Alexander in Gold and Silver: Reassessing Third century AD Medallions from Aboukir and Tarsos more

© 2008 The American Numismatic Society AJN Second Series 20 (2008) pp. 493–546 Alexander in Gold and Silver: Reassessing Third century AD Medallions from Aboukir and Tarsos Plates 100–110 Karsten Dahmen* This article provides an overview and catalogue of third century AD gold medallions with representations of Alexander the Great from the hoards of Tarsos in Cilicia and Aboukir in Egypt together with related smaller medals in gold and silver. Various questions on iconography, production, and use of these medallions from Aboukir and Tarsos are discussed. In addition a PIXE analysis of the five specimens, now in Berlin, is provided. Finally, these medallions are understood not as prizes awarded to victors of athletic and other competitions at Beroia (so-called niketeria), but as gifts presented by the Agonothetes and Makedoniarchos to high ranking visitors on the occasions of these games in honor of the emperor and Alexander. From the moment of their discovery more than one hundred years ago, a hoard of twenty Roman medallions from Aboukir in Egypt has puzzled numismatists, archaeologists, and historians.1 First suspected as modern forgeries, the medal1. I am grateful to the curators of the various museums consulted for allowing full access to their collections (see catalogue) or provision of photographs respectively, which made autopsy of the medallions from Tarsos and Aboukir except those in the museums of Baltimore and Thessalonika possible (which I did not visit). The latter institutions liberally provided information and photographs. Andrea Denker of the Hahn-Meithner Institute in Berlin and her colleagues Zsofia Kertesz and Inés Ortega-Feliu provided the PIXE analysis of the Berlin specimens; J. Giaccai and C. Snyder produced fresh measurements of weights by Sartorius analytical balance (model CP324 S) of the Baltimore medallions. In Berlin, Bernhard Weisser shared many of the discussions on the subject, as did Yannis Touratso* k.dahmen@smb.spk-berlin.de 493 494 Karsten Dahmen lions led to a controversy about their authenticity that shaped the early discussion of those remarkable gold representations of Alexander the Great in legend.2 Quite soon, questions as to their function (whether as prize money, amulets, or collectables), origin, and places of production became the focus of a surprisingly much scarcer scholarly discussion—one very much in contrast to their extraordinary material value and fascinating wealth of images. After a century of research, one must acknowledge that although appealing interpretations and exciting ideas have been brought forward, much of the commonly accepted understanding originates in the first five and most intensive years of research from 1902 onward. In the following pages, I will reexamine these medallions and related numismatic objects. In reassessing the evidence from the medallions and combining archaeological and historical testimony from different perspectives, this paper intends to examine their iconography, technique, and function. To this end, a detailed catalogue of the material in question—the Tarsos hoard with three medallions, the spectacular find of twenty specimens from Aboukir, and three dozen smaller silver and gold pieces—is provided. I shall first look at the hoard evidence, then at the chronological information offered by the medallions themselves. Third, the images, motives, and striking technique will be examined from different perspectives and compared to Hellenistic and Roman prototypes. The question of use, function, and geographical setting forms the last part. The results will be presented in a conclusion. 1. The Archaeological Evidence: Stories of Lost Opportunities In 1863,3 a hoard surfaced near Tarsos in ancient Kilikia, now modern Turkey. It included three huge gold medallions (henceforth Tarsos I–III), twenty-three Roman aurei minted between AD 72 and 243, one medallion4 of Severus Alexander from AD 230, four bars of gold, two gold tintinnabula (bells),5 and several amulets of gold and lapis lazuli. Of these twenty-three gold coins, the majority, sixteen glou, in preparation of his article in this volume, the manuscript of which he kindly allowed me to read in advance. I am grateful to Carmen Arnold-Biucchi for reading a first draft of the manuscript, and to Oliver Hoover and the anonymous readers for their much valued suggestions. Any errors remain the author’s responsibility. It is not the objective of this paper to offer a final solution to the many problems involved with the medallions in question; rather, I hope to create new interest and discussion of this fascinating group of objects and provide a basis and instrument for further research of this group as a whole. 2. See Toynbee (1944, 69, n. 43) for the ongoing uncertainties during the 1940s despite Dressel’s (1906, 72–85) convincing arguments in favor of their authenticity. Compare also Dressel (1909, 137–157) and Weiß (2007, 45) on Dressel’s personal crisis during this debate. 3. Vermeule (1982), 62: “1863 (some say 1867),” obviously referring to Toynbee (1944), 69. 4. Gnecchi (1912), 1: 5, no. 2, pl. 1.9. 5. Neuer Pauly 12.1 (2002), 609, s. v. Tintinnabulum (A. Dierichs). Alexander in Gold and Silver 495 pieces, date from the period of AD 198–217.6 Thus it is likely that this hoard was assembled during the third century AD and buried late in the reign of the emperor Gordian III or in that of his successor, Philip the Arab, around AD 244. Because the hoard passed through many hands on its way to the art market in Paris, we know very little about the findspot or the archaeological context. It was claimed that the medallions came from superstructures of an ancient building7 in the plains around Tarsos. The coins first passed into the hands of an Armenian. Then the most precious parts of the find came into the hands of a Mess. Rollin and Feuardent of Paris, who sold the three Alexander medallions and the other of the Emperor Severus Alexander to the distinguished collector Count Tyskiewicz. He gave them—at the kind invitation of the French Emperor Napoleon III—to their present keeper, the Cabinet des Médailles in Paris in 1868.8 The bars and other gold objects had already passed into the collection of the Alexandrian collector Giovanni de Demetrio. The hoard of Aboukir (Abu Qir) was discovered in February or March 1902 near that town in the Delta of Egypt and was quickly dispersed in trade.9 This remarkable assemblage of ancient gold is believed to have included six hundred or more Roman aurei10 dating between the reigns of Severus Alexander and Constantius I, eighteen to twenty bars, and twenty Alexander medallions.11 The chronological distribution of the aurei makes us expect a hoard closure date at 6. Longperiér (1868), 326–330; Noe (1937), 279, no. 1064 (the hoard’s burial wrongly dated to AD 227). 7. Longpérier (1868, 309) quotes the workmen’s statement, the treasure having allegedly been found within an old church, but quite rightly keeps his doubts about this architectural structure’s identification. 8. Mowat (1903, 1) reports the sum of fifty thousand francs paid by Napoleon for three medallions, twenty-three aurei, and the Severus Alexander medallion. Compare Revue Numismatique (1869–1870), 133 (acquisition notice for the medallions but not the aurei). 9. Dressel (1906), 3–4, n. 1; Eddé (1905), 140: “trouvé dans une vieille ruine appelée kharaba en arabe—ce qui veut dire ruiner;” Rubensohn (1902), 46–49: “bei Alexandrien, wie es heißt, in Abukir” [Archäologischer Anzeiger]. 10. The majority are of Diocletian and Maximianus Herculius, but also included are an aureus of Balbinus (former Evans Coll., RIC IV 2, p. 170, no. 8), a quinarius of Carinus (Berlin, Münzkabinett Acc. 1903/648 together with eight more coins from Gordian III to Constantius I; bought from Kyticas in Cairo, “Aus dem Funde von Abukir”), and a five-aurei piece of the same emperor (Voetter 1903), 130, no. 2290, pl. 43. Cf. Dressel (1906), 4, n. 2. 11. Two of the bars found their way into the British Museum (and are currently on display in the HSBC Money Gallery), a third was reported in trade by Dressel in 1906 (presumably later purchased by J. P. Morgan), and a fourth was cut into four pieces with the intention of melting it down, which actually did happen to the remaining bullion. The composition of the hoard is described by Dressel (1906), 1–2, n. 2; cf. Noe (1937), 14–15, no. 6; and also Arvanitakis (1903), 247–268. 496 Karsten Dahmen the beginning of the fourth century AD at the latest.12 Unfortunately, there still remains some doubt about whether the Roman aurei, gold bars, and the Alexander medallions were really part of the same single hoard.13 The first date proposed for these two hoards was somewhat broad: from the beginning of the third century AD to the 310s. Stylistic and historical grounds exclude a date earlier than the accession of Septimius Severus. In addition, a number of related medallions and smaller coin-like pieces have been considered in tandem with the medallions in question. In contrast to their more spectacular siblings, these pieces of gold and silver in some cases provide information on their archaeological context or origin. One medallion was acquired by W. M. Leake at Serres in western Greece during the Napoleonic wars and is now kept in the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge.14 The fragment of another,15 now in the collection of Jeffrey Spier, is said to have come from Asia Minor, while a third piece of very doubtful authenticity from Setta on Euboia was given to the National Numismatic Museum in Athens in 1964.16 Of the smaller coinlike objects, a gold specimen (cat. 2),17 now in the British Museum, is said to have once formed a part of the Tarsos hoard, while a second18 in Oxford (cat. 4) is claimed to have come from the Aboukir hoard (both somewhat doubtful references from auction catalogues). Another gold piece with a portrait of Olympias in Berlin (cat. 13) allegedly originates from Macedon.19 Two stylistically inferior pieces are the only examples with a detailed archaeological record:20 the first (cat. 12) was found in a grave of the Roman cemetery of ancient Beroia in Macedonia. Other burials at this spot contained Roman imperial coins from Probus to Constantine I and also earlier bronze coins of the Macedonian 12. Constantius I died July 25, AD 305, and we should expect coins of later emperors had the burial date been substantially later. Maximianus ruled as Caesar from AD 285 and as Augustus from AD 286 onward. He resigned together with Diocletian in AD 305; coins in his name were produced until his death in AD 310. 13. Dressel (1906, 3–4) mentions these doubts and gives references for his sources. The homogeneity of all these objects is generally accepted. 14. SNG IV Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge, no. 2351, pl. 43. 15. Vermeule (1982), 71: It is even possible that the reverse of this piece and Dressel A (the use of Alphabet letters to identify single medallions from Aboukir introduced by Dressel [1906] is followed here) might have been struck with the same die. 16. The condition of the flan strongly suggests that this piece is a cast and hence a modern (presumably early twentieth century) forgery. 17. Wroth (1898), 99–100, pl. 10.6. From the Montague Sale catalogue (March 1897), lot 118. 18. Hess-Leu Auction 16 April 1957, in Luzern, lot 163, pl. 6; Ars Classica 17, Auction 3, Oct. 1934, in Luzern, lot 413, pl. 13. 19. AMNG III 1 no. 880. 20. Touratsoglou, ADelt 24 (1969), 313, pl. 328 b. Alexander in Gold and Silver 497 koinon, whose production ceased in AD 246. Therefore, these finds date to the last half of the third century AD or the first decade of the fourth century AD. The second piece (cat. 14)21 of the same distinct group comes from a grave of the second to third century at Athens. A final small gold piece (cat. 10) was acquired by the British Museum in 1880 from a collection of coins originating from the Troad.22 2. Chronology The medallions themselves offer considerably better information on their date of production than the archaeological evidence: 1. The portrait of Caracalla on the obverse of three of the medallions (Dressel E, S, and T) is a type common during his sole reign from December AD 211 to April 217, though a posthumous resurrection is possible as well.23 21. A sheet of gold with similar representations was excavated at the Academy of Plato in Athens, again in a grave, which has been vaguely described as “Byzantine” by its excavators. See Christodoulopoulou, ADelt 19 (1964), 15, pl. 4.66. 22. BMC Troad, p. 12, no. 37. Its reverse shows a grazing horse well known as the city badge of Alexandria in the Troad. It may represent a local transformation rather than being a regular part of this group of small medallions. See here cat. 10 and 38. 23. According to Fittschen and Zanker (1994, 106, no. 91), it was created in AD 212 after Geta’s murder. In use mainly from 212 to 215, according to coins (Fittschen and Zanker 1994, 106, n. 3) and replaced by a tranquilized version (“2. Alleinherrschertypus” or Tivoli type; see Fittschen and Zanker 1994, 111, no. 94, n. 5: e.g., BMCRE V pl. 70.12, 16, 18, 20; 71.19 in AD 215, BMCRE V pl. 71.12, 13, 15, 17–20; 72.1, 3–8; 77.8 in AD 216, BMCRE V pl. 72.9, 11–18, 20; 73.1–6; 77.10, 11, 13 in AD 217). Salzmann (1983, 370–371) stresses the different hairstyles (voluminous locks as opposed to flatter “a penna” ones) as the distinctive pattern between these two types. The so-called 1. Alleinherrschertypus may on the other hand have been used after AD 215 (Fittschen and Zanker 1994, 106, no. 91). Dressel T in Baltimore clearly shows Caracalla wearing a beard (as he did on contemporary coins from c. AD 209 on), while Dressel E and S (the latter two very similar to each other but not from the same die) at least feature a moustache. Posthumous coin portraits of the divine emperor feature a much more simplified bearded head (following Fittschen and Zanker 1994, 111, n. 8, related to Tivoli type) and without a laurel wreath as was customary for these kinds of posthumous portraits at this time: BMCRE V p. 531, nos. 7–8, pl. 85.4; RIC IV 2, p. 128, nos. 717, 719, 720. Compare Schulten (1979), 115–116, nos. 300–303, pl. 6. We know of a series of portrait sculptures of Divus Antoninus commissioned by Macrinus and Diadumenianus, but there is no report on their design: Pekáry (1985, 37); Macrinus Historia Augusta 6.8; Diadumenianus 3.1. When Elagabalus was hailed emperor there were still portrait heads of the young Caracalla at hand: Cass. Dio 78.33.2. Late Roman contorniates also show Caracalla, but his portrait there relates only in two cases to a proper type of his (dies II–III); here it is now partly deriving from Antoninus Pius (die I) or a rather fictitious type (die IV) respectively. See Mittag (1999, Vorderseitenstempel Caracalla I–IV, pl. 10). 498 Karsten Dahmen Figure 1. Medallion of Philip I. British Museum. 2. The reverse design of Dressel L is closely modeled after a Roman medallion of the emperor Philip the Arab of AD 247 (Fig. 1).24 3.The type of the reverse of Dressel O, an enthroned Athena feeding a serpent in an olive tree, is only known from bronzes of the Macedonian koinon under Gordian III.25 4. The standing Athena with column and olive tree of Dressel M has no known parallels in ancient iconography. The closest comparison may be made with the types on Athenian civic coins of c. AD 264–267.26 5. The legend “Olympiados” on the column of the same medallion Dressel M has been interpreted by some authors as indicating the 274th year of the Actian Era: ΔOC = AD 242/243. This view is not shared by the author of this paper (see section 7, below). 6. The peculiar shape of the spearhead on all the Aboukir pieces27 has its nearest parallel in a bronze coin of the city of Anchialos in Thrace minted under Gordian III and another bronze coin of the Macedonian koinon of the same period.28 24. For details and full arguments for this and the following pieces see below. 25. AMNG III 1, nos. 546 and 719 (no. 546 = pl. 4.21). See also section 3.3, below. 26. Kroll (1993): 149, no. 302a, pl. 19 = Svoronos (1923–1926), pl. 84.9–14 (lacking the olive tree, Athena holds owl in hand, another on column left). Dressel (1906, 74) assumes this bronze coin takes its design either from this medallion from Aboukir or that they both would derive from the same lost original. 27. Of the Tarsos medallions, only one scene on two die-identical pieces I and II shows Alexander on his mount with a smaller spear fighting a lion. In this case, the spearhead is hardly visible against the body of the king and—as in all other such cases—not specifically shaped. 