Aeolian Alexanders: Economic, Material, and Social Networks in Antiquity

By Ryan Horne

Supported by a NEH - Mellon Digital Publication Grant

Introduction

Aeolian Alexanders is an exploration in the use of digital tools and publishing to conduct a numismatic die study. Generously supported by a NEH-Mellon digital publication grant, this work seeks to not only add to scholarship on the topic of Hellenistic coinage in Aeolis, but to also offer some new digital tools and methodologies that can be used in numismatics, the study of pre-modern political and economic networks, and more broadly in the study of material culture.

Much of the technology and techniques used here are experimental, and as a result some of the tables, networks, and visualizations are suggestive abstractions instead of definitive statements. This is a living project; even with digital “publication”, the tools are still open for refinement and further work, more coins can be added to the database, and the data structures themselves may change upon further consultation with the larger ancient studies linked open data (LOD) community. Much like our knowledge of coins can be radically altered by the discovery of a single hoard, this project could change rapidly as new technologies and methodologies are developed. The rapid development of geographic information systems (GIS), digital gazetteers, and social network analysis software (SNA), combined with a growing collection of LOD resources, has enabled this project to reimagine die-studies and ancient societies as networks which can be visualized and modeled in an approachable way. The choice of an open-access digital platform for publication, instead of a traditional specialist publication, is an effort to not only make not only the product of scholarly research, but the tools and techniques of the craft accessible to as wide an audience as possible. It is my contention that offering all of the coin images, data, and software used by this study in such an open manner will encourage further experimentation, development, and scholarship. If nothing else, this study will hopefully point to the possibilities that new developments in digital humanities can offer to historical studies.

For specialists in the field, this study offers new tools and techniques for the study of numismatics. Some of them, like a tool to aid in the sorting and cataloging of dies, along with a python notebook demonstrating the use of statistical software, can be used without much modification. Other methodologies, like the use of network analysis to study mint and hoard relationships and least-cost pathing to build spatial networks may be controversial; I hope that this project will serve as a stepping stone to further discussion and exploration of how spatial studies and network analysis can reshape our conception of the ancient world.

For an excellent introduction to Jupyter Notebooks, consult Introduction to Jupyter Notebooks on The Programming Historian.

Program Logic

The code bloicks below setup the program logic for the die study, For further details and explanation, see the jupyter notebook and the GitHub Site which houses all of the project’s code, coin images, and data. To run this notebook you will need to have various software packages installed; a “fixed” version of this study is available for consultation. However, this is not reflective of the current, living database.

Headers

These are include files that are necessary for the notebook to run; you may need to install additional packages depending on your python environment.

Code

#!/usr/bin/env python
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-

import pandas as pd
import sqlalchemy
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import matplotlib.ticker as ticker
import matplotlib.font_manager as font_manager
import matplotlib
import argparse
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.font_manager as font_manager
import json
from matplotlib.ticker import FormatStrFormatter
import folium
from folium import plugins
import networkx as nx
import community
import matplotlib.cm as cm
from matplotlib.colors import Normalize
from pygraphviz import *
from networkx.algorithms import bipartite
from folium.features import DivIcon
from natsort import natsorted
import sqlite3
import requests
from operator import itemgetter

from itables import init_notebook_mode
init_notebook_mode(all_interactive=True)

For consistent styling of our charts

Code

from matplotlib import rc
plt.rcParams['ps.useafm'] = True
rc('font',**{'family':'sans-serif','sans-serif':['Helvetica']})
plt.rcParams['pdf.fonttype'] = 42
plt.rcParams['figure.figsize'] = [4, 4]


SMALLEST_SIZE = 12
SMALL_SIZE = 20
MEDIUM_SIZE = 22
BIGGER_SIZE = 24

plt.rc('font', size=SMALL_SIZE)          # controls default text sizes
plt.rc('axes', titlesize=SMALL_SIZE)     # fontsize of the axes title
plt.rc('axes', labelsize=MEDIUM_SIZE)    # fontsize of the x and y labels
plt.rc('xtick', labelsize=SMALLEST_SIZE)    # fontsize of the tick labels
plt.rc('ytick', labelsize=SMALLEST_SIZE)    # fontsize of the tick labels
plt.rc('legend', fontsize=SMALL_SIZE)    # legend fontsize
plt.rc('figure', titlesize=BIGGER_SIZE)  # fontsize of the figure title

plt.rcParams.update({"axes.facecolor" : "cacaca"})

Import the database

This imports the latest version of the Aeolian Alexanders database, so the die study always reflects the latest coin and statistical information.

Code

import requests

url = 'https://github.com/Aeolian-Alexanders/data/raw/master/sqlite%20database/aeolian_alexanders.db'
r = requests.get(url, allow_redirects=True)

open('aeolian_alexanders.db', 'wb').write(r.content)

from sqlalchemy import create_engine 
cnx = create_engine('sqlite:///aeolian_alexanders.db')

Function to create the maps

Code

### createmapvis makes our basic map
def createmapvis():
    
    m = folium.Map(
        location=[40.58058, 36.29883], 
        zoom_start=5,
        zoom_control=False,
        tiles='https://cawm.lib.uiowa.edu/tiles/{z}/{x}/{y}.png',
        name='AWMC Base',
        attr= attr)
    
    return m

Data Structures for the study

Code

# mints are defined by their Pleiades IDs; this could easily be changed to Nomisma IDs depending on your data setup
mint = {
    'temnos': '550908',
    'myrina': '550756',
    'kyme': '550506'
}


histogramSizes = {
    'x': 8,
    'y': 3
}

#These structures are here to make the code in the narrative cleaner when I want to show network maps
#Consult the project notebook on *HOW* to create these maps; we can not do this live without a public database
#that runs pgrouting, etc.


attalid_networks_241_197 = {
    'url': "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Aeolian-Alexanders/geodata/master/imperial_routes/Attalid_Kingdom_241_bce_to_197_bce_routes.geojson",
    'featuregroupname': 'Attalid "Routes" 241 - 197 BCE',
    'sizeproperty': 'count'
}

attalid_points_241_197 = {
    'url': "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Aeolian-Alexanders/geodata/master/imperial_routes/Attalid_Kingdom_241_bce_to_197_bce_points.geojson",
    'featuregroupname': 'Attalid Cities 241 - 197 BCE',
    'sizeproperty': 'count'
}


seleukid_networks_241_197 = {
    'url': "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Aeolian-Alexanders/geodata/master/imperial_routes/Seleucid_Kingdom_241_bce_to_197_bce_routes.geojson",
    'featuregroupname': 'Seleukid "Routes" 241 - 197 BCE',
    'sizeproperty': 'count'
}

seleukid_points_241_197 = {
    'url': "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Aeolian-Alexanders/geodata/master/imperial_routes/Seleucid_Kingdom_241_bce_to_197_bce_points.geojson",
    'featuregroupname': 'Seleukid "Routes" 241 - 197 BCE',
    'sizeproperty': 'count'
}

ptolemaic_networks_241_197 = {
    'url': "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Aeolian-Alexanders/geodata/master/imperial_routes/Ptolemaic_Kingdom_241_bce_to_197_bce_routes.geojson",
    'featuregroupname': 'Ptolemaic "Routes" 241 - 197 BCE',
    'sizeproperty': 'count'
}

ptolemaic_points_241_197 = {
    'url': "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Aeolian-Alexanders/geodata/master/imperial_routes/Ptolemaic_Kingdom_241_bce_to_197_bce_points.geojson",
    'featuregroupname': 'Ptolemaic "Routes" 241 - 197 BCE',
    'sizeproperty': 'count'
}



attalid_networks_197_160 = {
    'url': "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Aeolian-Alexanders/geodata/master/imperial_routes/Attalid_Kingdom_197_bce_to_160_bce_routes.geojson",
    'featuregroupname': 'Attalid "Routes" 197 - 160 BCE',
    'sizeproperty': 'count'
}


attalid_points_197_160 = {
    'url': "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Aeolian-Alexanders/geodata/master/imperial_routes/Attalid_Kingdom_197_bce_to_160_bce_points.geojson",
    'featuregroupname': 'Attalid "Routes" 197 - 160 BCE',
    'sizeproperty': 'count'
}


seleukid_networks_197_160 = {
    'url': "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Aeolian-Alexanders/geodata/master/imperial_routes/Seleucid_Kingdom_197_bce_to_160_bce_routes.geojson",
    'featuregroupname': 'Seleukid "Routes" 197 - 160 BCE',
    'sizeproperty': 'count'
}

seleukid_points_197_160 = {
    'url': "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Aeolian-Alexanders/geodata/master/imperial_routes/Seleucid_Kingdom_197_bce_to_160_bce_points.geojson",
    'featuregroupname': 'Seleukid "Routes" 197 - 160 BCE',
    'sizeproperty': 'count'
}

ptolemaic_networks_197_160 = {
    'url': "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Aeolian-Alexanders/geodata/master/imperial_routes/Ptolemaic_Kingdom_197_bce_to_160_bce_routes.geojson",
    'featuregroupname': 'Ptolemaic "Routes" 197 - 160 BCE',
    'sizeproperty': 'count'
}

ptolemaic_points_197_160 = {
    'url': "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Aeolian-Alexanders/geodata/master/imperial_routes/Ptolemaic_Kingdom_197_bce_to_160_bce_points.geojson",
    'featuregroupname': 'Ptolemaic "Routes" 197 - 160 BCE',
    'sizeproperty': 'count'
}


attalid_networks_160_138 = {
    'url': "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Aeolian-Alexanders/geodata/master/imperial_routes/Attalid_Kingdom_160_bce_to_138_bce_routes.geojson",
    'featuregroupname': 'Attalid "Routes" 160 - 138 BCE',
    'sizeproperty': 'count'
}

attalid_points_160_138 = {
    'url': "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Aeolian-Alexanders/geodata/master/imperial_routes/Attalid_Kingdom_160_bce_to_138_bce_points.geojson",
    'featuregroupname': 'Attalid "Routes" 160 - 138 BCE',
    'sizeproperty': 'count'
}


seleukid_networks_160_138 = {
    'url': "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Aeolian-Alexanders/geodata/master/imperial_routes/Seleucid_Kingdom_160_bce_to_138_bce_routes.geojson",
    'featuregroupname': 'Seleukid "Routes" 160 - 138 BCE',
    'sizeproperty': 'count'
}


seleukid_points_160_138 = {
    'url': "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Aeolian-Alexanders/geodata/master/imperial_routes/Seleucid_Kingdom_160_bce_to_138_bce_points.geojson",
    'featuregroupname': 'Seleukid "Routes" 160 - 138 BCE',
    'sizeproperty': 'count'
}

ptolemaic_networks_160_138 = {
    'url': "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Aeolian-Alexanders/geodata/master/imperial_routes/Ptolemaic_Kingdom_160_bce_to_138_bce_routes.geojson",
    'featuregroupname': 'Ptolemaic "Routes" 160 - 138 BCE',
    'sizeproperty': 'count'
}


ptolemaic_points_160_138 = {
    'url': "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Aeolian-Alexanders/geodata/master/imperial_routes/Ptolemaic_Kingdom_160_bce_to_138_bce_points.geojson",
    'featuregroupname': 'Ptolemaic "Routes" 160 - 138 BCE',
    'sizeproperty': 'count'
}


autonomus_cities = {
    'url': "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Aeolian-Alexanders/geodata/master/post_apamea_autonomus_cities.geojson",
    'featuregroupname': 'Autonomus Cities',
    'popup': 'title'
}


temnos_routes = {
    'url': "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Aeolian-Alexanders/geodata/master/temnos_hoard_routes.geojson",
    'featuregroupname': 'Temnos to Hoard Routes',
    'sizeproperty': 'count'
}


myrina_routes = {
    'url': "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Aeolian-Alexanders/geodata/master/myrina_hoard_routes.geojson",
    'featuregroupname': 'Myrina to Hoard Routes',
    'sizeproperty': 'count'
}


kyme_routes = {
    'url': "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Aeolian-Alexanders/geodata/master/kyme_hoard_routes.geojson",
    'featuregroupname': 'Kyme to Hoard Routes',
    'sizeproperty': 'count'
}

# attribution for the map
attr = """
Tiles &copy; <a href='http://mapbox.com/' target='_blank'>MapBox</a> |
 Data &copy; <a href='http://www.openstreetmap.org/' target='_blank'>OpenStreetMap</a> and contributors, CC-BY-SA |
 Tiles and Data &copy; 2020 <a href='http://www.awmc.unc.edu' target='_blank'>AWMC</a>
 <a href='http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/deed.en_US' target='_blank'>CC-BY-NC 3.0</a>
"""

Functions

These function s enable the display of our graphs and charts from the database. They are based on imput parameters, so someone can see different groupings, time periods, etc

Code

def linReScale (oldmax, oldmin, newmax, newmin, oldnumber):
    newnumber = (oldnumber - oldmin) / (oldmax - oldmin) * (newmax - newmin) + newmin
    return newnumber

def makeNetColor (row, my_colors):
    netColor = matplotlib.colors.to_hex(my_colors(row['partition']))
    #netColor = my_colors(row['partition'])
    return netColor

#def makePleiadesGeoDataFromList(inputfile, id_column, outputname):
#    pleaidesdf = pd.DataFrame()
#    pleaidesdf = pd.read_csv(inputfile)  
#    pleiadesIdList = pleaidesdf['pid'].tolist()
#    sql = 'SELECT id, title, geom from places where ' + ' or '.join(('id = ' + str(n) for n in pleiadesIdList))
##    pleiadesGeodf = gpd.GeoDataFrame.from_postgis(sql, cnx, geom_col='geom' )
 #   pleiadesGeodf.to_file(outputname, driver="GeoJSON")
    
def make_clickable(val):
    # target _blank to open new window
    return '<a target="_blank" href="https://maps.isaw.nyu.edu/aeolis/coins/{val}">{val}</a>'.format(val = val)

def make_clickableBase(val):
    # target _blank to open new window
    return '<a target="_blank" href="{val}">{val}</a>'.format(val = val)


#This produces a "traditional" coin catalog. This can be sorted if desired.
def coinCatalogWorking (mint):
    sql = """
    SELECT coinid AS id,
    typeid AS type,
    obvdie AS obverse,
    revdie AS reverse,
    weight,
    rotation,
    size,
    title
    FROM all_coins
    where mint = '{mint}' 
    AND obvdie !=''
    AND obvdie !='dupe'
    AND obvdie !='no_image'
    AND revdie !=''
    
    
    ORDER BY type, obverse, reverse
    """.format(mint = mint)
    
    dfCoinCat = pd.read_sql_query(sql, cnx)
    dfCoinCat["weight"] = pd.to_numeric(dfCoinCat["weight"])

    return dfCoinCat
#this displays all of the different charts in the "traditional" type format
def typeinfochart(mint):
    dfObverseCount = pd.DataFrame()
    dfObverseCount = typestoObverseCounter(mint)
    dfCoinCount = pd.DataFrame()
    dfCoinCount = typescoincounts(mint)
    dfavgweight = pd.DataFrame()
    dfavgweight = typesweightaverager(mint)
    dfObvinfo = pd.DataFrame()
    dfObvinfo = dfCoinCount.copy()
    dfObvinfo = dfObvinfo.merge(dfObverseCount, how='left')
    dfObvinfo = dfObvinfo.merge(dfavgweight, how='left')
    dfObvinfo.set_index('type', inplace=True)
    return dfObvinfo

#creates a type to obverse chart
def typestoObverseCounter(mint):
    sql = """
    Select typeid AS type, count(distinct obvdie) as number_of_obverse_dies
    from
    all_coins
    where mint = '{mint}'
    AND
    obvdie IS NOT NULL
    AND
    obvdie != ''
    AND
    obvdie !='dupe'
    AND
    obvdie !='no_image'
    AND
    typeid IS NOT NULL
    AND
    typeid != ''
    group by type
    """.format(mint = mint)
    
    df = pd.DataFrame()
    df = pd.read_sql_query(sql, cnx)
    
    #we usually have mixed numbers and characters for naming conventions; this should arrange everythign nicely
    df.index = df['type']
    df = df.sort_index().reset_index(drop=True)
    return df

#creates a type to mint chart
def typescoincounts(mint):
    sql = """
    Select typeid AS type, count(distinct id) as number_of_coins
    from
    all_coins
    where mint = '{mint}'
    AND
    obvdie IS NOT NULL
    AND
    obvdie != ''
    AND
    obvdie !='dupe'
    AND
    obvdie !='no_image'
    AND
    typeid IS NOT NULL
    AND
    typeid != ''
    group by typeid
    """.format(mint = mint)
    
    df = pd.DataFrame()
    df = pd.read_sql_query(sql, cnx)
    
    #we usually have mixed numbers and characters for naming conventions; this should arrange everythign nicely
    df.index = df['type']
    df = df.sort_index().reset_index(drop=True)
    return df

#creates a type to weight chart
def typesweightaverager(mint):
    sql = """
    Select typeid AS type, AVG(CAST(weight as decimal)) as average_weight
    from
    all_coins
    where mint = '{mint}'
    AND
    obvdie IS NOT NULL
    AND
    obvdie != ''
    AND
    obvdie !='dupe'
    AND
    obvdie !='no_image'
    AND
    typeid IS NOT NULL
    AND
    typeid != ''
    group by typeid
    """.format(mint = mint)
    
    df = pd.DataFrame()
    df = pd.read_sql_query(sql, cnx)
    
    #we usually have mixed numbers and characters for naming conventions; this should arrange everythign nicely
    df.index = df['type']
    df = df.sort_index().reset_index(drop=True)
    return df

#this function displays hoards associated with a chosen mint in a catalog. 
def hoardsDisplay (mint, startdate, enddate, buffer):
    mintUri = 'https://pleiades.stoa.org/places/' + mint
    sd = startdate - buffer;
    ed = enddate - buffer;
    
    sql = """
        SELECT aa_hoards.hoard_id as id,
        MAX(aa_hoards.title) AS title,
        SUM(aa_mints.count) AS count,
        MAX(aa_hoards.b_start_date) AS burial_start,
        MAX(aa_hoards.b_end_date) AS burial_end,
        MAX(aa_hoards.contents) AS contents,
        MAX(aa_hoards.ex_start_date) AS discovered_at,
        MAX(aa_hoards.location_uri) AS location_uri
        FROM
        aa_mints
        LEFT JOIN
        aa_hoards
        ON
        aa_mints.hoard = aa_hoards.hoard_id
        WHERE 
        CAST(b_start_date as decimal) >= {sd} and CAST(b_end_date as decimal) <= {ed}
        AND
        aa_hoards.hoard_id NOT IN (SELECT cross_reference FROM aa_parent_child)
        AND
        aa_hoards.hoard_id IN (SELECT aa_mints.hoard from aa_mints WHERE aa_mints.mint_uri = '{mintUri}')
        AND
        aa_mints.mint_uri = '{mintUri}'
        GROUP BY aa_hoards.hoard_id, aa_mints.mint_uri
        ORDER BY burial_start; 
    """.format(sd = sd, ed = ed, mintUri=mintUri)
    dfHoardCat = pd.read_sql_query(sql, cnx)
    
    return dfHoardCat


#This function maps hoards which are associated with a selected mint
def mintHoardMapper (hoarddf, nodeAttribute, mint, nodeMinSize, nodeMaxSize, m):
    
    sql = """
    SELECT aa_locations.id AS location_uri, aa_locations.lat, aa_locations.lon FROM aa_locations;
    """
    locdf = pd.DataFrame()
    locdf = pd.read_sql_query(sql, cnx)
    
    finaldf = hoarddf[(hoarddf['location_uri']!="null")]
    finaldf = finaldf[(finaldf['location_uri']!="")]
    finaldf = finaldf.merge(locdf, how='left')
    
    finaldf['lat'] = pd.to_numeric(finaldf['lat'])
    finaldf['lon'] = pd.to_numeric(finaldf['lon'])
    finaldf['count'] = pd.to_numeric(finaldf['count'])
    
    oldmax = hoarddf[nodeAttribute].max()
    oldmin = hoarddf[nodeAttribute].min()
    
    finaldf['size'] = linReScale(oldmax, oldmin, nodeMaxSize, nodeMinSize, finaldf['count'])

    
    for index, row in finaldf.iterrows():
        if float(row['lat']) < 9999999:
            popupText = '{title}'.format(title = row['title'])
            folium.CircleMarker(location = [row['lat'], row['lon']],
                                popup = popupText,
                                radius = row['size'],
                                fill_color='black', 
                                color = 'black', 
                                fill_opacity=0.7,
                                weight = .5
                               ).add_to(m)
    # now to put in the mint
    
    sql = """
    SELECT places.id, places.title, places.reprlat, places.reprlong
    FROM places
    WHERE id = {mint};
    """.format(mint = mint)
    
    mintdf = pd.DataFrame()
    mintdf = pd.read_sql_query(sql, cnx)
    title = mintdf['title']
    folium.Marker([mintdf['reprlat'], mintdf['reprlong']], popup='{title}'.format(title = title)).add_to(m)
    
    return m


def obversetoreversecounter(mint):
    sql = """
    Select obvdie AS obverse_die, count(distinct revdie) as number_of_reverse_dies
    from
    all_coins
    where mint = '{mint}'
    AND
    obvdie IS NOT NULL
    AND
    obvdie != ''
    AND
    obvdie !='dupe'
    AND
    obvdie !='no_image'
    group by obvdie
    """.format(mint = mint)
    
    df = pd.DataFrame()
    df = pd.read_sql_query(sql, cnx)
    
    #we usually have mixed numbers and characters for naming conventions; this should arrange everythign nicely
    df.index = df['obverse_die'].str.replace('[a-zA-Z_]+','').astype(float)
    df = df.sort_index().reset_index(drop=True)
    return df


def obversetoreversecounter(mint):
    sql = """
    Select obvdie AS obverse_die, count(distinct revdie) as number_of_reverse_dies
    from
    all_coins
    where mint = '{mint}'
    AND
    obvdie IS NOT NULL
    AND
    obvdie != ''
    AND
    obvdie !='dupe'
    AND
    obvdie !='no_image'
    group by obvdie
    """.format(mint = mint)
    
    df = pd.DataFrame()
    df = pd.read_sql_query(sql, cnx)
    
    #we usually have mixed numbers and characters for naming conventions; this should arrange everythign nicely
    df.index = df['obverse_die'].str.replace('[a-zA-Z_]+','').astype(float)
    df = df.sort_index().reset_index(drop=True)
    return df


def obverseweightaverager(mint):
    sql = """
    Select obvdie AS obverse_die, AVG(CAST(weight as decimal)) as average_weight
    from
    all_coins
    where mint = '{mint}'
    AND
    obvdie IS NOT NULL
    AND
    obvdie != ''
    AND
    obvdie !='dupe'
    AND
    obvdie !='no_image'
    group by obvdie
    """.format(mint = mint)
    
    df = pd.DataFrame()
    df = pd.read_sql_query(sql, cnx)
    
    #we usually have mixed numbers and characters for naming conventions; this should arrange everythign nicely
    df.index = df['obverse_die'].str.replace('[a-zA-Z_]+','').astype(float)
    df = df.sort_index().reset_index(drop=True)
    return df

def obversecoincounter(mint):
    sql = """
    Select obvdie AS obverse_die, count(obvdie) AS number_of_coins
    from
    all_coins
    where mint = '{mint}'
    AND
    obvdie IS NOT NULL
    AND
    obvdie != ''
    AND
    obvdie !='dupe'
    AND
    obvdie !='no_image'
    group by obvdie
    """.format(mint = mint)
    
    df = pd.DataFrame()
    df = pd.read_sql_query(sql, cnx)
    
    #we usually have mixed numbers and characters for naming conventions; this should arrange everythign nicely
    df.index = df['obverse_die'].str.replace('[a-zA-Z_]+','').astype(float)
    df = df.sort_index().reset_index(drop=True)
    return df


def obverseToTypeList (mint):
    sql = """
    Select obvdie AS obverse_die, group_concat(DISTINCT typeid) as price_types
    from
    all_coins
    where mint = '{mint}'
    AND
    obvdie IS NOT NULL
    AND
    obvdie != ''
    AND
    obvdie !='dupe'
    AND
    obvdie !='no_image'
    AND
    typeid !=''
    AND
    typeid IS NOT NULL
    group by obvdie
    """.format(mint = mint)
    
    df = pd.DataFrame()
    df = pd.read_sql_query(sql, cnx)
    df = sortMixedDatatable(df)

    return df

def obvinfochart(mint):
    dfObverseReverseCount = pd.DataFrame()
    dfObverseReverseCount = obversetoreversecounter(mint)
    dfobvprice = pd.DataFrame()
    dfobvprice = obverseToTypeList(mint)
    dfobvavgweight = pd.DataFrame()
    dfobvavgweight = obverseweightaverager(mint)
    dfobvcoincount = pd.DataFrame()
    dfobvcoincount = obversecoincounter(mint)
    dfObvinfo = pd.DataFrame()
    dfObvinfo = dfobvcoincount.copy()
    dfObvinfo = dfObvinfo.merge(dfObverseReverseCount, how='left')
    dfObvinfo = dfObvinfo.merge(dfobvavgweight, how='left')
    dfObvinfo = dfObvinfo.merge(dfobvprice, how='left')
    dfObvinfo.set_index('obverse_die', inplace=True)
    return dfObvinfo

def sortMixedDatatable (df):
    #we usually have mixed numbers and characters for naming conventions; this should arrange everythign nicely
    df.index = df['obverse_die'].str.replace('[a-zA-Z_]+','').astype(float)
    df = df.sort_index().reset_index(drop=True)
    return df


