Silver Coinage With The Types of Aesillas The Quaestor / by Robert A. Bauslaugh

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 18:42 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.
39015058136246
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike / http://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#cc-by-nc-sa-4.0
SILVER COINAGE
WITH THE TYPES OF
AESILLAS THE QUAESTOR
BY
ROBERT A. BAUSLAUGH
NUMISMATIC STUDIES
No. 22
THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY
NEW YORK
2000
Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 18:42 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015058136246

NUMISMATIC STUDIES
No. 22

In memory of
MARGARET THOMPSON
and
OTTO M0RKHOLM
in grateful acknowledgment
of their contribution to the
understanding of Hellenistic coinage
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE 9
ABBREVIATIONS 13
INTRODUCTION 21
CATALOGUE 31
Group I, 01-06, obv. no theta (except 05B, 06C-D), rev. with/without A 32
Commentary 35
Group II, 07-013, obv. theta, rev. with/without A and pellets 36
Commentary 40
Group III, 014-015, obv. B- and 8, rev. with/without B, no pellets 42
Commentary 45
Group IV, 016-019, obv. theta with SI, rev. AESILLAS and SVVRA LEG PR0 Q,
no pellets, except R93 47
Commentary 47
Group V, 020-031, obv. theta, rev. with/without pellets 49
Commentary 51
Group VI, 032-083, obv. theta, rev. no pellets 52
Commentary 59
Group VII, 084-087, obv. CAE PR added, with/without theta, rev. no pellets .... 62
Commentary 63
Group VIII, 088-0102, obv. theta, rev. combinations of pellets 65
Commentary 68
Drachms, Dr. 1 - Dr. 7 69
Ancient Imitations and Forgeries, Im. 1 - Im. 7, Dr. Im. 1 70
METROLOGY AND PRODUCTION CONTROLS 75
Weights 75
Flans 77

Die Axes 79
Striking Patterns 79
Possible Control Systems 83
Summary 88
OVERSTRIKES 91
HOARDS AND CIRCULATION 97
CONCLUSION Ill
INDICES 117
PLATES
PREFACE
It has taken more than 10 years to prepare this study of the silver coinage minted with
the types of Aesillas the Quaestor. Included are the records of more than 1,300 published
and unpublished examples that careful comparative study has reduced to a catalogue of
about 1,000 different tetradrachms, 8 drachms, 4 overstruck examples, and 14 imitations.
The resulting total is far larger than any previous study and permits conclusions about the
internal arrangement of the Aesillas issues based on 33 previously unrecorded die links as
well as connections of style, fabric, and weight that follow subtle but recognizable patterns
of development during the production of the coinage.
My original interest in the Aesillas coinage began when Margaret Thompson sent me an
offprint of her 1973 Revue Numismatique article "Byzantium over Aesillas." Subsequent
discussions with Otto Merkholm and John Kroll of the problematic implications of the over-
strike published in her article convinced me that a comprehensive die study of the Aesillas
types was needed and overdue, and I began in 1983 to collect examples for such a study.
Roger Fisher's 1985 publication of a limited die study of Aesillas tetradrachms helped dispel
some misconceptions long held about the Aesillas types but did not address the crucial ques-
tions that remained about the sequence of issues and absolute chronology nor did it help
explain how the enigmatic evidence of overstrikes could possibly be reconciled with the
traditional arrangement of the coinage. In 1986 at the Tenth International Numismatic
Congress in London I offered the preliminary results of my own collection of material, at
the time already nearly twice the size of the catalogue in Fisher's study. I argued that a
radically new arrangement of the coinage was required and, in support, pointed to the then
forthcoming publication of two important hoards containing Aesillas tetradrachms by
Andrew Burnett. After the Congress, however, the only immediate step I was able to take
was to publish a single new Aesillas overstrike on New Style Athens.
Since 1986 many new examples of Aesillas types have appeared, particularly in the
published sale catalogues of international numismatic dealers. Combined with repeated trips

to the American Numismatic Society's library, I have gradually expanded my catalogue to
just over 1,000 examples. At the same time, Francois de Callatay has assembled a catalogue
of some 550 specimens, and comparison with de Callatay's catalogue has been very revealing.
With 1,001 examples, the following catalogue has about 82% more examples than de Call-
atay's. If, however, we compare the 102 obverse dies of tetradrachms recognized in this
study with de Callatay's 85 different tetradrachm dies,1 it immediately becomes clear that
despite the enormous increase in the amount of material, the present study has not uncov-
ered anything close to 82% more obverse dies. On the contrary, there are a mere 17 obverse
dies not in de Callatay's study from more than 450 additional examples. Amazingly, this
represents only a 20% increase in the number of different obverse dies identified. And
perhaps even more significant is the fact that there are only 26 (about 45%) more than the
total number of obverse dies in Fisher's catalogue,2 although there are 680 more examples (or
more than 210% more) in the present study!
1 There are seven instances where de Callatay assigns different numbers to the same obverse dies:
D9=D40 (here=023), D21=D28 (here=025A-C), D51=D52 (here=034), D42=D55 (here=064), D63=D64
(here=065), D71=D76 (here=070A-B), D73=D89 (here=078). There is also one instance, D20 (here=Im. 6-6),
which belongs with de Callatay's "Imitations" (see the Catalogue, pp. 70-71).
2 There are four instances where Fisher gives different numbers to the same obverse dies: 016=015
(here=097), 024=023 (here=091 A-B), 035=034 (here=07), 070=069 (here=070A-B).
10
Preface
The survival ratio of Aesillas tetradrachms to obverse dies in the present study exceeds 9.6
(102 obverse dies from 1,001 examples) compared to approximately 6.5 in de Callatay (85
from 550) and 4.2 in Fisher (76 from 321). What this small increase in the number of new
obverse dies therefore seems to indicate is that a nearly complete record of the coinage's
original production of obverse dies has now been compiled. And while it might seem that
an exhaustive collection is unnecessary given the small number of new obverse dies uncov-
ered from the effort, in fact the outcome proves that this is clearly not the case. For
although the additional 450+ examples included here have produced a rather small number
of previously unrecorded obverse dies, they have nevertheless revealed far more information
than previously available about the internal organization of the coinage through the appear-
ance of 33 previously unrecognized reverse die links. This is particularly important, since the
reverse connections provide critical information for establishing the relative chronology of
the obverse dies and their correct sequence of issue.3 As a result, despite some gaps and
remaining uncertainties, it is now possible to reconstruct the original order of issues of the
Aesillas tetradrachms with far greater confidence than ever before and to connect this recon-
struction with the available historical and prosopographical evidence in a way that produces
answers for even the most enigmatic questions that have plagued the study of the Aesillas
coinage since the nineteenth century.
Many people have generously assisted me during the years it has taken to prepare this
study including G. Akamates (Thessaloniki, University of Thessaloniki), M. Amandry
(Paris, Cabinet des Medailles), N. Asgari (Istanbul, Arkeoloji Miizerleri Mudurlugii), D.
Bachendorf (Frankfurt, Seminar fur Griechische und Romische Geschichte), S. Bendall
(London, Baldwin & Sons), K. Biro-Sey (Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Muzeum), C. Biucchi-
Arnold (New York, ANS), Chr. Boehringer (Gottingen, Archaologisches Institut der Univer-
sitat, Gottingen), A. Burnett (London, BM), T. V. Buttrey (Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum),

F. Campbell (New York, ANS), L. Cancio (National Numismatic Collection, Washington,
D. C), M. Chiaravalle (Milan, Civiche Raccolte Archeologiche e Numismatiche), E. Clain-
Stefanelli (National Numismatic Collection, Washington, D. C), F. de Callatay (Brussels,
Institut d'Archeologie), G. Dembski (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum), B. Demetriadi
(Athens), K. Dimitrov (Sophia, Institut et Musee Archeologique), A. S. Fava (Turin, Museo
Civico di Torino), C. M. Govi (Bologna, Museo Civico Archeologico), Ch. Hersh (Long Island,
NY), H. Ingvaldsen (Oslo, Institutt for Arkeologi, Kunsthistorie og Numismatikk), C.
Koukouli-Chrysanthaki (Kavala, 18th Ephoreia of Antiquities), J. Kroll (Austin, U. of
Texas), H. Kiithmann (Munich, Staatliche Munzsammlung), W. Metcalf (New York, ANS),
H. Nicolet (Paris, Cabinet des Medailles), M. Oeconomides (Athens, Numismatic Museum),
B. Overbeck (Munich, Staatliche Munzsammlung), C. Petolescu (Bucarest, Muzeul National
de Istorie de Istorie a Rorhniei), M. Price (London, BM), I. Prokopov (Kyustendil, Museum
of History), H. D. Schultz (Berlin, Staatliche Museem zu Berlin), I. Touratsoglou (Athens,
Numismatic Museum), J. P. A. van der Vin (Hague, Koninklijk Kabinet van Munten), N.
Waggoner (New York, ANS), A. Walker (Zurich, Bank Leu), R. B. Witschonke (Palo Alto,
CA), and J. Youroukova (Sophia, Institut et Musee Archeologique).
In addition, I want to acknowledge my extraordinary debt to Margaret Thompson, who
introduced me to the scholarly study of ancient numismatics during the 1972 ANS Graduate
Seminar and first brought the questions surrounding the Aesillas coinage to my attention,
and to Otto Merkholm, who strongly encouraged me to undertake this investigation.
The research presented here has been generously assisted by the American Philosophical
Society, which has awarded me two travel grants (1984 and 1991) for visiting numismatic
collections in Europe and Turkey, and the National Endowment for the Humanities, which
has also awarded me two Travel to Collections Grants (1985 and 1992) for study at the
3 See the discussion and list of 50 reverse die links in "Metrology and Production Controls," pp. 80-81.
Preface
11
American Numismatic Society in New York. Emory University has also supported my work
throughout, and I am grateful to then Dean David Minter for a sabbatical leave during fall
1987 and to the University Research Committee for a research leave during spring 1992.
Finally, special thanks are due to my mother, Betty Bauslaugh, for accompanying me on
three of my numismatic research trips, and to my wife, Professor Anne Chapin, for advice
and assistance during the final preparation of the catalogue and manuscript presented here.
Without the keen and patient help of my student assistant Leslie Commery and the careful
reediting of the final manuscript by Nancy Moore and Jack Kroll, the following catalogue
and study might never have reached publishable form.
After this work was completed, two articles by Francois de Callatay on the coinage of
Aesillas appeared in print. They are "Les Monnaies au Nom d'Aesillas," Italiam Fato
Profugi: Numismatic Studies Dedicated to Vladimir and Elvira Eliza Clain-Stefanelli, Numis-
matica Lovaniensia 12 (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1996), pp. 113-51; and "The Coins in the Name of
Sura," Coins of Macedonia and Rome, Essays in Honour of Charles Hersh, eds. A. Burnett, U.
Wartenberg, and R. Witschonke (London, 1998), pp. 113-17. The former was shared with me
in typescript; and together, although they appeared too late full for incorporation here, they
are in basic agreement with the present study.
Robert A. Bauslaugh

Brevard, North Carolina, 2000
ABBREVIATIONS
1. Publications
ACNAC
AJN
Akamates
Alfoldi
AMNG
ANSMN
Antony, CGC
Bauslaugh,
"Overstrikes"
, "Circulation"
BCH
Bellinger
Beschreibung
BIAB
Bloesch
BMC
Boehringer,
Chronologie
, "Trapezunt"
, "Achaischen
Liga"
Bompois
Boutin 1979
Broughton
Burnett

De Callatay,
Histoire
, "Catalogues"
, "Hoards"
, "Aesillas"
, "Sura"
Ancient Coins in North American Collections (formerly Greek Coins in North American
Collections), New York.
American Journal of Numismatics, New York.
G. Akamates, Nomismatikos Thesauros apo ten Agora tes Pellas genika Symperasmata,"
To Archaiologiko Ergo ste Makedonia kai Thrake 1 (Thessaloniki, 1987), pp. 125-32.
Maria R. Alfoldi, Antike Numismatik, vol. 1, 3, Theorie und Praxis (Mainz am Rhein,
1978), vol. 2, Bibliographie (2nd ed., Mainz am Rhein, 1982).
Die Antiken Munzen Nord-Griechenlands (see Gaebler).
American Numismatic Society Museum Notes (New York).
J. Antony, Collecting Greek Coins (London, New York, 1983).
R. A. Bauslaugh, "Two Unpublished Overstrikes: New Style Athens and Aesillas the
Quaestor," ANSMN 32 (1987), pp. 11-21.
"Reconstructing the Circulation of Roman Coinage in the First Century B.C. in Mace-
donia," Archaeological Numismatics/Numismatic Archaeology, eds. K. Sheedy and Ch.
Papageorgiadou (London, 1997), pp. 118-29.
Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique (Paris).
"Greek Mints under the Roman Empire," Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold
Mattingly, eds. R. A. G. Carson and C. H. V. Sutherland (Oxford, 1956), pp. 137-48.
Beschreibung der Antiken Munzen, Konigliche Museum zu Berlin, vol. 2 (Berlin, 1889).
Bulletin de flnstitut Archeologique Bulgare, Sophia.
H. Bloesch, Griechische Munzen in Winterthur (Wotton-under-Edge, 1967), 2 vols.
B. V. Head, A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum. Macedonia, etc. (rpt.
Bologna, 1963).
Chr. Boehringer, Zur Chronologie mittelhellenistischer Miinzserien 220-160 v. Chr., Antike
Munzen und Geschnittene Steine 5 (Berlin, 1972).
"Trapezunt" "Hellenistischer Munzschatz aus Trapezunt 1970," SNR 54 (1975), pp.
37-64.
Achaischen Liga Zur Geschichte der Achaischen Liga im 2. und 1. Jh. v. Chr. im
Lichte des Miinzfundes von Poggio Picenze (Abruzzen), Achaia und Elis in der Antike,
Akten des 1. Internationalen Symposiums Athens, 19-21 Mai 1989 (Athens, 1991), pp.
163-67.
H. F. Bompois, Examen Chronologique des Monnaies frappees par la Communaute des
Macedoniens avant, pendant et apres la Conquete Romaine (Paris, 1872).
S. Boutin, Catalogue des monnaies grecques antiques de tancienne collection Pozzi (Maas-
tricht, Netherlands, 1979).
T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, vol. 2, 99 B.C. to 31 B.C.
(Cleveland, OH, 1952; rpt. 1968).
14
Abbreviations
Carradice and
Price
CH
Chiranky
CIL
Comstock and
Vermeule
Crawford,
Coinage
Davis
De Luynes
Dewing
Dodson and
Wallace
Esty
Fisher
Friedlaender
Gaebler,
"Munzkunde"
, AMNG
Gerassimov
Gobl
Hannover
Head, Guide
, HN2

Hill
Howgego
H unterian
Hurter
IG
IGCH
Jameson
Jashemski
J IAN
JRS
Kleiner
, "Further
Reflections"
Kraay
Late Republic
Lenormant,
"Questeurs
Romains"
, f A ntiquite
I. Carradice and M. J. Price, Coinage in the Greek World (London, 1988).
Coin Hoards, vols. 1-7, Royal Numismatic Society, London.
G. Chiranky, "Rome and Cotys, Two Problems: I. The Diplomacy of 167 B.C. II. The
Date of Sylloge 3, 656," Athenaeum 60 (1982), pp. 461-81.
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, 2nd ed. (Berlin, 1893-1913).
M. Comstock and C. C. Vermeule, Greek Coins, 1950 to 1963, Museum of Fine Arts
(Boston, 1964).
M. H. Crawford, Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic: Italy and the Mediterra-
nean Economy (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1985).
H. A. Troxell, The Norman Davis Collection, ACNAC 1 (New York, 1969).
J. Babelon, Catalogue de la collection de Luynes; monnaies greques (Paris, 1924-36, rpt.
1977), 4 vols.
L. Mildenberg and S. Hurter, eds., The Arthur S. Dewing Collection of Greek Coins,
ACNAC 6 (New York, 1985).
O. H. Dodson and W. D. Wallace, "The Kozani Hoard of 1955," ANSMN 11 (1964), pp.
21-28.
W. Esty, "Estimation of the Size of a Coinage: A Survey and Comparison of Methods,"
NC 146 (1986), pp. 185-215.
R. S. Fisher, "Two Notes on the Aesillas Tetradrachms: Mint Attribution and a Die
Control System," ANSMN 30 (1985), pp. 69-87.
J. Friedlaender, "Romisch-macedonische Miinzen," ZfN 3 (1876), pp. 177-82.
H. Gaebler, "Zur Munzkunde Makedoniens III, Makedonien im Aufstand unter Andriskos.
Makedonien als romische Provinz," ZfN 23 (1902), pp. 141-89.
Die Antiken Miinzen Nord-Griechenland, vol. 3, Makedonia und Paionia (Berlin, 1906; 2nd
Abbreviations
15
Lewis
MacKay
Mattingly
McClean
MFA
Mommsen
MonnGr
Merkholm,
"Reflections"
, "Athens"
Nanteuil Coll.
JVC
Pollak
Price,
"Black Sea"
, Macedonians
, "Southern
Greece"
Prokopov,
"Circulation"
, "Hoard"
, 1987
Raven
RE
Regling

RN
RRC
RRCH
Sarikakis
Schonert-Geiss,
"Imitationen"
, Maroneia
Sear 1978
Sellwood
SNG
SNGAarhus
SNGAshm
SNGBerry
SNGCop
SNGDavis
SNGDelepierre
SNGDreer
SNGEvelpidis
SNGFabricius
SNGFitz
SNGHarl
SNGLeipzig
D. M. Lewis, "The Chronology of the Athenian New Style Coinage," NC (1962), pp. 275-
300.
P. A. MacKay, "Macedonian Tetradrachms of 148-147 B.C.," ANSMN 14 (1968), pp. 15-
40.
H. Mattingly, "L. Julius Caesar, Governor of Macedonia," Chiron 9 (1979), pp. 147-67.
S. W. Grose, Catalogue of the McClean Collection of Greek Coins, vol. 2, The Greek Main-
land, the Aegean Istands, Crete (Cambridge, 1926).
A. B. Brett, Catalogue of Greek Coins, Museum of Fine Arts (Boston, 1955).
Th. Mommsen, Geschichte des romischen Munzwesens (Berlin, 1860).
Catalogue de Monnaies Greques Antiques, Provenant de la Collection de feu le Prof. S. Pozzi
(rpt. Chicago, 1966) [actual sale date, 4 Apr. 1921].
0. Merkholm, "Some Reflections on the Early Cistophoric Coinage," ANSMN 24 (1979),
pp. 47-61.
"The Chronology of the New Style Coinage of Athens," ANSMN 29 (1984), pp. 29-44.
H. de Nanteuil, Collection de monnaies grecques (Paris, 1925).
Numismatic Chronicle, London.
P. Pollak, "A Bithynian Hoard of the First Century B.C.," ANSMN 16 (1970), pp. 45-56.
M. J. Price, "Mithradates VI Eupator, Dionysus, and the Coinages of the Black Sea," NC
(1968), pp. 1-12.
Coins of the Macedonians (London, 1974).
"Southern Greece," Late Republic, pp. 95-103.
16
Abbreviations
SNGLewis
SNGLockett
SNGM anchester
SNGSweden
SNGTubingen
SNR
Svoronos-Head
Thompson,
A thens
, "Athens
Again"
, "Byzantium"
Touratsoglou,
"Macedonia"
, "Zagliveriou
Hoard"
, Circulation
Varoucha,
"Acquisitions"
, "Sylloge"
Vladimirova-
Aladzova and
Prokopov
Waddington
Weber

Wheaton
Wiseman
Wulfing
ZfN
SNG {Great Britain], vol. 6, The Lewis Collection in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge
(London, 1972).
SNG fGreat Britain J, vol. 3, pt. 2, The Lockett Collection (London, 1939).
SNG (Great Britain], vol- 7, Manchester University Museum (Oxford, 1986).
SNG Sweden (Stockholm, 1980).
SNG Deutschland, Miinzsammlung der Universitat Tubingen (Berlin, 1981).
Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau.
J. N. Svoronos and B. V. Head, The Illustrations of the Historia Numorum, an Atlas of
Greek Numismatics (London, 1898); revised ed. by Alyce Marie Cresap (Chicago, 1968).
M. Thompson, The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens (New York, 1961).
"Athens Again," NC (1962), pp. 301-33.
"Byzantium over Aesillas," RN (1973), pp. 54-65.
Y. Touratsoglou, "Macedonia," in Late Republic.
"The Adam Zagliveriou/1983 Hoard in the Museum of Thessaloniki (Athenian 'New Style'
Tetradrachms in Macedonia)," Nomismatika Chronika 8 (1989), pp. 7-20 (in Greek and
English).
The Coin Circulation in Ancient Macedonia (ca. 200 B.C-268-286 A.D.), The Hoard
Evidence (Athens, 1993).
I. Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou, "Acquisitions du Musee Numismatique d'Athenes," BCH
84 (1960), pp. 486-87, Platania hd.; pp. 494-95, Kerassia hd.
"Ethnikon Archaiologikon Mouseion. Nomismatike Sylloge," ADelt, Chronika 17 (1961/2),
pl. 1, 1-3, Siderokastro hd.; pl. 2, 1-2, Platania hd.; pl. 2, 5, Kerassia hd.
D. Vladimorova-Aladzova and I. Prokopov, Coin Hoards from the Collection of the
Museum of History, Shumen, II-l cent. B.C. (forthcoming).
E. Babelon, Inventaire de la Collection Waddington (Paris, 1897-98).
L. Forrer, Descriptive Catalogue of the Collection of Greek Coins formed by Sir Hermann
Weber (London, 1924).
J. D. Bishop and R. R. Holloway, Wheaton College Collection of Greek and Roman Coins,
ACNAC 3 (New York, 1981).
T. P. Wiseman, New Men in the Roman Senate (Oxford, 1971).
K. Herbert, The John Max Wulfing Collection in Washington University, ACNAC 2 (New
York, 1979).
Zeitschrift fur Numismatik, Berlin.
2. Unpublished Collections
ANS American Numismatic Society, New York. Material and information provided by C.
Arnold-Biucchi, W. Metcalf, and N. Waggoner.
Athens Numismatic Collection, National Museum, Athens. Material and information provided by
M. Oeconomides and I. Touratsoglou.
Berlin Miinzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Material and information provided by H.-D.
Abbreviations
17
Hague
Haskovo
Hersh
Istanbul
Jambol
Kavala
Kyustendil
Milan
Munich
Oslo
Oxford
Paris
Philadelphia
Plovdiv
Razgrad
Princeton
Shumen
Sophia, Mus.
Arch.
, Mus. of Hist.
Turin
Vienna
Vraca
Washington,
D. C.

Winterthur
Witschonke
Koninklijk Kabinet van Munten, Penningen en Gesneden Steinen, 's Gravenhage. Material
and information provided by J. P. A. van der Vin.
Museum of History, Haskovo, Bulgaria. Material and information provided by I.
Prokopov.
Coins in the collection of C. Hersh, New York.
Arkeoloji Miizeleri Mudurlugu, Istanbul. Material and information provided by N. Asgari.
Museum of History, Jambol, Bulgaria. Material and information provided by D.
Draganov.
Archaeological Museum, 18th Ephoreia of Antiquities, Kavala. Material and information
provided by Ch. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki.
Museum of History, Kyustendil, Bulgaria. Material and information provided by I.
Prokopov.
Civiche Raccolte Archeologiche e Numismatiche, Castello Sforzesco, Milan. Material and
information provided by M. Chiaravalle.
Staatliche Munzsammlung, Munich. Material and information provided by H. Kuthmann
and B. Overbeck.
Institutt for Arkeologi, Kunsthistorie og Numismatikk, Universitetet I Oslo. Material and
information provided by H. Ingvaldsen.
Heberden Coin Room, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Material and information provided by
Chr. Howgego.
Cabinet des Medailles, Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. Material and information provided
by M. Amandry and H. Nicolet.
University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
Museum of History, Plovdiv, Bulgaria. Material and information provided by I.
Prokopov.
Museum of History, Razgrad, Bulgaria. Material and information provided by I.
Prokopov.
Firestone Library, Princeton University, Princeton.
Museum of History, Shumen, Bulgaria. Material and information provided by I.
Prokopov.
Institut et Musee Archeologique, Sophia. Material and information provided by K. Dimi-
trov and J. Youroukova.
National Museum of History, Sophia. Material and information provided by I. Prokopov.
Museo Civica di Torino. Material and information provided by A.S. Fava.
Bundessamlung fur Miinzen, Medaillen und Geldzeichen, Kunsthistorisches Museum,
Vienna. Material and information provided by G. Dembski.
Museum of History, Vraca, Bulgaria. Material and information provided by I. Prokopov.
National Numismatic Collection, Museum of American History, Washington, D. C. Mate-
rial and information provided by E. Clain-Stefanelli and L. Cancio.
Miinzkabinett, Stadtbibliothek, Winterthur. Material and information provided by B.
Zach.
18
Abbreviations
Bayerische
Vereinbank
Beckenbauer
Berk
Berliner Miinz-
Cabinet
Birkler &
Waddell
Blancon
Blaser-Frey
Bonhams
Bourgey
Boutin
Bowers & Ruddy
Buckland
Burgan
Button,
Frankfurter
Munzhandlung
Cahn
Calico
Cederlind FPL
Christie's
Ciani
Classical

Numismatic
Auctions
Coin Galleries
Coins &
Antiquities
Commerce
Compagnie des
Monnaies
Anciennes
Credit de la
Bourse
Crowther
Davissons
DeFalco FPL
Defranoux
Deland
Dorotheum
Egger
Elsen
Empire Coins
Emporium
Feuardent
Finarte
Flora nge
France
Numismatique
Frank
Freeman and
Sear
Gadoury
Galerie des
Monnaies
Galerie
Numismatique
Gans
Bayerische Vereinbank, Munich
Munzhandlung Egon Beckenbauer, Munich.
Harlan J. Berk, Chicago.
Berliner Miinz-Cabinet, Berlin.
Birkler & Waddell Ltd., Washington, D. C.
Blancon, Hannover.
Helga P. R. Blaser-Frey, Freiburg im Breisgau.
W. and F. C. Bonhams and Sons Ltd., London (see also Vecchi & Sons for combined sale,
Abbreviations
Gibbons
Stanley Gibbons Auctions, London.
Giessener
Dieter Gorny, Giessener Miinzhandlung, Munich.
Glendining
Glendining and Co., London.
Gorny
See Giessener.
Grabow
L. Grabow, Rostock and Berlin.
Hamburger
Leo Hamburger, Frankfurt am Main.
Harmer
Harmer & Rooke Numismatists Ltd., New York.
Helbing
0. Helbing, Munich.
Herman FPL
David P. Herman, Orlando, FL.
Hesperia Art
George Allen, Hesperia Art, Philadelphia, PA.
Hess
Adolf Hess A. G., Lucerne.
Hess-Leu
A. Hess AG and Bank Leu AG, Zurich.
Hild
Claus W. Hild, Karlsruhe.

