Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T05:25:35.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coins and amphoras—Chios, Samos and Thasos in the fifth century B.C.*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2013

Harold B. Mattingly
Harold B. Mattingly
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The American excavators in the south-west area of the Forum at Corinth have revealed an intriguing architectural complex, which they have called the ‘Punic Amphora Building’. Evidently it housed a thriving import business with a speciality in fish and wine, whose trade extended in one direction to Sicily and perhaps Spain and in the other to Chalkidike and Chios. Masses of fragments of Punic and Chian amphoras were found crushed and pounded in the make-up of successive floor-levels in the courtyard, together with numerous pieces from Mende and elsewhere. Many others emerged from the single floors of most of the rooms or were discovered in the littered debris from the final phase of occupation. The life of this business house was somewhat short, but a domestic building on the same site had earlier been partly devoted to the same trade. All this activity ceased with dramatic suddenness; the emporium went out of use and in the late fifth century it was overlaid in one area by a new road. The end seems to be securely dated c. 430 B.C. by Attic black-glaze pottery in the final floor-level or in the debris covering the last floor. Professor Williams plausibly links the collapse of business with the interruption of Corinth's trade caused by the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War: one of Athens' first war measures was to blockade both the Saronic and the Corinthian Gulfs. This new material evidence for Corinthian commerce is most welcome in itself and, as I hope to show in this paper, it may help clarify other problems.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 101 , November 1981 , pp. 78 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Williams, Charles K. II, Hesp. xlvii (1978) 15–20Google Scholar and xlviii (1979) 106–24. His short report in Hesp. xlix (1980) 108–11Google Scholar does not change the picture.

2 Hesp. xlviii (1979) 114Google Scholar. Building V, to the west of the Punic Amphora Building, was apparently built after that went out of use; its construction also falls in the last quarter of the fifth century. See Hesp. xlvi (1977) 41–5Google Scholar with xlvii (1978) 20 and xlviii (1979) 118.

3 See Hesp. xlviii (1979) 111–14 with 118Google Scholar.

4 Ibid. 118. For the blockades see Thuc. ii 69.1 and 83–93 with Gomme's notes in HCT ii 216–40.

5 My FIG. I is taken from the good drawing in Hesp. xlvii (1978) 18,Google Scholar fig. 5, where the typical Mendean shape can also be seen.

6 Prof. Williams kindly told me of these fragments in a letter, answering my query on the point; it was he who suggested provisionally the explanation offered in my ext. For Chian old- and new-style jars juxtaposed see also Grace, V., Amphoras and the Ancient Wine Trade (Princeton 1961)Google Scholar figs. 43–5.

7 The growth of the thesis linking the jars with the Coinage Decree can be traced through Grace, , Hesp. Suppl. viii (1948) 182Google Scholar and Hesp. xxii (1953) 104Google Scholar f; Boardman, J., BSA liii–liv (1958/1959) 308;Google ScholarBarron, J. P., Silver Coins of Samos (London 1966) 86Google Scholar f. (hereafter ‘Barron’); Grace, in Exploration arch. Delos xxvii (Paris 1970) 359Google Scholar f. and fest. Blanckenhagen (Locust Valley 1979) 134Google Scholar f. This consensus led Prof. Williams, in Hesp. xlvii (1978) 18–20Google Scholar initially to date the abandonment of the Punic Amphora Building before 448 B.C.; he had not yet studied or indeed recovered all the ceramic evidence for dating and at that point there were no new-style Chian fragments to complicate the issue.

8 Hesp. iv (1935) 495Google Scholar f. and 514–16 with iii (1934) 296 f. and 303 f. The deposit (R 13:4) is headed ‘Ca. 440–425 B.C.’ in Agora xii (Princeton 1970) 398Google Scholar. It is worth noting that Lucy Talcott (496 f. of her report) treated the dump as evidence for a flourishing wine shop that came to a sudden end c. 430 B.C. Why should its Chian series end some fifteen years earlier? Significantly Virginia Grace had written only the year before (Hesp. iii [1934] 303)Google Scholar ‘Our jars are dated by the deposit in which they were found … probably about 430’.

