptolemaic standard) around which the standards chosen by each of the neighbouring cities are more or less grouped.

A newly identified Alexandrine tetradrachm type struck from a recycled pair of Philip III dies, recut to include the anchor insignia and name of Seleukos, is to be added to the corpus of Babylonia Uncertain Mint 6A (Opis).*  It represents a new series in the mint's output, Series V(a), that is closely allied to, but preceding Series V in the name of Seleukos. It is distinguished from the latter by the presence of the anchor symbol and the archaized depiction of Zeus. It precedes the decision to eliminate the anchor insignia from coinage of Uncertain Mint 6A and thus must be among the first, if not the first coin type to bear the name of Seleukos, die linked as it is to the last of the issues in the name Philip III Arrhidaios, the last of the Macedonian pure blood Argead line. Considered in the context of other die links between different series in the corpus of Babylonian Uncertain Mint 6A, this die link has a ritual character, in effect a numismatic statement of the legitimacy of Seleukos as the successor to Philip III Arrhidaios.

This paper aims to estimate different parameters never really estimated before: the amount of Greek coins kept in public (c. 40%?) or private (c. 60%?) hands, the average number of Greek coins sold every year and the impact of new hoards on the stock already known. All these estimates are surrounded by a rather high degree of uncertainty. Starting with the contents of the 4 biggest public collections of Greek coins (Berlin, London, New York and Paris - c. 100,000 each) and after have built the metallic composition of a typical public collection (c. 1.5% for gold and electrum; c. 36% for silver and c. 62.5% for bronze), we dare to propose the following estimates: c. 40,000 gold Grek coins, c. 650,000 silver coins and 770,000 for bronze coins (but here the uncertainty is by far greater and the total is likely to be grossly underestimated). These results are the equivalent of c. 140 kg of gold, 40 kg of electrum and c. 6 tons of silver. Taking into account the sale's catalogue for the years 1993-1994, the total number of Greek coins sold every year approximates 40,000 while the number really negotiated is likely to be close to 70,000. At last, we estimate the amount of Greek coins coming from reported hoards. It turns out that c. 25,000 gold, c. 4,250 electrum, c. 450,000 silver and c. 130,000 bronze Greek coins have so far been published by the IGCH and the 8 first CH. For the 1980s only, about 50,000 coins have been officially reported in the Coin Hoards. All in all, one Greek coin out of two would come from a duly reported find.

The first part of my unpublished master dissertation written in 1981-1983 under the supervision of Prof. Tony Hackens at the Université Catholique de Louvain-la-Neuve. It deals with the  problem of the date of the first silver coins issued with the types and the name of Alexander. Against the then communis opinio arguing that Alexander started to strike his own coins as soon as he was installed on the throne (in 336 BCE thus), I demonstrate why it was not before his arrival at Tarsus, and arguably after the battle of Issos (Autumn 332) that Alexander launched the coinage which will dominate the coin circulation for nearly two centuries. This point of view has been later definitively proven by Hyla Troxell.

That makes nearly a quarter of century now that, at the end of the year 1988, I submitted my PhD about the numismatics of the Mithradatic wars. It took afterwards a long time for the book to appear which finally happened in 1997. The text of the submitted version for the PhD was improved in the meantime but not so much the catalogue which – with a few exceptions – was not modified after 1988. So, after more than two decades of new developments, it seems appropriate to bring a fresh look at these coinages and to consider in which measure the evidence has increased in between. This paper is devoted to the coins struck in the name of Mithradates Eupator only, gold and silver, leaving aside the rich series of pseudo-civic bronze coins as well as the many other coinages dealt with in my PhD. In addition to the specific case of Mithradates Eupator, this paper aims to offer a few useful methodological developments about revisiting a numismatic corpus.

All the 5 known tetradachms of Aesillas with the name SVVRA (for Q. Bruttius Sura) have been struck by the same pair of dies. The obverse is linked to regular Aesillas issues (6 coins known for 6 different reverses). We also give a full die-study for the tetradrachms of Thasian types with the letters Q SVR (2 obverses and 5 obverses) which are also linked to regular Thasian types. It seems likely that the Aesillas coinage was intented to pay Roman troops while the Thasian tetradrachms were to pay Thracian auxiliaries.

In order to control the coherency of the many statistical methods which have been put forward to estimate the original  number of (obverse) dies, we have checked on different samples (coinages) the results at different times during the building of the samples (royal tetradrachms of Mithridates Eupator, the last kings of Bithynia, late Alexanders of Odessos and Mesembria, late Lysimachi of Byzantium, dated cistophori of Ephesus, drachms of Ariarathes IX of Cappadocia, tetradrachms of Tigranes the Great of Armenia, as well as the Hellenistic tetradrachms struck by the cities of Abydus, Cyzicus, Aegeai, Heraclea, Lebedus, Smyrna, Syros and Tenedus). The general pattern is that statistical methods use to underestimate the original number of obverse dies because they don't fully recognize the high ratio of dies poorly represented by 1 or 2 coins only. The Esty method appears as the less distorting.