G. Hirsch
Gerhard Hirsch, see Miinz. u. Med.
Hirsch
Jacob Hirsch (1900-1914), Munich.
Holmberg
D. Holmbergs Mynthandel, Stockholm.
Hornung
Gert Hornung, Copenhagen.
Huston
Stephen M. Huston, San Francisco, CA.
Kastner
Gitta Kastner, Munich.
Kelly
James Kelly, Dayton, OH.
Knobloch FPL
Frederick S. Knobloch, Bronx, NY.
Knopek
H.-J. Knopek, Cologne.
Kolner
Tyll Kroha, Kolner Munzkabinett, Cologne.
Munzkabinett
Kovacs FPL
Frank L. Kovacs, San Mateo, CA.
Kreisburg-Cohen
Abner Kreisberg & Jerry Cohen, Beverly Hills, CA.
Kress
Karl Kress, Miinchner Miinzhandlung, Munich.
Kricheldorf
H. H. Kricheldorf, Stuttgart.
Kiinker
Fritz Rudolf Kiinker Miinzhandlung Osnabruck, Germany.
Kurpfalzische
Helmut Gehrig and Giinter Rupertus, Kurpfalzische Miinzhandlung, Mannheim.
Lanz
Hubert Lanz, Numismatik Lanz, Munich.
Lee
M. G. Lee, Cairo.
Lempertz
Kunst-Auktionshaus Math. Lempertz, Cologne.
Lepczyk
J. Lepczyk, East Lansing, MI.
Leu
Leu Numismatics, Zurich (earlier under title Bank Leu; see also Hess-Leu).
20
Abbreviations
Numismatic
Numismatic Fine Arts Inc., Beverly Hills, CA.
Fine Arts
Numismatica
Auktionshauses Wendt, Vienna.
B. Wendt,
Numismatica
Numismatic Ars Classica, Zurich.
Are Classics
Numismatic
Numismatic Auction Ltd., New York.
Auction
Numismonnaies
Sale catalogue recorded in ANS Photo File (see 06C-34).
Num. Art &
Numismatic Art & Ancient Coins, San Diego, CA.
Anc. Coins
Numart Italians
Sale catalogue recorded in ANS Photo File (see 011-60).
Oldenburg
H. G. Oldenburg, Kiel.
Pacific Coast
Pacific Coast Auction Galleries.
Palladium
Palladium Numismatics and Artifacts, Visalia, CA.

Paramount
Paramount International Coin Corp., Englewood, OH.
Pegasi
Pegasi Numismatics, Ann Arbor, MI.
Peters
Jess Peters Inc., Decatur, IL.
Peus
Busso Peus, Frankfurt am Main.
Pilartz
Heinrich Pilartz, Cologne.
Platt
Clement Platt, Paris.
PMV Inc. FPL
PMV Inc. North-East, Hackensack, NJ.
Poindessault
Bernard Poindessault, Paris.
Poinsignon
Poinsignon Numismatique, Strasbourg, France.
Ponterio &
Ponterio and various associates offered at changing locations.
Wyatt
Ratto
Mario Ratto, Paris.
R. Ratto
R. Ratto, Lugano.
Rauch
H. D. Rauch, Vienna.
Reichmann
A. Reichmann and Co., Halle.
Rosenblum
William M. Rosenblum, Evergreen, CO.
Santamaria
P. and P. Santamaria, Rome.
Schenk
Karla W. Schenk, Dusseldorf.
Schlessinger
F. Schlessinger, Berlin.
Schulman
Hans M. F. Schulman, New York.
J. Schulman
Jacques Schulman N. V., Amsterdam.
Schulten
P. N. Schulten, Frankfurt am Main.
INTRODUCTION
Early in the first century B.C. the Romans issued silver coinage in the name of the Mace-
donians. On the obverse, the coinage features a portrait of Alexander the Great and on the
reverse, Heracles' club flanked by two symbols of the authority of a Roman financial officer
or quaestorto the right, a chair or sella and to the left, a money chest or cista. Also on the
obverse, to the left and below the portrait is the legend, in Greek, MAKAONQN ([coinage]
of the Macedonians) or a bilingual Latin-Greek combination, CAE PR MAKAONQN (Cae...
Pr[aetor] of the Macedonians). On the reverse, above the club and symbols of quaestorial
office is the name, in Latin, AESILLAS, accompanied by the letter Q for QfuaestorJ
placed in the right field between the name and the sella, oron just two diesSVVRA
LEG PR0 Q for Sura LegfatusJ Pro Qfuaestore] (Sura Legate [acting] in the capacity of
Quaestor). All of the reverse elements are surrounded by a laurel wreath,1 and both the
obverse and reverse dies regularly have added controls in the form of letters, monograms,
and pellets either alone or in various combinations.2 The coinage was struck on the Attic
standard, with tetradrachms averaging 16.44 g (708 weighed examples) and the rare drachms
averaging 3.90 g (5 full-weight examples).3
The obverse portrait of Alexander the Great was new on Macedonian coinage. While the
posthumous Alexander portrait introduced by Lysimachus in Thrace early in the third
century had been widely and continuously copied as a type immobilise down to the first
century B.C., the Macedonians themselves had not used Alexander's portrait as a coin type,
and the new portrait was very different stylistically from Alexander portraits on contem-
porary posthumous Lysimachus coinages (for example Plate 14). Additionally, by shifting
the position of the legend MAKAONQN to the obverse from its previous position on the
reverse, the designers made identification of the new coinage easier and, indeed, unmistak-
able since the Lysimachus coin type had no lettering on its obverse. At the same time, by
having a laurel wreath on the reverse, the Aesillas coinage was also clearly differentiated not
only from the Lysimachus type, but from all other contemporary Attic-weight coinages of

the Thraco-Macedonian region, particularly the plentiful tetradrachm coinages of Maroneia
1 Traditionally, the wreath has been identified as laurel (see e.g. BMC 19-20; Head, HN2, p. 240; Gaebler,
AMNG, p. 69). Price, however, identifies it as olive (Macedonians, p. 33) without discussion and Fisher,
p. 69, n. 2 (with no reference to Price) argues that "the wreath is more likely an olive wreath" and cites
L. H. Bailey, The Standard Cyclopedia of Horticulture (New York, 1928) in support of the idea that laurel
should be represented with "alternate leaves and small clusters of berries" while olive should have "opposite
leaves and a larger fruit or berry." This may be true, but it has to be admitted that contemporary and
earlier coinages show no such clear distinction existed in the minds of the numismatic die engravers of
antiquity: compare e.g. New Style Athens (olive), classical Sicyon (olive), or hellenistic Lebedus (olive) with
hellenistic Magnesia ad Maeandrum (laurel) or Myrina (laurel), or Seleucid King Antiochus VIII Epiphanes
(121-96 B.C.) (laurel). The botanical differences are simply not as clear as Fisher claims, and supporting the
traditional identification is the fact that laurel, not olive, is the plant that appears to be represented on the
occasional wreathed issues of Amphipolis, Cassandrea, Edessa, Eurydicea, Pella, and Thessalonica (see
BMC). Close comparison of the indisputably "olive" wreathes on Sullan issues of New Style Athenian tetra-
drachms also indicates that while the Athenian wreaths have similar placement of the berries, the leaves
bunch in an alternating pattern one or two leaves across and never have the three-leaf bundles used every-
where in the Aesillas coinage (see Thompson, Athens, pls. 143-49).
2 See "Metrology" for listing and discussion of added controls, pp. 83-87.
3 Cf. Thompson, Athens, where the average weight of New Style tetradrachms (ca. 100-98, adopting
Merkholm, "Athens," for the date) is 16.50 g. No average drachm weight is given.
21
22
Introduction
and Thasos, which were also unwreathed (for example Plate 14, Thasos). It is furthermore
noteworthy that, by substituting a laurel wreath for the customary oak wreath which had
appeared on virtually all previous Macedonian tetradrachm coinages since Philip V,4 the
designers of the Aesillas type broke with Macedonian tradition and made the coinage more
closely resemble the olive-wreathed New Style tetradrachms of Athens that circulated widely
in Macedonia and throughout the Balkan peninsula at the end of the second and beginning
of the first centuries B.C.5
Yannis Touratsoglou, following Martin Price, has suggested that "the representation of the
head of Alexander III could of course be interpreted as a nationalistic symbol on the
obverses of the AESILLAS issues, which thus constitutes an 'answer' to the portrait of
Mithridates on the Pontic tetradrachms."6 This explanation is appealing because it fits well
with other bits of evidence we can gather from the coinage itself. Since there are very few
instances of Roman authorities producing entirely new coin types in the provinces during the
Roman Republic,7 the new Macedonian issue must be connected with some extraordinary
financial need for which payment in a locally or regionally acceptable yet identifiably
Roman coinage was strongly desired, if not required.
Clearly, the Aesillas obverse was intended to exploit the potential propaganda value of the
coinage medium by presenting a new portrait of the legendary hero Alexander the Great,
who personified not only the former military and economic power of Macedon but also, it
might be added, Macedon's triumphant defeat of Asiatic opponents. The placement of the
legend MAKAONQN beneath Alexander's portraitinstead of on the reverse as earlier
neatly emphasized the connection between this legendary hero and his descendants living in
the first century B.C. In addition, Price has also suggested that the comparatively high
relief, fussy attention to detail, particularly in the rendering of Alexander's hair with its
flowing, wind-blown appearance, look "as if the head were taken from an equestrian statue

of Alexander on Bucephalus."8 If this is right, it means that the appeal of the coinage to
Macedonian pride was strengthened further by reference to a then well known but now lost
statue of the legendary conqueror.
The reverse, on the other hand, communicates something quite different. Despite the
presence of the traditional club of Heracles, the reverse basically abandons Macedonian
symbols and presents instead visual references to Roman political and economic power: the
money chest (cista) and official seat (sella) of a Roman quaestor together with the name, in
Latin, of the particular financial officer responsible for the new money. This was a bold and
confident move. Prior to the Aesillas coinage, the Romans had authorized or produced tetra-
drachm coinages in the decades after the defeat of Perseus and subsequent establishment of
four Macedonian republics; but the coinages had retained strictly Macedonian types unima-
ginatively inspired by the older royal coinages. The Macedonian shields, the Heracles club,
and the oak wreath all look backward;9 and this is true even of the two new tetradrachm
4 The only known exception is the fleeting and today very rare issue of the Macedonian First District
minted soon after the defeat of Perseus in 167 (see Crawford, Coinage, pp. 128-32 with fig. 45).
5 See Touratsoglou, Circulation, p. 37, and de Callatay, "Hoards," pp. 11-20, based on the studies of Tou-
ratsoglou, "Zagliveriou Hoard," pp. 7-20, and Merkholm, "Athens," pp. 29-42.
6 Touratsoglou, "Zagliveriou Hoard," p. 19, and Price, Macedonians, p. 33.
7 Long ago pointed out by Mommsen, p. 282, and more recently by Crawford, Coinage, p. 197, and see
p. 160 on the Province of Asia.
Price, Macedonians, p. 33.
9 See Price, Macedonians, pp. 32-36, for a summary and discussion of the one exception, an unwreathed
tetradrachm with the portrait of Zeus and cult statue of Artemis Tauropolos minted soon after the defeat of
Perseus (pls. 14, 81, and 15, 81).
Introduction
23
issues of the late second or early first century.10 The Aesillas coinage is therefore unexpect-
edly innovative. Together with its clear and proud visual reference to the symbolic power of
Alexander and Macedonians of the past, the new coinage presents equally unmistakable
symbols of contemporary Roman power and authority. In the selection of the types, then,
the designers have abandoned all pretense of preserving the fiction of Macedonian financial
freedom and have proclaimed instead that this is a coinage officially issued for the Macedo-
nians under the authority of Rome. In other words, the old mask has now been removed.
Aside from his connection with coinage, Aesillas is an unknown figure. Nothing is certain
except the fact that he served as quaestor in Macedonia. Normally the quaestorship was an
elective magistracy held between the ages 27 and 30 following service as a military tribune.
It qualified the holder to be enrolled in the Senate and represented the first office in the
Roman cursus honorum.11 Rut Aesillas is not known to have held any other office, and his
family and origins are equally uncertain.12
There is, however, one further piece of numismatic evidence that seems to be connected
with Aesillas's quaestorship in Macedonia. A rare monogram appearing on Attic-weight tetra-
drachms of the type minted by the Thracian island of Thasos could represent the first four
letters of the name Aesillas, if it were written in Greek as AIZYAAAZ.13 The Thasian mono-
gram is /, which can easily be read as AIZY[AAAZ] (see Plate 14). And given that the
name Sura, which appears on Aesillas-type tetradrachms with the reverse inscription
SVVRA LEG PR0 Q has also been identified as the name represented by three monograms
(CAft, Slfe, and cjljc) found on Thasian tetradrachms, the monogram may well indicate
that Aesillas, like Sura, authorized the production of imitation Thasian tetradrachms.
There is nothing surprising or particularly extraordinary about Roman copying of Greek
coin types. When dealing with the Greek world, Roman officials routinely minted coins that
imitated existing coinages of entrenched circulation and high demand. The LEG MAK-

AONfiN issue in Macedonia, the New Style Athenian tetradrachms of Sulla, the numerous
cistophoric issues of the Roman proconsuls in Asia, and the Thasian tetradrachms of Sura all
represent the Romans' willingness to accommodate their own financial needs to the tradi-
tional preferences of the peoples of the East.H Moreover, the Macedonian issue of Aesillas
coinage follows this pattern exactly in its Attic weight, preference for the tetradrachm
denomination, and prominent placement of the familiar and traditional MAKAONQN
inscription on the new obverse type.
Until 1962 there was scholarly consensus that the Sura responsible for a rare issue of
Aesillas-style tetradrachms with the reverse legend SVVRA LEG PR0 Q (Plate 5, 17-92)
was Q. Braetius Sura, legate under C. Sentius Saturninus, governor of Macedonia ca. 93-87
B.C.15 In 1962, however, D. M. Lewis proposed that another Sura, P. Cornelius Lentulus
10 For the redating of the MAKAONDN and LEG MAKAONQN coinages, now see Burnett, pp. 54-67,
and Touratsoglou, Circulation, p. 72. Formerly these issues were connected with the revolt of Andronikos
(148-47 B.C.); see e.g. Gaebler, AMNG 3, pp. 62-69; MacKay, pp. 34-40.
See RE: Quaestor, vol. 24, cols. 801-27.
12 Wiseman, p. 209, no. 6, offers three names that might provide clues about the family origin of the
novus homo: P. Titius Aesil[las] recorded at Ancona (NS [1910], 365), an Aesilus Savi f. from Carpentorate
in Gallia Narbonensis (CIL, xii, 1160), and an Asilas, the Etruscan seer from Pisa in Virgil's Aeneid (10.175-
79).
13 Rusi, p. 41. Rusi also suggests that Aesillas was himself a Greek, but there is nothing to support such
an idea. The fact that Aesillas served as quaestor in Macedonia proves only that he was there, not that he
was born there.
"Cf. Crawford, Coinage, pp. 195-209.
15 See Friedlaender, p. 178; Bompois, p. 62; Lenormant, I'Antiquite p. 144; Head, Guide, p. 112, and HN2,
p. 241; Gaebler, "Miinzkunde," pp. 171-72, and AMNG 3, p. 73, 225, and 2nd ed., p. 9, 9; Broughton, p. 19,
n. 7. The spelling of Sura's nomen differs in the ancient sources: Plut. Sulla 11.4 has "Brettios"; Appian,
Mith. 29 has "Bruttios"; but 1G, ix, 613 has "BpaiTio[v|"; and this is adopted by Wiseman, p. 217, 70,
24
Introduction
Sura, the consul in 71 and Catilinarian conspirator, was the real legate in Macedonia serving
under L. Iulius Caesar, his brother-in-law and consul of 64.16 While admitting that there is
no direct evidence to link Lentulus Sura to Macedonia, Lewis suggested that L. Iulius Caesar
was the governor of Macedonia responsible for the CAE PR issue and that he took his
brother-in-law with him,"where [Sura] can have been minting pro quaestore in direct succes-
sion to Aesillas."17 As Lewis himself emphasizes, this is "more hypothetical than the conven-
tional picture." There is, however, no doubt why Lewis offered this previously unsuspected
identification. By downdating the historical context of the Aesillas issues from the consensus
date of ca. 93-87, Lewis provided an explanation for a crucial overstrike of Aesillas on New
Style Athens Plate 15, 94-353.
The well-known Aesillas overstrike on the Athenian New Style issue of Demeas-Kallikra-
tides and other overstrikes will be discussed more fully below.18 What matters for the
moment is that Aesillas struck an Athenian issue that Lewis and other supporters of the
low chronology of New Style Athens place some ten years after Sulla's sack of Athens in
86.19 As a result, Lewis realized that if the Aesillas issues, including CAE PR and SVVRA
LEG PR0 Q, were not shifted to a later date, the Aesillas overstrike would necessarily
support the high dating of the Athenian issue and eliminate his preferred low chronology.20
Hence, by connecting CAE PR and SVVRA with a hypothetical but seemingly possible
later combination of known figures who could have served in Macedonia after the decade
interval between the sack of Athens and the low chronology date for the production of the
Athenian Demeas-Kallikratides issue, Lewis provided an alternative historical context to
explain the otherwise seemingly fatal numismatic evidence.
The important thing to understand here is that Lewis and others21 assume 1) that CAE
PR and SVVRA LEG PR0 Q are close together in time of production and follow a
sequence of CAE first and SVVRA second, and 2) that, because of the Demeas-Kallikra-

tides overstrike, all Aesillas issues must be later than ten years after Sulla's sack of Athens in
86. Without the compulsion of these assumptions, it is difficult to believe that Lewis would
have seriously proposed the identification of SVVRA as the hypothetical P. Cornelius
Lentulus Sura instead of the earlier, well-attested Q. Braetius Sura.
Recent scholarship has also made the identification of CAE PR less certain than once
thought. Prior to Lewis's proposed identification of CAE... as L. Iulius Caesar, consul of
64, it was generally assumed that L. Iulius Caesar, consul of 90, was the governor of Mace-
donia who issued the Aesillas coins with CAE PR added to the obverse legend. In 1902
Gaebler connected this identification with two inscriptions from Samothrace naming a
'IouXto<; [<xv6utox]to(; MaxeSovia<; and a [Aeu]xt,ov 'IouXiov [K]arapa, and Gaebler's identi-
fication became the accepted basis for assigning L. Iulius Caesar the proconsular governor-
ship of Macedonia in 94/3, immediately after his assumed praetorship in 95 and just prior to
the governorship of C. Sentius Saturninus, under whom Q. Braetius Sura served as legate
(ca. 93-S7).22 There are two important assumptions here: 1) that the abbreviation CAE
instead of CAES could stand for CAE[SAR] and 2) that CAE PR and SVVRA must be
closely linked because they both appear on the Aesillas-type coinage. Nevertheless, since Q.
followed here. For a useful summary of the ancient sources, see Sarakakis, pp. 156-58; for the dates of
Sentius's governorship, see Broughton, pp. 15-49.
16 Lewis, pp. 297-99.
17 Lewis, p. 298.
18 See "Overstrikes," pp. 91-95.
19 Lewis, p. 297, cf. Boehringer, Chronologie, p. 31, and Mattingly, p. 148.
20 See Thompson's subsequent insistence on this point, "Byzantium," pp. 54-65, esp. p. 65 with n. 33.
21 See, for example, Mattingly, pp. 158-60, and Fisher, pp. 69-70, with n. 4.
22 Gaebler, "Munzkunde," pp. 171-72, and Jashemski, pp. 54 and 130, n. 1; Broughton, p. 13 with n. 3.
Introduction
25
Braetius Sura was well attested as a legate in Macedonia during the governorship of Sentius,
it seemed reasonable to connect the inscriptions naming a L. Iulius Caesar as governor of
Macedonia with the CAE PR issues of the Aesillas coinage and to place his governorship
immediately before the term of Sentius, under whom a Sura was known to have served as
legate. The result of this reconstruction was that the numismatic, historical, and epigraphical
evidence all appeared to reinforce one another.23
For reasons discussed above, Lewis proposed a completely different historical context for
what had become the accepted reconstruction of the Aesillas evidence. Without rejecting the
assumed close connection between CAE PR and SVVRA, he downdated the Aesillas
coinage nearly 30 years and identified CAE as L. Iulius Caesar, consul of 64, whose praetor-
ship and subsequent provincial governorship are unrecorded.24 In 1979 Harold Mattingly
sought to strengthen Lewis's proposal in a careful reexamination of the career of the later
L. Iulius Caesar aimed at reconciling Lewis's alternative identification with a second proble-
matic overstrikeunknown to Lewis when he challenged Thompsonof Byzantium over
Aesillas.25 This overstrike will also be discussed below. Setting the problem of the overstrike
aside for the moment, it is important to understand, as Mattingly shows, that there is
nothing known about L. Caesar's pre-consular career that conflicts with the idea of his
governing Macedonia between 69 and 67 B.C. Once again, however, Mattingly assumes, as
Lewis does, that the numismatic evidence of the CAE PR and SVVRA issues must be
closely connected and must be ordered with 1) Aesillas minting while quaestor under
Cae[sar] and 2) Sura minting as Legatus pro Quaestore immediately after the cessation of
Aesillas's issues.
The present die study has, however, revealed a different arrangement of issues that breaks
the traditional connection between the CAE PR and SVVRA issues and reverses the order
of their production. As a result, it may be possible both to accept the well-attested and

compelling connection of SVVRA with Q. Braetius Sura, legate of governor Sentius 93-87,
and, just possibly, to associate CAE PR with Lewis's and Mattingly's conjectural Macedo-
nian governorship of L. Iulius Caesar, consul of 64, in the years between 69 and 67, when
there is a lacuna in the Macedonian fasti. Admittedly, this is not a conclusion anyone would
have suspected. If it were not for the undeniable evidence gathered from a comprehensive
die study and the explanation this evidence provides for the puzzling and seemingly contra-
dictory overstrikes, it would hardly seem credible. Roman quaestors did not remain in the
same province for years but normally changed annually with the arrival of a new governor.26
How, therefore, can we account for Aesillas's proposed connection with magistrates sepa-
rated by some 20 years?
To begin with, it is essential to remember that the Aesillas coinage is Greek and not
Roman. Its Attic weight, choice of Alexander the Great for the obverse type, and almost
exclusive preference for the tetradrachm denomination are all aimed at gaining acceptance
in a broad economic sphere where Roman numismatic preferences could not be enforced.
And once this new coin type was introduced and gained popularity in the regional economy,
it must have acquired a life of its own. This seems especially clear from the SVVRA issue,
which certainly did not appear as a replacement of the Aesillas type but served only as an
extraordinary, perhaps emergency, supplementation of the "normal" coinage. After all, the
B For an example of the positive acceptance of this reconstruction, see Sarikakis, pp. 67-69.
24 Lewis, pp. 296-99, arguing that L. Iulius Caesar "would have been praetor in 67 at the latest, and in
these years a yawning gap in the fasti of Macedonia will accommodate him without difficulty" (p. 298).
25 Mattingly, pp. 155-58 in response to Thompson, "Byzantium," pp. 54-65.
28 See Mattingly's discussion, p. 150, and above, n. 11.
26
Introduction
SVVRA issue is known from just two reverse dies, while the obverse is borrowed from the
regular Aesillas coinage, which apparently resumes immediately after the SVVRA anomaly.27
A considerable number of stylistically diverse groups of Aesillas issues follow SVVRA.
They could easily represent 20 or more years of production as demand required. And when
a distinctive change did come, the CAE PR issues were nevertheless even more conservative
than SVVRA. They did not replace or alter in any way the Aesillas types but merely added
on the obverse a Latin abbreviation identifying the special authority responsible. But once
again, these extraordinary issues were followed by the continued production of undistin-
guished Aesillas types.28
While not as clear as might be hoped, the hoard record at least supports the basic conclu-
sion that CAE PR was produced later than the SVVRA issue.29 What is not clear, however,
is whether or not Lewis's and Mattingly's proposed years of 69-67 for the Macedonian gover-
norship of L. Iulius Caesar can be reconciled with the somewhat contradictory implications
of the existing hoard record. If not, the identification of CAE PR with L. Iulius Caesar,
consul of 64, may need to be abandoned.
What is not affected by the specific identification of CAE PR is the basic numismatic
evidence, which demonstrates that, by the time the Aesillas type had entered circulation
and acquired a firmly established reputation, it became undesirable, if not impossible, for
the revolving Roman magistrates responsible for the finances of Macedonia to introduce
new and unfamiliar numismatic types. Instead, the Romans simply imported their own
money from Italy, and the Roman denarius rapidly replaced all Attic-weight tetradrachm
coinages of the region as the acceptedand onlysilver coinage in wide circulation.30
There remains the question of where the Aesillas issues were produced. In the nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries, four mints were proposed: Thessalonika, the capital of the
Roman Province of Macedonia; Pella, the leading city of the Bottiaean Macedonians;

