A New Third Century BC Didrachm of Chios in Ionia1 - Royal ...

A NEW THIRD CENTURY BC DIDRACHM OF CHIOS IN IONIA 31
A New Third Century BC Didrachm
of Chios in Ionia 1
PHILIP KINNS
PLATE 11
IN 2004 a previously unknown large silver denomination of Chios appeared on the American
market. It weighs 10.78g, with a 12 o’clock die axis. The types are as follows:
Obverse: Sphinx with curled wing, seated left on ground line. Before, bunch of grapes.
Border of dots.
Reverse: Wine amphora. At left (downwards) ΧΙΟΣ. At right (downwards) magistrate’s name
ΑΓΓΕΛΙΣΚΟΣ. The whole in vine-wreath with alternate leaves and tendrils, tied below. Pl.
11, 1
The types correspond precisely to an Attic weight drachm issue of the same magistrate,
of which two examples are known, from a single pair of fi nely executed dies. 2 The surfaces
of the new coin are somewhat corroded and scraped, but the obverse appears to be the work
of a different engraver. It will, however, be seen below that the details of the vine wreath on
the reverse provide an indisputable link between the two denominations, and a sure proof of
their approximate contemporaneity.
The denomination of the new coin is most plausibly to be interpreted as a ‘Persic’
didrachm, 3 comparable to series issued elsewhere in Ionia at Miletus c.250-190 BC 4 (weights
1 I am most grateful to Richard Ashton and Constantine Lagos for fruitful discussions, and comments on an earlier
draft of this article. The following abbreviations are used. Hersh, ‘Additions and corrections’ = C.A.Hersh, ‘Additions
and corrections to Martin J. Price’s ‘The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus’’ in
Studies Price, pp. 135-44. Kinns, ‘Ionia: The pattern of coinage’ = P. Kinns, ‘Ionia: The pattern of coinage during
the last century of the Persian Empire’ in L’Or Perse et L’Histoire Grecque (= REA 101 (1989)), pp. 183-93. Kinns,
KME = P. Kinns, ‘Two studies in the silver coinage of Magnesia on the Maeander’ in G. Le Rider et al. (eds), Kraay-
Mørkholm Essays, Numismatic Studies in Memory of C.M. Kraay and O. Mørkholm (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1989), pp.
137-48. Kinns, ‘Milesian notes’ = P. Kinns, ‘Milesian notes’ in R. Ashton and P. Kinns, ‘Opuscula Anatolica II’ (NC
2003), pp. 1-47, at 4-26. Kinns, NC 1999 = P. Kinns, ‘The Attic weight drachms of Ephesus: a preliminary study
in the light of recent hoards’, NC 1999, pp. 47-97. Kinns, ‘Phocaea’ = P. Kinns, ‘The Hellenistic silver and bronze
coinage of Phocaea’ , in R. Ashton and P. Kinns, ‘Opuscula Anatolica [I]’, NC 2002, pp. 11-31, at 21-7. Lagos = C.
Lagos, A Study of the Coinage of Chios in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (PhD diss., Durham 1998; unpub.).
Marcellesi = M.-C. Marcellesi, Milet des Hécatomnides à la Domination Romaine: Pratiques Monétaires de la
Cité du IVe au IIe Siècle av.J.-C. (Milesische Forschungen Band 3; Mainz am Rhein, 2004). Mavrogordato = J.
Mavrogordato, ‘A Chronological Arrangement of the Coinage of Chios’, Part III, NC 1916, pp. 281-355. Regling,
Priene = K. Regling, Die Münzen von Priene (Berlin, 1927). Studies Price = R. Ashton and S. Hurter (eds), Studies
in Greek Numismatics in Memory of Martin Jessop Price (London, 1998).
2 1) Athens, 4.13g (JIAN X (1909-10), p. 44; Mavrogordato, p. 308 no. 61; Lagos, p. 115). 2) Naville XII (1926),
1822, 4.16g (Lagos, p. 115), Pl. 11, 2
3 The Attic weight drachms of the same magistrate would allow the theoretical possibility that this could be an
underweight Attic tridrachm (c.12.85g), but such loss of weight seems too severe for the present condition of the
coin, and in any case that denomination is effectively unknown.
4 For a die-study see Kinns, ‘Milesian notes’, pp. 8-15.

32
PHILIP KINNS
up to 10.60g) and Magnesia c.210-200 BC 5 (weights up to 11.04g). The same denomination
is attested earlier in the 3 rd century at Cyme, Mytilene, Abydus and now Alexandria Troas. 6
The date of the new Chiot didrachm necessarily depends on the chronological indications
available for the Attic weight drachm of Angeliskos, and here we are on relatively fi rm
ground, as the position of this issue within the sequence of 3 rd century silver and bronze
coinage at Chios seems clear.
