Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [seleukids] Re: Seleukid coinage

Expand Messages
  • Makis Aperghis
    Dear Rodger, In answer to your questions: 1. The way the December seminar ended with two opposite views, the current one of Seleukid numismatists and my
    Message 1 of 22 , Feb 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Rodger,

      In answer to your questions:



      1. The way the December seminar ended with two opposite views, the
      current one of Seleukid numismatists and my radically different one (after
      six hours of debate), it was suggested by an independent numismatist and
      agreed that two parallel papers in the Numismatic Chronicle might be the
      best solution. However, as I was subsequently informed by the Editor, this
      would require vetting of my paper and acceptance for publication by a
      (Seleukid) numismatist. This seems to me a Catch-22 situation, i.e. Seleukid
      numismatists must be willing to continue the debate in a numismatic context.



      In January I delivered a seminar in London to 30-35 ancient historians on
      the subject of monetarisation of the Seleukid economy and the question of
      monograms and symbols on Seleukid coins was again discussed at some length.
      Historians seem to be more receptive to my ideas since I try to link coinage
      issues more closely to the historical situation, administrative practice and
      royal ideology.



      For example, I see no particular reason why Seleukos I should have continued
      to issue 'Alexanders' in the name of Alexander after he took the title of
      king for himself in 305/4 instead of in his own name, which is what one
      would expect from a new king wishing to promote his new position to his
      subjects. Yet, according to Houghton and Lorber's 'Seleucid Coinage',
      'Alexanders' in the name of Alexander continued at some mints and not others
      until c. 295. I believe that the main reason for late dating by Seleukid
      numismatists is that they have to accommodate quite a number of secondary
      monograms in the relevant issues and tend to assume that changes in
      monograms mean new issues in a chronological, perhaps yearly, sequence. I
      have no such difficulty, because different secondary monograms might be
      applied at the same time to indicate simultaneous recipients. Thus I have no
      problem dating coinage in the name of Alexander to before 305/4.



      A characteristic example are the bronzes of Seleukos III from Antioch (no.
      922 in SC) where there are up to 20 secondary monograms for what is a minor
      issue of duration not more than the 3 years of Seleukos' reign and, as I
      argue in my book, probably only one year. Why use so many 'mint officials'?
      My idea is that these are all recipients, who are administrators of
      different cities/hyparchies/oikonomiai of Syria (and perhaps Kilikia)
      receiving bronze for their needs from the Antioch mint at about the same
      time.



      2. I have a firm offer to publish my book now, but it will certainly
      benefit from further analysis of the coins, new ideas and, particularly,
      criticism of numismatists and historians, since I have ventured onto what is
      very new ground. I would certainly prefer to debate my ideas more in a
      numismatic context.



      3. The arrangement of the main symbols started under Seleukos I. I have
      analysed Seleukid coinage only until Antiochos III and make no claims as yet
      for later kings. The idea of symbols denoting end-users of coinage issues,
      however, begins with Alexander's coinage at Babylon, where I believe that
      the many symbols used, particularly in 325-323, represent different units in
      his army and administration. Alexander was making massive payments then in a
      very short space of time and symbols were a good thing to use for control of
      coinage production. Martin Price agreed that production control was
      necessary but believed that the symbols may have identified batches of
      silver.



      To give you an example of symbol use, look at the many bronze types of
      Antiochos III from Ekbatana and Uncertain Mint 73 associated with Ekbatana
      (nos. 1237-1277 in SC). Much of this coinage is linked to Antiochos III's
      campaign against Molon (222-220) and his eastern campaign of 210-205.



      The supposed mint mark of Ekbatana, the HORSE HEAD, is hardly present and I
      take it, when it is, as the symbol of the Seleukid cavalry. In these issues
      one more often see the ANCHOR (infantry), the ELEPHANT HEAD (elephant corps)
      and the TRIPOD (perhaps support services). These bronze issues are quite
      often countermarked with the same symbols. In my view they represent the
      reissuing of these bronzes by the army command at a later stage of the
      eastern campaign after the coins had found their way into its hands again,
      e.g. via small purchases made by the soldiers. You will find exactly the
      same symbols and countermarks at Uncertain Mints 60 to 64 in southern Koile
      Syria, all connected with the 5th Syrian War of 202-198 and after. Again,
      what would the HORSE HEAD, the supposed Ekbatana mint mark, be doing here?
      Seleukid numismatists really need to answer this. And again, the same
      symbols appear on the silver issues of Antioch from c. 204 onwards, where
      there are additional symbols, such as the BOW IN BOWCASE (archers?).



      Once you accept the idea that some monograms may represent recipients of
      coinage and symbols end-users, a lot of things fall into place much more
      easily.



      All the best

      Makis





      _____

      From: seleukids@yahoogroups.com [mailto:seleukids@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      Of qqqq4a
      Sent: ������, 31 ���������� 2008 1:24 ��
      To: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [seleukids] Re: Seleukid coinage



      Makis,

      I find your ideas VERY interesting. A few questions:

      1. Does the Numismatic Chronicle plan on printing an article on the
      discussion of your ideas?

      2. I will be on the lookout for your new book. Any idea when it will
      be published and what the title will be? Will Cambridge University
      Press publish this one also?

      3. Concerning your thoughts about the symbols:

      "the ANCHOR represents the Seleukid army in general, but also
      sometimes the infantry forces, the HORSE FOREPART and HORSE HEAD the
      cavalry, the HORNED HORSE HEAD the Seleukid elite, the ELEPHANT the
      elephant corps, the DOLPHIN the Mediterranean navy and so on."

      If I read your post correctly, you believe that this arrangement first
      started to be used under Seleukos I? Is that correct? And at least
      continued through to Antiochos III?

      Good luck with the book. I know I will buy a copy. :)

      Rodger

      --- In seleukids@yahoogrou <mailto:seleukids%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com,
      "Makis Aperghis" <maperghis@...> wrote:
      >
      > Last December, seven Seleukid and other numismatists and five Seleukid
      > historians were invited to a symposium in London organised by the
      editor of
      > the Numismatic Chronicle in order to discuss my views on the meaning of
      > monograms and symbols on Seleukid coins, which had been presented to
      them in
      > draft chapters of a book.
      >
      >
      >
      > This new book on Seleukid coinage was essentially a continuation of
      my older
      > one, 'The Seleukid Royal Economy. The Finances and Financial
      Administration
      > of the Seleukid Empire', published by Cambridge University Press in
      2004.
      > Coinage was treated very much in the context of the Seleukid
      financial and
      > administrative system described there
      >
      >
      >
      > A computer-aided analysis was undertaken of all coin types and
      varieties,
      > monograms and symbols in Houghton and Lorber's catalogue of Seleukid
      coinage
      > from Seleukos I to Antiochos III. All my conclusions relate strictly
      > speaking only to this period and may or may not apply to later Seleukid
      > kings and to other Hellenistic states.
      >
      >
      >
      > The basic observation is that coins of the early Seleukid kings usually
      > display two monograms and sometimes a symbol, exactly like Alexander's
      > coinage at Babylon, but not elsewhere. The current view of Seleukid
      > numismatists is that the monograms stand for the names of mint
      magistrates
      > responsible for issuing coinage, working often in pairs, while the
      symbols
      > represent mint marks in some cases and dynastic blazons in others, whose
      > meaning is unclear. My own view is that one monogram on a coinage issue
      > usually represents the name of the issuing official and the other
      that of a
      > receiving official, while the symbols represent branches of the Seleukid
      > army and navy, particular military units and departments of the
      > administration who were the intended end-users of an issue. The issuing
      > official is typically a financial administrator, sometimes even the most
      > senior in a satrapy (the dioiketes), while the receiving official is
      usually
      > a civil/military administrator, a military or naval commander and,
      > sometimes, a junior financial administrator in need of funds. This
      matches
      > very well the Seleukid administrative system, where the
      civil/military and
      > financial were two separate branches each reporting independently to the
      > king and needing to cooperate on certain matters. So why not for coinage
      > also? Several Seleukid officials mentioned in the sources can, in my
      > opinion, be identified by their monograms at the right time and place.
      >
      >
      >
      > With regard to the symbols, the ANCHOR represents the Seleukid army in
      > general, but also sometimes the infantry forces, the HORSE FOREPART and
      > HORSE HEAD the cavalry, the HORNED HORSE HEAD the Seleukid elite, the
      > ELEPHANT the elephant corps, the DOLPHIN the Mediterranean navy and
      so on.
      > Some symbols are mint marks of cities of Asia Minor, but no mint
      mark was
      > used in Syria or further east.
      >
      >
      >
      > Seleukid symbols placed as countermarks on Seleukid bronze coins did not
      > serve to 'revalidate' the currency, as is the current thinking, but
      simply
      > to specify the new intended end-users when the coins were placed in
      > circulation again after they had been returned to the authorities,
      as often
      > happened during extended campaigns of large armies.
      >
      >
      >
      > The whole system of monograms, symbols and countermarks was
      essentially a
      > more quite sophisticated production control system for coinage.
      >
      >
      >
      > Clearly my ideas on Seleukid coinage controls are quite radical and, if
      > correct, will necessitate some changes in the current attributions
      of coins
      > to mints and periods. I have begun to apply these ideas to the
      coinages of
      > the early Seleukid kings with, I believe, good results in an attempt
      to read
      > more Seleukid history, administrative practice and royal ideology
      from the
      > coins.
      >
      >
      >
      > I believe that the matter may be of interest to a number of people
      in the
      > Seleucids Group and would be grateful for their comments or
      questions, which
      > I will try to respond to.
      >
      >
      >
      > Regards
      >
      > Makis Aperghis
      >
      > University College London
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Marcin Taraszkiewicz
      Dear Makis, You ideas do sound interesting and I would certainly be interested in seeing more detail about how you arrived at your conclusions before
      Message 2 of 22 , Feb 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Makis,