Beroea, the principal city in western Macedonia; and Amphipolis, the northeastern Macedo-
nian city on the border with Thrace.31 Lenormant's belief that the reverse monogram A
equalled the mint designation of Amphipolis was early on ruled out by Bompois, who
noted that the reverse A monogram occurred on coins bearing an obverse theta, universally
agreed to represent Thessalonika.32 Beroea was next eliminated when Gaebler observed a die
link between the backwards beta proposed as the mint mark of Beroea by Bompois, 015A-
82-015B-88, and the B- monogram previously connected with Pella and the Bottiaeans, here
014-82 and 015A-82. Gaebler attributed both fr and 8 to a mint at Pella and furthermore
revived Amphipolis as a mint by assigning the Aesillas issues without any obverse letter or
monogram to that city.33 This established a tentative identification of three mints: Thessalo-
nika, Pella, and Amphipolis.
27 This assertion includes an ancient imitation of the SVVRA issue discussed in the Commentary on
Im. 6-6, p. 72. On the SVVRA issue, see Commentary, 016-019, pp. 47-49.
28 See detailed discussion in the Commentary on 088-0102, pp. 68-69. Julla's extensive production of
imitation, Attic New Style coinage reflects the same conservative attitude of Roman officials when it came
to satisfying the need for money; see Crawford, Coinage, pp. 197-98. Remember also the possible issues of
Thasian tetradrachms by Aesillas and Sura, discussed above with n. 13.
29 See the full discussion in "Hoards," pp. 97-110.
30 See Crawford, Coinage, pp. 197-98, and Touratsoglou, Circulation, pp. 35, 43.
31 See e.g. Lenormant, "Questeurs Romains," pp. 327-32, and t'Antiquite, p. 143 (Thessalonika, Amphipo-
lis, and Pella); Friedlaender, p. 179 (Amphipolis, Bottiaeans); Bompois, pp. 66, n. 1, and 94-95 (Thessaloni-
ka, Bottiaeans, Beroea); Gaebler, "Miinzkunde," pp. 176-77 (Thessalonika, Amphipolis, and Pella); and
Head, HN2, p. 241 (Thessalonika and Bottiaea).
32 See Bompois, pp. 66 and 94-95.
33 See Gaebler, "Miinzkunde," pp. 176-77.
Introduction
27
In his 1985 article, "Two Notes on the Aesillas Tetradrachms: Mint Attribution and a Die
Control System," Fisher reviewed the previous beliefs about mint attributions and argued
from 1) the consistency of die axis at "twelve o'clock or nearly twelve o'clock" and from 2)
the alleged but undefined stylistic similarities that "the same die cutter engraved reverse dies
which were paired with obverse dies with B-, 8, 0, and dies without any obverse letter."34
Unfortunately, as Fisher seems to admit,35 neither of these arguments proves valid for estab-
lishing the existence of different mints or their location.
The coins themselves still provide the most reliable evidence for establishing mint attribu-
tion. First, it makes perfect sense that the theta placed on the obverses of the vast majority
of Aesillas issues is the mint mark of Thessalonika. This was the principal city in the region
and the seat of Roman political, military, and financial control. Second, there does not
appear to be any completely independent series of issues of Aesillas types separate from the
issues marked with theta. The letters and monograms added to various reverse dies and the
obverse designations are not truly independent, because they all have die links connecting
them with the theta issues.36 Nor is the absence of any obverse markings valid evidence of a
separate mint, because again, there are reverse die links between issues with and without
theta as well as the addition of theta to two of the early obverse dies initially cut and used
without theta.31 This evidence means that all issues, whether marked with theta or not, could
have come from the same mint. And this one mint would almost certainly have been Thes-
salonika.
34 Fisher, p. 74 with n. 23, which cites his R12, R67, and R90 as the work of the same die cutter, to-
gether with the pairs R23 and R40, R16 and R81, and R2 and R60, each said to have been cut by the same
hand. However, this claim does not stand up under close scrutiny. R12 (SNGFitz 2346 = 015A-85 in the
Catalogue), R67 (ANS-ETN [= ANS 1944, 100.14282] = 03-9), and R90 (ANS [not "(Parish)," as Fisher,
p. 86, but ANS 1905 57.100] = 09-44) cannot be said to have been "cut by the same die cutter," because

their similarities are no more than superficial. The lettering of AESILLAS is similar in all three, but the
spacing of the letters differs, as does the exact placement of the lettering in connection with the wreath.
There are, in fact, no certain marks of personal style in these reverse dies that would lead to the conclu-
sion that they must have been prepared by the same hand. Fisher's similar claim for R23 (ANS-Kelley [=
ANS 1977, 158.177] = Im. 1-1) and R40 (SNGCop 1329 = 013-74) is very peculiar indeed. Fisher's R23 is
obviously a barbaric imitation and has no real stylistic similarity to his R40 or any other regular Aesillas
reverse dies at all (see full discussion below in "Ancient Imitations and Forgeries," Im. 1-1). R16 (ANS-
Stephens [= ANS 1968, 57.8] = 014-83, ggg) and R81 (Boston, MFA = 02-2B) also cannot be said to be
from the same hand, as the club and the cista handle of Fisher's R16 are treated in a unique fashion, and
the position and handling of the lettering of AESILLAS are quite different from his R81. Finally, how-
ever, Fisher's claim for R2 (Berlin [= Ball FPL 6, 9 Feb. 1932], 221 = 085-302) and R60 (Kolner Munz-
kabinett, 14 Oct. 1976], 23 = 091B-332) seems well founded. The two dies are very close in style, includ-
ing similar treatment of the lettering, particularly the Ss of AESILLAS, and the placement of the right
feet of the sella in exactly the same place on a tie in the laurel wreath (compare Plate 11, 085-302 and
Plate 12, 091B-332). But there is nothing very surprising about this, since the group of issues including
Fisher's R60 follow closely after the CAE PR issues that include his R2 (see Commentary, group VIII,
088-0102).
35 Fisher, p. 75. Fisher apparently believes that die engravers never moved and asserts skeptically: "To
defend the traditional mint attributions would require a hypothesis that dies were cut in one location and
shipped to the mints" (p. 74). Such a view is too narrow, as we simply do not know anything about the
employment and travel of die engravers in antiquity, let alone in the relatively small and culturally cohesive
region of early-first-century B.C. Macedonia. Fisher's tentative conclusion (p. 79) that all tetradrachms were
minted at Thessalonika, as indicated by the common presence of theta, and that all other obverse letters and
monograms are simply part of the die control system of that one mint offers no new evidence and wrongly
ignores the contradictory implications of Merkholm's reconstruction of die and mint personnel movement
during the early years of cistophoric coinage in the Pergamene kingdom (see Merkholm, "Reflections,"
pp. 47-61).
36 For details and die links, see the discussions in the relevant Commentary sections below.
37 See below, 084-087 (die linked, no theta and theta) with Commentary on group VII and 05A-B and
06A-D (theta added to obverse dies having no markings) with Commentary on group I.
28
Introduction
There is, however, a problem with this conclusion. If all of the Aesillas types were, in fact,
minted at Thessalonika, why are different marks placed on the obverse dies in place of thetal
Fisher argues that these substitutions represent "a die control system within this one mint."38
But if that is the case, why do the issuing authorities replace the mint mark of Thessalo-
nika? This replacement is not necessary, and, in one case where numismatists agree that
added letters represent some kind of special control, the theta is not removed or replaced.39
A more sensible conclusion is that the substituted marks of fr and 8 do represent a
temporary shift in official responsibility for the coinage being produced. Remember that
these issues are actually very small. After an exhaustive search, just two obverse dies are
known for tetradrachms, and only one for drachms. But while they may have been small,
the special issues preserve numerous signs of intense production. Witness the 13 known
reverse dies connected with the 2 obverses (014-015), the indications of prolonged use of
the obverse dies even after they were badly worn (e.g. 015B-88), and the remarkably high
number of examples surviving in nearly uncirculated condition (e.g. 014-83).40 These
features suggest that some extraordinary financial necessity must lie behind the production
of these two issues and their almost immediate burial in disproportionately high numbers
compared to the rest of the Aesillas coinage. But if the mint at Thessalonika struck these
special issues, why would the mint authorities disguise their responsibility? Why would they
replace theta with f r and 8?
That the theta mint authorities were attempting some kind of deception seems incredible.
An easier and much more likely explanation is that the B- and 8 simply represent a
temporary transfer of minting authority to a different place (or places) identified by the
special marks affixed to the obverse dies cut during the transfer. Furthermore, since all of
the added reverse die marks are connected with the obverse theta, f r and 8 obverses, they
cannot in themselves be claimed as independent abbreviations for any minting authority."

But, if only the obverse marks indicate minting authority, it would be possible to transfer
existing reverse diesand this is just what appears to be the case, when a reverse die was
transferred after being used with a theta obverse to use with and when two reverses were
shared between f r and 8.12 The radically different styles of the obverse dies with f r and 8
also suggest 1) that neither were cut by the die engravers otherwise preparing dies for theta
and 2) that they were not themselves cut by the same artist (compare Plates 3-4, 07-013,
and Plates 4-5, 014-015A-B).
Two reverse die links between f r and 8 reinforce the close connection between these
issues.43 But if the explanation just offered is valid, the change from f r to 8 could represent
another shift in minting authority or location just as well as the change from theta to fr.
Also, it might be seen as support for Bompois' early idea that backwards beta was the mint
mark of Beroia, if the carry-over of reverse dies is understood to have been less important
than changes in the obverse die markings.44 On the other hand, f r and 8 are so close in basic
form that they could easily represent a single minting authority changing its mind about
how best to identify itself. The truth is that certainty is not possible without better evidence.
And this also applies to the CAE PR issue, which employs four obverse dies, two with theta
Fisher, p. 79.
39 See discussion of 016-019 with added SI, Commentary on group IV. Fisher strangely includes the SI
issues as part of his discussion of mint attribution despite his agreement that the presence of theta "rules out
interpreting [the letters] as another mint designation" (p. 73).
40 See Commentary, group III.
41 See Catalogue, group II, reverse marks identified under the column heading ID, and group III, 014.
under the same heading.
See below, 012A-61 = 014-61, 014-82 = 015B-82, 014-85 = 015A-85.
014-82, 014-85 and 015A-82, 015A-85.
14 See references above, p. 26 with n. 31.
Introduction
29
and two without.45 Reverse die links again connect the obverses, but it still might be argued
that the omission of theta indicates a shift in minting authority or a movement of minting
activity to a location other than theta. The problem with this view is, however, that theta
was earlier added to two obverse dies in the group of obverses without theta, and this
suggests that the omission of theta alone is not a valid indication of a separate mint distinct
from theta.*6
The current evidence of markings added to the obverse dies of the Aesillas types suggests
that the obverses with no mark come from an uncertain mint, while those with theta came
from Thessalonika, and fr and 8 from Pella or the Bottiaeans.47
45 See below, 084 and 086 with theta and 085 and 087 without theta. The alternation of theta and no
theta is assured by the visible marks of wear on the reverse dies shared by the obverses; see the Commentary
on group VII.
46 See 05A-B and 06A-D, with Commentary on group I.
47 Pella was the capital of one of the Macedonian republics established by the Romans after the defeat of
Perseus (167) and served as the chief city of the Bottiaeans. It also had an extraordinary issue of large-

denomination silver in the past and could well have served for the extraordinary issue of B- and 8.
CATALOGUE
The following Catalogue incorporates all known varieties of Attic-weight tetradrachms and
fractions minted with the Aesillas types. This includes issues containing the obverse legends
MAKAONQN and CAE PR MAKAONQN, used together with the AESILLAS Q reverse,
and the special MAKAONQN obverses with added S I that at one point employed the
reverse legend SVVRA LEG PR0 Q in place of AESILLAS Q. Ancient tetradrachm imita-
tions and all fractions are listed separately at the end of the Catalogue even when they
appear to be connected with specific issues or groups of issues of the tetradrachms. The
possible connections are, however, noted in both sections of the Catalogue.
The word "group" has been used throughout the Catalogue in the place of "period" to
designate identifiable clusters of issues. Despite clear evidence that considerable time passed
between the introduction of the Aesillas type and its final abandonment, groups seem to be
more appropriate than periods as designations for the distinct clusters of associated issues
that emerge from the die study, because the exact relative chronology of the different clus-
ters still cannot be established with absolute certainty.
All obverse and reverse dies are numbered with Arabic numerals (1, 2, 3), except in the
few cases where individual dies have been significantly altered by breakage or recutting
while in use. In these instances, capital letters (A, B, C) are added to identify the recogniz-
able phases in the life of the die. Various special features appearing on individual reverse
dies (letters, monograms, pellets, etc.) are noted in the Catalogue under column labeled ID.
An asterisk indicates that the reverse die thus marked is also used with one or more different
obverse dies listed elsewhere. Specific examples appearing in the plates are marked with an
asterisk placed in front of the specific citation. New reverse dies found after the Catalogue
was numbered are designated by XX or XX plus superscript.
The number of different examples of each die combination listed in the Catalogue is also
provided under the heading No. Since many of the individual coins listed in this Catalogue
have appeared more than once in different sale catalogues, the publication record of each

coin is arranged in chronological order, with the most recent appearance first and the earliest
known appearence last. In addition, since there are numerous cases where more than one
example of a given obverse-reverse die combination is known, the list of multiple examples
(a, b, c, etc.) is also arranged chronologically, beginning with the most recently published
example of the given obverse-reverse combination and working back in time to examples
for which no date of appearance is available. When multiple, undated examples are present,
they are listed alphabetically. Examples from sale catalogues are listed before examples from
public and private collections, which appear together in alphabetical order.
In recording examples published in sale catalogues, I have adopted the following format:
an abbreviated identification of the dealer or company is given first, followed by the sale or
FPL (Fixed Price List) number and the date of the sale, followed by the individual number
assigned to the Aesillas piece in the sale, and, if provided, the weight and diameter. Informa-
tion shared by Christoph Boehringer is identified as (Boehringer cast).
Relative die axes are not given in the Catalogue because it appears that all issues were
intended to be ff. Since variations from this adjustment are limited to\f or f/and may
therefore be nothing more than unintentional deviations from the standard, it seems point-
less to record the exact orientations individually. The only exceptions to standard orienta-
tion of the dies occurs on specimens of doubtful authenticity. None of the five genuine
31
32
Catalogue
examples of the SVVRA LEG PR0 Q reverse (R92) has its reverse off of twelve o'clock;
but one modern forgery (Im. 7-7b = Witschonke 16.95) has its axis at five o'clock. Since only
this specimen and other Aesillas issues of doubtful authenticity vary significantly from
twelve o'clock, the comprehensive record of this feature has been omitted.1
In this study, the word "mint" is used to indicate only the issuing authority connected
with various groups of coin types. It does not necessarily imply production at a particular
location. Questions about the unity of issues and the meaning of letters, monograms, and
other marks believed in the past to be mint marks are discussed following each Catalogue
section and under "Metrology" (pp. 83-87).
Group I: 01-06D
Obv.: Portrait of Alexander the Great, with horn of Zeus-Ammon encircling ear, facing
r.; i. field, MAKAONQN ([coin]"of the Makedonians").
01-05A and 06A-B no theta or other letters between neck and legend; 05B and
06C-D theta added.
Rev.: Vertical Heracles club, flanked by Roman quaestor's chair (sella) to r. and money
chest (cista) to i., surrounded by laurel wreath; above the club, AESILLAS; lower
r. field, Q (= Q[uaestor]).
R2, 3, 26, 28-30, A above upper knot of wreath; R18, 20, 32, A above upper knot;
R21, pellet at center of lower knot of wreath; R27, delta on cista.
For drachms possibly issued with 01-6B, see below, Drachms, Dr. 1-1 to Dr. 6-6.
Obv. Rev. ID No. Provenance
1* 1 *Ahlstrom 43, 13 Apr. 1991, 988.
2A* A 3 a) *SNGAshm 3301, 16.74, 29 mm.
Rev.: R2B, lettering recut to repair AE...ILLAS and wreath reworked
2B* 1 *Siderokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH 642) 16.19; b) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer,

16.81, 30 mm = Gaebler, AMNG, pl. 3, 2.
a) Kurpfalzische 45, 13-15 Dec. 1993, 42, 16.75; b) *Siderokastro 1961
hd. (IGCH 642) 16.65 (overstrike or restrike on Aesillas); c) Lee, 7-9
May 1954, 166, 16.44; d) BM 1918-2-4, 16.76, 28 mm; e) Davis 103,
16.80, 30 mm.
Vienna S556, 29 mm.
*Siderokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH 642).
2 6 1 ANS 1944 100.14286, 16.77, 33 mm = Feuardent, Oct. 1923.
2 2B* A 14 a) Munz Zentrum 72, 2-4 Dec. 1991, 306, 16.33; b) Berliner Munz-
kabinet 17, 18-19 Apr. 1983, 37, 16.68; c) Ponterio and Wyatt 8, 5
Nov. 1982, 7 16.77; d) Lanz 20, 13 May 1981, 175, 16.88; e) Knopek,
11-12 May 1979, 353, 16.69; f) Superior, 15-19 June 1976, 441, 16.84 =
Coin Galleries FPL, 17 Apr. 1975, 256, 16.86; g) Schweizerische Kredi-
tanstalt 19, Apr. 1976, 20; h) Sotheby, 4-5 Apr. 1973 (J. Ward), 353,
16.41; i) Ball FPL 6, 9 Feb. 1932, 224, 16.8; j) *ANS 1944 100.14287,
16.61, 30 mm = Baldwin (1921); k) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer, 16.40, 30
mm; l) Boston MFA, 16.49, 31 mm = Comstock and Vermeule, pl. 5,
55; m) Istanbul 944, 16.75, 30 mm; n) Istanbul 945, 16.90, 29 mm.
2 1* 2 a) *Lepczyk, 28-29 Apr. 1978, 18; b) Istanbul D12-10, 16.80, 29 mm.
2 5* 1 *Coins and Antiquities 2, 1972, G132, 16.7.
5*
2B*
14
1 For other anomolies, see "Ancient Imitations and Forgeries," pp. 72-73.
Catalogue 33
a) Kurpfalzische 49, 13-14 Dec. 1995, 134, 16.38; b) Istanbul D12-7,
16.76, 29 mm; c) *Plovdiv 282.
8*
a) *Bourgey 16, 10-12 Mar. 1980, 67, 16.78; b) Bourgey, 20 Dec. 1929,
25; c) ANA Cat., 21 Aug. 1925?, 1193.
a) Seaby 801, June 1985, B65; b) Sotheby, 28-31 May 1900, 225,
16.69; c) ANS 1944 100.14282, 16.60, 33 mm; d) Plovdiv 2788 = *Zlato-
grad 1967 hd. (IGCH 969).
10
a) Burnett, 64, fig. 11, 25 = SW Macedonia 1981 hd. (133), 25, 16.61;
b) Florange 1, 1924, 209 = Ciani, 12 Dec. 1921, 25 = Sotheby 1908,
356, 16.84; c) Berlin, Loebbecke 16.77, 28 mm.
11
a) Hornung 37, 2 Oct. 1993, 367, 16.52; b) Seaby 735, Nov. 1979,

CI 184, 16.86; c) Naville 5, 18 June 1923 (BM duplicates), 1500,
16.78; d) Paris, Armand-Valton 295, 16.78, 31 mm; e) Philadelphia
110 (Boehringer cast).
12*
a) Tkalec & Rauch, 16-17 Sept. 1987, 74, 16.67 = Hess-Leu 49, 27-28
Apr. 1971, 143, 16.67 = Naville 17, 3 Oct. 1934, 385, 16.67, 29 mm =
Egger 41, 1912, 323, 16.66; b) *Burnett, 64, fig. 11, 26. = SW Mace-
donia 1981 hd. (133), 26, 16.82.
13*
*Hirsch, 22-24 Oct. 1962, 2359 = Siderokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH 642),
16.81.
14
a) Tradart, 18 Nov. 1993, 70, 16.85 = Kurpfalzische 14, 31 May-2
June 1978, 48 = Sotheby, 7 May 1975, 93, 17.09 = Sotheby, 20 Nov.
1968, 36, 17.1; b) *Burnett, 64, fig. 11, 27 = SW Macedonia 1981 hd.
(133), 27, 16.52; c) Kress 156, 2 May 1973, 151, 16.45 = Kress 140, 7-8
Aug. 1967, 43; d) Naville 15, 2 July 1930, 543, 16.88, 32 mm; e) Berlin,
Loebbecke, 16.88, 30 mm; f) BM 1836, 16.20, 30 mm = BMC 20, 85; g)
Jameson 1018, 16.83; h) Munich, 15.90, 33 mm (pierced).
15*
*Istanbul 951, 16.90, 29 mm.
16*
*Poinsignon, 17-19 Oct. 1982, 115, 16.74 = Ciani, 18-20 Dec. 1924,
190, 16.70.
5A
15*
a) Coins and Antiquities 3, 1973, G529, 16.7; b) *Siderokastro 1961
hd. (IGCH 642), 16.83; c) Cahn 61, 3-4 Dec. 1928, 84, 16.75; d)
Helbing, 20 Mar. 1928, 203, 16.6.
5A
17
31
Catalogue
Obv.: initially no theta (06A-B)
6A 23 1 Burnett, 64, fig. 11, 31 = SW Macedonia 1981 hd. (133), 31, 16.49.
6A 8* 1 *Munz u. Med. FPL 333, May 1972, 14, 16.68.
6A 12* 1 *Sophia, Mus. of Hist. = Levka 1973 hd. (CH 6, 49).
6A 15* 1 *Aureo, 14-15 Jan. 1992, 675, 16.82 = Vico, 27 Feb. 1991, 114, 16.8 =
Superior, 1-2 Dec. 1990, 1996, 16.78 = Schulman 236, 1-4 Mar. 1962,
1239, 16.80.
6A 16* 1 *SNGDelepierre 1075, 16.85, 32 mm.
6A 13* 5 a) Sotheby, 16-17 Apr. 1985, 285; b) Hirsch, 17-19 May 1961, 760; c)
SNGFitz 2345, 16.95; d) Hunterian 355.1, pl. 24B, 16.63; e) Istanbul
952, 16.72, 31 mm (Fisher, p. 85 [028-R72a], wrongly identifies a die
break above Q as a "pellet").
6A 24 2 a) Siderokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH 642), 16.75; b) Istanbul D12-3, 16.74,
31 mm.
6A 21* 10 a) Classical Numismatic Review 17.3, July-Sept. 1992, 67, 16.75 =
Cahn 68, 26 Nov. 1930, 1255 = Cahn 65, 15 Oct. 1929, 136, 16.87 =
Hamburger, 29 May 1929, 210, 16.75; b) Burnett, 64, fig. 11, 30 = SW
Macedonia 1981 hd. (133), 30, 16.74; c) Thompson, "Byzantium," pl.
A, A = Siderokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH 642) 16.94; d) Munzhandlung
Basel 4, 1 Oct. 1935, 657, 16.71; e) *Bourgey, 14 Dec. 1934, 65; f)
Hamburger, June 1931, 701, 16.82; g) Egger 45, 12 Nov. 1913, 464,
17.75; h) SNGCop 1328, 16.87; i) Istanbul D12-9, 16.74, 30 mm; j)
Witschonke, 16.91, 31 mm = Gans, 19 Apr. 1960, 269, 16.92.
Obv.: recut to repair spreading damage
6B 25 1 Cederlind FPL 67, 26 = Cederlind FPL 33, 18.