28. Münzer and Strack (1912), 272, no. 618; Lanz Auction 117 of 24 Nov. 2003, lot 1061, pl. 57. Koinon: AMNG III 1, p. 141, no. 581, pl. 5.7 = AMNG III 2, p. 16, no. 52, pl. 5.11, and Lanz Auction 120 of 18 May 2004, lot 146, pl. 8. Dressel (1906, 2, n. 2) also draws at- Alexander in Gold and Silver 499 7. The alleged portrait of Olympias on Dressel D, Q, R29 is said to be very similar to one struck from a single reverse die used for civic bronzes of Thessalonica under Gordian III.30 8. The characteristic shape of the letters Ξ and Σ are consistent with letterforms in inscriptions from the first half of the third century AD.31 In sum, the evidence suggests the medallions were struck, at different times, between AD 211 and 244. The similarities to a dated Roman medallion prototype in one case may point to a slightly later date (AD 247). These dates do not contradict the hoard evidence, which gives a closing date for the medallions from Tarsos shortly after AD 243 and those from Aboukir around AD 305. The smaller related pieces (at least those made of sheet metal) seem to have been commonly used as funeral gifts during the second half of the third century AD.32 3. Varying Perspectives: Hellenistic and Roman Traditions 3.1. Hellenistic Features Techniques One of the most significant characteristics of both the medallions from Tarsos and Aboukir is the prestriking preparation of flans.33 The same is true for the Cambridge specimen and even some (cat. 2, 4, 5)34 of the smaller coinlike objects. Both obverse and reverse or one side only show traces of intensive hammering, tention to one tetradrachm of Philetairos of Pergamon (Westermark 1961, 58, group IVa, die V.XXIX–R. 3 pl. 3 [Berlin, Münzkabinett Acc. 1873 Fox, minted under Attalos I, who reigned 241–197 BC]) and a sestertius of Hadrian (Cohen II2, 220, no. 1380 = RIC II, p. 440, no. 782a), both obviously much too early for our medallions. 29. The smaller medallion, AMNG no. 880, is said to be of doubtful authenticity, although Dressel (1906, 32, n. 2) and others calls it genuine. 30. Touratsoglou (1988), 70, 286, pl. 41 (die R 142). 31. Papisca (1999), 859–860, 866. 32. On the term “Danake,” see Babelon (1901, 514–518, esp. 515–517) and the contribution of Touratsoglou (2008). 33. There is no information available to me regarding this subject on the medallion now in the possession of J. Spier. Dressel (1906, 66–72, esp. 71) and Eddé independently proved the sequence of flan preparation, hammering, poststriking, circle engraving, and edge filing. Dressel C shows the engraved circle going over the spearhead on the obverse. Hammering in case of the Tarsos medallions took place before striking, as the obverse of no. III indicates. These three medallions show no traces of any circular lines: Dressel (1906, 72, n. 1) and the author’s autopsy. 34. AMNG nos. 877 and 882 (the latter only on parts of the obverse); SNG Ashmolean III no. 3111, pl. 68; but none of the examples in silver. The doubtful Euboia medallion in Athens lacks this characteristic. 500 Karsten Dahmen which leaves only the center of the flan untouched and plain.35 This procedure was adopted to force some metal back toward the center after the unusually large flans had been produced by casting. The hammered zone was not intended to come into contact with the dies, and in cases where smaller parts of an image overlap, the different surface levels caused a loss in quality of the image impressed at the time of striking. A similar technique (also prestriking and mostly attested for obverses)36 was used in the second century BC for the wreathed tetradrachms of Kyme, Myrina, Magnesia-on-the-Maiandros, Herakleia, Lebedos, Smyrna, Bithynian royal coinage, some posthumous Alexanders from Temnos (Aeolis), and Alabanda (Karia)—coins struck on broad flans of similar thickness as the Aboukir medallions.37 Some Pamphylian Alexanders may now also be included in this group and, if so, the procedure itself dates to at least the late third century BC.38 Apparently, this procedure was employed to reuse older Attic weight coins as readymade flans. The purpose of the hammering was to obliterate the original design of the host coins. Nevertheless, in the case of our medallions, Dressel’s presumption that the huge flans were hammered in order to permit a more sophisticated design may still stand. The weights of the medallions clearly show a lack of standardization, making it unlikely that old coins were reused as flans.39 Three of the smaller gold medallions (but not the silver ones) also underwent this same hammering procedure and lack a weight standard. They too were produced from new flans. Presumably, the hammering was an additional decorative feature, not a technical necessity; this deliberate archaizing technique may have been employed to make the medallions appear “ancient” for a third century onlooker. 35. See Dressel (1906, 70), who states that in general reverses are hammered more frequently. Although this in absolute numbers is true, the general impression is that hammering was applied to both reverses and obverses without any particular differentiation: Dressel B (obv. heavier hammered), F, G, H (obv. weaker), I, M (obv. very weak), P (obv. weaker), Q (obv. stronger), S, T, U (obv. stronger); the three Tarsos medallions (the first two weak on the obv.) and the one in Cambridge were hammered on both sides. Dressel A and R (the latter, if so only very weak) lack hammering on the reverse (or if on reverse then only very weak), while Dressel C (if on obv., then weak), E, K (only weak in one spot below bust), L, N, O, and Oxford only show reverse hammering. 36. Thus Dressel (1906, 71) is wrong to say this hammering took place after striking the coins. 37. Compare Dressel (1906, 71 n. 3), who lists these examples except the one from Side (Kraay and Hirmer 1966), no. 662, pl. 192. Already known, but well illustrated: Boehringer (1972), pl. 32.12, 38.5, 39.16; Mørkholm (1991), no. 655, pl. 45 (Orophernes), and no. 619, pl. 41 (Kyme); Kraay and Hirmer (1966), no. 725, pl. 201 (Myrina, c. 189–130 BC), and no. 610, pl. 181 (Magnesia, c. 150 BC). 38. Boehringer (1999), 72–73. 39. Boehringer (1999), 73; Hill (1922, 8–9), based on a suggestion of Robinson (see his n. 19). Alexander in Gold and Silver Style 501 Stylistic evidence hints at a connection to the Hellenistic past as some of the obverse and reverse designs clearly derive from Hellenistic prototypes. The depiction of Alexander as Herakles wearing a lion’s skin (Tarsos I,40 cat. 8 in gold, cat. 29-32-37 and 10, the latter though of broader, later style) derives from lifetime coins of Alexander the Great and early posthumous issues. The type used is closer to later third and early second century BC Alexanders than to posthumous Alexanders from the late second and early first centuries BC with their distinctive broader expressive features. The same stylistic considerations are valid for the Athena with a Corinthian helmet on the obverse of the Cambridge piece: again, Alexander’s lifetime coins are the inspiration for this design, here his gold staters, which continued to be produced after his death.41 The portrait head of Alexander with ram’s horn and diadem (Dressel A, F, G, all from the same die, cat. 12 in gold, cat. 17–21) is obviously modeled on the famous portrait of Alexander, which Lysimachos introduced for his royal coinage and which again continued to be produced posthumously. For the frontal bust of Alexander (Dressel C, K, L, all from the same die), we lack any comparison in both Hellenistic and Roman portraiture. The zodiacal shield of Alexander on this particular medallion is an attribute well known from Roman coins from the second century AD onward,42 but it has Hellenistic predecessors in ruler panegyrics and heroic attributes43 and the head itself copies the famous second century BC marble head of Alexander from Pergamon.44 A late Hellenistic or an early imperial date is appropriate for the representation of Alexander with an Attic helmet combined with various bust types (Dressel 40. But see below on details of this particular bust type and its chronological setting. 41. Vermeule (1982, 63, n. 11) names SNG Aulock nos. 1374–1379, pl. 42 from Pergamon, but these themselves derive from the same prototype. 42. Not used together with imperial portraits on coins, but isolated or combined with representations of gods and goddesses. Vulcan with the zodiatic shield of Achilles on contorniates: Mittag (1999), 95, 191, no. 30, pl. 17; Alföldi (1976), 46, 118–119, no. 30, pl. 163.2–10; 164.1–6; 221.10. On this shield, compare Brendel (1936), 272ff., esp. pl. 19, with further parallels; Hardie (1985), 11–31, esp. 24. 43. In Babylon, following Achaemenid traditions, Alexander was called “king of the world” in 331/330 BC (Price 1981, 33, n. 1; Sachs and Hunger 1998, 179, rev. 11). Demetrios Poliorketes was depicted as the sun surrounded by his starlike philoi (Athenaios 6.253D); his coat was decorated with stars and a zodiac (Athenaios 12.535F; Plut. Demet 41). 44. Smith (1988, 62, n. 47) and Stewart (1993, 428, figs. 128–129), both with bibliography. 502 Karsten Dahmen B, H, I [same die], M, N]:45 Roman cameos depict Augustus and Germanicus in a similar pose, obviously assimilated to Alexander, and another cameo may even be of late Ptolemaic origin.46 Bronze coins of the Macedonian koinon AD 218–246 carry the same type. The head of Apollo (Dressel U) is again modeled on a second century BC prototype, this time civic tetradrachms from Asia Minor.47 The bust of Athena on the medallion in the collection of J. Spiers recalls the Athena Parthenos of the classical period. This particular representation was widely copied, especially in the Roman period, notably on the famous gem of Aspasius at Rome.48 The alleged portrait of a veiled Olympias (Dressel D, R, Q [the last two from the same die], and cat. 13) derives ultimately from Ptolemaic and other Hellenistic representations of queens from the third century BC onwards.49 A second possible portrait of Alexander’s mother, this time wearing a sakkos covering her head (Dressel O, P [same die]), is familiar from the late classical period.50 Among the reverse types too, Hellenistic prototypes might have been used: the hunting Alexander, both on his mount chasing a lion (Tarsos I and III from the same die) or on foot (Dressel F, T) encountering a boar, was a familiar topic in Alexander’s own lifetime and later periods. This theme appears in a variety of media, including paintings, statue groups, reliefs and mosaics.51 Alexander as a victorious horseman over a prostrate opponent (Dressel H) derives from Greek reliefs of the fifth century BC. This image became an iconographic stereotype associated with Alexander in Hellenistic and Roman times.52 45. It is quite remarkable that the questionable Euboea medallion in Athens differs here from the other helmeted Alexanders: his frontal hair is visible below the helmet’s rim, which is additionally equipped in this unique case with cheek-pieces. 46. Cameo Gonzaga: Megow (1987), 282–284, C 26, pl. 29.1, 4 (Germanicus); Kyrieleis (1971), 162–193 (Augustus and Livia). “Ptolemäerkameo”: Kyrieleis (1971), 165, fig. 4 (Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II). Cameo in Berlin: Kyrieleis (1971), 189–193, fig. 17 (Caligula and Drusilla?). 47. From Alexandreia in the Troad, Myrina, Milet, and Kyme. All lacking the laurel branch in front the god’s head. 48. Vermeule (1982), 71. Museo Nazionale Romano Inv. 52382: LIMC II (1984), s. v. Athena/Minerva (p. 1086, no. 13, pl. 786 [F. Canciani]). 49. For example, Berenike I, Arsinoe II, Kleopatra I, and Kleopatra Thea: M. Meyer, Hephaistos 11/12 (1992/1993), 107–132; Smith (1988); Kyrieleis (1975), 78–114 (see their subsequent cat. entries). In most cases, these queens wear a stephane, too. 50. Dressel (1906), 17, n. 3 compares this head to Kore Soteira of Kyzikos: BMC Mysia, p. 36, nos. 124–135, pl. 9.8–14. 51. Stewart (1993), 51, n. 24. The mounted, lion-hunting theme is used later, too, for representations of Roman emperors: Waddington, Babelon, and Reinach (1904), 436, no. 294, pl. 74.31, with an example from Nikaia. Mosaics: Salzmann (1982), 53–54, n. 453. Roman Sarcophagi showing Meleagros: Koch and Sichtermann (1982), figs. 184–185. 52. See, e.g., Trajan on horse in the battle relief from his Forum in Rome: Touati (1987), Alexander in Gold and Silver 503 Nereids riding on ketoi (sea dragons) (Dressel N) are common from the classical period onward and their depiction remains virtually unchanged afterward, but our example should be considered as originating from Hellenistic prototypes for stylistic reasons.53 The same is valid for the nereid depicted riding on a triton (Dressel K, R, S, all from the same die). Finally the hero Perseus saving Andromeda from a sea-monster and freeing her from chains (Dressel P) again relies on a model from the Hellenistic period.54 3.2 Roman Models A number of other scenes are clearly taken from designs devised in the Roman period. A few others are only known from the medallions discussed here. Nike driving a quadriga and holding a palm branch adorned with a taenia (palma lemniscata) (Tarsos II, Dressel A) is a special case. The goddess is rarely depicted in a four-horse chariot; instead she customarily drives a biga and holds a whip in her hand.55 The depiction is closer in iconography to some Roman republican coins (Crawford nos. 280/1; 366/1–4).56 There are no comparable representations in Roman imperial coinage. Another Nike, together with Eros, holding a shield and a trophy to their right is also a unique type (Dressel B, C, I, all from the same die). In this case, the type may be a combination of iconographic motives common in Roman art of the second and third centuries AD. A third type shows Nike inscribing Alexander’s name on a shield (the Euboia piece), presenting a well-known Roman variation of a late classical type of 21–22, pl. 3, 11. For Roman emperors depicted riding a horse on coins, see Harl (1987), pl. 15 bottom, 16; hunting: Harl (1978), pl. 17, Bergemann (1990), 35–36, 169. 53. LIMC VIII (1997), s. v. Ketos, pp. 731–736 (J. Boardman). Dressel (1906, 17, n. 2) quotes an amethyst in St. Petersburg as the closest parallel. 54. LIMC I (1981), s. v. Andromache I, pp. 774–790 (K. Schauenburg); see coins nos. 79–81. Compare also Price (1981b), 69–75, p. 71 fig. 4 (wall painting from Pompeii), who suggests that this motive is taken from a common prototype of sculpture in the round, as the outstretched arm of Perseus supporting Andromeda is a highly unnatural pose and is reminiscent of sculpture requiring such a support for matters of stability. Besides the highly erotic undertone of this scene, Perseus is also regarded as one of Alexander’s ancestors by the king himself: Arrian Anabasis 3.3.2. 55. LIMC VI (1992), s. v. Nike, p. 866, nos. 173.175–181; pp. 893–894, nos. 688–712 (A. Goulaki-Voutira). 56. A third century AD terracotta lamp, according to LIMC VIII (1997), p. 247, no. 109 (J. Ch. Balty) (Oxford, Ashmolean Museum Inv. 1872.1107), showing a Nike with palm branch similar to our medallions, depicts a chariot driver in his harness (without wings) evidently holding both wreath and palm branch. I am grateful to Helen Whitehouse of the Ashmolean Museum’s Egyptian department for her kind help in examining this lamp. 504 Karsten Dahmen Aphrodite,57 who is mirrored in the shield of Ares. This type was widely used in the first to third centuries AD. The nereid riding a sea-bull (Dressel D, Q [same die]) appears as a type as late as the third century AD,58 although nereids as participants in the procession of Thetis originated in the classical period. The scene of Nike presenting Alexander with his arms (Dressel E, U [same die]) is an invention of one of our anonymous die engravers, because there are no known earlier or contemporary parallels. The scene is likely inspired by representations of Thetis, who equipped her son Achilles with a new set of weapons.59 The unique reverse type (Dressel G) depicts Alexander sitting on a heap of arms, behind him his mount Boukephalos, both flanked by two warriors in full armor. The medallion carrying the type of the triumphal quadriga in frontal view (Dressel L) has already been dated to c. AD 247 (Fig. 1, see above), but there are earlier Severan parallels for this type.60 The type of Athena to the right with a column and an olive tree to her left and the serpent of Erechtheus at her feet (Dressel M) is comparable to civic coins of Athens struck under Gallienus (see above), but a renaissance in the use of representations of the Attic Athena accompanied the Second Sophistic and a reborn Panhellenism initiated by the emperor Hadrian.61 The same can be said about this goddess in another scene, where she appears enthroned (Dressel O).62 Only one obverse type with the head of Alexander rendered in “pathetic” style, with a diadem in his windblown hair flying horizontally (Tarsos III), may originate in contemporary likenesses of the king. Bronze coins of the Macedonian koinon carry nearly identical portraits, and they are the only comparable representations 57. LIMC VIII (1997), s. v. Victoria (inscribing shield), pp. 242–243, nos. 28–35, pl. 169–170 (R. Vollkommer). Shield supported by palm/column, etc.: p. 243, nos. 36–40, pl. 170. For the famous “Venus from Brescia,” see p. 242, no. 29, pl. 169. 58. LIMC VI (1992), s. v. Nereide, p. 820 (N. Icard-Gianolio and A.-V. Szabados). Dressel (1906, 49) suggested a Hellenistic prototype. 59. Alföldi (1976, 119) refers to Attic vase paintings of the early fifth century BC. Dressel (1906, 12, n. 2); cf. Alföldi (1976, 111, with n. 3–4) on parallels on Roman sarcophagi representing Amazons and others showing Hephaistos/Vulcan producing Achilles’ armor. The latter is also found on contorniates (Mittag 1999, 291, no. 30, pl. 17). 