        You ideas do sound interesting and I would certainly be interested in seeing more detail about how you arrived at your conclusions before commenting on any of these issues. Might I suggest that you post your paper to the document folder on this site? This has been done by others in other discussion groups and has generated much subsequent feedback, which it sounds like you would like to receive. As you may well be aware, a number of Seleukid numismatists are members of this group and would no doubt be interested in reading about your views on this subject.

        Best regards,

        Marcin


        ----- Original Message ----
        From: Makis Aperghis <maperghis@...>
        To: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Friday, February 1, 2008 7:40:38 AM
        Subject: RE: [seleukids] Re: Seleukid coinage

        Dear Rodger,

        In answer to your questions:



        1. The way the December seminar ended with two opposite views, the
        current one of Seleukid numismatists and my radically different one (after
        six hours of debate), it was suggested by an independent numismatist and
        agreed that two parallel papers in the Numismatic Chronicle might be the
        best solution. However, as I was subsequently informed by the Editor, this
        would require vetting of my paper and acceptance for publication by a
        (Seleukid) numismatist. This seems to me a Catch-22 situation, i.e. Seleukid
        numismatists must be willing to continue the debate in a numismatic context.



        In January I delivered a seminar in London to 30-35 ancient historians on
        the subject of monetarisation of the Seleukid economy and the question of
        monograms and symbols on Seleukid coins was again discussed at some length.
        Historians seem to be more receptive to my ideas since I try to link coinage
        issues more closely to the historical situation, administrative practice and
        royal ideology.



        For example, I see no particular reason why Seleukos I should have continued
        to issue 'Alexanders' in the name of Alexander after he took the title of
        king for himself in 305/4 instead of in his own name, which is what one
        would expect from a new king wishing to promote his new position to his
        subjects. Yet, according to Houghton and Lorber's 'Seleucid Coinage',
        'Alexanders' in the name of Alexander continued at some mints and not others
        until c. 295. I believe that the main reason for late dating by Seleukid
        numismatists is that they have to accommodate quite a number of secondary
        monograms in the relevant issues and tend to assume that changes in
        monograms mean new issues in a chronological, perhaps yearly, sequence. I
        have no such difficulty, because different secondary monograms might be
        applied at the same time to indicate simultaneous recipients. Thus I have no
        problem dating coinage in the name of Alexander to before 305/4.



        A characteristic example are the bronzes of Seleukos III from Antioch (no.
        922 in SC) where there are up to 20 secondary monograms for what is a minor
        issue of duration not more than the 3 years of Seleukos' reign and, as I
        argue in my book, probably only one year. Why use so many 'mint officials'?
        My idea is that these are all recipients, who are administrators of
        different cities/hyparchies/oikonomiai of Syria (and perhaps Kilikia)
        receiving bronze for their needs from the Antioch mint at about the same
        time.



        2. I have a firm offer to publish my book now, but it will certainly
        benefit from further analysis of the coins, new ideas and, particularly,
        criticism of numismatists and historians, since I have ventured onto what is
        very new ground. I would certainly prefer to debate my ideas more in a
        numismatic context.



        3. The arrangement of the main symbols started under Seleukos I. I have
        analysed Seleukid coinage only until Antiochos III and make no claims as yet
        for later kings. The idea of symbols denoting end-users of coinage issues,
        however, begins with Alexander's coinage at Babylon, where I believe that
        the many symbols used, particularly in 325-323, represent different units in
        his army and administration. Alexander was making massive payments then in a
        very short space of time and symbols were a good thing to use for control of
        coinage production. Martin Price agreed that production control was
        necessary but believed that the symbols may have identified batches of
        silver.



        To give you an example of symbol use, look at the many bronze types of
        Antiochos III from Ekbatana and Uncertain Mint 73 associated with Ekbatana
        (nos. 1237-1277 in SC). Much of this coinage is linked to Antiochos III's
        campaign against Molon (222-220) and his eastern campaign of 210-205.



        The supposed mint mark of Ekbatana, the HORSE HEAD, is hardly present and I
        take it, when it is, as the symbol of the Seleukid cavalry. In these issues
        one more often see the ANCHOR (infantry), the ELEPHANT HEAD (elephant corps)
        and the TRIPOD (perhaps support services). These bronze issues are quite
        often countermarked with the same symbols. In my view they represent the
        reissuing of these bronzes by the army command at a later stage of the
        eastern campaign after the coins had found their way into its hands again,
        e.g. via small purchases made by the soldiers. You will find exactly the
        same symbols and countermarks at Uncertain Mints 60 to 64 in southern Koile
        Syria, all connected with the 5th Syrian War of 202-198 and after. Again,
        what would the HORSE HEAD, the supposed Ekbatana mint mark, be doing here?
        Seleukid numismatists really need to answer this. And again, the same
        symbols appear on the silver issues of Antioch from c. 204 onwards, where
        there are additional symbols, such as the BOW IN BOWCASE (archers?).



        Once you accept the idea that some monograms may represent recipients of
        coinage and symbols end-users, a lot of things fall into place much more
        easily.



        All the best

        Makis





        _____

        From: seleukids@yahoogroups.com [mailto:seleukids@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
        Of qqqq4a
        Sent: ������, 31 ���������� 2008 1:24 ��
        To: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [seleukids] Re: Seleukid coinage



        Makis,

        I find your ideas VERY interesting. A few questions:

        1. Does the Numismatic Chronicle plan on printing an article on the
        discussion of your ideas?

        2. I will be on the lookout for your new book. Any idea when it will
        be published and what the title will be? Will Cambridge University
        Press publish this one also?

        3. Concerning your thoughts about the symbols:

        "the ANCHOR represents the Seleukid army in general, but also
        sometimes the infantry forces, the HORSE FOREPART and HORSE HEAD the
        cavalry, the HORNED HORSE HEAD the Seleukid elite, the ELEPHANT the
        elephant corps, the DOLPHIN the Mediterranean navy and so on."

        If I read your post correctly, you believe that this arrangement first
        started to be used under Seleukos I? Is that correct? And at least
        continued through to Antiochos III?