6B 26* A 1 *Sophia, Mus. Arch. 10218, 16.45, 32 mm.
Obv.: theta added; rev.: (R27 only) delta added to cista
6C 27 A3 a) Bourgey, 29-30 Jan. 1991, 45, 16.75 = Bourgey, 14 Nov. 1980, 36,
16.75 = Bourgev, 10 Mar. 1976, 66, 16.76 = Button, Kolner Munzhand-
lung 17, 6-8 Oct. 1975, 39 = Kress 144, 22 July 1968, 129, 16.7; b)
*Istanbul 957, 17.06, 32 mm; c) Waddell FPL 25, 18.
a) Vico, 3 Mar. 1993, 238, 16.72; b) BM 1846-2-17, 16.46, 31 mm =
Head, Guide, pl. 65, 8 = BMC 19, 84.
a) Paris 1973-1-81, 16.70, 32 mm; b) Leu, Feb. 1964, 330(?).
a) *ANS 1944 100.14289, 16.79, 30 mm = Fisher, pl. 31, 032-R88; b)
ANS-Rosen, 15.81, 30 mm; c) Istanbul D12-4, 16.84, 31 mm.
a) Giesscner, 11 Oct. 1995, 116, 16.79; b) Malter 7, Spring-Summer
1991, C2, 16.84; c) Kress 160, 8-9 July 1974, 153; d) Ancient Gens,
15 Feb. 1974, 57 = Malloy FPL, Sept. 1973, 293= Schulman, 6-8 Feb.
1969, 387; e) Kress 130, 30 June 1964, 141, 16.8; f) Coin Galleries
FPL 5, 6 Nov. 1963, F61; g) Ball FPL 6, 9 Feb. 1932, 223, 16.6; h)
BM 1912, 16.29, 31 mm; i) Istanbul 959, 16.78, 30 mm; j) Istanbul
D12-5, 16.37, 31 mm.
6C 32 A 4 a) Kastner 12, 30 Nov. 1976, 44, 16.74 = Kress 124, 29 Nov. 1962,
220, 16.7; b) Schulman, 14-15 Dec. 1970, 775; c) Varoucha, "Sylloge,"
pl. 1, 2 = Siderokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH 642); d) Istanbul D12-11,
16.70, 29 mm.
6C 33 1 Numismonnaies, 15 Nov. 1991, 153, 16.70.
Obv.: recut again to repair damage in hair; rev.: R33 continued
6D 33 1 Istanbul 966, 16.63, 33 mm.
6C
28
6C
29
6C
30
6C
31
10
Catalogue
35
Commentary
There is as yet no definitive numismatic evidence for establishing exactly which obverse
was the earliest die cut for the Aesillas coinage. The order of obverse numbers 1-6 is,
however, far from arbitrary. The basic sequence emerges from studying the combination of
obverse die wear patterns and reverse dies linking the obverses.
First, and most important, is the evidence of obverse 6A-D. 06 began use without any
added identification mark (06A, Plate 2, 06A-8). After being combined with ten different
reverse dies (R8, 12-13, 15-16, 21, 23-26), it was first recut to repair spreading damage
(compare Plate 2, 06A-21 and 06B-26) and then recut to add the Greek letter theta between
the neck of the portrait and the legend (06C, Plate 2, 06C-27). Finally, when damage to
the obverse die had again reached unacceptable proportions, 06C was drastically recut and
used with at least one further reverse before being discarded (06I), Plate 2, 06D-33). Since
the sequence within the life of 06A-D goes from no theta to added theta, it seems reasonable
to place obverse dies lacking any identification marks or letters before 06 and those with
obverse theta identification after 06. This is important because 06 is linked with three other
obverse dies (03, 04, and 05) without theta by shared reverse dies (R8, 12-13, 15-16, 21)
and one obverse die with theta (Ol) by R26.
Although there are no distinctive signs of die wear on the reverses connecting obverses 3
through 6 that prove this arrangement, 05 also preserves the same progression of initial use
without theta (05A) and later addition of theta to the die (05B). This parallel evidence,
together with the deterioration and recutting of 06A-D, makes it certain that the sequence
of no theta to theta is correct. The order is further reinforced by the fact that R26,
connecting unmarked 06B to 07 with theta, comes at a later stage of 06's deterioration
than any of the six reverses linked with obverses lacking theta (R8, 12-13, 15-16, 21).
In the Catalogue, 01 and 02 are placed at the beginning because neither has theta and

neither is connected by any shared reverse with the other closely connected obverses without
theta (03-06A). There are three reverses used both with 01 and 02 (R1, 2B, 5); but only
R2A-B provides evidence of the relative order of the two obverses. During its use with 01
(Plate 1, 01-2A), R2A deteriorated and was recut in the areas of the legend and wreath.
Before the recutting the legend looked like AE-LLAS, as seen on SNGAshm 3301 (Plate
1, 01-2A). The lettering was, however, corrected, and the recut version (R2B) was then
used with 02, where the deeper drilling of the berries in the wreath and the carefully
restored SI of AESILLAS clarify the sequence of issue (Plate 1, 02-2B).
In addition to the unambiguous evidence of recutting, there are also considerations of
style. 02 is noticeably closer in style, particularly in the treatment of the hair, to the
following group of obverses 03-06 than to 01; and this suggests that 01 may have been
cut before the die engraver or engravers settled on the particular style of treating Alexan-
der's hair used subquently for 02 and thereafter in groups I and II (compare 01 with 02-
06, Plates 1-2).
The first group of Aesillas types displays noteworthy disregard for die positioning in regard
to the flan. While the legend MAKAONQN appears in its entirety on 5 of the 12 examples
of 01 included in this study (or 42%), the number drops to 4 of 21 for 02 (19%), 10 of 26
for 03 (38%), 1 of 2 for 04 (50% but too small a sample to be meaningful), 3 of 17 for 05
(18%), and rises to 27 of 50 for 06A-D (54%). Thus the overall percentage of correctly
struck obverses is 50 of 128 (39%). Whatever the reason, this pattern of careless striking at
the outset of the coinage was not a permanent feature. The percentage of coins struck with
MAKAONQN fully visible increases with later obverse dies. 035, for example, has 8 of 9
legends on the flan, 068 has 10 of 14, and 097 has 7 of 14, despite the fact that the overall
width of the flan is steadily decreasing. Furthermore, when it really mattered, as when CAE
PR was added to the obverse immediately above MAKAONQN. virtually every coin has
36
Catalogue
at least the Latin CAE PR visible, and, in more than half of the known examples, the entire
MAKAONQN legend also appears on the flan.2
The seemingly careless striking of the earliest Aesillas tetradrachms also adversely affected
the visibility of the tiny control marks placed on some of the early reverse dies. With 01 all
reverse dies that can be evaluated have an A monogram placed directly above the knot that
binds the wreath at the very top of the reverse design. Past speculation that this monogram
is a mint mark designating Amphipolis is no doubt wrong. For although it occurs with
obverses lacking theta, it also appears with obverses having theta, a mark traditionallyand
no doubt correctlyinterpreted as the mint designation of Thessalonika (see 06B-26, 06C-
28, -29, -30, -32 and below, 07-26, -34, -35, -40, and 09-43). At present, all that can be said
for the A is that, starting with 02, it was omitted or added without any discernible pattern.
None of the seven reverse dies known with 03 have the monogram added, only two of eight
with 05, and none on the first nine reverses used with 06A-B. So, while the exact purpose
and meaning of the monogram cannot be determined with absolute certainty, its placement
at the very upper edge of the reverse type nevertheless reflects its relative unimportance,
since the monogram was often off the edge of the flan and therefore not visible at all due
to the consistently sloppy striking. This, together with the fact that the monogram was
never a consistently added feature and eventually disappeared altogether, clearly indicates
that it was not considered a necessary control essential to the production of the coinage.
While admittedly speculative, it seems to me that the A may have been nothing more
than a personal monogram of one of the die engravers responsible for cutting certain reverse
dies of the earliest period of the Aesillas coinage. Since the monogram's unobtrusive position
and erratic presence with the first nine obverse dies seem to rule out any critically important
role, it seems more likely that something less than essential, like an artist's signature, is
involved. Such an optional and purely personal identification seems far more likely than

either a mint markparticularly given its unimportant position and inconsistent applica-
tionor an identification of a specific benefactor, liturgy, or magistrate, given again the
monogram's lack of prominence, not to say intentional obscurity, which hardly provides
adequate recognition for the generosity of a benefactor or the official responsibility of a
particular magistrate.
As a whole, the group consisting of 01-6 is highly uniform. This applies not only to the
artistic style of the portraits and rendering of the wreathsparticularly the double lines
representing the two twists that tie the individual segments of the wreathbut also to the
manner in which the coinage was produced. From the extremely high survival ratio of 21:1
(128 examples of the first 6 obverse dies), what emerges is a pattern of striking that is char-
acterized by prolonged use of obverse dies (01 with 5 reverses, 02 with 5, 03 with 7, 05
with 8, and 06A-D with 18!) and the carry-over of reverses between two or more obverses
(R1, 2, 5, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 21, and 26). Wear on the obverses is virtually everywhere notice-
able and in the case of 06A-D results in repeated recutting of the existing die rather than
its replacement with a new obverse. Taken together, this pattern appears to reflect hasty but
determined production that initially valued quantity over quality.
Group II: 07-013
Obv.: Same as before.
Theta on all dies.
Rev.: Same as before.
R26, 34-35, 40, 43, A or A above wreath; R53-56, pellet under sella and below knot
of lower wreath; on R60, 62, 63B, 64, 68, 70, XX, 72-73, 75, pellet under sella only.
2 On 084-087, 23 of 44 (52%) have the entire legend visible on the obverse.
Catalogue
37
7 26* A 2 a) Auctiones 8, 27-28 June 1978, 178, 16.64; b) "Istanbul 956, 16.63,
30 mm.
7 34 A 12 a) Buckland, 6 Sept. 1995, 26; b) Vinchon, 14-15 Mar. 1989, 94, 16.53;
c) McKenna FPL, 3-11, Nov. 1983, 3 = Bonhams 8, 11-12 May 1982,
347, 16.34 = Peus 301, 25-27 May 1981, 270, 16.39 = Malloy FPL15,
30 Nov. 1979, 270 = Kelly, 25-29 Aug. 1951, 502; d) Kress 156, 2 May
1973, 150, 16.25 = Kress 140, 7-8 Aug. 1967, 42; e) Harmer, 4-5 Oct.
1972, 50, 16.65; f) Superior, 24-25 Sept. 1970, 65 = Schulman, 6 Oct.
1969, 679 = Schulman, 20-25 Nov. 1964, 1205 = Schulman, 1-4 Mar.
1962, 679; g) Varoucha, "Sylloge," pl. 1, 1 = Siderokastro 1961 hd.
(IGCH 642); h) Berlin 662/1920, 16.68, 31 mm; i) SNGFitz 2347,
16.56; j) "Istanbul 955, 16.74, 32 mm; k) Philadelphia 108 (Boehringer
cast); l) Washington, D. C. 16.51, 34 mm.
7 35 A 6 a) Sabasta Numismatica, 9 June 1994, 84, 17.0 = Stack, 24-28 Aug.
1976, 1533, 16.89; b) Hirsch 158, 4-6 May 1988, 73, 16.06 = Hirsch
79, 27-29 June 1972, 70, 16.05 = Hirsch 75, 22-24 Nov. 1971, 82,
16.04; c) Hess 257, 12 Nov. 1986, 100, 16.76 = Siderokastro 1961 hd.
(IGCH 642) 16.76; d) Peus 315, 30 Apr. 1986, 85, 16.61 (uncertain
overstrike); e) Istanbul D12-13, 16.67, 29 mm; f) Univ. of Mississippi,
Oxford, MS, 17 (Boehringer cast).
7 36 1 *Witschonke, 16.72, 34 mm = Schulten, 20-22 Oct. 1987, 140, 16.70
(overstrike on Thasos).
7 37 3 a) Spink, Galerie des Monnaies, 15-16 Feb. 1977, 50, 16.70 = Leu-
Lager, Feb. 1964, 325; b) Siderokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH 642), 16.76;
127.

c) Witschonke, 16.77, 28 mm = Coin Galleries FPL, 17 July 1991,
7 38 1 Coin Galleries FPL, 23 Mar. 1971, 24.
7 39 1 Lanz 52, 14 May 1990, 150, 16.65.
7 40 A 2 a) Bourgey, Hotel Drouot, 21 Apr. 1989, 14, 16.84; b) Auctiones 5, 2-3
Dec. 1975, 81, 16.80 = Seaby, June 1960, A519.
7 41 11a) Malter 55, 7 Nov. 1993, 82, 16.7; b) Classical Numismatic Review
19.4. Oct.-Dec. 1994, 33, 16.69; = Numismatica Ars Classica C, 11-12
Mar. 1993, 1345, 16.70 = Schweizerische Kreditanstalt 5, 18-19 Apr.
1986, 149, 16.69; c) Schweizerischer Bankverein 25, 19-20 Sept. 1990,
131, 16.68; d) Spink 71, 11 Oct. 1989, 67, 16.66 = Glendining, 26 Oct.
1972, 500 = Siderokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH 642); e) Spink 13, 9-10 May
1984, 601, 16.72; f) Malter 25, 1970, 30; g) Malter 25, 1970, 30; h)
Bourgey, 5 Dec. 1932, 145; i) Egger, 7 Jan. 1908, 412, 16.72; j) Brus-
sels, du Chastel, 16.69, 31 mm; k) SNGDelepierre 1076, 16.72, 31 mm.
8 42 1 *Hirsch 82, 13-15 Feb. 1973, 57, 16.56.
9 43 A 12 a) Lanz 48, 22 May 1989, 202, 16.69; b) Auctiones 15, 23 June 1983,
175, 16.68; c) Coin Galleries FPL, 14 Feb. 1973, 24; d) *Bayerische
Vereinbank 4, 25 Sept. 1973, 170, 16.64; e) Hirsch 53, 26-29 June
1967, 3136, 16.68 = Blaser-Frey 12, 17-18 Jan. 1964, 1125 = Sidero-
kastro 1961 hd. (IGCH 642) 16.91; f) Button, Kolner Miinzhandlung
110, Nov. 1964, 782, 16.63; g) Hirsch 41, 9-11 Dec. 1964, 56; h) Side-
rokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH 642) 16.83; i) Helbing, 24 Oct. 1927, 2817,
16.8; j) SNGBerry = Holfelder (1972), 20, 16.63, 31 mm; k) Istanbul
38 Catalogue
D12-12, 16.82, 28 mm; l) Istanbul 954, 16.82, 33 mm (uncertain over-
strike).
9 44 9 a) Myers FPL, Mar. 1981, 37, 16.50 = Coin Galleries FPL, 12 Mar.
1970, 71 = Schulman, 6-8 Apr. 1967, 1809; b) Stack, 19-20 June
1969, 88, 16.22; c) Hirsch 35, 25-28 June 1963, 336; d) Siderokastro
1961 hd. (IGCH 642) 16.70; e) G. Hirsch, 5 June 1935, 118, 17.00, 31
mm; f) Ball FPL 8, 5 Dec. 1932, 2016, 16.7; g) ANS 1905 57.100,
16.63, 33 mm; h) Istanbul 962,. 16.76, 33 mm; i) SNGAshm 3306,
16.75, 31 mm.
45
McClean 3716, pl. 138, 10, 16.45, 30 mm.
46
a) Waddell 58, Winter 1993, 37, 16.88 = Superior, 1-12 Dec. 1992,
2067, 16.83 = Siderokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH 642) 16.96; b) Myers
FPL 2, 11-12 May 1972, 68; c) Kress 148, 21 July 1969, 147, 16.00.
47*
*Munich, 16.64, 33 mm (uncertain overstrike, Athens?).
48*

a) Classical Numismatic Group 30, 11 June 1994, 103, 16.49; b)
*Istanbul 961, 16.80, 30 mm.
49*
*Hague 3253, 16.67, 31 mm.
50*
a) Istanbul 967, 16.60, 29 mm; b) Istanbul D12-1, 16.71, 31 mm; c)
Istanbul D12-2, 16.73, 32 mm.
51*
Istanbul D12-8 16.64, 30 mm.
10
47*
*Princeton 20 (Boehringer cast).
10
48*
a) Pilartz 7, 1-3 Oct. 1964, 51, 16.47; b) Hirsch, 22-24 Oct. 1962, 2358;
c) *Schulman, 4 Mar. 1962, 1238, 16.65.
10
52
McKenna FPL 91.5, Oct. 1991, 6, 16.50 = Spink 95. 8, Oct. 1987,
5635, 16.55 = Glendining, 11 Apr. 1973, 233.
Rev.:
pellet below sella and on lower knot of wreath
10
53*
a) *Hannover 227, 16.85, 30 mm; b) SNGTiibingen 1225, 16.87.
10
54*
a) Schweizerische Kreditanstalt 28, 1979, 22, 16.85 = Gibbons FPL 13,
17; b) BM 16.50, 33 mm, pierced; c) *Haskovo 671.
11
Catalogue
39
1929, 302 = Glendining 1, 1-2 Dec. 1927, 596, 16.55, 33 mm; c)
*Hirsch 32, 23-24 Oct. 1962, 2357; d) Calico, May-June 1959, 352,
16.62 = Kricheldorf, Oct. 1955, 270, 16.59; e) Hamburger, 27 May
1929, 209, 16.7; f) Naville 6, 28 Jan. 1924, 808, 16.72, 35 mm; g) De
Luynes 1728, 16.79, 33 mm.
11 49* 1 Nomisma, Banque des Monnaies, 11 May 1991, 47, 16.55 = *Giessener
46, 30 Oct. 1989, 139, 16.55.
11 57 11 a) NFA, 14 Dec. 1989, 468, 16.55; b) Christie, 7 Sep. 1989, 35, 16.5; c)
Schulten, 2-4 June 1982, 117, 16.71 = Peus 250, 15 Mar. 1954, 292,
16.71 = Hamburger, 17 June 1908, 419, 16.65 = Hirsch, 1905, 277,
16.75; d) Spink 85.9, Sept. 1977, 8101, 16.42 = Hesperia Art FPL 23,
1962, 22; e) Siderokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH 642) 16.90; f) Glendining,
18-20 Apr. 1955, 297, 16.95 = Hess 194, 25 Mar. 1929, 243, 16.9; g)
Cahn 65, 15 Oct. 1929, 135, 16.86; h) Berlin, Fox, 16.73, 33 mm =
Beschreibung 20, 4, 16.74; i) SNGFitz 2348, 16.64; j) SNGManchester
529 16.59 = Sotheby, 7 July 1921, 234; k) Yale Univ. 26 (Boehringer
cast).
11 58 1 Princeton (Boehringer cast).
11 59 2 a) Spink 101.8, Oct. 1993, 6957, 16.70 = Spink 88.7, Sept. 1990, 4470,
16.71 = Numart Italiana, Dec. 1983, 147; b) Ratto, 16-17 May 1935,
13, 16.60, 28 mm.
Rev.: pellet under sella
12A 60 3 a) Giessener 89, 5 May 1998, 129, 16.65; b) Hess 253, 8-9 Mar. 1983,
156, 16.69 = Ciani, 16 Oct. 1923, 47; c) Hirsch, 27-29 Jun. 1972, 68,
15.65 = Hirsch 63, 1-4 July 1969, 2307, 15.6 (broken flan).

12A 61* 1 *G6bl (1978), pl. 47, 690 = Sotheby 1914, 72, 16.91 = Hirsch 13, 1905,
779 16.84 (uncertain overstrike).
12A 62 4 a) Giessener 62, 20 Apr. 1993, 152, 16.66; b) Poindessault, 29-30 May
1973, 49 = Poindessault, May 1972, 49 = Cahn 66, 9 May 1930, 203,
16.89; c) Deland 13, Winter 1971, 2; d) Glendining, 7-8 Mar. 1957, 43
16.72.
Rev.: no pellet beneath sella
12A 63A 2 a) Giessener 62, 20 Apr. 1993, 153, 16.40; b) *MFA, 736, 16.81, 32
mm, pl. 40, 736.
Rev.: pellet added under sella
12A 63B 2 a) Bourgey 16, 10-12 Mar. 1980, 66, 16.69 = Nanteuil Coll. 834, 16.70
= Ciani, 12 Dec. 1921, 24; b) *Ratto, 4-6 June 1931, 74, 16.60.
Obv.: thin horizontal break to r. of chin
12B 50* 1 *Blaser-Frey 17, 27 May 1967, 970.
12B 64 6 a) McKenna FPL 69, Sept. 1986, 10 = PMV Inc. FPL, Mar. 1984, 14;
b) Stack, 10-11 June 1970, 200 = Schlessinger 13, 4 Feb. 1935, 790,
16.7; c) Hamburger, 11 June 1930, 68, 16.60; d) Numismatica Ars
Classica D, 2-3 May, 1374, 16.80; e) Berlin, Loebbecke, 16.66, 30
mm; f) Washington, D. C. 16.71, 33 mm = Knobloch FPL 21, Spring
1961, 60.
40
Catalogue
12B 65 4 a) Bauslaugh, "Overstrikes," pl. 3, 7 = Bourgey 7, 10-11 June 1982, 59,
16.71 = Spink 80.1, Jan. 1972, 18, 16.74 = Sotheby-Clark, 20 Jan.
1914, 150, 16.72; b) Bourgey, 9-10 Nov. 1976, 55, 16.67 = Sotheby,
27 May 1974, 296, 16.67 = Sotheby, 20 Nov. 1970, 200, 16.7; c)
Empire Coins FPL 51, [no date], 30; d) *Budapest 61-1953.4, 16.87,
31 mm = Bauslaugh, pl. 3, 8 (overstrike on New Style Athens,
Niketes-Dionysios, see Bauslaugh, "Overstrikes," 16-20).
12B 66 3 a) Giessener 33, 3 June 1986, 111, 16.64 = Spink 4, 10-11 Nov. 1983,
536, 16.66; b) Wulfing 171, 16.10; c) Istanbul 950, 16.70, 32 mm.
12B 51* 2 a) *Giessener 87, 2 Mar. 1998, 139, 16.55 = Lepczyk 43, 20-21 Nov.
1981, 576; b) Stack, 27 June 1952, 1059 = Schlessinger 11, Feb. 1934,
168, 17.00.
Obv.: new globular break develops to the r. of chin above N of legend
12C 67 1 Munster, Westfalisches Landes Mus. (Boehringer cast).
12C 68* 4 a) Classical Numismatic Auctions 20, Mar. 1992, 62, 16.62 = Coin
Galleries FPL, 13 Nov. 1991, 83 (overstrike on Thasos); b) Spink 20,
6 Oct. 1986, 214, 16.64 = Muller 14, 31 Jan.-l Feb. 1975, 24 = Glen-
dining, 2 Oct. 1974, 138; c) *ANS 1944 100.14291, 16.68, 34 mm; d)
Bloesch 1659, 16.75, 33 mm.
12C 69 9 a) Tradart, 16 Nov. 1995, 57, 16.09; b) Poinsignon FPL 34, Oct. 1992,
0357; c) Coin Galleries FPL, 9 Nov. 1982, 90, 16.79 = Coin Galleries
FPL, 1979, D33 (wrongly 26.79 for 16.79), (double strike or restrike);
d) Coin Galleries FPL, 9 Mar. 1956, 1561; c) SNGHart 529, 16.61; 0
Istanbul 947, 16.76, 32 mm; g) Istanbul 963, 16.72, 34 mm; h) Istanbul
964, 16.72, 32 mm; i) Vienna 28-878, 31 mm.

a) Giessener 78, 13 June 1996, 16.78; b) Giessener 64, 11 Oct. 1993,
98, 16.56; c) Platt, 19 Apr. 1920, 22; d) Istanbul 960, 16.80, 32 mm.
a) Istanbul 965, 16.65, 32 mm; b) Istanbul 958, 16.82, 32 mm.
Giessener 81, 3 Mar. 1997, 216, 16.49.
Obv.: recut to repair damage to hair at top of head and recut lettering of MAKAONQN
*Sophia, Mus. Arch. 7271, 16.44, 31 mm = Prokopov, "Hoard," 1.
Ciani, 6-8 Feb. 1956, 359.
*SNGDreer 656, 16.24.
a) Hirsch 13, 1905, 782, 16.78; b) *Istanbul D12-6, 16.75, 32 mm.
SNGCop 1329, 16.43.
a) Cederlind FPL 88, Spring 1990, 31 = Cederlind FPL 81 [no date],
43 = Cederlind FPL 61 [no date], 114; b) BM 1814, 16.61, 29 mm =
BMC 19, 82.
*Gadoury, 13-15 Oct. 1980, 199, 16.70.
Commentary
Beginning with 07 there is a closely linked group of six obverse dies with added theta. All
are very similar in style and, as a result, can be extremely difficult to differentiate from one
another. The distinctive treatment of the horn of Zeus-Ammon that appears in the place of
Alexander's ear and the locks of hair that stream out in snake-like, wavy lines are particu-
larly close in their repetition and distinguish this group of dies as the work either of a single
artist or a workshop striving for unusually close stylistic uniformity. The affinity in appear-
ance is also reinforced by several important reverse die links. 07 must be the first obverse
die of the group because it is connected to 06 by R26, and, fortunately, there is some visible
12C
70
12C
71*
12C
XX
Obv.:
recut to repair
12D
72
13
73
13
68*
Catalogue
41
evidence reflecting the original sequence of 06 and 07. Tiny cracks caused by the deteriora-
tion of R26 appear to be more extensive when it was used with 07 than with 06, particu-
larly between the wreath and the lower right leg of the sella and generally around the outer
edge of the wreath (compare Plate 2, 06B-26 and 07-26). This is exactly what we would
expect, since 06 began its life without theta and only had theta added after being used with
a minimum of 10 different reverses, including R26. Given that 07 and all other obverses of
group II (07-013) have theta, the sequence makes perfect sense as presented here.
The gradual disappearance of the A monogram from the reverse dies connected with 07-
013 also fits with the organization reflected in the reverse die links. After 06B was recut
and theta added (06C), four of the seven reverse dies used with it had A or A. Also, aside
from R26, that was used both with 06B and 07, there were at least three more A or A
reverses struck with 07 (R34, 35, 40). Thereafter, however, the A disappears: 08 is known
from a single coin that does not have the monogram, and 09 has only one reverse with A
out of nine known reverses (R43, Plate 3, 09-43). 010-013 have no reverses with the A or
A monogram, and no further examples appear elsewhere in the coinage.
09-013 are closely connected by reverse die links. Five of the nine reverses used with 09
were carried over to subsequent obverses: 09-47 to 010-47, 09-48 to 010-48 and 011-48,
09-49 to 011-49, 09-50 to 012B-50, and 09-51 to 012B-51. There might well be more
examples if the study's reverse die record were more complete. 012A-D also has numerous
connections with other obverses, five of which are recorded here: two with 09, two with
013, and one with 014 from the next group. Close study of all of these carry-overs rein-
forces the arrangement offered in the Catalogue. For example, on both R50 and R51 there
are visible signs of deterioration when they were used with 012B that are not present with
09; on 012B-50 a small break below the first S of AESILLAS is not found on 09-50
(compare Plates 3-4, 09-50 and 012B-50); and on 012B-51 the size of a small crack in

the field above the sella is noticeably larger than it is on 09-51 (compare Plates 3-4, 09-51
and 012B-51). The same is true of R54 connecting 010 to 01l: on 011-54 there is a wart-
like dot on the right side of the base of the club which is not found on 010-54 (compare
Plate 3, 010-54 and 011-54). And although all of these signs of wear are admittedly
subtle, there can be no doubt that they all substantiate the arrangement of 09-013 offered
here.
The strangest feature of 09-013 is the order of the reverse die usage. Wherever possible,
the order of the reverse dies in the Catalogue is based on the progressive signs of wear visible
on the obverses. Since there are over 140 examples of the five obverse dies included here (33
for 09, 10 for 010, 40 for 011, 50 for 012, and 8 for 013), the evidence of wear is in most
cases easy to see. The problem is that the resulting order presents a pattern not of orderly
transfer of the last used reverse to the next obverse but of removal of reverses from service,
storage for some time, and then reintroduction at a latersometimes considerably later
time. The unexpected withdrawal of some reverses for later use also impacts on the progres-
sion of added reverse controls. As mentioned above, only the first reverse used with 09
(R43) has the A monogram repeatedly found on the reverses of 01-07. The remaining
eight reverses used with 09 have no added controls, but after three further reverses without
added controls, 010 places two pellet-like dots on the reverse die (R53), one beneath the
seat of the sella and a second below the lower knot of the wreath (Plate 3, 010-53). A
cluster of reverse dies with these two added pellets follows (010-54 through 011-56); and
the close association of these dies is reinforced by the evidence of wear on 010 and 011.
The exact meaning of the added pellets is, however, uncertain.3
3 For further discussion, see "Metrology and Production Controls," pp. 85-87.
12
Catalogue
After the cluster of reverse dies with two added pellets, there are several with no added
controls (011-48, -49, -57, -58, and -59). Next, beginning with the first reverse used with
012A, a single pellet is placed under the seat of the sella (R60). Immediately after, no
pellet was placed on R61, but it was again present on R62. On R63, however, a pellet was
cut into the die only after it had already been used for some time (compare Plate 4, 012A-
63A and 012A-63B). What followed looks like a nearly random mix of reverses with and
without the added pellet (012B-64 through 013-76). This is clear, because the prolonged
use of 012A-Dwith 16 different reversesleft clear signs of deterioration that permit reli-
able reconstruction of the relative order of use. It thus seems certain that the mint did not
insist that the added pellet reverses replace the reverses without any added controls, but, on
the contrary, mint officials used reverses with and without the added pellet one after
another in no predictable order.
The very close stylistic similarity between 07 through 013 has led previous numismatists
into several of errors of identification. In his catalogue of more than 300 Aesillas-type tetra-
drachms, Fisher makes the following mistakes:
1. Fisher's O13-R30 (Spink 80.1, Jan. 1972, 18) is in fact his 014, here 012B-65.
2. Fisher's 014-R36 (Hirsch, 22 Oct. 1962, 2358) is his 012, here 010-48.
3. Fisher's O14-R40 (SNGCop 1329) is his 07, here 013-74.
Likewise, in his study of more than 500 Aesillas issues, de Callatay makes the following
mistakes:
1. D3-R17 (Hirsch 13, 15 May 1905, 782) is not D3, but is struck from a separate obverse
die, here 013-71 (de Callatay s D3 = 012 here).
2. D3-R24 (BM 1814, 16.61) is also not D3, here 013-75.
3. D3-R25 (SNGCop 1329) is not D3, here 013-74.
The point of offering these examples is not to impugn earlier efforts but only to point out