60. Toynbee (1944, 71) and Vermeule (1982, 66–67) date this particular medallion’s prototype earlier under Severus Alexander with regard to similar Roman medallions of this period. These medallions show slight differences in details, e.g., the direction of the horse’s heads inward instead of outward. The flanking figures also lack both the palm branches of the Aboukir piece and Philip medallion. The strong similarities to the Philip medallion may be a coincidence; the general type was developed and known earlier. 61. Gmyrek (1998), 112. 62. See details below. Alexander in Gold and Silver 505 on coins.63 Usually, Alexander’s hair simply falls down along his neck, as on earlier numismatic representations.64 3.3 The Macedonian Connection The medallions have in the past generally been related to agonistic competitions in honor of Alexander the Great in the Macedonian city of Beroia. Vermeule has challenged this geographic association (not their use as prize money for victorious athletes) and has proposed Tarsos in Kilikia or Perinthos in Thrace or Asia Minor.65 Since Dressel (1906) had tried to prove strong ties among the bronze coins issued by the koinon of the Macedonians between AD 218 and 246 and the Alexander medallions,66 I shall first reexamine the arguments for a close relationship between these two groups. A later reassessment will have to deal with the question of the medallions’ possible function (section 7 below). During the Roman period, only the Macedonian koinon struck numerous coins with representations of Alexander the Great.67 Among the obverse portraits and reverse scenes are a remarkable number of close parallels to the gold medallions. See the Table below (section 6). The only other portrait of Alexander wearing an Attic helmet (Dressel B, H, I [all same die], M, N [plus the Euboia medallion]) features on bronze coins of the koinon68 right from the beginning to their end in AD 246, as does the type with the king’s windblown hair (compare Tarsos III).69 The use of scenic representations on Alexander’s Attic helmet in the case of Dressel M (battle)70 and N (eagle and 63. AMNG III 1, nos. 323–325, 327, 329, 335, 337, 361a b–401, 463–472, 511–521, 613– 702, 799, 800, 835, 836. There are no portraits in the round with this characteristic hairstyle. A windblown hairstyle in general is understood as an Alexander-like iconographic element in late Hellenistic ruler portraiture (e.g., Mithradates VI of Pontos and Diodotos/Tryphon). But there are no such Alexander portraits in the round of this period in existence. The coins in the name of Aesillas the Quaestor combine windblown hair with a portrait of Alexander without diadem but with a ram’s horn, and on posthumous Alexanders of the Herakles type, this characteristic feature, now performed by the lion’s skin, is only very rarely found. 64. For Alexander’s portrait on coins, see Arnold-Biucchi (2006) and Dahmen (2007). 65. Vermeule (1982), p. 63, n. 12, pp. 64–65, n. 15–16, p. 66, n. 18, p. 69. He names quite a number of candidates (Perinthos, Pergamon, Ephesos, Caesarea in Kappadokia, Tarsos) but in general stresses Asia minor or Kilikia as places of origin and distribution. 66. Taking profit of Mowat (1903, 1–30), the first elaboration of this interpretation. For stylistic reasons, Arnold-Biucchi (2006, 79) agrees on Macedonia as the place of the medallions’ manufacture. 67. The portrait types of the koinon are found in AMNG III 1, p. 15; for an overview among civic coins of the Roman period and earlier Hellenistic examples, see Dahmen (2007). 68. E.g., AMNG III 1, nos. 489–491. 69. E.g., AMNG III 1, nos. 463–475. 70. This battle scene closely remodels the one of the so-called Chigi-Relief (IG XIV 1296): 506 Karsten Dahmen Figure 2. Macedonian koinon, battle scene on helmet, AMNG no. 778.1. Berlin. Münzkabinett. Figure 3. Macedonian koinon, bend diadem, AMNG no. 813.1. Berlin. Ganymede) is furthermore paralleled by rare battle scenes on his helmet depicted on some of these bronze coins (Fig. 2),71 replacing the much more frequent snake or griffin.72 The Artemis Tauropolos on the helmet of Dressel B, H, I (all same die) is known from Macedonian tetradrachms of the second century BC.73 Besides this use of the same iconography, stylistic similarities of the Alexander portraits become an additional argument for connecting the medallions to Macedonia: the head with ram’s horn (Dressel A, F, G, from the same die), the one with windblown hair (Tarsos III), and the helmeted ones (Dressel B, H, I, from same die, and Dressel M, N) share the same physiognomic features and drawing of the facial lines, including the area around the eyes and nose. They also possess exactly the same pose with a slightly tilted neck and elaborate front in “pathetic” style. Except for the gold medallions, each of these features is only found among specimens of the bronze coinage of the Macedonian koinon. The nearly half-figure bust of Herakles of Tarsos I is paralleled only by a comparable bust on three specimens of the koinon’s bronze coins, all from the same die.74 Here again the shape of the bust is identical. In addition, another iconographic detail of the Tarsos and Aboukir medallions deserves attention. Of the two ends of Alexander’s diadem, only one is depicted Stewart (1993), 133, 162; Fuhrmann (1931), pl. 3; Hardie, (1985), 29–31, fig. 2. If Hardie is correct with his hypothesis that this relief depicts the scene of a possible Alexander shield (paralleling the zodiac/cosmos one of his idol Achilles), the appearance of this scene on Alexander’s helmet would be easily understandable. 71. AMNG III 1, nos. 446, 767, 778, no. 405 (–407? same dies, but not illustrated), possibly with a horseman on the obverse bust’s shield. See also AMNG III 1, no. 729.5 = SNG Tübingen 2, no. 1234, pl. 48, for Alexander on horse wearing helmet. 72. The latter usually found on Alexander’s lifetime staters, decorating the Corinthian helmet of Athena: Price (1991, 29). Compare Kaiser (1986, 41–57, esp. 52–54). 73. AMNG III 1, nos. 154–155. 74. AMNG III 1, no. 764.1–3. Of the similar type AMNG II 1, nos. 762a–763, no illustrations are available. Alexander in Gold and Silver 507 bent in a very peculiar way.75 This same characteristic is otherwise only known from a number of koinon bronzes with very similar portraits of Alexander (Fig. 3).76 Again, this detail points to a close relationship between these two groups. Reverses of bronze coins of the Makedonian koinon depicting Alexander as a horseman hunting or fighting an enemy77 match comparable scenes on Tarsos I and III, the Cambridge specimen, and on Caracalla’s shield on Dressel E and Dressel H respectively. The scene of Alexander being presented with his weapons (Dressel E, U [same die]) again is only otherwise known from coins of the Macedonian koinon, although here he is already wearing his armor.78 The enthroned Athena feeding a serpent on Dressel O is found on koinon bronzes under Gordian III.79 On the bronze coins, the scene lacks the shield leaning against the back of the throne. There are numerous similar representations, popular in the second and third centuries AD and known especially from Thrace, Asia Minor, and a few imperial issues, which in contrast always show this protective device.80 The throne’s design on the bronzes seems to be a simplified version of the one on Dressel O. The single lion walking to the right or left, so prominent on the smaller medallions (cat. 1.5–6, 8–9, 17–20, 22–36), is familiar from early royal Macedonian 75. Only the frontal-bust Dressel C, K, L shows both diadem ends, while the portraits in profile are restricted to one. Only the piece from Tarsos with an alleged portrait of Alexander’s father Philip lacks this sharply bent diadem. 76. Dressel (1906), 80, n. 1. Bent diadem ends: AMNG III 1, no. 373 (Oxford); AMNG nos. 554.2, 561.1, 578.1 (Cambridge); AMNG nos. 518.1, 541.2, 568.1, 600.1, 620.3, 810.1, 838.1 (London); AMNG nos. 354.2, 619.1, 661.2, 810.2 (Paris). Two diadem ends are very seldom represented: see, e.g., AMNG no. 798.1 (Oxford), AMNG no. 604 (Cambridge), AMNG no. 641.1 (London), and possibly AMNG no. 473.5 (Paris). The ends are more curved in the case of AMNG no. 595.1 (London). Only AMNG no. 838.2 (Paris) shows both ends of the diadem as usually employed with the emperor’s laurel wreath on imperial coins. 77. Hunting: AMNG III 1, nos. 311, 370, 370a, 419, 420, 442b, 558b, 643. To left: nos. 724–726 (lion). With dog: AMNG III 1 no. 560. Fighting: AMNG III 1 nos. 348, 418, 705, 723, plus no. 418 = SNG Copenhagen no. 1363, pl. 35 (wrongly described in AMNG). For the numerous variants of the horseman type, see AMNG III 1, 16–17. 78. AMNG III 1, nos. 393, 393a. See Gaebler (1906), 14, pl. 1.19. On one contorniate, Alexander has already been given his weapons and Nike has left the scene: Mittag (1999), pl. 15, die 11.. 79. AMNG III 1, nos. 546 and 719, pl. 4.21. 80. For interpretation, see Gmyrek (1998), 109, 112, 116, esp. p. 109, fig. 29 (medallion of AD 159). Rudzicka (1915), 19, no. 63 (Iulia Domna), 39, no. 209–212, pl. 4 (Caracalla); Rudzicka (1932/1933), 107, no. 329 (Sept. Severus), 150, nos. 577–578, pl. 3.2 (Caracalla), 183, no. 770 (Plautilla); Kroll (1993), 155, nos. 348–349, pl. 20 (period VI from AD 264– 267); SNG Aulock, no. 1336, pl. 41; Waddington 148, pl. 70.14; ibid. 214, pl. 72.13; SchmidtDick (2002), 77, Minerva f5A/02 pl. 31 = RIC IV 1, pp. 321, 335, nos. 58, 145, 148; Gnecchi (1912), 3:32, no. 105, pl. 150). 508 Karsten Dahmen Figure 4. Macedonian koinon, bust/lion, AMNG no. 816.1. Berlin. Münzkabinett. coinage and from bronze coins of the koinon (Fig. 4); it is also frequently found on other coins, especially in Thrace.81 Club, bow, and quiver (cat. 21 and 37) are known from Alexander’s own bronze coinage.82 Apart from those depictions of the queen’s head on Aboukir medallions (Dressel D, O, P [the latter two from same die], Q, R [same die]), the coinage of the koinon alone shows Olympias (the queen on a kline awaiting Zeus Ammon in the shape of a serpent).83 A cista mystica (cat. 4, 12), although strongly associated with Dionysos and Attalid Pergamon,84 has a Macedonian pedigree85 and was favored also in Thrace and several other places.86 Further parallels are not attested by koinon bronzes but rather through comparison with civic coinage in Roman Thrace and Macedon, again stressing the origins of the images applied, their users, and the die engravers in this very region (see Athena with snake in similar, but slightly different representations, mostly with an additional shield). Vermeule used the prominence of a zodiac depicted on various coins of Perinthos in Thrace as an argument for the possible production of the medallions in this city,87 comparing it to Alexander’s shield device on Dressel C, K, and L. But zodiacs also appear on coins of various other cities.88 In all of these cases, the zodiac 81. Royal coins: AMNG III 2, p. 160, no. 6, pl. 30.6; p. 161, nos. 2–3, pl. 30.15. Koinon: AMNG III 1, nos. 325 (with club), 395a (with star), 396–398a (with club), 432 (with star), 433–436, 452–452a (with club), 454 (no club), 741, 781–784, 815 (with club), 816–817 (no club), 829–830, 839, 845–845a, 852–854 (with club, AD 244); AMNG III 2, no. 57, pl. 5.16. Cities in Thrace, Macedon, and neighboring regions used the same motif: Pick (1898), 268, nos. 914–915, pl. 20.1 (Markianopolis); Rudzicka (1915, 64, no. 399, pl. 9; 1932/1933, 179, no. 741, pl. 8.8). Bronzes of Lysimachos: Mørkholm (1991), pl. 11.183 and 184. 82. Price (1991), 31. 83. And again later contorniates. 84. This argument is used by Vermeule (1982), p. 63, n. 11–12, p. 69. 85. AMNG III 1, nos. 361, 399–400, 437, 453, 528, 585–587, 742, 785, 831–832 (the latter two of AD 244), 857 (AD 246). 86. Pick (1898), 252, no. 804, pl. 20.29 (Markianopolis); Rudzicka (1932–1933), no. 815, pl. 9.4. 87. Vermeule (1982), 63–64. 88. RPC VII, no. 44 (Sardis); SNG Switzerland I Suppl. 1, no. 390 (Eirenopolis/Kilikia); Alexander in Gold and Silver 509 represents a divine attribute, often depicted on a shield held by a god or goddess or as an isolated motif decorating the whole coin. There is no reason to believe that there was any exclusive relationship between these gods and their astrological device or that Alexander’s Zodiac-decorated shield should be considered a reference to a specific city. Alexander’s frontal bust of Dressel C, K, and L remains a unique example of a ruler portrait lacking any direct comparison with surviving archaeological and numismatic material. Alexander’s zodiac originates in the general idea of a world ruler, not astronomical particularities favored by certain cities.89 4. One or More Issues of the Aboukir Medallions? Design, style, and tooling support the view that the medallions from Tarsos and Aboukir and related smaller pieces have a common background. A closer look at these three groups reveals a more complex structure. How do we assess the relationship between these three groups and with regard to the individual pieces within each hoard? Comparison of the medallions from Tarsos and Aboukir shows some differences between these two groups. The group from Tarsos is larger physically than any other of the twenty medallions from Aboukir and should be regarded as constituting a distinctive issue. In addition, Dressel stressed that only the pieces from Tarsos lack the characteristic circular lines (see section 3.1, above) of the Aboukir medallions and the filing of their borders.90 In contrast to the claims of Dressel, these circular lines, which are thought to be related to the poststriking process, do not appear consistently in the group from Aboukir. Dressel A, B, D, F, H, N, O, and P lack this characteristic.91 There is no obvious relationship between pieces that have been incised or hammered. Recent metal analysis on the medallions of the Gulbenkian Museum and five specimens in Berlin has produced further evidence.92 Examining the fineness of Künker Auction 115 of 25 Sept. 2006, lot 733 (Aigai); Ziegler (1993), nos. 660, 667–671 (Anazarbos); BMC Phoenicia, p. 187, no. 265 (Sidon). There is no testimony from Macedonia. 89. On earlier Greek (mythic) rulers as owners of cosmic shields, see Hardie, (1985), 11– 31; L’Orange (1953), esp. 30. 90. Dressel (1906), 59, 72. Dressel saw eight of these medallions himself, the remaining as photographs or casts: Dressel (1906), 12, 66 (the Berlin pieces Dressel A to E plus L, R, T). 91. Circular lines are found with the following medallions from Aboukir: Dressel C (obv. and rev.), E (rev.), G (obv.), I (obv. and rev.), K (obv.), L (obv.), J (obv.), M (obv.), Q (obv.), R (obv.), S (rev.), T (rev.), U (obv.), and the piece in Cambridge (rev.). Dressel K even has three different circles, each of them centering on a different point and thus not parallel to each other. The specimen in J. Spier’s collection needs examination. The smaller medallions in gold and silver without exception lack incised lines. We may assume that their much smaller dimensions are responsible for this 92. Peixoto Cabral et al. (2000), 401–414. Berlin: Examined by Andrea Denker of the 510 Karsten Dahmen these samples reveals no uniform composition. On the contrary, none of the medallions matches another, although points of gravity become obvious.93 Some pieces have between 95% and 96% of gold with a silver content around 3.5% (Dressel D, O, S, U), others around 93% gold and 6% silver (Dressel B, C, H, N, F), and another group, c. 91% and 8% respectively (Dressel K, M, G).94 The Gulbenkian piece Dressel P (88.3% AV, 10.7% AR) is now paralleled by Dressel A and E (c. 88% AV, 11% AR) in Berlin. These differences in fineness do not prove the production of single medallions at different times or in different workshops, but when taking into account their die combinations, point to a different conclusion.95 Dressel O, S, and U, sharing the same fineness, are die linked with medallions of different percentages of content (e.g., E); the same is the case with Dressel B, H, and F, while N lacks any die link. And finally, the group of Dressel A, C, K, and G shares dies with other pieces, while M remains unlinked. Dressel P, having the lowest fineness, is linked with Dressel O. This crossing of fineness and dies leaves us with only one possibility: all examined medallions (and presumably the rest of them also) come from a single workshop, where their flans were cast and then struck within a relative short period of time.96 The difference in fineness also suggests that these medallions do not originate from an official state-run workshop, which would have produced pieces with standard weights and fineness;97 additional evidence comes from the fact that the legends are written in Greek, not Latin, and lack any reference to a contemporary emperor. Their die linkages and differing finenesses serve to strengthen the argument in favor of a private issue. Presumably bullion and coins provided by a private individual were used as raw material to cast these huge flans in a workshop in quite limited numbers. The difference in fineness therefore can be explained by the fact that not all flans were produced from one single batch of cast metal but rather from several portions melted down, resulting in different degrees of fineness. The dies, on the other hand, were certainly produced by a trained professional and handed over to a workshop possibly unrelated to this engraver (Fig. 5). Hahn-Meithner Institute in Berlin in collaboration with her colleagues Zsofia Kertesz and Inés Ortega-Feliu in November 2006, using the PIXE method. On PIXE in general, see Kallithrakas-Kontas and Katsanos (1998), 461–472. 