# SQL to get the mints / hoards as source, target with counts for weights
def coinNetworkSql(startdate, enddate, buffer):
    sd = startdate - buffer;
    ed = enddate - buffer;
    sql = """
        SELECT  aa_mints.mint_uri as source, 
        aa_hoards.location_uri as target, 
        LOWER(aa_mints.mint) as label, 
        SUM(aa_mints.count) as weight
    FROM
    aa_mints
    LEFT JOIN
    aa_hoards
    ON
    aa_mints.hoard = aa_hoards.hoard_id
    WHERE 
    CAST(b_start_date as decimal) >= {sd} and CAST(b_end_date as decimal) <= {ed}
    AND
    aa_hoards.hoard_id NOT IN (SELECT cross_reference FROM aa_parent_child)
    AND
    aa_mints.mint_uri IS NOT NULL 
    AND 
    aa_mints.mint_uri <> ''
    AND aa_hoards.location_uri <> ''
    GROUP BY source, target, label
    ORDER BY label; 
    """.format(sd = sd, ed = ed)
    return sql

def makeweightgraph(df, fontsize, title, xlabel, ylabel, ylimit, bar_width):
    plt.rcParams.update({'font.size': fontsize})
    bar_width = bar_width
    
    fig, ax = plt.subplots()
    ax = df.plot(kind = 'bar', zorder=100, width=bar_width, label='Weight')
    
    plt.title(title, fontsize=fontsize+2)
    ax.set_xlabel(xlabel)
    ax.set_ylabel(ylabel)
    
    axes = plt.gca()
    axes.set_ylim([ylimit,None])
    
    for tick in ax.get_xticklabels():
        tick.set_rotation(45)
        figure = plt.gcf() # get current figure
        figure.set_size_inches(8, 3)
        
    plt.show()
    
def maketypeweightgraph(coinType, cleanedList, bar_width, sizex, sizey):
    coinType = coinType
    bar_width = bar_width
    plt.figure(figsize=(sizex,sizey))
    ax = plt.hist(cleanedList, label="Number of Coins", bins=20, rwidth=bar_width)
    plt.ylabel('Number of Coins')
    plt.xlabel('Weight')
    plt.title("Weight histogram for {coinType}".format(coinType=coinType))
    plt.xticks(rotation=45)
    plt.show()
    
#this styles the networks according to the number of crossing routes    
def addNetworkRoutesFromFile(url, featuregroupname, sizeproperty, fillColor, routeMaxSize, routeMinSize, m):
    js_data = json.loads(requests.get(url).text)
    fg = folium.map.FeatureGroup(name=featuregroupname).add_to(m)
    
    oldmax = max(js_data['features'], key=lambda ev: ev['properties'][sizeproperty])['properties'][sizeproperty]
    oldmin = min(js_data['features'], key=lambda ev: ev['properties'][sizeproperty])['properties'][sizeproperty]
    
    for feature in js_data['features']:
        fillColor = fillColor
        color = fillColor
        weight = linReScale(oldmax, oldmin, routeMaxSize, routeMinSize, feature['properties'][sizeproperty])
        b = folium.GeoJson(feature,
                       style_function=lambda x, fillColor=fillColor, color=color, weight=weight: {
           "fillColor": fillColor,
            "color": fillColor,
            'weight': weight,
            'fillOpacity': 0.5,
            'opacity': 0.5
        })
        fg.add_child(b)
        
        
#this adds cities within each polity    
def addNetworkPointsFromFile(url, featuregroupname, radius, fillColor, popupfield, m):
    js_data = json.loads(requests.get(url).text)
    fg = folium.map.FeatureGroup(name=featuregroupname).add_to(m)
    
    for feature in js_data['features']:
        fillColor = fillColor
        radius=radius
        if (feature['geometry']):
            lat = feature['geometry']['coordinates'][1]
            lon = feature['geometry']['coordinates'][0]
            b = folium.Circle(
                location=[lat, lon],
                popup=feature['properties'][popupfield],
                radius=radius,
                color='black',
                fill=True,
                fill_color=fillColor)
            fg.add_child(b) 
            
            
#this function displays hoards associated with a chosen mint in a catalog. 
def hoardsDisplay (mint, startdate, enddate, buffer):
    mintUri = 'https://pleiades.stoa.org/places/' + mint
    sd = startdate - buffer;
    ed = enddate - buffer;
    
    sql = """
        SELECT aa_hoards.hoard_id as id,
        MAX(aa_hoards.title) AS title,
        SUM(aa_mints.count) AS count,
        MAX(aa_mints.denomination) AS denomination,
        MAX(aa_mints.type) AS type,
        MAX(aa_hoards.b_start_date) AS burial_start,
        MAX(aa_hoards.b_end_date) AS burial_end,
        MAX(aa_hoards.contents) AS contents,
        MAX(aa_hoards.ex_start_date) AS discovered_at,
        MAX(aa_hoards.location_uri) AS location_uri
        FROM
        aa_mints
        LEFT JOIN
        aa_hoards
        ON
        aa_mints.hoard = aa_hoards.hoard_id
        WHERE 
        CAST(b_start_date as decimal) >= {sd} and CAST(b_end_date as decimal) <= {ed}
        AND
        aa_hoards.hoard_id NOT IN (SELECT cross_reference FROM aa_parent_child)
        AND
        aa_hoards.hoard_id IN (SELECT aa_mints.hoard from aa_mints WHERE aa_mints.mint_uri = '{mintUri}')
        AND
        aa_mints.mint_uri = '{mintUri}'
        GROUP BY aa_hoards.hoard_id, aa_mints.mint_uri
        ORDER BY burial_start; 
    """.format(sd = sd, ed = ed, mintUri=mintUri)
    dfHoardCat = pd.read_sql_query(sql, cnx)
    
    return dfHoardCat

#This function maps hoards which are associated with a selected mint
def mintHoardMapper (hoarddf, nodeAttribute, mint, nodeMinSize, nodeMaxSize, m):
    
    sql = """
    SELECT aa_locations.id AS location_uri, aa_locations.lat, aa_locations.lon FROM aa_locations;
    """
    locdf = pd.DataFrame()
    locdf = pd.read_sql_query(sql, cnx)
    
    finaldf = hoarddf[(hoarddf['location_uri']!="null")]
    finaldf = finaldf[(finaldf['location_uri']!="")]
    finaldf = finaldf.merge(locdf, how='left')
    
    finaldf['lat'] = pd.to_numeric(finaldf['lat'])
    finaldf['lon'] = pd.to_numeric(finaldf['lon'])
    finaldf['count'] = pd.to_numeric(finaldf['count'])
    
    oldmax = hoarddf[nodeAttribute].max()
    oldmin = hoarddf[nodeAttribute].min()
    
    finaldf['size'] = linReScale(oldmax, oldmin, nodeMaxSize, nodeMinSize, finaldf['count'])

    
    for index, row in finaldf.iterrows():
        if float(row['lat']) < 9999999:
            popupText = '{title}'.format(title = row['title'])
            folium.CircleMarker(location = [row['lat'], row['lon']],
                                popup = popupText,
                                radius = row['size'],
                                fill_color='black', 
                                color = 'black', 
                                fill_opacity=0.7,
                                weight = .5
                               ).add_to(m)
    # now to put in the mint
    
    sql = """
    SELECT places.id, places.title, places.reprlat, places.reprlong
    FROM places
    WHERE id = {mint};
    """.format(mint = mint)
    
    mintdf = pd.DataFrame()
    mintdf = pd.read_sql_query(sql, cnx)
    title = mintdf['title']
    folium.Marker([mintdf['reprlat'], mintdf['reprlong']], popup='{title}'.format(title = title)).add_to(m)
    
    return m

#this displays hoards as an ego network around a chosen mint
def hoardsEgoDisplay (mint, startdate, enddate, buffer):
    sd = startdate - buffer;
    ed = enddate - buffer;
    mintUri = 'https://pleiades.stoa.org/places/' + mint
    sql = """
        SELECT aa_hoards.hoard_id,
        MAX(aa_hoards.title) AS hoard_title,
        MAX(aa_mints.mint) AS mint_title,
        mint_uri,
        SUM(aa_mints.count) AS count,
        MAX(aa_hoards.location_uri) AS location_uri
        FROM
        aa_mints
        LEFT JOIN
        aa_hoards
        ON
        aa_mints.hoard = aa_hoards.hoard_id
        WHERE 
        CAST(b_start_date as decimal) >= {sd} and CAST(b_end_date as decimal) <= {ed}
        AND
        aa_hoards.hoard_id NOT IN (SELECT cross_reference FROM aa_parent_child)
        AND
        aa_hoards.hoard_id IN (SELECT aa_mints.hoard from aa_mints WHERE aa_mints.mint_uri = '{mintUri}')
        AND
        mint_uri != ''
        GROUP BY aa_hoards.hoard_id, mint_uri
        ORDER BY mint_uri; 
    """.format(sd = sd, ed = ed, mintUri=mintUri)    
    
    dfHoardEgo = pd.read_sql_query(sql, cnx)
    return dfHoardEgo

#this displays a graph of all of the coin hoards connected with a mint
def displayCoinEgoHoardGraph (coinHoardGraph, coinHoardGraphDict, maxNodeSize, MinNodeSize, maxEdgeSize, MinEdgeSize, figXsize, figYSize, nodes_df, FontSize):
    
    oldmax = int(max(coinHoardGraphDict.values()))
    oldmin = int(min(coinHoardGraphDict.values()))
    
    for k, v in coinHoardGraphDict.items():
        coinHoardGraphDict[k] = linReScale(oldmax, oldmin, maxNodeSize, MinNodeSize, v)
    
    edgeweights = [i['count'] for i in dict(coinHoardGraph.edges).values()]
    oldmax = max(edgeweights)
    oldmin = min(edgeweights)
    
    edgeweights = [linReScale(oldmax, oldmin, maxEdgeSize, MinEdgeSize, a) for a in edgeweights]
    
    labelcopy = pd.DataFrame()
    labelcopy = nodes_df.copy()
    labellist = labelcopy.filter(['mint_uri','title'])
    labellistDict = pd.Series(labellist.title.values,index=labellist.mint_uri).to_dict()

    
    fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(figXsize,figYSize))
    pos = nx.nx_agraph.graphviz_layout(coinHoardGraph, prog='neato')
    
    nx.draw_networkx_nodes(coinHoardGraph, pos, ax = ax, edgecolors = 'black', node_color=colors, cmap=my_colors, node_size=[v * 50 for v in coinHoardGraphDict.values()])
    nx.draw_networkx_edges(coinHoardGraph, pos, width=edgeweights, ax=ax)
    nx.draw_networkx_labels(coinHoardGraph, pos, labellistDict, font_size=FontSize,font_color='black')
    
    plt.show()

#this creates dataframes from our graph data to use for maps and other 
def createMapDfs(dfEgoHoard, partition, graph, colormap):
    smallhoarddf = dfEgoHoard.groupby( ["location_uri", "hoard_id"] ).count().reset_index()
    sql = """
    SELECT aa_locations.id AS location_uri, aa_locations.title, aa_locations.lat, aa_locations.lon FROM aa_locations;
    """
    
    locdf = pd.DataFrame()
    locdf = pd.read_sql_query(sql, cnx)
    smallhoarddf = smallhoarddf.merge(locdf, how='left')
    del smallhoarddf['hoard_title']
    del smallhoarddf['mint_title']
    del smallhoarddf['mint_uri']
    del smallhoarddf['count']
    smallhoarddf.rename(columns={'location_uri':'mint_uri'}, inplace=True)
    smallhoarddf['title'] = smallhoarddf['hoard_id']
    mapDf = pd.DataFrame(coinHoardGraph.nodes, columns =['mint_uri']) 
    partdf = pd.DataFrame(list(partition.items()),columns = ['mint_uri','partition'])
    partdf['color'] = partdf.apply (lambda row: makeNetColor(row, my_colors), axis=1)
    mapDf = mapDf.merge(partdf, how='left')
    weightdf = pd.DataFrame(list(coinHoardGraph.degree(weight='weight')),columns = ['mint_uri','degree']) 
    mapDf = mapDf.merge(weightdf, how='left')
    
    sql = """
    SELECT aa_locations.id AS mint_uri, aa_locations.title, aa_locations.lat, aa_locations.lon 
    FROM aa_locations;
    """
    
    locdf = pd.DataFrame()
    locdf = pd.read_sql_query(sql, cnx)
    
    mapDf = mapDf.merge(locdf, how='left')
    partdf.rename(columns={'mint_uri':'hoard_id'}, inplace=True)
    weightdf.rename(columns={'mint_uri':'hoard_id'}, inplace=True)
    
    smallhoarddf = smallhoarddf.merge(partdf, how='left')
    smallhoarddf = smallhoarddf.merge(weightdf, how='left')
    
    del smallhoarddf['mint_uri']
    smallhoarddf.rename(columns={'hoard_id':'mint_uri'}, inplace=True)
    
    mapDf = mapDf[mapDf['lat'].notna()]
    
    smallhoarddf['lat'] = pd.to_numeric(smallhoarddf['lat'])
    smallhoarddf['lon'] = pd.to_numeric(smallhoarddf['lon'])
    smallhoarddf['degree'] = pd.to_numeric(smallhoarddf['degree'])

    mapDf['lat'] = pd.to_numeric(mapDf['lat'])
    mapDf['lon'] = pd.to_numeric(mapDf['lon'])
    mapDf['degree'] = pd.to_numeric(mapDf['degree'])

    
    dataframeResults['mintsDf'] = mapDf
    dataframeResults['hoardsDf'] = smallhoarddf
    
    mapDf = mapDf.merge(smallhoarddf, how='outer')
    mapDf = mapDf[(mapDf['lat']!="lat")]
    mapDf = mapDf[(mapDf['lat']!="")]
    
    dataframeResults['mapDf'] = mapDf
    
    return dataframeResults

#this function populates a feature group from a datatable, rescaleas it, then adds it to the map

def addFeatureGrouptoMap(df, featuregroup, nodeMaxSize, nodeMinSize, nodeAttribute, nodeTitle, m):
    
    oldmax = df[nodeAttribute].max()
    oldmin = df[nodeAttribute].min()

    for index, row in df.iterrows():
        if float(row['lat']) < 9999999:
            radius = linReScale(oldmax, oldmin, nodeMaxSize, nodeMinSize, row['degree'])
            popupText = 'Title: {title}'.format(title = row[nodeTitle])
            featuregroup.add_child(folium.CircleMarker(location = [row['lat'], row['lon']],
                                popup = popupText,
                                radius = radius,
                                fill_color=row['color'], 
                                color = 'black', 
                                fill_opacity=0.7,
                                weight = .5
                               ))
            m.add_child(featuregroup) 

def addFeatureLabelstoMap(df, nodeTitle, m, fontsize):
    for index, row in df.iterrows():
        if float(row['lat']) < 9999999:
            folium.Marker(location = [row['lat'], row['lon']],
                          icon=DivIcon(
                              icon_size=(15,15),
                              icon_anchor=(0,0),
                              html='<div style="font-size: {fontsize}pt">{label}</div>'.format(label = row[nodeTitle], fontsize = fontsize))
                         ).add_to(m)

#this function maps all of the hoards between two given years, partitions them, and returns a dataframe           
def hoardsGroupMapper(startdate, enddate, buffer, mapcolorramp, featuregroup):
    sql = coinNetworkSql(startdate, enddate, buffer)
    dfmaptest = pd.DataFrame()
    dfmaptest = pd.read_sql_query(sql, cnx)
    mapgraph = nx.from_pandas_edgelist(dfmaptest, 'source', 'target', 'weight')
    partition = community.best_partition(mapgraph)
    modularity = community.modularity(partition, mapgraph)
    dfmap = createMapDataframe(dfmaptest, mapgraph, partition, mapcolorramp)
    return dfmap

### This function creates the dataframe necessary for the map out of all of the various measurements, etc.
def createMapDataframe(dataframe, graph, partition, color_map):
    sql = """
        SELECT aa_locations.id AS source, 
        aa_locations.title, 
        aa_locations.lat, 
        aa_locations.lon, 
        aa_locations.geom FROM aa_locations;
        """
    dataframe = pd.DataFrame()
    dataframe = pd.read_sql_query(sql, cnx)
    partdf = pd.DataFrame(list(partition.items()),columns = ['source','partition'])
    dataframe = dataframe.merge(partdf, how='left')
    weightdf = pd.DataFrame(list(graph.degree(weight='weight')),columns = ['source','weighted_degree']) 
    dataframe = dataframe.merge(weightdf, how='left')
    degreedf = pd.DataFrame(list(graph.degree()),columns = ['source','degree']) 
    dataframe = dataframe.merge(degreedf, how='left')
    dataframe = dataframe[dataframe.partition.notnull()]
    columncolor = dataframe[['source', 'partition']] 
    
    minima = min(columncolor['partition'].tolist())
    maxima = max(columncolor['partition'].tolist())
    norm = matplotlib.colors.Normalize(vmin=minima, vmax=maxima, clip=True)
    mapper = cm.ScalarMappable(norm=norm, cmap=color_map)
    
    aDict = {}
    #since for some reasin the color mapper is not callable within an iterated dataframe, we are going to do this the hard way
    for index, row in dataframe.iterrows():
        aDict[row['source']] = str(matplotlib.colors.to_hex(mapper.to_rgba(row['partition'])))
    
    colordf = pd.DataFrame(list(aDict.items()), columns=['source', 'color'])
    dataframe = dataframe.merge(colordf, how='left')
    
    sql = """
    SELECT aa_locations.id AS location_uri, aa_locations.lat, aa_locations.lon FROM aa_locations;
    """
    locdf = pd.DataFrame()
    locdf = pd.read_sql_query(sql, cnx)


    dataframe = dataframe.merge(locdf, how='left')
    dataframe[["lat", "lon"]] = dataframe[["lat", "lon"]].apply(pd.to_numeric)
    
    return dataframe

The Study

Historical Background

Temnos was an Aeolian polis, well attested in the literary and epigraphical record. Herodotus placed the community in his list of Aeolian cities, including “…Cyme (called “Phriconian”), Lerisae, New Teichos, Temnos, Cilla, Notion, Aegiroessa, Pitane, Aegaeae, Myrina, [and] Gryneia.” (Hdt. 1.149) Although absent from the Athenian tribute lists and therefore not a member of the fifth century Delian league, Temnos and its citizens appear with frequency by the 4th century (M. H. Hansen et al. (2004), p. 1050). Temnos is found in Xeonphon’s Anabasis, where Democrates of Temnos served as a scout with the Ten Thousand in 401-399 (Xen. Anab. 4.4). The Spartan Dercylidas, fighting the Persians in Asia Minor in 399-397, stated that Temnos, although “not a large polis”, was nevertheless not subject to the Persian monarch and by implication effectively autonomous, a “fact” which was almost certainly colored by Dercylidas’ rhetoric against the Great King (Xen. Hell. 4.8.5: “…καὶ Τῆμνος, οὐ μεγάλη πόλις…”).

Following the reign of Alexander the Great (336-323), Temnians could be found throughout the Hellenistic world. A marriage contract from Egypt, witnessed by Temnians, was crafted for a Herakleides of Temnos and a Demetria of Kos under Ptolemy I and further Temnian witnesses are attested in another Egyptian contract from c. 284 (P. Eleph, 2; P. Eleph, 1). Also early in the third century, Temnos entered into a treaty of isopolity with Pergamon which almost certainly predated the creation of the Attalid Kingdom (OGIS 265; Allen (1983), p. 16-17). This agreement granted the same rights, taxes, and land ownership privileges to the citizens of both communities and the equality of the provisions highlights the cities’ political parity. Temnos also seems to have had a significant connection with Smyrna in the third century, a polis that was firmly in the Seleucid sphere of influence at the time (Robert (1970), p. 90-96; Allen (1983), p. 17-18). Judges from the Carian polis Cnidus negotiated a truce between Temnos and Clazomenae in the early second century and Strabo lists the polis as the birthplace of the rhetor Hermagoras, active in the middle of the second century (SEG 29.1130 bis A and B; SEG 36.1040; Robert, REG 1980, 438; Strab. 13.3; Kennedy (1994), p. 97; Dmitriev (2005), p. 300). Although certainly not the leading polis of Aeolis (an honor which belonged to Cyme (Sacks (1985), p. 2)), Temnos and its citizens were nevertheless active participants in the greater Hellenistic world.

Temnos Minting History

Temnian minting activity is known by at least the fourth century from bronze issues featuring an ivy-wreathed bearded Head of Dionysos on the obverse and grapes with vine leaves and tendrils on the reverse. This basic design for bronzes continued in the third, second, and first centuries, with the reverse featuring a succession of different control marks. Temnos also minted silver hemidrachms in the second century featuring a laureate head of Apollo on the obverse and a one-handled vase underneath grape-leaves and vine tendrils with various control marks on the reverse. Bronze coinage continued into the imperial Roman period, although silver coinage appears to have ceased following the issue of Alexander tetradrachms, which were minted between c. 200 to slightly before 143/142.

It is this last type of coinage, the posthumous Alexander issues, which are the focus of this study. Based on the new Attic weight tetradrachms, the design of the Temnian coins mirrors that of other civic posthumous Alexanders (Price (1991), p. 38 ff). These silver coins feature a beardless head of Heracles in profile facing to the right on the obverse. His hair flows out from under his lion-skin cap as he gazes beyond the right border of the coin. On the reverse sits Zeus in the center, in semi-profile on a throne facing left, gripping a scepter in his left hand while supporting and eagle in the right hand of his outstretched arm. His right leg rests behind his left leg, while the left of the coin features control marks above an oinochoe that in later issues sits below a vine tendril. On some issues there are control marks beneath the throne. In all examples ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ runs vertically down the edge of the coin to the right of Zeus. The flans of the coins are generally broad and flat, especially for types 1667-1690.

coin 1944.100.31424 from the American Numismatic Society

The major variations in the series are the monograms on the reverse, most of which are identified by Price, who numbers them from 1665-1690. Further publications, hoard evidence, and this study have revealed several new types which are given below.

Full catalog

This listing provides an interactive and searchable full catalog of the database. If you consult the other jupyter notebook you can find example functions on how to sort, examine, or modify this table to your needs.