how difficult the study of the Aesillas dies can be, especially in this group of obverses. The
differences between the dies are extremely subtle, the condition of coins or illustrations (or
both) is frequently miserable, and in all too many cases the only thing that makes it possible
to distinguish different dies is the accumulation of enough material to reinforce mere impres-
sions into certainty.
Group III: 014-015
Obv: Same as before.
014 fr to r. of neck; 015 8 in i. field behind head.
No pellets; R83-84 beta beneath lower knot of wreath.
For drachms issued with 014, see below, Drachms, Dr. 7-7.
Obv.
Rev.
ID No.
Provenance
14
61*
*Paris 114, 16.36, 34 mm, pierced.
14
77
SNGCop 1327, 16.69.
14
78
Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer, 16.47, 32 mm = Gaebler, AMNG, pl. 3, 3
(obv. only).
14
79
Vienna 37.110, 31 mm.
14
80
a) Aufhauser, 7-8 Oct. 1987, 44, 16.94 = Lanz 20, 13 May 1981, 176,
16.91; b) Siderokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH 642).
14
81
Giessener 28, 2-3 Feb. 1984, 3266, 16.05.
Catalogue
13
14 82* 2 a) Defranoux 16, 16 Apr. 1983, 110, 16.69 = Bourgey, 6-8 Dec. 1978,
16.70; b) *ANS 1944 100.14283, 16.69, 29 mm = Fisher, pl. 30, 06-
R10A = Hamburger (1929).
14 83 B 64 a) Spink America, 7 Dec. 1995, 2057, 16.9 = Kovacs FPL 23, Oct.
1984, 18 = Nagel 4, 27-28 Oct. 1982, 1051, 16.85; b) Superior, 10-11
Dec. 1993, 1678, 16.98; c) Sotheby's, 8-9 Dec. 1992, 42, 16.92 = Side-
rokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH 642), 16.90; d) Classical Numismatic
Auctions 16, 16 Aug. 1991, 113, 16.84 = Bank Leu 38, 13 May 1986,
74, 16.86 = Bank Leu 18, 5 May 1977, 129, 16.85; e) Munz. u. Med.
FPL 545, July 1991, 28, 16.79; f) Numismatic Ars Classica 4, 27 Feb.
1991, 113; g) Numismatic Ars Classica A, 27-28 Feb. 1991, 1381; h)
Berk 61, 20 Mar. 1990, 124, 16.74 = Berk 59, 1 Nov. 1989, 198,
16.74; i) Christie's, 13 Mar. 1990, 54, 16.9; j) NFA 22, 1 June 1989,
273, 16.74; k) Lanz 46, 28 Nov. 1988, 228; l) Athena 2, 4 Oct. 1988,
104, 16.76 = Lanz 38, 24 Nov. 1986, 247, 16.79 = Lanz 28, 7 May
1984, 211, 16.79 = Kastner, 26-27 Nov. 1974, 37, 16.77 = Siderokastro
1961 hd. (IGCH 642) 16.79; m) Walker FPL 25, July 1988, 13; n)
Berk 54, 29 June 1988, 36, 16.94 = Coin Galleries FPL, 8 July 1973,
210, 16.89 = Coin Galleries FPL, 25 Nov. 1969, 1039 = Coin Galleries
FPL 7, May 1966, E33 = Hesperia Art FPL 36, June 1963, 25; o)
Hess 257, 12 Nov. 1986, 98, 16.83 = Schulman 236, 1-4 Mar. 1962,
1240, 16.85; p) Bourgey, 17-18 June 1985, 22, 16.85; q) Rauch, 17-19
Jan. 1983, 76, 16.92; r) Burgan 15, 20 May 1983, 227, 16.50 =
Vinchon, 2-3 Dec. 1975, 53, 16.54; s) Munz. u. Med. FPL 449, Oct.
1982, 8, 16.91; t) Schweizerische Kreditanstalt 34, 1981, 34, 16.85 =

Krichcldorf, 23 Sept. 1963, 66, 16.64; u) Vinchon, 25-26 Feb. 1980,
31, 16.70; v) Galerie Numismatique 13, 21 Nov. 1980, 16, 16.88 =
Vinchon, 3-4 Mar. 1975, 37, 16.86 = Siderokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH
642) 16.87; w) Auctiones 10, 12-13 June 1979, 136, 16.75; x) Sotheby,
10 June 1977, 161, 16.76 = Auctiones 5, 2-3 Dec. 1975, 80, 16.78 =
Peus, 30 Oct. 1972, 104, 16.76; y) Superior, 3-5 Oct. 1977, 943,
16.63; z) Krichcldorf 30, 5-6 Apr. 1976, 82 = Kricheldorf, 8 May
1967, 79; aa) Auctiones 6, 30 Sept.-l Oct. 1976, 129, 16.67 = Myers
FPL, 11-12 May 1972, 69 = Spink 77.2, Feb. 1969, 904, pl. 1, 11,
16.67; bb) Bourgey, 4-6 June 1975, 24, 16.98 = Bourgey, 30 Nov.
1967, 11; cc) Malloy FPL, 15 Mar. 1974, 94; dd) Glendining, 21 Nov.
1974, 307; ee) Schulman 256, 28-30 May 1973, 1162, 16.74 = Glen-
dining, 24-25 May 1972, 4; ff) Schulman 254, 11-12 Nov. 1971, 3042,
16.82 = Sotheby, 20 Nov. 1968, 35, 16.83 = Crowther 6, 1968, G330,
16.83 = Hesperia Art FPL 23, 1962, 21; gg) Myers, 18-19 Nov. 1971,
102 = Myers, 1970, 59; hh) Calico, 14-15 Feb. 1969, 48, 16.75 = Calico,
7-15 Oct. 1966, 142 16.70 = Siderokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH 642) 16.83;
ii) Kress 142, 22 Jan. 1968, 66, 16.8; jj) Glendining, 17-18 May 1967,
32; kk) Seaby 571, Feb. 1966, A154 = Hirsch 35, 25-28 June 1963,
339; ll) Munz u. Med. FPL 262, Mar. 1966, 10, 16.76; mm) Kress
137, 21 Nov. 1966, 138, 16.5; nn) DeFalco FPL 68, Mar. 1965, 129;
oo) Calico, 26-28 Mar. 1965, 255, 16.80 = Siderokastro 1961 hd.
(IGCH 642), 16.78; pp) Miinz. u. Med. FPL 254, May 1965, 27,
16.84; qq) Seaby 566, Aug. 1965, A624; rr) Kress 130, 30 June 1964,
142, 16.75; ss) Kricheldorf, 7-8 July 1964, 74; tt) Pilartz 7, 1-3 Oct.
14
Catalogue
1964, 50, 16.82; uu) Hirsch 35, 25-28 June 1963, 338; w) Kress 126,
24 July 1963, 229, 16.7 = Kress 123, 116E; ww) Button, Kolner Miinz-
handlung 109, Dec. 1963, 2105, 16.72; xx) Schulman 236, 1-4 Mar.
1962, 1240, 16.83; yy) Hirsch 31, 28-30 May 1962, 106; zz) Munz. u.
Med. FPL 213, July 1961, 13 = Siderokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH 642);
aaa) Siderokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH 642) 16.79; bbb) Siderokastro 1961
hd. (IGCH 642) 16.84; ccc) Siderokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH 642) 16.74;
ddd) Siderokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH 642); eee) Siderokastro 1961 hd.
(IGCH 642); fff) Siderokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH 642); ggg) *ANS 1968
57.8, 16.92, 30 mm = Fisher 1985, pl. 30, 06-R16; hhh) Athens 1242,
16.38, 29 mm, pierced; iii) BCD Coll., 16.71; jjj) Hersh, 16.79, 30 mm;
kkk) Stockholm, von Post, 15.57 30 mm; lll) Witschonke, 16.92, 33
mm = Sotheby, 8 Dec. 1992, 42.
14 84 B 4 a) Hess-Leu, 17-18 May 1968, 179, 16.82; b) Seaby 522, Nov. 1961,
A1012; c) Siderokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH 642); d) Brussels, 16.85 =
Schulman 236, 1-4 Mar. 1962, 1241.
14 85* 1 *Glendining, 12 Oct. 1992, 124, scratched graffito on obv.
Obv.: B- replaced by 8 placed behind neck
15A 82* 6 a) Classical Numismatic Review 18.1, Jan.-Mar. 1993, 48, 16.56 =
Superior, 11-12 Dec. 1992, 2066, 16.59; b) Schweizerischer Bankverein
28, 17-19 Sept. 1991, 96, 16.82 = Siderokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH 642)
16.82; c) Hirsch, 22-24 Oct. 1962, 2356; d) *ANS 1944 100.14285,
17.00, 33 mm = Fisher, pl. 30, O5-R10; e) Berlin, Loebbecke, 16.83,
32 mm; f) Wheaton 117, 16.59.
15A 85* 13 a) Spink America, 3 May 1995, 107, 17.1; b) Numismatic Auction 1,

13 Dec. 1982, 73, 16.73; c) Hirsch 120, 10-12 Apr. 1980, 79, 16.45 =
Giessener 15, 17-18 Dec. 1979, 54, 16.54; d) Boutin 1979, pl. 91, 2115,
16.79 = SNGLocketl 1542, 16.79 = MonnGr, 1004 = Glendining, 12 Feb.
1958, 1408, 16.79 = Naville 1, 4 Apr. 1921 (Pozzi), 1004 = Hirsch 20,
13 Nov. 1907, 226, 16.79 = Sotheby, 9 May 1904, 153; e) NFA, Mar.
1975, 97, 17.00; f) Glendining, 7 May 1971, 82, 16.84; g) Coin Galleries
FPL, 19 Apr. 1962, 911, 16.56; h) SNGFitz 2346, 17.05 = Mavrogor-
dato Coll. (Svoronos 1911, pl. 8, 11); i) Detroit, 13.87 = Dodson &
Wallace, pl. 6, 28 = Kozani 1955 hd., 28, surface badly corroded; j)
Dewing 1223, 17.04, 27 mm; k) Philadelphia 209-126-109; l) Turin
A55, 16.87; m) *Washington, D. C. 16.85, 32 mm = Hirsch 13, 1905,
785, 16.81.
15A 86 17 a) Schenk-Behrens 61, 22-24 May 1991, 45, 16.89; b) Vedrines, 8 Jan.
1986, 44, 16.73 = Button, Kolner Munzhandlung 34, 15-16 Apr. 1983,
42, 16.72; c) Schulten, 22-23 Apr. 1985, 91, 16.81 = Kress 147, 5 May
1969, 111, 16.9; d) Blaser-Frey 21, 18 Apr. 1970, 846; e) Button,
Kolner Munzhandlung 116, Jan. 1969, 426, 16.9; f) Kress 147, 5 May
1969, 110, 16.9; g) Siderokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH 642); h) Siderokastro
1961 hd. (IGCH 642) 16.79; i) Siderokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH 642)
16.82; j) Sotheby, 4 Apr. 1907 (Delbeke), 101, 17.11; k) Berlin, Fox,
16.52, 31 mm = Beschreibung, 20, 7, 16.54; l) BM 1904-7-3, 16.66, 28
mm = Carradice and Price, pl. 18, 239 = Sear 1978, 1439; m) Bologna
16.62 = Monela Greca (1963), 297; n) Istanbul 953, 16.80, 28 mm; o)
Catalogue
45
Munich, 16.93, 29 mm; p) SNGAshm 3302, 16.80, 29 mm; q) Stock-
holm (Boehringer cast) 16.67.
1 Burnett, 64, fig. 11, 29 = SW Macedonia 1981 hd. (133), 29, 16.78.
13 a) Numismatica Ars Classica 14, 30 Apr. 1998, 1286, 16.48; b) Kur-
pfalzische 49, 13-14 Dec. 1995, 135; c) Oldenburg, 11 Mar. 1989, 35,
15.29 = Schulten, 20-21 Oct. 1988, 137 = Schulten, 20-22 Oct. 1987,
139, 15.29 = Miinz Zentrum 61, 18-20 Mar. 1987, 118, 15.29; d) NFA,
14 Dec. 1989, 469, 16.75; e) Superior, 1988, 1519 = Superior, 4-7 June
1984, 1382, 16.6 = Num. Art & Anc. Coins 3, 30 July 1982, 19, 16.6 =
Superior, 30 Mar. 1970, 179; f) Burnett, 64, fig. 11, 28; = SW Mace-
donia 1981 hd. (133), 28, 16.76; g) Hirsch 107, 6-7 Dec. 1977, 2321,
16.32; h) Crawford, Coinage, 199, fig. 77 = Frank, 1976 (Heyden), 17,
16.92 = Hess 219, 17 Oct. 1933, 53 = Naville 5, 18 June 1923 (BM
duplicates), 1501, 16.91; i) Hirsch 97, 22-25 Mar. 1976, 64, 16.33; j)
Peus 288, 30 Sep.-3 Oct. 1975, 149, 16.85 = Schenk 28, 28-29 Nov.
1974, 10; k) Kress 124, 2 Nov. 1962, 221; l) Hess-Leu, 12-13 Apr.
1962, 195, 17.03 = Siderokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH 642), 17.01; m)
Marseilles, Vernin Coll., 18 (Boehringer cast), 16.6; n) Witschonke,
16.72, 29 mm = Hess 257, 12 Nov. 1986, 99, 16.72 = DeFalco FPL
65, June 1964, 159.
Obv.: large diagonal crack in r. field, recut; rev.: R88 continued
15B 88 4 a) Burgan, 25 Mar. 1993, 24, 16.87, 28 mm; b) *Berk 59 1 Nov. 1989,
199, 16.82 = Berk 57, 29 Mar. 1989, 123, 16.82 = Berk 53, 27 Apr.
1988, 123, 16.82 = Paramount, 6-8 Nov. 1970, 57; c) Muller 36, 12-13
Feb. 1982, 73, 16.7 = Muller 32, 15-16 May 1981, 55, 16.7 = Hirsch

107, 6-8 Dec. 1977, 2322, 16.59; d) Varoucha, "Sylloge," pl. 1, 3 =
Siderokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH 642).
Commentary
A radical change in style occurs with 014. Alexander's hair is treated as if it were electri-
fied, with writhing strands streaming out in all directions. No other obverse die in the entire
coinage is at all similar, and to the right of the neck is a monogram, fr, also placed on rare
drachms (Drachms, Dr. 7-7, p. 70 and Plate 13) that resembles Greek beta with a horizontal
stroke projecting rightward from the center of the letter. Despite its unique style, 014 must
be connected with the regular Aesillas issues and must come at this point in the coinage,
because it is linked to 012 by R61. Fortunately, there are clear signs of wear visible on
surviving examples of 014-61 that make it certain that the 012A-61 combination was
minted earlier than 014-61. The most noticeable differences are small breaks visible at the
left side and handle of the cista, present on 014-61 but absent on 012A-61 (compare Plate
4, 012A-61 and 014-61).
014 is by far the best-represented obverse die in the entire study. There are 78 examples
in the Catalogue, 64 of which are from a single obverse-reverse die combination (014-83).
While extraordinary, this concentration of preserved examples from a single set of dies may
reflect nothing more than the chance discovery of a hoard containing a disproportionately
large number of newly minted Aesillas tetradrachms struck from the 014-83 die combina-
tion. And in fact, many of the 014-83 examples can be traced to the Siderokastro 1961
hoard (IGCH 642) reported to have contained "hundreds" of Aesillas tetradrachms but
dispersed onto the international numismatic market before any detailed record could be
15A 87
15A 88
Hi
Catalogue
made.4 Of the 54 Aesillas tetradrachms from the hoard on record at the American Numis-
matic Society, 12 are from the 014-83 die combination, and a study of the many Aesillas
issues that appeared in international sale catalogues during the decade following the
discovery of the Siderokastro 1961 hoard (i.e. 1962-72) reveals that nearly 25 more examples
of 014-83 listed here in the Catalogue were first illustrated during that period. While the
appearance of such a concentration of a single obverse-reverse die combination could be
nothing more than a coincidence, the likelihood of one specific die combination appearing
in such a large concentration randomly in these years seems much less plausible than the
hypothesis that the extraordinarily high concentration of this single combination is derived
from one source, the Siderokastro 1961 hoard.
R83 has a tiny beta added beneath the lower knot of the wreath (Plate 5, 014-83). As
with the A and A monograms applied earlier, the beta is often off the flan because of the
sloppy striking of the coins, but it was repeated on the next reverse (R84) that comes near
the end of the life of 014. After 014-84 the beta does not occur again.
The order of the ten reverse dies used with 014 is securely established by the presence of
a very thin horizontal die break which occurred at the right of the monogram while 011 was
being used with R83. All of the reverses combined with examples of 014 lacking this break
must have been struck before R83, while R84 and R85, both of whose obverses have this
and other small breaks, must come after R83.
014 is linked to 015A by two shared reverses (R82, R85). Both Fisher and de Callatay
place 015 before 01 4 without discussion, but this is wrong. R82 has a small, vertical
dagger-like break appearing in the left field above the cista and a horizontal thread-like
break running horizontally between the right side of the cista handle and the club that indi-
cate the relative order of 014-015A-B assigned in the Catalogue here is correct (compare
Plates 4-5, 014-82 and 015A-82). R85 is less clear, but the single example known with

014 appears to have less damage than the 11 examples known with 015A.
Despite the reverse die linkage and the placement of a beta written backwards behind the
neck of the portrait, 015 is nothing like 014 in style and was probably cut by a different
artist. But like 014, 015 remained in use long enough to suffer significant and easily recog-
nizable damage. A break at the end of the nose occurred early, with R85, and a large diag-
onal crack in front of the face forced significant recutting just before the die was discarded
after its use with R88 (Plate 5, 015B-88).
No die linkage between 014-015 and the obverses of the following group IV has been
discovered. This could simply be the result of poor survival, but it seems more likely that
group III was produced separately from the normal issues of the mint. If the two obverses
and all but one of their accompanying reverses were prepared and struck away from the
regular mint, that extraordinary circumstance could explain their very different obverse
and reverse styles, their altered monogram controls, and their lack of die linkage with the
succeeding group of issues (group IV, 016-019), which also has die linkage with group II
(016-76 = 013-76) and uses the obverse theta control of group II. From the internal numis-
matic evidence, it therefore appears that 014-015 represent a single (since there are two die
links between the obverses), short (since there are just two obverse dies), and concentrated
(since at least 14 different reverse dies are used) production that began soon after R61 had
been used with 012 and ended when the deteriorating 015 broke down completely.
* For a full discussion, see "Hoards and Circulation," pp. 99-101.
Catalogue
47
Obv.
Rev.
ID
16
76*
SI?
17
XX1
SI
17
89
SI
17
90
SI
17
91
SI
17
76*
SI
Group IV: 016-019
Latin letters S I added in front of neck.

R76 carried over from group II (013-76); 017-R92.
AESILLAS Q replaced by SVVRA LEG PR0 Q; R93 pellet under the sella.
o. Provenance
1 *Macedonia? 1986 hd., 1, 32 mm.
1 Classical Numismatic Group 41, 19 Mar. 1997, 339, 16.01.
1 Bonhams & Vecchi 6, 14-15 Sept. 1981, 122, 16.31.
1 *Kurpfalzische 31, 18-19 Dec. 1986, 70.
1 Berlin 1929-689, 16.66, 31 mm.
1 Jambol, 16.60, 30 mm - Schonert-Geiss, Maroneia, p. 106, 195 =
*Strojno 1961 hd. (IGCH 924).
Rev.: S added below AESILLAS to i. of club
17 XX2 SI 1 *Rauch 57, 11-12 Dec. 1996, 44, 16.65.
Rev.: AESILLAS replaced by SVVRA LEG PRO Q
17 92 SI 5 a) Crawford, Coinage, 199, fig. 77 = Naville 13, 27-29 June 1928, 571,
16.47, 32 mm; b) Boutin 1979, pl. 91, 2119, 15.45 = MonnGr, 1005 =
Naville 1, 4 Apr. 1921 (Pozzi), 1005, 15.45; c) *ANS 999.7057, 16.22,
32 mm = Fisher, pl. 31, O80-R160 = Hess-Leu, 16 Apr. 1964, 150,
16.22; d) Berlin 479/1875, 16.68, 31 mm = Gaebler, AMNG, pl. 3, 4,
and 2nd ed., pl. 3, 15 = Beschreibung 21, pl. 2, 14, 16.68 = Bompois
1876, 96, no. 7 = Friedlaender 1876, 177-82, 16.69; e) *BM, 16.07, 31
mm = Hurter, p. 10, 26 = Touratsoglou, Circulation, pl. 8, 6 =
Mattingly, pl. 4, 2 = Malloy FPL 12, 25 Apr. 1978, 304 = Hill, pl. 12,
93, 16.07 = Head, Guide, pl. 65, 10 = BMC, 20, 87 = Bompois 96, 7.
For ancient plated imitation of SVVRA LEG PR0 Q, see Im. 6-6; for modern imitations of
017-92, see Im. 7-7a-b.
Rev.: legend again AESILLAS Q; R93 only, pellet under sella
*Paris 115, 16.32, 31 mm.
*Kastner 12, 30 Nov. 1976, 45, 16.69.
a) Hirsch, 9-10 Dec. 1965, 1594 = Hirsch 34, 21-22 Feb. 1963, 1186; b)
Kyustendil (Jabocrut hd.) 16.00, 30 mm, uncertain overstrike.
a) Milan 729, 16.68, 34 mm; b) Ahlstroms 49, 9-10 Apr. 1994, 1448.
Glendining, 2 Oct. 1974, 138.
Miinz Zentrum 82, 6-7 Sept. 1995, 68, 16.5.
*Merzbacher 19, 15 Nov. 1910, 350, 16.36.
18
93
SI
18
94
SI
18
48
Catalogue
away from the main mint, despite the transfer of one reverse die (012A-61 to 014-61) since
no similar connection has appeared between the 13 new reverse dies used with 014-015 and
the 13 different AESILLAS reverses known for group IV (RXX1, 89-91, 76, XX2, 93-99).
Furthermore, on at least one reverse die (R93) of group IV but none of group III, there is an
added pellet beneath the sella, as occurred sporadically between 012A-60 and 013-75 (Plate
5, 018-93). While rare in this group, the pellet nevertheless reinforces the close relationship
between group IV and group II, emphasizes the separateness and discontinuity of group III,
and, as we shall see, links group IV with the following group V.
What clearly distinguishes and unifies this group of issues is the addition of the Latin
letters S I on the obverse dies in the field to the right of Alexander's neck (Plate 5, 016-
77-019-99).5 Unlike the fr and 8 added to 014-015, the S I of 016-019 does not replace
the theta on the obverse die but only supplements it in a specific way desired by the mint.
Whatever the reason, the mint's decision to identify obverse dies by the addition of letters
other than theta permitted the continuation of theta as a control while some other message
was communicated by S I. It also separates the obverse dies of group IV from all other
groups and reinforces their otherwise close stylistic similarity (compare Plate 5, 016-
76-019-99).
The apparent presence of S I helps to place 016 in this group. Known from a single
example found in the Macedonia? 1986 hoard,6 016's poor state of preservation, particularly
its corroded obverse surface, makes certainty impossible, but it appears that the letter S is
present in exactly the place where S appears on the other obverses of the S I group. The
style of the portrait is also very close to the other examples of 017-019, especially in the
details of the hair, as well as to 013 with which it also shares R76 (see Plates 4-5, 013-76
and 016-76). Since it is furthermore die linked by R76 to 017, there can be little doubt that
it belongs in group IV.