93. Peixoto Cabral et al. (2000), 407, with table. Compare also data on each medallion in Appendix 1. 94. Copper and iron contents were also examined. Dressel I (94.3% and 4.7%) remains isolated, but compare Dressel D (95% AV and 4–5% AR). 95. Peixoto Cabral et al. (2000), 409–410, figs. 1 and 2. 96. Peixoto Cabral et al. (2000), 410. 97. Though the weight standard of Roman aurei varies considerably starting at the beginning of the third century AD, the fineness still holds up to 99% in nearly all specimens examined: Morrisson et al. (1985), 80–89, fig. 12, table IV. Only from c. AD 253 onward do fineness, too, begin to deteriorate. See also Bland (1996), 66. Alexander in Gold and Silver h l 511 [Obv. dies uppercase] [Rev. dies lowercase] [Dressel (1906) E = S] BHI CKL S RQ D E U b [SPIER] ? a f g k d e o p m n t A F G OP M N T Figure 5. Die Combinations—Aboukir (20 pieces) In view of their technical similarities and the close relationship between the reverse designs of Tarsos II and Dressel A, both the medallions from Aboukir and Tarsos probably originated from the same workshop or at least had the same geographic background. In addition, the medallions from Tarsos and from Aboukir share a die orientation of 12:00,98 and the style of the portraits used, notably those of the Alexander on Tarsos III compared to the one of Dressel A, show a close relationship. The reverses of Tarsos II and Dressel A even share the same scene of Nike riding in a four-horse chariot. Although individual medallions can be dated to specific times in the third century on iconographic grounds (see section 2), this chronological knowledge would be of limited use if the groups from Aboukir and Tarsos originated from different emissions or series produced in subsequent phases of the third century AD. Many scholars have dated these medallions to the AD 240s, but they have also argued for a slightly different historical background, thus splitting up the pieces in question. 98. All pieces in the Gulbenkian collection are oriented this way, though Dressel P und I were obviously more carelessly struck and only come close, with dies at 11:00. The five pieces in Berlin (Dressel A–E) share the same orientation, with Dressel B narrowing in at 11:00 and Dressel E at 1:00, respectively. In Baltimore, Dressel L is oriented at 12:00 and Dressel R and T are at 11:00. In general, we would expect coins and medallions of this period to have adjusted dies. 512 Karsten Dahmen Dressel99 recognized three major groups: (1) the medallions from Tarsos, (2) those from Aboukir, and (3) the Cambridge medallion from Serres. Within the medallions from Aboukir, he believed all the medallions with the exception of Dressel U and L to have been produced on the occasion of the first Olympiad in AD 242/243.100 The medallion Dressel U (obverse head of Apollo), Dressel connected with a possible Pythian festival in neighboring Thessalonica, but he did not exclude it from the original series of AD 242/243.101 Because of its close parallels with a Roman bronze medallion of Philip the Arab of AD 247, Dressel dated the medallion with the triumphal quadriga (Dressel L) to the second Olympiad.102 Nevertheless, with the exception of the medallion from Serres now in Cambridge, Dressel concluded that all these pieces were produced by different engravers within a single workshop.103 Dressel’s obvious intention was to associate the medallions’ iconography with specific Alexander festivals or Olympiads in Beroia, therefore relying on different dates for some pieces or in the case of Dressel L even relocating them away from Beroia. This “problem” only surfaces if one considers these medallions to represent prize money distributed to the victors of these games. The die combinations of the medallions do not support this view: the medallions Dressel E, S, and T, with the portrait of Caracalla, are linked in two cases to separate groups of die combinations.104 Although Dressel T remains isolated (as do the medallions Dressel M and N), the obverse of Dressel E shares its reverse with Dressel U (Apollo). More important is Dressel C, which links to a group of ten obverse dies sharing reverses. This high number of combinations supports the view that the Aboukir medallions were created as a whole series in one single emission. Also, the fact that twenty pieces originate from one single hoard speaks against a gradual and long period of production. We may also argue that the appearance of the remarkable frontal bust of Alexander on Dressel C, K, and L is through these die combinations linked with the Caracalla portraits, as well as the quadriga with Alexander on the reverse of Dressel I and the Apollo of Dressel U. Only Dressel M, featuring Athena and the column with the “Olympiados” inscription is not die linked. But another pattern is also shared among several medallions. Portraits of Alexander the Great and Caracalla are depicted as equipped with a spear on obverses (Dressel C, E, K, L, S, T). The shape of this spearhead on the reverses of Dressel G and M is identical. 99. Dressel (1906), 59. 100. Dressel (1906), 59. 101. Dressel (1906), 58. This because the god’s head was thought to indicate a close relationship to Apollo’s own festival, the Pythia, in this city. 102. Dressel (1906), 57–58. 103. Dressel (1906), 73. 104. Their reverses show Alexander being presented his weapons (E), a sea-centaur with nereid (S), and Alexander hunting a boar (T). Alexander in Gold and Silver 513 Figure 6. Contorniate, Alexander as Herakles. Berlin. Münzkabinett. The medallions from Aboukir and from Tarsos should be considered as a single series of precious gold objects produced at the same place and time.105 Only the medallion from Serres might not belong to this series, as its die was likely cut by another engraver. The specimen from Serres may represent an elaborate example of normally smaller silver and gold equivalents. 5. Later Resurrections—Alexander’s Legend on Roman Contorniates Late Roman contorniates—bronze medallions with characteristically shaped rims from which their modern Italian name contorniati originates—form a distinctive group of medals limited to the city of Rome in the fourth and fifth centuries AD. They bear commemorative images of celebrated emperors, philosophers, and intellectuals. Most of the scenes are related to the world of the Circus.106 Mittag has recently shown that only a small series within this group (“Kaiserserie”) might have been produced by imperial authority.107 The same workshops produced the majority of contorniates to satisfy private demand, i.e., these contorniates were issued as gifts for the New Year.108 Some of these medallions bear obverses or reverses related to Alexander the Great and his mother Olympias. In most cases, they carry identifying legends in Greek or Latin.109 Alexander usually appears wearing the lion’s skin of Herakles (Fig. 6). While few dies were closely modeled on coins from Alexander’s lifetime, in most cases these contorniates show the longish facial features typical of the style of the fourth and fifth centuries.110 The portrait type of the diademed king is taken from 105. As also Savio (1994–1995, 86) argues. 106. Mittag (1999); Alföldi (1976; 1990). 107. Mittag (1999), 182–184. 108. Mittag (1999), 211–212. 109. Mittag (1999), 164–166; Alföldi (1976), 80–87, 109–111; Vermeule (1986). 110. Compare Mittag (1999, pl. 1), e.g., dies I–IV against dies VII–XI. For an AD fourth century gold pendant (sheet) with Alexander’s portrait based on the Lysimachos prototype in Baltimore, see The search for Alexander. Supplement to the catalogue (Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum, 1983), p. 36, no. S-52; Alföldi (1990), 83, n. 14, pl. 244.3. 514 Karsten Dahmen Figure 7. Contorniate, Olympias/Alexander with shield. Berlin. Münzkabinett. Figure 8. Contorniate, Olympias/Alexander with shield. Berlin. Münzkabinett. Figure 9. Contorniate, Caracalla/Olympias. Berlin. Münzkabinett. Figure 10. Macedonian koinon, Alexander/Olympias, AMNG no. 367.2. Berlin. Münzkabinett. Alexander in Gold and Silver 515 prototypes provided by the coinage of the Macedonian koinon. A few pieces seem to represent rather fictitious inventions merging Alexander’s portrait with the one of his successors Philip V and Perseus.111 Alexander also appears carrying a shield,112 in a scene similart to the reverse of Dressel U, where Nike presents his arms to him. Much more loosely associated are representations of Alexander on horseback, which share the motif but have again styles characteristic of the fourth and fifth centuries. These are also inspired by images of the contemporary emperor as a victorious horseman.113 Alexander’s mother Olympias also experiences another revival, both on obverses in the familiar veiled portrait type (Figs. 7–8) and, more telling, in her infamous encounter with a serpent on some reverses (Figs. 9–10).114 Clearly, contorniates represent metallic materializations of Alexander’s legend that flourished from the third century AD onward, mixing earlier (mainly third century) prototypes and contemporary interpretations of his portrait. 6. The Chronology of the Medallions and Koinon Bronzes The connection between the gold medallions, especially those from Aboukir, and the bronze coins of the Macedonian koinon, as demonstrated in section 3.3, is quite remarkable. The similarity between the two groups point to now lost prototypes from Macedonia, likely statue groups or paintings as a common source of inspiration. This seems much more probable than one group’s iconography depending directly on the other. The representations of Alexander and the known veneration of a cult to Alexander the Great suggest that statues and paintings in existence at Beroia inspired the types of both medallions and coins.115 Even with portraits in the round as likely prototypes, the stylistic features of the Alexander images on the medallions and bronze coins of the koinon (facial line, windblown hair, elaborated front) bear witness to an interaction between these two groups. In addition, late Roman contorniates originating from the capital itself give evidence of the reuse of similar Alexander images and related reverse scenes (see section 5, above). With the coinage of the Macedonian koinon dating from AD 218–246, we need to establish its chronological relationship to the gold medallions and vice 111. Mittag (1999), esp. dies XV–XVII and XIXa, XXI–XXIa respectively. 112. Mittag (1999), pl. 15, die 11. See also below on the question of authenticity. 113. Cf. Mittag (1999), pl. 15, dies 8–10, against, e.g., pl. 15, dies 123–128. 114. Mittag (1999), pl. 3, dies Olympias I–Olympias–Omphale II, and pl. 15, dies 1–7 respectively. See Fig. 9 for an example from the koinon. 115. Dressel (1906), 24–25: koinon bronzes and gold medallions with regard to the obverse type with helmet are not dependent on each other but rely on a mutual prototype, but at the same time the gold medallions date to the AD 240s. Cameos may have been used as prototypes for other scenes, such as nereids, the sea thiasos, and Perseus and Andromeda. 516 Karsten Dahmen versa. Previous scholars argued that the Aboukir medallions were the source for the iconography of the koinon’s bronzes after AD 218: Dressel labeled the bronze coins of the koinon as popular issues of the rarer gold medallions.116 For Toynbee, the bronzes are copies after the design of the medallions.117 Vermeule, too, accepts that the design of the bronzes is influenced by the medallions, but this relationship is not consistent with his presumed date of production of the medallions in the reign of Severus Alexander.118 The following table shows the shared motifs and their chronological sequence of appearance within the coinage of the Macedonian koinon. Aboukir/Tarsos Alexander’s portrait with Attic helmet (B, H, I, M, N) Alexander with windblown hair (Tarsos I) Alexander as Herakles with lion’s skin (Tarsos I) Alexander leading Boukephalos (G detail) Alexander on horseback, hunting (Tarsos I, III) Alexander as victorious horseman (H) Athena on throne feeding snake in olive tree (O) Alexander with ram’s horn, to left (A, F, G) Alexander being presented his weapons (E, U) detail of Alexander sitting on bench with his armor (on obv. bust of M) Koinon Bronzes AD 218–222, 231–235, 238–244, 246 (Only heads. The busts are without helmet, commencing AD 231–235) AD 218 onward head from AD 218, bust 238–244 AD 218–222 (AMNG no. 302) AD 231–235, 238–244 AD 231–235, 238–244 AD 238–244 AD 238–244 (to right) None. But scene with Alexander seated having already received his armor. AD 231–235, 238–244. see above The following scenes of the Aboukir medallions are not found among the coinage of the koinon: nereids and a sea thiasos, Alexander hunting a boar, Perseus and Andromeda, Nike in a four-horse chariot (although Nike riding in a biga is well 116. Dressel (1906), 60 (“Volksausgaben”). Compare R. Mowat, Revue Numismatique (1903): 2–5. 117. Toynbee (1944), 71–73. She also thinks that the medallions were produced (or at least their dies made) in Rome or that (less possible) the mint’s engravers traveled to Macedonia to produce the medallions on the spot. Designs and dies allegedly would have come from Rome, and the medallions would then have been struck locally. Both koinon bronzes and contorniates derive from (Aboukir) medallions according to Toynbee, while the alleged close correspondence of contorniates and gold medallions would support the view that the medallions were produced in Rome or by Rome mint employees. This hypothesis is certainly wrong, as the majority of the contorniates were produced without any imperial authority but as private commemoratives. 118. Vermeule (1982), 70. Alexander in Gold and Silver 517 known from the koinon and other civic coinages), and the obverse portraits of Olympias. Although there is no obvious chronological pattern noticeable among both groups, some indication of their mutual relationship is detectable. The chronological development might indeed indicate a gradual inspiration of the coins of the Macedonian koinon from the gold medallions. Reverse scenes appear only during the 230s and 240s, when the production of the Aboukir and Tarsos medallions presumably took place. But main portrait types do exist among the koinon’s coinage as early as AD 218. It is certain now that the coinage of the Macedonian koinon was the first to feature a number of characteristic (obverse) portrait types of Alexander, while the medallions from Aboukir (and Tarsos) are indebted to these prototypes, combining them with additional scenes on the reverse. It is most likely that the latter in some cases are taken from cameos or paintings (e.g., the scenes of the sea thiasos or Perseus and Andromache) rather than from sculpture or comparable coin images. Another argument for the close relationship between these two groups derives from a general observation of Alexander’s image on ancient coins of the Roman period. These coins were minted by individual cities. They were not imperial money from the mint of Rome. These civic coins hardly show any relation to one another in matters of the motifs employed and the style of images. In contrast, it seems very likely that every city developed an independent approach to imagining Alexander. Bearing this in mind, it is even more remarkable that the gold medallions are so closely related to the coinage of the koinon. This can hardly be coincidental. It must, on the contrary, originate from an appreciation of the same prototypes (statues or paintings) from the same region or place.119 Thus the coins of the Macedonian koinon and the gold medallions may both best be described as the result of a contemporary veneration of Alexander, derived primarily from the same prototypes. The models were almost certainly located in Beroia. There is also no reason to explicitly exclude the existence of the Alexander coinage of the Macedonian koinon before the gold medallions from Aboukir and Tarsos were produced. 7. Function, Use, and Date Scholars have considered the medallions from Aboukir (including the Tarsos and other specimens) as prize money, so-called Niketeria,120 distributed among the victors of athletic and other competitions in games honoring Alexander the Great. 119. Dahmen (2007), 62–63. 120. The term is seldom used in ancient sources, see RE XVII (1937), 318–319, s.v. Niketerion (K. Regling) dating them to AD 243; Liddell and Scott (1996), 1176, s.v. νικάω/ νικητήριον. 