        Good luck with the book. I know I will buy a copy. :)

        Rodger

        --- In seleukids@yahoogrou <mailto:seleukids%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com,
        "Makis Aperghis" <maperghis@...> wrote:
        >
        > Last December, seven Seleukid and other numismatists and five Seleukid
        > historians were invited to a symposium in London organised by the
        editor of
        > the Numismatic Chronicle in order to discuss my views on the meaning of
        > monograms and symbols on Seleukid coins, which had been presented to
        them in
        > draft chapters of a book.
        >
        >
        >
        > This new book on Seleukid coinage was essentially a continuation of
        my older
        > one, 'The Seleukid Royal Economy. The Finances and Financial
        Administration
        > of the Seleukid Empire', published by Cambridge University Press in
        2004.
        > Coinage was treated very much in the context of the Seleukid
        financial and
        > administrative system described there
        >
        >
        >
        > A computer-aided analysis was undertaken of all coin types and
        varieties,
        > monograms and symbols in Houghton and Lorber's catalogue of Seleukid
        coinage
        > from Seleukos I to Antiochos III. All my conclusions relate strictly
        > speaking only to this period and may or may not apply to later Seleukid
        > kings and to other Hellenistic states.
        >
        >
        >
        > The basic observation is that coins of the early Seleukid kings usually
        > display two monograms and sometimes a symbol, exactly like Alexander's
        > coinage at Babylon, but not elsewhere. The current view of Seleukid
        > numismatists is that the monograms stand for the names of mint
        magistrates
        > responsible for issuing coinage, working often in pairs, while the
        symbols
        > represent mint marks in some cases and dynastic blazons in others, whose
        > meaning is unclear. My own view is that one monogram on a coinage issue
        > usually represents the name of the issuing official and the other
        that of a
        > receiving official, while the symbols represent branches of the Seleukid
        > army and navy, particular military units and departments of the
        > administration who were the intended end-users of an issue. The issuing
        > official is typically a financial administrator, sometimes even the most
        > senior in a satrapy (the dioiketes), while the receiving official is
        usually
        > a civil/military administrator, a military or naval commander and,
        > sometimes, a junior financial administrator in need of funds. This
        matches
        > very well the Seleukid administrative system, where the
        civil/military and
        > financial were two separate branches each reporting independently to the
        > king and needing to cooperate on certain matters. So why not for coinage
        > also? Several Seleukid officials mentioned in the sources can, in my
        > opinion, be identified by their monograms at the right time and place.
        >
        >
        >
        > With regard to the symbols, the ANCHOR represents the Seleukid army in
        > general, but also sometimes the infantry forces, the HORSE FOREPART and
        > HORSE HEAD the cavalry, the HORNED HORSE HEAD the Seleukid elite, the
        > ELEPHANT the elephant corps, the DOLPHIN the Mediterranean navy and
        so on.
        > Some symbols are mint marks of cities of Asia Minor, but no mint
        mark was
        > used in Syria or further east.
        >
        >
        >
        > Seleukid symbols placed as countermarks on Seleukid bronze coins did not
        > serve to 'revalidate' the currency, as is the current thinking, but
        simply
        > to specify the new intended end-users when the coins were placed in
        > circulation again after they had been returned to the authorities,
        as often
        > happened during extended campaigns of large armies.
        >
        >
        >
        > The whole system of monograms, symbols and countermarks was
        essentially a
        > more quite sophisticated production control system for coinage.
        >
        >
        >
        > Clearly my ideas on Seleukid coinage controls are quite radical and, if
        > correct, will necessitate some changes in the current attributions
        of coins
        > to mints and periods. I have begun to apply these ideas to the
        coinages of
        > the early Seleukid kings with, I believe, good results in an attempt
        to read
        > more Seleukid history, administrative practice and royal ideology
        from the
        > coins.
        >
        >
        >
        > I believe that the matter may be of interest to a number of people
        in the
        > Seleucids Group and would be grateful for their comments or
        questions, which
        > I will try to respond to.
        >
        >
        >
        > Regards
        >
        > Makis Aperghis
        >
        > University College London
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



        Community email addresses:
        Post message: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
        Subscribe: seleukids-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
        Unsubscribe: seleukids-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        List owner: seleukids-owner@yahoogroups.com

        Shortcut URL to this page:
        http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/seleukids
        Yahoo! Groups Links




        ____________________________________________________________________________________
        Be a better friend, newshound, and
        know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • BrianKritt@aol.com
        In a message dated 2/1/2008 8:41:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, maperghis@ath.forthnet.gr writes: For example, I see no particular reason why Seleukos I should
        Message 3 of 22 , Feb 1, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 2/1/2008 8:41:47 AM Eastern Standard Time,
          maperghis@... writes:

          For example, I see no particular reason why Seleukos I should have continued
          to issue 'Alexanders' in the name of Alexander after he took the title of
          king for himself in 305/4 instead of in his own name, which is what one
          would expect from a new king wishing to promote his new position to his
          subjects. Yet, according to Houghton and Lorber's 'Seleucid Coinage',
          'Alexanders' in the name of Alexander continued at some mints and not others
          until c. 295. I believe that the main reason for late dating by Seleukid
          numismatists is that they have to accommodate quite a number of secondary
          monograms in the relevant issues and tend to assume that changes in
          monograms mean new issues in a chronological, perhaps yearly, sequence. I
          have no such difficulty, because different secondary monograms might be
          applied at the same time to indicate simultaneous recipients. Thus I have no
          problem dating coinage in the name of Alexander to before 305/4.

          The dating to c. 295 of the change-over in name from Alexander to Seleucus at
          the mint of Susa, discussed in SC p. 67, was based on the evidence of my
          book, "The Early Seleucid Mint of Susa." The arguments were based on the detailed
          analysis of the internal structure of the Susa series, but overwhelmingly
          supported by the evidence of the contemporary hoards (Cf. ESMS Chapters VI and
          VII). The hoard evidence for the same change-over date at Ecbatana is presented
          in ESMS, p. 85. Your speculation on Seleucid numismatists' reasoning would
          be improved by actually responding to the published evidence.

          Brian Kritt



          **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
          http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Makis Aperghis
          Dear Brian, No offence intended. I am indebted to Seleukid numismatists classification work and I simply analyse it also from other points of view. The
          Message 4 of 22 , Feb 2, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Brian,



            No offence intended. I am indebted to Seleukid numismatists' classification
            work and I simply analyse it also from other points of view. The question of
            royal ideology, i.e. how a king expresses himself to his subjects, is one of
            these and one has to try to reconcile this with the coinage. One can see the
            obvious reason why Seleukos would wish to display his own name on his coins
            immediately after he became king - a question of promoting his independent
            authority - but one cannot easily see the reason why he might have wished to
            wait 10 years to do so. So someone who proposes a late date needs a valid
            historical, administrative or ideological reason, while I who propose an
            early date need to reconcile it with the numismatic evidence.



            You say that a late date is 'overwhelmingly supported by the hoard
            evidence'. Let's use 'Seleucid Coinage' as our reference, since it can be
            easily accessed. Based on the work that you have done, the Susan
            'Alexanders' in the name of Alexander are Group 1 (c.311-305), Group 2
            (c.298/7) and Group 3A (c.298/7-295/4). These are followed by 'Alexanders'
            in the name of Seleukos in Group 3B (c.295/4-1). You also have the 'Nike
            crowning trophy' type (c.305/4-295) and the 'Elephant chariot' type from
            c.295 plus some issues of native type and other isolated emissions.



            Regarding Group 1, we do not differ on the date, but the mint. These
            'wreathed' Alexanders I actually attribute to Seleukeia, for reasons I can
            go into if you wish. One is thus left with no Susan coinage prior to 305,
            which is difficult to accept for administrative reasons. My dating of the
            'Alexanders' would then fit. But this not really relevant to what I want to
            say here, which follows.



            For Groups 2 and 3A , which are what we are arguing about, there are three
            associated hoards. Meydancikkale (closing date 240-235) is a huge hoard with
            plenty of Seleukos 'Alexanders' in the name of Alexander dating from c.311.
            The closing dates for Failaka 1984 (c. 295-293) and Pasagardae III (c.
            298/7-295/4) have been established by you yourself solely based on your
            dating of the Seleukos 'Alexanders'. In the case of Pasagardae III, the
            Seleukos 'Alexander' was actually the only Seleukid coin alongside 3 coins
            of Alexander and Philip III. Thus none of the three hoards provides any
            evidence of the date of the coins and certainly the date I propose is
            earlier than and so compatible with the closing date of the hoard in each
            case. This is always so with my dating of 'Alexanders' in the name of
            Alexander, since I assign them to before 305. So I don't think the hoard
            evidence provides support for your dating.