Code

coinCatdf = pd.DataFrame()
coinCatdf = coinCatalogWorking(mint["temnos"])

coinGraph = nx.from_pandas_edgelist(coinCatdf, source='obverse', target='type')
coinGraphDegree = dict(coinGraph.degree)



coinCatdf.style.set_properties(**{
    'font-size': '8pt',
})
coinCatdf.style.set_table_styles([dict(selector='th', props='min-width: 20px;'),])

Table 1: Full Catalog

id	type	obverse	reverse	weight	rotation	size	title
681	1665	t_1665_2	tr_1665_2	16.580000	12		British Museum. #BNK,G.190
120	1665	t_1665_3	tr_1665_3	nan			ANS Photo File, Neg. 101.10
453	1665	t_1665_5	tr_1665_1	16.730000	12		ANS. #1951.90.7
1019	1665	t_1665_5	tr_1665_4	16.690000			Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung, Auktion 216, 15 Oktober 2013. #2309
1087	1665	t_1665_5	tr_1665_4	16.970000			Ira & Larry Goldberg Coins & Collectibles, Auction 67, 31 January 2012. #3139 = Lober, Demetrius I. #172
788	1665	t_1665_5	tr_1665_5	16.770000	1	29.5	CNG, Auction 99, 13 May 2015. #202
1079	1665	t_1665_5	tr_1665_5	nan			Hoover, Pamphylia or Cilica, #91
47	1665	t_1665_5	tr_1665_5	16.780000			ANS Photo File, Bement Sale I, Naville VI-Geneva, 1925. #757
83	1665	t_1665_5	tr_1665_5	16.780000			ANS Photo File, Glendining, 12 February 1958. #1371
121	1665	t_1665_5	tr_1665_6	nan			ANS Photo File, Neg. 113.6
1543	1665	t_1665_5	tr_1665_6	16.670000	12		SNG – Deutschland, Staatliche Münzsammlung München 10./11. Heft, 2001. #492
1391	1665	t_1665_5	tr_1665_7	16.730000			Noble Numismatics Pty Ltd, Auction 109, 28 July 2015. #3594
444	1665	t_1665_5	tr_1665_8	16.800000	12		ANS. #1951.35.2
1471	1665	t_1665_5	tr_1665_8	16.770000			Oclay and Seyrig, le Trésor de Mektepini en Phyrgie. #257
583	1666	t_1666_1	tr_1666_1	16.220000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b10304925b
578	1667	t_1667_1	tr_1667_1	16.650000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b103049203
887	1668	t_1668_1	tr_1668_1	16.700000			Dr. Busso Peus, Nachf., catalog 318, 7-8 May 1987. #1244
443	1668	t_1668_1	tr_1668_1	16.140000	12		ANS. #1951.19.7
18	1669	t_1668_1	tr_1669_1	nan			ANS Photo File, #136.14
678	1669	t_1668_1	tr_1669_1	15.760000	11		British Museum. #1924,1003.2
1398	1669	t_1668_1	tr_1669_1	16.724000			Noble Numismatics Pty. Ltd. Sale No. 77, 24-26 November 2004. #3125
582	1669	t_1668_1	tr_1669_2	15.780000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b10304924w
581	1669	t_1668_1	tr_1669_2	15.660000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b10304923f
17	1669	t_1668_1	tr_1669_2	nan			ANS Photo File, #129.6
32	1669	t_1668_1	tr_1669_2	nan			ANS Photo File, #neg.35.3
580	1669	t_1668_1	tr_1669_2	15.660000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b103049220
635	1669	t_1668_1	tr_1669_2	16.400000			Birkler & Waddell LTD., Auction I, 7 December 1979. #95
1023	1669	t_1668_1	tr_1669_2	16.650000			Graupner, 5 November 1983. #77
1175	1669	t_1668_1	tr_1669_2	nan			Kurpfälzische Münzhandlung, Auction XXVII, 12-15 December 1984. #77
903	1669	t_1668_1	tr_1669_2	nan			Frank L. Kovacs, Mail Bid Sale IV, 8 August 1983. #75
1439	1669	t_1668_1	tr_1669_2	15.920000	1		Numismatik Lanz München, Auction 44, 16 May 1988. #191
511	1669	t_1668_1	tr_1669_3	16.600000	11	38	Auge, Davesne, and Ergeç, Gaziantep 1994. #10
530	1669	t_1668_1	tr_1669_3	16.730000	12	35	Auge, Davesne, and Ergeç, Gaziantep 1994. #9
403	1669	t_1668_1	tr_1669_4	15.480000	12		ANS. #1944.100.31417
1141	1669	t_1668_1	tr_1669_5	16.600000			Jesus Vico S.A., 11 June 1998. #67
1541	1669	t_1668_1	tr_1669_6	16.020000	12		SNG – Danish National Museum, Supplement, Acquisitions 1942-1996. #138
1018	1669	t_1668_1	tr_1669_7	16.120000			Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung, Auction 244, 6 Mar. 2017, #183
1427	1669	t_1668_1	tr_1669_8	nan			Numismatica Dr. Guiseppe Toderi, 1972 #2. #165
579	1670	t_1668_1	tr_1670_1	15.040000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b10304921j = ANS Photo File. #35.2
493	1670v	t_1668_1	tr_1670v_1	16.650000			Ariadne Galleries, 9 December 1981.#114
673	1671	t_1671_1	tr_1671_2	16.520000	1		British Museum. #1888,0614.78
30	1671	t_1671_1	tr_1671_3	nan			ANS Photo File, #5.3-A.U.B
1587	1671	t_1671_1	tr_1671_3	15.630000	1	32	Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. #18245313
1049	1671	t_1671_2	tr_1671_1	16.490000			Heidelberger Münzhandlung Herbert Grün e.K., Auction 49, 20 May 2008. #26
435	1672	t_1672_1	tr_1672_1	15.710000	12		ANS. #1947.98.151
633	1672	t_1672_1	tr_1672_1	16.350000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b8476485b
584	1672	t_1672_1	tr_1672_2	16.100000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b10304926s
585	1672	t_1672_1	tr_1672_2	16.620000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b103049277
1101	1672	t_1672_1	tr_1672_2	16.140000			Italo Vecchi, LTD., Nummorum Auctiones 6. 9-10 June 1997. #374
672	1672	t_1672_1	tr_1672_3	16.620000	12		British Museum. #1888,0614.77
1017	1672	t_1672_1	tr_1672_4	16.190000			Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung, Auction 236, 7 Mar. 2016, #235
1153	1672	t_1672_1	tr_1672_5	16.070000			Josiane Vedrines, 14 December 1995. #55.
1218	1672	t_1672_1	tr_1672_6	nan			Le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes, 1965, Trésor 6. #619
1389	1672	t_1672_1	tr_1672_7	15.740000			Noble Numismatics Pty Ltd, Auction 101, 20 November 2012. #3388
1586	1672	t_1672_1	tr_1672_7	16.360000	12	34	Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. #18245312
1532	1672	t_1672_1	tr_1672_8	16.620000			Seyrig, Trésors du Levant, Trésor de Tell kotchek, 1952. #15.18
1533	1675	t_1675_1	tr_1675_1	nan			Seyrig, Trésors du Levant, Trésor de Tell kotchek, 1952. #15.20
1478	1675	t_1675_1	tr_1675_1	15.400000	12	35	Princeton University Library, #659
1588	1675	t_1675_1	tr_1675_1	14.570000	12	36	Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. #18245319
1151	1676	t_1676_1	550908_r_103	nan			Joseph Lepczyk, 28-30 May 1976. #1075
1608	1676	t_1676_1	550908_r_106	16.380000			Superior Galleries, Mail Bid Sale, 31 May - 1 June 1988. #1478
767	1676	t_1676_1	550908_r_108	16.740000			CNG Auction 37, 20 March 1996. #205
414	1676	t_1676_1	550908_r_109	15.680000	12		ANS. #1944.100.31428
437	1676	t_1676_1	550908_r_110	15.930000	12		ANS. #1947.98.153
415	1676	t_1676_1	550908_r_114	16.460000	12		ANS. #1944.100.31429
763	1676	t_1676_1	550908_r_115	16.590000			CNG Auction 35, 20 September 1995. #106
648	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_1	16.330000			Bourgey, 27 October 1981. #31
502	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_1	16.450000			Asta XI, 12-13 December 2002. Unknown Number
323	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_14	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 49. #C1
329	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_14	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 50. #C1
450	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_17	16.230000	12		ANS. #1951.35.26
6	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_18	16.210000			Ader Tajan, Numimonnaies, 15 November 1991. #246
378	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_2	16.980000			ANS Photo File. Glendining, 12 February 1958. #1365
1560	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_2	16.980000	12		SNG UK. Vol III. #1468 Lockett Collection.
940	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_21	16.720000			Fritz Rudolf Künker Münzenhandlung, Auction 34, 8-10 October 1996. #108
1430	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_29	16.590000	12		Numismatik Lanz München, Auction 125, 30 May 2005. #254
916	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_31	16.540000			Freeman & Sear, Mail Bid Sale 1, 10 March 1995. #156
1414	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_31	nan			Numismatic Fine Arts, Auction XXXIII, May 3 1994. #1302
1192	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_35	nan			Le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes, 1965, Trésor 6. #615.13
383	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_35	16.220000	12		ANS Photo File. Museo Civico, Torino. #Fab.253
512	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_36	16.720000	11	33	Auge, Davesne, and Ergeç, Gaziantep 1994. #11
986	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_36	nan			Glendining & Co. Garth R Drewy Collection, 7 April, 1971. #36
981	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_36	nan			Glendining & Co. 8 November, 1980. #15
984	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_36	nan			Glendining & Co. Collection of Dr. Garth R. Drewry. 7 April, 1971. #36
13	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_36	nan			Alex G. Malloy, Auction Sale XXXI, 26 October 1990.#87
545	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_37	16.560000			Baldwin's, Auction 4, 3 May 1995. #20
1191	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_37	nan			Le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes, 1965, Trésor 6. #615.12
513	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_37	16.920000	11	35	Auge, Davesne, and Ergeç, Gaziantep 1994. #12
48	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_39	16.550000			ANS Photo File, Bement Sale I, Naville VI-Geneva, 1925(?). #758
1459	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_4	15.820000	12		Numismatik Lanz München, Auction 58, 21 November 1991. #203
1199	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_4	nan			Le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes, 1965, Trésor 6. #615.6
1037	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_4	16.580000			Harlan J. Berk, LTD. 105Th Buy or Buid Sale, 17 November 1998. #175
1429	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_4	16.590000	12	33	Numismatik Lanz München, Auction 125, 28 November 2005. #254
84	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_4	nan			ANS Photo File, H. Grunthal 2, 21 May 1946. #349
392	1676	t_1676_1	tr_1676_9	16.200000			ANS Photo File. Tell Kotchek, 1952 (Baldwin 1971), Card 3. Unnumbered. #3
53	1676	t_1676_1	tr_34	16.350000			ANS Photo File, Bourgey, 21-22 June 1979. #39
115	1676	t_1676_1	tr_34	16.660000			ANS Photo File, Münz. & Med., FPL. 343, March 1973. #14
768	1676	t_1676_1	tr_35	16.790000			CNG Auction XXVII, 29 September 1993. #439
915	1676	t_1676_1	tr_35	16.420000			Freeman & Sear, Mail Bid Sale 1, 10 March 1995. #155
930	1676	t_1676_1	tr_35	16.590000			Fritz Rudolf Künker GmbH & Co. KG, Auction 104, 27 September 2005. #242
977	1676	t_1676_1	tr_35	16.670000			Giessener Münzhandlung, Auktion 42, 11 October 1988. #184
102	1676	t_1676_1	tr_35	16.000000			ANS Photo File, M Ratto, 16-17 May 1935. #8
327	1676	t_1676_1	tr_36	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 49. #C5
328	1676	t_1676_1	tr_36	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 49. #C6
334	1676	t_1676_1	tr_36	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 50. #C6
68	1676	t_1676_1	tr_36	nan			ANS Photo File, From Poladian, 8 November 1952. #547
86	1676	t_1676_1	tr_39	nan			ANS Photo File, Harvey Hurtz Collection, Berkeley.
91	1676	t_1676_1	tr_42	16.650000			ANS Photo File, Hirsch 92, 25-27 March 1975. #31
100	1676	t_1676_1	tr_44	nan			ANS Photo File, Lepzyk, 28-30 May 1976. #1075
107	1676	t_1676_1	tr_45	16.520000			ANS Photo File, Malter, 6-7 December 1971. #287
330	1676	t_1676_1	tr_62	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 50. #C2
324	1676	t_1676_1	tr_62	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 49. #C2
331	1676	t_1676_1	tr_62	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 50. #C3
332	1676	t_1676_1	tr_63	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 50. #C4
326	1676	t_1676_1	tr_63	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 49. #C4
333	1676	t_1676_1	tr_64	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 50. #C5
479	1676	t_1676_10	550908_r_76	16.600000	1		ANS. #1952.177.5
342	1676	t_1676_10	tr_1676_20	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, Fall 1952. Card 12. #D2
149	1676	t_1676_10	tr_49	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Hecht ex Poladian, Fall 1952. Card 2, Unnumbered. #2
271	1676	t_1676_10	tr_57	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 386. #D1
341	1676	t_1676_10	tr_57	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, Fall 1952. Card 12. #D1
456	1676	t_1676_11	550908_r_121	16.430000	12		ANS. #1952.177.11
793	1676	t_1676_11	550908_r_128	16.650000		35	CNG, e-auction 144. #73
970	1676	t_1676_11	550908_r_129	16.110000			Gerhard Hirsch, Katalog 125, Auktion, 21-24 April, 1981. #3100
1036	1676	t_1676_11	550908_r_131	nan			Hans M.F. Schulman, 9-10 December 1966. #227
919	1676	t_1676_11	550908_r_134	16.350000			Freeman & Sear, Mail Bid Sale 10, 11 February 2004. #122
347	1676	t_1676_11	tr_1676_1	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, Fall 1952. Card 13. #F2
1571	1676	t_1676_11	tr_1676_19	15.580000	12	36.5	Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. #18245284
599	1676	t_1676_11	tr_1676_44	16.270000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b10304941c
348	1676	t_1676_11	tr_1676_7	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, Fall 1952. Card 13. #F3
379	1676	t_1676_11	tr_1676_8	nan			ANS Photo File. H.M.F. Schulman, 9-10 December 1966. #227
936	1676	t_1676_11	tr_35	16.200000			Fritz Rudolf Künker GmbH & Co. KG, Auction 89, 8 March 2004. #1353
960	1676	t_1676_12	550908_r_69	16.640000			Gerhard Hirsch, Auktion 187, 19-23 September, 1995. #268
1381	1676	t_1676_12	550908_r_70	nan		35	Münzen und Medaillen, Auktion XVII, 8 May 1967. #71
864	1676	t_1676_12	550908_r_71	16.270000			Coin Galleries, Mail and Internet Bid Sale, 10 September 2008. #548
1201	1676	t_1676_12	550908_r_72	nan			Le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes, 1965, Trésor 6. #615.9
505	1676	t_1676_12	550908_r_72	16.270000			Auctiones S.A (?), 18 - 19 Septeber 1985. #78
1416	1676	t_1676_12	550908_r_73	nan			Numismatic Fine Arts, Auction XXXIII, May 3 1994. #1304
440	1676	t_1676_12	550908_r_74	16.830000	12		ANS. #1948.19.909
1200	1676	t_1676_12	550908_r_75	nan			Le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes, 1965, Trésor 6. #615.8
409	1676	t_1676_12	550908_r_93	16.430000	11		ANS. #1944.100.31423
905	1676	t_1676_12	550908_r_93	nan		34	Frank S. Robinson, Mail Bid Sale 33, 13 September 1995. #74
1150	1676	t_1676_12	550908_r_93	16.420000			John R. Gainor, Summer Sale, 25 September 1994. #16
1612	1676	t_1676_12	tr_1676_18	nan			Superior, World Coins. Winter 1976. #16
1487	1676	t_1676_12	tr_1676_26	16.640000	12	34	Roma Numismatics Limited, E-SALE 19, 1 Aug. 2015, #159
812	1676	t_1676_12	tr_1676_27	16.620000	12	36	CNG, e-auction 259. #113
1032	1676	t_1676_12	tr_1676_27	16.300000			H.D. Rauch, Summer Auction 2009, 17-19 September 2009. #D148
480	1676	t_1676_12	tr_1676_27	16.440000	1		ANS. #1952.177.6
594	1676	t_1676_12	tr_1676_28	16.110000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b103049366
1441	1676	t_1676_12	tr_1676_28	16.250000	12		Numismatik Lanz München, Auction 48, 22 May 1989. #298
1497	1676	t_1676_12	tr_1676_28	16.910000	12	35	Roma Numismatics Ltd, Auction 4, 30 September 2012. #218
597	1676	t_1676_12	tr_1676_43	16.340000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b10304939j
598	1676	t_1676_12	tr_1676_43	15.940000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b10304940x
595	1676	t_1676_12	tr_1676_9	16.410000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b10304937n
273	1676	t_1676_12	tr_58	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 386. #E1
343	1676	t_1676_12	tr_63	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, Fall 1952. Card 12. #E1
345	1676	t_1676_12	tr_70	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, Fall 1952. Card 12. #E3
455	1676	t_1676_13	550908_r_90	16.580000	12		ANS. #1952.177.10
950	1676	t_1676_13	tr_1676_14	15.910000			Gerhard Hirsch, Auktion 161, 22-24 February, 1989. #155
399	1676	t_1676_13	tr_1676_14	nan			ANS Photo File. Vinchon, 14 May 1962, Pl.9. #177
434	1676	t_1676_13	tr_1676_14	15.740000	12		ANS. #1947.97.281
900	1676	t_1676_13	tr_1676_14	nan			Étienne Ader, Sale 10, 14 May 1962. #177
1423	1676	t_1676_13	tr_1676_14	15.930000			Numismatica Ars Classica, Auction E, 4 April 1995. #2258
81	1676	t_1676_13	tr_1676_14	16.390000			ANS Photo File, G. Hirsch, 27-29 June 1972. #107
893	1676	t_1676_13	tr_1676_16	16.470000			Elayi, Trésor de la Beqa, #2
1041	1676	t_1676_13	tr_1676_16	16.690000			Harlan J. Berk, LTD. 58Th Buy or Bid Sale, 28 June 1989. #132
1082	1676	t_1676_13	tr_1676_16	16.290000	12	33	iNumis Mail Bid Sale 22, 4 June 2013. #18
1523	1676	t_1676_13	tr_1676_16	16.470000			Schweizerischer Bankverein, Auction 30, 15-17 September 1992. #30
705	1676	t_1676_13	tr_1676_16	16.800000			Christie's, 14 June 1993. #40
709	1676	t_1676_13	tr_1676_16	nan			Clark's Ancient Coins Auction 101, March 17, 1997. #8
1173	1676	t_1676_13	tr_1676_16	nan			Kurpfälzische Münzhandlung, Auction XXV, 1-3 December 1983. #88
1477	1676	t_1676_13	tr_1676_16	16.290000			Poinsignon Numismatique & Cabinet Numisatique, Sale 2, 16 March 1985. #171
1514	1676	t_1676_13	tr_1676_16	nan			Saint Louis Art Museum. #1241991
1643	1676	t_1676_13	tr_1676_16	16.690000	12	36	Triskeles Auctions, Sale 16, 3 June 2016, #35
591	1676	t_1676_13	tr_1676_25	15.980000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b10304933v
166	1676	t_1676_13	tr_1676_4	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Hecht ex Poladian, Fall 1952. Card 5, Unnumbered. #1
265	1676	t_1676_13	tr_54	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 35. #K1
1397	1676	t_1676_14	550908_r_87	16.704000			Noble Numismatics Pty. Ltd. Sale No. 76, 27-29 July 2004. #3183
924	1676	t_1676_14	550908_r_90	16.740000			Freeman & Sear, Mail Bid Sale 12, 28 October 2005. #75
1544	1676	t_1676_14	550908_r_96	15.500000	11		SNG – Deutschland, Staatliche Münzsammlung München 10./11. Heft, 2001. #493 (Acc. 72653)
335	1676	t_1676_14	tr_1676_18	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, Fall 1952. Card 10. #A1
789	1676	t_1676_14	tr_1676_18	16.320000			CNG, Auction IX, 7 December, 1989. #44
412	1676	t_1676_14	tr_1676_18	16.390000	12		ANS. #1944.100.31426
815	1676	t_1676_14	tr_1676_21	16.400000	1	34	CNG, e-auction 262. #124
336	1676	t_1676_14	tr_1676_21	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, Fall 1952. Card 10. #A2
674	1676	t_1676_14	tr_1676_21	16.510000	1		British Museum. #1896,0703.155
1539	1676	t_1676_14	tr_1676_21	nan			Seyrig, Trésors du Levant, Trésor de Tell kotchek, 1952. #15.75
338	1676	t_1676_14	tr_1676_22	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, Fall 1952. Card 11. #A4
907	1676	t_1676_14	tr_1676_22	nan			Frank Sternberg Nr. 4, Juli/August 1992. #36
1522	1676	t_1676_14	tr_1676_22	16.850000			Schweizerische Kreditanstalt Auction 7, 27-29 April 1987. #221
1325	1676	t_1676_14	tr_1676_27	16.700000			Lober, Demetrius I. #229
937	1676	t_1676_14	tr_1676_27	16.560000			Fritz Rudolf Künker GmbH & Co. KG, Auction 89, 8 March 2004. #1354
943	1676	t_1676_14	tr_1676_27	16.560000			Fritz Rudolf Künker Münzenhandlung, Auction 89, 8-9 March, 2004. #1354
337	1676	t_1676_14	tr_1676_32	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, Fall 1952. Card 10. #A3
925	1676	t_1676_14	tr_1676_32	16.650000			Freeman & Sear, Mail Bid Sale 12, 28 October 2005. #76
1324	1676	t_1676_14	tr_1676_32	16.740000			Lober, Demetrius I. #228
406	1676	t_1676_14	tr_1676_32	16.390000	12		ANS. #1944.100.31420
1326	1676	t_1676_14	tr_1676_33	16.650000			Lober, Demetrius I. #230
588	1676	t_1676_14	tr_1676_36	16.900000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b10304930h
1593	1676	t_1676_14	tr_1676_5	16.500000			Stack's Bowers and Ponterio, Sale 163, November 2011 Baltimore Auction, 16 November 2011. #20804
476	1676	t_1676_14	tr_1676_5	16.580000	12		ANS. #1952.177.3
945	1676	t_1676_14	tr_1676_5	16.570000			Gemini, Auction I, 11 January 2005. #81
384	1676	t_1676_14	tr_1676_6	nan			ANS Photo File. Myers Adams, No. 4, 30 October 1972. #546
387	1676	t_1676_14	tr_1676_6	16.560000			ANS Photo File. Tell Kotchek, 1952 (Baldwin 1971), Card 2. Unnumbered. #2
1346	1676	t_1676_14	tr_43	nan			Münchner Münzhandlung Karl Kreß, 161, 24-25 October 1974. #194
339	1676	t_1676_14	tr_43	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, Fall 1952. Card 11. #A5
413	1676	t_1676_14	tr_43	15.630000	12		ANS. #1944.100.31427
923	1676	t_1676_14	tr_43	16.700000			Freeman & Sear, Mail Bid Sale 12, 28 October 2005. #74
173	1676	t_1676_14	tr_51	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Hecht ex Poladian, Fall 1952. Card 6, Unnumbered. #5
340	1676	t_1676_14	tr_52	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, Fall 1952. Card 11. #A6
1538	1676	t_1676_16	550908_r_116	16.350000			Seyrig, Trésors du Levant, Trésor de Tell kotchek, 1952. #15.74
861	1676	t_1676_16	tr_1676_11	16.780000			Coin Galleries, 22 July 1992. #69
389	1676	t_1676_16	tr_1676_11	15.520000			ANS Photo File. Tell Kotchek, 1952 (Baldwin 1971), Card 2. Unnumbered. #4
504	1676	t_1676_16	tr_1676_11	16.620000		33.5	Auctiones GmbH, eAuction 35, 22 March 2015. #15
1	1676	t_1676_16	tr_1676_11	16.530000			A Tkaelc AG, 22 April 2007. #38
142	1676	t_1676_16	tr_1676_11	nan			ANS Photo File, Seaby II, 15 July, 1929. #287
1380	1676	t_1676_16	tr_1676_11	16.640000			Münzen und Medaillen Deutschland GmbH, Auction 40, 4 June 2014. #153
1598	1676	t_1676_16	tr_1676_11	16.770000			Stack's, 8-10 June 1994. #2101
899	1676	t_1676_16	tr_1676_15	nan			Étienne Ader, 20 November 1961. #135
401	1676	t_1676_16	tr_1676_15	nan			ANS Photo File. Vinchon, 20 November 1961, Pl.7. #135
1194	1676	t_1676_16	tr_1676_15	nan			Le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes, 1965, Trésor 6. #615.15
492	1676	t_1676_16	tr_1676_15	16.070000			Ariadne Galleries, 15 September 1982.#49
478	1676	t_1676_16	tr_1676_15	16.660000	12		ANS. #1952.177.4
589	1676	t_1676_16	tr_1676_15	16.350000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b10304931z
918	1676	t_1676_16	tr_1676_15	16.740000			Freeman & Sear, Mail Bid Sale 10, 11 February 2004. #121
1509	1676	t_1676_16	tr_1676_24	16.880000	2	32	Roma Numismatics Ltd, E-Sale 9, 28 June 2014. #120
1433	1676	t_1676_16	tr_1676_24	16.790000			Numismatik Lanz München, Auction 158, 5 June 2014. #248
777	1676	t_1676_16	tr_1676_32	16.850000	12		CNG, 75. #134
1428	1676	t_1676_16	tr_1676_32	16.320000	1		Numismatik Lanz München, Auction 123, 30 May 2005. #198
1322	1676	t_1676_16	tr_1676_38	16.710000			Lober, Demetrius I. #223
369	1676	t_1676_16	tr_1676_38	nan			ANS Photo File. #5.1 – Leb. Mus
912	1676	t_1676_16	tr_1676_38	16.710000			Freeman & Sear, Fixed Price List 10, Spring 2005. #32
1458	1676	t_1676_16	tr_1676_38	16.270000	12		Numismatik Lanz München, Auction 58, 21 November 1991. #202
405	1676	t_1676_16	tr_1676_38	16.030000	12		ANS. #1944.100.31419
590	1676	t_1676_16	tr_1676_4	15.940000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b10304932d
829	1676	t_1676_16	tr_1676_45	16.570000	12		CNG, Electronic Auction 257, 8 June 2011. #126
108	1676	t_1676_16	tr_46	15.900000			ANS Photo File, Munz Zentrum, Koln 44, 25 November 1981. #255
645	1676	t_1676_17	tr_1676_1	16.340000			Bourgey, 17-18 May 1984. #38
552	1676	t_1676_17	tr_1676_10	15.110000	12	32	Bertolami Fine Arts, ACR Auctions, E-Auction 32, 11 January 2016. #337
1658	1676	t_1676_17	tr_1676_17	16.230000			Wagonner, Propontis Hoard #49
1415	1676	t_1676_17	tr_1676_30	nan			Numismatic Fine Arts, Auction XXXIII, May 3 1994. #1303
592	1676	t_1676_17	tr_1676_35	15.190000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b103049349
593	1676	t_1676_17	tr_1676_37	16.130000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b10304935r
651	1676	t_1676_18	tr_1676_45	15.790000			Bourgey, 6-8 December 1978. #37
1030	1676	t_1676_2	550908_r_147	16.810000			H.D. Rauch, Auction 53, 28-29 November 1994. #66
99	1676	t_1676_2	tr_43	nan			ANS Photo File, Kress 161, 29-31 October 1974. #194
1515	1676	t_1676_20	tr_1676_23	16.800000		36	Savoca Numismatik, 2nd Blue Auction , 28 Oct. 2017 #116
1172	1676	t_1676_3	550908_r_139	nan			Kurpfälzische Münzhandlung, Auction XXV, 1-3 December 1983. #87
929	1676	t_1676_3	550908_r_139	16.400000			Freeman & Sear, Mail Bid Sale 14, 21 June 2007. #142
514	1676	t_1676_3	550908_r_140	16.580000	12	34	Auge, Davesne, and Ergeç, Gaziantep 1994. #13
975	1676	t_1676_3	550908_r_140	16.690000			Gerhard Hirsch, Katalog XLII, 21-23 Juni, 1965. #1099.
1106	1676	t_1676_3	550908_r_140	16.570000			Jean Elsen & ses Fils S.A., Auction 110, 10 September 2011. #165
1607	1676	t_1676_3	550908_r_142	16.570000			Superior Galleries, Mail Bid Sale, 21 September 1990. #12
411	1676	t_1676_3	550908_r_143	15.610000	12		ANS. #1944.100.31425
1551	1676	t_1676_3	550908_r_144	15.840000	12		SNG – Greece 4, 2005. #426
319	1676	t_1676_3	t_60	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 48. #G2
320	1676	t_1676_3	t_61	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 48. #G3
318	1676	t_1676_3	tr_1676_10	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 48. #G1
388	1676	t_1676_3	tr_1676_10	16.330000			ANS Photo File. Tell Kotchek, 1952 (Baldwin 1971), Card 2. Unnumbered. #3
497	1676	t_1676_3	tr_1676_10	15.900000	12	34.2	Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, Heberden Coin Room HCR24023
965	1676	t_1676_3	tr_1676_41	16.450000			Gerhard Hirsch, Auktion 289, 2 May, 2013. #243
691	1676	t_1676_3	tr_1676_42	16.710000	12	35.5	CGB.fr, e-Monnaies Juin 2015, 30 June 2015, #356124
917	1676	t_1676_3	tr_1676_42	16.670000			Freeman & Sear, Mail Bid Sale 10, 11 February 2004. #120
790	1676	t_1676_3	tr_1676_42	16.570000			CNG, Auction XI, 3 May, 1990. #40
1103	1676	t_1676_3	tr_1676_42	16.590000			Jaques Schulman, N.V., 12 November 1971. #3035
481	1676	t_1676_4	550908_r_137	16.440000	12		ANS. #1952.177.7
1154	1676	t_1676_4	550908_r_88	16.270000			Josiane Vedrines, 4 November 1992. #27
538	1676	t_1676_4	tr_1676_13	16.240000			Áureo & Calicó, Auction 269, 7 July 2015. #2008
1508	1676	t_1676_4	tr_1676_25	16.560000	12	35	Roma Numismatics Ltd, E-Sale 7, 26 April 2014. #377
385	1676	t_1676_4	tr_1676_5	16.430000			ANS Photo File. Peus, 20 June 1960. #786
1382	1676	t_1676_4	tr_1676_5	16.430000		34.5	Münzhandlung Dr. Busso Peus, catalog 261, 20-21 June 1960. #786
150	1676	t_1676_4	tr_50	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Hecht ex Poladian, Fall 1952. Card 2, Unnumbered. #3
264	1676	t_1676_4	tr_53	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 35. #J1
786	1676	t_1676_5	550908_r_125	16.580000	1	34	CNG, Auction 88, 14 September 2011. #322
543	1676	t_1676_5	550908_r_128	16.630000			Aureo, Subasta Numismatica, 30 June – 1 July 1999. #2030
643	1676	t_1676_5	550908_r_135	15.780000			Bourgey, 11-12 March 1985. #18
942	1676	t_1676_5	tr_1676_19	16.200000			Fritz Rudolf Künker Münzenhandlung, Auction 89, 8-9 March, 2004. #1353
1376	1676	t_1676_5	tr_1676_34	17.230000			Münzen und Medaillen AG, Oktober 1983. #20
761	1676	t_1676_5	tr_1676_40	16.580000	1	34	CNG 88. #322
938	1676	t_1676_5	tr_1676_40	16.710000			Fritz Rudolf Künker GmbH & Co. KG, eLive Auction 43, 7 Dec. 2016, #26
61	1676	t_1676_5	tr_35	15.900000			ANS Photo File, Dehaual Stockholm #5
88	1676	t_1676_5	tr_40	nan			ANS Photo File, Harvey Hurtz Collection, Berkeley. Card 3
146	1676	t_1676_5	tr_43	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Hecht ex Poladian, Fall 1952. Card 1, Unnumbered. #2
147	1676	t_1676_5	tr_48	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Hecht ex Poladian, Fall 1952. Card 1, Unnumbered. #3
1504	1676	t_1676_6	tr_1676_20	16.580000	1	31	Roma Numismatics Ltd, E-Sale 11, 23 August 2014. #26
1570	1676	t_1676_6	tr_1676_20	15.670000	12	34.5	Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. #18245277
1323	1676	t_1676_6	tr_1676_39	16.540000			Lober, Demetrius I. #226
269	1676	t_1676_6	tr_1676_39	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 36. #H4
270	1676	t_1676_6	tr_1676_39	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 36. #H5
72	1676	t_1676_6	tr_1676_39	nan			ANS Photo File, From Poladian, 8 November 1952. #656
920	1676	t_1676_6	tr_1676_39	16.540000			Freeman & Sear, Mail Bid Sale 11, 23 November 2004. #74
266	1676	t_1676_6	tr_39	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 36. #H1
267	1676	t_1676_6	tr_55	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 36. #H2
408	1676	t_1676_6	tr_55	15.790000	12		ANS. #1944.100.31422
268	1676	t_1676_6	tr_56	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 36. #H3
359	1676	t_1676_6	tr_56	nan			ANS Photo File. # 4.5 A.U.B.
482	1676	t_1676_6	tr_56	16.610000	12		ANS. #1952.177.8
1193	1676	t_1676_6	tr_56	nan			Le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes, 1965, Trésor 6. #615.14
410	1676	t_1676_8	550908_r_82	16.120000	12		ANS. #1944.100.31424
801	1676	t_1676_8	550908_r_83	16.610000		32	CNG, e-auction 179. #15
684	1676	t_1676_8	tr_1676_3	16.630000	12		British Museum. #RPK,p80E.65.AleIII
380	1676	t_1676_8	tr_1676_3	16.650000			ANS Photo File. Head's Guide British Museum. #48
1135	1676	t_1676_8	tr_1676_5	16.770000			Jean Elsen, Public auction, 69, 16 Mars 2002. #147
483	1676	t_1676_8	tr_1676_5	16.300000	12		ANS. #1952.177.9
1645	1676	t_1676_8	tr_1676_5	16.790000		34	UBS Gold & Numismatics, Auction 59, 27 January 2004. #5381
1063	1676	t_1676_8	tr_41	nan		33	Heritage Auctions, Inc., 2006 January (HWCA) New York Signature Auction, 9 January 2006. #12009 = ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 35. #I1
262	1676	t_1676_8	tr_41	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 35. #I1
263	1676	t_1676_8	tr_52	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 35. #I2
1142	1678	t_1676_8	550908_r_68	16.800000			Jesus Vico S.A., 27 February (No year given). #113
459	1678	t_1676_8	550908_r_68	16.250000	12		ANS. #1952.177.14
995	1678	t_1678_2	550908_r_53	16.400000			Gorny & Mosch Auktion 191, 11-12 Oktober 2010. #1297
1549	1678	t_1678_2	550908_r_54	15.880000	12		SNG – Finland The Erkki Keckman Collection Part II, 1999. #15
1653	1678	t_1678_2	550908_r_55	16.520000			Victor Gadoury, 26-27 Novembre, 1985. #25
484	1678	t_1678_2	550908_r_57	16.470000	12		ANS. #1953.4.1
64	1678	t_1678_4	550908_r_36	nan			ANS Photo File, Eric Von Post's Collection, Stockholm. Lower Left
300	1678	t_1678_4	550908_r_37	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 44. #B1
1152	1678	t_1678_4	550908_r_37	nan			Joseph Lepczyk, 43 Public Auction & Mail Bid Sale, 20-21 November (No year given). #569
458	1678	t_1678_4	550908_r_38	16.370000	12		ANS. #1952.177.13
301	1678	t_1678_4	550908_r_40	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 44. #B2
302	1678	t_1678_4	550908_r_41	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 44. #B3
846	1678	t_1678_4	550908_r_42	16.850000			CNG, Mail Bid Sale 67, 22 September 2004. #424
1186	1678	t_1678_4	550908_r_52	nan			Le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes, 1965, Trésor 6. #614.8
416	1678	t_1678_5	550908_r_50	15.570000	12		ANS. #1944.100.31430
831	1678	t_1678_5	550908_r_58	16.440000	12	36	CNG, Electronic Auction 260, 20 July 2011. #224
1545	1678	t_1678_5	550908_r_58	15.890000	11		SNG – Deutschland, Staatliche Münzsammlung München 10./11. Heft, 2001. #494 (Acc. 22717)
867	1678	t_1678_5	550908_r_60	16.800000			Craig A. Whitford Numismatic Auctions, 28 November 1994. #60
808	1678	t_1678_5	550908_r_60	16.450000	12	32	CNG, e-auction 224. #190
1107	1678	t_1678_5	550908_r_60	16.420000			Jean Elsen & ses Fils S.A., Auction 110, 10 September 2011. #166
1164	1678	t_1678_5	550908_r_61	16.290000		37	Kunst und Münzen A.G., Asta XXVIII, 18-20 Gigugno 1992. #178
894	1678	t_1678_5	550908_r_61	16.300000			Elayi, Trésor de la Beqa, #3
1039	1678	t_1678_5	550908_r_64	nan			Harlan J. Berk, LTD. 2 November (No Year Given). #10
639	1678	t_1678_5	550908_r_65	16.050000			Bonhams, sale 22662, 29-30 March, no year given. #110
1184	1678	t_1678_5	550908_r_66	nan			Le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes, 1965, Trésor 6. #614.6
447	1678	t_1678_5	550908_r_66	16.190000	12		ANS. #1951.35.23
698	1678	t_1678_5	550908_r_66	16.380000	12	36	CGB.fr, MONNAIES 16, 31 December 2002. #57
1460	1678	t_1678_5	550908_r_66	15.740000	12		Numismatik Lanz München, Auction 58, 21 November 1991. #204
1005	1678	t_1678_6	550908_r_33	16.290000			Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung, Auction 170, 13 October 2008. #1294
457	1678	t_1678_6	550908_r_34	16.640000	12		ANS. #1952.177.12
296	1678	t_1678_9	550908_r_45	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 43. #C1
515	1678	t_1678_9	550908_r_45	16.580000	12	34	Auge, Davesne, and Ergeç, Gaziantep 1994. #14
297	1678	t_1678_9	550908_r_47	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 43. #C2
926	1678	t_1678_9	550908_r_47	16.570000			Freeman & Sear, Mail Bid Sale 12, 28 October 2005. #77
1076	1678	t_1678_9	550908_r_47	16.260000			Heritage World Coin Auctions, New York Signature Sale, 2 January 2011. #24429
1183	1678	t_1678_9	550908_r_48	nan			Le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes, 1965, Trésor 6. #614.5
448	1678	t_1678_9	550908_r_48	16.150000	12		ANS. #1951.35.24
766	1678	t_1678_9	550908_r_48	16.080000			CNG Auction 36, 5-6 December 1995. #1823
41	1678	t_1678_9	550908_r_50	16.180000			ANS Photo File, Aecahn, 26 November 1930. #1233
1180	1678	t_1678_9	550908_r_57	nan			Le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes, 1965, Trésor 6. #614.1
438	1678	t_1678_9	550908_r_57	16.280000	12		ANS. #1947.98.154
517	1679	t_1679_1	550908_r_167	16.520000	12	33	Auge, Davesne, and Ergeç, Gaziantep 1994. #16
1207	1679	t_1679_1	550908_r_169	nan			Le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes, 1965, Trésor 6. #616.7
1171	1679	t_1679_1	550908_r_170	nan			Kurpfälzische Münzhandlung, Auction XXIV, 17-19 May 1983. #62