As is the case with the previous obverse markings, B- (014), and then 8 (015), the exact
meaning of the S I is not certain. However, in the case of S I, all of the obverses involved
also have added theta, so no one has argued that these letters identify a separate mint.
Fisher offers no explanation but rightly points out that Friedlaender's suggestion that the
letters are marks of value (i.e. IS [16]), meaning that the coin is worth 16 denarii, must be
wrong, because the letters are in Latin, not Greek (as numerical letters in the Greek-
speaking east would certainly be).7
My own view is that S I is an abbreviation for the authority by whose order these parti-
cular coins were struck. The S could stand either for C. Sentius Saturninus, the Roman
proconsular governor of Greece and Macedonia between about 93 B.C. to 87 B.C., or Q.
Braetius Sura, Saturninus's legate, who probably authorized the extraordinary issue with
the reverse legend SVVRA LEG PR0 Q. The full text thus abbreviated would therefore
be S[ENTI] I[USSU], "by order/command/decree/authority of Sentius," or S[VVRAE]
I[USSU], "by authority of Sura."8 Since the S I is added to obverses linked both to the
AESILLAS Q and the SVVRA LEG PR0 Q reverse types, the identification with Sura
5 Fisher, p. 73, tries to correct previous numismatists, who read SI, with the reading S*I. Fisher's reading
is, however, also incorrect. Only a single punctuation mark, placed between the S and I exists on any of the
dies. Most examples are very faint due to wear; but a clearly preserved example of 018-94, in particular,
makes this clear (Plate 5, 018-94).
6 For discussion of the contents of this unpublished hoard, see "Hoards," p. 103.
7 See Friedlaender, pp. 179-80; Fisher, pp. 73-74.
8 The expression suggested here is common in both regular and official language, and it is normally ex-
pressed in the same word order as here, i.e. a genitive agent followed by the ablative case of iussum (see e.g.
Sallust, Cat. 29.3, sine populi iussu, or Plautus, Curc. 2.3.50, Jovis iussu venil). Price, Macedonians, p. 33,
also states that Mark Antony, Caesar's legate, issued bronze coins at Philippi identified by the inscription
Afntonii] Ifussu].
Catalogue
49
seems more likely; but in either case, it does not seem unreasonable to find, first, the addi-
tion of an abbreviated identification of the Roman official authorizing the continued or
renewed coinage of the Aesillas type, followed, second, by adding S to the reverse, and
third, by the replacement of the older Aesillas reverse type with a new one explaining in a
clearer manner than the abbreviation that these coins were struck by authority of the legate
Sura acting in the capacity of quaestor, SVVRA LEG PR0 Q.
The novel SVVRA reverse type was introduced after 017 had already been used to strike
a number of the Aesillas types (017-89-XX1, -90, -91, -76, and XX2). The arrangement in
the Catalogue is substantiated by die wear that is more visible on 017-92 with SVVRA
than 017-XX1, 90, -91, -76, and XX2 with AESILLAS. A small break above the M of
MAKAONQN is clearly visible on 017-90, but both it and the added S I letters become
more blurred to the point of virtual indistinction in 017-92. Furthermore, breaks at the ear
and behind the eye first occur with 017-92 (compare Plate 5, 017-90 and 017-92).
The question of the identity of legate SVVRA has been discussed above.9 For the moment
the important thing is to emphasize that contrary to the belief of previous commentators,
the SVVRA LEG PR0 Q issue belongs early in the Aesillas-type coinage, not at the very
end. The obverse die connection with the AESILLAS type (e.g. 017-90), the consistent
presence of theta on 016-019, the die linkage of R76, and the addition of a pellet placed
under the sella on 018-93, all connect the S I obverse group with the theta obverses of
group II, 07-013. Furthermore, the thin style of the reverse wreath with its double-knotted
ties also places the SVVRA issue securely in the early phase of Aesillas emissions.
Finally, there is the question of why the distinctive SVVRA issue was suspended after
only one reverse die had been produced. One possible explanation is suggested from the exis-
tence of a unique, subaerate tetradrachm of the SVVRA type in the British Museum (Im. 6-
6, Plate 13). The coin weighs only 13.82 g and is doubtless an ancient imitation intended to

pass for a legitimate silver tetradrachm of the basic Aesillas type. Ancient imitations of the
AESILLAS typelet alone the unique SVVRA issueare rare, but it seems likely that if
enough of these SVVRA imitations appeared at the same time and mixed with the legiti-
mate SVVRA tetradrachms, recipients might have very quickly refused to accept any
SVVRA issue for fear of receiving the nearly worthless counterfeits. Instead, the suspicious
recipients might well have simply demanded payment in the familiar and more trustworthy
AESILLAS type, and, given such a situation, the mint would have had little choice but to
suspend the SVVRA issue and return to meeting its obligations with new issues of the
preferred type. Admittedly, this explanation is speculative, but it does, at least, provide a
simple and historically reasonable solution for the very limited production and immediate
cancellation of the SVVRA type, for the existence of an obviously faked SVVRA imitation,
and for the otherwise unexpected resumption of the AESILLAS type with added SI by the
theta mint.
Group V: 020-031
No added letters; 025B, pellet added at edge of hair behind the ear/horn.
Double knots of wreath increasingly replaced by single knots; R100, 104, 110, 112,
115-116, 118-120, 125, 128, 131, 133, pellet below sella; R121B, 123-124, 126-127,
pellet below Q.
9 See "Introduction," pp. 23-26.
50
Catalogue
Rev.: pellet under sella where noted
*Classical Numismatic Group 41, 19 Mar. 1997, 336, 16.28 = Knobloch
FPL, May 1967, 46, 16.3 = Knobloch FPL, May 1965, 181, 16.27 =
Coin Galleries FPL 5-6, Nov.-Dec. 1960, A631.
Pilartz 5, 28-30 Nov. 1963, 14 = Hirsch 35, 25-28 June 1963, 336 =
Kricheldorf, 12-13 Nov. 1959, 51, 16.48.
*Macedonia? 1986 hd., 3, 32 mm.
Ball FPL 6, 9 Feb. 1932, 222, 16.3.
Davis 104, 16.76, 29 mm = Knobloch FPL 25, Dec. 1964, 81, 16.72.
a) *Malloy FPL, 12 Mar. 1976, 77 = Lee, 26 Feb. 1956, 66; b) Numis-
matica Ars Classica G, 10 Apr. 1997, 1159, 16.28 = G. Hirsch, 22-25
Dec. 1959, 194, 16.2 = Vinchon, 6-7 May 1939, 39, 16.20 = Helbing 70,
9 Dec. 1932, 597, 16.3.
a) *Sotheby, 8-9 May 1990, 1025, 16.75; b) Bourgey, 29-30 June 1976,
21, 16.67.
Kress 176, 14-17 Mar. 1980, 279.
Athena 3, 15 May 1990, 104, 13.30.
Auctiones 20, 8-9 Nov. 1990, 277, 16.55.
Plovdiv 2065.
20
100
20
20
102
21
103
21
104
21

101
105*
21
106*
21
107
21
108
21
109
21
110
For imitation of the
22/24 105*
22/24 111
23
105*
23
112
Catalogue
51
Rev.:
pellet below Q
25C
123
a) Meridian FPL, 1971, 519; b) SNGAshm 3309, 16.62, 28 mm.
25C
124
a) Lanz 40, 25 May 1987, 217, 16.68; b) *Hirsch 75, 22-24 Nov. 1971,
Rev.:
pellet under sella; no pellet below Q
81, 16.24.
25C
125
Coin Galleries FPL, 1-2 Nov. 1970, 23 = Coin Galleries FPL, 20 Apr.
Rev.: pellet below Q
1961, 94.
26
126

*Kurpfalzische 19, 9-11 Dec. 1980, 47 = Numismatica FPL 6, 1980,
723, 16.71.
27
127
*Blancon FPL 10, 1991, 62 = Blancon FPL 9, 1991, 109 = Blancon
Rev.:
pellet under sella where noted; no pellet below Q
FPL 8, 1990, 135.
28
128
*Hirsch, 26-27 Nov. 1958, 95, 16.00 (rev. legend partially erased to
AE....A).
28
129
Munz. u. Med. 169, 20-22 Feb. 1991, 301, 16.44 = Munz Zentrum 50,
23-25 Nov. 1983, 57, 16.47.
28
130
Brussels, 16.45, 30 mm.
28
131
a) Auctiones 7, 7-8 June 1977, 159, 16.66 = Hirsch 87, 1-4 Apr. 1974,
55, 16.64; b) Plovdiv 1627.
29
132
a) Coin Galleries FPL, 1963, A40, 16.57; b) *Gibbons FPL 20, [no
date], 11.
29
133
a) Berlin 16.30, 27 mm = Beschreibung, 20, 3, 16.3; b) SNGLewis 550,
16.82.
52
Catalogue
The overall sequence of 020-031 cannot be perfectly reconstructed, but, luckily, one
reverse die link (R105) between 021 and 022 preserves the exact point of transition
between the harsher, more exaggerated features of the obverse portrait used with the S I
and SVVRA issues and the more carefully detailed and classically handsome portrait that
replaces it in most cases (Plates 5-6, 021-105, 022-105, and 023-105). A second reverse die
link (R106) further connects 021 with 025 that has yet another portrait type, but a small
crack present between the Q and the sella on 025B-106but not present on 021-
106confirms the close association of issues in the Catalogue (compare Plate 6, 021-106,
025B-106).
The order established from the evidence of die breaks also fits with considerations of style
and their arrangement. Particularly noticeable in 021-023 are 1) the abandonment of the
large knob at the center of the ear encircled by the horn of Zeus-Ammonon 022 the knob
is gone and the size of the horn reducedand 2) the altogether more complex and unruly
treatment of Alexander's hair on both 022 and 023. Following the introduction of the new
obverse style, several dies incorporate a varied mixture of elements characteristic of the old
and new treatment. Eventuallyreinforced by the gradual disappearance of the thin,
double-knotted wreath of the reversethe obverse style connected with the S I and
SVVRA issues gives way to a basically consistent, though increasingly sloppy, obverse
portrait style together with mostly single-knotted reverse wreathes (Plates 6-7, 026-031).
Because of the overall lack of stylistic unity and the presence of only four reverse die
links, 020-031 would be difficult to group together with any confidence if it were not for
the reappearance of pellets placed on a number of the associated reverse dies. As before, the
addition of the pellets is sporadic rather than uniform, and there is no certain explanation
either for this inconsistency or the presence of the pellets at all. But whatever the reason for
their addition, the pellets help to associate the obverse dies, and they reinforce the basic

ordering of the reverse dies in accordance with the gradual transformation of the thin,
double-knotted wreath into a fatter, single-knotted wreath.
Finally, on several reverse dies, again for unknown reasons, the die cutters moved the
pellet from beneath the sella to the space below the Q (R121B, R123-124, R126-127).
R121 was even first cut without the pellet (R121A) but had it added in the small space
beneath the Q after the die was already being used (R121B, Plate 6, 025B-121A and
025B-121B). Since 025A-B was later recut a second time to extend its life (025C), it
ended up joined to nine reverses: with a pellet under the sella (025A-119, 025A-120), with
no pellet (025A-121A), with a pellet below the Q (025B-121B), with no pellet (025B-106,
025C-122, 025C-117), again with a pellet below the Q (025C-123, 025C-124), and finally
with a pellet beneath the sella (025C-125).
Group VI: 032-083
No special letters or other elements.
No pellets; mixed single and double knotting of wreath.
For drachms possibly issued with 058-059, see Dr. Im. 1-1 (Plate 13).
32A 136 1 Milan, di Brera 768, 16.53, 29 mm.
32A 137 1 Plovdiv 2767, pierced.
32A 138 2 a) Malloy FPL 26, Mar. 1972, 324; b) Rauch, 3-4 Apr. 1970, 360.
Catalogue
53
32 A 139
32 A 140
32A 141
32 A 142
a) Classical Numismatic Group 37, 20 Mar. 1996, 241, 16.44; b)
*Compagnie des Monnaies Anciennes, 29 June 1985, 69, 16.67; c)
NFA 6, 27-28 Feb. 1979, 160; d) Berlin, Prokesch-Osten, 16.44, 29
mm = Beschreibung 20, 5, 16.45.
Superior, 7-10 June 1987, 4078, 16.48 = Superior, 11-12 June 1986,
1004, 16.48.
a) Pacific Coast, 4-5 June 1987, 1952; b) Plovdiv 301.
Davissons, 30 Apr. 1988, M19, 16.20 = Davissons, Spring 1987, 74,
16.26 = *Macedonia? 1986 hd., 4, 29 mm.
Obv.: recutting of locks behind the ear
32B XX 1 *Berk 46, 16 Dec. 1986, 266, 16.03.
33A 143
33A 144
Obv.: locks
33B 145
33B 146
34 147
34 148
34
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
36
37
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
XX
158
159
37 160

35
37 XX
38A 161
38 A 162
38A 163
38A 164
38 A 165
38 A 166
2 a) *Macedonia? 1986 hd., 5, 27 mm; b) uncertain provenance (Boeh-
ringer cast).
1 Berk 47, 19 Feb. 1987, 117, 16.37 = *Macedonia? 1986 hd., 7, 28 mm.
recut more deeply
1 Kavala, 29 mm = *Nea Karvali 1963 hd. (IGCH 660), 10.
1 *Kunker 30, 27-29 Sept. 1995, 43, 15.35.
3 a) Bourgey, Hotel Drouot 2, 2-4 June 1988, 54, 15.91; b) Peus 311, 31
Oct.-l Nov. 1984, 172, 16.52; c) Aes Rude 2, 7-8 Apr. 1978, 96 =
Munz. u. Med., 6-7 Dec. 1968 (A. Voirol), 48, 15.70.
2 a) *Miiller 36, 12-13 Feb. 1982, 74, 16.7; b) Dorotheum 263, 16-20
Dec. 1963, 340, 16.35.
Schweizerische Kreditanstalt 7, 27-29 Apr. 1987, 185, 15.69.
54 Catalogue
38A
167
a) Schulman, 26-27 Jan. 1971, 960 = Malloy FPL 6, Aug.-Sept. 1968,
355; b) Kavala, 30 mm = *Nea Karvali 1963 hd. (IGCH 660), 1; c)
Dresden 656, 15.93.
38A
168
a) Finarte, 25-26 Mar. 1971, 45, 14.62; b) Siderokastro 1961 hd.
(IGCH 642); c) *ANS 1944 100.14290, 16.50, 29 mm.
Obv.:
locks above forehead recut; rev.: R168 continued
38B
168
Hesperia Art FPL 11, 1959?, 19.
39
169*
*Numismatica 7, 13-15 Feb. 1975, 64, 15.21.
40
169*
*Miiller 17, 23-24 Apr. 1976, 31, 16.68.
40

170
a) Schweizerische Kreditanstalt 8, 27-28 Oct. 1987, 763, 16.15 =
Schweizerische Kreditanstalt 3, 19-20 Apr. 1985, 169, 16.15 = Vecchi
& Sons 11, 8 Oct. 1984, 93, 16.13 = Peters 114, 19-20 Jan. 1984, 22 =
Schweizerische Kreditanstalt, May 1983, 69, 16.15 = Gadoury, 3-5 Oct.
1982, 231, 16.17; b) Miinz Zentrum 59, 29-31 Oct. 1986, 969, 16.13; c)
Ahlstrom 29, 8-9 Apr. 1984, 2095; d) Antony, CGC, 102, 170 =
Kricheldorf 33, 12-13 Oct. 1978, 53; e) Siderokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH
642); f) Munich, 16.00, 30 mm.
40
171
a) Peters, 19-21 Jun. 1970, 45; b) Schlessinger 13, 1935, 791, 15.7.
40
172
Plovdiv 572.
41A
173*
a) Bourgey, Hotel Drouot 2, 2-4 June 1988, 53, 16.42 = Platt, 27-28
Mar. 1922, 397 = Hirsch 34, 5 May 1914, 276, 16.45 = Hirsch 11, 4
May 1904, 175, 16.45 = Hirsch 10, 14 Dec. 1903, 175, 16.45; b) *Gies-
sener 38, 30 Nov. 1987, 92, 16.00 = Hirsch, 26 Apr. 1954, 1621, 15.9;
c) Kyustendil = Prokopov 1987, 9, pierced; d) Spink, Galerie des
Monnaies, 25 June 1976, 714, 16.65; e) Kress 96, 21 June 1954, 161,
16.5.
41A
174
a) Berk 47, 19 Feb 1987, 116, 16.24 = *Macedonia? 1986 hd., 8, 28
mm; b) Poinsignon, 4 Dec. 1985 (R. Heitz), 107; c) Budapest, Delhaes
212, 15.94, 27 mm; d) Turin 9364, 16.78.
41A
175*
Miinz. u. Med. 145, 27 Feb. - 2 Mar. 1985, 56, 16.07.
41A
176
Bourgey, 6-8 Dec. 1978, 42, 16.48 = Poinsignon, 29 Apr. 1978, 5, 16.47
= Schweizerischer Bankverein, Fall 1976, 37, 16.51.
Catalogue
55
42B
187
42B
188
43
183*
43
189
42A 185 1 Muller 48, 18-19 Jan. 1985, 47, 16.3.
42A 186 1 Kurpfalzische 19, 9-11 Dec. 1980, 48.
42A 175* 1 Paris 108, 15.96, 31 mm.
42A 187 6 a) *Kolner Miinzkabinett 54, 11-12 Nov. 1991, 25, 16.34; b) Peus 309,
2-4 May 1984, 33, 16.81 = Sotheby, 29 Sep. 1976, 37; c) Miinz
Zentrum 44, 25 Nov. 1981, 235, 15.81; d) Prokopov, "Hoard," 12, no.
2 = Blagoevgrad vicinity 1981 hd. 2, 16.40, 27 mm; e) Siderokastro
1961 hd. (IGCH 642); f) Helbing 70, 9 Dec. 1932, 598, 16.30.
Obv.: pellet-like dot added above delta of MAKAONQN; rev.: R187 continued
a) *Alfoldi 1978, 155; b) Sotheby 3, 17 Nov. 1976, 18; c) Bourgey, 21
Mar. 1972, 33.
Sophia, Mus. Arch. 114, 16.31, 28 mm.
a) *Classical Numismatic Group 34, 6 May 1995, 64, 16.68; b)

Auctiones 22, 16-17 June 1992, 212, 16.21 = Miinz Zentrum 53, 13-15
Nov. 1984, 1534, 16.21; c) Sotheby, 2-3 Oct. 1986, 546; d) Prokopov,
"Hoard," 12, no. 4 = Blagoevgrad vicinity 1981 hd. 4, 16.50, 28 mm.
a) Hild 57, 14-15 Sept. 1990, 164; b) Vico, 8 Mar. 1990, 75 = NFA 8, 6
June 1980, 128 = Schweizerischer Bankverein 5, 16 Oct. 1979, 161,
16.26; c) Albuquerque 20, 2 Feb. 1990, 25, 16.54 = Burgan, 15 June
1989, 315, 14.88 = Vinchon, 12-13 Apr. 1988, 366, 14.85; d) Bank Leu,
26 Sept. 1988 (Ceresio), 73, 16.58 = Bank Leu 1986 (in commerce); e)
Muller 20, 20-21 May 1977, 62, 15.78 = Muller FPL 29, Summer 1976,
12 = Muller 17, 23-24 Apr. 1976, 32, 15.79; f) Malloy FPL, 28 Mar.
1973, 148; g) Schulman, 9-11 Nov. 1970, 83; h) *Siderokastro 1961
hd. (IGCH 642).
Wulfing 170, 16.31.
Schweizersicher Bankverein, Fall 1976, 38, 17.12.
Kavala, 32 mm = *Nea Karvali 1963 hd. (IGCH 660), 2.
Kavala, 30 mm = *Nea Karvali 1963 hd. (IGCH 660), 7.
a) NFA, 30 May 1990, 6803, 16.40 = *Macedonia? 1986 hd., 10; b)
Huston FPL 70, 1987, 11; c) Dewing 1224, 16.59, 28 mm; d) Hague,
von Rede 4903, 15.29, 29 mm.
*Waddell FPL 4, Dec. 1982, 18, 16.67.
*Superior, 1-2 Oct. 1984, 1417, 16.39 = Superior, 13-16 June 1977,
2598, 16.39.
a) Athena FPL 3, Spring 1973, 11; b) Beckenbauer 1964 (Boehringer
cast); c) *ANS 1948 19.460, 16.47, 28 mm; d) Blagoevgrad 12093,
pierced.
a) Coin Galleries, 15 Feb. 1995, 1359, 16.73; b) Spink 81.6, June 1973,
4632, 16.18.
a) Prokopov, "Hoard," 12, no. 3 = Blagoevgrad vicinity 1981 hd. 3,
16.50, 28 mm; b) Bowers & Ruddy, 9 June 1980, 95; c) Klagenfurt,
SNGDreer 657, 14.96.
Razgrad, 15.63, 27 mm = Prokopov 1987, 6.
a) NFA, 18 Dec. 1987, 240, 15.04 = Naville 12, 18-23 Oct. 1926, 1207,
15.11, 28 mm = Weber 2250, 16.91; b) *Lempertz 237, 23 Feb. 1926,
205, 16.5.
a) Vedrines, 23 June 1993, 74; b) Muller 66, 28-29 Sept. 1990, 56, 16.4;
c) Bloesch 1658, 16.00, 29 mm = Miinz. u. Med., 17-19 June 1954,
1120, 16.04.
43
190
43
191
56 Catalogue
45
202
Kricheldorf 38, 28-29 Nov. 1984, 116, 15.65 = Auctiones 15, 23 June
1983, 176, 15.85 = Hirsch 9, 26-27 June 1956, 136, 15.9.
45
203
a) Spink 96.2, Mar. 1988, 998, 16.46 = Seaby 2, 21 Sept. 1983, 5 =
Seaby 770, Oct. 1982, B114; b) Lanz 36, 21 Apr. 1986, 252, 15.82; c)
Empire Coins FPL 50, [no date], 43.
46
204
a) Kolner Munzkabinett 56, 16-17 Nov. 1992, 79, 15.31; b) *Sophia,
Mus. Arch., 10915-61, 16.24, 29 mm.
46
205
Numismatica FPL 5, 1980, 539, 16.53.
47
206
Bourgey, 29-30 June 1976, 22, 16.45.
47
207

*ANS 1948 19.464, 16.40, 29 mm.
47
208
Sotheby, 14-15 June 1978, 378, 16.40.
48
209
a) Giessener 55, 14 May 1991, 187, 16.26; b) *BM 16.44, 29 mm =
Guide, 91.
48
210
a) Numismatica 12, 11-14 May 1976, 30, 17.10; Kavala, 28 mm =
*Nea Karvali 1963 hd. (IGCH 660), 4.
49
211*
50
211*
*Credit de la Bourse FPL, 1990, 67, 16.81.
51
212
a) Commerce = Bankenbauer, 1964 (Boehringer cast); b) SNGDele-
pierre 1077, 16.35, 30 mm; c) *Paris 112, 15.71, 30 mm.
51
213
Bourgey 7, 10-11 June 1982, 60, 17.76 = Bourgey, 14-15 June 1978,
59, 17.75.
51
214
Oldenburg 24, 14 Oct. 1984, 34, 16.57.
52
215
*SNGEvelpidis 1482, 13.32.
53
Catalogue 57
59
228*
a) *BM, 15.81, 27 mm = Sear, 1463 = Svoronos, pl. 16, 9 = Head,
Guide, pl. 65, 7 = BMC 19, 81; b) Hersh, 16.54, 28 mm.
59
232
Plovdiv 85.
59
233
a) Calico ANE, 17-19 Nov. 1971, 163, 16.85 = Adams-McSorley FPL
2, 1968, 40; b) Turin 2182, 14.80, pierced.
59
234
Poindessault, 18 June 1980, 69, 16.72 = Coin Galleries FPL 5, 1962,
E58.
59
235*
*ANS 1948 19.461, 16.54, 28 mm.
59
236

a) Lanz 56, 13 May 1991, 114, 16.11; b) Christie, 7 Sept. 1989, 36,
16.7; c) Kreisberg-Cohen, 29 June 1970, 57, 16.53.
60
237
Albuquerque 34, 23 Apr. 1992, 225, 16.62.
60
235*
a) *SNGDelepierre 1078, 15.09, 28 mm; b) SNGTubingen 1226, 15.86.
60
238
Univ. of Mississippi, Oxford, Miss., 18 (Boehringer cast).
60
239
Meyers 5, 15-16 Mar. 1973, 96.
60
240
Lanz 58, 21 Nov. 1991, 143, 16.28 = Muller 38, 25-26 June 1982, 55,
lo.o.
60
241
*Classical Numismatic Auctions 20, Mar. 1992, 63, 16.52, scratched
graffito on obv., upsilon and retrograde nu.
61
242
a) Seaby, May 1969, A340; b) Istanbul 968, 16.37, 28 mm.
61
243
Peus 279, 14-17 Mar. 1972, 27 = Button 107, Jan. 1963, 747, 16.70.
61
244
61
245
58
Catalogue
68
258
a) Plovdiv 284; b) Vienna S560, 27 mm.
68
259
Davissons, Summer 1991, 42, 16.49 = NFA, 18 Oct. 1990, 638, 16.49 =
Seaby 580, Dec. 1966, A937.
68
260
Emporium 8, 23 Apr. 1987, 33.
68
261
a) Muller 19, 3-5 Feb. 1977, 20, 15.67; b) Kyustendil = Prokopov 1987,
O.
69
262
*Platt, 25 Apr. 1934, 53.
70A
263

Munz Zentrum 39, June 1988, 61 = Muller 31, 4-5 Feb. 1981, 61,
14.50.
70A
264
Hague, von Rede 4907, 16.20, 29 mm.
70A
265
a) ANS 16.23, 29 mm; b) Shumen, 16.45, 28 mm = Vladimirova-Alad-
zova and Prokopov.
70A
266
a) Superior, 10-12 Feb. 1975, 1971 = Superior, 1-8, 11-16 Nov. 1972,
109 = Superior 1969, 170; b) Calico ANE, 16-18 Dec. 1960, 205, 16.10.
70A
267
a) Athens 1241, 15.98, 28 mm; b) Razgrad, 16.80, 26 mm = Prokopov
1987, 4.
70A
268
Kress 190, 14-15 Nov. 1985, 223.
70A
269
Sophia, Mus. Arch. = Prokopov 1987, 3.
70A
270
a) Waddell FPL 2, 12 Sept. 1987, 117, 16.55 = Malloy FPL, 28 Feb.
1972, 60; b) *Kreisberg-Cohen, 20 Mar. 1972, 975, 16.69; c) Seaby 582.
Obv.:
recut to
repair
damage at ear/horn; rev.: R270 continues
70B
270
*Holmberg 141, Oct. 1927, 99.
Catalogue
59
76
283
76
284
76
285
77
286
78
287
78
288
78
289
78
290
78
78
292
78
293