            Now let's consider the internal evidence, which you also maintain supports
            your dating. You consider the Susan 'Alexanders', 'trophies' and 'elephant
            chariots' of Seleukos I as belonging to 6 groups ( 1 to 4b) and suggest an
            order for the groups. You then assume that mint magistrates (and their
            monograms) follow one another in a sequence, where some monograms are
            repeated later in the sequence, when the magistrate apparently had another
            term of office. This gives you 37-42 'managerial terms', as you put it, over
            a period of 18 years. You then estimate from die studies the volume of each
            group of coinage and assign a date range to each group in proportion to its
            volume. Since the 'Alexanders' in the name of Alexander are at the end of
            your Group 2 and in your Group 3A, this is how you derive their dates. The
            whole thing assumes that for 18 years the Seleukids were producing coinage
            continuously at Susa at a uniform rate, which applied also to the three
            different coin types! There is absolutely nothing to support this. On the
            contrary, Seleukid coinage is thoroughly discontinuous in nature and closely
            linked to the expenditure required for major military campaigns or to
            shortages that suddenly appeared in peace time. One cannot assume an orderly
            sequence of mint magistrates and this is my basic problem with Seleukid
            numismatics, that this is what is often done. Many of these 'mint
            magistrates' are actually receivers of coinage, sometimes contemporary, and
            it happens also at Susa. In my view, what one actually has at Susa are
            'Alexanders' in the name of Alexander before 305/4, then some issues in the
            name of Seleukos 305/4 - c. 300 and then 'elephant chariots' after c. 300.



            Regarding the 'trophy' coinage, that's another interesting story.



            I'll leave the matter of Susa now, but we can discuss Ekbatana too if you
            wish in the same vein.



            Regards

            Makis







            _____

            From: seleukids@yahoogroups.com [mailto:seleukids@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
            Of BrianKritt@...
            Sent: ���������, 1 ����������� 2008 5:06 ��
            To: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [seleukids] Re: Seleukid coinage




            In a message dated 2/1/2008 8:41:47 AM Eastern Standard Time,
            maperghis@ath. <mailto:maperghis%40ath.forthnet.gr> forthnet.gr writes:

            For example, I see no particular reason why Seleukos I should have continued
            to issue 'Alexanders' in the name of Alexander after he took the title of
            king for himself in 305/4 instead of in his own name, which is what one
            would expect from a new king wishing to promote his new position to his
            subjects. Yet, according to Houghton and Lorber's 'Seleucid Coinage',
            'Alexanders' in the name of Alexander continued at some mints and not others
            until c. 295. I believe that the main reason for late dating by Seleukid
            numismatists is that they have to accommodate quite a number of secondary
            monograms in the relevant issues and tend to assume that changes in
            monograms mean new issues in a chronological, perhaps yearly, sequence. I
            have no such difficulty, because different secondary monograms might be
            applied at the same time to indicate simultaneous recipients. Thus I have no
            problem dating coinage in the name of Alexander to before 305/4.

            The dating to c. 295 of the change-over in name from Alexander to Seleucus
            at
            the mint of Susa, discussed in SC p. 67, was based on the evidence of my
            book, "The Early Seleucid Mint of Susa." The arguments were based on the
            detailed
            analysis of the internal structure of the Susa series, but overwhelmingly
            supported by the evidence of the contemporary hoards (Cf. ESMS Chapters VI
            and
            VII). The hoard evidence for the same change-over date at Ecbatana is
            presented
            in ESMS, p. 85. Your speculation on Seleucid numismatists' reasoning would
            be improved by actually responding to the published evidence.

            Brian Kritt










            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Makis Aperghis
            Dear Marcin, Tell me how one posts papers in the document folder and I ll be happy to do so. Makis ... From: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
            Message 5 of 22 , Feb 2, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Marcin,

              Tell me how one posts papers in the document folder and I'll be happy to do
              so.

              Makis

              -----Original Message-----
              From: seleukids@yahoogroups.com [mailto:seleukids@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
              Of Marcin Taraszkiewicz
              Sent: Παρασκευή, 1 Φεβρουαρίου 2008 4:43 μμ
              To: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [seleukids] Re: Seleukid coinage

              Dear Makis,

              You ideas do sound interesting and I would certainly be interested in seeing
              more detail about how you arrived at your conclusions before commenting on
              any of these issues. Might I suggest that you post your paper to the
              document folder on this site? This has been done by others in other
              discussion groups and has generated much subsequent feedback, which it
              sounds like you would like to receive. As you may well be aware, a number
              of Seleukid numismatists are members of this group and would no doubt be
              interested in reading about your views on this subject.

              Best regards,

              Marcin
            • Andy
              ... classification work and I simply analyse it also from other points of view. The question of royal ideology, i.e. how a king expresses himself to his
              Message 6 of 22 , Feb 3, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In seleukids@yahoogroups.com, "Makis Aperghis" <maperghis@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > Dear Brian,
                >
                > No offence intended. I am indebted to Seleukid numismatists'
                classification work and I simply analyse it also from other points
                of view. The question of royal ideology, i.e. how a king expresses
                himself to his subjects, is one of these and one has to try to
                reconcile this with the coinage. One can see the obvious reason why
                Seleukos would wish to display his own name on his coins immediately
                after he became king - a question of promoting his independent
                authority - but one cannot easily see the reason why he might have
                wished to wait 10 years to do so. So someone who proposes a late
                date needs a valid historical, administrative or ideological reason,
                while I who propose an early date need to reconcile it with the
                numismatic evidence.>>

                Makis and all,

                Hi - my name is Andy and I am new to the list. My main interests are
                in the interactions of the Parthians and Republican Romans, but to
                understand those you need to have a solid grounding in the Seleukids
                and Achaemenids. I've also always found the Seleukid period
                interesting generally..

                Anyway, this has been some great discussion. I come from a
                historical background rather than a numismatic background and I am
                only just starting to educate myself in numismatics. I'm currently
                deployed in the Middle East so that's on my project list when I get
                home later in the year.

                To answer Makis' comment above, I can think of one possible reason
                that Seleukos would not immediately mint coinage in his own name,
                which goes back to the difference between power (the ability to
                compel the ruled to obey) and authority (the willing obedience of
                the ruled).

                In the somewhat chaotic aftermath of Alexander's death and the
                shakeout among his generals over territory, they held power in their
                respective territories but did not individually have authority yet
                (being effectively warlords at that early point).

                Given that Seleukos especially controlled a huge territory with many
                peoples, in the first few years of his rule he could conceivably
                have decided to trade on Alexander's name recognition among his
                subject peoples and continued to mint Alexander coins until he had
                solidified his own rule. By issuing Alexander coins, Seleukos could
                assume some of Alexander's authority (such as it was) while he
                developed his own authority among his subjects. An analogy would be
                the practice of the Roman emperors continuing to use the
                term "Caesar", which conveyed legitimacy in the early years and
                developed into tradition.

                Andy
              • Makis Aperghis
                Dear Andy, Your point is absolutely valid. The name of Alexander was indeed a very powerful one. In the first years of his rule (311-305/4), Seleukos was
                Message 7 of 22 , Feb 3, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Andy,



                  Your point is absolutely valid. The name of Alexander was indeed a very
                  powerful one.

                  In the first years of his rule (311-305/4), Seleukos was technically the
                  satrap of Babylonia, even though he commanded all the eastern territories by
                  the end of this period. The fiction of king Alexander (IV), Roxane's son,
                  was still maintained and contracts in Babylonia were dated by the regnal
                  years of this king, while coinage was only issued in the name of Alexander.
                  As you can see, Andy, Seleukos did exactly what you supposed he would do.

                  At this time, the only way in which Seleukos distinguished himself on his
                  coinage was to place one of his 'military' symbols on the coins: ANCHOR,
                  HORSE FOREPART, HORNED HORSE HEAD and a few others. When you find coins of
                  this period without these symbols, you must question whether they are indeed
                  Seleukid. For example, I argue that the so-called Babylon I Mint in
                  'Seleucid Coinage' producing 'Alexanders' in the name of Alexander may not
                  be Seleukid at all. I have linked it to the coining of some of Antigonos'
                  Monophthalmos 25,000 talents of treasure collected at Ekbatana and Susa
                  after his campaign against Eumenes and taken east with him via Babylon to
                  pay his troops. This explains why these coins did not circulate in
                  Mesopotamia, which has always been a mystery for what was thought to be a
                  Seleukid issue.