Mavrogordato and Lagos are in full agreement in regarding the Angeliskos drachm as the
initial issue in what was eventually to become an extensive series of Attic weight drachms
with the reverse type of amphora within vine wreath. They also agree that the only earlier
Attic weight drachms of Chios comprise a small series (fi ve obverse dies) of mostly very
fi ne style, struck on smaller, thicker fl ans, whose reverse is an amphora within a border of
dots. 7 Mavrogordato, constrained by assumptions that are now outmoded, proposed a date
in the later 3 rd century for the group with border of dots on the reverse and early in the 2 nd
century for the subsequent Angeliskos issue, whereas Lagos, on the basis of a vastly greater
assembly of material and more careful analysis, suggests c.290-270 for the border of dots
group and c.250 for Angeliskos. The evidence for the former date seems secure, supported
in particular by a remarkable connection with contemporary silver coinage at neighbouring
Erythrae; 8 that for the latter is slightly more circumstantial, depending mainly on parallels
with the extensive contemporary bronze, but still satisfactory, and allowing comparatively
little room for movement.
As a starting point for discussion the date range c.260-240 for the Angeliskos drachm and
the new didrachm can be adopted with a reasonable expectation of accuracy. A key question
is naturally whether the Persic didrachm and the Attic weight drachm of Angeliskos should
be regarded as part of the same issue, or whether the didrachm might be a little earlier or
indeed later. Here it is necessary to examine two other drachm issues, linked by a single
obverse die, which are closely associated with the Angeliskos drachm.
5 For a die-study see Kinns, KME, pp. 137-43.
6 See A.R. Meadows, ‘The earliest coinage of Alexandria Troas’, NC 2004, pp. 47-70, at 53-6. Meadows proposes
a date c.302-281 for the unique didrachm (weight 10.62g) of Alexandria Troas, while the series of Mytilene and
Abydus are assumed to be approximately contemporary, although possibly with an earlier starting date. For Cyme see
below, p. xx. Note also the occurrence of Persic drachms and hemidrachms at Iasos in Caria, which was recolonised
by Milesians (Polyb. XVI, 12.2), and whose territory marched with that of Miletos. See, for example, Naville 4
(1922), 890 and BMC 1-3 (drachms); BMC 5 (hemidrachm). In a forthcoming article on the coinage of Iasos Richard
Ashton will argue that these are roughly contemporary with the Milesian Persic weight didrachms. For general
surveys of the ‘Persic’ standard, see J.G. Milne, ‘The Persian standard in Ionia’, NC 1924, pp.19-30 (now seriously
outdated but still useful) and now Marcellesi, pp. 114-20 (‘L’Étalon ‘Persique’ en Asie Mineure’).
7 Mavrogordato p. 289 nos 57α-γ. Lagos pp. 84-9 (catalogue at pp. 98-9).
8 The Chian drachms of ΕΟΝΟΜΟΣ, ΗΡΙΔΑΝΟΣ and ΤΙΜΟΚΛΗΣ all show a constant symbol corn-ear to left
of the amphora on the reverse, which is accompanied by a cornucopia at right on one of the two known reverses
of Eonomos, while the reverses of ΘΕΟΠΟΜΠΟΣ have a race-torch at left. (Related drachms of ΗΙΘΕΟΣ and
ΚΗΦΙΣΟΚΡΙ have no symbol.) At Erythrae a closely linked group of three issues of ‘reduced Rhodian’ hemidrachms
(or Attic weight diobols – weights up to 1.44g only), in the names of ΜΕΓΑΘΥΜΟΣ, ΑΙΤΩΡ and ΜΟΛΙΩΝ (as
SNG Copenhagen 686, 683, 687), shows a constant symbol corn-ear at left of the reverses, joined respectively by a
cornucopia, race-torch or caduceus. The date of the Erythrae group appears to be c.297-294 (see P. Kinns, Studies in
the Coinage of Ionia: Erythrae, Teos, Lebedus, Colophon c.400-30 B.C. (unpub. PhD diss., Cambridge 1980), pp.
439-40, AR VI nos 94-6, with discussion at pp. 75-7). This remarkable parallelism in the choice of symbols at the
two mints seems beyond possibility of coincidence, and argues for a close relationship between Chios and Erythrae,
supported further by a monogram shared between the earliest (and stylistically similar) Alexander tetradrachms of
the two cities (Price 1895/A (Erythrae) and 2329-30 (Chios)). Lagos, p. 88 n. 229, concedes that this evidence from
Erythrae could well place the Chian drachms of Eonomos, Eridanos, Timokles and Theopompos in the early 290s.