291
Athens, 16.41, 28 mm = Varoucha, "Sylloge," pl. 2, 1 (rev. wrongly
illustrated with pl. 2, 2 obv.). = *Platania 1959 hd. (IGCH 663).
SNGAshm 3303, 16.27, 29 mm.
Kyustendil = Prokopov 1987, 7.
*Athens, 29 mm = Varoucha, "Sylloge," pl. 2, 5 = *Kerassia 1959? hd.
(IGCH 653).
a) Kunker 41, 11-13 Mar. 1998, 33, 16.54; b) *NFA 31, 15 Mar. 1993,
154, 16.16.
Lanz 66, 22 Nov. 1993, 172, 15.56.
Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer, 16.42, 29 mm.
Spink 13, 9-10 May 1984, 602, 15.26.
Hirsch 123, 20-28 Jan. 1981, 2067, 14.1 = Kress 91, 26 Nov. 1951, 59,
14.1.
Classical Numismatic Group 22, 2 Sept. 1992, 61, 15.61.
a) Classical Numismatic Group 41, 19 Mar. 1998, 338, 15.71; b)
Ahlstrom 47, 17 Apr. 1993, 1339; c) Prokopov, "Hoard," 12, no. 5 =
Blagoevgrad vicinity 1981 hd. 5, 16.40, 26 mm; d) Sotheby, 13 Mar.
1974, 53, 16.07; e) McClean 3713, pl. 138, 11, 16.43; f) SNGLeipzig
626, 15.06.
78 294 5 a) Munz. u. Med. 524, Aug. 1989, 18, 16.02; b) Numismatica 4, 22-23
Apr. 1974, 100, 16.35; c) Paris, Seymour de Ricci, 16.17, 26 mm =
Ciani 9, 17-21 Feb. 1925 (A. de la Fuye), 300, 16.10; d) Blagoevgrad
12481; e) Lovech 1125.
79 295 1 *Hirsch 14, 19-20 Sept. 1957, 584, 16.05.
For imitation of the style of 073-079, see below, Im. 4-4
80 296 1 *Paris 118 = Waddinglon 7205, 15.23, 26 mm.
81 297* 1 *Superior 21.2, Summer 1988, D5, 13.38.
82 297* 1 *Bourgey, 2-3 Dec. 1993, 38, 13.00 = Bourgey, 26-27 Oct. 1981, 35,
13.01 = Gadoury, 13-15 Oct. 1980, 198, 13.02.
83 298 1 *ANS 1948 19.463, 1948, 13.12, 27 mm.
Commentary
Group VI contains 52 obverse and 166 reverse dies that provide frustratingly few indica-
tions of their original sequence of issue. Aside from subtle associations of style, there is little
evidence to use in arranging the large number of issues. Despite the discovery of 11 reverse
die links, the information provided is less helpful than might be expected, because more than
60
Catalogue
More than anything else, gradual and often extremely subtle changes in the style of the
portrait of Alexander and in the treatment of the reverse elements provide the best evidence
for arranging the obverse dies of group VI. From analysis of these features, reinforced by
occasional die linkage, 032-083 fall into the following clustered units: 032-045; 046-053;
054-062; 063-072; 073-079; and 080-083.
032-045. There is nothing obvious that connects 032 to the end of the preceding group
V. The pellets previously added to many reverse dies seem to disappear altogether after
029, and, while some reverses continue to have wreaths with combined double- and single-
knot ties, this feature proves to be too inconsistent to be used as a valid organizational tool
as it was when it appeared in combination with the long and slim wreaths characteristic of
01-019. More helpful is the fact that the obverse portraits of 032-045 have subtle affinities
with earlier issues, particularly group IV, where the obverse dies were also linked by the
addition of S I (016-019). The cluster of 032-045 closely parallels the earlier obverse
style, particularly in the return to a more compact, tightly constructed portrait that is
noticeably smaller than most other portraits in group VI. In 032-045, Alexander's hair is
rendered in very similar, stacked waves of hair piled up horizontally across the top of the
head. At the same time, the lowest horizontal lock at the left behind the neck is enlarged
and separated out from the others in a deeply cut, single, tight loop extending left toward
the kappa of the encircling legend (compare Plates 5 and 7, 018-94 with 032A-139).
Another consistent feature that unifies 032-045 is the position of the theta on the obverse.
Since its addition on 05B and 06C, theta had moved somewhat erratically in its alignment
between the top and bottom of the mu of MAKAONQN. In 032-045, however, the position
of theta is consistently aligned with the bottom of the mu.
In striking this cluster of dies, the mint recut several obverses. After being used with at
least seven reverse dies, 032A was repaired near the end of its life to undo damage in the

area of the locks behind the ear-horn and then around the eye and legend but was never-
theless disgarded soon after (compare Plate 7, 032A-139 and 032B-142). 038A similarly
served with eight reverses and then received a small amount of recutting in the area of
hair looping above the forehead (Plate 7, 038A-168 and 038B-168). 041 was also recut,
but in this case several stages of deterioration and repair can be distinguished and are
assigned A-C in the Catalogue: A) almost immediately the undamaged die develops a small
blobby break to the right of Alexander's nose (Plate 7, 041A-173); B) the die is extensively
recut, leaving Alexander's hair looking elaborately coiffed, but the break to the right of nose
remains (Plate 7, 041B-181); and C) the small blob-like break in front of the nose is
smoothed away (Plate 7, 041C-182). 042A has little evidence of serious deterioration
before being recut but after being used with eight reverses (R173, 175, and 182-87), the
obverse is recut and a pellet-like dot is added immediately above the delta of MAKAONQN
(compare Plate 7, 042A-182 and 042B-188, not illustrated).
046-053. In this cluster of obverse dies the single, tight loop extending horizontally
behind the bottom of the neck gives way to a more complex series of several loops overlap-
ping one another from left to right. Despite this change, the treatment of Alexander's hair
remains basically the same and continues in stacks of parallel, wiggling lines seen before.
Elsewhere on the obverse, however, both the theta and the point of the neck shift position:
the theta moves higher in relation to the mu of MAKAONQN, and the point of the neck
moves from above the center or left verticle stroke of first nu to above the second verticle
stroke of the nu or even above the omega (see Plate 8, 046-204). 049 and 051 again place
the point over the left verticle of the first nu but otherwise fit stylistically with this cluster
(Plates 8-9, 049-211, 051-212). Finally, with 046-053 the tail of the Q on the reverse dies
becomes longer than previously and, despite the continued presence of some double-knotted
Catalogue
61
ties (e.g. 046-203, -204, 047-207), the wreaths increasingly have shorter, fatter laurel leaves
tied with single knots.
054-062. At the beginning of this cluster a more confused and seemingly random place-
ment of Alexander's waving locks replaces the mostly stacked locks seen in 032-053. The
combined rendering of Alexander's ear and encircling horn of Zeus-Ammon is also noticeably
reduced in size for these obverse dies, and the theta again moves from a high position in
relation to the mu of MAKAONQN to a low position between mu and alpha. With 058
the confused treatment of the hair gives way to what may best be characterized as an "elec-
trified" look in which the individual strands of hair stream out in parallel lines extending in
all directions (e.g. Plate 9, 058-228). Three of these electrified obverse portraits (058, 059,
and 060) are die linked, and several of their reverses contain a mixture of double and single
knots used for the ties of individual wreaths (R228, 234, 235, 238, 240, and 241). Likewise,
061 also has one reverse with mixed single and double knots (R244), but with 062 there
are only single knots. Throughout this cluster the tail of the Q is longer than previous-
lyoften extending beyond the right edge of the quaestor's sellaand the Q itself is posi-
tioned immediately above the sella (e.g. Plate 9, 054-217, 058-228, 062-246).
063-072. This cluster has less overall uniformity in the execution of the significant details
of the dies. 063 and 064 both place the point of the neck over the omega of MAKAONQN,
but on other dies it moves back to the left, even as far as the right-hand vertical stroke of
the first nu (065, 068, 070). The position of theta also varies from just above the mu (066)
to opposite its lower side (064, 067). Secondly, the confused treatment of Alexander's hair
returns to the earlier rendering of stacked locks in parallel lines but now mixed with
previously unused stylistic elements in the treatment of the ear and horn. Altogether, the
placement of the portrait in connection with the legend, the large number of overlapping
locks behind the bottom of the neck, and the distinctive crescent shaped rendering of the

ear-horn combination create the special style that best distinguishes this cluster (see e.g.
Plate 10, 068-256).
On the reverses, Qs with long, horizontal tails predominate but are not universal. The
laurel leaves of the wreath are now quite short and fat compared to those of 032-045, but
occasional double knots persist throughout (e.g. Plate 10, 070A-270).
One obverse die in this cluster was recut after being used with eight reverses (070A-B). In
repairing the damage, however, the die cutter did a terrible job, and the outcome looks more
like gouging than recutting (Plate 10, 070B-270). 071 also has a major die break that
appears to have remained unrepaired (Plate 10, 071-273). Given these features, it seems
fair to say that the mint was paying less attention than previously to the artistic appearance
of the coinage.
073-079. The obverses of this cluster are distinctive for combining the ear and horn in a
manner that makes the ear appear to be underlined by an elongated crescent (e.g. Plate 10,
073-277). The portrait of Alexander is more carefully drawn, more youthful, and more clas-
sically handsome, but individual dies have varied treatment of the hair. A very tiny theta,
placed in the middle of the mu of MAKAONQN, is repeated on 073-076, while just the
opposite, a greatly enlarged theta, appears on 077-079 (compare Plates 10-11, 073-277
and 077-286, 078-287).
Reverse dies of this cluster generally omit double knots altogether and broaden the laurel
leaves to make the wreath noticeably fatter. There are, however, double knots visible on
R282, 287, and 292.
080-083. The last cluster of group VI is distinguished by its very different obverse style
and consistently low weight. 080 and 081 are additionally connected by a shared reverse
die, but what most clearly unifies these issues is their consistently light weight that ranges
from 13.01 g to 15.23 g. Of course, they could be ancient imitations, struck at reduced
62
Catalogue
weight to take advantage of the normally unquestioned acceptability of the Aesillas type,
but it also seems equally possible that this cluster is official and simply reflects some unrec-
orded financial crisis that demanded more coined money than the mint could produce with
the available bullion. The coins do, after all, appear to be minted from good-quality silver
and are not either obviously bad counterfeits or stylistically recognizable as barbarous imita-
tions. The obverse style is, however, unusual in its portrayal of a somewhat overweight,
middle-aged-looking Alexander consistently throughout the cluster, but the reverse style is
not at all unusual. While limited in number, the three known reverses contain no mistakes
or telltale indications of unofficial production. It therefore seems best to include this cluster
of dies here, where their overall style suggests they belong, at the very end of group VI.
While many of the variations mentioned in the foregoing commentary involve admittedly
minute details, taken together they provide the bestand practically the onlyevidence for
organizing and arranging the 52 obverse dies in group VI. What I have here called the clus-
ters of dies should not be considered fixed in their internal arrangement or in overall
sequence beyond the general outline that group VI seems clearly to come after groups I-V
and before groups VII-VIII. In the end, more informationperhaps much morewill be
needed before the objective evidence of die links between more of the obverses begins to
reinforce or correct the impressions based primarily on stylistic analysis offered here.
Group VII: 084-087
CAE PR above MAKAONQN, with (084, 086) and without (085, 087) theta.
No pellets.
Obv.: with theta; rev.: (R302 only) pellet below cista
only.

84 299 1 Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer, 16.50, 30 mm = Gaebler, A MNG, pl. 3, 1, obv.
84 300* 1 *Helbing FPL 17, 18 Apr. 1941, 225, 16.2 = G. Hirsch, 5 June 1935,
117, 16.2, 26 mm = Helbing, 12 Apr. 1927, 1701.
Obv.: without theta
85 300* 3 a) Burgan 25, 18 June 1991, 363; b) Burnett, fig. 8, 94 = Macedonia?
1980 hd., 92; c) Seaby 634, June 1971, A603.
85 301 2 a) NFA 11, 8 Dec. 1982, 88, 16.92 = Birkler & Waddell 1, 7 Dec.
1979, 102, 16.58; b) Witschonke, 16.65, 27 mm = Glendining, 3 May
1970, 37.
85 302 2 a) Kricheldorf 39, 6-7 Feb. 1987, 30, 16.38; b) *Berlin 3667/1953,
16.38, 30 mm = Ball FPL 6, 9 Feb. 1932, 221, 16.4.
Obv.: with theta
86 303 2 a) Witschonke, 16.19, 27 mm = Miinz Zentrum 71 (3 June 1991), 128;
b) Witschonke, 16.67, 29 mm = Lanz 46, 28 Nov. 1988, 226 = Burnett
1986, fig. 8, 94 = Macedonia? 1980 hd., 94.
86 304 1 Munzhandlung Basel 10, 15 Mar. 1938, 227, 16.04.
86 305 3 a) Schweizerischer Bankverein, Winter 1980, 56, 15.89; b) Paris 117,
15.93, 27 mm; c) Witschonke, 16.30, 27 mm.
Catalogue
63
86 306* 1 *Fisher, pl. 30, 03-R4 = Kricheldorf, 15 Oct. 1955, 269, 16.22 = Miinz.
u. Med., 24-25 Sept. 1954, 542, 16.20 = Miinz. u. Med. 128, Sept. 1953,
8, 16.22.
86 307* 2 a) Credit de la Bourse FPL, Oct. 1992, 355, 16.51 = Credit de la
Bourse FPL, Apr. 1991, 87, 16.51; b) *ANS 1944 100.14284, 16.41,
31 mm = Fisher, pl. 30, 03-R3 = Gobl 1978, pl. 47, 689 = Schulman,
30 May 1927, 181, 16.3.
86 308 7 a) Hamburger, 28 May 1929, 247, 15.67 = Beschreibung 21, pl. 2, 13,
15.67; b) Athens 1244a, 16.64, 29 mm; c) Cancio Coll., 16.80, 30 mm =
Gobl 1978, pl. 150, 3197 = Hirsch, 11-13 Jan. 1961, 1771, 16.8 = Hess
202, 28 Oct. 1930, 2379 = Cahn 66, 9 May 1930, 202, 16.93 = Hess, 6
Jan. 1926, 147; d) Hague 3251, 16.32, 27 mm; e) *Paris 1973-1-82,
16.67, 28 mm = Glendining, 4 Oct. 1957, 62, 16.04 = Ciani, 25 Oct.
1920, 50 (Fisher, p. 82, mistakenly suggests from the Glendining
example that a die break beneath the lower knot of the wreath may
be a pellet control); f) Vienna 28.072, 27 mm; g) Witschonke, 16.29,
29 mm = Banque Populaire du Nord & Credit de la Bourse, Apr. 1987,
119, 16.29.
86 309 3 a) Burnett, fig. 8, 95 = Kricheldorf 36, 4 Dec. 1982, 35, 16.73 = Mace-
donia? 1980 hd., 95; b) Miinz. u. Med. FPL 370, (Aug. 1975), 11,
16.72; c) Turin 2181, 16.72.
86 310 5 a) Prokopov, "Hoard," 14, attributed to the Blagoevgrad vicinity
1981 hd.; b) Bourgey, 25 Mar. 1977, 34, 16.76 = Vinchon, 6-7 Nov.
1976, 16, 16.77; c) Stack, 10-11 June 1970, 199, 16.5; d) Munich,
15.66, 30 mm, pierced; e) Witschonke, 16.47, 27 mm = Aufhauser, 11

Apr. 1991, [no number].
86 311 1 Berlin, Loebbecke, 16.47, 28 mm = Touratsoglou, Circulation, pl. 8, 4
= Gaebler, AMNG, pl. 3, 13.
Obv.: without theta
87 306* 5 a) Burnett 1986, fig. 8, 93 = Macedonia? 1980 hd., 93; b) Lempertz
237, 23 Feb. 1926, 204, 16.8; c) *ANS 1944 100.14288 (Pozzi), 16.97,
28 mm = Fisher, pl. 30, 02-R4 = Boutin 1979, pl. 91, 2114, 16.95; d)
Hersh, 16.33, 27 mm = Spink 20, 6 Oct. 1986, 213, 16.30 = Sternberg
8, 16-17 Nov. 1978, 63, 16.33; e) Witschonke, 16.50, 30 mm = Miinz u.
Med. 17, 7 June 1987, 167.
87 307* 5 a) Berlin 21/1909, 16.81, 29 mm; b) BM 1905-4-6, 15.52, 26 mm =
Mattingly 1979, pl. 4, 1 = Hill, pl. 12, 92 15.49; c) Dresden 656,
15.93; d) Paris 116, 16.15, 29 mm; e) *Witschonke, 16.67, 28 mm =
Superior, 7-10 June 1987, 4077, 16.61 = Fisher, pl. 30, 02-R3 =
Stacks, 6-7 Sept. 1973, 364, 16.67 = Seaby, July 1969, A537 =
Hesperia Art FPL 40/41, Nov. 1967, 34.
Commentary
Neither die links nor special controls connect the CAE PR group with other issues of the
coinage, and even the letter thela, present on the obverse dies since 06C, is unexpectedly
omitted from two of the four CAE PR dies (085 and 087). Despite the absence of a precise
connection, the CAE PR group must fit into the overall order of the AESILLAS-type
coinage much later than the initial group of obverses without theta (group I, 01-05A,
06A-B) and special issue of SVVRA LEG PR0 Q (group IV, 017). Both of those types
64
Catalogue
differ greatly from the CAE PR issues in their tighter, more detailed, and intricate treat-
ment of the portrait of Alexander on the obverse and in their more sharply defined, slender,
and double-knotted handling of the wreath on the reverse. The 4 obverse and 13 reverse dies
of the CAE PR group catalogued here have, in contrast, a much sloppier appearance than
01-019 and are characterized by looser organization of the elements, including less detail in
the obverse portrait together with shorter, fatter laurel leaves with only one example of a
return to the earlier double-knotted ties in the reverse wreath (compare Plates 1-2, group I,
and 11, group VII).
The CAE PR group is also struck on noticeably smaller flans than were used on the initial
issues lacking theta (01-05A, 06A-B). The average diameter of 25 measured examples of
084-087 recorded in the Catalogue is just over 28 mm, while the average of 46 measured
examples of 01-06A is just under 31 mm.11 This reduced dimension creates the appearance
of greater thickness, despite the fact that the average weight of tetradrachms 084-087 is
more than 3/10ths of a gram less than 01-06A.12 In fact, the reduction in diameter and
resulting increased thickness makes the CAE PR examples feel at least as heavy, if not
heavier, than the earlier issues with their broader but thinner flans. This is, however, an
illusion, as the actual weights of the respective coins show. But it does not appear to be an
intentional legerdemain employed by the mint, because the average weight of the CAE PR
tetradrachms (16.37 g) is actually greater than both the previous issues of group VI (i.e.
16.14 g) and those of the following group VIII (16.24 g).
The portrait on the CAE PR obverses is more uniform in style than it might seem at first
glance. While the treatment of the face varies from die to die and results in the superficial
appearance of marked difference from an unidealized portrait with excessively protruding
nose to a uniquely child-like image without any parallel elsewhere in the coinage, there are,
in fact, a number of more technical details shared among all four of the obverse dies that

suggest they were all produced by the same artist or workshop. In the first place, the chin is
treated the same way on all four dies, and a slight differentiation marks the front of the chin
from a double-chin or expansion of the skin coming down from the cheek. This even appears
on the very youthful portrait (Plate 11, 084-087). Second, on all four portraits there is a
line drawn just below the combined ear and horn of Zeus-Ammon that underscores and sets
off the ear-horn. Third, the treatment of the hair is essentially the same throughout. Hori-
zontal locks are placed above the ear-horn, and they merge into nearly vertical locks running
down behind the ear-horn where they meet another group of horizontal locks extending left
from the neck. And fourth, the lowest horizontal lock which loops back from the neck and
drops down toward the letter K of MAKAONQN is treated in exactly the same way on all
four dies. As the bottom end of the looping lock falls toward the legend, it curls back to the
left like the lower half of the letter S (see Plate 11, 085-087).
These elements obviously vary from die to die but nonetheless remain essentially the same
in overall layout. When taken together, they therefore suggest that the changes in the
proportions of the face, while more noticeable, are not indications that the dies come from
different sources. On the contrary, it seems more likely that all four dies were prepared by
the same artist or at least under the same artistic direction.
The 13 reverse dies known from the CAE PR group are also basically uniform in style.
Although the wreath of one die (R309) was cut with at least two double knots, both it and
the rest of the reverses all have the same short, broad bundles of leaves and large berries
(Plate 11). The handling of the Q is also a consistent feature. Throughout it is small with a
short tail oriented parallel to the seat of the sella without overlapping the right-hand edge.
"See "Metrology and Production Controls," pp. 77-79.
12 There are 101 weighed examples of 01-O6A = 16.69 g and 38 of 084-087 = 16.37 g; see "Metrology
and Production Controls," pp. 75-77.
Catalogue
65
Although no die links between the reverses of the CAE PR group and any other issues have
appeared, the wider leaves and single knots, together with the distinctive treatment of the
hair and ear-horn on the obverse, place group VII close to group VIII.
Group VIII: 088-0102
Obv;. Same as before, but portrait more crudely drawn.
No added letters; but pellet added to 089, 90, 91B, 97.
Pellets: R312-317, cista handle; 318-322, 324-327, 329, cista handle and lower knot
of wreath; 323, lower knot only; 328, cista handle, lower knot, and Q tail; 330-333,
below cista; 334, 338-339, below sella; 335-337, 340-372, below cista and sella.
Obv.
Rev.
ID No.
Provenance
Rev.:
pellet on handle of cista
88
312
*Boutin 1979, 2117 (Pozzi), 15.15, 26 mm.
Obv.:
pellet above of MAKAONQN; rev.: as before
89
313

89
314
Lepczyk 50, 26-27 Nov. 1982, 923.
89
315
Munz. u. Med. 177, 10-13 Feb. 1993, 218, 15.77 = Muller 59, 23-24
Sept. 1988, 114, 15.8 = Muller 55, 12-13 June 1987, 42, 15.8.
89
316
Hirsch 48, 24-28 Oct. 1968, 156 = Hirsch, 22 June 1966, 156.
89
317
Munzhandlung Scheiner FPL, [no date], D-37.
Rev.:
second pellet added to lower knot of wreath on all visible dies
90
318
a) Lanz 62, 26 Nov. 1992, 229, 16.12; b) Poinsignon, 4 Dec. 1985 (R.
Heitz), 108.
90
319
a) Elsen 10, 27 June 1988, 54, 15.80; b) NFA, 18 Dec. 1987, 241,
16.24.
90
320
a) Adams-McSorley, [no date], 695 = Weil, 9 May 1978, 7, 16.34; b)
66
Catalogue
Arch., 10552-55, 14.03, 27 mm; h) Sophia, Mus. Arch., 11602-69,
16.32, 27 mm = Prokopov 1987, 2.
90 325 1 Razgrad, 16.25, 27 mm = Prokopov 1987, 5.
90 326 2 a) Plovdiv 1638, uncertain overstrike; b) Sophia, Mus. Arch. 1428,
16.14, 28 mm.
90 327 1 Blagoevgrad 10022, plated?
Rev.: pellet added on tail of Q; nothing under sella; pellet on cista handle and lower knot of
wreath
90 328* 3 a) Kurpfalzische 48, 8-9 June 1995, 147, 16.48; b) Kunker 41, 11-13
Mar. 1998, 104, 16.52 = Lanz 5, 1 Dec. 1975, 154, 16.49; c) Kress
118, 22 June 1961, 354.
Rev.: pellet on handle of cista and lower knot of wreath
90 329 7 a) Munz Zentrum 72, 2-4 Dec. 1991, 307, 16.23; b) Peus 328, 2-4 May
1990, 136, 16.66; c) Lanz 46, 28 Nov. 1988, 227; d) Schulten, 2-4 June
1982, 118, 16.65; e) Seaby 659, July 1973, A742; f) Plovdiv 206; g)
Sophia Mus. Arch. 6250, 16.04, 26 mm.
Obv.: no pellet; rev.: pellet on cista handle, lower knot of wreath, and Q tail
91A 328* 2 a) BM 1866-12-1, 16.50, 28 mm = Mattingly, pl. 4, 3; b) SNGAshm
3305, 16.44, 29 mm.
Rev.: pellet below cista; no pellet on cista handle
91A 330 2 a) *SNGFitz 2349, 16.73; b) SNGAshm 3307, 16.36, 30 mm.
Obv.: pellet added above of MAKAONQN; rev.: pellet under cista only
91B 331 1 Blancon FPL 10, 1991, 61 = Blancon FPL 9, 1991, 110 = Blancon
FPL 8, 1990, 136.
91B 332 5 a) Athena 3, 15 May 1990, 103, 16.74; b) *Fisher, pl. 31, O23-R60 =

Kolner Munzkabinett 20, 14-16 Oct. 1976, 23, 16.73; c) Elsen FPL 31,
Apr. 1981, 7; d) Elsen FPL 17, Sept.-Oct. 1979, 23, 16.67 = Numisma-
tica 19, 7-10 Nov. 1977, 77, 16.63; e) Rauch, 20-21 June 1969, 213.
91B 333 2 a) Vinchon, 12-13 Nov. 1982, 20, 16.37; b) Vinchon, 24 Feb. 1971, 85.
Rev.: pellet beneath sella only
91B 334 1 Berk 54, 29 June 1988,), 37 15.65 = *Macedonia? 1986 hd., 13, 28
mm.
Rev.: pellet beneath sella and on cista handle
91B 335 1 Milan 731, 16.17, 29 mm.
Rev.: pellet beneath sella and under cista
91B 336 1 Knopek, 7-8 Apr. 1978, 189, 16.75 = Kastner 10, 18 May 1976, 25,
16.75.
91B 337 1 Kress 99, 8 Dec. 1955, 150, 16.7 = Cahn 60, 2 July 1928, 472, 16.8.
Rev.: pellet below sella only
92 338* 2 a) Burnett, fig. 8, 100 = Macedonia? 1980 hd., 100; b) *Hague 4904,
15.13, 28 mm.
Catalogue 67
93
338*
*Hague 4905, 15.13, 28 mm.
93
339
Classical Numismatic Auctions 15, 5 June 1991, 81, 16.56.
Rev.:
pellets under sella and cista
93
340
Milan 767 (di Brera), 16.34, 31 mm.
93
341
Peus 304, 18 Mar. 1982, 87, 16.49.
93
342*

a) Emporium 2, 10-12 May 1984, 641; b) Plovdiv 183913; c) Shumen,
16.62, 26 mm = Vladimirova-Aladzova and Prokopov.
93
343
Classical Numismatic Group 25, 24 Mar. 1993, 183, 16.71.
94
344*
a) Ahlstrom 25, 17-18 Apr. 1982, 1593; b) *Numismatica 12, 11-14
May 1976, 29, 16.71.
94
345
Siderokastro 1961 hd. (IGCH 642).
94
346
a) Miiller 21, 22-24 Sept. 1977, 34, 15.38 = Tietjen, 22-23 Oct. 1971,
281, 15.20; b) Malloy FPL 23, July 1971, 277; c) Malloy FPL, Nov.
1970, 410 = Malloy FPL 16, Apr.-May 1970, 456 = Malloy FPL 10,
Apr.-May 1969, 407; d) ANS 1948 19.462, 16.57, 29 mm.
94
347
Classical Numismatic Group 29, 30 Mar. 1994, 89, 16.36 = Kreisberg-
Cohen, 29 June 1970, 56, 16.42.
94
348
a) Numismatica 9, 20-24 Nov. 1975, 62, 16.63 = Numismatica 7, 13-15
Feb. 1975, 62, 16.63 = Dorotheum 347, 18-21 Dec. 1973, 99, 16.46; b)
Munich, 16.64, 30 mm; c) Plovdiv 183912.
94
342*
68
Catalogue
Obv.: pellet below theta (097 only); rev.: as before; third pellet below wreath (R371)
97 361 3 a) *ANS 1960 170.98, 16.57, 32 mm = Fisher, pl. 31, 015-R46; b)
Gottingen; c) Shumen, 15.54, 27 mm = Vladimirova-AIadzova and
Prokopov.
97 362 3 a) Prokopov, "Hoard," 13, no. 7 = Blagoevgrad vicinity 1981 hd., 7,
16.60, 30 mm; b) Coin Galleries FPL, 29 Apr. 1976, 16.46; c) Myers
FPL, 18-19 Nov. 1971, 103 = Myers FPL, 1971, 22 = Myers FPL,
1969, 31.
97 363 3 a) Rosenblum, 23 Mar. 1993, 34, 16.75; b) Coin Galleries FPL, 1968,
20; b) Plovdiv 1658, pierced; c) Vienna S559, 29 mm.
97 364 1 Hess, 3 Apr. 1939, 540, 16.22.
97 365 1 Oldenburg 21, 26-27 Feb. 1987, 50, 16.68.
97 366* 3 a) Rauch, 4-5 June 1971, 40, 16.0; b) Schulman, 26-28 May 1970, 82;
c) Kavala, 29 mm = *Nea Karvali 1963 hd. (IGCH 660), 9.
98 367 3 a) Numismatica Ars Classica 4, 30 Apr. 1998, 1284, 15.77; b) ''Clas-
sical Numismatic Auctions 16, 16 Aug. 1991, 114, 16.25 = Herman
FPL 5, Apr. 1989, 13; c) France Numismatique 20, 22 Feb. 1982, 69.
98 368 4 a) Munz Zentrum 94, 13-15 May 1998, 42, 16.8; b) Kunker 41, 11-13
Mar. 1998, 32, 16.45; c) Munz Zentrum 53, 13-15 Nov. 1984, 1535,
16.19; d) Seaby 703, Mar. 1977, C145, 16.63.
99 369 2 a) ANS 1968 57.9 16.67, 30 mm = Fisher, pl. 31, 017-R48; b) Sophia,
Mus. Arch. 6714, 15.80, 30 mm.
100 370 1 *Buckland, 18, 15 Dec. 1995, 8.
101 371 1 *Miiller 49, 24-25 May 1985, 77, 16.0 = Muller 36, 12-13 Feb. 1982, 75,
16.0 = Kress 176, 14-17 Mar. 1980, 280.

