Political and Cultural Continuity with Argead Prototypes in Early Hellenistic Royal Coinage (20 min)
Presenters
Alexander Meeus, University of Mannheim
Abstract
Continuity between the
emerging Hellenistic monarchies and the Argead past is much debated in recent
scholarship. With royal coins being our best source for the question, this
paper argues for taking a broader view of Macedonian coining traditions. Though
a formidable figure, Alexander did not excise everything that had come before
him. In three case studies from respectively Egyptian, Asian, and European
contexts, I shall attempt to demonstrate two main points, namely that a broader
view does more justice to the cultural, religious, and political backgrounds
and preoccupations of those issuing and receiving coins in the age of the
successors, and that such a view very clearly reveals that all successor
dynasties were much more concerned to express continuity with the Argeads and
Alexander’s empire than many scholars assume.
While some deny continuity
without even considering coinage, many numismatic studies tend to employ an
overly static conception of tradition and focus mostly on the influence of
Alexander the Great’s main types, downplaying other Macedonian prototypes, the
significance of minor symbols, or the cultural context of coin production. And
although iconography cannot be interpreted without studying production,
denominations, and circulation, political interpretations of weight standard
reductions that are at odds with the coins’ iconographic messages seem equally
hazardous. Finally, it is not always considered that distinguishing oneself
from rival dynasties was as important as continuity with Alexander, and many of
the alleged innovations remain well within the spectrum of Macedonia’s coining
tradition.
Although such concerns have
been raised before, they are yet to be explored systematically. Plotting all
features of Diadoch coinage (323–281 B.C.E.)—including symbols, inscriptions,
monograms—by ruler/dynasty over time and relating them to classical Macedonian
prototypes and the broader cultural context, will enhance our understanding of
individual features and of the overall designs. After presenting my general
approach, I shall discuss three representative case studies from my ongoing
research project that fit the scope of a conference paper.
The examples I shall discuss
concern Seleukos, Kassandros and Ptolemaios. The latter’s eagle standing on a
thunderbolt is a particularly telling case: since the motif does not seem
prominent on Alexander’s coinage, it is often interpreted as Ptolemaios’s
personal symbol and as a break with the past—despite the existence of
Alexander’s small eagle coinage series and other classical Macedonian
prototypes. Its significance in Macedonia is likewise revealed by the motif’s
appearance on coins of the later Antigonids. Furthermore, there is no reason to
assume that it was exclusive to coin imagery, and the connection
Zeus-eagle-kingship was prominent in the historiographical tradition, including
Alexander’s official historian Kallisthenes (cf., e.g., Plut. Alex. 33;
Arr. Anab. 2.3.3). Macedonian soldiers and officials remained an
important audience within Ptolemaios’s closed currency zone, and even those who
had definitively left Macedon with Alexander in 334 will not have forgotten the
cultural imagery of their homeland.
AIA-7B