                  To return to the use of Seleukos' own name on his coins, the crucial point
                  is the taking of the title of king in 305/4. This followed rather quickly on
                  what the other Successors had done, led off by Antigonos. A kind of brief
                  modus vivendi had been established. We are all now kings, let us look to our
                  affairs. Forget the fiction of Alexander. At this point Babylonian contracts
                  are dated by the first year of Seleukos, 'which is his 7th year', i.e.
                  recognition of his rule has somehow been post-dated. Seleukos was in an
                  excellent position by this time. He had defeated Antigonos decisively in
                  311-309/8, he had conquered the eastern satrapies and he had built (305,
                  according to my arguments) a huge capital city. With an area of
                  fortifications of 550 hectares, Seleukeia on the Tigris was twice as large
                  as what Antioch and the other Syrian cities were to be when they were
                  founded c.305. This was clearly a strong message of kingship.

                  Seleukos was powerful enough now not to need to rely on Alexander's name for
                  a further ten years, if the current numismatic datings are accepted. Hence
                  his own name on his coins as quickly as possible. Which was what Ptolemy was
                  also doing at about this time. Seleukos kept the type of Alexander though,
                  because it was good to show continuity and at the same time an accepted
                  medium of exchange. However, immediately after 305/4 he began to produce
                  other types in his own name in order to further distance himself from
                  Alexander's coat strings as an independent ruler.

                  Andy, I hope this explanation takes your point one step further and
                  satisfies you.



                  Makis





                  _____

                  From: seleukids@yahoogroups.com [mailto:seleukids@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                  Of Andy
                  Sent: �������, 3 ����������� 2008 11:48 ��
                  To: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [seleukids] Re: Seleukid coinage



                  --- In seleukids@yahoogrou <mailto:seleukids%40yahoogroups.com> ps.com,
                  "Makis Aperghis" <maperghis@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > Dear Brian,
                  >
                  > No offence intended. I am indebted to Seleukid numismatists'
                  classification work and I simply analyse it also from other points
                  of view. The question of royal ideology, i.e. how a king expresses
                  himself to his subjects, is one of these and one has to try to
                  reconcile this with the coinage. One can see the obvious reason why
                  Seleukos would wish to display his own name on his coins immediately
                  after he became king - a question of promoting his independent
                  authority - but one cannot easily see the reason why he might have
                  wished to wait 10 years to do so. So someone who proposes a late
                  date needs a valid historical, administrative or ideological reason,
                  while I who propose an early date need to reconcile it with the
                  numismatic evidence.>>

                  Makis and all,

                  Hi - my name is Andy and I am new to the list. My main interests are
                  in the interactions of the Parthians and Republican Romans, but to
                  understand those you need to have a solid grounding in the Seleukids
                  and Achaemenids. I've also always found the Seleukid period
                  interesting generally..

                  Anyway, this has been some great discussion. I come from a
                  historical background rather than a numismatic background and I am
                  only just starting to educate myself in numismatics. I'm currently
                  deployed in the Middle East so that's on my project list when I get
                  home later in the year.

                  To answer Makis' comment above, I can think of one possible reason
                  that Seleukos would not immediately mint coinage in his own name,
                  which goes back to the difference between power (the ability to
                  compel the ruled to obey) and authority (the willing obedience of
                  the ruled).

                  In the somewhat chaotic aftermath of Alexander's death and the
                  shakeout among his generals over territory, they held power in their
                  respective territories but did not individually have authority yet
                  (being effectively warlords at that early point).

                  Given that Seleukos especially controlled a huge territory with many
                  peoples, in the first few years of his rule he could conceivably
                  have decided to trade on Alexander's name recognition among his
                  subject peoples and continued to mint Alexander coins until he had
                  solidified his own rule. By issuing Alexander coins, Seleukos could
                  assume some of Alexander's authority (such as it was) while he
                  developed his own authority among his subjects. An analogy would be
                  the practice of the Roman emperors continuing to use the
                  term "Caesar", which conveyed legitimacy in the early years and
                  developed into tradition.

                  Andy





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Oliver D. Hoover
                  Dear Makis, I confess that I am a little surprised to see that you are bringing your radical theories here. When I offered my rebuttal to your views in London
                  Message 8 of 22 , Feb 3, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Makis,

                    I confess that I am a little surprised to see that you are bringing
                    your radical theories here. When I offered my rebuttal to your views
                    in London last December it was obvious that you would not entertain
                    even the slightest possibility that your position might require some
                    sort of revision to take account of the numerous problems that were
                    pointed out. Will you now consider this possibility? If not, it is
                    somewhat disingenuous to claim that you want discussion when what you
                    are really looking for is blind assent.

                    In December, I and others presented you with some serious problems
                    that plague your theories (including non-numismatic problems, such
                    as your inability to explain away the tax and other seals from
                    Seleucia on the Tigris and Uruk that do not fit your model), but you
                    rarely even addressed them. Instead your response was frequently
                    that you "believe" something different. But since when is belief an
                    acceptable academic basis for historical reconstruction? You need to
                    assemble the material and textual evidence, sift it thoroughly and
                    THEN try to figure out the possible patterns that permits some sense
                    to be made of the fragments. This is what Brian Kritt did admirably
                    with the Bactrian and Susian material. Whether some may agree or
                    disagree with the conclusions is is irrelevant, but his case is
                    grounded on the evidence as it was at the time that he wrote.
                    However, what appears to have happened in the case of your radical
                    position is that the theory was created first and then the evidence
                    was forced to fit into the preconceived pattern or ignored when it
                    couldn't be made to fit. This is bad methodology for any historian,
                    with or without numismatic background.

                    The dichotomy between the nefarious numismatists that you see
                    attempting to hold you back and the open-minded historians is
                    absolutely false. Virtually all of the numismatists at the table in
                    December (including myself) have their primary training in ancient
                    history, but they happen to specialize in numismatics. I would be
                    very interested to know what it is precisely that you think
                    numismatists do, since you describe your attempt "to link coinage
                    issues more closely to the historical situation, administrative
                    practice and royal ideology" as being historical rather than numismatic?

                    I presume that the historians who you say received your theories with
                    greater warmth have other specialties than numismatics. This of
                    course is fine, but since the material that you are basing your
                    theories on is so heavily numismatic, wouldn't it make sense to pay
                    at least a little attention when numismatic historians point out
                    problems, rather than ignoring them on the grounds that an eminent
                    epigrapher, or a famous pottery specialist, or a well-known art
                    historian, or whoever, WITH LITTLE OR NO NUMISMATIC BACKGROUND finds
                    them attractive? To put it another way, if your car broke down, who
                    would you take it to? The specialist in computer repair or the
                    specialist in auto repair? These are both exceedingly noble
                    specialties, but surely one is far more relevant to your needs than
                    the other.

                    Until you can come up with some reasonable response to my critique
                    that is based on evidence rather than belief, I have no choice but to
                    remain opposed to the new radicalism.

                    All of this being said, you are more than welcome to upload your text
                    to the group files on yahoo, however I will also post the rebuttal.

                    Oliver D. Hoover

                    P.S. Who is publishing the book? Cambridge again?
                  • Makis Aperghis
                    Dear Oliver, I think we ought to keep this scholarly debate at the level of ideas, facts, proofs and rebuttals. Belief may enter the arena only as a last
                    Message 9 of 22 , Feb 4, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Oliver,

                      I think we ought to keep this scholarly debate at the level of ideas, facts,
                      proofs and rebuttals. 'Belief' may enter the arena only as a last resort,
                      when it is clearly so stated and backed by experience. A reader may then
                      judge this accordingly.

                      Also, this is not the forum for trying to read my thoughts about historians
                      and numismatists or giving me practical advice. On a light note, however,
                      since you brought up the example: if my car broke down, I would first try to
                      fix it myself using common sense.

                      This is a good place to set out the basic parameters of the debate.

                      In December, twelve well-known numismatists and historians took the trouble
                      to come to London to discuss my ideas at the invitation of the Editor of the
                      Numismatic Chronicle. At the end, a proposal was made by a distinguished
                      numismatist, Philip Kinns, to have two parallel papers in NC, one presenting
                      my position and the other a rebuttal. This was accepted by the Editor and no
                      one present, including you, Oliver, had any objection. I was subsequently
                      informed, however, that my paper would have to be approved by a Seleukid
                      numismatist before it could be published. If you had wanted such a debate,
                      you could have simply said yes then.