9 Hesp. xlii (1973) 383–5Google Scholar (deposit H:5). Again why should the Chian amphoras ‘date no later than 450 B.C.’ (p. 384)? Behind this lurks the assumed dating c. 449 B.C. for the change of capacity—marked, as we saw, by the last phase of the old-style jars.

10 Hesp. xxii (1953) 59–115Google Scholar. The deposit (N:7:3) is headed ‘Ca. 460–440 B.C.’ in Agora xii 395. For the Chian jars see p. 104 f., nos 150–2 (Grace) with pl. 39; no. 150 should be compared for neck profile with the righthand top jar in FIG. I. For the dating and the ostrakon see p. 61 of the Hesperia article.

11 Kerameikos ix: Der, Sudhügel (Berlin 1976) 11–14Google Scholar (cemetery date), 20–5 (amphoras), 151 f. and 155 with pl. 65.4 and 8 (Graves 290 and 304). Chian amphoras are by far the commonest foreign storage jars used in the cemetery. There are no less than 9 of the late sixth/early fifth-century type and 21 of the post-Persian bulbous-necked varieties apart from the two being discussed. Good, typical examples are pl. 54.7; 60.1; 62.5; 55.4.

12 Hesp. vi (1937) 301–5Google Scholar with fig. 33, no. 202. For the dating sec p. 257 f, where we learn that the great majority of the coarse ware could not be listed. If in any group only one example could be satisfactorily restored, only one was given. There were then surely other Chians, but in too fragmentary state. Note that Pease remarks on p. 303 about the wine amphoras in general ‘Parallels for all the shapes are found in contemporary deposits of the Corinthian excavations’. Since new-style Chian jars were already known (see my n. 8), her silence about them should mean that they were present neither in her well nor in others closing c. 430 B.C.–or indeed going down into the 420s.

13 J. Mavrogordato, NC 1915 361–432, with pls XVIII–XIX. Baldwin, Agnes, A.J.Num. xlviii (1914) 44–7,Google Scholar ended the didrachm series c. 440 B.C. and put the anonymous tetradrachms and drachms ‘within the period ca. 440–420 B.C.’. For the coins see her pp. 21–6 and pls III, 11–30 and IV, 1–23. Her dating rests on style alone.

14 See Baldwin (n. 13) 24 no. 52 and 23 no. 46 with 44 and pl. IV, 11 (style); J. Boardman, BSA liii–liv (1958/9) 308 n. 23; Barron 86 f.; Kraay, C. M., Archaic and Classical Greek Coins (London 1976) 242Google Scholar f. with pl. 52, 889. The three English scholars date this stater by the accepted dating of the Coinage Decree. So too did Robinson, E. S. G. (Hesp. Suppl. viii [1948] 328–30)Google Scholar, but without allowing a break in the silver series. Most recently Erxleben, E. (ArchivPap.Forsch. xx [1970] 76Google Scholar f.) has also argued against a break.

15 Sec IG i2 310.112 f.:J. Boardman, loc. cit.; Barron loc cit. (correcting Boardman's 489 drachms). Boardman irst apparently saw the significance of this epigraphic evidence.

16 Thuc. ii 56–8 with vi 31.2. Hagnon subsequently took this force off to Poteidaia and the plague with it. The gods certainly needed placating.

17 See Grace Delos (n. 7) 359–61, Fest. Blanckenhagen (n. 7) 134 f. with n. 21; J. Braschinsky, Sov. Arch. 1976 100 (in Russian). Braschinsky has kindly told me by letter of many other Chian capacity measurements from c. 500 to the third quarter of the fifth century. The Chian/Attic coinage ratio about 8:7 (drachms of 3·90 and 4–30 gms) and the capacity ratio—also a trifle approximate—has been neatly confirmed by actual capacity measures from Chios itself. See W. G. Forrest, BSA li (1956) 63–7 with pl. 5.