518 Karsten Dahmen Roman emperors in the first half of the third century AD are held responsible either for their production or distribution.121 This interpretation of the medallions remains questionable. The images on our medallions do not relate to any agonistic competition.122 Nor are any athletic events ever depicted.123 The practice of awarding prizes favors this view. Agonistic inscriptions dealing with the rules of these competitions and their prizes indicate that it was common practice to pay a certain sum of money (often in a purse) to victors. Such money prizes were almost certainly composed of contemporary coins already in circulation rather than specially produced medallions.124 There are no Niketeria comparable to our medallions known from actual finds.125 Likewise, the gold pieces from Aboukir and Tarsos are not based on a common weight standard. They do not represent multiples of an imperial gold denomination. In addition, their inscriptions are in Greek and solely devoted to Alexander (and the “Philips”); there is no reference to a Roman emperor. It is therefore impossible to interpret these medallions as derived from circulating money (e.g., Roman aurei and even later solidi).126 It would have been quite arbitrary to award 121. Dressel (1906), 56; Bernardi (1970), 90 (prize money with later use as talismans); Bastien (1993), 470; Leschhorn (1998), 405 (all Beroia); Vermeule (1982), 63, 69 (several places mentioned in Thrace, Asia Minor, and Kilikia, always prize money, emperor or legate responsible for distribution, “documents of Roman and Greek imperial courtly numismatic art”); Vermeule (1986), 21–22 (Severus Alexander to Philip the Arab during processions, inauguration of public monuments or games). Cf. Gagé (1975), 4–15; Savio (1994–1995, 100), agrees with Vermeule (1982, 69) on Pergamon but proposes a number of private individuals as producers. See also Touratsoglou (2008). 122. Because Apollo is depicted on Dressel U, Dressel (1906, 56–58) relates this specimen to the festivals (Phytia) at Thessalonica. Together with Dressel L (Alexander in quadriga seen from the front), because of the latter’s close resemblance to a medallion of Philip the Arab, he gives these two to the second Olympiad of AD 246/247. 123. Leschhorn (1998, 403, 405) names gymnastic (boxing, possibly pentathlon) competitions and such in Beroia. In AD 243/244, there were equestrian agones; inscriptions give additional testimony of gladiators and animal hunts. Compare another inscription (not honoring Alexander) published by Nigdelis (1995, 170–174). 124. For example, Klose and Stumpf (1996), 102. Such rewards at Olympiads are attested at Thyateira/Lydien: Klose and Stumpf (1996), 121, no. 232 with ill. Pergamon: von Fritze (1910), 81, pl. 9.14. On such coins, the purse is a familiar motif. Prizes and rewards in general: Pleket (1975), 60–71. Daily allowances were paid to participants in order to attract professional athletes. 125. The character of so-called brabeia in gold known from inscriptions and awarded in other sacred crown contests remains unclear: Pleket (1975), 66, with reference in n. 71 to Moretti (1953), 247. A brabeion given to the victor of the Sebasteia at Naples: IGR I 449. For an overview of terms used see Petzl and Schwertheim (2006), 95–96. 126. Compare Peixoto Cabral, et al. (2000), with the weights of contemporary aurei. Alexander in Gold and Silver 519 athletes with such prizes, as the value varied with each medal’s weight (not taking into account their reduced fineness). How would a first (or second if awarded) place have been differentiated?127 It also seems neither appropriate nor reasonable that one individual alone should have been rewarded with all twenty of the pieces from Aboukir at once.128 Possibly the smaller medallions in gold and silver (see catalogue) and their use as amulets129 pushed forward the idea of creating larger and more precious pieces in gold. More probably, their production followed the example of the medallions from Aboukir and Tarsos. An individual may have hired an able die engraver (who may possibly have been engaged in gem production) and had medallions struck on flans produced from privately owned gold. The place of production and distribution must have been Macedonia, as the iconographic parallels with the koinon’s coinage suggest, while the die cutter most certainly originated from one of the leading monetary centers in the area. Either Thrace with Perinthos or western Asia Minor with cities like Pergamon, Smyrna, and Ephesos are likely candidates (already suggested as a possible mint for these medallions), but also Rome, with its experience in the production of imperial medallions, remains an option.130 The individual responsible for the medallions’ production most certainly played an important role in the koinon’s political life and had the resources needed at hand. These qualities—political influence, close ties to the koinon, and material wealth—are found together in the office of the Makedoniarchos, the high priest of the province and leading figure in the provincial imperial cult, who presided over the festivals and games at Beroia. One of the Makedoniarchs around c. AD 220–235 might have had these medallions distributed among high-ranking state officials or courtiers of the emperor in an attempt to make his session in office and “his” games even more impressive and memorable. Such manifestations of Alexander’s legend in gold certainly would have made an impression on recipients and plenty of related iconography and prototypes was available. The medallions were based on the already familiar bronze coinage of the koinon, which may have been partly funded through “private” leiturgia and which also venerated Alexander and 127. Prize money for other than first places: Buhmann (1975), 7, n. 1. In Oinoanda, C. Iulius Demosthenes in AD 124 awarded first and second prizes: see Wörrle (1988), 8–9, 234–236. 128. If the victor is indeed identical with the last owner. Here we must consider Vermeule’s (1982, 69) suggestion, whose idea of an ancient “goldfinger” finds my favor. 129. This view is supported by ancient sources describing the use of Alexander’s image as an amulet in the Later Roman period: H. A. The thirty pretenders 14.3–6, esp. 6; and Dio Chrysostum, Ad illuminandos catechesis 2.5. Compare Savio (1994/1995, 100). 130. See Touratsoglou (2008), who discusses Rome as a production site for the medallions. 520 Karsten Dahmen showed loyalty to the Severan dynasty. From this perspective, the medallions represent magisterial donativa, not agonistic niketeria. The reverse of Dressel M with an Attic Athena Promachos and a column inscribed “Olympiados” has been taken as hard dating evidence. Mowat paralleled the three lines OΛVM/ΠIA/ΔOC with koinon bronzes bearing a date according to the Actian Era. The coins are inscribed with the Actian date EOC (275) on their reverses, thus indicating production in AD 243/244. According to Mowat, who was followed by Dressel, our medallion needs to be read as OΛVMΠIA “the Olympiad” and ΔOC the year 274 of the Actian Era (= AD 242/243).131 This initially intriguing interpretation has been challenged for various reasons. Vermeule132 pointed out that a smaller gold piece in Oxford (cat. 4) reads “Olympiados” in one line and therefore the last three letters cannot be interpreted as a date. We can therefore not agree that the same sequence of letters would have a very different meaning in these two cases. Furthermore, among numerous Roman provincial coins naming an Olympic festival (as well as Pythic, Actian, or Isthmian games), there is no case in which these Olympiads are combined with a date relating to any kind of era. On the contrary, they are only numbered (e.g., first, second, third Olympiad). Olympiads subsequent to the first are indicated by a numeral, as in the case of the second Olympiad on the koinon coins under Philip I.133 By locating our medallions in Macedonia and Beroia and placing them chronologically between AD 211/212 and 246, we may by means of historical probability narrow the period of production. Caracalla, although notorious for his veneration of Alexander the Great,134 makes a highly improbable candidate. Yet, if he had issued these medallions, we would have expected some evidence of a reaction on the coinage of the Macedonian koinon. During his reign there is no such reference to Alexander on coins in Macedonia, nor do we know of any Macedonian games in his honor at this time. On the other hand, the appearance of Caracalla’s portrait on Dressel E, S, and T speaks against their production under Gordian III or Philip I. For these emperors, who were not themselves members of the Severan dynasty 131. Dressel (1906), 55–56. Head (1911, 242) supports this view, as does Leschhorn (1998), 402. For an opposing view, see Burell (2004), 196. 132. Vermeule (1982), 69. 133. See AMNG III 1, p. 22, and nos. 856, 871. 134. He seems to have inaugurated the so-called Alexandreia in Philippopolis in Thrace, as coins give testimony of these games: Leschhorn and Franke (2002), 34–35, s.v. AΛEΞANΔPIA and AΛEΞANΔPEIA. See also the Thracian koinon on whose coins “Alexandreia” are mentioned but without representations of Alexander. For Caracalla’s ‘Alexandermania,’ which began during the reign of his father around AD 197, see Salzmann (2001), 173–191; Espinosa (1990), 37–51. Cf. Dahmen (2007), 35, n. 301. Alexander in Gold and Silver 521 and certainly claimed no relation to Caracalla, it simply would have made no sense to feature this particular predecessor.135 There is in consequence no evidence for the veneration of Caracalla during their reigns.136 In contrast, Macrinus and his son Diadumenianus (AD 217/218) were aware of Caracalla’s popularity within the army and approved honors for him. Nevertheless, in Caracalla’s lifetime, there is no evidence for either Alexander festivals in Macedon or any representation of him on the coinage of the koinon under these emperors. The recutting of dies by adding a reference to the newly gained neocorate under Macrinus clearly illustrates how fast a provincial body could react to privileges recently granted by the emperor.137 Had Macrinus given orders to distribute medallions (or approved their production by local authorities), we would expect some kind of change on the koinon’s coins as well. This leaves us with two possible candidates, both members of the Severan family and claiming to be sons of Caracalla: Elagabalus and Severus Alexander. For them, it would make sense to stress their relation both to Caracalla and his hero Alexander. Under Elagabalus, the Macedonian koinon inaugurated its coin issues with images of Alexander. Imperial portraits on the obverse become rare henceforth. Alexander takes over on the obverses, while the reverses depict scenes related to him or national and agonistic themes.138 Severus Alexander, on the other hand, has an even more impressive record of venerating Alexander.139 It is also during his reign that we possess historical evidence for the existence of Alexander festivals (so-called Alexandreia) in Beroia. Besides the testimony of coins identifying the games at Beroia and their procedures,140 inscriptions set up by the Makedoniarchos and victorious athletes name these Alexandreia only from the period 135. Furthermore, they also had no special relation toward Beroia, where neocorate status only appears for the first time under Macrinus. Cf. Vermeule (1982, 67), who has a similar view. 136. Inscriptions mentioning Divus Antoninus (Caracalla) after his death are restricted to the period AD 218–235, see Fejfer (1992), 209–213, 216–217; Mastino (1981), 78–80. Inscriptions after AD 217: Mastino (1981), 143–146. Post AD 235: IGBulg III no. 884 = AE 1907 no. 48 = IGR I no. 1481 of c. AD 250–260 and CIL VI no. 1682 from AD 334. There are no posthumous honors for Caracalla recorded on behalf of Gordian III or Philip the Arab. 137. AMNG III 1, pp. 12–13 and nos. 298.1 and 2 (the latter is same dies as no. 299.2). 138. AMNG III 1, pp. 14–18 with table of obv. and rev. types. 139. Dahmen (2007), 37, n. 330; Vermeule (1982), 61, with references. On this phenomenon in general see Salzmann (2001), 173, n. 1. 140. AMNG III 1, nos. 320 (obv. Gordian III), 795–800 (Olympia), 801 (Olympia Alexandria), 856, 871 (second Olympiad in Beroia). During the AD 240s, with the additional title Olympiad but no longer part in the formula of an inscription of AD 252: Velenis (1999), 1319–1320, no. 1. 522 Karsten Dahmen of Severus Alexander onward.141 Summing up, it is during the reign of Severus Alexander that we should place the production of the gold medallions. 8. Conclusion The medallions from Tarsos, Aboukir, and similar smaller pieces constitute a corpus of Alexander-related iconographic material unrivaled in antiquity. They give evidence of a growing cultural self-awareness within Macedonia and a general “Alexandermania” in the third century AD. The following points can be made: (1) The iconography employed has links to the coinage of the Makedonian koinon and to the games at Beroia, making this city the very likely place of origin for the gold medallions. (2) The period of the Severan dynasty, most probably the reign of Severus Alexander (AD 222–235), witnessed the production of the medallions. (3) The medallions were likely made privately rather than by an imperial mint, given their use of Greek legends, absence of references to the emperor or agonistic contests, and their metallic content. If this is so, then it rules out the use of these medallions as prize money. (4) While the large medallions in gold (including the specimens in Cambridge and the J. Spier collection) were possibly given as presents to highranking visitors and officials, the smaller pieces in gold and silver might point at a less prominent audience at Beroia (Auswurfgeld). The pieces produced from sheet metal are certainly not products of this series but are rather improvised contemporary imitations based on their example. These were mainly used as talismans and appear in grave finds (danakes). The two pieces with a grazing horse on the reverse (cat. 10 and 38) remain isolated. In this author’s opinion, the high priest of Macedonia likely ordered the production of the gold medallions of Tarsos and Aboukir, given their likely date and place of origin at Beroia, the center of games to Alexander the Great. The iconography referring to Alexander the Great is also consistent with this conclusion. There certainly is need for further research and discussion. The exact sequence of issue for the gold medallions in comparison to the bronze coins of the koinon (the thesis here is “koinon first”) will have to be the subject of future research. We would also like to know more about the role of contorniates as a medium for images of Alexander and their contribution by transporting prototypes from the Hellenistic and Roman imperial period to late antiquity. Finally, we would like to know more about the last owners of the precious hoards from Tarsos and Aboukir and the circumstances surrounding their burial.142 141. See Leschhorn (1998), 401, e.g. IGR I. no. 802 and two inscriptions naming the Makedoniarchos as the Agonothetes of the Agon Alexandreiou: Leschhorn (1998), 403 = Touratsoglou (1970), 280–290 = AE (1971), nos. 430–431 of AD 229 and 240. 142. For a suggestion on possible historical backgrounds, see Touratsoglou (2008). Alexander in Gold and Silver Excursus: Missing Medallions? 523 The questionable and undocumented discovery of both hoards eventually raises suspicion as to whether the twenty medallions from Aboukir and three from Tarsos known today may really represent the total number of those medallions in existence in antiquity. Dressel had already made this point in discussing similar representations of Alexander and Olympias on late Roman contorniates (Figs. 6–7).143 In one case,144 Alexander is shown sitting on a chair and holding a shield decorated with the same depiction of Achilles and Penthesileia as on one of the medallions from Aboukir. On Dressel E, Nike presents helmet and shield to Alexander, while on the contorniate Alexander has already received Nike’s gift and she has left the scene.145 Possibly this contorniate attests to another comparable gold medallion, one showing the full sequence of events. On the other hand, we cannot be sure that the contorniate type is not the result of an abbreviation of the original design.146 The presence on Aboukir medallions of a number of nereids as part of an naval procession (Dressel D, K, N, O, Q, R, S), but never their leading figure Thetis carrying weapons and armor of Alexander-Achilles, could be the effect of yet another loss.147 But again, one may argue that it is always Nike presenting arms to Alexander (Dressel U, E) and not Thetis. The Athena Parthenos of the cut medallion in the J. Spier collection, with its obvious signs of reuse as Hacksilber may not only testify to the potential fate of other specimens but may even provide another obverse type.148 Vermeule names portraits of Septimius Severus and imperial women as other possibilities.149 Finally, in light of the representations on the koinon bronzes, Dressel also expected a 143. Dressel (1906), 83–85, pl. 3.1. 144. Mittag (1999), pl. 15, die 11. 145. This case serves also as the final proof for the medallion’s authenticity. The contorniate in question was not yet known in 1902, but was depicted even in an erroneous earlier drawing, which misunderstood the shield device (gorgoneion instead of Achilleus and Penthesileia). Any potential forger would certainly have relied on such “prototypes” and have come up with products quite different from our medallions. Cf. Dressel (1906), 83–85, pl. 3.1–2, and 37, n. 2. The same motif appears on a chryselephantine shield from the “tomb of Philip,” see Dahmen (2007), 96–97, n. 337. Further research on this parallel is clearly needed. The holy shield from Troy that Alexander took from the sanctuary of Athena and that later saved his life might play a role here (Arrian Anabasis 1.11.7; 1.12.2, 6.10.2). Posterity would understand the motif as an allegory of the conqueror of Asia. 146. Speculative and hard to prove is the use of model books. 147. Dressel (1906), 49. 148. Cf. Vermeule (1982), 71. 149. Vermeule (1986), 23. 