A NEW THIRD CENTURY BC DIDRACHM OF CHIOS IN IONIA 33
I refer to the drachms of ΛΕΩΜΕΔΩΝ 9 and ΗΡΟΔΟΤΟΣ, 10 whose obverse die is almost
identical to that used by Angeliskos, and surely by the same engraver. The Leomedon reverse
is similarly very close, with vine-leaves and alternate tendrils in the wreath, but there is a
prow symbol to left of the amphora. The unique drachm of Herodotos is unfortunately rather
worn, but the published photograph suggests that the vine-wreath is of a less elaborate form,
consisting of leaves only, without the tendrils, which would anticipate the usual reverse type
of later Chian drachms. These alterations to the reverse, as compared with the die of the
Angeliskos drachm, tend to confi rm the priority of the Angeliskos issue, and make it more
likely that the new Persic didrachm is perhaps slightly earlier than the drachms, or exactly
contemporary with the Attic drachm of the same name. Were it later, we might have expected
one or other of the alterations manifested in the reverses of Leomedon or Herodotos.
In practice, the most plausible sequence of issues is surely that the Persic didrachm of
Angeliskos comes fi rst, to be followed by the Attic drachms of the three magistrates. It
will be suggested below that the Persic didrachm was equivalent to two-thirds of an Attic
tetradrachm, with a notional weight of c.11.47g, but the parallel issue of two denominations
in a ratio of 8 : 3 would be highly unusual, to say the least.
If this conclusion is accepted, we can consider the circumstances and context in which the
Persic didrachm might have been introduced at Chios.
Between the arrival of Alexander the Great in 334 and the consolidation of control over the
region by Lysimachus in 294, the currency of Ionia experienced a profound transformation.
The picture before 334 was one of city coinages in local types, mostly struck on the Chian-
Rhodian standard, with a tetradrachm of c.15.4g. 11 But by 294 the uniform Attic weight
coinage of Alexander and his successors had become so dominant that the production of civic
silver coinage had largely ceased. This is not the place to discuss the complex numismatic
history of the period of transition, but the result was a relative dearth of new local-type silver
coinage throughout the rest of the 3 rd century, and when cities did strike on their own account
the preferred medium was posthumous issues of Alexander.
9 Mavrogordato p. 308 no. 61; Lagos p. 115. Five examples are recorded, weights 4.07 to 4.21g, from the same pair
of dies: 1) ANS (ex Sartiges 361; J.Hirsch 25 (1909, Philipsen), 2252). 2) BM 1949 (ex Mavrogordato). 3) MMAG
54 (1978), 299 (ex Niggeler 353, Jameson 1523), Pl. 11, 3. 4) MMAG 68 (1986), 290 (ex Glendining 16/4/55, 493B;
J. Schulman 30/3/36, 156). 5) CNG 67 (2004), 712 (ex Sotheby NY 4/4/73, 579; Ward 681). For bronze trichalka
(Sphinx right / amphora) of the same magistrate see Mavrogordato, p. 310 no. 62α (four varieties); Lagos, pp. 165
(Series 17B), 169-70 (Series 17C), pp. 172-3 (Series 17D), dated to the earlier part of the period c.270-220. There is
also a dichalkon with sphinx left ; Mavrogordato p. 314 no. 64 = Lagos p. 190 (Series 17.II).
10 Lagos p. 115 = Dewing 2331 (weight 3.80g), Pl. 11, 4. In his thesis Lagos detected a star symbol to the left of
the amphora, but he now agrees (personal communication) that this is probably illusory. For a bronze dichalkon
(Sphinx left / amphora) of the same magistrate see Lagos, p. 190 (Series 17.II). Mavrogordato (p. 286 no. 56α) had
incorrectly attributed this unicum (in Berlin) to an earlier series.
11 For an overview, now slightly outdated, see Kinns, ‘Ionia: The pattern of coinage’. For Ephesus see now CH IX
(2002), pp. 98-105 (Hecatomnus hoard) and 172-206 (Pixodarus hoard).

34
PHILIP KINNS
Several cities, namely Clazomenae, 12 Colophon, 13 Erythrae, 14 Smyrna, 15 and Teos, 16 struck
only posthumous Alexanders, and need not detain us here, while Phocaea appears to have
made a small issue of local-type Attic weight hemidrachms at a time when it was also a mint
for Antiochus II. 17 Its own posthumous Alexanders are confi ned to the end of the 3 rd century. 18
Priene certainly issued posthumous Alexanders, and some of its local-type silver may also
belong to this period, but the chronology is still too uncertain to make discussion worthwhile
in the present context. 19
The cities requiring more detailed examination are accordingly Ephesus, Magnesia,
Miletus and Samos, each of which in the course of the 3 rd century struck both posthumous
Alexander issues and also silver coinage in their own types, but never on the Attic standard as
such, until Ephesus commenced its series of bee/stag before palm-tree drachms c.202. 20 Prior
to the discovery of the new Persic didrachm, Chios was exceptional among Ionian mints in
having employed the Attic standard for local drachms, in addition to its Alexander series.