18 In a letter of 1975 – enclosing an unamended typescript of 1954 –Mabel Lang gave me invaluable information. The only two measurable last quarter fifth-century jars available in 1954 had to be measured with barley and the results scaled up accordingly. The corrected capacities came to c. 25 litres or 8 Attic choes. Curiously this capacity is found at Chios in the first quarter of the fifth century also. See Braschinsky (n. 17) loc. cit. A Chian amphora of the same date from the Kerameikos (AthMitt lxxxi [1966] 27Google Scholar no. 43 with pl. 23, 3) holds precisely 25·10 litres, as Ursula Knigge kindly informed me by letter. For Thucydides' praise of Chian tact and the 425/4 B.C. episode see Thuc. viii 24.4–6 and iv 51.

19 See Grace, , Hesp. xl (1971) 68 and 75–7Google Scholar with pl. 15,3–8; Braschinsky, , Krat.Sov.Inst.Arch. [KISA] cix (1967) 22–4Google Scholar and Archaeologia xix (Warsaw 1968) 55–7Google Scholar—both in Russian.

20 See Grace (n. 19) 75–7 with nn. 62, 69 (Marion jar).

21 See Grace loc. cit. She kindly sent me two photographs of the Eretria jar. Though reproduction is ruled out (the amphora is so encrusted with marine creatures), the general shape is clear and also such details as neck, handles, toe etc. The Kerameikos jar comes from Grave 288 (Kerameikos ix [1976] 151Google Scholar and pl. 64,8): the Olbia amphora is discussed and illustrated, along with that from the lower Don, in the pages cited in my n. 19.

22 See Grace loc. cit. The Thasos amphora was brief published in BCH lxxv (1951) 179Google Scholar f. with fig. 98 (a photograph); its dimensions are 0·72 cm × 0·32 cm (height and max. diameter). Barron had put the trihemiobol sequence between 454 and 439 B.C.: se Barron 48 (a convenient summary of his overall chronology) and 71 with 198. He was, however prepared to give ‘provisional approval’ to Grace's changes (Hesp. xl [1971] 75Google Scholar).

23 Barron dated his Class I 499–495 B.C.; Class II c. 482/1–478/7; Class HI c. 477/6–461/0; Class IV c. 460/59 Class V c. 459/8–454/3; Class VI 454/3; Class VII 453/2–440/39. See Barron 29–33, 48, 74–89 for the detailed arguments.

24 See Barron 7 and 51–5 with 184 and pls ix–x Grace (n. 19) 79 f. was surely right about Samian wine: the Samians themselves consumed much wine from overseas. See the numerous fragments of fifth/fourth century Mendean jars recorded by H. P. Isler in Samos xiv (Bonn 1978) 131–3, nos 408–29 with pp. 63 and 68 Barron's Class III nos 35–7 have an upright olive-branch symbol; nos 33 f. have the samaina. The three type elements of the trihemiobol will then appear in immediate succession as symbols on the tetradrachms.

25 The die-cutters aimed at fair accuracy in detail on the trihemiobols–why not with the tetradrachm symbol also? Unluckily on Barron no. 38 it is badly distorted by a horizontal die-flaw (see pl. x), but even so its shape seems to have been close to that on no. 39. A modern forger of no. 39 failed precisely over the amphora, giving it a foot and shape like neither coin nor anything in the archaeological record. See E. S. G. Robinson, NC 1956 16 f. and pl. ii, C and 5.

26 Barron 55–64, 83–93 and 186–93 for the three classes (nos 54–95).

27 Kraay (n. 14) 332 f. Issues with O, II and Q (koppa) will not have survived. Certainly Δ and Θ survive in single specimens, as Barron admits in discussing a possible missing issue A (p. 60 with 189, 191).