                      The Internet is a good forum to continue. More people can be involved with
                      more ideas. If nothing more, it should make this site a lot more
                      interesting.

                      I am fully conscious that my basic thesis in which many monograms represent
                      recipients of coinage and most symbols identify military end-users is
                      totally against that of the established position in Seleukid numismatics,
                      where controls have to do only with the issuing side. I have not put forward
                      this thesis lightly, since I am quite aware what I am up against and I am
                      placing my reputation on the line. What I bring to the problem are some new
                      approaches stemming from own background, my work on Seleukid administration
                      and a computer-aided analysis of Seleukid coins from Seleukos I to Antiochos
                      III. I certainly do not claim to be correct in all details and have accepted
                      and will continue to accept corrections where I have been wrong (At some
                      point in the debate I will also respond to your point about the tax and
                      other seals, which is a valid objection on your part).

                      The debate should not be one-sided and there should be no personal attacks.
                      I should be required to defend my ideas in response to objections, but
                      numismatists that support the established position need to do the same. We
                      need to be as laconic as possible in the discussion, referring to 'Seleucid
                      Coinage' which is more easily accessible, uploading longer texts that take
                      the form of mini-papers to group files.

                      From my side, I would like supporters of the established position to give us
                      reasonable answers to the following questions:

                      1. What is the administrative purpose of two monograms/issuers on most
                      Seleukid coins to Antiochos III rather than one (and on Alexander's coinage
                      at Babylon earlier, but not further west)?
                      2. How does one explain the up to 20 monograms on an Antioch bronze
                      issue of Seleukos III, who reigned only 3 years?
                      3. Why are 'dynastic' symbols like the ANCHOR sometimes placed on coins
                      in an issue and sometimes not?
                      4. Why is the ANCHOR sometimes accompanied by another symbol on the
                      same coin?
                      5. Why is the ANCHOR used as a countermark on coins that already have
                      the ANCHOR in their design?
                      6. Why are three Seleukid symbols, including the ANCHOR in one case,
                      applied simultaneously as countermarks?
                      7. Why is the HORSE FOREPART, supposedly the mint mark of Ekbatana
                      under Seleukos I, sometimes placed on the coins of Ekbatana and sometimes
                      not?
                      8. Why do the bronze issues of Ekbatana and Uncertain Mint 73 for
                      Antiochos III's eastern Anabasis of 210-205 show many symbols: ANCHOR, HORSE
                      HEAD, ELEPHANT and TRIPOD and are also countermarked by these same symbols,
                      sometimes in pairs?
                      9. Why should Ekbatana and Laodikeia have mint marks when no other
                      Seleukid mint from Syria eastwards, including Seleukeia-Tigris and Antioch,
                      has any?
                      10. Why was silver (with the DOLPHIN) minted at Laodikeia in the name of
                      Seleukos for subsequent kings as well and why was there no accompanying
                      bronze (with the DOLPHIN)?

                      That's enough for now. On my side, a control system involving issuers,
                      recipients and end-users can answer these questions. Can you do the same?

                      Makis





                      _____

                      From: seleukids@yahoogroups.com [mailto:seleukids@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                      Of Oliver D. Hoover
                      Sent: �������, 3 ����������� 2008 11:51 ��
                      To: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [seleukids] Re: Seleukid coinage



                      Dear Makis,

                      I confess that I am a little surprised to see that you are bringing
                      your radical theories here. When I offered my rebuttal to your views
                      in London last December it was obvious that you would not entertain
                      even the slightest possibility that your position might require some
                      sort of revision to take account of the numerous problems that were
                      pointed out. Will you now consider this possibility? If not, it is
                      somewhat disingenuous to claim that you want discussion when what you
                      are really looking for is blind assent.

                      In December, I and others presented you with some serious problems
                      that plague your theories (including non-numismatic problems, such
                      as your inability to explain away the tax and other seals from
                      Seleucia on the Tigris and Uruk that do not fit your model), but you
                      rarely even addressed them. Instead your response was frequently
                      that you "believe" something different. But since when is belief an
                      acceptable academic basis for historical reconstruction? You need to
                      assemble the material and textual evidence, sift it thoroughly and
                      THEN try to figure out the possible patterns that permits some sense
                      to be made of the fragments. This is what Brian Kritt did admirably
                      with the Bactrian and Susian material. Whether some may agree or
                      disagree with the conclusions is is irrelevant, but his case is
                      grounded on the evidence as it was at the time that he wrote.
                      However, what appears to have happened in the case of your radical
                      position is that the theory was created first and then the evidence
                      was forced to fit into the preconceived pattern or ignored when it
                      couldn't be made to fit. This is bad methodology for any historian,
                      with or without numismatic background.

                      The dichotomy between the nefarious numismatists that you see
                      attempting to hold you back and the open-minded historians is
                      absolutely false. Virtually all of the numismatists at the table in
                      December (including myself) have their primary training in ancient
                      history, but they happen to specialize in numismatics. I would be
                      very interested to know what it is precisely that you think
                      numismatists do, since you describe your attempt "to link coinage
                      issues more closely to the historical situation, administrative
                      practice and royal ideology" as being historical rather than numismatic?

                      I presume that the historians who you say received your theories with
                      greater warmth have other specialties than numismatics. This of
                      course is fine, but since the material that you are basing your
                      theories on is so heavily numismatic, wouldn't it make sense to pay
                      at least a little attention when numismatic historians point out
                      problems, rather than ignoring them on the grounds that an eminent
                      epigrapher, or a famous pottery specialist, or a well-known art
                      historian, or whoever, WITH LITTLE OR NO NUMISMATIC BACKGROUND finds
                      them attractive? To put it another way, if your car broke down, who
                      would you take it to? The specialist in computer repair or the
                      specialist in auto repair? These are both exceedingly noble
                      specialties, but surely one is far more relevant to your needs than
                      the other.

                      Until you can come up with some reasonable response to my critique
                      that is based on evidence rather than belief, I have no choice but to
                      remain opposed to the new radicalism.

                      All of this being said, you are more than welcome to upload your text
                      to the group files on yahoo, however I will also post the rebuttal.

                      Oliver D. Hoover

                      P.S. Who is publishing the book? Cambridge again?





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Danny Syon
                      Well said, Oliver. I am happy that the group is suddenly alive, even if the tones are a bit high... Though I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on the
                      Message 10 of 22 , Feb 4, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Well said, Oliver.

                        I am happy that the group is suddenly alive, even if the tones are a
                        bit high...

                        Though I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on the issues involved,
                        maybe a civil discussion on this list can iron out some of the
                        differences.

                        Brian and Oliver: do you accept any part at all of Makis' theory?

                        Danny Syon
                      • BrianKritt@aol.com
                        In a message dated 2/4/2008 3:02:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, dsyon@israntique.org.il writes: Brian and Oliver: do you accept any part at all of Makis theory?
                        Message 11 of 22 , Feb 5, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In a message dated 2/4/2008 3:02:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                          dsyon@... writes:

                          Brian and Oliver: do you accept any part at all of Makis' theory?

                          Danny,

                          Nothing that I have seen so far. It is not just his theory that is wrong,
                          but also his response to legitimate criticism. In his futile attempts to
                          salvage his ideas he just keeps digging himself a deeper hole.

                          His end-user control theory brings to mind so many counter-examples and
                          conflicts with the numismatic evidence that it seems to me patently impossible .

                          Brian



                          **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
                          (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
                          48)


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Oliver D. Hoover
                          Danny, With the exception of a part where he suggests that the xi-upsilon monogram on some western coinages represents Zeuxis of Kynagos (this cannot be proven
                          Message 12 of 22 , Feb 5, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Danny,

                            With the exception of a part where he suggests that the xi-upsilon
                            monogram on some western coinages represents Zeuxis of Kynagos (this
                            cannot be proven or disproven) I do not accept any of the theory.

                            In any case, there is really no point in attempting to discuss any of
                            this here until Makis posts his theory for listmembers to read. How
                            can anyone comment intelligently, when only I and maybe a few other
                            here have actually read the manuscript?