The pattern of issues at Samos 21 is typical. Alexander tetradrachms were struck on at least
two occasions within the 3 rd century, c.295-275 (no.2446A) and c.201 (nos 2446-50) according
to Price. In fact, it now seems probable that one issue (no. 2449) from the later group predates
c.225, 22 which would give us three separate occasions. Local types, and different weight
standards, meanwhile, were used for smaller denominations. ‘Ptolemaic octobols’ (weights
up to 4.73g), with accompanying tetrobols and diobols, were issued c.270-240, while what
appear to be Rhodian-weight drachms (weights to 3.19g) and hemidrachms followed c.210-
185; Barron’s identifi cation of the latter series as Attic tetrobols and diobols lacks plausibility,
as the larger denomination regularly exceeds his notional fi gure of 2.85g.
The picture at Ephesus is not dissimilar. 23 Price identifi ed two groups of posthumous
Alexanders, the fi rst c.300 (nos 1876-8, including drachms), the second (nos 1879-86) c.200-
12 Price 1740-2 (dated c.280-275), 1743 (c.225), 1744-8 (c.200). See also Hersh, ‘Additions and corrections’, p.
137 no. 22.
13 Price 1844-69 (c.215-190), including one drachm issue (no.1850). See also Hersh, ‘Additions and corrections’,
p. 137 no. 25. I have now recorded 13 tetradrachm obverse dies. Unpublished hoard evidence now suggests that
Price 1845-8 predate c.225. Note that a unique Apollo / cithara didrachm (J.G. Milne, Kolophon and its Coinage: A
Study, ANSNNM 96 (New York, 1941), p. 72 no. 147) dated by Milne c.285-190 now seems more likely to belong
c.300.
14 Price 1887-99 (c.290-275, including drachms; no.1910A also belongs here), 1900-10 (c.215-190, including
drachm no. 1915). See also Hersh, ‘Additions and corrections’, p. 137 no. 26. 3+ tetradrachm obverses (and 7
drachm obverses) are recorded for the fi rst group, 7 tetradrachm obverses (and 2 drachm obverses) for the second.
Price 2793 (‘Uncertain of Western Asia Minor’) almost certainly represents a further drachm issue of Erythrae,
c.250.
15 Price 2246 (c.280-275), 2247-58 (c.220-200).
16 Price 2308-12 (c.204-190).
17 See Kinns, ‘Phocaea’, pp. 21-4.
18 Price 2223-30 (c.210-190, including one drachm issue – no. 2230).
19 For the Alexanders see Price 2231-9 (c.280-275, including drachms), 2240-45 (c.210-200), and Hersh, ‘Additions
and corrections’, p. 138 nos 56-7. Regling, Priene, dates several silver issues in local types within the 3 rd century (his
nos 4, 7, 11, 12, 14-23, 27), but his chronology is inaccurate, and most seem to pre-date 300; for a brief critique see
Kinns, ‘Ionia: The pattern of coinage’, pp. 190-1. But Regling 27, an Attic weight drachm issue with types facing
bust of Athena / fl oating Nike within maeander circle, so closely resembles bronzes of Antiochus I attributed to mints
in Ionia and Lydia (as SC, pp. 122-6, nos 314-15 (Smyrna or Sardes), 317 (perhaps Smyrna), 319-20 (Magnesia ad
Sipylum) and 329 (Magnesia on the Maeander)) that his date c.270-240 may well be correct.
20 See Kinns, NC 1999, with discussion of the starting date at pp. 47, 50 and 78-80.
21 See J.P. Barron, The Silver Coins of Samos (London, 1966), pp. 141-54, with catalogue at pp. 218-27; Price,
Alexander, p. 307.
22 Private information suggests that an example may have been present in the recent ‘Seleucus III’ hoard, referred
to by R. Ashton, ‘Redating the earliest Alexander tetradrachms of Rhodes’ in R. Ashton and P. Kinns, ‘ Opuscula
Anatolica III’, NC 2004, pp. 71-107, at 95-6.