28 See Barron's good arguments, pp. 58–64.

29 See for example Gardner, P., Samos and the Samian Coins (London 1882) 43–7:Google ScholarHead, B. V., BMC ‘Ionia’ (London 1892) 351–3Google Scholar and Historia Nummorum 2 (London 1911) 603Google Scholar f.: Robinson, E. S. G., Hesp. Suppl. viii (1948) 330Google Scholar f.

30 See Price, M. and Waggoner, N., Archaic Greek Silver Coinage: the‘Asyut’ Hoard (London 1975) 22, 38Google Scholar f. and 120 f. (burial date): IGCH 1644. For the Samian coins see p. 89 f., nos 645–63 (down to Barron no. 11).

31 NC 1886 4–8 with pl. i and Petrie, W. M. F., Naukratis I (London 1886) 64Google Scholar f. (Head's report: an almost verbatim replica): IGGH 1847. Barron, 76 f., saw his arrangement confirmed, at least relatively, by the difference of wear–twenty years?–between his no. 25 and 66e.

32 Barron 76. The ‘tortoise’ is in the Boston Museum. See Brett, A. Baldwin, Museum of Fine Arts: Catalogue of the Greek Coins (Boston 1955) no. 1113 with pl. 58Google Scholar. The Kuprrli stater is in London. See BMC ‘Lycia’ (1897) 15, no. 71 (c. 450 B.C.) and pl. iv i3 = NC 1886 pl. i, 7.

33 See my argument in BSA lxv (1970) 142–5:Google ScholarMorkholm, O., Acta Arch. xliii (1972) 75Google Scholar with n. 46. For ‘Asyut’ see Price–Waggoner (n. 30) 101 f., nos 767–80. This evidence was known to Morkholm, who still held to his dating of his no. 47 (the Naukratis coin) and the near-contemporary nos 54–8 (based on Kelenderis obverse type). Sec op. cit. 71–7 for the full argument. Kraay's acute point is made in his review of ‘Asyut’ in NC 1977 189 and 192–4.

34 For a start c. 457 B.C. sec R.Rago, RItNum 1963 7–15: Erxleben, E., Archiv Pap.Forsch. xx (1970) 67–9:Google ScholarHolloway, Ross, ANSMusN xvii (1971) 20Google Scholar f. For c. 445 B.C. see E. S. G. Robinson, NC 1961 111 f.; C. M. Kraay (n. 14) 43, 47. For the ‘autonomy’ clause see Thuc. i 67.2 and 139.1.

35 Compare Brett (no. 32) pl. 58, no. 1113 with RNum 6 x (1969) pl. xxvi,Google Scholar no. 51. For the Syrian Hoard's dating (IGGH 1483: Massayaf) see Kraay, , RNum x (1969) 210–19, 221Google Scholar f.

36 See Nicolet-Pierre, Helene in Frappe et Ateliers monétaires dans l' Antiquité et Moyen Age (Belgrade 1976) 5–12Google Scholar (the 1936 Megalopolis Hoard); Mando, Œconomides-Caramessini in Greek Numismatics and Archaeolog (Wetteren 1979) 231–9Google Scholar with pl. xxvii f. (1970 Myrina Karditsa Hoard). Nicolet dates the Megalopolis Hoard soon after 431 B.C.: Œconomides dates hers c. 440 B.C., though admitting many close similarities. Both Syrian and Naukratis staters look hear to those ‘tortoises’ shown on her pl. xxviii—a selection of her listed specimens, which show a quite unusual degree of die-linking.

37 See NC 1886 6, 8 with pl. i, 2–3 (BM 43 = BMC ‘Attica’ [London 1888] pl. iii, 4;Google ScholarBM 60). Starr, (Athenian Coinage 480–49 B.C. [Oxford 1970])Google Scholar divided the coinage into five groups down to 449 B.C.: there then follow on his scheme over three decades of standardised tetradrachms down to c. 412 B.C. See his pp. 62–75 and 84–6 for these two termini. Kraay (n. 14) 64–8 strongly supported Starr. BM 43 is an example of Starr's late Group V (no. 205, pl. xxi). For the large hoard of Attic tetradrachms see Petrie (n. 31) 40 f.