524 Karsten Dahmen gold version of Alexander’s bust type carrying a spear in profile as well as a depiction of Olympias on her kline.150 To close this discussion, it seems very possible that there were more medallions whose design we are now able to reconstruct in broad terms. There is actually no way to come to a final solution other than through a new find of more medallions. Catalogue of Medallions from Aboukir, Tarsos, and Related Material In what follows, the Tarsos medallions are numbered I–III; the Aboukir medallions are identified with letters A–U according to Dressel, and the smaller pieces with Arabic numerals. The name of the authority responsible for a measurement is given in square brackets; die axis and other data without brackets was taken by the author.151 A note on legends: all are in Greek letters and found on the reverses. Both the medallions from Tarsos and Aboukir combine Alexander’s name and the king’s title (basileus) whenever his name appears. With the exception of Dressel L, the legend is always given in the nominative case wherever Alexander appears on the reverse in person; on other pieces, the genitive case is used (Dressel 1906, 52–53, 81). The Cambridge specimen gives only his name (with round epsilon), while the Athens “Niketerion” has a square epsilon and presents the king’s title written on a shield. Those pieces with purely mythological scenes (sea-thiasos, Perseus and Andromeda, but not Athena, e.g., Dressel O), are often combined with an obverse featuring Olympias, but lack any legend. An exception is Dressel M with Athena and Alexander, which reads “Olympiados” on a column. The legend “Basileon Philippon” of Dressel G remains enigmatic. It has been suggested that it refers either to Macedonian kings of this name (i.e., Philip I and Philip II, Alexander’s predecessors) or the Roman emperor Philip the Arab (Dressel 1906, 53, n. 2; Toynbee 1944, 70, n. 2). Of the smaller pieces not originating from these two hoards, Alexander’s name is always given in the genitive case and without title whenever it appears. Both round and square letter forms are represented. Nos. 4 and 13 bear a legend referring to Olympias. Letter forms: the epsilon on the pieces from Aboukir and Tarsos is always round. The omega is mostly written as Ω; only Tarsos II and Dressel A use 0 (Toynbee 1944, 70, n. 2, 51); the use of other letters such as Ξ and Y varies. 150. Dressel (1906), 61, 65. 151. In the catalogue, the following abbreviations are used that differ from those elsewhere: Bastien = Bastien (1993); Bernardi = Bernardi (1970); Dressel = Dressel (1906); McDonald = McDonald (1899–1903); Papisca = Papisca (1999); Peixoto Cabal = Peixoto Cabal, et al. (2000); Savio = Savio (1994–1995); Svoronos = Svoronos (1907). Alexander in Gold and Silver Tarsos 525 I Tarsos. Paris. Cabinet des Médailles Inv. F 1671. 98.65 g, 67 mm [Bernardi; Savio]; 68/65 mm, 98.65 g [AMNG]; 12 h. References: AMNG III 1, no. 873; Svoronos pl. 8.1; Bernardi p. 81, no. 1, pl. 1.1; Savio p. 74, no. 1; Cat. Alexander p. 30, no. 9 with ill.; Papisca pp. 861–862 fig. 1. Obv.: Bust of Alexander (Bernardi) or of Herakles (Savio) with lion’s skin seen from the back to right. Rev.: Alexander in armor with chlamys on horse to right hunting lion with spear. In exergue, AΛEZANΔPOC; on left, BACIΛEYC. For rev., compare AMNG nos. 419, 411.2 (BMC Macedonia no. 102) in London and AMNG no. 370.1 = SNG IV no. 2253 in Cambridge. II Tarsos. Paris. Cabinet des Médailles Inv. 1673. 93.85 g, 67 mm [Bernardi; Savio]; 67/64 mm, 93.85 g [AMNG]; 12 h. References: AMNG III 1, no. 874; Svoronos pl. 8.3; Bernardi p. 81, no. 2, pl. 1.2; Savio p. 74, no. 2; Cat. Alexander p. 32, no. 11, with ill.; Papisca pp. 862–863, figs. 3–4. Obv.: Cuirassed bust of Philip II with diadem in three-quarter view to left. On cuirass, an eagle of Zeus fighting a giant on an aegis. On each shoulder clasp, Nike carrying a shield. (AMNG 192 identifies bust as an idealized portrait of Caracalla). Rev.: Nike in quadriga to right, holding palm branch with taenia in her left hand. On carriage, possibly representation of a human figure, but nearly completely covered by horse’s tail. On left, BACIΛE; above, WC; in exergue, AΛEΞANΔPOY. III Tarsos. Paris. Cabinet des Médailles. Inv. F 1672. 110.3 g, 70 mm [Bernardi; Savio]; 110.3 g, 68/70 mm [AMNG]; 12 h. References: AMNG III 1, no. 872; Svoronos pl. 8.2; P. Moreno, Lisippo. L’arte e la Fortuna. Cat. Rome (1995), p. 177, fig. 4.23.2; Bernardi p. 81, no. 3, pl. 1.3; Savio p. 74, no. 3; Cat. Alexander p. 31, no. 10 with ill.; Papisca pp. 861–862, fig. 2. Obv.: Head of Alexander with flamelike hair to right, head slightly turned up. Rev.: Lion hunt as on Tarsos I, possibly the same die (Bernardi), certainly same die (Savio 74). Aboukir A Aboukir. Berlin. Münzkabinett Acc. 1903/873. 112.66 g, 54 mm [Bernardi]; 54–54.5 mm [Dressel; Savio]; 12 h. References: Svoronos pl. 9.1; Bernardi pp. 81–82, no. 4, pl. 2.4; Savio p. 78 A, pl. A 1–2; Dressel p. 7 A, pl. 1 A. Obv.: Diademed head of Alexander with ram’s horn to left, head slightly turned upward, gazing to heaven. 526 Karsten Dahmen Rev.: Nike in quadriga to right, holding palm branch with taenia in her left hand, in her right, reins. On left, BACIΛ-EWC; in exergue, AΛEIANΔPOY. For same motif but different die; see reverse of Tarsos II. Omega in form of 0 (as in case of Tarsos I–III, not Ω as rest of Aboukir. Border filed. Metal analysis: obv. 88.5% AV 11.5 AR, rev. 87.3% AV 12.7% AR (error margin 3 resp. 5% for each metal). B Aboukir. Berlin. Münzkabinett Acc. 1905/1. 105 g, 60 mm [Bernardi]; 105.06 g, 59–60 mm [Dressel; Savio]; 11 h. References: Svoronos pl. 10.1; Bernardi p. 82, no. 7, pl. 3.7; Savio p. 78 B, pl. A 3–4; Dressel pp. 8–9 B, pl. 1 B. Obv.: Cuirassed bust of Alexander with coat draping his shoulder in threequarter view to left. He is wearing an Attic helmet without cheek pieces and a high crest (decorated by a sphinx at its base). On the side of the helmet, an Artemis on horse to left (Dressel 8: Artemis Tauropolos); head is slightly moved forward but not turned up. Doublestruck. Rev.: Nike wearing a chiton to right, left foot on helmet, pointing with her left hand at oval shield, which she holds with her right. Shield is held by a winged Eros turned left. On the shield, male figure in loincloth turned left and woman turned right. Above both figures, two lines indicating a curtain (?) (Dressel pp. 8, 44–45: Alexander and one of his wives). On extreme right, tropaion with double axe, four oval shields, armor with sword and coat, helmet, quiver, and two bows with one bow case each. On the ground, two sitting captives; on left, a bound man with Phrygian cap and trousers; on right female with coat, her left hand supporting her chin (Dressel 8–9). On left, BACI-ΛE; above, ΩΣ - AΛE; on right, ΞANΔPOV. Rim filed. Metal analysis: obv. 93% AV 7% AR (error margin 3 resp. 7%), rev. 93.7% AV 6.3% AR (error margin 3 resp. 8%). C Aboukir. Berlin. Münzkabinett Acc. 1907/230. 84.30 g, 56 mm [Dressel; Bernardi; Savio]; 12 h. References: Svoronos pl. 11.1; Bernardi p. 83, no. 10, pl. 4.10; Savio p. 78 C, pl. B 3–6; Dressel pp. 9–10 C, pl. 2 C; Bastien, 308–309, 469, pl. 254. Obv.: Facing cuirassed bust of Alexander wearing a diadem with round shield (only part visible) and spear on left shoulder. Head slightly turned to his left and eyes gazing upward. Hair with anastolé and short whiskers visible on his left cheek. On shield, naked female bust seen from the front, holding a mantle above her head (Dressel p. 9, n. 1: Gaea), above and circled by six stars (always two by two), the confronted heads of Helios and Selene on crescent in profile. Above along the rim of the shield, five signs of the zodiac from left to right: aries, taurus, gemini, cancer, and leo (only back visible). On Alexander’s armor, Alexander in Gold and Silver 527 a youthful giant. On right shoulder clasp: Athena in peplos with spear to right, and aegis, plumed helmet and oval shield (Dressel 10, n. 1). Rev.: As B (Savio p. 78; Dressel p. 10). Metal analysis: obv. 93.4% AV 6.6 % AR (error margin 3 resp. 8%), rev. 92.7% AV 7.3% AR (error margin 3 resp. 7%). D Aboukir. Berlin. Münzkabinett Acc. 1907/229. 81.86 g, 58 mm [Dressel; Savio]; 81 g, 58 mm [Bernardi]; 12 h. References: Svoronos pl. 13.1; Bernardi p. 84, no. 15, pl. 6.15; Savio p. 79 D, pl. B 1–2; Dressel pp. 10–11 D, pl. 2 D. Obv.: Draped, diademed, and veiled bust of Olympias in three-quarter view to left; right arm adorned with bracelet, left hand holds a scepter. Rev.: Nereid riding on a sea-bull to left, left upper arm, right wrist and both ankles with brooches; in left hand reins, amid the waves two shells and two dolphins (Dressel p. 11). Metal analysis: obv. 95.3% AV 4.3% AR (error margin 3 resp. 11%), rev. 94.8% AV 5.2% AR (error argin 3 resp. 9%). E Aboukir. Berlin. Münzkabinett Inv. 1908/3. 65.12 g, 47–48 mm [Dressel; Savio]; 65 g, 48 mm [Bernardi]; 1 h. References: Svoronos pl. 14.3; Bernardi p. 86, no. 22, pl. 7.22 (uncertain whether Dressel E or S illustrated); Savio p. 79 E, pl. B 4–5; Dressel pp. 11–12 E, pl. 2 E. Obv.: Cuirassed and laureate bust of Caracalla seen from the front with sword and shield to left. Over his shoulder, a spear (its point similar to the one of Dressel C). Breastplate with head of Medusa, shoulder clasp ornamented. From his right shoulder hangs a balteus, the sword itself with hilt in form of an eagle (an emperor’s sword). Around his waist, the cingulum militare (belt). The shield bears the diademed head of Alexander in profile to the left, above Alexander on horse hunting a lion. Rev.: Alexander, diademed and with a garment around his hips, sitting to the right on a bench. In front of him, Nike turned left, her left hand supported by a round shield, her right hand holding an Attic helmet. Shield decorated with Achilles slaying Penthesileia. On left side, BACIΛEVC; above, AΛEIANΔPOC. Metal analysis: obv. 88.1% AV 11.9% AR, rev. 88.6% AV 11.4% AR (error margin 3 resp. 5%). F Aboukir. Lisbon. Museu Calouste Gulbenkian Inv. 2428. 54 mm [Bernardi]; c. 54 mm [Dressel; Savio]; 96.44 g, 54 mm [Peixoto Cabral]; 12 h. References: Svoronos pl. 9.2; Bernardi p. 82, no. 5, pl. 2.5; Savio p. 79 F [ex coll. Sinadino, Alexandria]; Peixoto Cabral [ex coll. Pierpont Morgan]; Dressel p. 13 F. Obv.: As A, same die (Dressel p. 13). Rev.: Alexander in chlamys and boots fights a boar with his spear to right. A tree 528 Karsten Dahmen and two dogs on the right. At base of tree a coiled serpent. On left, BACIΛEVC; above, AΛEΞANΔPOC (Dressel p. 13, n. 1 refers to similar motifs on contorniates and gems but fails to mention the serpent). G Aboukir. Lisbon. Museu Calouste Gulbenkian Inv. 2426. 97.50 g, 55 mm [Dressel; Bernardi; Savio]; 97.49 g, 54 mm [Peixoto Cabral]; 12 h. References: Svoronos pl. 9.3; Bernardi p. 82, no. 6, pl. 2.6; Savio p. 79 G [ex coll. Singa, Alexandria]; Peixoto Cabral [ex coll. James Loeb]; Dressel p. 13 G. Obv.: As A and F, same die (Dressel p. 13). Rev.: Alexander, naked, sitting to left on heap of weapons and armor. Behind him, Boukephalos with a saddlecloth made of panther skin. On both left and right a (beardless?) warrior in full armor with Attic helmet, spear, and shield. The one on the left is carrying his spear over his shoulder, the one on the right places its foot on the ground; above, BACIΛEΩN; in exergue, ΦIΛIΠΠΩN. Dressel (1904, 53, 69) and Toynbee (1944, 70): Alexander and his two ancestors Philip I and II. Head p. 241: These two rather than Emperor Philip the Arab and his son. H Aboukir. Lisbon. Museu Calouste Gulbenkian Inv. 2429. c. 46 mm [Dressel; Savio; Bernardi]; 52.04 g, 46 mm [Peixoto Cabral]; 12 h. References: Svoronos pl. 10.3; Bernardi p. 83, no. 9, pl. 3.9; Savio pp. 79–80 H, pl. A 5 [obv., ex coll. Sinadina, Alexandria]; Peixoto Cabral [ex coll. Pierpont Morgan]; Dressel p. 13 H, pl. 1 H [obv.]. Obv.: As B. (Dressel p. 13: Same die as B. Bernardi p. 83; Savio p. 80: different dimensions, hence two dies). Rev.: Alexander with diadem on horse to right. In his right hand, a spear pointing at warrior wearing a Phrygian helmet lying on the ground, carrying a shield, right arm raised. On left, BACI-ΛEVC; above, AΛEΞANΔPOC. I Aboukir. Lisbon. Museu Calouste Gulbenkian Inv. 2425. 105.75 or 106 g, 57.50 mm [Savio; Dressel 14 n. 1]; 105 g, 57 mm [Bernardi]; 105.97 g, 58 mm [Peixoto Cabral]; 11 h. References: Svoronos pl. 10.2; Bernardi p. 83 no. 8; Savio p. 80 I [ex coll. Vinga, Alexandria]; Peixoto Cabral [ex coll. James Loeb]; Dressel p. 14 I. Obv.: As B, same die. Rev.: As B, same die (both Dressel p. 14 and Bernardi p. 83 “probalimente”). K Aboukir. Lisbon. Museu Calouste Gulbenkian Inv. 2430. 70.50 g, 58 mm [Dressel; Bernardi; Savio]; 70.68 g, 57 mm [Peixoto Cabral]; 12 h. References: Svoronos pl. 11.2; Bernardi p. 83 no. 11 pl. 4.11; Savio p. 80 K [ex coll. Eddé, Alexandria]; Peixoto Cabral [ex coll. Pierpont Morgan]; Dressel p. 14 K. Obv.: As C, same die (Dressel p. 14; Bernardi p. 83 “forse lo stesso conio”). Alexander in Gold and Silver 529 Rev.: Nereid riding on a sea-centaur to right, who carries a trident over his shoulder and holds in his left hand a fish. Amid the waves four dolphins. Prototype of Rev.: Cameo in Florence (LIMC VIII no. 58, s. v. Tritones pl. 52); Bruneau and Vatin (1964), p. 263, fig. 6 (Triton and tritoness). L Aboukir. Baltimore. Walters Art Museum Inv. 59.1. 96.566 g, 12 h[Museum] 96.65 g, 53–55 mm [Dressel; Savio]; 96.65 g, 55 mm [Bernardi]; 95 g, 54 mm [Cat. Search for Alexander]. References: Svoronos pl. 11.3; Bernardi p. 83, no. 12, pl. 4.12; Savio p. 80 L [ex coll. Kyticas, Cairo]; Dressel p. 14 L, pl. 4.10 [rev.]; Cat. Search for Alexander pp. 103–104, no. 11, with ill. and pl. 5; Cat. Alexander p. 33, no. 12, with ill.; Arnold-Biucchi (2006), 32–33, with ill. Obv.: As C and K, same die (Dressel p. 14). Rev.: Alexander, cuirassed and bareheaded, wearing a chlamys and carrying a shield and spear in his left hand riding in a four-horse chariot. Chariot decorated with garlands and its center with unidentified group or figure (Achilles and Patroklos? See Vermeule [1982], 64). In Alexander’s right hand, an Attic helmet. To his right, Nike to left crowning Alexander. On the right, a bearded warrior in armor with spear and round shield in his left hand and a palm branch in his right turned right. On the left, a female figure (her breast uncovered) with spear in her right hand and palm branch in her left. Both figures are looking inward. Of the four horses, each pair is looking outward. In exergue, ΑΛEIΑNΔPOV; above, BΑCI–ΛEΩC. For prototype, see Dressel pp. 14–15, n. 3 and pl. 4.9; Cat. Alexander p. 104 (Ares, Roma/Virtus). M Aboukir. Lisbon. Museu Calouste Gulbenkian Inv. 2431. 77.25 g, 55 mm [Dressel; Savio]; 77 g, 55 mm [Bernardi]; 77.47 g, 52 mm [Peixoto Cabral]; 12 h. References: Svoronos pl. 12.1; Bernardi p. 84, no. 13, pl. 5.13; Savio pp. 80–81 M [ex coll. Eddé, ex coll. J. Pierpont Morgan]; Peixoto Cabral [ex coll. Pierpont Morgan]; Dressel pp. 15–16 M, pl. 3.3; LIMC II (1984), s. v. “Athena,” pp. 1083–1084, no. 131, pl. 793. Obv.: Cuirassed bust of Alexander with shield and Attic helmet (no cheek pieces) seen from the front to right. Head turned upward. On the breastplate, a representation of Alexander with spear in his right hand and sword (parazonium) sitting on heap of weapons to right. (Dressel p. 15, n. 2 compares with coinage of koinon). On left side, Nike crowning Alexander with palm branch and on the right another crowning female figure to right with wand/sword (?) in her left hand (Dressel p. 15, Arete?). On the helmet, a cavalry battle is represented. Compare Dressel p. 15, n. 1; illustrated by Fuhrmann (1931), 84–86, pl. 4a: Horseman on left in Greek armor, the one on the right in blouse, trousers, and wearing a tiara. 530 Karsten Dahmen Rev.: Athena wearing a chiton with aegis standing to right, a spear is held diagonally down with her left hand. She is wearing an Attic helmet (again without cheek pieces). In her right hand she holds a Corinthian helmet, which is decorated with the figure of a horse (?) and possibly its rider, too (Dressel pp. 15–16, n. 3). On the ground, a coiled serpent to the right. Behind Athena, a profiled column, on its top, an owl to the right. On the column, an inscription in three lines: OΛVM/ΠIΑ/ΔOC. On the left side, an olive tree. N Aboukir. Lisbon. Museu Calouste Gulbenkian Inv. 2432. 48 g, 48 mm [Dressel; Bernardi; Savio]; 47.89 g, 47 mm [Peixoto Cabral]; 12 h. References: Svoronos pl. 12.2; Bernardi p. 84, no. 14, pl. 5.14; Savio p. 81 N [ex coll. Eddé, Alexandria]; Peixoto Cabral [ex coll. Pierpont Morgan]; Dressel pp. 16–17 N, pl. 4. 12 [obv.]. Obv.: As M, but variations in physiognomy and generally of smaller dimensions. On helmet, representation of Ganymede with eagle of Zeus to right. Alexander (Dressel p. 16; Bernardi p. 84), male (Savio p. 81). Helmet decorated with a serpent. Breastplate with scene as on Dressel M, but of poor conservation and struck less precisely. Rev.: Nereid, to right, riding on a ketos to the left. With her left hand she holds a garment above herself and in her right an unidentified object, possibly a seashell. O Aboukir. Lisbon. Museu Calouste Gulbenkian Inv. 2434. 