@Roma_Victrix
Sorry a much delayed response to #68 (two years yes I type I character a day...)
In defense for the delay I am trapped now in SE Idaho where the libraries are a travesty, and my wife moved to the USDA from University and Fed's do not take kindly to spousal free-riding of e-research access so it's been a chore to answer you with diligence. Anyway.
Okay. I can't really argue for or against that since I don't know much about the subject. Do you at least have a source that provides a counterargument? That's something I could use in the article. Our own private musings about it, however, are not permissible over at Wiki, because that is tantamount to "original research", a cardinal sin in their guidebook. We're only really supposed to report what secondary sources say on the matter, although we have a good amount of license when it comes to constructing an article, using a variety of sources to piece together a narrative. I'm also able to be judicious about what goes in or out of an article, so if you have a source that convinces me otherwise, I'll gladly remove this statement as giving too much weight to one particular historian versus the consensus of others.
Finding a consensus in numismatics is tricky, claiming one is more likely than not to provoke acrimony. In retrospect what I typed a while ago is I think was sort of too broad and not really focused on what caught my eye. It was this that I notated have only recently been able to put my finger on what I felt was off with the source.
“The Macedonians were also the first to issue different coins for internal and external circulation.”
I can see you are following Kremydi in the Brill Companion closely – fair enough. I however really don't think the assertion made by the author can stand. It looks to me to be an attempt to attribute novelty and innovation to Macedonia that does not exist.
The full chapter is online (*) here is a extended quote:
The Macedonians had practised a sophisticated manipulation of coinage
since the fifth century. They struck according to the Attic system of a drachm
subdivided into six obols, as can be proven by the legends ΔΙΟΒ and
TPIH—abbreviations of the Greek words diobolon and trihemiobolion—
on fractions of Alexander I and Perdiccas II;lh at the same time however,
they created denominations that could be exchangeable with local currencies.
The octadrachms of Alexander I weighed ca. 29 g, the same as the
octadrachms of Abdera,17 and corresponded to the triple staters of the
local "oriental" standard which was based on a stater of 9.82 g divided into
trite, hekte and hemiekta; this was the dominant denominational system
of the mints around Pangaion.'8 The heavy octadrachms of Alexander, just
like the large denominations of other northern Greek mints, were exported
to the East and have been found in hoards from western Asia Minor, Jordan
and Egypt."' The Macedonian tetradrachm, of just over 13 g, was on a
local standard which was possibly created to facilitate the exchange
between silver and electrum.-" The adaptation of Macedonian coinage to
different standards used by Thracians, Athenians, and northern colonies,
reflects, on a monetary level, the complex environment in which this ethnos
was destined to survive and develop.
Silver coins of a smaller denomination, the tetrobols, were used for payments
of wages. In the fifth century the Macedonian state issued two
types of tetrobols: light tetrobols with a horse on the reverse and heavier
tetrobols with a cavalryman on the same side. These two series circulated
in different areas: the light ones are found within Macedonia proper,
whereas heavy ones have been found at Olynthos and on the upper banks
of the Axios river, in Paeonia. Both areas were beyond the borders of the
Macedonian state in the period under consideration. The practise is clear:
lighter coins were accepted for transactions within the borders of the
kingdom, whereas heavier coins were used for payments abroad."1 The
application of a double standard—clearly made to provide maximum
benefit from coining—was a Macedonian innovation, initiated at an early
date. The distinction between coins intended for internal circulation from
those intended for export can also be traced in the use of numismatic
legends. Like most fifth-century coinages, especially in the north, Macedonian
coins bore no legends. The exceptions were the octadrachms, traded
in the east, and the rare octobols, issued in order to facilitate exchanges
with Athens. They show that legends were added when they were necessary
for the acceptance of the coins in distant regions. The distinction
between coins for internal and external circulation originated in Macedonia
and from there spread to the rest of the Greek world during the Hellenistic
period. This sophisticated approach shows an elaborate monetary
system at an early date. Recent finds further reveal the widespread use of
minuscule silver fractions, such as obols, hemiobols or trihemiobols; their
use points to an economy with a high level of monetization in everyday
transactions.