1080	1679	t_1679_3	550908_r_149	nan			Imperial, Bid or Buy Sale, 12 January 1993. #15
1035	1679	t_1679_3	550908_r_150	nan			Hans M.F. Schulman, 20-25 November 1964. #1202
117	1679	t_1679_3	550908_r_161	16.200000	12		ANS Photo File, Museo Civico, Torino, (Fab 2531)
62	1680	t_1679_1	550908_r_159	16.580000			ANS Photo File, Dehaual Stockholm #6
1002	1680	t_1679_1	550908_r_169	16.820000			Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung, Auction 142, 10 October 2005. #1355
426	1680	t_1679_1	550908_r_170	15.410000	12		ANS. #1944.100.31440
1208	1680	t_1679_1	550908_r_171	nan			Le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes, 1965, Trésor 6. #616.8
1476	1680	t_1679_1	550908_r_175	16.980000			Poinsignon Numismatique & Cabinet Numisatique, Sale 2, 16 March 1985. #170
1140	1680	t_1679_1	550908_r_176	nan			Jeffery Hoare, Sale 29, 25-26 February 1994. #11
433	1680	t_1679_1	550908_r_176	16.430000	12		ANS. #1946.124.3
423	1680	t_1679_1	550908_r_177	16.590000	12		ANS. #1944.100.31437
869	1680	t_1679_1	550908_r_178	nan			Craig A. Whitford, 26 April 1993. #91
422	1680	t_1679_1	550908_r_178	16.660000	12		ANS. #1944.100.31436
425	1680	t_1679_1	550908_r_180	16.430000	12		ANS. #1944.100.31439
1091	1680	t_1679_1	550908_r_180	nan			Ira & Larry Goldberg Coins & Collectibles, Auction 69, 29 May 2012. #3094
699	1680	t_1679_1	550908_r_181	15.910000	12	39	CGB.fr, MONNAIES 24, 24 June 2005. #90
1437	1680	t_1679_1	550908_r_182	16.670000	12		Numismatik Lanz München, Auction 38, 24 November 1986. #234
134	1680	t_1679_1	550908_r_183	15.880000	12		ANS Photo File, Numismatica Wien, 20-21 November, 1975. #54
441	1680	t_1679_1	550908_r_184	16.260000	12		ANS. #1948.19.910
997	1680	t_1679_3	550908_r_151	16.780000			Gorny & Mosch Auktion 196, 7-9 März 2011. #1417
1174	1680	t_1679_3	550908_r_152	nan			Kurpfälzische Münzhandlung, Auction XXV, 1-3 December 1983. #89
1463	1680	t_1679_3	550908_r_153	15.830000	12		Numismatik Lanz München, Auction 58, 21 November 1991. #207
1465	1680	t_1679_3	550908_r_154	16.230000	12		Numismatik Lanz München, Auction 62, 26 November 1992. #315
1546	1680	t_1679_3	550908_r_155	15.040000	11		SNG – Deutschland, Staatliche Münzsammlung München 10./11. Heft, 2001. #495 (Acc. 22716)
468	1680	t_1679_3	550908_r_157	16.430000	12		ANS. #1952.177.22
65	1680	t_1679_3	550908_r_158	nan			ANS Photo File, Eric Von Post's Collection, Stockholm. Lower Right
1129	1680	t_1679_3	550908_r_158	16.420000			Jean Elsen, Public auction, 11 & 13 Decembre 1999. #166
1206	1680	t_1679_3	550908_r_160	nan			Le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes, 1965, Trésor 6. #616.6
1594	1680	t_1679_3	550908_r_162	16.890000			Stack's Bowers and Ponterio, Sale 164, N.Y.I.N.C Auction, 6 January 2012. #154
1319	1680	t_1680_1	550908_r_187	16.510000			Lober, Demetrius I. #180
518	1680	t_1680_1	550908_r_187	16.620000	11	33	Auge, Davesne, and Ergeç, Gaziantep 1994. #17
424	1680	t_1680_1	550908_r_189	16.590000	12		ANS. #1944.100.31438
1536	1680	t_1680_1	550908_r_189	16.470000			Seyrig, Trésors du Levant, Trésor de Tell kotchek, 1952. #15.27
1204	1680	t_1680_2	550908_r_191	nan			Le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes, 1965, Trésor 6. #616.3
519	1680	t_1680_2	550908_r_191	16.800000	12	33	Auge, Davesne, and Ergeç, Gaziantep 1994. #18
817	1680	t_1680_2	550908_r_191	16.020000	12	33	CNG, e-auction 263. #101
1097	1680	t_1680_2	550908_r_191	16.530000			Ira & Larry Goldberg, Pre-long Beach Auction 69, 29-30 May 2012. #3073
870	1680	t_1680_2	550908_r_192	16.620000			Davissons Ltd., Auction 14, 15 November 2000. #136
1534	1683	t_1683_1	550908_r_193	16.750000			Seyrig, Trésors du Levant, Trésor de Tell kotchek, 1952. #15.21
962	1683	t_1683_2	550908_r_194	16.750000			Gerhard Hirsch, Auktion 198, 11-13 February, 1998. #134
446	1683	t_1683_2	550908_r_196	16.110000	12		ANS. #1951.35.22
1634	1683	t_1683_2	550908_r_196	16.910000		36	Tom Cederlind, Catalog 158, 28 March 2011. #99
421	1683	t_1683_2	550908_r_197	16.480000	12		ANS. #1944.100.31435
520	1683	t_1683_2	550908_r_200	16.810000	12	36	Auge, Davesne, and Ergeç, Gaziantep 1994. #19
779	1683	t_1683_2	550908_r_200	16.570000	12		CNG, 76. #291
676	1685	t_1685_1	550908_r_214	15.820000	12		British Museum. #1910,1104.52
1029	1686	t_1686_1	550908_r_222	16.730000			H.D. Rauch, Auction 53, 28-29 November 1994. #65
1388	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_225	nan			Nihon Coin Auction No. 7. #14
807	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_225	16.080000	12	34	CNG, e-auction 203. #63
1100	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_225	16.180000			Italo Vecchi, LTD., Nummorum Auctiones 15. 15 June 1999. #155
1424	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_227	16.950000			Numismatica Ars Classica, Auction F, 17 April 1996. #1193
1425	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_229	16.580000			Numismatica Ars Classica, Auction H, 30 April 1998. #1276
94	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_229	16.400000			ANS Photo File, K. Kress, 3 October 1972. #328
1602	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_229	nan			Stephen M Houston Fixed Price List 54. #4
854	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_230	17.090000	12		CNG, Triton VIII, 11-12 January 2005. #168
29	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_230	nan			ANS Photo File, #4.6-Leb.Mus.
95	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_231	16.100000			ANS Photo File, Karl Kress, 2 April 1973
1542	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_231	15.870000	1		SNG – Deutschland, Münzsammlung der Universität Tübingen, 2 Heft, 1982. #1100.
1557	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_232	16.530000	12		SNG – Sweden II, Part 2, 1980. #1014
452	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_233	16.370000	12		ANS. #1951.35.28
882	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_233	16.550000			Dr. Busso Peus, Nachf., catalog 280, 15-17 March 1978. #263
1332	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_233	16.540000			M. Jean Vinchon, Sale 7, 9-10 Decemeber 1993. #84
803	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_234	16.090000		33	CNG, e-auction 179. #17
489	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_234	16.470000	12		ANS. #1984.5.108
783	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_234	16.630000			CNG, Auction 60, 22 May 2002. #297
12	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_235	nan			Alex G. Malloy, Auction Sale XXXI, 26 October 1990.#86
1438	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_235	16.450000	1		Numismatik Lanz München, Auction 42, 23 November 1987. #219
1661	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_236	15.950000			World Coins Japan, 4 May 1995. #40
1394	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_237	16.248000			Noble Numismatics Pty. Ltd. Sale No. 64 Part A, 12-13 Juy 2000. #2238
802	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_240	16.700000		36	CNG, e-auction 179. #16
1025	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_240	16.887000			H. H. Kricheldorf Nachf., 24-25 September 1987. #19
50	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_240	16.020000			ANS Photo File, Bourgey, 10 March 1976. #57
205	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_242	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 21. #A7
697	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_243	15.890000	1	35	CGB.fr, MONNAIES 11, 30 November 1999. #117
1133	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_243	15.960000			Jean Elsen, Public auction, 12 Juin 1999. #877
1213	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_245	nan			Le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes, 1965, Trésor 6. #617.5
33	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_245	nan			ANS Photo File, #neg.4.4-H.s.
1105	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_246	16.600000			Jean Elsen & ses Fils S.A., Auction 109, 18 June 2011. #103
1225	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_247	16.870000	12		Leu Numismatics Ltd, Auction Leu 59, 17 May 1994. #102
1228	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_248	16.660000	1		Leu Numismatics Ltd, Auction Leu 86, 5-6 May 2003. #363
888	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_248	nan			Dr. Claus W. Hild, Auktion 67, 16-17 September 1994. #94
135	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_248	16.550000			ANS Photo File, P&P Santamaria, 12-13 October, 1949. #50
1161	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_248	16.630000			Kölner Münzkabinett Tyll Kroha, Auktion 61, 17-18 November 1994. #77
140	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_248	16.500000			ANS Photo File, Schlesinger 13, 1935. #734
1212	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_251	nan			Le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes, 1965, Trésor 6. #617.4
436	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_251	16.170000	12		ANS. #1947.98.152
451	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_251	16.610000	12		ANS. #1951.35.27
522	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_251	16.520000	1	36	Auge, Davesne, and Ergeç, Gaziantep 1994. #21
636	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_251	16.570000	3		Boehringer, Fund aus Südanatolien, 1964.#16
860	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_251	16.330000			Coin Galleries, 19 February 1998. #90
972	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_251	16.500000			Gerhard Hirsch, Katalog 148, Auktion, 27-29 November, 1985. #90
1004	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_252	16.660000			Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung, Auction 142, 10 October 2005. #1357
404	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_252	16.460000	1		ANS. #1944.100.31418
765	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_252	16.800000			CNG Auction 35, 20 September 1995. #108
949	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_252	16.200000			Gerhard Hirsch, Auktion 155, 23-26 September, 1987. #68
646	1686	t_1686_2	550908_r_253	16.010000			Bourgey, 20 March 1994. #41
1214	1686	t_1686_3	550908_r_216	nan			Le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes, 1965, Trésor 6. #617.6
1056	1686	t_1686_3	550908_r_216	16.580000	12		Helios Numismatik Auktion 6, 9 & 10 März 2011. #44
1178	1686	t_1686_3	550908_r_217	nan			Laurens Schulman b.v., Auction 23, 15-17 November 1999. #1561
465	1686	t_1686_3	550908_r_217	16.110000	12		ANS. #1952.177.2
1461	1686	t_1686_3	550908_r_217	15.620000	12		Numismatik Lanz München, Auction 58, 21 November 1991. #205
73	1686	t_1686_3	550908_r_218	nan			ANS Photo File, From Poladian, 8 November 1952. #657
74	1686	t_1686_3	550908_r_218	nan			ANS Photo File, From Poladian, 8 November 1952. #658
1138	1686	t_1686_3	550908_r_218	nan			Jeffery Hoare / Torex, June 23-24, 1989. #289
637	1686	t_1686_3	550908_r_218	15.850000			Bonham & Sons, 9 December 1998. #365
951	1686	t_1686_3	550908_r_218	16.340000			Gerhard Hirsch, Auktion 166, 16-19 May, 1990. #182
971	1686	t_1686_3	550908_r_218	15.950000			Gerhard Hirsch, Katalog 135, Auktion, 19-21 January, 1983. #98
1435	1686	t_1686_3	550908_r_218	16.840000	12		Numismatik Lanz München, Auction 30, 26 November 1984. #164
1177	1686	t_1686_3	550908_r_219	16.730000			La Galerie Numismatique, Auction IV, 28 Novembre 2004. #108
906	1686	t_1686_3	550908_r_219	nan		38	Frank S. Robinson, Unreserved Mail Bid Sale 43, 26 January 1999. #59
1547	1686	t_1686_3	550908_r_219	16.540000	1		SNG – Deutschland, Staatliche Münzsammlung München 10./11. Heft, 2001. #496
23	1686	t_1686_3	550908_r_219	nan			ANS Photo File, #34.3
865	1686	t_1686_3	550908_r_221	nan			Coin Galleries, Mail Bid Sale, 20 April 1961. #91
1553	1686	t_1686_3	550908_r_222	15.360000	12		SNG – Greece 4, 2005. #428
895	1686	t_1686_3	550908_r_224	16.650000			Elayi, Trésor de la Beqa, #4
454	1686v	t_1686_1	550908_r_239	16.160000	12		ANS. #1952.177.1
473	1687	t_1687_1	550908_r_194	16.530000	12		ANS. #1952.177.27
908	1687	t_1687_1	550908_r_199	16.560000			Frankfurter Münzhandlung Auktion 148, 17-19 November, 1997. #50
1042	1687	t_1687_1	550908_r_205	16.790000			Harlan J. Berk, LTD. 58Th Buy or Bid Sale, 28 June 1989. #134
1535	1687	t_1687_3	550908_r_206	16.050000			Seyrig, Trésors du Levant, Trésor de Tell kotchek, 1952. #15.25
139	1687	t_1687_3	550908_r_206	15.640000			ANS Photo File, Riechmann 30, Berlin Dupl. Dec. 1924. #454
1472	1687	t_1687_3	550908_r_207	nan			Owl LTD. Buy/Build Sale 4, 1 August 1984. #19
787	1687	t_1687_3	550908_r_208	16.860000	12	37	CNG, Auction 90, 23 May 2012. #580
472	1687	t_1687_3	550908_r_209	15.850000	12		ANS. #1952.177.26
1554	1687	t_1687_3	550908_r_211	16.750000	12		SNG – Greece 4, 2005. #429
1045	1687	t_1687_3	550908_r_213	nan			Harlan J. Berk, LTD. 86Th Buy or Buid Sale, 11 July 1995. #206
471	1687	t_1687_3	550908_r_213	16.590000	1		ANS. #1952.177.25
853	1687	t_1687_3	550908_r_213	16.740000			CNG, Triton I, 2-3 December 1997. #424
1163	1687	t_1687_4	550908_r_201	16.440000			Kölner Münzkabinett Tyll Kroha, Auktion 77, 5-6 November 2002. #47
1464	1687	t_1687_4	550908_r_201	15.460000	12		Numismatik Lanz München, Auction 58, 21 November 1991. #208
1007	1687	t_1687_4	550908_r_202	15.500000			Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung, Auction 191, 11 October 2010. #1298
485	1687	t_1687_4	550908_r_203	16.500000	12		ANS. #1953.4.2
989	1687	t_1687_4	550908_r_204	16.510000			Gorny & Mosch Auktion 104, 9-10 Oktober 2000. #274
1405	1688	t_1688_1	550908_r_282	nan			Numifrance, 2 June 1982. #54
470	1688	t_1688_1	550908_r_282	16.690000	12		ANS. #1952.177.24
523	1688	t_1688_2	550908_r_263	16.590000	1	35	Auge, Davesne, and Ergeç, Gaziantep 1994. #22
466	1688	t_1688_2	550908_r_267	16.090000	12		ANS. #1952.177.20
1169	1688	t_1688_2	550908_r_277	16.600000			Kurpfälzische Münzhandlung, Auction 51, 12-13 December 1996. #73
652	1688	t_1688_3	550908_r_258	16.580000			Bourgey, 1981. #30
701	1688	t_1688_3	550908_r_260	16.790000	12	34	CGB.fr, MONNAIES 45, 14 October 2010. #121
935	1688	t_1688_3	550908_r_260	15.940000			Fritz Rudolf Künker GmbH & Co. KG, Auction 77, 30 September 2002. #164
638	1688	t_1688_3	550908_r_263	nan			Bonhams, sale 22499, 14-15 September, no year given. #111
1462	1688	t_1688_3	550908_r_264	16.020000	12		Numismatik Lanz München, Auction 58, 21 November 1991. #206
460	1688	t_1688_3	550908_r_267	16.580000	1		ANS. #1952.177.15
804	1688	t_1688_3	550908_r_267	16.770000		33	CNG, e-auction 179. #18
810	1688	t_1688_3	550908_r_270	16.840000	12	34	CNG, e-auction 230. #84
884	1688	t_1688_3	550908_r_272	16.400000			Dr. Busso Peus, Nachf., catalog 288, 30 September - 2 October 1975. #247
1480	1688	t_1688_3	550908_r_272	16.650000			Rigö, Auction XII, 27 September 1969. #53
1055	1688	t_1688_3	550908_r_274	16.400000			Heinz W Müller, Auction 60, 20-21 January 1989. #38
1555	1688	t_1688_4	550908_r_255	15.790000	12		SNG – Greece 4, 2005. #430
439	1688	t_1688_4	550908_r_256	16.210000	12		ANS. #1947.98.155
1651	1688	t_1688_4	550908_r_256	16.828000			Victor Gadoury, 23 Mars 1993. #22
464	1688	t_1688_5	550908_r_279	16.360000	12		ANS. #1952.177.19
700	1688	t_1688_5	550908_r_281	15.920000	12	32	CGB.fr, MONNAIES 34, 30 April 2008. #192
963	1688	t_1688_5	550908_r_290	16.340000			Gerhard Hirsch, Auktion 201, 24-26 September, 1998. #145
463	1688	t_1688_5	550908_r_292	16.360000	12		ANS. #1952.177.18
418	1688	t_1688_8	550908_r_293	16.670000	12		ANS. #1944.100.31432
467	1688	t_1688_8	550908_r_296	16.460000	12		ANS. #1952.177.21
419	1688	t_1688_9	550908_r_297	16.800000	12		ANS. #1944.100.31433
1001	1689	t_1688_3	550908_r_258	16.720000			Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung, Auction 141, 10 October 2005. #107
1160	1689	t_1688_3	550908_r_258	16.390000			Kölner Münzkabinett Tyll Kroha, Auktion 43, 13-14 April 1987. #38
106	1689	t_1688_3	550908_r_259	nan			ANS Photo File, Malloy IX, 9 May 1977. #86
1040	1689	t_1688_3	550908_r_259	nan			Harlan J. Berk, LTD. 25 Buy or Bid Sale, 31 May 1983. #53
1410	1689	t_1688_3	550908_r_262	16.900000			Numismatic Fine Arts, Auction XVIII, 31 March 1987. #182
1052	1689	t_1688_3	550908_r_267	15.870000			Heinz W Müller, Auction 18, 23-25 September 1976. #19
1521	1689	t_1688_3	550908_r_267	nan			Schulman Coin & Mint inc., 18-20 June 1971. #1548
1537	1689	t_1688_3	550908_r_270	nan			Seyrig, Trésors du Levant, Trésor de Tell kotchek, 1952. #15.37 = ANS Photo File, Neg. 4.1-H.S.
654	1689	t_1688_5	550908_r_274	16.210000			Bowers and Merena, Inc., George N. Polis M.D. Collection, 10-11 June (No Year Given). #26
1320	1689	t_1688_7	550908_r_291	16.470000			Lober, Demetrius I. #197
462	1689	t_1688_8	550908_r_287	16.460000	12		ANS. #1952.177.17
969	1689	t_1688_9	550908_r_296	16.150000			Gerhard Hirsch, Katalog 120, Auktion, 10-12 April, 1980. #59
1003	1689	t_1689_1	550908_r_299	16.540000			Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung, Auction 142, 10 October 2005. #1356
1217	1689	t_1689_3	550908_r_257	nan			Le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes, 1965, Trésor 6. #618.3
1613	1689	t_1689_3	550908_r_257	16.480000			Tarkis S.A., 20 December 1983. #109
1655	1689	t_1689_3	550908_r_258	16.360000			Wagonner, Propontis Hoard #44
704	1689	t_1689_3	550908_r_273	16.300000			Christie, Manson & Woods LTD., 17 July 1990 #23
1412	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_306	16.310000	1		Numismatic Fine Arts, Auction XXXIII, May 3 1994. #128
756	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_311	16.230000			Claude Burgan Numismatique, Sale 37, 30 September 1994. #373
1147	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_311	16.070000			Joel L. Malter & Co. Inc., 7 November 1993. #97
1559	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_311	15.950000	12		SNG – The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Danish National Museum, 1943. #743
967	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_316	nan			Gerhard Hirsch, Auktion, November 22-24, 1971. #57
1026	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_316	16.100000			H.D. Rauch, 5-7 November 1970. #30
1108	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_316	16.380000			Jean Elsen & ses Fils S.A., Auction 110, 10 September 2011. #167
1113	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_317	15.930000			Jean Elsen & ses Fils S.A., Auction 93, 15 September 2007. #232
1024	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_317	16.440000	12	34	Greek and Roman Coins, The Yapi Kredi Collection, 1994. #12. Inv. 19238
979	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_318	16.120000			Giessener Münzhandlung, Auktion 79, 14 Oktober 1996. #133
1618	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_319	nan			The Numismatic Review and Coin Galleries Fixed Price List, Vol. V Number 3, 1964. #C54.
1457	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_319	15.990000	12		Numismatik Lanz München, Auction 58, 21 November 1991. #201
1628	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_319	16.560000		34	Tom Cederlind, Catalog 135, 14 July 2005. #64
799	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_319	16.650000		31	CNG, e-auction 177. #27
883	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_319	15.910000			Dr. Busso Peus, Nachf., catalog 280, 30 October 1972. #168
858	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_319	16.610000			Coin Galleries, 12 April 1995. #59
1531	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_319	16.430000			Seyrig, Trésors du Levant, Trésor de Tell kotchek, 1952. #15.154
1224	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_320	nan			Le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes, 1965, Trésor 6. #620.6
491	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_320	16.680000	12		Argenor Numismatique S.A., Auction 5, 29 April 2002. #43
1393	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_321	16.634000			Noble Numismatics Pty. Ltd. Sale No. 63, 29-31 March 2000. #3484
885	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_322	16.250000			Dr. Busso Peus, Nachf., catalog 291, 30 March - 1 April 1977. #253
1031	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_323	16.900000			H.D. Rauch, Auction 53, 28-29 November 1994. #67
769	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_323	16.650000			CNG Auction XXX, 11 June 1994. #58
1563	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_324	16.690000			Spink-Taisei, Tokyo Coin Auction 5, 3 July 1988. #432
898	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_325	nan			Étienne Ader, 20 November 1961. #134
770	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_326	16.800000			CNG Auction XXX, 11 June 1994. #59
954	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_329	16.410000			Gerhard Hirsch, Auktion 169, 20-22 February, 1991. #265
876	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_332	nan			Downie-Lepczyk Auctions, Ltd., Auction 65, 31 January - 1 Febuary 1986. #971
430	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_333	16.370000	12		ANS. #1944.100.31444
509	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_336	16.720000			Auctiones S.A., 7-8 June 1977. #133
978	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_336	16.680000			Giessener Münzhandlung, Auktion 48, 2 April 1990. #242
1440	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_336	15.990000	12		Numismatik Lanz München, Auction 46, 28 November 1988. #262
1367	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_337	16.630000			Münzen und Medaillen AG, April 1975. #17
429	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_337	14.100000	12		ANS. #1944.100.31443
526	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_337	16.520000	12	35	Auge, Davesne, and Ergeç, Gaziantep 1994. #25
968	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_337	16.180000			Gerhard Hirsch, Katalog 118, Auktion, 20-22 November, 1979. #541
1366	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_338	16.710000			Münzen und Medaillen A.G., Auction 88, 17 May 1999. #141
1396	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_338	16.538000			Noble Numismatics Pty. Ltd. Sale No. 70, 9-11 July 2002. #3134
1629	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_339	16.240000		32	Tom Cederlind, Catalog 138, 23 March 2006. #80
872	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_339	16.020000	12		Dix Noonan Webb Ltd., 28 Sep 2010 Auction, Sale A9, 28 September 2010. #477
442	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_340	16.220000	12		ANS. #1949.67.1
527	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_341	17.030000	1	35	Auge, Davesne, and Ergeç, Gaziantep 1994. #26
792	1690	t_1690_1	550908_r_341	16.450000		33	CNG, e-auction 115. #16
2	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_1	nan			A. Poinsignon Numismatique, Liste à prix fixes no. 41, Juin 1996. #623
223	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_10	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 25. #A5
226	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_11	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 26. #A8
934	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_11	16.530000			Fritz Rudolf Künker GmbH & Co. KG, Auction 248, 14 March 2014. #7238
233	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_19	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 28. #C1
500	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_2	16.240000	12	36.1	Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, Heberden Coin Room HCR24026
36	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_2	nan			ANS Photo File, 150.13
623	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_2	16.120000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b103049650
625	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_27	16.450000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b10304967w
38	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_3	nan			ANS Photo File, 34.5
58	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_3	nan			ANS Photo File, Coin Galleries, FPL V.3, 1964. #C54
740	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_3	16.650000	12	32	Classical Numismatic Group, Inc., Electronic Auction 406, 27 Sept. 2017 #368
626	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_30	15.390000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b10304968b
42	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_4	nan			ANS Photo File, Ancient Arts, No. 2, May- July 1969. #17
181	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_4	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Hecht ex Poladian, Fall 1952. Card 9, Unnumbered. #2
224	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_4	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 25. #A6
55	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_5	nan			ANS Photo File, Coin Galleries, 19 April 1962. #905
180	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_5	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Hecht ex Poladian, Fall 1952. Card 9, Unnumbered. #1
116	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_6	16.630000			ANS Photo File, Münz. & Med., FPL. 366, 1975. #17
277	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_7	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 39. #A2
138	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_7	nan			ANS Photo File, Rauch 5, 6-7 November , 1970. #30
624	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_7	16.750000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b10304966f
220	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_7	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 25. #A2
222	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_7	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 25. #A4
508	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_7	16.260000			Auctiones S.A., 23-24 June 1983. #165
693	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_7	16.950000	12	30.5	CGB.fr, e-Monnaies Septembre 2015, 29 Sept. 2015, #364763
219	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_8	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 25. #A1
276	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_8	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 39. #A1
221	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_9	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 25. #A3
278	1690	t_1690_1	tr_1690_9	nan			ANS Photo File, Tell Kotchek, Poladian Record, 1952. Card 39. #A3
688	1690	t_1690_2	550908_r_300	nan			Cayón Subastas, Auction May 2005, 9 May 2005. #4129
428	1690	t_1690_2	550908_r_301	15.550000	12		ANS. #1944.100.31442
119	1690	t_1690_2	550908_r_302	nan			ANS Photo File, Myers-Adams No. 3, 12-13 October 1972. #68
1222	1690	t_1690_2	550908_r_303	nan			Le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes, 1965, Trésor 6. #620.4
1223	1690	t_1690_2	550908_r_306	nan			Le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes, 1965, Trésor 6. #620.5
1219	1690	t_1690_2	550908_r_308	nan			Le Rider, Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes, 1965, Trésor 6. #620.1
477	1690	t_1690_2	550908_r_309	16.220000	12		ANS. #1952.177.30
1528	1690	t_1690_2	550908_r_309	16.740000			Seyrig, Trésors du Levant, Trésor de Teffaha, 1954. #21.27
1609	1690	t_1690_2	550908_r_310	nan			Superior Galleries, Mail Bid Sale, 7, 8, 11-16 December 1972. #102
475	1690	t_1690_2	550908_r_310	16.260000	12		ANS. #1952.177.29
800	1690	t_1690_2	550908_r_310	16.410000		31	CNG, e-auction 177. #28
806	1690	t_1690_2	550908_r_310	16.400000		33	CNG, e-auction 192. #20
1033	1690	t_1690_2	550908_r_311	16.630000			H.G. Oldenburg, 27 January 1995. #32
886	1690	t_1690_2	550908_r_312	16.480000			Dr. Busso Peus, Nachf., catalog 313, 13-15 May 1985. #94
63	1690	t_1690_2	550908_r_313	nan			ANS Photo File, Dupriez 90, 12 December, 1906. #32
1526	1690	t_1690_2	550908_r_313	nan			Seyrig, Trésors du Levant, Trésor de la Syrie du Nord, dit “de Caiffa”, 1905. #20.35
524	1690	t_1690_2	550908_r_313	16.700000	1	34	Auge, Davesne, and Ergeç, Gaziantep 1994. #23
974	1690	t_1690_2	550908_r_313	15.830000			Gerhard Hirsch, Katalog 95, Auktion, 5-6 December, 1975. #22
1417	1690	t_1690_2	550908_r_313	16.670000			Numismatic Fine Arts, Fall Mail Bid Sale, 18 October 1990. #186
976	1690	t_1690_2	550908_r_315	16.570000			Giessener Münzhandlung, Auktion 40, 7 April 1988. #129
525	1690	t_1690_2	550908_r_315	16.740000	1	34	Auge, Davesne, and Ergeç, Gaziantep 1994. #24
952	1690	t_1690_2	550908_r_315	16.650000			Gerhard Hirsch, Auktion 167, 26-29 September, 1990. #284
1436	1690	t_1690_2	550908_r_315	16.770000	12		Numismatik Lanz München, Auction 32, 29 April 1985. #167
629	1690	t_1690_2	tr_1690_10	15.720000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b10304971m
685	1690	t_1690_2	tr_1690_11	16.660000			Bruun Rasmussen, Auction 856, 12 May 2015. #5012
675	1690	t_1690_2	tr_1690_16	15.480000	12		British Museum. #1910,1104.45
714	1690	t_1690_2	tr_1690_18	16.690000	1	33.5	Classical Numismatic Group, Inc., Auction 102, 18 May 2016, #410
627	1690	t_1690_2	tr_1690_19	16.480000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b10304969s
46	1690	t_1690_2	tr_1690_26	nan			ANS Photo File, B. Peus, No 19, January 1971. #25
35	1690	t_1690_2	tr_1690_29	nan			ANS Photo File, 150.12
75	1690	t_1690_2	tr_1690_30	nan			ANS Photo File, From Poladian, 8 November 1952. #660
495	1690	t_1690_2	tr_1690_30	nan			Artemis Antiquities, Fixed Price List no. 2-86, No Date. #12
82	1690	t_1690_2	tr_1690_30	15.830000			ANS Photo File, G. Hirsch, 5-6 December 1975. #22
737	1690	t_1690_2	tr_1690_31	16.230000	12	33	Classical Numismatic Group, Inc., Electronic Auction 388, 14. Dec. 2016 #114
634	1690	t_1690_2	tr_1690_31	15.770000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b8501503k
136	1690	t_1690_3	550908_r_301	nan			ANS Photo File, Parke-Bern E.T.N. Collection, 16-17 October 1968. #67
1176	1690	t_1690_3	550908_r_301	nan			Kurpfälzische Münzhandlung, Auction XXXI, 18-19 December 1986. #94
89	1690	t_1690_3	550908_r_302	nan			ANS Photo File, Hesperia Art, F.P.L., XXIII, No Date. #13
687	1690	t_1690_3	550908_r_302	nan			Cayón Subastas, Auction May 2005, 9 May 2005. #4128
1365	1690	t_1690_3	550908_r_303	16.640000			Münzen & Medaillen GmbH, Auction 27, 28 May 2008. #2039
1407	1690	t_1690_3	550908_r_305	nan			Numismatic Fine Arts, 14 December 1989. #125
946	1690	t_1690_3	550908_r_305	16.670000			Gemini, Auction V, 6 January 2009. #65
529	1690	t_1690_3	550908_r_306	16.400000	12	33	Auge, Davesne, and Ergeç, Gaziantep 1994. #28
628	1690	t_1690_3	tr_1690_12	16.580000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b103049705
631	1690	t_1690_3	tr_1690_3	16.420000			Bibliothèque nationale de France. #btv1b10304973h
875	1690	t_1690_5	550908_r_348	nan			Downie-Lepczyk Auctions, Ltd., Auction 63, 16 October 1985. #94
690	1690	t_1690_5	tr_1690_17	16.400000	12	35	CGB.fr, e-Monnaies Décembre 2016, 13 Dec. 2016 #409693
904	1690	t_1690_5	tr_1690_20	16.680000			Frank L. Kovacs, Mail Bid Sale XII, 30 November 1995. #85
1516	1690	t_1690_5	tr_1690_21	16.360000		34	Savoca Numismatik, Live Online Auction 1, 19. Apr. 2015, #94 (picture with #93)
1591	1690	t_1690_5	tr_1690_21	16.460000	12	34	Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. #18245323
371	1690	t_1690_5	tr_1690_21	16.270000			ANS Photo File. Batto Sale, Lugana, April 4,1 (Year not given). #628
707	1690	t_1690_5	tr_1690_22	nan			Christie's, 9 December 1991. #121
431	1690	t_1690_5	tr_1690_23	16.530000	12		ANS. #1944.100.31445
474	1690	t_1690_5	tr_1690_23	16.290000	12		ANS. #1952.177.28
754	1690	t_1690_5	tr_1690_23	16.340000			Claude Burgan Numismatique, 24 May 1986. #346
528	1690	t_1690_5	tr_1690_24	16.610000	2	35	Auge, Davesne, and Ergeç, Gaziantep 1994. #27
669	1690	t_1690_5	tr_1690_24	16.140000	12		British Museum. #1840,0217.65
784	1690	t_1690_5	tr_1690_24	16.470000			CNG, Auction 66, 19 May 2004. #216
1227	1690	t_1690_5	tr_1690_26	16.630000	1		Leu Numismatics Ltd, Auction Leu 83, 6-7 May 2002. #196
54	1690	t_1690_5	tr_1690_26	nan			ANS Photo File, Cahn 60, #2218
1335	1690	t_1690_5	tr_1690_26	nan			Marcus Höllersberger Lagerliste Sommer 1987. #21
759	1690	t_1690_5	tr_1690_26	16.610000	1		CNG 78. #377
760	1690	t_1690_5	tr_1690_26	16.610000	1	33	CNG 84. #246
772	1690	t_1690_5	tr_1690_26	16.610000			CNG Mail Bid XXXI, 5-6 December 1995. #127
785	1690	t_1690_5	tr_1690_26	16.610000	1	33	CNG, Auction 84, 5 May 2010. #246
856	1690	t_1690_5	tr_1690_26	16.620000	1	33.5	CNG, Triton XVIII, 6 January 2015. #587
857	1690	t_1690_5	tr_1690_26	16.620000	1	33.5	CNG, Triton XVIII. #587
852	1690	t_1690_5	tr_1690_26	16.610000	1		CNG, Mail Bid Sale 78, 14 May 2008. #377
871	1690	t_1690_8	tr_1690_20	16.680000		34	Davissons, Ltd., Auction 31, 28 November 2012. #98
1620	1690	t_1690_8	tr_1690_21	nan			The Numismatic Review and Coin Galleries Fixed Price List, Vol. XIII Number 1, 1972. #A16
653	1690	t_1690_8	tr_1690_21	16.140000			Bowers and Merena, Inc., George N. Polis M.D. Collection, 10-11 June (No Year Given). #25
739	1690	t_1690_8	tr_1690_21	16.120000	12	33	Classical Numismatic Group, Inc., Electronic Auction 397, 17 May 2017, #144
1384	1690	t_1690_8	tr_1690_21	16.300000	12	36.5	Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. #67.746
1492	1690	t_1690_8	tr_1690_21	16.500000	11	34	Roma Numismatics Limited, E-SALE 33, 4 Feb 2017 #144
1601	1690	t_1690_8	tr_1690_22	16.150000			Stack's, The Golden Horn Collection, 12 January 2009.
1556	1690	t_1690_8	tr_1690_23	15.790000	12		SNG – Greece 4, 2005. #431
143	1690	t_1690_8	tr_1690_24	nan			ANS Photo File, Stack's, 19-20 November 1970. #420
774	1690	t_1690_8	tr_1690_24	16.470000			CNG, 66. #216