23 See Price, Alexander, pp. 260-1.

A NEW THIRD CENTURY BC DIDRACHM OF CHIOS IN IONIA 35
190, but the second group may be somewhat earlier, and in any case wrongly includes at
least one issue (no.1879) 24 which by style and fabric belongs to the second quarter of the
3 rd century. The quantities struck seem to have been small, but once again we have three
occasions where the Attic standard was in use for Alexanders, to which may be added the
tetradrachms, drachms and hemidrachms of Demetrius Poliorcetes struck at Ephesus c.301-
295, 25 tetradrachms and drachms of Lysimachus struck c.294-287, 26 and possible Seleucid
issues under Antiochus II and Seleucus II in the 250s and 240s. 27
To understand fully the parallel development of Ephesian silver coinage in local types, we
have to go back to the later 4 th century, even before the arrival of Alexander. The long series
of bee / forepart of stag tetradrachms on the Chian-Rhodian standard, which had begun c.404
with the curved wing issues, came to an end in the 320s and was briefl y succeeded by the
peculiar ‘cross-band’ tetradrachms, at c.12.4g about 20% lighter than their predecessors. 28 But
an innovation with potentially greater signifi cance for the future had apparently been made in
the 330s. Whereas c.350-340 a small issue of drachms, in the same types, had accompanied
the tetradrachms, a decision was now taken to divide the tetradrachm by three and make the
next denomination a third or octobol. These Chian-Rhodian weight octobols, with a notional
weight of 5.13g but in practice not exceeding 5.08g, 29 retain the stag forepart and palm-tree
reverse type of the tetradrachms, but have the new obverse type of a draped bust of Artemis
to right, within a dotted border. Style and magistrate names, and particularly connexions
with contemporary bronze coinage, underpin this chronology for the series, although it has
previously been dated c.280-258. 30
Now the ‘cross-band’ tetradrachms were the last large silver coins to be struck at Ephesus
with local types. The 2 nd -1 st century cistophori and their imperial successors use imported
types which are not purely Ephesian. After the 320s the heaviest subsequent silver series is
represented by the Rhodian-weight didrachms of the later 3 rd century, which are not known
to pass 6.67g.
After the demise of the tetradrachm series in the 320s, the next silver issue reprises
the bee / stag forepart types, but on a very different standard, c.5.6g. Head identifi ed the
denomination as an Attic octobol, and given the precedent (not suspected by him) of the
division of the Rhodian-weight tetradrachm into three in the 330s, this does seem a neat
local accommodation to the now prevalent Attic weight coinage of Alexander. But 5.6g is
also the weight of the now obsolete but previously ubiquitous Persian siglos, and the same
denomination was already in vogue to the north, at Byzantium, Calchedon and Cius. So
different infl uences are at work here, but whichever nomenclature we adopt, the fact remains
that this weight of 5.6g, once introduced, was also used for two further local series at Ephesus,
down to c.281, and was the basic ‘unit’ of the local silver coinage of Magnesia and Miletus
through the 3 rd century and beyond. Magnesia may well have adopted it slightly before 300,
but the available evidence still makes Ephesus the forerunner in this region.
The bee / stag forepart 5.6g series should probably be dated c.320-310. 31 Its successor on
the same standard, with types obverse bust of Artemis to right, reverse strung bow and quiver,
24 This issue was fi rst identifi ed by H. Seyrig, RN 1963, p. 35 n.3
25 E.T.Newell, The Coinage of Demetrius Poliorcetes (London, 1927).
26 M. Thompson, ‘The mints of Lysimachus’, in C.M. Kraay & G.K. Jenkins (eds), Essays in Greek Numismatics
presented to Stanley Robinson (Oxford, 1968), pp. 163-82 at 177 (nos 166-74).
27 See SC, pp. 193-5 and 247.
28 For an account of the tetradrachm series see P. Kinns, ‘Ephesus’ in CH IX (2002), pp. 98-105 (re curved wing
issues) and 172-206 (re straight wing issues), with discussion of the fi nal phase at pp. 196-200.