                            Oliver D. Hoover

                            On 4-Feb-08, at 3:01 PM, Danny Syon wrote:

                            > Well said, Oliver.
                            >
                            > I am happy that the group is suddenly alive, even if the tones are a
                            > bit high...
                            >
                            > Though I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on the issues
                            > involved,
                            > maybe a civil discussion on this list can iron out some of the
                            > differences.
                            >
                            > Brian and Oliver: do you accept any part at all of Makis' theory?
                            >
                            > Danny Syon
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Community email addresses:
                            > Post message: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
                            > Subscribe: seleukids-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            > Unsubscribe: seleukids-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            > List owner: seleukids-owner@yahoogroups.com
                            >
                            > Shortcut URL to this page:
                            > http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/seleukids
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                          • Makis Aperghis
                            Oliver, In my last message to the Seleukids Group I had copied from a Word file in which there were monograms embedded as pictures, but these did not come
                            Message 13 of 22 , Feb 6, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Oliver,



                              In my last message to the Seleukids Group I had copied from a Word file in
                              which there were monograms embedded as pictures, but these did not come
                              through when I received the message later. If something is posted, will this
                              happen again?



                              Makis







                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Oliver D. Hoover
                              Makis, If you want monograms to work, I think you need to upload the file as a PDF. Oliver
                              Message 14 of 22 , Feb 6, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Makis,

                                If you want monograms to work, I think you need to upload the file as
                                a PDF.

                                Oliver

                                On 6-Feb-08, at 4:45 AM, Makis Aperghis wrote:

                                > Oliver,
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > In my last message to the Seleukids Group I had copied from a Word
                                > file in
                                > which there were monograms embedded as pictures, but these did not
                                > come
                                > through when I received the message later. If something is posted,
                                > will this
                                > happen again?
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Makis
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Community email addresses:
                                > Post message: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
                                > Subscribe: seleukids-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                > Unsubscribe: seleukids-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                > List owner: seleukids-owner@yahoogroups.com
                                >
                                > Shortcut URL to this page:
                                > http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/seleukids
                                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                >
                                >
                                >
                              • Ronald Wallenfels, Ph.D.
                                To all, but especially Makis: The preserved upper-half of a seal impression on a clay tag from Seleucia-Tigris published by McDowell (pl. 2, 15) shows a right
                                Message 15 of 22 , Jun 6, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  To all, but especially Makis:

                                  The preserved upper-half of a seal impression on a clay tag from
                                  Seleucia-Tigris published by McDowell (pl. 2, 15) shows a right profile
                                  beardless diademed head identified by McDowell as Demetrius I; in the
                                  upper right corner of this impression of what was a rather large square
                                  seal is a monogram composed of X (chi)-P (rho) where the shaft of the
                                  rho rises through the midpoint of the chi. Coin-like monograms on seal
                                  impressions, both as central and subsidiary motifs, while not abundant,
                                  are certainly known from both Uruk and Seleucia. However, a reviewer of
                                  McDowell suggested rather than the seal being of just some "special
                                  controller" the monogram represents an abbreviation for chr(ephylax). A
                                  cursory search through the monograms in SC I reveals nothing with
                                  precisely this form on the Seleucid coins through Antiochus III--and so
                                  here now is my question--what about in the later years of the dynasty,
                                  especially Demetrius I?

                                  My thanks in advance for any and all responses.

                                  Ron Wallenfels
                                  Fair Haven, NJ
                                • Makis Aperghis
                                  Dear Ron, Though I cannot answer your question about the later Seleukids directly, here s how I would interpret the monogram: In coins, monograms seem to
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Jun 8, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Dear Ron,

                                    Though I cannot answer your question about the later Seleukids directly,
                                    here's how I would interpret the monogram:

                                    In coins, monograms seem to represent names of officials, with very few
                                    exceptions. Certainly no monogram that I know of definitely gives the title
                                    of an official, such as dioiketes or oikonomos, but I may be corrected on
                                    this.
                                    So I do not think that XP (Chr...) stands for chreophylax, but for the name
                                    of the official whose seal it was. Though XP in the exact form you describe
                                    does not appear on coins to Antiochos III, it is the common way of depicting
                                    'Christ' (Christos)in Christian times. Seleukid prosopography gives a number
                                    of names beginning with Chr...: Chresimos, Chrysaor, Chrysippos, Chrysogonos
                                    and there were undoubtedly more.

                                    Hope this helps
                                    Makis

                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: seleukids@yahoogroups.com [mailto:seleukids@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                                    Of Ronald Wallenfels, Ph.D.
                                    Sent: Παρασκευή, 6 Ιουνίου 2008 10:03 μμ
                                    To: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: [seleukids] Monograms on coins and seals

                                    To all, but especially Makis:

                                    The preserved upper-half of a seal impression on a clay tag from
                                    Seleucia-Tigris published by McDowell (pl. 2, 15) shows a right profile
                                    beardless diademed head identified by McDowell as Demetrius I; in the
                                    upper right corner of this impression of what was a rather large square
                                    seal is a monogram composed of X (chi)-P (rho) where the shaft of the
                                    rho rises through the midpoint of the chi. Coin-like monograms on seal
                                    impressions, both as central and subsidiary motifs, while not abundant,
                                    are certainly known from both Uruk and Seleucia. However, a reviewer of
                                    McDowell suggested rather than the seal being of just some "special
                                    controller" the monogram represents an abbreviation for chr(ephylax). A
                                    cursory search through the monograms in SC I reveals nothing with
                                    precisely this form on the Seleucid coins through Antiochus III--and so
                                    here now is my question--what about in the later years of the dynasty,
                                    especially Demetrius I?

                                    My thanks in advance for any and all responses.

                                    Ron Wallenfels
                                    Fair Haven, NJ
                                  • Oliver D. Hoover
                                    Ron, I have just checked the monograms in Seleucid Coins Part 2 (soon to be available from better booksellers across the globe) and can tell you that the
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Jun 11, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Ron,

                                      I have just checked the monograms in Seleucid Coins Part 2 (soon to
                                      be available from better booksellers across the globe) and can tell
                                      you that the chi-rho monogram occurs only on posthumous drachms of
                                      Antiochus IV from Antioch (1886), tetradrachms of Demetrius I from
                                      Antioch (1641), tetradrachms and drachms of Alexander I from Antioch
                                      (1681, 1683-1685), tetradrachms of Demetrius II from Antioch (1906)
                                      and at Tyre (1960), tetradrachms and drachms of Antiochus VI from
                                      Antioch and Apameia (2000, 2003, 2011), and tetradrachms of Tryphon
                                      at Antioch (2033). Based on this evidence, I think it is difficult
                                      to make a case for the chi-rho as the monogram of the chreophylax. In
                                      the context of the coinage it really looks like the monogram of some
                                      Antiochene official.

                                      ...of course, Makis may be able to explain this situation better in
                                      light of his curious end-user theory.

                                      Oliver D. Hoover
                                    • Ronald Wallenfels, Ph.D.
                                      Dear Makis. Thanks for the reply, but as fate would have it, my copy of SC II arrived today and to my pleasant surprise the x-p monogram is found on coins from
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Jun 11, 2008
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Dear Makis.

                                        Thanks for the reply, but as fate would have it, my copy of SC II
                                        arrived today and to my pleasant surprise the x-p monogram is found on
                                        coins from Antioch during the reigns of Demetrius I through Tryphon, so,
                                        perhaps just this once, McDowell finally got it right!