Coin Types, numbers, and average weights

Code

dftypeinfo = pd.DataFrame()
dftypeinfo = typeinfochart(mint["temnos"])
dftypeinfo

	number_of_coins	number_of_obverse_dies	average_weight
type
Loading... (need help?)

Overview

Coins in the study have published weights varying from 11 to 17.09 grams, with an average weight of 16.34 grams. The coin weighing 11 grams is significantly lower than any other examples and could be a mistake, as its weight is derived from a handwritten and unsourced note in an ANS Photo file. There appears to be a small but noticeable downward drift in the weight from the initial production run of the 1665 type at 16.67 grams to the final average weight of 1690 at 16.36 grams. During the intensive production runs of 1676, 1678, 1688, 1689, and 1690 the average weight remained within .2 grams.

Code

typemeandf = coinCatdf.groupby(['type'])['weight'].mean().copy()
makeweightgraph(typemeandf, 22, "Average Coin Weights", "Type", "Weight (g)", 12, .2)

Hoards

Temnian coins are well represented in hoard evidence, which assists with dating and establishing circulation patterns of the coinage. Specimens are often found distributed within Seleucid territory alongside issues from Alabanda, Aspendus, Assos, Chios, Cyme, Miletus, Myrina, Mytilene, Perge, and Phaselis, despite the chronological and geographical difference between the production of the various mints. For further information on hoard composition and dating, see the relevant references. Details of the composition of many of the hoards listed below are refined and expanded from initial publications as a result of this study.

