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.