I first though thid was was an attempt to suggest the Ptolemy system of coinage . That is projecting a known system back in history. That would be incorrect, but I this the error is larger. The author is deliberately vague in using light and heavy. They are the conventional terms used in the literature but as used above suggest simply a difference in weight, not the reality that the light coins are also not good silver, but adulterated with copper in a significant but rather randomly in variable ways (Kraay pg 20-22 [1]). The nominal conclusion is real and rather uncontroversial - the King's of Macedonia used adulterated silver for internal use and generally nobody accepted such away from Macedonia (well perhaps money changers at a hefty cost). The problem is that the ideal does not is not innovate just rather shady and an expression Gresham's Law. But even if it was deliberate policy just implemented haphazardly, Macedonia sill would not be an innovator, but a but a follower and a second rate one at that. Particuallry given the high variability in the adulterating and lacking other evidence for such a system a very conscious and formally regulated like the Ptolemaic one (inscriptions, text of laws, comments in histories etc).
To be pedantic one can point out that Electrum currency was notational by its very nature and with the limited accuracy of non destructive assays of the day. Thus in effect the general innovation would seem to be that of Lydia or Ionia. That is an overvalued coin (by metal weight) circulating only were the law made it valuable (or trade patterns allowed a used based on trust).
More to the point the Billion currency of Lesbian Koinon predates the Macedonian 'Free Horse' adulterated coins by at minimum 60 years (
up to over 100 on consideration not likely that would probably require the early date for electrum that is out of fashion right now).
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/...codigo=2449627
Updated and translated here:
https://www.academia.edu/6913591/A_contribution_to_the_study_of_the_Archaic_billon_coinage_of_Lesbos
The coinage meets the criteria asserted by Kremydi it circulated only on Lesbos and possessions elsewhere of it member polis. It is not hoarded externally) or used in any export or trade system. Critically in my view is that the Lesbian coinage is a consistent token composition. Copper of close 60% and a lead of ~3-4% and Silver only around 35%. Nobody could mistake it for hard silver (there is more variation in the early series of issues). That is the issue with the 'Free Horse' Macedonian currency. In some cases it does contain some 25% copper or is just plated (Kraay pg 20) and is thus and obvious overvalued locally. At other times the adulteration is less, 5-15% which suggests to me not me innovation but stiffing hoi polloi as much as you could when you could or had to or wanted to.
Realistically if any place in the 5
th century BC deserves a not for innovation it Lesbos. Simultaneously Mytilene had a production union with Phokaia to produce electrum hektais, the Lesbian Koinon was producing billion currency for internal use and the two leading polis also had standard silver coinage runs as well.
Lazzarini's work is over 5 years earlier than the Brill companion, and has been reviewed in English [2] in an easily available survey of numismatics . The existence of and general dating of the Lesbsian coinage is over century old. Historian miss things but at the end of the day I can't help but see bias in Kremydi. Consider this and the tone here:
“
The introduction of bronze issues that replaced the more expensive
and impractical silver fractions was another important monetary innovation
of Archelaus which was apparently very successful.”
Again innovation? No. Macedonia is only following the Western Greeks, and Sikyon (Warren pg 11-12 [3]) Yes Macedonia replaced its bad silver but again that innovation was 5 decades earlier in the West by Greeks. A fair judge might rather say
Archelaus abandoned his adulterated silver and followed the Western Greeks (and realistically nearby Greek cities in the Chalcidice area) in the trend of using bronze. Also sure tiny silver fractions might be hard to use, but you can find hoards of Athenian silver fractions – why because they were practically pure silver and was worth hoarding. I don't think you will find hoards of 5th century Macedonian bronze very often.
---
edit: I think also for Alexander's minting till his death and the activity of the Successors, Price's "The Coinage in Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus Vol. 1" pg 7ff, is a better link than the n 335. It more complete and concise and it lacks the surrounding bits of Meadows adding odd unsupported notions about Alex's monitary policy. Yep Alex the only guy to think of the ideal of using coins as mass communication (but its a childish ideal anyway so I don't know if he mean's it as a compliment or not).
(*) Link is here at not sure if it stable but is free and available with a facebook or Google registration.
https://helios-eie.ekt.gr/EIE/bitstr...mydi_11_01.pdf
[1]The Composition of Greek Silver Coins: analysis by neutron activation CM Kraay - 1962 - Ashmolean Museum (pg 20-22)
[2]International Numismatic Commission A SURVEY OF NUMISMATIC RESEARCH
2002-2007
General Editors
MICHEL AMANDRY, DONAL BATESON
https://www.inc-cin.org/assets/pdf/survey-text.pdf
[3]WARREN, J.A.W. "Sikyon: A Case-Study in the Adoption of Coinage by a Polis in the Fifth Century BC."
The Numismatic Chronicle (1966-) 169 (2009): 1-13.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/42678602.