Code

#you can modify the date ranges and the mint to get different hoards; these are all of the hoards that have temnian Alexanders
start_date = -200
end_date = -140
buffer = 2

dfHoard = pd.DataFrame()
dfHoard = hoardsDisplay (mint["temnos"], start_date, end_date, buffer)
dfHoard.style.format({'location_uri': make_clickableBase})

Table 2: Hoards with Temnian Coins

id	title	count	denomination	type	burial_start	burial_end	contents	discovered_at	location_uri
ch10,308	Gaziantep Environs, Turkey	86			-143	-143	1916 AR	1994	https://www.geonames.org/314830
ch10,310	Kirikhan, Turkey	2		Price 1690	-143	-142	5000 AR	1972	https://www.geonames.org/307657
igch1432	Asia Minor, southern	1	tetradrachm		-150	-150	22 AR	1964	https://www.geonames.org/10922502
igch1559	Akkar, c. 45 km. SW of Homs (anc. Emesa), Seleucis	37	tetradrachm		-150	-150	69 AR	1956	https://www.geonames.org/174110
ch10,301	Unknown Findspot (“Demetrius I” hoard)	92	tetr		-151	-150	529 AR, 3 AU	2002
igch1774	Babylon, Babylonia	7	tetradrachm		-155	-150	100 AR tetradr. From excavations	1900	https://www.geonames.org/98228
ch7,99	Asia Minor	2	tetr		-160	-160		1947/8	https://pleiades.stoa.org/places/837
ch1,77	Syria	14			-170	-160	. 142 + AR	before 1960	https://www.geonames.org/163843
ch10,295	Beqa' Valley, Lebanon	3		Price 1676, 1686	-170	-160	c. 40 AR	1995	https://www.geonames.org/280282
igch1547	Khan Cheikhoun, c. 25 km. E of anc. Apameia, Seleucis	2	tetradrachm		-170	-160	103 AR	1940	https://www.geonames.org/168325
igch1773	Tell Kotchek, frontier station between Syria and Iraq, c. 80 km. SW of anc. Nisibis, Mesopotamia	197	tetradrachm		-170	-155	604+ AR	1952	https://www.geonames.org/383661
ch7,93	Propontis, Turkey	11	tetr		-180	-170	162+ AR	1950	https://www.geonames.org/630669
igch1772	Urfa (anc. Edessa), Mesopotamia	2	tetradrachm		-185	-160	c. 200 AR	1924	https://www.geonames.org/298332
ch10,292	Unknown findspot	1	tetr		-187	-186	800 AR	2000
igch1541	Baiyada, near Safita (Pereia of Aradus), N. Phoenicia	1	tetradrachm		-188	-188	11+ AR	1949	https://www.geonames.org/165060
igch1410	Mektepini, near Sabuncupinar (between anc. Dorylaeum and Cotiaeum), Phrygia	2	tetradrachm		-190	-190	752+ AR	1956	https://www.geonames.org/302302
igch1701	Delta	1	tetradrachm		-200	-180	24 AR	1927	https://www.geonames.org/351037

Hoard Map

Code

MinimumMarkerSize = 8
MaximumMarkerSize = 40
m = createmapvis()
mintHoardMapper(dfHoard, "count", (mint["temnos"]), MinimumMarkerSize, MaximumMarkerSize, m)
m

Make this Notebook Trusted to load map: File -> Trust Notebook

Other than a small hoard buried in Temnos itself, there is no evidence that Temnian Alexanders circulated broadly within the Attalid kingdom or western Asia Minor generally, although this could be attributed to the vagaries of fate and the survival of relevant evidence. The only other evidence for Temnian issues outside Asia is the Propontis hoard which featured eleven Temnian coins. However, other than the 1665 type, the Temnian coins found in this deposit are almost certainly modern intrusions, given existing evidence from other datable hoards (see Waggoner (1979), p. 21–22 for a full discussion). The vast majority of Temnian coins, including the large deposits of Tell Kotchek with 197 Temnian coins, the Demitrius I hoard with 92 Temnian coins (possibly deposited in Syria (C. Lorber (2010), p. 153)), Gaziantep with 86 Temnian coins, and the Susa hoard with 50 Temnian coins were found in Seleucid territories.

Dating

The dating of Temnian issues, based largely on hoard evidence, presents some difficulties. Recent scholarship has shown Price’s dating to be largely inadequate. Lorber cites Ma’aret en-Numan, Gazinatep, Akkar, Caiffa, Teffaha, Susa, ’Ain Tab, Baiyada, Propontis, Tell Kotchek, Khan Cheikoun, Metcalf’s East Anatolian hoard and the “Demetrius I” hoard to support shifting the dating of 1679, 1683, 1686, 1687 and 1689 to before 162. She also assigns 1677, 1680, and 1681 to 162-151/0 and places 1676 with 1678 to shortly before 151/0 (C. Lorber (2010), p. 154–155).

Omitted from this discussion is the Bequa’ valley hoard, which does not factor into Lorber’s dating of Temnian issues. This deposit, assigned to the first third of the second century (after 187/6) by Elayi, contains three coins from Temnos, specifically types 1676, 1678, and 1686. The dating of this hoard is based in part on Seyrig’s assignment of Tell Kotchek to 160, the lack of datable countermarks on the Temnian and Mytilenian coins, and the presence of countermarks on the coins of Phaselis and Side (Elayi (1999), p. 137). If Elayi’s dating is correct then 1676 and 1678 would have to moved back to before the proposed burial of the hoard to before 187/6.

However, the dating of Tell Kotchek, East Anatolia, ‘Ain Tab, and Khan Cheickoun have all been revised downwards based on parallels with other firmly dated hoards, with Tell Kotchek and East Anatolia now placed after c. 150 / c. 142 C. Lorber (2010), p. 154-155. Due to the parallels in countermarks and composition with the Tell Kotchek and the East Anatolia hoards, the date of Bequa’ should be lowered to after c. 150 / c. 142. This also eliminates any difficulties in accepting the dates proposed by Lorber and accepted by Meadows and Houghton for the dating of types 1676, 1678, and 1686. These new proposed dates can be refined even further by examining die linkages.

The Die Study

Although there is a paucity of evidence for some die types and sometimes spotty representation of certain issues within hoard evidence, it is nevertheless possible to begin a die study on Temnian coins. Reverse monograms are unique to an individual coin type and there is no example of a recut reverse die, allowing for consistent type identification (with a few exceptions noted below). The linkages show several distinct production periods containing issues that exist without any connections to the rest of the Temnian series, revealing that Temnian minting activity was fairly irregular and largely done in distinct groupings.

Types and Numbers

Code

dfObvinfo = pd.DataFrame()
dfObvinfo = obvinfochart(mint["temnos"])
pd.set_option('display.max_rows',2000)
dfObvinfo

	number_of_coins	number_of_reverse_dies	average_weight	price_types
obverse_die
Loading... (need help?)

Die Links, sized by number of connections

Code

plt.figure(figsize=(8,16))
pos = nx.bipartite_layout(coinGraph, coinCatdf['obverse'].tolist())
nx.draw(coinGraph,pos, node_size=[v * 200 for v in coinGraphDegree.values()])
nx.draw_networkx_labels(coinGraph,pos, font_size=12)
plt.show()

Coin links as networks

Code

plt.figure(figsize=(8,16))

pos = nx.nx_agraph.graphviz_layout(coinGraph, prog='neato')
nx.draw(coinGraph, pos, node_size=[v * 100 for v in coinGraphDegree.values()])
nx.draw_networkx_labels(coinGraph,pos,font_size=14)
plt.show()

In this view it is much easier to see “clusters” of related types and obverses. This is a basic example; the graph can be further styled to emphasize coin types, reverse dies, or any other aspect of the network. This information can be completely interactive as well; the companion website to this publication offers customizable and browsable networks for each of the mints in the study. Although in its infancy, the approach of treating coin links as networks has far reaching implications. In addition to making information more accessible to a non-specialist audience, we can now combine this network analysis with hoard information and geospatial data to further contextualize minting production.

Code

import networkx as nx
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import plotly.graph_objects as go

# Your existing coinGraph (assuming it's populated)
# coinGraph = ... (Your existing populated graph)

# Using a different layout algorithm (spring_layout)
pos = nx.spring_layout(coinGraph, k=.4)

# Rescaling node sizes within the range of 2 - 20
min_size = 10
max_size = 60

degree_values = dict(coinGraph.degree()).values()
min_degree = min(degree_values)
max_degree = max(degree_values)

scaled_sizes = [
    min_size + (max_size - min_size) * ((degree - min_degree) / (max_degree - min_degree))
    for degree in degree_values
]

# Create nodes
node_trace = go.Scatter(
    x=[],
    y=[],
    text=[],
    mode='markers',
    hoverinfo='text',
    marker=dict(
        showscale=True,
        colorscale='YlGnBu',
        reversescale=True,
        color=[],
        size=scaled_sizes,
        colorbar=dict(
            thickness=15,
            title='Node Connections',
            xanchor='left',
            titleside='right'
        ),
        line=dict(width=2)
    )
)

for node, (x, y) in pos.items():
    node_trace['x'] += tuple([x])
    node_trace['y'] += tuple([y])
    node_info = f'Node: {node}<br># of connections: {coinGraph.degree[node]}'
    node_trace['text'] += tuple([node_info])

# Create edges
edge_trace = go.Scatter(
    x=[],
    y=[],
    line=dict(width=0.5, color='#888'),
    hoverinfo='none',
    mode='lines'
)

for edge in coinGraph.edges():
    x0, y0 = pos[edge[0]]
    x1, y1 = pos[edge[1]]
    edge_trace['x'] += tuple([x0, x1, None])
    edge_trace['y'] += tuple([y0, y1, None])

# Create figure
fig = go.Figure(
    data=[edge_trace, node_trace],
    layout=go.Layout(
        title='Interactive Coin Graph',
        titlefont=dict(size=16),
        showlegend=False,
        hovermode='closest',
        margin=dict(b=20, l=5, r=5, t=40),
        xaxis=dict(showgrid=False, zeroline=False, showticklabels=False),
        yaxis=dict(showgrid=False, zeroline=False, showticklabels=False)
    )
)

fig.show()

Coin links Analysis

Price 1665 stands on its own without any obverse links to other Temnian types or reverse links to different obverses within the type, making a relative chronology of production impossible. There is also inconsistent placement of the oinochoe’s handle on the reverse. On the majority of dies the handle is to the right of the oinochoe, but there is one reverse where the handle is on the left. Present in the Mektepini hoard, Price’s assignment of the type to c. 200 is not affected by Meadows’ proposal to shift the date of Mektepini to 195 (Meadows (2009a), p. 68).

Code

bar_width = .8
coinType = '1666'
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == coinType]
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph(coinType, cleanedList, bar_width, histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

Code

coinType = '1687'
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == coinType]
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph(coinType, cleanedList, .8,  histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

1666 along with two new types present some difficulties. 1666 and 1666-v share an obverse die which is remarkably similar to the obverse for ΑΜ, which strongly suggests that both dies were created by the same engraver. The ΑΜ type has the same lettering in a vertical orientation, minus a vine-tendril, as the horizontal monogram of Price 1684 (which is a drachm and is therefore excluded from this study). The 1666-v type lacks a vine-tendril above the oinochoe but has the same initial character as the monogram for type 1687, although there is nearly a four decade difference in the issues. The linkages and stylistic similarities between 1666, 1666-v, and ΑΜ , along with the one-handled oinochoe on the reverse, make the assignment of both new types to Temnos certain. All of these coins should be seen as near contemporary issues, although further refinement beyond Price’s initial proposal of c. 200 is not possible due to paltry representation in hoard evidence.

166 with a shared link: image from the American Numismatic Society photofile. Type 1666-v: coin 1944.100.31415 from the American Numismatic Society Type AM: coin 1944.100.31416 from the American Numismatic Society

1667, 1669, and 1670, along with two new types share a single obverse die. One of these is found in a single coin, Ariadne Galleries 1981 #114, and is not listed by Price in his catalog of Temnian issues or appear in any subsequent publications as a type issued by the city. The other new type, represented by Monedas Jesus Vico 1998 #67, is comparable to 1669 but has a different control mark under the throne of Zeus. Due to the similarities of the control marks this could be the result of engraver error instead of a purposeful new type. With the obverse die links to the rest of the series the attribution of both of these new types to Temnos is secure, however the dating of the series needs to be adjusted from that given by Price. Following the Gaziantep evidence analyzed by Meadows and Houghton (Meadows and Houghton (2010), p. 181), the down-dating of 1669 from 188-170 to before 160 also requires that 1667, 1670, and the new types be be dated to nearly the same period due to their use of an identical obverse die.

</tr> 

Coin 493, Ariadne Galleries 1981 #114
Coin 1141, Monedas Jesus Vico 1998 #67

In terms of relative chronology, with 1667 and 1669 both present in Gazinatep (and with 1670 missing from the hoards list) it is impossible to use hoard evidence to establish the order of the issues. There are five reverse dies for 1669, and two each for 1667 and 1670, showing by far the heaviest use for the obverse die in the 1669 type. The die appears to show the least wear in the production of 1669, with 1667 exhibiting the most wear and the two new types in the middle, indicating that 1669 was likely produced first. There is a possible die break that is apparent in all 1667 specimens and a few 1669 coins, providing further indication that the new types and 1670 were produced earlier. Further refinement is currently not possible.

Code

coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == '1667']
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == '1669']
coinWeightlist = coinWeightlist + coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == '1670']
coinWeightlist = coinWeightlist + coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph('1667, 1669, 1670', cleanedList, .8,  histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

1668, with only one coin and without any obverse links or presence in any hoards, stands on its own and is impossible to place in any chronological context. Type 1671 has two obverse and three reverse dies which are also separate from any other Temnian types. Similarly, 1672 does not share its single obverse die with any other Temnian coins. The assignment of their internal relative chronology is based on die wear, and with 1671 and 1672 only present in the Tell Kotchek hoard it is only possible to give a terminus ante quem of c. 150 for their minting.

There is a strong case for confusion in differentiating 1673, 1674, and 1675, which may instead represent a single coin type. According to Price, 1673 is found in Babylon 1900 #27 and features a stylized ΑΕ under the throne of Zeus, 1674 should have an open ΔΕ under the throne, following Tell Kotchek #20, and 1675 should have a ΔΕ with a bar under the throne (Price (1991), p. 242; Seyrig (1973), p. 66 #20; Regling (1928), p. 102). The ΔΕ and ΔΕ with a bar monograms are both absent from Regling’s analysis of the Babylonian hoard (Regling (1928), p. 102). Price lists 1675 as originating in the ANS Photo File, and the only possible candidate I was able to locate has the distinctive ΔΕ with a bar monogram. When compared to Tell Kotcheck #20 it is immediately apparent that the ANS Photo File and Tell Kotchek #20 are the same coin. Closer magnification of both images seems to highlight the clear presence of lines within the ΔΕ with a bar, which is characteristic of Price 1675. Furthermore, using the plates from Regling’s publication of the Babylonian coin, what he identified as A stylized ΑΕ appears to look like the ΔΕ with a bar of 1675, with the side “legs” of the stylized ΑΕ missing. Closer examination reveals that the coins all share the same obverse die and the reverses are remarkably similar (with only the placement of the Ε in ΑΛΕΧΑΝΔΡΟΥ relative to the elbow of Zeus revealing the use of different reverse dies). Although these results are far from conclusive, the die links between the issues and the near identical reverse dies strongly point to the possibility that Price 1673, 1674, and 1675 should be considered a single issue unless coins are found which clearly demonstrate otherwise. At the very least, the shared obverse die points to a nearly contemporary production period.

1676 and 1678 share two obverse links with each other and a single link with a new type, with complex, overlapping, and chaotic reverse linkages revealing the use of a die box. All three types were almost certainly in production at nearly the same time, making a relative chronology based on die links difficult. In hoard evidence Price 1678 (with five obverse dies in addition to the two shared with 1676) appears before 1676, beginning with the Babylonia 1900 hoard. Price 1676 is by far the most represented type in this study, and first appears in Khan Cheickhoun and is present in every subsequent hoard with Temnian coins, with the exceptions of Southern Asia Minor 1964 and Ladoceia ad Mare. Some obverse dies developed cracks and other damage which assists in the development of a relative chronology, but the overlapping reverse connections for each obverse die makes such a construction highly speculative.

Code

coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == '1676']
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == '1678']
coinWeightlist = coinWeightlist + coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph('1676, 1678', cleanedList, .8, histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

1679 and 1680 share two obverse die links with 1680 having two dies on its own. One reverse variant in 1680 has ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΟΡΥ in place of ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ, which is certainly engraver error and should not be considered a new type in its own right. The only reverse link between the two obverse dies is of the 1680 type, and the different wear and the development of an obverse crack suggest that 1679 was minted before 1680 in some cases. However, at least one obverse has coins of 1679 and 1680 in production both before and after a die break, showing that both types were minted concurrently. The reuse of dies, along with similar monograms, may suggest that the reverse monograms were more of a stylistic choice than an intentional differentiation in type, perhaps in a similar manner to 1673, 1674, and 1675. Even if this is not the case, both types were certainly produced at the same time. Lorber’s suggestion to date 1679 to before 162 BCE and 1680 slightly later to 162-151/0 is supported by the relative chronology of the die links and needs no further refinement (C. Lorber (2010), p. 154).

Code

coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == '1679']
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == '1680']
coinWeightlist = coinWeightlist + coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph('1679, 1680', cleanedList, .8,  histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

Price 1683 has two obverse dies, sharing one with 1687. This die appears to have some damage above the head of Hercules, which is both present and missing in each type, complicating its use as a chronological marker. As such the production of 1683 and 1687, seems to have occurred at the same time. This shared die has no other reverse connections with 1687, which has a further three obverse dies, one of which lacks any reverse connections to the rest of the series. The majority of the coins in the 1687 type seem to have varying degrees of cracks and other damage on the obverse dies, with only a small number of undamaged coins. This may point to weaker dies, as the number of obverse dies is relatively small for Temnian issues and is not indicative of heavy minting activity. The hoard evidence also does not supply an unambiguous chronology with 1683 and 1687 both appearing for the first time in the Ma’aret en-Numan hoard, with 1683 represented in Demetrius I, Tell Kotchek, and Gazinatep, and 1687 in Babylonia (1900), Demetrius I, Akkar, Tell Kotchek, Anatolia and Gazinatep. There is a further example of 1687 (Münzhandlung Gmbh 148 (1997), #50) that has an obverse die linked to other coins associated with the reconstructed Gazinatep hoard. Although it was excluded in the publication of the hoard, its chronological relation to other coins from commerce used to reconstruct Gazinatep’s contents is striking.

Code

coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == '1683']
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == '1687']
coinWeightlist = coinWeightlist + coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph('1683, 1687', cleanedList, .8,  histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

With only one example, Price 1685 has no obverse connections with other Temnian coins. Also lacking obverse links to other types, 1686 could be split into two types, with the original reverse monogram and a new monogram that reverses the position of Ρ. It is possible that this difference is the result of engraver error, especially as obverse develops a crack and continues production of 1686 after the Ρ coin. 1686 in general shows a relatively orderly production, with only two reverse dies shared between obverses, including the two examples of the Ρ type. The development of cracks in all of the obverse dies provides a fairly firm minting order.

Code

coinType = '1686'
bar_width = .8
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == coinType]
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph(coinType, cleanedList, bar_width, histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

Price 1688 has three unique dies, shares an additional six with 1689 (which has two more unique dies). Together these three types represent one of the most intensive periods of Temnian minting activity and do not share any links with any other types. Some obverses have chaotic reverse links, showing the probable use of a die box. The remainder of the reverse links are largely orderly and are exclusive to one type. Although there are die breaks that developed during the production of the series, the complex overlaps make it difficult to definitively assign a relative chronology to the types. It seems highly likely that all types, were in production at the same time and should be dated to before 162 BCE to correspond with 1689.

Code

coinType = '1688'
bar_width = .8
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == coinType]
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph(coinType, cleanedList, bar_width,  histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

Price 1690, the final issue of Temnian Alexanders, does not share any links with any other Temnian type and is one of the mint’s largest issues, with seven obverse dies. In general the reverse links are so chaotic that the use of a die box is certain, with the relative chronology presented in the catalog largely based on obverse breaks and wear. All of the obverse dies used in the die box with the exception of a single coin found in the ANS Photo File from the Eric von Post Collection in Stockholm are present in Tell Kotchek, the first appearance of the type in hoard evidence.

Code

coinType = '1690'
bar_width = .8
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == coinType]
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph(coinType, cleanedList, bar_width,  histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

Countermarks

Very few Temnain coins have countermarks. There are three different countermarks present on Temnain coins, on 1680, 1676, 1690, and one that is 1688/1689.

The countermark on 1680, featuring a head of Zeus, has no parallels in other Greek coinage. Its presence in the Demetrius I hoard requires that the coutnermark be produced before 151-150, which provides no difficulties with the minting of 1680.

There are two examples of the Priene countermark, ΠΡΙΗ above a Δ , one on 1676 and one on 1688/89. These were published by Regling, who was working under the assumption that Temnian coins dated to c. 190 BCE. Due to the dating of 1688/1689 to before 162, the date of the countermark should be after 162.The lack of a Prinian countermark on 1690 can be explained by the later date of the issue.

The head of Tyche, present on Price 1690, presents a different problem. Metcalf presents Price’s dating od Kyme coins with the same countermarks, who places them to after c. 155 BCE but still within the 150s. However, the presence of the countermark on Price 1690 requires a reassessment of the dating. 1690 was not present in the Demetrius I hoard of c.151-150 but was certainly minted before Tell Kotchek, which was deposited sometime after 150 and no later than 142. The countermark must then originate from within this period, placing it at the earliest 150, but more likely in the 140s.

Hoards, links, and style

Die linkages and hoard reveals complications in the development of Temnian iconography and style. According to Price, there is a significant shift in the reverse imagery of the coinage with the introduction of a vine-tendril above the oinochoe in types 1671-1690 (Price (1991), p. 240–243). The attribution of both reverse types to Temnos has not been questioned, although assignment to the city is almost exclusively based on the similarities of the vine-tendril design to bronze coins produced beginning in the fourth century, second century silver Apollo hemidrachms, and the types found in the Temnos hoard (Le Rider (1974), p. 259; Milne (1914), p. 260). The initial assignment originates with Müller, who bases his arguments on the presence of the one-handled oinochoe on the reverse, observing that it is without parallel in other Greek issues (Müller (1855), p. 240-241). The handles in question shift position often in the early runs of Temnian coinage, at first placed on the right side of the oinochoe in 1665 (with the exception of ANS 1951.90.7), remaining on the left in 1666, then shifts to the left for 1667 and 1668, on the right for 1669, 1670, and their variants, and finally remains on the left for all of the vine-tendril issues.

Hoard evidence further complicates the situation as types without vine-tendrils are a rarity. Type 1665 is present in Mektepini and CH 10, 292, both dated to before 189. The next Temnian coins attested in hoards which are certainly not modern intrusions are in Ma’aret en-Numan, buried before 162 and containing types 1679, 1683, 1686, 1687, and 1689, all of which feature the vine-tendril design. Khan Cheikhoun, Urfa ( although a possible intrusion), Babylonia, 1900, Khan Cheikhoun, Demetrius I, Southern Asia Minor 1964, Akkar, Trabzon, and Beqa’ Valley all only have coins with the vine-tendril design, one coin type without vine-tendrils (1666) appears in Tell Kotchek alongside twelve types of vine-tendril issues. Metcalf’s Anatolia hoard along with Northern Syria 1906 only have vine tendril types, and Gazinatep has one tendril-less type (1665) along with ten tendril-types.

Finally, Kırıkhan, Teffaha, Laodiceia ad Mare, Susa 1933-1934, ’Ain Tab, Bassit, Susa 1947-8 and Media 1923 only have Temnian coins with vine-tendrils. Although it is possible that Temnos first minted the non-tendril design, introduced the tendril design, and then continued to create new coin types without tendrils in limited quantities, it seems most likely that the non-tendril types were produced first, had an extremely limited production run, and did not circulate as broadly as the tendril types. This is supported by the use of only eight obverse dies for non-tendril coins against the fifty-four dies of the vine-tendril types, although non-tendril types had a longer minting period, from c. 200 to before 160, as opposed to before 162 to before 143/2 for vine-tendril issues.

Hoards as Networks

By embracing linked data and digital techniques, die studies like those presented here can serve not only to illuminate questions on a local or regional scale, but can serve as a window into a much larger phenomenon of social, political, and economic networks in the ancient world. By continuing with the numismatics as networks approach, mints and hoards can be viewed as nodes in a much larger network that spanned the Mediterranean region. Through the use of LOD resources, geospatial analysis, and SNA software, hoards can be used to identify communities of mints, their geographic context, and what impact the political upheaval of the Hellenistic period had on the regional economic networks of Anatolia and the Eastern Mediterranean.