49 g, 46 mm [Dressel; Bernardi; Savio]; 48.89 g, 46 mm [Peixoto Cabral]; 12 h. References: Svoronos pl. 12.3; Bernardi pp. 84–85, no. 16, pl. 6.16; Savio p. 81 O [ex coll. Eddé, Alexandria]; Peixoto Cabral [ex coll. Pierpont Morgan]; Dressel pp. 17–18 O. Obv.: Female bust, draped and veiled to right. At outer right, a wand around which a serpent is coiled. Olympias (Bernardi p. 84), possibly Olympias (Dressel p. 17, n. 3), female (Savio p. 81). Rev.: Athena wearing peplos, aegis, and Corinthian helmet sitting on throne to left. Her right hand holds bowl (phiale) offering food to a serpent, which is coiled in an olive tree left. Left hand of Athena on back of throne. On right, B – ΑCIΛEΩC; on left, ΑΛEΞΑNΔPOV. P Aboukir. Lisbon. Museu Calouste Gulbenkian Inv. 2435. 48 g, 47 mm [Dressel; Bernardi; Savio]; 58.07 g, 46 mm [Peixoto Cabral]; 11 h. References: Svoronos pl. 12.4; Bernardi p. 85, no. 17; Savio p. 81 P [ex. coll. Eddé, Alexandria]; Peixoto Cabral [ex coll. Pierpont Morgan]; Dressel p. 18 P. Obv.: As O, same die (Dressel p. 18; Bernardi p. 85, “forse”). Rev.: Perseus with harpa leading Andromeda, who wears a coat, away from the rocks, where she had been held, down to the right. In front, the dead beast (ketos), on the right, Eros with his bow to the left. Alexander in Gold and Silver 531 Q Aboukir. Thessalonika. Archaeological Museum Inv. MΘ 4304. c. 57 mm [Dressel; Savio]; 120.06 g, 59 mm [M & M; Bernardi]; 57 mm, 62 g, thickness 8 mm [Cat. Rome] 58 mm, 120.06 g, thickness 8 mm [Museum] die axis ? References: Svoronos pl. 13.2; Monnaies et Médailles, Basel Auction 25, 17 Nov. 1962, p. 40, no. 732, pl. 18 [ex Nahman, Cairo; ex Pierpont Morgan]; Bernardi p. 85, no. 18, pl. 6.18; Vermeule (1982, p. 62, with n. 10); Savio p. 82 Q; Kottaridou and de Vito, p. 204, no. 4, with ill.; Dressel p. 19 Q [1902 with Nahman, Cairo, present owner unknown]. Obv.: Bust of a woman in three-quarter view to the right. She is wearing a diadem and has her head partly veiled. Her left hand is lifting the veil. Olympias [Bernardi p. 85; Savio p. 82]. Most probably Olympias (Dressel p. 19, n. 1). Rev.: As D, same die (Dressel p. 19; Bernardi p. 85 “forse”). R Aboukir. Baltimore. Walters Art Museum Inv. 59.2. 63.746 g, 11 h [Museum] 63.82 g, 54–54.5 mm [Dressel; Savio], 63 g, 54 mm [Bernardi], 62 g, 54 mm [Cat. Search for Alexander]. References: Svoronos pl. 13.3; Bernardi p. 85, no. 19, pl. 6.19; Cat. Search for Alexander p. 103, no. 10, with ill. and pl. 5; Savio p. 82 R [ex coll. Kyticas, Cairo, now Baltimore]; Dressel p. 19 R; Cat. Alexander p. 34, no. 13, with ill. Obv.: As Q, same die. Rev.: As K, same dies (both Dressel p. 19; Bernardi p. 85 “forse”). S Aboukir. Lisbon. Museu Calouste Gulbenkian Inv. 2433. 69.50 g, 59 mm [Dressel; Bernardi; Savio]; 69.42 g, 57 mm [Peixoto Cabral]; 12 h. References: Svoronos pl. 14.2; Bernardi p. 85, no. 21, pl. 7.21 [uncertain whether obv. of Dressel S or R illustrated]; Savio p. 82 S [ex coll. Eddé, Alexandria]; Peixoto Cabral [ex coll. Pierpont Morgan]; Dressel pp. 19–20 S. Obv.: Nearly identical to E. According to Dressel p. 19 same die, Bernardi p. 86, n. 6 rightly points at differences in the angle the spear is held. Here it is in contrast to E nearly horizontal. Portrait with moustache. Relief worn, but representation of whiskers is possible. Rev.: As K, same die (Dressel p. 19; Bernardi p. 86 “forse”). T Aboukir. Baltimore. Walters Art Museum Inv. 59.3. 71.671 g, 11 h [Museum] 71.75 g, 57 mm [Dressel; Savio]; 71 g, 57 mm [Bernardi]; 70 g, 57 mm [Cat. Search for Alexander]. References: Svoronos pl. 14.1; Bernardi p. 85, no. 20, pl. 7.20; Cat. Search for Alexander p. 115, no. 33, with fig.; Savio p. 83 T [ex coll. Kyticas, Cairo]; Dressel p. 20 T; Cat. Alexander p. 35, no. 14, with fig. 532 Karsten Dahmen Obv.: Cuirassed and laureate bust of Caracalla with paludamentum, round shield and spear seen from the back to left. Moustache and whiskers. Shield decorated with Nike in biga, left. Rev.: Alexander, diademed, in short garment with spear to right defending himself against boar attacking from the left. Top left, a dog joining the scene. On left, BΑCIΛEVC; above, ΑΛEΞΑNΔPOC. U Aboukir. Lisbon. Museu Calouste Gulbenkian Inv. 2427. 47.5 or 47.75 g, 41 mm [Dressel; Savio]; 47.45 g, 41 mm [Bernardi]; 47.61 g, 40 mm [Peixoto Cabral]; 12 h. References: Svoronos pl. 14.4; Bernardi p. 86, no. 23, pl. 7.23; Savio p. 83 U [ex coll. Vinga, Alexandria, now Lisbon]; Peixoto Cabral [ex coll. James Loeb]; Dressel p. 20 U. Obv.: Laureate head of Apollo to left, in left field, a laurel branch. Rev.: As E, same die (Dressel p. 20; Bernardi p. 86 “forse”). Athens. National Numismatic Museum. From Setta in Euboia in 1964. Mounted 32.1 g, without 21.7 g, without 33 mm [Archaiologikon Deltion 1964; Savio; Bernardi; Jenkins]. References: I. R. Christodulopoulos, Archaiologikon Deltion 19 (1964), 15 with fig.; Touratsoglou (2000, 79); G. Daux, BCH 88 (1964), 690; N. Kaltsas, ed., Agon. Cat. Athens (2004), 68–69, figs. 4–5; E. Glytsi in Cat. Athens (2004), 12, fig. 1 (rev.); Bernardi pp. 86, 89; Savio pp. 95–96 β; M. R. Jenkins, AAA 19 (1986), 114–118. Obv.: Cuirassed bust of Alexander with coat in three-quarter view to the left. He wears a crested Attic helmet with small cheek pieces. Helmet decorated with representation of Pegasos (?) and the neck cover with a star. Center protection of helmet bears a small ornament (or horse/griffin?). Rev.: Nike to right, writing BΑ/CIΛ/E(ος) on round shield placed on a cippus. First line of inscription is followed by an empty one before legend continues with letters CIΛ and last line with letter E. Thus the positioning of letters leaves no space for complete title. On right, ΑΛEΞΑN (E square); on left, ΔPOY. The condition of this medallion raises serious doubts about its authenticity: the surface is quite uneven and is characterized by tiny porous cavities uncommon in struck flans but familiar from casts. In addition, circular lines appear concentrically, in contrast to the ones on the pieces from Aboukir; there are no traces of hammering on the flan. In contrast to the iconography of the Alexander wearing a helmet known from the medallions from Aboukir and the coins of the Macedonian koinon, this piece shows his frontal locks heavily displaced despite the helmet, and the helmet itself is equipped with cheek pieces. Also, the whole area between cheek piece, neck cover, and transition to helmet around the temples is Alexander in Gold and Silver 533 represented rather uninspiringly, which leaves open the question of whether the “engraver” actually knew what it was he intended to depict. Bernardi (1970, 89) tells the rather colorful story of a former Turkish slave from Greece having been given this piece by her lover. Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum. 21.41 g, 36 mm [AMNG; Savio]; 21.42 g, 12 h [SNG]. Bought in Serres, Greece, by W. M. Leake before 1815 [AMNG; Savio, SNG]; 21.44 g, 37 mm, 12 h. References: AMNG III 1, no. 875, pl. 4.1; Toynbee (1944), no. 5, pl. 3.5; SNG GB IV 3, no. 2351, pl. 43; Savio p. 90 α; P. Moreno, Cat. Rome (1995), 177, fig. 4.23.1 [erroneously “Paris, from Tarsos,” relates motif with Lysippian prototype, compare base from Messene]; Vermeule (1982), p. 63, n. 11, p. 69. Obv.: Head of Athena with Corinthian helmet to left. Helmet decorated with serpent (following the example of Alexander’s lifetime gold coinage). Rev.: Horseman in armor wearing coat and boots to right fighting a lion with his spear. Pantherskin as saddlecloth. On left, Α-ΛEΞ (E round); above, ΑN-ΔPOC. In front of the horse’s neck, traces of another hoof and behind the animal, traces of a mane. Close to right leading hoof, three lines in relief. Above the A of the legend on top, another letter A lacking the horizontal bar. This suggets at least two strikes on this flan. The traces left and their position hint at a representation of this reverse, which showed Alexander as victor on his rearing mount. Compare Dressel H in Lisbon, but of much smaller dimensions. Coll. J. Spier. From Asia minor [Vermeule (1982), p. 71]. Rolled fragment (1/3– 1/2) of size of “regular” Aboukir medallion. References: Vermeule (1982), 71, pl. 8; 1986, 22–23, fig. 25. Obv.: Bust of Athena Parthenos to right. Rev.: Nike with palm branch in quadriga to right. AΛEIANΔPO[?]. Smaller Medallions Struck (unless stated otherwise) in Gold 1 London. British Museum. 1.88 g, 10 mm [AMNG]; 1.86 g, 11 mm, 3 h. References: AMNG III 1, no. 881; BMC Macedonia p. 21, no. 93. Obv.: Diademed head of Alexander (long hair) to right. Rev.: Lion to left. 2 London. British Museum. 6.96 g, 21 mm [AMNG]; 6.89 g, 22 mm. From Tarsos? References: AMNG III 1, no. 882; Wroth, pp. 99–100, pl. 10, 6 [talisman or amulet, allegedly from Tarsos hoard]; Montagu Sale March 1897, lot 118. Obv.: Diademed head of Alexander (long hair) to right. No reverse image. 534 Karsten Dahmen 3 Berlin. Münzkabinett. Acc. 1900 Imhoof-Blumer. 0.8 g [AMNG]; 0.83, g, 15 mm. References: AMNG III 1, no. 883. Obv.: Diademed head of Alexander (long hair) to right. No reverse image (flat). Metal analysis: Obv. 84.7% AV, 13.7% AR, 1.6% CU; Rev. 84.3% AV, 13.1% AR, 2.6% CU (error margin 3 resp. 4% for AV and AR, CU on obv. 12%, rev. 10%). 4 Oxford. Ashmolean Museum. 2.36 g, 17 mm, 12 h [Hess-Leu]; 2.36 g, 12 h [SNG]; 2.36 g, 18 mm, 12 h [Ars Classica]. References: Ars Classica, Auction 17, 3 Oct. 1934, Luzern, p. 22, no. 413, pl. 13 [similar to pieces from Aboukir and Tarsos]; Hess-Leu Luzern/Zürich, Auction 16 April 1957, no. 163, pl. 6 [from Aboukir hoard, Severan period]; Vermeule (1982), 63, n. 12; Savio p. 97 γ, pl. C 2 [Rev.]; SNG GB V 3, no. 3311, pl. 68. Obv.: Diademed head of Alexander (long hair) to right. Rev.: Cista mystica with coiled serpent. On left, OΛVM; right, ΠIΑΔOC. 5 London. British Museum. 2.73 g, 17 mm [AMNG]; 2.74 g, 18 mm, 12 h. References: AMNG III 1, no. 877, pl. 4, 2; BMC Macedonia p. 21, no. 92 with drawing. Obv.: Diademed head of Alexander (with flying hair, but style unlike the type of the koinon) to left. Rev.: Lion to right. On top, ΑΛEIA (E round); in exergue, NΔPOV. 6 Present location unknown. 20 mm [AMNG]. References: AMNG III 1, no. 876; Haverkamp, pl. 18, 9. Obv.: Cuirassed and diademed bust of Alexander with coat seen from the front to right. Rev.: Lion to right. On top, ΑΛEΞΑN (E round); in exergue, ΔPOY. References: AMNG III 1, no. 876 compares with koinon coin, e.g., no. 808. 7 Whereabouts unknown. Coll. Six. 1.76 g, 13 mm [AMNG]; Pressed? References: AMNG III 1, no. 884; Guépin, pp. 315, 317, fig. 13. Obv.: Cuirassed and diademed bust of Alexander with coat seen from the back to the left. At his left shoulder, a shield; in his covered right hand, a spear. No reverse image. References: AMNG III 1, no. 884 compares with coins of the koinon, e.g., no. 405 = 406 = 407, 1.2. Inferior style uncommon with pieces above. 8 Whereabouts unknown, 1905 in trade. 2.38 g, 13 mm. References: AMNG III 1, no. 878. Obv.: Head of Herakles with lion’s skin to right. Rev.: Lion to right. On top, ΑΛEIAN; in exergue, ΔPOY. Alexander in Gold and Silver 535 9 London, British Museum. 1.17 g, 9 mm [AMNG]; 9 h. References: AMNG III 1, no. 879, pl. 4, 10; BMC Macedonia p. 21, no. 94 with drawing. Obv.: Bust of youthful Herakles (rather than Severus Alexander, even less probable Elagabalus?) seen from the front to right. He is laureate and wears a lion’s skin around his neck. Rev.: Lion to right. On top, ΑΛEIA[N]; in exergue, ΔPOY. 10 London. British Museum Inv. 1880.6.1.8. 1.49 g, 11 mm, 12 h. Bought from S. Sava coll. together with twenty-seven coins mostly from the Troad. References: BMC Troad p. 12, no. 37 (time of Caracalla); Vermeule (1982), 65, n. 15. Obv.: Head of Herakles with lion’s skin right. Rev.: Grazing horse to right; faded inscription below reads, AΛEIANΔPOV. 11 Berlin. Münzkabinett. Acc. 1910/648. 5.31 g, 25 mm with loop, 22 mm without loop, 12 h. From Prince Michael Obolensky coll. Allegedly found in Russia. References: De Koehne (1957), 174, pl. 12.1. Obv.: Head of Herakles with lion’s skin to right. Rev.: She-wolf suckling twins. A-ΛE-ΞANΔP-OV (retrograde, E round), above two busts (left male radiate, right one worn: Sol and Luna [?], less likely emperor and empress). Already with loop when acquired by Berlin, but not as recorded in 1857. 12 Veria. Museum (?). Grave find (grave A) of third century AD in ancient Beroia, Makedonia. 22 mm. References: Touratsoglou, ADelt 24 (1969), 313–315, pl. 328 b; Touratsoglou (2000, 79). Pressed? Obv.: Head of Alexander with ram’s horn to left. Rev.: Cista mystica with coiled serpent. Inferior style, sheet metal. 13 Berlin. Münzkabinett Acc. 1875/98. 1.15 g, 10 mm, 12 h. “From Makedonia” (Sallet 1876). References: AMNG III 1, no. 880 [not authentic]; Dressel p. 32, with n. 2 [authentic]; Gaebler, p. 13 [no remark]; von Sallet, pp. 56–57 with drawing [authentic, from Makedonia]. Obv.: Diademed (?) and veiled head of Olympias to right. Rev.: Coiled serpent to left. On top, OΛYM; below, ΠIΑΔ[OC]. Holed (obv. 12 h). 536 Karsten Dahmen Metal analysis: 98.6% AV, 1% AR, 0.4% CU (error margin 3 resp. 25 resp. 40%). Uncommonly high fineness, but see also Gaebler in AMNG III, no. 880. 14 Whereabouts unknown. 1.62 g. AV sheet with bust of “Olympias,” veiled, to left, from “Byzantine” (actually second to third century AD) grave at the Academy of Plato at Athens. References: E. Varoucha-Christoudoulopoulou, ADelt 19 (1964), 15, pl. 4.66; Daux, p. 690, fig. 14; F. Stauropoullos, Praktika (1963), p. 22, pl. 20 a; Alföldi (1990), 85–86, pl. 245.8. Smaller Medallions (Struck) in Silver 15 Frankfurt am Main? 2.18 g, 16 mm. References: AMNG III 1, no. 885. Obv.: Diademed head of Alexander (floating hair) to right. Rev.: Athena sitting left, holding Nike in her right hand, on right side a spear with point downward, and a shield next to her throne. On left, ΑΛ–EΞΑNΔ (E round); in exergue, -POV. Damaged. References: AMNG III 1, no. 885 suggests coins of Lysimachos with Athena Nikephoros as prototype for reverse. Recent inquiries show that this piece is not in the museum there. 16 Gotha. 1.13 g, 12 mm. References: AMNG III 1, no. 886, pl. 4.5. Obv.: Diademed head of Alexander (floating hair) to right. Rev.: Winged Eros riding a lion to right, his right hand raised. In exergue, ΑΛEΞΑNΔPOY (last two letters in ligature). Damaged. 17 Oxford. Ashmolean Museum. 1.35 g, 13 mm [AMNG]; 1.35 g, 6 h [SNG]; 1.35 g, 12 mm, 6 h. References: AMNG III 1, no. 887, pl. 4.3; SNG GB V 3, no. 3312, pl. 68. Obv.: Diademed head of Alexander (long hair) with ram’s horn to left. Rev.: Lion to right. On top, ΑΛEΞΑN; in exergue, ΔPOV. 18 Paris. Cabinet des Médailles Inv. FG 1119. 1.08 g, 12 mm, 12 h. References: AMNG III 1, no. 888. Obv.: Diademed head of Alexander (long hair) with ram’s horn to left. Rev.: Lion to right. On top, ΑΛEΞΑ; in exergue, NΔPO[V]. Damaged. 19 Paris. Cabinet des Médailles Inv. FG 1118. 1.19 g, 12 mm, 12 h. References: AMNG III 1, no. 889, pl. 4.4. Alexander in Gold and Silver Obv.: Diademed head of Alexander (long hair) with ram’s horn to right. Rev.: Lion to right. On top, ΑΛEIΑN (E round); in exergue, ΔPOV. 537 20 Copenhagen. National Museum. 0.9 g, 12 mm [AMNG]; 0.9 g, 12 mm, 12 h [SNG]. References: AMNG III 1, no. 890; SNG Copenhagen no. 1381, pl. 36. Obv.: Diademed head of Alexander (long hair) with ram’s horn to right. Rev.: Lion to right; in exergue, ΑΛEΞΑNΔPO[V]. Damaged. 21 London. British Museum Inv. 1910.11-4.73 Ready. 1.60 g, 12 mm, 4 h. Obv.: Diademed head of Alexander (long hair) with ram’s horn to right. Rev.: Bowcase, below bow; in center, AΛEΞANΔPOV. 22 London. British Museum. 1.05 g, 12 mm [AMNG]; 1.04 g, 11 mm, 2 h. References: AMNG III 1, no. 891; BMC Macedonia p. 22, no. 97. Obv.: Diademed head of Alexander (long hair) to right. Rev.: Lion to right. On top, ΑΛE (E round); in exergue, ΞΑNΔPOV. 23 Berlin. Münzkabinett. Acc. 1900 Imhoof-Blumer. 0.88 g, 12 mm [AMNG]; 0.87 g, 12 mm, 1 h. References: AMNG III 1, no. 892. Obv.: Diademed head of Alexander (long hair) to right. Rev.: Lion to right. On top, ΑΛEI[Α]; in exergue, NΔ[POV]. Damaged, “inferior style” (AMNG). 24 Berlin. Münzkabinett. Acc. 1900 Imhoof-Blumer. 1.05 g, 11 mm [AMNG]; 6 h. References: AMNG III 1, no. 893. Obv.: Diademed head of Alexander (long hair) to right. Rev.: Lion to right. On top, ΑΛEΞ[ΑN]; in exergue, ΔPOV. Damaged. 25 Gotha. 0.76 g, 10 mm. References: AMNG III 1, no. 894. Obv.: Diademed head of Alexander (long hair) to right. Rev.: Lion to right. On top, ΑΛEΞΑN; in exergue, ΔP[OV]. Damaged. 26 Paris. Cabinet des Médailles Inv. FG 1117. 1.22 g, 12 mm, 1 h. References: AMNG III 1, no. 899 pl. 4.6. Obv.: Diademed head of Alexander (long hair) to right. Rev.: Lion to right. Damaged. 538 Karsten Dahmen 27 Glasgow. Hunter Coin Cabinet. 0.59 g, 11 mm [AMNG]; 0.59 g, 11 mm, 9 h [SNG]. References: AMNG III 1, no. 900.1, pl. 4.7; McDonald, p. 357, no. 3, pl. 24.16; SNG GB XII 1, no. 755. Obv.: Diademed head of Alexander (long hair) to right. Rev.: Lion to right. For a forgery, see McDonald, I 3, p. 57, no. 2, pl. 24.15; SNG GB XII 1, no. 756. 28 St. Petersburg. 0.65 g, 11 mm. References: AMNG III 1, no. 900, 2. Obv.: Diademed head of Alexander (long hair) to right. Rev.: Lion to right. 29 London. British Museum. 0.95 g, 13 mm [AMNG]; 0.94 g, 14 mm, 12 h. References: AMNG III 1, no. 902; BMC Macedonia p. 22 no. 96. Obv.: Diademed head of Alexander (long hair) to right. Rev.: Lion to left. 30 London. British Museum. 1.7 g, 13 mm [AMNG]; 1.68 g, 13 mm, 12 h. References: AMNG III 1, no. 895; BMC Macedonia p. 21, no. 95. Obv.: Head of Herakles with lion’s skin to right. Rev.: Lion to right. On top, ΑΛEΞΑ; in exergue, NΔPOY. 31 Paris. Cabinet des Médailles Inv. FG 1116. 