29 A hoard of 28 examples (SNG Kayhan 249-76) exhibits the narrow range 4.80-4.95g.
30 See Kinns, ‘Ionia: The pattern of coinage’, at p. 189, with n. 44.
31 See most recently CH IX, p. 200, with earlier references.

36
PHILIP KINNS
is closely related by both identical reverse and shared magistrate names to the third series,
struck c.290-281 when Ephesus was renamed Arsinoeia after the queen of Lysimachus, and
bearing her veiled portrait to right as the obverse type. 32 The precise date of the second issue
is uncertain, but probably c.300-290 rather than earlier. None of these three series was large,
with just seven, eight and six obverse dies respectively recorded to date. The important point
is that here are civic silver coins, evidently intended for local use, being struck at a mint also
responsible for the issue of Attic tetradrachms and drachms in the types of Alexander and
then Lysimachus, but deliberately avoiding their weight standard or at least the conventional
denominations. In each case it is inconceivable that the 5.6g denomination was not tariffed
at three to the Alexander or Lysimachus tetradrachm, but the Arsinoe silver introduces a
further complication, which emphasises the civic character of the coinage. For whereas the
bee / stag forepart and then the Artemis / bow and quiver types were restricted to the 5.6g
unit, the Arsinoe type was also used for three smaller denominations, in a ratio which is not
entirely clear. 33
After 281 Ephesus seems to have made no new silver issues in its own types for a generation
or so. The precise date of the resumption remains uncertain, but may have been in the 240s. 34
It saw a return to the Artemis right / stag forepart combination last seen in the Chian-Rhodian
weight octobols of the 330s, but now without the palm-tree adjunct on the reverse, and on a
different weight standard, comprising Rhodian weight didrachms (and a much smaller volume
of drachms) of c.6.6g. The change in standard may possibly refl ect Ptolemaic infl uence, but
the avoidance of any obvious connexion with the Alexander and Seleucid coinage is again
clear enough. These didrachms apparently continued to be struck until the introduction of
the new Attic weight bee / stag before palm-tree drachms c.202, but the total issue was not
particularly large, with only just over 20 obverse dies now recorded. 35
The situation at Magnesia is altogether simpler, although the precise chronology of the
silver coinage in local types is frustratingly elusive. As a royal mint Magnesia was an active
producer of Attic weight tetradrachms (and some drachms) for Lysimachus c.301-282, 36 and
subsequently made more limited issues for Antiochus I, Antiochus II, and possibly Seleucus
II and Antiochus Hierax. 37 But Magnesia was also responsible for one of the largest series
of posthumous Alexander tetradrachms (and some drachms) in Ionia, apparently struck
intermittently throughout the period c.282-200 (and beyond), 38 and with an overall output
probably second only to Miletus, and comparable to that of Chios. 39 In tandem with these
Attic weight issues, there was sporadic production, certainly from c.300 or a little earlier
down to the culmination c.210-200, of civic silver in the local types armed horseman right /
32 See Kinns, NC 1999, p.79, with n. 117.
33 The heaviest recorded example of the unit is 5.79g (Spink 162 (2003), 27), while the next denomination is not
known to exceed 2.80g. One example of the third denomination (Istanbul, unpublished) at 1.53g (cf. SNG Kayhan
280 at 1.28g) might be regarded as simply overweight, were it not for the fact that three weighed examples of the
smallest denomination (as Münzzentrum 82 (1995), 157), none of which is in fresh condition, register as 0.84g,
0.84g and 0.82g. The third and fourth denominations are accordingly too heavy to be regarded as Attic diobols and
obols, and the structure may rather be (Persic) drachm: hemidrachm: diobol: obol.
34 Cf. Kinns, NC 1999, p. 70, with nn. 93-7.
35 A recent hoard of 70+ didrachms and two drachms, seen on the London market in 2004, has allowed the
probable sequence of issues in this didrachm series to be established with some confi dence. As with IGCH 1304, the
two ‘late’ obverses ‘α’ and ‘β’ identifi ed in NC 1999, p. 71, were absent.
36 M. Thompson, op. cit. (n. 26 above), at pp. 173-4.
37 SC, pp. 125, 192-3, 246, 323.
38 See Price 2004-2056, and Hersh, ‘Additions and corrections’, p. 138 no. 51, for issues dated c.282-196.
39 I have counted 30 tetradrachm obverse dies from a limited selection of this material. R. Bauslaugh, ‘The
posthumous Alexander coinage of Chios’, ANSMN 24 (1979), pp. 1-45, records 44 tetradrachm obverses for the
period c.290-190, while Paul Keyser’s unpublished ANS seminar paper ‘The Civic Alexanders of Miletus’ reports
55 tetradrachm obverses for the same period.

A NEW THIRD CENTURY BC DIDRACHM OF CHIOS IN IONIA 37
butting bull in maeander circle, but the standard used was the Persic drachm of c.5.6g, with
no fractions, but didrachms in the fi nal phase. 40 The latter, like the fractions at Ephesus as
Arsinoeia, tend to demonstrate that although the unit was undoubtedly tariffed as an Attic
octobol for exchange with Alexanders and royal issues, it was nevertheless an unambiguous
marker of a separate coinage, destined purely for the local, rather than international, market,
and subject to a different set of rules. No city will have derived much fi nancial benefi t from
the minting of Alexanders, even when clearly marked with the civic badge, whereas the
provision of local silver (and of course bronze), whose use could be made obligatory for
certain purposes, was a source of profi t.