Methods

In order to study coin hoards as a network which can be studied and visualized it was necessary to create new tools, data structures, and resources. Coin hoards and mints had to be identified, disambiguated, and given a spatial context. The first step in this process was to identify, quantify, and digitize existing hoard data. The American Numismatic Society already has an excellent digital resource, CoinHoards (http://coinhoards.org/) which is based on the print publication Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards (IGCH). This website is designed to be a component of the larger ancient world LOD community, and offers an excellent API which can be used to query the data. However, the underlying database did not have a method to directly tie each mint and its quantity of coinage to each hoard, which necessitated working directly with the ANS to transform the data into a format that was compatible with the network analysis.

Outside of CoinHoards and the IGCH, the multi-volume Coin Hoards series offers a wealth of hoard information, although in a print format. Digitizing this information required painstaking scanning, OCR software, and meticulous checking and review by hand. The result of this work was that information on over 2,000 additional hoards was added to the data from the IGCH, with a total of 4,976 entries in the hoards database. Some of these entries described the same hoard; these were identified, with the cross-references entered into another database table. An additional table holds the information on the coins found in each hoard; these are sorted by mint, where possible quantified by denomination, material, and type; this table has 25,063 entries. None of these tables should be viewed as definitive; indeed the expectation is that more hoards will be added to the list as they are discovered, identified in commerce, or published in academic literature. This is a “living” resource that can be added to as needed, and as the files are hosted on GitHub they can be edited or expanded with built-in editorial oversight.

After the data was gathered and cleaned, the next step was to associate mints and hoards with spatial data. Pleiades and the ANS have location data for most named mints, so it was a relatively straightforward process to associate the database tables with spatial data. The hoards presented a much larger problem, as many of the places mentioned in the literature have undergone a name change, been absorbed by neighboring communities, abandoned, or otherwise proved impossible to securely locate. In these cases the hoard was assigned to the center point of the next larger containing political unit, such as a county, state, or region. The Recogito tool created by the Pelagios project proved to be an indispensable part of this project, and made it feasible to complete the spatial matching in the allotted timeframe for the project. When this process was completed, .csv versions of the files were sent to the ANS for incorporation into future versions of CoinHoards.

At this point, the cleaned sheets were placed into a PostgreSQL database with the PostGIS and PgRouting extensions, which allow for spatial querying of the underlying data. Networks were constructed by treating the mints and hoards as nodes, with the number of coins of each mint in an individual hoard as the “weight” of a connecting edge. The number of coins was chosen to represent the strength of the connection as many of the entries and publications were unclear as to the denomination and actual physical weight of the coins found in each hoard, and some entries only had vague terminology (like “many”, “few”, and “lots”) to quantify the number of coins from each mint. As data improves, the strength of the connection between a mint and a hoard could be expressed in terms of silver or some kind of value, but for now this investigation is focusing on the raw quantity of coinage. This allowed for the construction of “ego” networks which highlight the number of other mints and hoards associated with any given mint. This process, and the results of the study, is explained below.

Hoards in context

This analysis begins by mapping all mints whose coinage was found alongside Temnos. This is a type of co-location network which assumes that there is some type of meaningful connection represented in hoards. Although the precise nature of this connection and what it exactly signifies may never be known fully, and abundant caution should be used when using hoard evidence to discuss circulation patterns, viewing Aeolian coinage within the context of hoard networks can help to elucidate larger economic and historic trends in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Our first list shows all of the mints and counts from our database that occur with Temnos.

Code

#you can modify the date ranges and the mint to get different hoards
start_date = -200
end_date = -140
buffer = 2

dfEgoHoard = pd.DataFrame()
dfEgoHoard = hoardsEgoDisplay (mint["temnos"], start_date, end_date, buffer)
dfEgoHoard

hoard_id	hoard_title	mint_title	mint_uri	count	location_uri
Loading... (need help?)

This serves as the basis for a network. Of particular interest to this investigation is the composition of communities, or groupings of nodes which have more intense connections to each other than the rest of the graph. This is a quantifiable method for identifying related nodes, in this case mints which may have deep economic and political ties. Like our coin networks above, the results can easily be visualized. In this case, the nodes are sized according to the number of connections, and are colored according to the detected community (with members of the same community sharing a common color).

Code

dfEgoHoardEdge = dfEgoHoard.groupby(['mint_uri', 'hoard_id',]).sum().reset_index()
coinHoardGraph = nx.from_pandas_edgelist(dfEgoHoardEdge, 'mint_uri', 'hoard_id','count')
coinHoardGraphDict = dict(coinHoardGraph.degree)
partition = community.best_partition(coinHoardGraph)
modularity = community.modularity(partition, coinHoardGraph)

colors = [partition[n] for n in coinHoardGraph.nodes()]
my_colors = plt.cm.Set2 # you can select other color pallettes here: https://matplotlib.org/users/colormaps.html
dataframeResults = {}
dataframeResults = createMapDfs(dfEgoHoard, partition, coinHoardGraph, my_colors)

displayCoinEgoHoardGraph (coinHoardGraph, coinHoardGraphDict, 30, 5, 4, .5, 8, 16, dataframeResults['mapDf'], 12)

We can see at a glance the “structure” of the network, or how the more densely packed group in the middle compares to other communities which feature few connections. Unsurprisingly, as Temnos is the “ego”, or conceptual center of the graph, its associated community has a tighter structure with more shared links than the rest of the mints. We can pull out whatever community we want from the graph for further analysis; in this case, we will look at the community surrounding Temnos.

Code

mintUri = 'https://pleiades.stoa.org/places/' + mint["temnos"]
#dataframeResults['mapDf'].dataframeResults['mapDf'][dataframeResults['mapDf']['mint_uri'] == mintUri, 'partition'].iloc[0]
df = dataframeResults['mapDf'].copy()
temnoshoardsdf = dataframeResults['hoardsDf'].copy()

partition = df.loc[df['mint_uri'] == mintUri, 'partition'].iloc[0]

df[df['partition'] == partition]

	mint_uri	partition	color	degree	title	lat	lon
Loading... (need help?)

From this simple analysis, we can see that Temnos has a strong association with Aspendos, Phaselis, Perge, Alabanda, Myrina, and Kyme. The visual evidence of similar die styles suggests that Temnos, Kyme, and Myrina were at the very least using the same engravers during their coin production; their strong association with Temnos in the network suggests that there may be some stronger economic and political connections as well. Indeed these were all communities that may have been “free and autonomous” allies with the Attalid kingdom, but were most likely under some form of political control.

Hoard networks are inherintly spatial, as the minting and hoarding activity had to occur somewhere. As most of the hoards and mints have spatial data, it is a simple matter to transfer the network onto a map.

Code

m = createmapvis()

hoardsinputdf = dataframeResults['mapDf'].copy()
hoardsinputdf['color'] = hoardsinputdf.apply (lambda row: makeNetColor(row, my_colors), axis=1)

hoardsdf = pd.DataFrame()
hoardsfg = folium.FeatureGroup(name='Coin Hoards Network: {mint}'.format(mint = 'temnos' ))
addFeatureGrouptoMap(hoardsinputdf, hoardsfg, 30, 5, 'degree', 'title', m)
#optional labels - not really necessary when the map is interactive
addFeatureLabelstoMap(hoardsinputdf, 'title', m, 5)
m.add_child(folium.LayerControl())
m

Make this Notebook Trusted to load map: File -> Trust Notebook

Mapping the mint/hoard community network provides even more insight into the connectivity of cities in western Anatolia. We can clearly see that Temnos, Cyme, Myrina, Mytilene, and Chios are in close geographic proximity to each other; their inclusion in the same minting “community” is fairly unremarkable. On the other hand, mints which have even larger quantities of coinage in the same hoards, like Perge, Aspendus, and Alabanda are located some distance from Temnos, with many other mints from different “communities” between them. This strongly suggests that factors other than geographic proximity played a significant role in the production and distribution of Aeolian Alexanders. To uncover these trends, we will turn to the historical and political context of Aeolian coinage.

Coins and History

This die study and hoard analysis helps to shed light on the complex history and uncertain political status of Aeolis. Following the battle of Corupedium in 281, the regions of Aeolis and Mysia were nominally under Seleucid suzerainty and there is evidence for subsequent Seleucid minting activity in Aigai, Kyme, Myrina, and Pergamon (Cohen (1995), p. 38-39; Serrati (2007), p. 497; Newell and Society (1941), p. 319-347). In 262 the Attalid ruler Eumenes I broke from the conciliatory policies and dependent status of his uncle and predecessor Philetaerus, openly engaging and defeating the Seleucid king Antiochus I at Sardis and winning de facto independence (Strab 13.4.2; E. V. Hansen (1971), p. 22). Eumenes subsequently extended his control as far as the bay of Cyme, with a boundary stone demarcating the border between Attalid territory and the Aeolian polis of Myrina (E. V. Hansen (1971), p. 23; Engelmann (1976), p. 27). The precise status of Temnos and other poleis in Aeolis at the time is murky, but the region seems to have fallen under Attalid control c.227/228 due to the efforts of Attalos I against Gauls and the presumptive Seleucid monarch Antiochus Hierax (Justin 27.1; E. V. Hansen (1971), p. 33-36).

We can use spatial and network analysis model the changing Attalid kingdom. The seat of Attalid power, Pergamon, is treated as the central node of an ego network, with subject communities connected to it. The probable routes between these communities can be abstracted from Roman roads and navigable waterways, using data produced by the Ancient World Mapping Center, the ORBIS project, the Digital Atlas of Roman and Medieval Civilizations, and Harvard’s WorldMap. Least-cost pathing analysis in the pgRouting software library is used to construc the most likely route covering the shortest distance between each community and Pergamon; each route segment is then styled by the number of total paths that cross it, with more “used” routes represented by wider lines. The same approach was also used to model the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires, with the “egos” as Antioch and Alexandria. THe Allids are in red, the Seleukids in blue, and the Ptolemies in orange.

The result of this approach is a visual abstraction that privileges axes of communication and connectivity instead of the traditional depiction of clearly defined political territory. This visualization captures the often messy political realities of Hellenistic administration, which often depended more on the direct relationship between an monarch and subject communities than a permanent political apparatus.

The situation prior to 188 BCE

Aeolis was likely subsequently reconquered by the Seleucid general and later pretender Achaios, then recaptured by Attalos I in 218 (E. V. Hansen (1971) 40-42). At this time Cyme, Phocaea, and Smyrna came willingly to Attalos, but Aegae and Temnos only sided with the monarch after having been “terrified” into submission by the approach of the Attalid army, revealing that Temnos was not as enthusiastic as some of its Aeolian neighbors at the prospect of reincorporation into the Pergamine kingdom (Plb. 5.77.4: “ἦσαν δ ̓ αἱ τότε μεταθέμεναι πρὸς αὐτὸν πρῶτον μὲν Κύμη καὶ Σμύρνα καὶ Φώκαια: μετὰ δὲ ταύτας Αἰγαιεῖς καὶ Τημνῖται προσεχώρησαν, καταπλαγέντες τὴν ἔφοδον.”). Temnos probably fell from Attalid control and reverted back to Seleucid domination by 197 as a result of the campaigns of Antiochos III (r. 223 – 187) in western Asia Minor. This success was shortlived: conflict soon erupted between Antiochus and Rome, leading to the Syrian War from 192-190 BCE. The Attalids, long allies of Rome, fought against the Seleucids with other independent communities, and the patchwork alliance defeated Antiochus for good at the battle of Magnesia in 190. (Baronowski (1991), p. 450; Sherwin-White (1993), p. 152; Ma (1999), p. 143)

The subsequent Peace of Apamea, largely dictated by Rome, settled the political situation and permanently broke Seleucid political power western Anatolia, with Aeolis falling under the Attalid sphere of influence until the kingdom’s dissolution in 133. Rome became the final arbiter in the bitter disagreement between the Attalids and their former ally Rhodes over the settlement of former Seleucid territory and the political status of the region’s poleis (McDonald (1967), p. 1; hansenAttalidsPergamon21971 95ff.). The Roman consul Gnaeus Manlius Vulso finalized the political settlement: cites which supported Rome were to remain free from tribute, tribute cities which paid Attalos were now to pay Eumenes II, and any cities that joined Antiochos were subject to Eumenes (Plb. 21.45, Liv. 38.39). According to Polybius, newly autonomous cities were Clazomene, Cyme, Drymussa, Mylasa, and the Colophonians in Notium. Rhodes won Lycia and Caria south of the Meander except Telmessus while Eumenes gained control over the European Chersonese, Lysimachia, Heleespontic Phrygia, Greater Phyrgia, Part of Mysia, Lycaonia, the Milyas, Lydia, Tralles, Ephesus, and Telmessus. Phocaea’s ancient constitution and former territory were restored to the city, but this does not imply that it was autonomous and in all likelihood it was under the domination of the Attalids (E. V. Hansen (1971), p.95–96; Ma (1999), p. 282-283).

Although the precise number of subject poleis is a matter of debate, the treaty of Apamea certainly altered the constitutional basis of the Attalid kingdom, offsetting a substantial increase in royal territory and the number of allied and dependent poleis, coupled with a new reliance upon the benefaction of Rome as the guaranteer of Attalid power. In this new political reality, Eumenes faced the difficult problem of incorporating large regions which were formerly under the control of the Seleucids into his kingdom while theoretically respecting the Greek cities’ traditional “freedom and autonomy”. Eumenes would have to tread carefully if he was to take advantage of his new position without unduly offending Rome or the newly independent Greek cities which lay along critical axes of communication.

Anatolia after 188 BCE, including autonomus cities

Coins and politics

One significant aspect to Eumenes’ strategy was his monetary policy, which changed dramatically with the introduction of cistophoroic coins (Howgego (1995), p. 54; Kosmetatou (2005), p. 164). Cistophoroi were lighter than the Attic standard and were issued throughout the Attalid kingdom, becoming the chief means of monetary exchange in Asia Minor for almost three centuries (Kleiner and Noe (1977), p. 10). Interestingly, cistophoroi shared some design elements with civic and Alexander issues common to Asia Minor and Temnos, specifically the ivy-wreath which was featured on the obverse. The exact history and nature of the cistophoroi remains a matter of contention and obscurity, including if the change was primarily a propagandistic or monetary decision and the precise timeframe of their production (Harl (1991), p. 294). Scholars date their first issue variably from 200 or earlier, the 190s, 175, and even after 133, while a recent examination of the evidence offers a revised date of 168-133 (Kleiner and Noe (1977), p. 15; Harl (1991), p. 268; Mørkholm, Grierson, and Westermark (1991), p. 172-173; Le Rider (2001), p. 37; Meadows (2013), p. 34). What is certain is that cistophoroi were produced by a number of cities, perhaps with some level of centralization and oversight from Pergamon. These coins, due in a large part to their lighter weight than their Attic counterparts, rarely circulated outside of areas under direct political control of the dynasty (Howgego (1995), p. 54-55).

coin 1944.100.31424 from the American Numismatic Society

The production of cistophoroi was far from universal in the regions within and surrounding the Attalid Kingdom. The minting of Alexanders continued unabated in some Aeolian, Carian, and Pamphylian cities, including Cyme, Myrina, Alabanda, Aspendus, and Phaselis (Le Rider (1989), p. 178; C. C. Lorber and Hoover (2003), p. 63; Meadows (2009a), p. 77-78; Meadows (2013), p. 35). Temnos was also also excluded from the imposition of cistophoric production and continued to mint Alexanders on the reduced Attic standard, although the polis was certainly in territory nominally in the Attalid sphere of influence after 188 (Meadows (2013), p. 30-31; Welles (1934), p. #48). Temnian minting activity primarily occurs within the reigns of the Seleucid king Antiochos III and the Attalid monarchs Eumenes II (r. 197-159) and Attalos II (r. 159-138), a period that began with the polis firmly within Seleucid, not Attalid, control (Allen (1983), p. 181). The Mektepini hoard proves that the polis began minting Alexanders prior to the battle of Magnesia and nearly concurrently with the campaigns of Antiochos III, especially if the proposed dating of 195 for the hoard is correct (Le Rider (1974), p. 259; Meadows (2009a), p. 68). This places Temnian minting activity alongside other regional Seleucid mints which had a long history of Alexander-type production, which continued well into the Attalid domination of the area (Baronowski (1991), p. 450 ff.).

Unfortunately, the precise political status of Temnos, Myrina, and Kyme is not made explicit by their exclusion from the cistophoric system, Polybius and Livy do not specifically mention the polis in the treaty of Apamea, and the epigraphical evidence confuses the situation even further. There is an extremely fragmentary inscription dated to 197-160/159 in which Eumenes II granted Temnos certain subsidies, which could have included provisions for temples and civic administration (SEG 37.1016; SEG 38.1264; SEG 39 133). Mentioned early in the document is the action of συντάξαντα to an unspecified party (possibly a payment of a tax or other assessment), which Wells presumes was paid to Eumenes II (Welles (1934), p. 197). Although Temnos received support from Eumenes, it was not necessary for the polis to have been a royal dependent, as benefactions and subsidies were a regular part of Eumenes’ foreign policy and do not in and of themselves denote exclusive political control (Welles (1934), p. 196). Even if the σύνταξις mentioned in the decree was a tribute or tax, Temnos could still have had wide latitude in its local administration and foreign affairs, as conceptions of freedom and autonomy (along with required taxes and obligations to a monarch) were extremely elastic in the Hellenistic world (Gruen (1984), p. 152). The treaty of Apamea as related by Polybius highlights such an ambiguity, as the terms included “…however many of the autonomous poleis that previously paid tribute to Antiochos…” who stayed loyal to Rome were free from paying tribute in the future (Plb. 21.46: “…ὅσαι μὲν τῶν αὐτονόμων πόλεων πρότερον ὑπετέλουν Ἀντιόχῳ φόρον…”). This reveals that, at least prior to 188, a polis could be in theory “autonomous” yet still owe tribute or other financial support to a monarch. A polis like Temnos could then owe σύνταξις, or some other fiscal obligation, yet still enjoy a measure of autonomy.

Given the status of Aeolis as a Seleucid possession after 197, it is perhaps most likely that the Temnos would only owe a σύνταξις and receive direct subsides from the Attalids after the peace of Apemea in 188. Therefore the decree should be placed in the period from 188 – 160/159, following the withdraw of direct Seleucid control in the region. Magie argued that the (restored) mention of πρ[ε]σβ[ευταί] in the decree parallels the terminology deployed by autonomous poleis which is further possible evidence that Temnos was not a completely subject community (Magie (1950), p. 958–959 n. 75). Even if this evidence does not convince, the decree itself does not provide definitive proof that Temnos was a subject community of the Attalid monarchy.

The importance of another inscription resolving a war between Temnos and Clazomenae to the political status of Temnos should not be minimized. Written c. 200-150, this document records the decisions of the judges of Cnidus to settle a recent conflict between the two poleis (SEG 29.1130 bis A and B = P. Herrmann, MDAI(I ) 29 (1979) pp. 239-71 = Piejko, MDAI(I ) 36 (1986) pp. 95-97; SEG 36.1040; Robert, REG 1980, 438; ). Unfortunately, the lack of precise dating in the decree leads to significant difficulties in elucidating the political status of the belligerents and the judges. If the war occurred prior to the peace of Apamea in 188, then it could have been associated with the reconquest of Antiochos III in 197 and a possible general situation of unrest, yet the lack of any royal involvement in such a situation would be puzzling. The war could also have occurred between 197 and the battle of Magnesia in 190, although that would require a conflict between two recently conquered poleis and arbitration by a third without any Seleucid oversight, an unlikely event in a region as volatile and prized as Aeolis. A further complication is that Clazomenae was certainly a supporter of the Attalids, receiving autonomy after 188, and Cnidus seems to have been in a similar situation, making them less likely candidates for a hands-off approach from the Seleucid Empire (Plb. 21.45).

A much more compelling case can be made by dating the war to the period following the peace of Apamea. Entirely absent from the decree is the mention of any royal institutions, governors, or other officials from either the Seleucids or Attalids. It is unlikely that Antiochos III would grant autonomy and remain completely disinterested in armed conflict in the volatile region of Aeolis, not least due to its geographic proximity to Pergamum. If the war occurred after 188, then the lack of Attalid officials and the status of Cnidus as arbiter instead of a royal official or commission can be easily explained if Temnos, much like Clazomenae (and likely Cnidus), was autonomous at the time.

There has also been a recent proposal that an isolated issue of Clazomenian coinage has a connection to this conflict, presumably as a method to fund expenditures related to the war effort and paralleling 4th century minting activity by the same city (Meadows (2009b), p. 254). As a result of this association, the conflict could be be more precisely dated to 170-151, well after the Peace of Apamea and the expansion of the Attalid kingdom. The very significant Temnian issues of types 1688 and 1689, along with 1679 and 1680, also date to this period and together represent one of the largest groups of obverse dies in the series. It is highly attractive to see these types as financing for the war and serving a parallel purpose to the issues of Clazomenae at the same time. The largest Temnian production, represented by 1676 and 1678, occur near the end of this timeframe and could have some connection to the war, although they are more likely a response to the conflict against Prusias II, which is discussed below.

There is a possibility for further refinement in the chronology of this war due to the Temnian charge, dismissed by the Cnidian judges, that Clazomenians shut themselves into a temple and burial ground which was not subject to Clazomenae (and therefore presumably under Temnian control)(SEG 29.1130: “κρίνομες δὲ καὶ ὑπὲρ τ[οῦ ἐγ]|[κλήμ]ατος οὗ̣ ἐνεκάλεσαν Τημνῖται Κλαζομενίοις ὑπὲρ τ[οῦ τε]|[μ]έ[ν] oυς καὶ τᾶν ταφᾶν μὴ ἐνόχους Κλαζομενίους τοῖς ἐγ[κεκλη]|[ματ]ος….”). In 156 Prusias II of Bithynia invaded the Attalid kingdom, although it was not until the following year that Attalos finally secured Roman consent to resist the attack (E. V. Hansen (1971), p. 125-128; Oakley (1982), p. 14). As part of this conflict, the temple of Apollo Cynneius near or in Temnos was despoiled and destroyed by Pruisias in 155 (Plb. 32.15: “ὁμοίως καὶ τὸ τοῦ Κυννείου Ἀπόλλωνος τέμενος τὸ περὶ Τῆμνον οὐ μόνον ἐσύλησεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ πυρὶ διέφθειρεν”). The precise geographical relationship of the temple to Temnos seems to be irrecoverable (Polybius merely mentions that the temenos of the temple is near or at Temnos), and there are no further mentions of the location in literature. Although it is impossible to firmly associate or differentiate the temenos of the Clazomenian conflict and the temple of Apollo Cynneius, the central importance of a temple to both these events is striking. The destruction wrought by Prusisas against the allies of the Attalids seems general and would have likely included a temple that was capable (at least theoretically) of being captured and exploited by a lesser power like Clazomenae. It is therefore highly probable that the conflict with Clazomenae preceded the war against Prusias, unless Temnos rebuilt the temple after 155, entered into an intense conflict with a neighboring community, and then submitted to arbitration prior to 150, which is an extremely unlikely chronology for these events.

The aftermath of the war against Prusias provides some further insight into Temnian autonomy and minting activity. Polybius discusses the indemnities imposed on Prusias II, by which the cities of Aegae, Cyme, Heracleia, and Methymna were given a hundred talents in compensation for the destruction caused by the monarch in addition to the twenty ships, five hundred talents, and the repatriation of any captured territory directly to Attalos (Plb. 33.13: “διορθώσασθαι δὲ Προυσίαν καὶ τὴν καταφθορὰν τῆς χώρας τῆς τε Μηθυμναίων καὶ τῶν Αἰγαιέων καὶ τῆς Κυμαίων καὶ Ἡρακλειωτῶν, ἑκατὸν τάλαντα δόντα τοῖς προειρημένοις”). Some modern commentators have taken this passage to mean that cities that were attacked and were not singled out for specific reparations, such as Temnos, were therefore subject to the Attalids since Polybius did not mention their individual compensation from Prusias as part of the treaty’s terms (Meyer (1925), p. 156; Allen (1983), p. 99).

This interpretation is not without significant problems, as this portion of Polybius is extremely fragmentary and the author did not always record all aspects or clauses of treaties throughout his work (Walbank (2002), p. 23). The war is also of secondary importance to Polybius, as the section is mostly concerned with the moral failings and impiety of Prusias II instead of a local conflict that only peripherally involves Greek and Roman interaction. Furthermore, the heaviest period of Temnian coinage, the production of types 1676 and 1678, is datable to the shortly before 151/0, a period immediately following the conflict. This production could easily have been the result of an influx of sliver from an indemnity to Temnos which could be part of what was given to Aegae, Cyme, Heracleia, and Methymna, or otherwise not recorded by Polybius and part of a rebuilding effort following the war.