                                        Yours,

                                        Ron

                                        Makis Aperghis wrote:
                                        > Dear Ron,
                                        >
                                        > Though I cannot answer your question about the later Seleukids directly,
                                        > here's how I would interpret the monogram:
                                        >
                                        > In coins, monograms seem to represent names of officials, with very few
                                        > exceptions. Certainly no monogram that I know of definitely gives the title
                                        > of an official, such as dioiketes or oikonomos, but I may be corrected on
                                        > this.
                                        > So I do not think that XP (Chr...) stands for chreophylax, but for the name
                                        > of the official whose seal it was. Though XP in the exact form you describe
                                        > does not appear on coins to Antiochos III, it is the common way of depicting
                                        > 'Christ' (Christos)in Christian times. Seleukid prosopography gives a number
                                        > of names beginning with Chr...: Chresimos, Chrysaor, Chrysippos, Chrysogonos
                                        > and there were undoubtedly more.
                                        >
                                        > Hope this helps
                                        > Makis
                                        >
                                        > -----Original Message-----
                                        > From: seleukids@yahoogroups.com [mailto:seleukids@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                                        > Of Ronald Wallenfels, Ph.D.
                                        > Sent: Παρασκευή, 6 Ιουνίου 2008 10:03 μμ
                                        > To: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
                                        > Subject: [seleukids] Monograms on coins and seals
                                        >
                                        > To all, but especially Makis:
                                        >
                                        > The preserved upper-half of a seal impression on a clay tag from
                                        > Seleucia-Tigris published by McDowell (pl. 2, 15) shows a right profile
                                        > beardless diademed head identified by McDowell as Demetrius I; in the
                                        > upper right corner of this impression of what was a rather large square
                                        > seal is a monogram composed of X (chi)-P (rho) where the shaft of the
                                        > rho rises through the midpoint of the chi. Coin-like monograms on seal
                                        > impressions, both as central and subsidiary motifs, while not abundant,
                                        > are certainly known from both Uruk and Seleucia. However, a reviewer of
                                        > McDowell suggested rather than the seal being of just some "special
                                        > controller" the monogram represents an abbreviation for chr(ephylax). A
                                        > cursory search through the monograms in SC I reveals nothing with
                                        > precisely this form on the Seleucid coins through Antiochus III--and so
                                        > here now is my question--what about in the later years of the dynasty,
                                        > especially Demetrius I?
                                        >
                                        > My thanks in advance for any and all responses.
                                        >
                                        > Ron Wallenfels
                                        > Fair Haven, NJ
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > ------------------------------------
                                        >
                                        > Community email addresses:
                                        > Post message: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
                                        > Subscribe: seleukids-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                        > Unsubscribe: seleukids-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                        > List owner: seleukids-owner@yahoogroups.com
                                        >
                                        > Shortcut URL to this page:
                                        > http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/seleukidsYahoo! Groups Links
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                      • Oliver D. Hoover
                                        Ron, Surely you mean CSE 2. SC 2 just came back from the printer yesterday. Oliver
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Jun 11, 2008
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Ron,

                                          Surely you mean CSE 2. SC 2 just came back from the printer yesterday.

                                          Oliver

                                          On 11-Jun-08, at 8:15 PM, Ronald Wallenfels, Ph.D. wrote:

                                          > Dear Makis.
                                          >
                                          > Thanks for the reply, but as fate would have it, my copy of SC II
                                          > arrived today and to my pleasant surprise the x-p monogram is found on
                                          > coins from Antioch during the reigns of Demetrius I through
                                          > Tryphon, so,
                                          > perhaps just this once, McDowell finally got it right!
                                          >
                                          > Yours,
                                          >
                                          > Ron
                                          >
                                          > Makis Aperghis wrote:
                                          >> Dear Ron,
                                          >>
                                          >> Though I cannot answer your question about the later Seleukids
                                          >> directly,
                                          >> here's how I would interpret the monogram:
                                          >>
                                          >> In coins, monograms seem to represent names of officials, with
                                          >> very few
                                          >> exceptions. Certainly no monogram that I know of definitely gives
                                          >> the title
                                          >> of an official, such as dioiketes or oikonomos, but I may be
                                          >> corrected on
                                          >> this.
                                          >> So I do not think that XP (Chr...) stands for chreophylax, but for
                                          >> the name
                                          >> of the official whose seal it was. Though XP in the exact form you
                                          >> describe
                                          >> does not appear on coins to Antiochos III, it is the common way of
                                          >> depicting
                                          >> 'Christ' (Christos)in Christian times. Seleukid prosopography
                                          >> gives a number
                                          >> of names beginning with Chr...: Chresimos, Chrysaor, Chrysippos,
                                          >> Chrysogonos
                                          >> and there were undoubtedly more.
                                          >>
                                          >> Hope this helps
                                          >> Makis
                                          >>
                                          >> -----Original Message-----
                                          >> From: seleukids@yahoogroups.com [mailto:seleukids@yahoogroups.com]
                                          >> On Behalf
                                          >> Of Ronald Wallenfels, Ph.D.
                                          >> Sent: Παρασκευή, 6 Ιουνίου 2008 10:03 μμ
                                          >> To: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
                                          >> Subject: [seleukids] Monograms on coins and seals
                                          >>
                                          >> To all, but especially Makis:
                                          >>
                                          >> The preserved upper-half of a seal impression on a clay tag from
                                          >> Seleucia-Tigris published by McDowell (pl. 2, 15) shows a right
                                          >> profile
                                          >> beardless diademed head identified by McDowell as Demetrius I; in the
                                          >> upper right corner of this impression of what was a rather large
                                          >> square
                                          >> seal is a monogram composed of X (chi)-P (rho) where the shaft of the
                                          >> rho rises through the midpoint of the chi. Coin-like monograms on
                                          >> seal
                                          >> impressions, both as central and subsidiary motifs, while not
                                          >> abundant,
                                          >> are certainly known from both Uruk and Seleucia. However, a
                                          >> reviewer of
                                          >> McDowell suggested rather than the seal being of just some "special
                                          >> controller" the monogram represents an abbreviation for chr
                                          >> (ephylax). A
                                          >> cursory search through the monograms in SC I reveals nothing with
                                          >> precisely this form on the Seleucid coins through Antiochus III--
                                          >> and so
                                          >> here now is my question--what about in the later years of the
                                          >> dynasty,
                                          >> especially Demetrius I?
                                          >>
                                          >> My thanks in advance for any and all responses.
                                          >>
                                          >> Ron Wallenfels
                                          >> Fair Haven, NJ
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >> ------------------------------------
                                          >>
                                          >> Community email addresses:
                                          >> Post message: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
                                          >> Subscribe: seleukids-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                          >> Unsubscribe: seleukids-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                          >> List owner: seleukids-owner@yahoogroups.com
                                          >>
                                          >> Shortcut URL to this page:
                                          >> http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/seleukidsYahoo! Groups Links
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >
                                          > ------------------------------------
                                          >
                                          > Community email addresses:
                                          > Post message: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
                                          > Subscribe: seleukids-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                          > Unsubscribe: seleukids-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                          > List owner: seleukids-owner@yahoogroups.com
                                          >
                                          > Shortcut URL to this page:
                                          > http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/seleukidsYahoo! Groups Links
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                        • Makis Aperghis
                                          Dear Oliver, I notice you are careful now to use the term Antiochene official , not mint magistrate or mint official , as you might have done in the past.
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Jun 11, 2008
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Dear Oliver,



                                            I notice you are careful now to use the term 'Antiochene official', not
                                            'mint magistrate' or 'mint official', as you might have done in the past. I
                                            seem to have made some progress.

                                            By the way, the 'curious end-user' part of my theory applies only to
                                            symbols, not monograms. If you really want a name for the theory, why not
                                            say 'issuer - recipient - end-user theory'. If that's too much of a
                                            mouthful, 'Aperghis theory' will be fine.



                                            Makis



                                            _____

                                            From: seleukids@yahoogroups.com [mailto:seleukids@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                                            Of Oliver D. Hoover
                                            Sent: �������, 11 ������� 2008 11:57 ��
                                            To: seleukids@yahoogroups.com
                                            Subject: Re: [seleukids] Monograms on coins and seals



                                            Ron,

                                            I have just checked the monograms in Seleucid Coins Part 2 (soon to
                                            be available from better booksellers across the globe) and can tell
                                            you that the chi-rho monogram occurs only on posthumous drachms of
                                            Antiochus IV from Antioch (1886), tetradrachms of Demetrius I from
                                            Antioch (1641), tetradrachms and drachms of Alexander I from Antioch
                                            (1681, 1683-1685), tetradrachms of Demetrius II from Antioch (1906)
                                            and at Tyre (1960), tetradrachms and drachms of Antiochus VI from
                                            Antioch and Apameia (2000, 2003, 2011), and tetradrachms of Tryphon
                                            at Antioch (2033). Based on this evidence, I think it is difficult
                                            to make a case for the chi-rho as the monogram of the chreophylax. In
                                            the context of the coinage it really looks like the monogram of some
                                            Antiochene official.

                                            ...of course, Makis may be able to explain this situation better in
                                            light of his curious end-user theory.

                                            Oliver D. Hoover





                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.