0.62 g, 12 mm [AMNG]; 10 mm, 12 h. References: AMNG III 1, no. 896. Obv.: Head of Herakles with lion’s skin to right. Rev.: Lion to right. On top, [ΑΛ]EΞΑN; in exergue, ΔPOY. Damaged. 32 Berlin. Münzkabinett. Acc. 1900 Imhoof-Blumer. 0.9 g, 11 mm [AMNG]; 12 h. References: AMNG III 1, no. 897, pl. 4.9. Obv.: Head of Herakles with lion’s skin to right. Rev.: Lion to right. In exergue, ΑΛEΞΑNΔP. 33 Berlin. Münzkabinett. Acc. 1875 Prokesch-Osten. 0.78 g, 11 mm [AMNG]; 12 h. References: AMNG III 1, no. 901.1. Obv.: Head of Herakles with lion’s skin to right. Rev.: Lion to right. 34 Berlin. Acc. 1875/10. 0.62 g, 11 mm [AMNG]; 9 h. Purchased from Mr. Lambros. References: AMNG III 1, no. 901.2, pl. 4.8. Obv.: Head of Herakles with lion’s skin to right. Rev.: Lion to right. Alexander in Gold and Silver 35 Paris. Cabinet des Médailles Inv. H.S. R 4360. 1.77 g, 15 mm, 12 h. Obv.: Head of Herakles with lion’s skin to right. Rev.: Lion to right. Damaged. 539 36 London. British Museum Inv. 1922.10-20.60 Spink (ex H. Weber). 0.73 g, 10 mm, 6 h. Obv.: Head of Herakles with lion’s skin to right. Rev.: Lion to right. On top, AΛE (E round); below, IANΔPO[V]. 37 Paris. Cabinet des Médailles Inv. FG 1053. 0.96 g, 10 mm, 1 h. References: AMNG III 1, no. 898. Obv.: Head of Herakles with lion’s skin to right. Rev.: Bow, below club, at top thunderbolt. On top, ΑΛEΞΑN; below, ΔPOV. In contrast to Alexander’s own coinage, the reverse lacks a bowcase. Compare Price (1991), nos. 3590–3591, 3886–3887, 4012–4016 (all half-obols of differing mean weight c. 0.3 g). See also forgeries, nos. F 109–110, pl. 156. 38 Paris. Cabinet des Médailles Inv. FG 113. 2.25 g, 10 mm, 9 h. References: BMC p. 12; Imhoof-Blumer, p. 465, no. 36 [2.92 g, 10 mm]; Ch. Lenormant, RevNum (1856), 41–44, pl. 1.10 = Mionett II, 639, no. 64. Obv.: Laureate head of Alexander (?) / Apollo to right. Rev.: Grazing horse to right. [Α]ΛEIA/[NΔPOV] (E round). Another piece mentioned by Imhoof-Blumer (465, post no. 36), allegedly in Munich in 1883, cannot be located at the present time. List of Figures Fig. 1. Medallion Philip I, Grueber BM Fig. 2. AMNG 778.1 helmet Fig. 3. AMNG 813.1 bust Fig. 4. AMNG 816.1 bust/lion Fig. 5. Alexander as Herakles/quadriga Contorniate Fig. 6. Olympias/Alexander Contorniate Fig. 7. Olympias/Alexander Contorniate, second specimen Fig. 8. Caracalla/Olympias Contorniate Fig. 9. AMNG 367.2 Olympias on kline Photo credits Dressel A–E, fig. 5–8: © Staatliche Museen zu Berlin Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Münzkabinett. Aufnahmen durch Lutz-Jürgen Lübke. 540 Karsten Dahmen Dressel M (cast), cat. 3, 11, 13, 23–24, 32–34: © Staatliche Museen zu Berlin Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Münzkabinett. Aufnahmen durch Reinhard Sazcewski. Dressel L, R, T: © The Walters Art Museum, Baltimore. Dressel Q: © Archaeological Museum, Thessaloniki. Euboia: © National Numismatic Museum, Athens. cat. 18, 19, 31, 37, 38: © Cabinet des Médailles, Paris. cat. 27: © Hunter Coin Cabinett, Hunterian Museum and Art Gallery, Glasgow. All remaning photis: © the author Key to Plates 100–110 Tarsos I. Paris. Cabinet des Médailles. Tarsos II. Paris. Cabinet des Médailles. Tarsos III. Paris. Cabinet des Médailles. Dressel A. Berlin. Münzkabinett. Dressel B. Berlin. Münzkabinett. Dressel C. Berlin. Münzkabinett. Dressel D. Berlin. Münzkabinett. Dressel E. Berlin. Münzkabinett. Dressel F. Lisbon. Museu Calouste Gulbenkian. Dressel G. Lisbon. Museu Calouste Gulbenkian. Dressel H. Lisbon. Museu Calouste Gulbenkian. Dressel I. Lisbon. Museu Calouste Gulbenkian. Dressel K. Lisbon. Museu Calouste Gulbenkian. Dressel L. Baltimore. The Walters Art Museum. Dressel M. Lisbon. Museu Calouste Gulbenkian. Dressel M. Cast in Berlin with detail of battle scene on helmet. Dressel N. Lisbon. Museu Calouste Gulbenkian. Dressel O. Lisbon. Museu Calouste Gulbenkian. Dressel P. Lisbon. Museu Calouste Gulbenkian. Dressel Q. Thessaloniki. Archaeological Museum. Dressel R. Baltimore. The Walters Art Museum. Dressel S. Lisbon. Museu Calouste Gulbenkian. Dressel T. Baltimore. The Walters Art Museum. Dressel U. Lisbon. Museu Calouste Gulbenkian. “Euboia Niketerion.” Athens. National Numismatic Museum. Cambridge Medallion. Fitzwilliam Museum. Cat. 1. AMNG no. 881. London. British Museum. Cat. 2. AMNG no. 882. London. British Museum. Cat. 3. AMNG no. 883. Berlin. Münzkabinett. Cat. 4. Oxford. Ashmolean Museum, Heberden Coin Room. Alexander in Gold and Silver 541 Cat. 5. AMNG no. 877. London. British Museum. Cat. 9. AMNG no. 879. London. British Museum. Cat. 11. Berlin. Münzkabinett Acc. 1910/648. Cat. 13. AMNG no. 880. Berlin. Münzkabinett. Cat. 17. AMNG no. 887. Oxford. Ashmolean Museum, Heberden Coin Room. Cat. 19. AMNG no. 888. Paris. Cabinet des Médailles. Cat. 21. London. British Museum Inv. 1910.11-4.73. Cat. 22. AMNG no. 891. London. British Museum. Cat. 23. AMNG no. 892. Berlin. Münzkabinett. Cat. 24. AMNG no. 893. Berlin. Münzkabinett. Cat. 26. AMNG no. 899. Paris. Cabinet des Médailles. Cat. 27. AMNG no. 900.1. Glasgow. Hunter Coin Cabinet. Cat. 29. AMNG no. 902. London. British Museum. Cat. 30. AMNG no. 895. London. British Museum. Cat. 31. AMNG no. 896. Paris. Cabinet des Médailles. Cat. 32. AMNG no. 897. Berlin. Münzkabinett. Cat. 33. AMNG no. 901.1. Berlin. Münzkabinett. Cat. 34. AMNG no. 901.2. Berlin. Münzkabinett. Cat. 35. Paris. Cabinet des Médailles Inv. H.S. R 4360. Cat. 36. London. British Museum Inv. 1922.10-20.60. Cat. 37. AMNG no. 898. Paris. Cabinet des Médailles. Cat. 38. Paris. Cabinet des Médailles Inv. FG 113. References Alföldi, A., and E. Alföldi. 1976/1990. Die Kontorniat-Medaillons. 2 vols. Berlin. AMNG III 1/2 = Gaebler, H. 1906/1935. Die antiken Münzen Nord-Griechenlands. Die antiken Münzen von Makedonia und Paionia III. 2 parts. Berlin. Arnold-Biucchi, C. 2006. Alexander’s coins and Alexander’s image. Cambridge, Mass. Arvanitakis, G. L. 1903. HO ΘEΣAYPOΣ TOY ABOYKIP. Hellenion: 247–268. Babelon, E. 1901. Traité des monnaies grecques et romaines I 1. Paris. Bastien, P. 1993. Le buste monétaire des empereurs romains II. Wetteren. Bergemann, J. 1990. Römische Reiterstatuen. Mainz. Bernardi, C. 1970. I Niketeria. Rivista Italiana di Numismatica e Scienze Affini 18: 79–90. Bland, R. 1996. Gold and silver denominations AD 193–253. In Coin finds and coin use in the Roman world, C. E. King and D. G. Wigg, eds. Studien zu den Fundmünzen der Antike (SFMA) 10: 63–100. Berlin. Boehringer, C. 1972. Zur Chronologie mittelhellenistischer Münzserien 220–160 v. Chr. Antike Münzen und Geschnittene Steine 5. Berlin. ———. 1999. Beobachtungen und Überlegungen zu den Ären der pamphylischen 542 Karsten Dahmen Alexandreier. In Travaux de numismatique grecque offerts à Georges Le Rider, Amandry and S. Hurter, eds., 65–75. London. Brendel, O. 1936. Der Schild des Archilles. Die Antike 12: 272–288. Bruneau, P., and C. Vatin. 1964. Une nouvelle mosaïque à Délos. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique 88: 252–266. Buhmann, H. 1975. Der Sieg in Olympia und in den anderen panhellenischen Heiligtümern. München. Burell, B. 2004. Neokoroi: Greek cities and Roman emperors. Leiden and Boston. Cat. Search for Alexander = 1980. The search for Alexander. An exhibition. Washington, Chicago, Boston, and San Francisco. Cat. Alexander = Pandermalis, D. 2004. Alexander the Great. Treasures from an epic era of Hellenism. New York. Crawford, H. M. 1974. Roman Repuclican Coinage. Cambridge. Dahmen, K. 2007. The legend of Alexander the Great on Greek and Roman coins. London and New York. Daux, G. 1964. Chronique des Fouilles 1963. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique 88: 682–693. de Koehne, B. 1857. Statère d’or d’Alexandre Sévère. Revue Belge de Numismatique et de Sigillographie: 174. Dressel, H. 1906. Fünf Goldmedaillons aus dem Funde von Abukir. Abhandlungen der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin. ———. 1909. Errata-corrige. Zeitschrift für Numismatik 27: 137–157. Eddé, J. 1905. Les trouvailles de trésors monétaires en Egypte. Bollettino di Numismatica III.11: 128–129. Espinosa, U. 1990. La alejandrofilia de Caracalla en la Antigua historiografia. In Neronia IV, J. M. Croisille, ed., pp. 37–51. Brussels. Fejfer, J. 1992. Divus Caracalla und Diva Julia Domna: a Note. In Ancient portraiture: Image and message, T. Fischer-Hansen et al., eds., pp. 207–219. Copenhagen. Fischer-Hansen, T., et al., eds. 1992. Ancient portraiture: Image and message. Acta Hyperborea 4. Copenhagen. Fittschen, K., and P. Zanker. 1994. Katalog der römischen Porträts in den Capitolinischen Museen und den anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom I². Mainz. Fuhrmann, H. 1931. Philoxenos von Eretria. Göttingen. Gaebler, H. 1906. Zur Münzkunde Makedoniens V. Zeitschrift für Numismatik 25: 1–38. Gagé‚ J. 1975. Alexandre le Grand en Macedoine dans le I&e moitie du IlIe siecle av. J.-C. Historia 24: 1–16. Gmyrek, C. 1998. Römische Kaiser und griechische Göttin. Milan. Alexander in Gold and Silver 543 Gnecchi, F. 1912. I Medaglioni Romani. Milan. Guépin, J. P. 1976. Alexander Promachus. In Festschrift A. N. Zadoks-Joephus Jitta, pp. 313–319. Groningen. Gundel, H. G. 1992. Zodiakos. Tierkreisbilder im Altertum. Mainz. Hardie, P. R. 1985. Imago mundi: cosmological and ideological aspects of the Shield of Achilles. Journal of Hellenic Studies 105: 11–31. Harl, K. W. 1987. Civic coins and civic politics in the Roman East, AD 180–275. Berkeley, Calif. Haverkamp, S. 1736. Algemeene Historie der zaaken in Asie, Afrika en Europe I. The Hague. Head, B. V. 1911. Historia Numorum. A Manual of Greek Numismatics. Oxford. Hill, G. F. 1922. Ancient methods of coining. Numismatic Chronicle 22: 1–42. Imhoof-Blumer, F. 1883. Monnaies grecques. Paris. Kaiser, W. B. 1986. Alexanders Goldmünzen. Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau (Revue Suisse de Numismatique) 65: 41–57. Kallithrakas-Kontas, N., and A. A. Katsanos. 1998. PIXE analysis of ancient coins. In Metallurgy in Numismatics IV, A. Oddy and M. Cowell, eds., pp. 461–472. London. Klose, D. O. A., and G. Stumpf. 1996. Sport Spiele Sieg. Catalogue. Munich. Koch, G., and H. Sichtermann. 1982. Römische Sarkophage. Munich. Kottaridou, A., and A. de Vito. 1995. Alessandro Magno. Storia e mito. Cat. Rome. Kraay, C. M., and M. Hirmer. 1966. Greek Coins. London. Kroll, J. H. 1993. The Greek coins. The Athenian Agora 26. Princeton. Kyrieleis, H. 1971. Der Kameo Gonzaga. Bonner Jahrbücher 171: 162–193. ———. 1975. Bildnisse der Ptolemäer. Berlin. Leschhorn, W. 1998. Griechische Agone in Makedonien und Thrakien. In Stephanos numismatikos. Festschrift E. Schönert-Geiss, U. Peter, ed., pp. 398–415. Berlin. Leschhorn, W., and P. R. Franke. 2002. Lexikon der Aufschriften auf griechischen Münzen / Lexicon of Greek coin inscriptions. Vienna. Liddell, H. G., and R. Scott. 1996. A Greek-English lexicon. Oxford. de Longpérier, A. 1868. Trésor de Tarse. Revue Numismatique 13: 309–336. L’Orange, H. P. 1953. Studies of the iconography of cosmic rulership in the ancient world. Oslo and Cambridge, Mass. Mastino, A. 1981. Le titolatura di Caracalla e Geta attraverso le iscrizioni. Bologna. McDonald, G. 1899–1903. Catalogue of Greek coins in the Hunterian Collection I. Glasgow. Megow, W.-R. 1987. Kameen von Augustus bis Alexander Severus. Antike Munzen und Geschnittene Steine 11. Mittag, P. F. 1999. Alte Köpfe in neuen Händen. Bonn. 544 Karsten Dahmen Mørkholm, O. 1991. Early Hellenistic coinage from the accession of Alexander to the Peace of Apameia (336–186 BC). Cambridge. Moretti, L. 1953. Iscrizoni agonistiche Greche. Rome. Morrisson, C., et al. 1985. L’or monnaye 2. Cahiers Ernest-Babelon. Paris. Mowat, R. 1903. Les Médaillons Grecs du Trésor de Tarse et les monnaies de bronze de la Communauté Macédonienne. Revue Numismatique 13: 1–30. Müller, F. G. J. M. 1994. The wall paintings from the oecus of the villa of Publius Fannius Synistor in Boscoreale. Amsterdam. Münzer, F., and M. L. Strack. 1912. Die antiken Münzen von Thrakien. AMNG II 1. Berlin. Nigdelis, P. M. 1995. Oberpriester und Gymnasiarchen im Provinziallandtag Makedoniens: Eine neue Ehreninschrift aus Beroia. Klio 77: 170–183. Noe, S. P. 1937. A bibliography of Greek coin hoards. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 78. New York. Papisca, M. 1999. Immagini «della imitatio Alexandri» in età severiana. I medaglioni di Tarso. In Ancient Macedonia VI 2, pp. 859–871. Peixoto Cabral, J. M., L. C. Alves, and M. Castro Hipólito. 2000. Análise nãodestrutiva dos medalhões de Abuquir pertencentes à Colecção Calouste Gulbenkian. In Homenagem a Mário Gomes Marques, M. Castro Hipólito and D. M. Metcalf et al., eds., 401–417. Sintra. Pekáry, T. 1985. Das römische Kaiserbildnis, Staat, Kult und Gesellschaft. Das Römische Herrscherbild III 5. Berlin. Petzl, G., and E. Schwertheim. 2006. Hadrian und die dionysischen Künstler. Drei in Alexandria Troas neugefundene Briefe des Kaisers an die Künstler-Vereinigung. Asia minor Studien 58, pp. 95–96. Bonn. Pick, B. 1898. Die antiken Münzen von Dacien und Moesien. AMNG I. Berlin. Pleket, H. W. 1975. Games, prizes, athletes, and ideology: Some aspects of the history of sport in the Greco-Roman world. Stadion 1: 49–89. Price, M. J. 1981. A portrait of Alexander the Great from Egypt. The Norwegian Numismatic Journal 10: 32–37. ———. 1981b. Painting as a source of inspiration for ancient die engravers. In Coins, culture, and history in the ancient world. Numismatic and other studies in honor of Bluma L. Trell, M. J. Price and L. Casson, eds., pp. 69–75. Detroit. ———. 1991. The coinage in the name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus. Zurich and London. Rosenbaum-Alföldi, M. 1963. Die constantinische Goldprägung. Mainz. Rubensohn, O. 1902. Griechisch-Römische Funde in Ägypten. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts 17: 46. Alexander in Gold and Silver 545 Rudzicka, L. 1915. Die Münzen von Serdica. Numismatische Zeitschrift 48: 1–82. ———. 1932–1933. Die Münzen von Pautalia. Bulletin de l’Institute archéologique bulgare 7: 1–216. Sachs, A. J., and H. Hunger. 1998. Astronomical diaries and related texts from Babylonia. Vienna. Salzmann, D. 1982. Antike Kieselsteinmoasiken. Berlin. ———. 1983. Die Bildnisse des Macrinus. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 98: 351–381. ———. 2001. Alexanderschilde—Numismatische Zeugnisse für die Alexanderverehrung Caracallas. In Wissenschaft mit Enthusiasmus. Festschrift K. Fittschen, J. Bergemann, ed., pp. 173–191. Rahden. Savio, A. 1994–1995. Intorno ai medaglioni talismanici di Tarso e di Aboukir. Rivista Italiana di Numismatica e scienze affini 96: 73–103. Schmidt-Dick, F. 2002. Typenatlas der römischen Reichsprägung von Augustus bis Aemilianus. Vienna. Schulten, P. N. 1979. Die Typologie der römischen Konsekrationsprägungen. Frankfurt. Smith, R. R. R. 1988. Hellenistic royal portraits. Oxford. Stewart, A. 1993. Faces of power: Alexander’s image and Hellenistic politics. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Svoronos, J. N. 1907. TA NOMIΣMATA TOY ABOYKIP. Journal International d’Archéologie Numismatique 10: 369–371. ———. 1923–1926. Les monnaies d’Athènes. Munich. Leander Touati, M. 1987. The great Trajanic frieze. Stockholm. Touratsoglou, I. P. 1970. Δύο νέαι ἐπιγραϕικὶ μαρτυρίαι περὶ τοῦ Κοινοῦ Μακεδόνων κατὰ τὸν τριτον μεταχριστιανικὸν αίώνα. Ancient Macedonia 1: 280–290 ———. 1988. Die Münzstätte von Thessaloniki in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Antike Munzen und Geschnittene Steine 12. Berlin. ———. 2000. The Alexander of the coins. Leukosia. ———. 2008. Tarsos, Aboukir, etc.; before and after. Once again. American Journal of Numismatics 20: 479–492. Toynbee, J. M. C. 1944. Greek imperial medallions. Journal of Roman Studies 34: 65–73. Velenis, G. 1999. EπıγραφέϚ από την Αρχαία Αγορά τηϚ ΘεσσαλονίκηϚ. Ancient Macedonia 6: 1317–1327. Vermeule, C. C. 1982. Alexander the Great, the emperor Severus Alexander, and the Aboukir medallions. Swiss Numismatic Review 61: 61–72. ———. 1986. Alexander the Great conquers Rome. Cambridge, Mass. 546 Karsten Dahmen Voetter, O. 1903. Sammlung Bachhofen von Echt.Vienna. von Fritze, H. 1910. Die Münzen von Pergamon. Berlin. von Sallet, A. 1876. Olympias, Alexanders des Grossen Mutter. Zeitschrift für Numismatik 3: 56–57. Waddington, W. H., E. Babelon, and Th. Reinach. 1904. Recueil général des monnaies grecques d’Asie Mineure. Paris. Weiß, C. 2007. Die antiken Gemmen der Sammlung Heinrich Dressel in der Antikensammlung Berlin. Würzburg. Westermark, U. 1961. Das Bildnis des Philetairos von Pergamon. Corpus der Münzprägung. Uppsala. Wörrle, M. 1988. Stadt und Fest im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien. Vestiga 39. Munich. Wroth, W. 1898. Greek coins acquired by the British Museum. Numismatic Chronicle 18: 97–123. Ziegler, R. 1993. Kaiser, Heer und städtisches Geld. Vienna. Plate 100 Tarsos I II Alexander in Gold and Silver Plate 101 III Alexander in Gold and Silver Plate 102 Aboukir A B C Alexander in Gold and Silver Plate 103 D E F Alexander in Gold and Silver Plate 104 G H I Alexander in Gold and Silver Plate 105 K L M detail M Alexander in Gold and Silver Plate 106 N O P Alexander in Gold and Silver Plate 107 Q R S Alexander in Gold and Silver Plate 108 T U Athens Alexander in Gold and Silver Plate 109 Cambridge 1 2 3 4 5 9 11 13 17 Alexander in Gold and Silver Plate 110 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Alexander in Gold and Silver