38 I owe this information to Ian Carradice, who kindly searched the records for me. The other two pre-430 original Naukratis tetradrachms in London (Barron 77 n. 11) are BM 55 and 59.

39 See Petrie (n. 31) 40 f., 72 and 86 f. Head lists BM 45–61 in strict descending order of weight and notes (p.7) that the lighter had lost from 5 to 10 grains in cleaning. The heaviest BM tetradrachm accessioned from Naukratis of the 480–c.420 B.C. period weighs 17·10 gms or 263·9 grains (1905, no. 3): the rest range down from 1708 gms or 263·7 grains (BM 43) to 16·50 gms or 254·7 grains (1905, no. 1). Starr, (n. 37) 79 f., Table I, gives 17·15–19 gms as the median weight for his Group V, 17·20 gms for the later standardised issues.

40 Boston has three Naukratis tetradrachms (Brett nos 1089–91), Edinburgh one (Rutter, K., Catalogue of the Greek Coins: Edinburgh Museum [Edinburgh 1980]Google Scholar no. 23). A fifth coin from Naukratis was transferred to the British Museum Coin Department from the Department of Greek and Roman Life in 1909, weighing 16·93 gms. All these coins are dateable after 430 B.C. as are most of the 11 Naukratis specimens accessioned at the British Museum in 1905. I owe my information on the BM coins once more to Ian Carradice. For the Tell el-Mashkuta Hoard (IGCH 1649) see E. S. G. Robinson, NC 1947 115–21 and pl. v: Starr (n. 37) 72 f. and 85 (noting the Naukratis parallel). It had ‘two certain examples of Group V (no. 210)’: see Starr 61 with pl. xxi and NC 1947 pl. v, i. The large Naukratis deposit—despite the IGCH 1648 entry— evidently also had the odd fourth-century ‘profile-eye’ pieces. See Head, NC 1886 9: ‘… the first consisted mainly of coins ranging in date from B.C. 500–430’. Head then put the break between ‘full-face eye’ and ‘profile-eye“ Athenas c. 430 B.C. or a little later (see BMC ‘Attica’ xxxi–xxxiv and 6–14): in HN 2 (n. 29) 373 f. the first are made to end c. 407 B.C., the latter begin c. 393 B.C.

41 See Petrie (n. 31) 86 f.: Head, NC 1886 9 (‘chiefly of coins … ranging in date from B.C. 430–350’) and IGCH 1661 (not quite accurate).

42 Petrie's language (loc. cit.) is awkward, but hardly ambiguous. Some coins from the large deposit were not weighed if they resisted cleaning.

43 For the Jordan Hoard (IGGH 1482) see Kraay, , RNum x (1969) 181–94, 207–10Google Scholar with pis xix–xxi; Starr (n. 37) 81, 85, 88.

44 Petrie noted (loc. cit.) that the large deposit had an earlier piece like the typical ‘Silversmith's Hoard’ specimens. This was hardly the chisel-cut BM 43 (Starr n. 205), since its weight could not well be described as ‘being less than 263· 7’. That fits a coin where some carbonate of lime was still observed after cleaning and weighing; rather than weigh again, clean and weigh yet again (p. 72) Petrie returned his first weight subject to some subtraction. There were then at least two specimens of Starr Group V in the big hoard.

45 See NC 18866, 8; BMC ‘Attica’ (1888) xxiii and 6, nos 41–4 with pl. iii, 2–5 (first of three wreathed, ‘full-face’ eye classes). BM 44 is Starr Group IV, no. 128; 41 is Starr Group VB, no. 178; 43 is Starr Group VB, no. 205 (Naukratis).