In the case of Miletus, the development and chronology of the local 3 rd century silver in
the head of Apollo / lion looking back at star types is now more clearly understood, 41 and
its signifi cance can only be interpreted on the assumption that it was sometimes, perhaps
quite often, being produced at the same time as posthumous Alexanders of the city. Here
Price’s broad division into two series dated c.295-275 (nos 2150-63, including two issues
of drachms, nos 2151 and 2154) and c.210-190 (nos 2164-94) is being undermined by the
hoard record, and appears increasingly misleading. On one side of the supposed gap the fresh
condition of Price nos 2158 and 2161 in the Meydancıkkale hoard suggests that they may be
rather later than c.275, while on the other an example of Price no. 2172 has been recorded
in a hoard deposited c.225. It is also noteworthy that British Museum examples of nos 2163
and 2168 are linked by a common obverse die. It seems much more likely, on balance, that at
Miletus, as at Magnesia, Alexanders were struck on several occasions through the 3 rd century,
and the total volume was high, with 55 tetradrachm obverses recorded between c.295 and
c.190. 42
The issue of local-type silver at Miletus was apparently resumed c.260, after an interval of
perhaps 40 years. The most recent series, for which c.310-300 still seems the most plausible
chronology, 43 had comprised Rhodian-weight didrachms of c.6.6g. The standard now adopted
was that which we have come to recognise as ‘Persic’, with a relatively large initial issue of
drachms (22 obverses recorded, weights up to 5.35g) and hemidrachms (5 obverses, weights
up to 2.61g) struck c.260-250 being followed by a series of didrachms (13 obverses, weights
up to 10.60g) c.250-190. Fractional issues in the later 3 rd century were confi ned to occasional
issues of (Persic) drachms, until regular production of both drachms and hemidrachms was
taken up again shortly before 200. 44 This pattern then continued until well after 150, with the
signifi cant addition of a series of Attic weight tetradrachms in the same Apollo / lion types
c.170-160, following the cessation of posthumous Alexander issues. 45
40 rd See P. Kinns, ‘A hoard group of 3 century hemichalka from Magnesia’, in R. Ashton and P. Kinns, ‘Opuscula
Anatolica III’, NC 2004, pp. 71-107 at 71-83, esp. 76-7 with nn. 32, 37-9. The 5.6g ‘unit’ was revived c.155-145,
alongside the wreathed Attic weight tetradrachms of Magnesia. On this occasion it was accompanied by halves and
quarters, with the three denominations bearing the alphabetical value marks Δ, Β and Α on their obverses; see Kinns,
KME, pp. 143-8.
41 See Kinns, ‘Milesian notes’, pp. 8-20.
42 See above, n. 39.
43 See Kinns, ‘Milesian notes’, p. 18 with n. 81. B. Deppert-Lippitz, Die Münzprägung Milets vom Vierten bis
Ersten Jahrhundert v.Chr (Typos V; Aarau, Frankfurt am Main, Salzburg, 1984), pp. 70-82, proposed c.290-281.
Marcellesi, pp. 31-3, now suggests c.330-325, but her reasoning is fl awed, as I will demonstrate in a forthcoming
review-article. Her extended discussion of 3rd and 2nd century Milesian coinage and monetary policy is similarly full
of fascinating insights, but unfortunately prejudiced by her failure to take suffi cient account of much of the new
material which has come to light in recent years.
44 rd See Kinns, ‘Milesian notes’, pp. 8-19 for an account of the 3 century Apollo / lion silver.
45 See P. Kinns, ‘CH 8, 474: Milesian silver coinage in the second century BC’, Studies Price, pp. 175-95,
with tabulation and discussion of the links between the Attic weight tetradrachms and the ‘Persic’ drachms and
hemidrachms at pp. 178-9. Kinns, ‘Milesian notes’, pp. 21-6, provides addenda and minor revisions.

38
PHILIP KINNS
The demonstrable parallel striking of ‘Persic’ drachms and hemidrachms alongside Attic
weight tetradrachms c.170-160 suggests that precisely the same rationale had been in place
c.260-250, when this standard had been introduced at Miletus. As at Ephesus and Magnesia
the drachms must have been tariffed as Attic octobols, at the rate of three to the Alexander
tetradrachm.
The fact that the Milesian Apollo / lion issues were consistently struck 5-10% underweight
in comparison with similar ‘Persic’ issues at Magnesia (and previously at Ephesus) indicates
that Miletus took greater advantage of the possibility for profi t and manipulation inherent in
a system where coinage on a specifi c local standard was reserved for internal use. 46
This survey of the 3 rd century silver output of Samos, Ephesus, Magnesia and Miletus
has presented a fairly consistent picture. Each city undertook the striking of posthumous
Alexander tetradrachms on various occasions, regularly and on a large scale in the case of
Magnesia and Miletus. Production of coinage in local types was by no means negligible
in volume, but the Attic standard as such, or at any rate its regular subdivisions, was not
employed for this purpose. The ‘Persic’ drachm, by contrast, is the unit of choice at Ephesus
prior to 281, and at Magnesia and Miletus. It must also be emphasised that the largest silver
coins known to have been struck in local types are the Persic didrachms of Miletus and then
Magnesia, with a maximum recorded weight of 11.04g, which are clearly contemporary with
new posthumous Alexanders of the same mints. We seem to have a consensus that the preeminence
of the Attic weight tetradrachm represented by Alexanders and later royal issues
should not be challenged by subsidiary civic coinages.