Even if Temnos was technically a subject city immediately following Apamea, the freedom of action revealed in the war against Clazomenae and the minting activity following the war against Prusias supports the contention that Temnos was autonomous before 162. This autonomy did not mean that Temnos and the Attalids did not foster commercial, economic, religious, and other connections, or that Temnos did not follow the political lead of the Attalid monarchy. The Attalids could not readily use cistophoroi for diplomatic or military means outside of their territory due to the overvalued and underweight nature of those issues, so they were largely reliant upon “free” cities to produce coins which were suitable for foreign consumption (Hoover and MacDonald (1999–2000), p. 115). Such currency could be the result of taxation, direct payments, or as the result of general economic exchange, especially if the Attalid economic system was as open as recent scholarship suggests (Meadows (2013), p. 34–37).

The issues of Price 1687, 1689, 1688, 1681, 1680, 1679, 1676, 1678, 1680, and 1690, in addition to their relevance to Temnos itself, illustrate this phenomenon. The quantity of minting activity and the distribution of hoards may suggest some association with the intrigues of Attalos II against Demetrius I Soter, the son of Seleucus IV Philopator. When the Seleucid monarch Antiochos IV died in 164/163 Demitrius quickly took advantage of the situation by staking his claim to the Seleucid throne and executing Antiochos V, the son of Antiochos IV (E. V. Hansen (1971), p. 125; 135). Eumenes II threw his support behind a certain Alexander I Balas in response, who Eumenes brought forward in 159 as a son of Antiochous IV Epiphanes and promoted this claim directly to the Roman senate. In 153 /152 Alexander Balas invaded Syria from Anatolia at the head of a mercenary army primarily drawn from Attalid and Roman territories along with limited aid from Egypt and Cappadocia. Winning control over the Seleucid kingdom by 150, Alexander’s reign was short-lived. He was overthrown by Demetrius I, losing the kingdom and his life in 145 (Plb. 3.5.3; 33.15.1-3; 33.18; Strab. 13.4.2; Justin 35.1.6-9).

The coinage of Temnos and other poleis in Attalid Asia Minor may have some relation to these events. Temnian coinage is found in Urfa, Babylonia, 1900, Khan Cheikhoun, “Demetrius I”, Southern Asia Minor (1964), Akkar, Trabzon, Beqa’ Valley, Tell Kotchek, Anatolia (1994), Syria, Gazinatep, and Kırıkhan hoards, all of which date to this period and are within the same general geographic proximity as the conflict between Alexander I Balas and Demitrius. If we return to our visualization of political networks, and perform a similar task connecting Aeolian mints with known hoards, we can see a clear flow of coinage into this volatile region. Again it must be stressed that this approach does not claim that silver went directly from the mints to the hoarding locations, but it merely suggests some portion of mint production, by whatever intermediate mechanisms, found its way into the region. When compared with our previously “idealized” political network diagrams, this reinforces the importance of pre-exsisting economic networks to the quasi-autonomous poleis of Asia Minor. Although the Seleucid Empire no longer controlled the region, it appears as if the economic networks forged under its hegemony were still operational under the new political reality. We can visualize the “flow” of some of these relationships by creating spatial networks between the mints of Aeolis and hoards much like we did for subject communities to an imperial capital.

Aeolian Mints, hoards, and political networks, 160 - 138 BCE

Code

temnoshoardsdf

	mint_uri	title	lat	lon	partition	color	degree
Loading... (need help?)

The extensive Temnian minting during the time, especially the very large production of type 1690, could have been an extremely beneficial resource for the Attalids to draw upon in support of their own political projects. One attractive possibility for Temnian coins was their use as a medium to pay mercenaries, as soldiers for hire would presumably want some form of wealth that was transferable outside of the Attalid kingdom (Le Rider (1989), p. 179). Such a consideration is clearly shown in an earlier mutiny of mercenaries at Philateria and Attalea against the Attalid monarch Eumenes I (r. 263-241) (OGIS 226). As part of a compact ending the disturbance, Eumenes swore to provide his rioting troops with fixed prices for food, back pay, and the ability for a discharged solider to “take his belongings out [of the kingdom] untaxed” (“… ἀτελὴς ἔστω ἐξάγων τὰ αὑτοῦ ὑπάρχοντα”), which speaks to the desire of mercenaries in Attalid service to have some form of moveable wealth or property. Even if the mercenaries enrolled to support Alexander Balas were interested in permanent settlement instead of cash and booty, currency like Temnian Alexanders would be preferable as a means of payment to forces in Seleucid territories as opposed to cistophoroi that only circulated within the Attalid kingdom. Such a use has already been posited for the issues of Myrina and the coinage of Dionysiac artists, and it is not much of a stretch to consider the intensive production of Temnos at the same period and in the same geographic area in a similar light (Hoover and MacDonald (1999–2000), p. 116; C. C. Lorber and Hoover (2003), p. 67).

Temnian Alexander production, at least in the major issues, could serve both the needs of the polis and compliment Attalid foreign policy in the east. It seems likely that Temnian autonomy was not grossly infringed upon by the Attalid kingdom, and the production of tetradrachms was a mutually beneficial arrangement where Temnian minting activity could be consumed by the Attalids and their allies and then used as a currency that would be acceptable to a broader constituency than regional and overvalued cistophoic coins. Although circulation patterns and the alignment of Temnian coinage with Attalid political objectives could be construed as an indicator of subordinate status, the literary record, inscriptions, and minting activity taken together strongly suggests that Temnos was autonomous in the same manner as other polies in Aeolis and Western Anatolia.

Despite falling under direct Attalid control after 188, Pamphylian mints also produced Alexander tetradrachms nearly contemporary with Temnos. Although there has not been a die study on the Alexanders of Aspendus, it appears that production of the coinage stopped in 185/184, certainly overlapping with Price 1665 and possibly other non-tendril types as well. The coinage of Phaselis seems to have ended production in 181/0, which, like the production of Aspendus, corresponds with Price 1666 and possibly other non-tendril types from Temnos (Meadows (2009a), p. 78-79). Carrian mints also produced Alexander coinage. Although no proper die study of Alabandan Alexanders has been attempted, minting of the type seems to have occurred from c. 185 – 167, during the supremacy of Rhodes in Caria. These dates correspond with Temnian activity, although some of the more common Temnian types (1676, 1678 and 1690) may have been created after Alabanda switched to an autonomous design sometime before before 140 BCE (Waggoner (1989), p. 286).

Further contemporary minting of Alexanders occurred in Ionia. Production of Alexanders at Chios was separated into four distinct periods, with 5 obverse dies in period 1 (280-270), 25 obverse dies in period 2 (270-220), 14 in period 3 (202/1 – 190), and 33 in period 4 (190 – 160) (Bauslaugh (1979), p. 2–29). The production of Temnos at the same time, excluding Price 1690 which postdates this period, was 55 obverse dies to the 33 known at Chios. Alexanders from Perge, ending production c. 191/0 (Meadows (2009a), p. 77), evidently had a long circulation period and the presence of these coins alongside Temnos in hoards speaks more for a broader distribution than any political or historical reason.

Caution should be taken in reading too much into the choice of a civic design over Alexanders, as it has been argued that such a shift could be attributed more to fashion and not indicative of a historical impetus (Oakley (1982), p. 20). Furthermore, the distribution of the coinage into Syria after the 170s is not necessarily the part of a direct payment of a minting polis and may have involved prior distributive or acquisition by a third party (Price (1991), p. 241). Unfortunately, the paucity of formal die studies for many of the civic Alexander types makes direct comparisons to the scale of Temnian minting activity currently impossible. However, the application of some of the tools and methodologies presented in this study could greatly aid in the quantification and analysis of this coinage; if a similar approach is carried out in other die studies, using the same linked open data formats and principles, then a much clearer picture of Anatolian, if not Mediterranean, coinage is possible.

Conclusion

Temnian minting activity was sporadic, with distinct groupings of production which often contained more than one reverse type. The dating of 1667, 1670, and 1688 should be adjusted due to the obverse die linkages. More attention needs to be focused on the possible telescoping of 1673, 1674, and 1675 as a single type, unless definitive evidence to the contrary surfaces. The periods of most intensive production (by obverse dies) adhere closely to conflicts between Temnos and its neighbors, along with Attalid intrigues and the extensive internal turmoil within the Seleucid Empire. The historical context of Temnian minting activity, the lack of Temnian cistophoroi, and the political status of Aeolis in general strongly suggests that Temnos was an autonomous polis which produced currency destined for consumption and distribution external to the Attalid kingdom with an interest towards “international” acceptance. The presence of many other cities with similar minting activity reveals that Attalid territories, along with poleis in the Attalid sphere of influence, were not participants in a closed monetary system but were instead part of a broad patchwork of regional, autonomous, civic, and royal coinages that provided different functions and benefits in a largely mutually beneficial manner to the Attalids and the smaller civic institutions of Asia Minor.

Appendex 1: Alexanders of Kyme and Myrina

Myrina appears to have minted Alexanders from c. 215 to c.170, ceasing before the Latikia hoard, which Mattingly dates to c. 160 (Mattingly (2004), p. 35). Kymian Alexanders seem to have been produced from 215 to slightly before 170 with the introduction of magistrates’ names on the reverse following the declaration of autonomy after the peace of Apamea. The polis later switched to autonomous wreathed coinage after 154, possibly as a response to silver from the indemnities paid by Prusias II (Price (1991), p. 237). Therefore, both poleis seemed to stop production before the Temnian shift to vine-tendril design, with Temnian minting activity lasting approximately fifteen years longer than the other mints.

The number of coins in each of these studies is far less than the coins uncovered from Temnos. Although the extensive library of auction catalogs and fixed price lists in the American Numismatic Society was consulted, there are still some sources which would have been useful for this study which are currently inaccessible due to the global pandemic. However, as this is a database driven project, new coins can easily be added, cataloged, and analyzed, which may change some of the preliminary findings below.

By the Numbers: Die links, weights, and hoards

Myrina

Code

coinCatdf = pd.DataFrame()
coinCatdf = coinCatalogWorking(mint["myrina"])

coinGraph = nx.from_pandas_edgelist(coinCatdf, source='obverse', target='type')
coinGraphDegree = dict(coinGraph.degree)
coinCatdf

id	type	obverse	reverse	weight	rotation	size	title
Loading... (need help?)

Code

dfObvinfo = pd.DataFrame()
dfObvinfo = obvinfochart(mint["myrina"])
pd.set_option('display.max_rows',2000)
dfObvinfo

	number_of_coins	number_of_reverse_dies	average_weight	price_types
obverse_die
Loading... (need help?)

Code

typemeandf = coinCatdf.groupby(['type'])['weight'].mean().copy()
makeweightgraph(typemeandf, 22, "Average Coin Weights", "Type", "Weight (g)", 12, .2)

Code

plt.figure(figsize=(8,16))
pos = nx.bipartite_layout(coinGraph, coinCatdf['obverse'].tolist())
nx.draw(coinGraph,pos, node_size=[v * 200 for v in coinGraphDegree.values()])
nx.draw_networkx_labels(coinGraph,pos, font_size=12)
plt.show()

Code

plt.figure(figsize=(8,16))

pos = nx.nx_agraph.graphviz_layout(coinGraph, prog='neato')
nx.draw(coinGraph, pos, node_size=[v * 100 for v in coinGraphDegree.values()])
nx.draw_networkx_labels(coinGraph,pos,font_size=14)
plt.show()

Code

bar_width = .8
coinType = 'Ε type'
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == coinType]
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph(coinType, cleanedList, bar_width, histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

Code

bar_width = .8
coinType = '1648'
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == coinType]
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph(coinType, cleanedList, bar_width, histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

Code

bar_width = .8
coinType = '1649'
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == coinType]
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph(coinType, cleanedList, bar_width, histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

Code

bar_width = .8
coinType = '1650'
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == coinType]
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph(coinType, cleanedList, bar_width, histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

Code

bar_width = .8
coinType = '1652'
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == coinType]
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph(coinType, cleanedList, bar_width, histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

Code

bar_width = .8
coinType = '1659'
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == coinType]
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph(coinType, cleanedList, bar_width, histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

Code

bar_width = .8
coinType = '1660'
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == coinType]
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph(coinType, cleanedList, bar_width, histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

Code

bar_width = .8
coinType = '1663'
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == coinType]
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph(coinType, cleanedList, bar_width, histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

Code

bar_width = .8
coinType = '1664'
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == coinType]
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph(coinType, cleanedList, bar_width, histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

Kyme

Code

coinCatdf = pd.DataFrame()
coinCatdf = coinCatalogWorking(mint["kyme"])

coinGraph = nx.from_pandas_edgelist(coinCatdf, source='obverse', target='type')
coinGraphDegree = dict(coinGraph.degree)
coinCatdf

id	type	obverse	reverse	weight	rotation	size	title
Loading... (need help?)

Code

dfObvinfo = pd.DataFrame()
dfObvinfo = obvinfochart(mint["kyme"])
pd.set_option('display.max_rows',2000)
dfObvinfo

	number_of_coins	number_of_reverse_dies	average_weight	price_types
obverse_die
Loading... (need help?)

Code

typemeandf = coinCatdf.groupby(['type'])['weight'].mean().copy()
makeweightgraph(typemeandf, 22, "Average Coin Weights", "Type", "Weight (g)", 12, .2)

Code

plt.figure(figsize=(8,16))
pos = nx.bipartite_layout(coinGraph, coinCatdf['obverse'].tolist())
nx.draw(coinGraph,pos, node_size=[v * 200 for v in coinGraphDegree.values()])
nx.draw_networkx_labels(coinGraph,pos, font_size=12)
plt.show()

Code

plt.figure(figsize=(8,16))

pos = nx.nx_agraph.graphviz_layout(coinGraph, prog='neato')
nx.draw(coinGraph, pos, node_size=[v * 100 for v in coinGraphDegree.values()])
nx.draw_networkx_labels(coinGraph,pos,font_size=14)
plt.show()

Code

dfObvinfo = pd.DataFrame()
dfObvinfo = obvinfochart(mint["kyme"])
pd.set_option('display.max_rows',2000)
dfObvinfo

	number_of_coins	number_of_reverse_dies	average_weight	price_types
obverse_die
Loading... (need help?)

Code

bar_width = .8
coinType = '1612'
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == coinType]
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph(coinType, cleanedList, bar_width, histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

Code

bar_width = .8
coinType = '1613'
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == coinType]
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph(coinType, cleanedList, bar_width, histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

Code

bar_width = .8
coinType = '1614'
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == coinType]
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph(coinType, cleanedList, bar_width, histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

Code

bar_width = .8
coinType = '1617'
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == coinType]
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph(coinType, cleanedList, bar_width, histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

Code

bar_width = .8
coinType = '1622'
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == coinType]
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph(coinType, cleanedList, bar_width, histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

Code

bar_width = .8
coinType = '1628'
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == coinType]
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph(coinType, cleanedList, bar_width, histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

Code

bar_width = .8
coinType = '1632'
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == coinType]
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph(coinType, cleanedList, bar_width, histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

Code

bar_width = .8
coinType = '1633'
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == coinType]
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph(coinType, cleanedList, bar_width, histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

Code

bar_width = .8
coinType = '1635'
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == coinType]
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph(coinType, cleanedList, bar_width, histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

Code

bar_width = .8
coinType = '1637'
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == coinType]
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph(coinType, cleanedList, bar_width, histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

Code

bar_width = .8
coinType = '1638'
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == coinType]
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph(coinType, cleanedList, bar_width, histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

Code

bar_width = .8
coinType = '1639'
coinWeightDf = coinCatdf.loc[coinCatdf['type'] == coinType]
coinWeightlist = coinWeightDf['weight'].tolist()
cleanedList = [x for x in coinWeightlist if str(x) != 'nan']

maketypeweightgraph(coinType, cleanedList, bar_width, histogramSizes['x'],histogramSizes['y'])

Preliminary Assessment

Although the number of coins in each of these studies is far less than Temnian issues, an analysis of their production and style further illuminates economic and social connectivity in Aeolis. For both mints production seems to occur in specific “groups”, with only a few indications of die boxes or shared obverse dies between types. Weights form Myrina remain remarkably consistent, while Kymian coins seem to enter a period of lighter weights until eventually trending upwards again.

What is extremely interesting is the similarities in style between Temnos, Myrina, and Kyme. Despite the apparent difference in production times, a visual analysis of the obverse dies suggests that the same hand created dies for several different issues for each mint. Due to the short run of the Alexanders and the introduction of civic coinage in Myina and Kyme, it seems unlikely that there was a centralized minting authority which coordinated styles and craftspeople to create the dies. It is more probable that the die engravers operated regionally, selling their services to whatever mint had need of their expertise at that time. Further die studies of other mints, especially ones that are in the same hoard “community”, will be necessary to explore these connections further.

Coin 1446 from Kyme Coin 583 From Myrina

Appendex 2: Further Studies in Hoard Networks

Aeolian networks were not the only hoard linkages created for this project; all of the hoards in the IGCH and the Coin Hoards series were studied as a network, with different communities and time periods represented on a map. Due to the limitations of jupyter notebooks these can not be displayed in an interactive manner here; an animated map is provided below that shows the “flows” of coinage from mints (circles) to hoards (squares) from ~700 BCE to ~300 CE.

This represents first steps in considering the entirety of coin hoards and minting activity as a spatial-temporal network. As more data is collected this process can be refined, perhaps by average weights for each denomination type and the inclusion of surveys, excavations, and single finds data. The routes themselves can be improved with further data from the ORBIS cost model, probable travel paths in the Indian ocean, and further development of political gazetteers. Although this particular project focuses on ancient coinage, there are few limitations to the applicability of this approach to other historical phenomena, including literary, social, political, and religious networks.

Bibliography

Allen, R. E. 1983. The Attalid Kingdom: A Constitutional History. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Baronowski, Donald W. 1991. “The Status of the Greek Cities of Asia Minor After 190 B.C.” Hermes 119 (4): 450–63. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4476840.

Bauslaugh, Robert. 1979. “The Posthumous Alexander Coinage of Chios.” American Numismatic Society. Museum Notes, 1–45.

Cohen, Getzel M. 1995. The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Dmitriev, Sviatoslav. 2005. City Government in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Elayi, J. 1999. “Un Trésor de Tétradrachmes Aux Types d’Alexandre Trouvé Dans La Beqa’.” In Travaux de Numismatique Grecque Offerts à Georges Le Rider, p. 135–138 and pl. 11. London: Spink.

Engelmann, Helmut. 1976. Die Inschriften von Kyme. Bonn: Habelt.

Gruen, Erich S. 1984. The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hansen, Esther Violet. 1971. The Attalids of Pergamon². Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Hansen, Mogens Herman, Thomas Heine Nielsen, Danmarks Grundforskningsfond., and Københavns universitet. Polis centret. 2004. An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.

Harl, Kenneth W. 1991. “Livy and the Date of the Introduction of the Cistophoric Tetradrachma.” Classical Antiquity 10 (2): 268–97. https://doi.org/10.2307/25010953.

Hoover, Oliver., and D. MacDonald. 1999–2000. “Syrian Imitations of New Style Athenian Tetradrachms Struck Over Myrina.” Berytus 44: 109–17.

Howgego, C. J. 1995. Ancient History from Coins. Approaching the Ancient World. London; New York: Routledge.

Kennedy, George Alexander. 1994. A New History of Classical Rhetoric. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Kleiner, Fred S., and Sydney P. Noe. 1977. The Early Cistophoric Coinage. Numismatic Studies 14. New York: American Numismatic Society.

Kosmetatou, Elizabeth. 2005. “The Attalids of Pergamon.” In A Companion to the Hellenistic World, edited by Andrew Erskine, 159–74. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Oxford ; Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. Lt.

Le Rider, Georges. 1974. “Numismatique grecque.” École pratique des hautes études. 4e section, Sciences historiques et philologiques, 251–60. http://www.persee.fr/web/ouvrages/home/prescript/article/ephe_0000-0001_1973_num_1_1_5864.

———. 1989. “La politique monétaire du Royaume de Pergame après 188.” Journ. Sav, 163–90. http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/jds_0021-8103_1989_num_3_1_1525.

———. 2001. “Sur un aspect du comportement monétaire des villes libres d’Asie Mineure occidentale au II^e siècle : leurs émissions de tétradrachmes de poids attique frappées entre 188 et c. 140.” In Les cités d’Asie Mineure occidentale au II^e siècle a.C., 37–63. Bordeaux: Ausonius Publications.

Lorber, C. C, and O. D Hoover. 2003. “An Unpublished Tetradrachm Issued by the Artists of Dionysos.” Numismatic Chronicle, no. 163: 59–68.

Lorber, Catherine. 2010. “Commerce ("Demetrius I" Hoard), 2003 (CH 10.301).” In Coin Hoards Volume X, Greek Hoards, 153–72. New York; London: American Numismatic Society, London ; Royal Numismatic Society.

Ma, John. 1999. Antiochus III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor. London; New York: Oxford University Press.

Magie, David. 1950. Roman Rule in Asia Minor, to the End of the Third Century After Christ. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Mattingly, Harold B. 2004. From Coins to History : Selected Numismatic Studies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

McDonald, A. H. 1967. “The Treaty of Apamea (188 BC).” Journal of Roman Studies 57 (1): 1–8.

Meadows, Andrew. 2009a. “The Eras of Pamphylia and the Seleucid Invasions of Asia Minor.” American Journal of Numismatics 21: 51–88.

———. 2009b. “The Hellenistic Silver Coinage of Clazomenae.” In Ancient History, Numismatics, and Epigraphy in the Mediterranean World : Studies in Memory of Clemens E. Bosch and Sabahat Atlan, and in Honour of Nezahat Baydur. Istanbul: Ege publications.

———. 2013. “The Closed Currency System of the Attalid Kingdom.” In Attalid Asia Minor. Money, International Relations, and the State., edited by Peter J Thonemann, 1–43. Corby: Oxford University Press.

Meadows, Andrew, and Arthur Houghton. 2010. “The Gaziantep Hoard, 1994 (CH 9.527; 10.308).” In Coin Hoards Volume X, Greek Hoards, 147–96. New York; London: American Numismatic Society; London; Royal Numismatic Society.

Meyer, Ernst. 1925. Die Grenzen der hellenistischen Staaten in Kleinasien. Zürich; Leipzig: Orell Füssli.

Milne, J. Grafton. 1914. “A Hoard of Coins of Temnos.” Numismatic Chronicle, 260–61.

Mørkholm, Otto, Philip Grierson, and Ulla Westermark. 1991. Early Hellenistic Coinage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Müller, Ludvig. 1855. Numismatique d’Alexandre le Grand. Suivie d’un appendice contenant les monnaies de Philippe II et III et accompagnée de planches et tables in quarto. Copenhague: Impr. de B. Luno.

Newell, Edward Theodore, and American Numismatic Society. 1941. The Coinage of the Western Seleucid Mints from Seleucus I to Antiochus III. New York: American Numismatic Society.

Oakley, John. 1982. “The Autonomous Wreathed Tetradrachms of Kyme, Aeolis.” ANSMN 27: 1–37.

Price, Martin Jessop. 1991. The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus. Zürich: The Swiss Numismatic Society.

Regling, K. 1928. “Hellenistischer Münzschatz aus Babylon.” ZfN, no. 38: 92–132.

Robert, Louis. 1970. Études anatoliennes; recherches sur les insriptions grecques de l’Asie mineure. Etudes orientales ; 5. Amsterdam, A. M. Hakkert, 1970. http://search.lib.unc.edu?R=UNCb1086185.

Sacks, Kenneth S. 1985. “The Wreathed Coins of Aeolian Myrina.” Museum Notes (American Numismatic Society) 30: 1–43. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43573693.

Serrati, John. 2007. “Warfare and the State.” In The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, edited by Philip A. G. Sabin, Hans van Wees, and Michael Whitby, 461–97. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Seyrig, Henri. 1973. Trésors du Levant anciens et nouveaux. Paris: Librairie orientaliste P. Geuthner.

Sherwin-White, Amélie, Kuhrt. 1993. From Samarkhand to Sardis : A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Waggoner, Nancy M. 1979. “The Propontis Hoard (IGCH 888).” Revue Numismatique, 7–29. http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/numi_0484-8942_1979_num_6_21_1788.

———. 1989. “A New Wrinkle in the Hellenistic Coinage of Antioch / Alabanda.” In Kraay-Mørkholm Essays : Numismatic Studies in Memory of C.M. Kraay and O. Mørkholm, 283–90. Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut supérieur d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art, séminaire de numismatique Marcel Hoc.

Walbank, Frank William. 2002. Polybius, Rome, and the Hellenistic World. Essays and Reflections. New York, N.Y: Cambridge University Press.

Welles, C. Bradford. 1934. Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period: A Study in Greek Epigraphy. New Haven: Yale University Press.