46 Head, BMC ‘Attica’ xxiii with Historia Nummorum (1887) 313 and HN 2 (n. 29) 370: Starr (n. 37) 72 f. with pl. xxii, 1– 3 (‘post-449’) and pp. 59, 61 for Group V, nos 183, 208. The earlier standardised tetradrachms were certainly in circulation by c. 445 B.C., when they were being overstruck by both Rhegion and Messana. See Kraay, , Suppl. Annali xii–xiv (1969) 143–8Google Scholar with pl. xii.

47 The 430s burial is accepted by Robinson, , Hesp. Suppl. viii (1948) 330Google Scholar f. and NC 1961 in: Kraay, , JHS lxxxiv (1964) 83Google Scholar and op. cit. (n. 14) 332 f: Mørkholm (n. 33) 75: Starr (n. 37) 89 (c. 439). For trihemiobol and amphora see above p. 81.

48 For a good defence of the still widely accepted 449 dating see ML 111–17 (no. 45). The editors (p. 116 found Barron's chronology ‘convincing’: it removed the snag seen by Robinson (Hesp. Suppl. viii) that—on his arrangement—coinage restarted ‘surprisingly soon after the crushing of the revolt’.

49 For comprehensive recent presentation of the case for 425/4 see Erxleben, E., Archiv Pap. Forsch. xxi (1971) 145–62Google Scholar. In Klio lix (1977) 83–100Google Scholar I added some new epigraphic and numismatic considerations. For the fifteen letter-years of Classes VI-VII see above p. 82.

50 For the weights and measures see ML no. 45 12 (addition to Council oath). M. B. Wallace apparently will publish capacity-measurements of Samian jars: see Grace (n. 7) Fest.Blanck. 142, addendum to n. 12.Some least should be fifth century. Wallace, however, has kindly assured me by letter that he has not yet enough capacity measurements for any safe conclusions on the Samian standards. Dr Braschinsky, in a letter of 1972, gave me the capacities of two late fifth-century Lesbian jars as 21 litres (non-Attic?) and Mabel Lang in 1975 informed me of a ‘last quarter’ Lesbian jar that held 22·87 litres (7 Attic choes?).

51 For Mende's coinage see Head, HN 2 211 and Price–Waggoner (n. 30) 44 f. For the jars marked ‘10’ and ‘8’ choes see Lang, Mabel, Hesp xvii (1948) 10,Google Scholar no. 44 and 12, no. 57. By letter she kindly gave me one ‘third-quarter 5th century’ capacity of 32·44 litres (10 Attic choes) and four from the same well ranging from 25·98 up to 27·40 litres (all meant as 8 Attic choes?); of the same period is a Keramcikos jar (KER. 8973), of whose capacity Ursula Knigge kindly informed me by letter. It measures precisely 27·10 litres. It was published in AthMitt lxxxi (1966) 35, no. 62. Dr Braschinsky sent me seven capacities for late fifth-/early fourth-century Mendean amphoras from Olbia, Tyras and Odessa. They range from 19·10 to 21·10 litres and can hardly be Attic.

52 See Vestnik Drevrti Istorii cxliv (1978) 135–43Google Scholar (with photographs and drawing on p. 136 f.). For the local standard c. 450 B.C. at Thasos (jar from a cemeter on the Lower Don) and in the fourth century see Ibid. 138 with n. 11 and 139 with n. 16. I owe knowledge of the fractional jar to a letter from Mabel Lang; the interpretation—as half a local 10-choes standard amphora–is my own.

53 For the method see op. cit. 141 f. and Sov. Arch. 1976, fasc. 3, 90–102.

54 See BCH lxxvi (1953) 18–31Google Scholar.

55 The custom of surrounding burials in ‘Scythian type’ tumuli with circles of complete amphoras—noted and illustrated by de Ballu, E. Belin, Olbia (Leiden 1972) 85Google Scholar and pl. iii—offers hope of ample new material, Another rich single source might be an intact store chamber such as the fourth-century example found also at Olbia in 1948 (ibid. 98 and pl. viii).