At Chios, to which we now return, production of posthumous Alexanders 47 was regular
and extensive from c.290 to 200 and beyond, with an early emphasis on drachms, and will
have been dictated by the same imperatives as underlie the phenomenon throughout Greece
and Asia Minor; this was a coinage primarily for external use in international payments, as
the hoard record attests.
It will now be clear that the volume of local sphinx / amphora silver coinage, even including
the new Persic didrachm, known to have been struck at Chios in the 3 rd century was small,
in comparison both with the Chiot Alexander coinage, and with the local coinages of Samos,
Ephesus, Magnesia and Miletus. Just fi ve obverse dies are known for the early Attic drachm
group c.290-270 with amphora in border of dots, and two for the amphora in vine-wreath
Attic drachms of c.250 with which the didrachm belongs. No further drachms appear to have
been issued before c.200. 48
Given this small output, and the fact that the Persic standard is seen to have been more
widely used than the Attic for 3 rd century local silver coinage elsewhere in Ionia, 49 in deliberate
contrast to the preponderance of the Alexander currency, the new Persic didrachm of Chios is
not perhaps quite so unexpected as it seemed at fi rst sight. On the assumption that it probably
slightly pre-dates the vine-wreath Attic drachms of Angeliskos, Leomedon and Herodotos, 50
its only precursors would be the Attic weight drachms with border of dots reverse, which
46 Cf. Marcellesi, p. 118.
47 See Price, Alexander, pp. 299-306; R. Bauslaugh, ‘The posthumous Alexander coinage of Chios’, ANSMN 24
(1979), pp. 1-45. The three main divisions are: 1) c.290-275 BC Price 2316-26 (drachms, 17 obverses recorded by
Bauslaugh) and 2327-30 (tetradrachms, 5 obverses) ; 2) c.270-220 BC Price 2331-74 (tetradrachms, 25 obverses),
with a few drachms (nos 2335 and 2347, but 2373 is probably an imitation) and gold staters (nos 2339, 2348); 3)
c.210-190 BC Price 2375-404 (tetradrachms, 14 obverses).
48 See Lagos pp. 203-71 for the drachms struck c.200 and then down to the Mithradatic war, with discussion and
catalogue of the earliest group at pp. 215-22.
49 Apart from Chios, the only other instances of the use of the Attic standard for local-type civic silver coinage in
mid 3 rd century Ionia appear to be a drachm issue at Priene (above, n. 19) and the hemidrachms of Phocaea (above,
p. xx).
50 See above.

A NEW THIRD CENTURY BC DIDRACHM OF CHIOS IN IONIA 39
may well have been of an ephemeral character up to a generation earlier. The parallel issue
of Alexanders and Persic weight smaller denominations had already become established
at Ephesus and Magnesia, and the same development occurs at Miletus apparently c.260-
250, the likely date of Angeliskos at Chios. The change of local standard at Chios, albeit
temporary, may be compared with that seen at Ephesus as between c.281 and the 240s, or at
Miletus between c.300 and c.260.
But arguably the closest comparandum of all for the new Chiot didrachm, both
geographically and perhaps chronologically, is provided by the mint of Cyme. Its small
series of Persic didrachms in the types head of Amazon right in border of dots / horse right
includes an issue with two monograms precisely identical to those found on an Attic weight
tetradrachm of Antiochus II with the ‘cup’ badge of the same mint. 51 Both the local and the
Seleucid issue must have been struck on a single occasion in the 250s, but very obviously for
different purposes.
Whether there is any direct relationship between the Persic didrachms of Cyme, Miletus
and now Chios must remain uncertain, but a vogue for the denomination in the mid 3 rd century
seems clear. For the present, the 10.78g didrachm of Angeliskos represents a unique usage
after the 4 th century BC of the Sphinx type of Chios for a local silver coin above the weight
of an Attic drachm.
51 BMC Troas etc., p. 109 no. 58 ; SC, p. 180 no. 503 = WSM 1517. cf. Kinns, ‘Phocaea’, p. 24 (with n. 41), where
Newell’s proposed date of c.262/1 BC for the Seleucid tetradrachm was cited.

2
1
KINNS, A NEW THIRD CENTURY BC DIDRACHM OF CHIOS IN IONIA
3
4
PLATE 11