A die-study is given of the late posthumous staters in the name of Lysimachus struck by the cities of Istros (14 coins for 1 obverse die), Tomis (57 coins for 7 obverses) and Callatis (48 coins for 6 obverses). These issues which may be dated from the beginning of the 1st c. BC may have served the ambitions of Mithridates Eupator, king of Pontus, although it is unlikely that the portrait of Mithridates himself is to be recognized under the traits of Alexander.

Before the publication of the book Les guerres mithridatiques vues par les monnaies (1997), this paper gives a first full die-study for the late posthumous Alexanders struck at Mesembria and Odessos (or Odessus). 226 tetradrachms for Odessos and 490 for Mesembria have been catalogued. For Mesembria, the main provenances are New York (66), Sofia (60), Burgas (43), Varna (38), London (33) and Paris (25). Tables are given for the hoards, the weights (with a clear decreasing for the last groups) and an attempt to quantify the volume of issues. Two main conclusions are worth to be noticed: 1) the proposed chronology is very similar with the one argued sepoarately by Ivan Karayotov and 2) these last issues of Alexander tetradrachms are not best understood as struck for the Mithridatic wars (only the last groups [Group 4 at Mesembria and Groups 2 and 3 at Odessos] may have been contemporary, i.e. less than 60 obverse dies).

La conversion massive par Alexandre le Grand des trésors accumulés par les Achéménides en monnaies d’or et d’argent est un phénomène majeur de l’histoire monétaire mondiale. Par son ampleur, cette augmentation soudaine de la masse monnayée en circulation ne se compare avec aucun autre épisode antique ou médiéval. Ce n’est pas tant l’accroissement du nombre d’études de coins ou de trésors recensés qui nous autorise aujourd’hui à proposer une vision plus nourrie de ce grand dossier historique. Nos idées se sont à ce propos précisées, mais pas profondément modifiées. Sauf que, pour l’étude de la circulation par les trésors, on n’avait pas proposé jusqu’ici de vision globale tant géographique que chronologique, et que – ce faisant – il est permis de mettre en évidence un schéma très clair quant à la question de savoir dans quelle direction est parti l’or monnayé après 250 av. J.-C. Mais il est surtout possible d’agréger au dossier quatre types d’arguments, qui tous paraissent renforcer le même schéma directeur : 1) les analyses métallographiques, en particulier celles portant sur les éléments traces (platine et palladium), 2) une attention renforcée aux rapports entre monnaies et orfèvrerie (pour lesquels Yanis Touratsoglou avait déjà tracé la voie), 3) le traitement du dossier épigraphique, maigre mais fortement instructif, et – last but not least – 4) la prise en compte du prisme plus grossissant que déformant de la Nouvelle Comédie, Plaute en tête, dont – s’agissant des monnaies – les archétypes fonctionnent toujours dans le même sens. L’enquête permet de montrer que, pour l’essentiel, l’or monnayé d’Alexandre a emprunté des circuits courts, à la fois 1) temporellement puisqu’il disparaît pour l’essentiel en une grosse génération, 2) géographiquement puisqu’il semble avoir surtout concerné la Macédoine et les Balkans, et 3) socialement puisqu’il paraît confiner à des archétypes qui ne s’éloignent pas beaucoup de la sphère militaire. Dès lors, et au contraire de ce que les historiens ont généralement soutenu à la suite de Gustav Droysen, il ne semble pas que l’or monnayé d’Alexandre, essentiellement transformé en dépenses de prestige non productives, a beaucoup contribué à créer de la richesse durable par l’augmentation des capacités de production.

Review of M. HUTH, Coinage of the Caravan Kingdoms : Ancient Arabian Coins from the Collection of Martin Huth (Ancient Coins in North American Collections 10), New York, 2010 and M. HUTH and P.G. VAN ALFEN (eds.), Coinage of the Caravan Kingdoms. Studies in the Monetization of Ancient Arabia (Numismatic Studies 25), New York, 2010, in Revue belge de Numismatique, 158, 2012, p. 332-338.

This review of the last monograph of Richard Duncan-Jones focuses on: 1) the argued difference of productivity for dies between gold and silver. At the mint of Rome, it seems well that the average productivity was higher for gold than for sdilver (which is normal since gold is softer but against what could be observed for Middle Ages and Modern Times); 2) the binomial negative method of Kempton used by Duncan-Jones (with critics for this method); 3) the general coherency of the results generated by Duncan-Jones for the Roman Emire when compared with those for Alexander the Great.
Additional comments are devoted to the critics repeated in the same review by T.V. Buttrey (they are the same as the ones presented years ago) against the possibility to quantify monetary production before the 13th c. AD.