Rev.: pellets under sella and c;'s/a(?)
102 372 ? 1 * Rauch, 9-10 Mar. 1978, 34, pierced.
Commentary
Group VIII of the Aesillas coinage is distinctly different from all previous groups. Not only
is the quality of engraving consistently poorer but the overall care in striking individual
coins is the worst of any group. At the same time, in a very helpful development, a new
variation of the pattern of added pellets seen previously in groups II, IV, and V appears
and reinforces the association of issues based on style.13 These identifying features not only
help to differentiate 088-0102 from other groups of issues but also provide evidence for
placing group VIII at the end of the coinage.
The obverse style of 088-0102 is distinctive in its poor quality. While there have been
occasional cases of sloppy die engraving in the past (e.g. Plate 6, 026 or 10, 077), the
quality of 088-0102 sinks consistently to a new low. Especially noticeable are the poorly
executed locks of hair on the portrait that now look extremely schematic and crudely
rendered, usually with three or more horizontal locks across the top of the head that merge
into three or more diagonal or nearly vertical locks placed in parallel lines behind the ear-
horn. These lines in turn merge into a series of short, horizontal locks running right to left
behind the neck (Plates 11-12). Additionally, on most dies, two or three long locks of hair
descend, like falling strands of rope, from the ear-horn which is itself distinguished by a
13 See also "Metrology and Production Controls," pp. 85-87.
Catalogue
69
second, crescent-shaped line that repeats and underlines the ear-horn combination (see e.g.
Plate 12, 091B-332 or 0101-371; cf. group VI, Plates 10-11, 073-079).
The 59 reverse dies used in group VIII are equally poor in style. This results partly from
the consistent crowding of the elements into a smaller space and partly from the generally
sloppier engraving. The sense of increased crowding in R312-R372 is substantiated by
measurement of the maximum diameter of the open space created by the surrounding
wreath. In fact, the diameter has declined some 20% or 2 mm from roughly 10 mm in the
initial dies 01-06B cut without theta to about 8 mm in the reverses with 088-0102. Since
the width of the wreath itself due to its wider leaves has also increased significantly, the
artistic feeling created by these stylistic developments is that of greater crowding of the
AESILLAS legend and other central elements. The normal rendering of the wreath in this
group of reverses is, moreover, not just wider than most previous reverses but altogether
sloppier with single-knotted bundles of stubby leaves and large berries and stems, all very
deeply and crudely engraved (compare Plates 11-12 with group I, Plates 1-2).
Another feature that distinguishes group VIII is the consistently poor quality of striking.
While the entire Aesillas-type coinage is noteworthy for its very high percentage of coins
struck off-center to the degree that some of the obverse MAKAONQN legend or some
section of the reverse wreathor bothare off the flan, the degree of off-center striking in
group VIII is the worst of all groups. No doubt the overall smaller flan size contributes to
this, but, again, the sloppier, less compact die engraving of the types is also a factor.
Although the tetradrachms of group VIII may have the poorest style, they are not the
worst in standard weight. The average weight of 71 tetradrachms from 088-0102 is 16.24 g
or l/10th of a gram heavier than the average weight of group VI, 16.14 g. This is, however,
more than 1 /10th of a gram lower than the 16.37 g average weight of 29 tetradrachms of the
CAE PR issues of group VII and close to 1/2 gram (.42 g) below the 16.66 g average of

groups I-II."
The pellets added during group VIII harken back to the reverse pellets sporadically used
in groups II, IV, and V but present two new features not seen previously. In all of the earlier
examples, the pellets appeared beneath the sella, below the lower knot of the wreath, or
between the Q and sella (see e.g. group II, R53-56, 60-75; group IV R93; group V, R100-
133). In group VIII, however, the pellets first appear in an entirely new place, on the handle
of the cista (R312-317). Next, a second pellet is added to the lower knot of the wreath
(R318-322), then the tail of the Q (R328), under the cista (R330-333), under the sella
(R334, 338-339), and finally under the cista and sella both (R335-337, 340-372). Moreover,
the six different reverse pellet arrangements found on the nine different reverse dies used
with 091A-B catalogued here testify to the mint's apparent inconsistency in the placement
of the pellets and to the surprising inconsistency of their application.15
Drachms, Dr. 1-Dr. 7
Without theta (Dr. 1-Dr. 6), fr (Dr. 7).
Pellet above chest handle on Dr. 7-7.
For imitations of drachms, see Dr. Im. 1 below.
14 See "Metrology and Production Controls," pp. 75-77.
15 For further discussion and possible explanations for the added pellets, see "Metrology and Production
Controls," pp. 85-87.
70
Catalogue
Obv.: no theta; for related tetradrachm issues, see 01-06B
11 2 a) Paris 120, 3.97, 20 mm = Gobl, 1978, pl. 47, 691 = Gaebler, AMNG,
71, 218, and pl.3, 5; b) *Paris 35/224, 20 mm = Egger 40, 2 May 1912,
472, 3.99 = J. Hirsch, 16 Nov. 1908 (Weber), 1061, 3.99, 19 mm.
2 2 1 *Witschonke, 3.87, 20 mm = Munz. u. Med. 554, May 1992, 11.
3 3 1 *Bologna, Palagi Coll., 4.20 = Rosati 1963, 298.
4 4 1 *BM 1873-5-8-1, 3.73, 18 mm, pierced = Head, Guide, 112, 9, pl. 65, 9
= BMC, 20, 86 = Bompois, 96, 7.
5 5 1 *ANS 1944 100.14292, 2.90, 19 mm, pierced and broken.
6 6 1 *SNGEvelpidis 1483, 3.63.
Obv.: B- to r. of portrait; rev.: pellet above chest handle; for related tetradrachm issues, see
014
7 7 1 *Berlin 311/1881, 3.93, 18 mm, pierced = Touratsoglou, Circulation, pl.
8, 5 = Gaebler, AMNG, 3, 9, 8; pl. 3, 14, 3.94.
Commentary
With the possible exception of Dr. 5-5, the rare fractions of the Aesillas type are struck on
flans that fall within the normal weight variation of Attic-weight drachms. The abnormally
light weight of Dr. 5-5 is, however, easily discounted as the result of piercing, breakage, and
other mistreatment, especially since its maximum preserved diameter is 19 mm, which is
right in the middle of the 18 mm to 20 mm variation of other examples that are undoubt-
edly intended as Attic-weight drachms.
As a group, the drachms appear to connect with just two groups of the tetradrachm issues.
Since the first six examples lack any identifying marks on their obverses, they are most
likely associated with the tetradrachm issues minted without thela (group I, 01-06B),

while Dr. 7-7 surely belongs with the unique fr issue (group III, 014). Furthermore, Dr. 1-1
is closely related in style to 01-02; Dr. 2-2 to 05; and Dr. 3-3 to 06 (compare Plate 13,
Dr. 1-1, 2-2, 3-3, with Plates 1-2, 01-1, etc.).
In addition to the fr monogram on its obverse, Dr. 7-7 has a pellet placed on the reverse
above the chest handle. This may provide further evidence of the connection between the
theta issues of 07-013, which also have reverse pellets and are die linked to 014 through
R61, and 014 itself, which otherwise has no pellets on its surviving reverse dies.
While stylistic connections suggest that the drachms were minted in connection with
specific tetradrachm issues, there is, however, no evidence to explain why drachms would
have been required at certain times. There is, at present, an insufficient number of surviving
specimensnote the miserable 1.1 survival ratioto provide any estimate of the original
size of the drachm issues.
Ancient Imitations and Forgeries: Im. 1-Im. 7 and Dr. Im. 1
Im. 1-Im. 2, without theta; Im. 3-Im. 6 and Dr. Im. 1, with theta; Im. 1, added
pellets.
Im.1, pellet under sella.
Catalogue
71
Tetradrachms
Obv.: no theta, pellets; rev.: sella to i. and cista to r.; pellet under sella
1 1 1 *ANS 1977 158.177, 15.73, 28 mm.
Obv.: no theta
2 2 1 *Schulten, 2-4 June 1982, 26, 16.20, 26 mm, rev. legend AQILLAS =
Peus 250, 1954 (Lejeune), 2189.
Obv.: theta
3 3 1 *Witschonke, 13.90, 29 mm.
4 4 1 *Budapest 17A/916.9, 13.01, 29 mm, pierced and clad.
5 5 1 *Oslo 13.06, 32 mm.
Obv.: MAKEONQN
Rev.: SVVR[A LEG] PR0 |Q] replaces AESILLAS
6 6 1 *BM 1974-1-2, 13.82, 28 mm = Carradice and Price 1988, pl. 18, 240,
obv. only.
7 7 2 a) *Witschonke, 15.84, 31 mm = Hersch, 15.85 (said to be from
Macedonia? 1986 hd.) = Hurter la, 15.86; b) *Witschonke, 16.95,
29 mm.
Drachms
Obv.: theta; for stylistically similar tetradrachm issues, see group VI, 058-059
11 6 a) *G. Hirsch 87, 1-4 Apr. 1974, 65, 3.85; b) Galerie des Monnaies
FPL 22, June 1972, 198, 2.72; c) Hesperia Art FPL 45-46, [no date],
223; d) BCD Coll. (forgery coll.), 3.94, 16 mm; e) BCD Coll. (forgery
coll.), 3.89c, 15 mm; f) Paris 1969/858, 4.81, 18 mm.
Commentary

Ancient imitations and forgeries of the Aesillas type are rare. Only eight tetradrachms of
the ca. 1,000 examples included in this study display clear evidence of unofficial production.
Im. 1-1 is perhaps the most obvious, given its barbarous portrait style, omitted MAKAONQN
legend, and transposed reverse elements (i.e. sella and backwards Q to the left of the club
and cista to the right); but surprisingly, the Latin legend AESILLAS is correct, and both
the obverse and reverse dies have pellets in imitation of the control system used in groups II,
IV, V, and VIII. On the reverse, a pellet is placed under the sella in the position often used
on official issues (compare Plate 13, Im. 1-1, and Plate 3, 010-54, etc.). On the obverse,
however, there is both a large single pellet to the right of the neck and three smaller pellets
forming a triangle at the edge of the flan, and, although individual obverse pellets appear in
the normal coinage on 042B, 091B, and 097, there is no parallel for the three, triangulated
pellets found on Im. 1-1.
Although it presents a better imitation of the Aesillas type than Im. 1-1, Im. 2-2 is also
unmistakably barbaric. On the obverse, the portrait of Alexander conflates the horn of
Zeus-Ammon and ear and produces an ugly composite that curls downward to a point
(Plate 13, Im. 2-2). On the reverse, the elements are basically correct except for the
misspelled legend, AEfiILLAS, and the double-wave and dot design that replaces the
72
Catalogue
usual knot at the top of the wreath. As on Im. 1-1, the wreath itself has a combination of
single and double knots.
At first glance, Im. 3-3 may not appear to be "barbarous" in style; but close comparison of
the obverse portrait and reverse wreath with the portraits and wreaths presented in the
Catalogue shows that these dies are subtly yet unmistakably different. In particular, the
obverse is overly schematic with the locks of hair rendered as repetitive stacks of parallel
lines ending in three identical hooks. There are no obverse dies in the Catalogue that have
this much undifferentiated repetition in the rendering of Alexander's hair. Likewise on the
reverse, the very large, flaring handle of the cista, the sloppy treatment of the upper and
lower knots of the wreath, as well as the lack of individual distinction between the laurel
leaves are all without parallel among the hundreds of reverse dies of unquestionably official
issues. Combined with the fact that the example in question weighs only 13.90 g, it seems
certain that Im. 3-3 is not an official issue. There is, however, one unusual feature of the
obverse that connects Im. 3-3 with a specific series of issues in the Catalogue. The center
of the combined ear and horn of Zeus-Ammon has a raised bead, and this treatment is other-
wise found only on 017-021 (compare Im. 3-3 with Plates 5-6, 017-021).
Im. 4-4 must be an ancient forgery. While the obverse and reverse dies very closely repro-
duce the details of official issues in group VI (compare especially Plates 10-11, 073-079),
the coin's light weight (13.01 g) proves to be the result of plating which has been revealed by
the gradual decay of the silver wash originally concealing a bronze core (Plate 13, Im. 4-4).
This is the work of a clever counterfeiter, and it probably originates from the time when suffi-
cient numbers of Aesillas-type tetradrachms were circulating to diminish the likelihood that
any single example would be weighed or otherwise tested to prove its genuineness or worth.
Small details of Im. 5-5 also betray its unofficial origin. Like Im. 3-3 and Im. 4-4, Im. 5-5
is significantly light, weighing only 13.06 g. Taken alone this would not prove anything,

since some seemingly genuine Aesillas issues (e.g. 080-083) fall as low as 13.01 g, but in
the case of Im. 5-5, the suspiciously light weight goes together with several other anomalous
details that are not shared by other light-weight issues. In the first place, the engraving of
Im. 5-5 is not like the work of any of the accepted dies. Although subtle, the differences are
clear. While the obverse portrait style is similar to 032-045, the lettering of MAKAONQN is
much larger and follows a different curve than 032 and associated issues (compare e.g. Plate
7, 038A-168, and Plate 13, Im. 5-5). In addition, the 32 mm maximum diameter of Im. 5-5
together with its unusually light weight makes it feel strangely thin and different from
regular examples. Finally, the die axis of Im. 5-5 is wrong. Instead of the normal orientation
close to twelve o'clock, it is four o'clock. This is especially suspicious, since even the other
tetradrachm imitations all vary only between eleven o'clock and one o'clock. When taken
together, these anomalies provide convincing evidence that Im. 5-5 is not an official issue.
Im. 6-6 is an ancient attempt to copy the special issue of SVVRA. Though damaged, Im.
6-6 appears to copy correctly the reverse legend SVVRA LEG PR0 Q used with 017
(Plate 5, 017-92); but the very crude style of this SVVRA issue bears little stylistic resem-
blance to the unquestionably official issue. Both the obverse and reverse dies are poorly cut;
and the obverse legend is misspelled MAKQNQN or MAKANQN. The coin is also plated
and weighs only 13.82 g. Whether it simply represents some kind of poorly made unofficial
issue or an outright forgery is unclear, but the artistic crudeness of the dies and light weight
point to the conclusion that it was not an official issue and therefore does not belong in the
main Catalogue of Aesillas types."1
Very clever imitations of the SVVRA LEG PR0 Q type, both produced from 017-92,
recently appeared on the international numismatic market. One was said to have come
16 De Callatay,"Aesillas," includes this issue in his main catalogue without comment.
Catalogue
73
from the Macedonia? 1986 hoard (Im. 7-7a); but Sylvia Hurter has pointed out that it is
actually a copy of the British Museum's pierced example of 01 7-92.17 Close examination of
the obverse reveals a faint ghost of the hole bored through the field in front of the portrait
of Alexander. In addition, on the reverse, where the piercing of the British Museum example
(Plate 13, 017-92e) destroyed the knot of the laurel wreath, the forgers incorrectly restored
the wreath with a single knot instead of a double knot (compare Plate 13, 017-92[c] and
Plate 13, Im. 7-7[a]). The second example, Im. 7-7b, also has the incorrect single knot on
the reverse and is otherwise suspect because of its unparalleled die axis of five o'clock.
One variety of the rare Aesillas-type drachms has been identified as a modern forgery (Dr.
Im. l-l).18 The type apparently first appeared in the late 1960s, and several examples have
subsequently been offered in international sales. While the style and execution of the die
engraving of this drachm type are not immediately suspect (compare esp. Plate 9, 058-
059), there are, nevertheless, some features that do not fit with the other Aesillas drachms.
In the first place, one of the six known examples weighs only 2.72 g although there is no
evidence of damage to the original flan. This coin might, by itself, be considered a hemi-
drachm, but the problem with such an idea is that the light-weight example is struck from
the same obverse die as other heavier examples and has no distinguishing details added to
alert the user to any intended difference in the coin's value. It consequently seems most
likely that whoever struck this coin intended, despite its very low weight, to pass it off as
a drachm. At the same time, another example of Dr. Im. 1 has the extremely high weight of
4.81 gnearly one gram heavier than the roughly 3.8 g average weight of Attic drachms.
And since such gross disregard for weight is out of keeping with the rest of the coinage, it
raises serious doubt about the authenticity of this variety.
In addition to the peculiar weights, the known die axes of these drachms also do not fit
with the regular Aesillas coinage. Instead of the normal eleven o'clock to one o'clock orienta-

tion of the dies, at least three of these drachms are orientated to six or seven o'clock. This
anomaly can only be paralleled on imitation tetradrachms (Im. 5-5, Im. 7-7) and reinforces
the distinctly different character of these drachms from Dr. 1-Dr. 6, both in general style
and in the fact that none of the undoubtedly official drachms has added thela as an obverse
control. It thus seems right to conclude that Dr. Im. 1 does not legitimately belong to the
original Aesillas coinage.19
17 Hurter, p. 10.
18 I am grateful to Basil Demetriadi for bringing his suspicions about this drachm variety to my atten-
tion.
19 De Callatay, "Aesillas," includes this drachm type in his study but expresses scepticism about its
authenticity in a footnote.
METROLOGY AND PRODUCTION CONTROLS
The metrological data and the evidence provided by numerous marks added at one time
or another to both obverse and reverse dies makes reconstruction of the sequence of issues in
the Aesillas coinage more straightforward than it would be if the type had been produced
with no additions. Fortunately, while never abandoning the basic obverse or reverse designs,
the minting authorities repeatedly adjusted metrological aspects of the coinage and applied
changing devices that differentiate particular segments of production. The most obvious are
the CAE PR MAKAONQN in place of the normal MAKAONQN on the obverse of four
dies and the reverse replacement of AESILLAS with SVVRA LEG PR0 Q on just one
die.1 But there are also a number of other features that appear at various points during the
production of the coinage. This section will examine weight, flan size, die axes, striking
patterns, and possible control systems in order to see what, if any, relationship these aspects
of the coinage may have to the arrangement of the groups of issues presented in the Cata-
logue.
WEIGHTS
Weight2
Group I
//
///
/V
V/
VII
VIII
Total
17.10+

17.00-17.09
10
16.90-16.99
14
26
16.80-16.89
21
20
25
82
16.70-16.79
37
40
26
11
130
16.60-16.69
13
44
11
17
11
76
Metrology and Production Controls
15.30-15.39 1 3 4
15.20-15.29 1 5 1 7
15.10-15.19 2 2
15.00-15.09 4 4
14.99 or less 1 11 2 14
Total: 101 143 98 15 36 196 38 81 708
Average: 16.44g
The most frequently occurring range of weights and overall average of each group:
Group
Characteristics
Most Frequent
Average
I (1-6D)
No theta (theta added 5B/6C)
16.70-16.79
16.69
II (7-13)
Theta, with pellet controls
16.60-16.69
16.64
III (14-15)
fr and 8, no pellets (except drachm)
16.70-16.79
16.74
IV (16-19)

S I and theta, pellets and SVVRA
16.60-16.69
16.32
V (20-31)
Theta, pellets
16.60-16.69
16.43
VI (32-83)
Theta, no pellets
16.50-16.59
16.14
VII (84-87)
CAE PR, thetajno theta, pellet R302
16.30-16.39
16.37
VIII (88-102)
Theta, pellets
16.40-16.49
16.24
Analysis of the tetradrachm weights known for the Aesillas coinage reveals that the
average weight fell by .45 g, from 16.69 g to 16.24 g, between groups I and VIII. The decline
in average weight is not steady throughout the coinage, but there is a definite and hardly
random difference between groups I-III, all of which average more than 16.60 g, and groups
IV-VIII, none of which averages more than 16.43 g. We can see quite clearly that the
minting authorities began with the intention that each Aesillas tetradrachm should weigh
between 16.60 and 16.80 g. In fact, 242 of all of the weighed examples (34%) fall into that
very small range, and more than one-half (57%) of weighed examples from group I weigh
between 16.60 and 16.90 g. However, the initially higher intended weight of the earliest
three groups was soon compromised by production of increasing numbers of significantly
lighter coins. Groups I-III have only 27 examples (8%) weighing below the 16.40 g average
of all issues, but groups IV-VIII have 182 (50%), or six times more, tetradrachms below the
average, including all of the 14 examples known to weigh less than 14.99 g. Moreover,
compared to nine examples of 101 weighed tetradrachms of group I less than 16.40 g,
group VIII has 42 of its total of 81.
The weights therefore show that the minting authorities not only permitted a steady
decline in the artistic quality of die engraving already noted in the Commentary but also
increasingly tolerated sloppily prepared, undersized, and underweight flans to be used for
the coinage. At the beginning, groups I-III reflect concern both for high precision (only 8%
or 27 of 342 tetradrachms of I-III fall below the 16.4 g average of all weighed coins) and for
high accuracy (50% of all group I-III tetradrachms weigh between 16.60 and 16.79 g).
Groups IV to VIII, on the other hand, reflect both low precision (50% or 182 of 366 tetra-
drachms fall below the 16.4 g average) and low accuracy (only 19% of group IV to VIII
tetradrachms weigh 16.60 to 16.79 g). For such a clear pattern to develop must have taken
77
Number
140 . ..
<15 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 16 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 17 .1 >17.1 grams
Tetradrachm Weights
FLANS
Examining tetradrachm diameters by group, the following data emerge.
Diameter4
Group I
//
III
/V
VI
VII
VIII
Total
35
34
33
10
17
32
11
28
31
10
11
33
30
14
49
29
23
58
28

78
27 282930 31 32 33 34 35
Tetradrachm Diameters
30
25
20
15
10
GROUPS /
VI-VIII /
26 rr''
29q Q
/ / \ \ GROUPS l-V
/ ' \ t]'6
11 / \ \
9 rj
\ b.6
25 26 27
28
29
30 31 32 33 34
35
Diameters by Group
Only 276 tetradrachms (about 28%) could be measured in this study, but the results are
nevertheless clear and significant. Once again, there is a distinct difference between the
earlier half of the coinage, represented by groups I to V, and the later issues of groups VI

to VIII. During the more closely linked groups I to V, the mint struck flans that averaged
just under 31 mm in diameter. No flan in groups I to V measured as little as 26 mm, only
two 27 mm diameters were found, and flans of 31 mm and 30 mm were most common at 29
examples each. On the other hand, there were 6 flans measuring 34 mm and 17 at 33 mm.
Compared to the distinctive pattern of the earlier groups, groups VI to VIII averaged just
over 28 mm and had no flans greater than 32 mm. On the contrary, groups VI to VIII had
numerous diameters of 27 mm and even 26 mm, and 27 mm (found 31 times) was the third
most frequently found diameter after 29 mm (which occurred 33 times) and 28 mm (which
occurred 32 times).
79
The shrinking diameter of the flans thus parallels the reduction in the average weight of
the coinage. It seems clear that after the early groups had been minted and put into circula-
tion, the individual tetradrachms subsequently produced were subjected to less careful and
consistent quality controls, and both the average weight and dimension of the flans gradu-
ally diminished. In terms of the diameters, the outcome was that the engravers preparing the
obverse and reverse dies, being slower to react than they might have been, continued to cut
dies for flans averaging 30 mm or more when the actual diameter was falling to 28 mm or
less. The result was that increasing numbers of the obverse or reverse dies were struck
partially off flan. Careful inspection of numerous examples indicates that in the later
groups, this feature was less likely the result of haste or carelessness of minting than the
result of the basic dimensional inadequacy of the flans (e.g. Plate 12, 095-357 from
group VIII).
DIE AXES
No individual record of the die axis has been provided in the Catalogue, because it appears
to be pointless. The vast majority of AESILLAS issues from all eight groups have a twelve
o'clock orientation or something very close to it. Since the normal deviations from this orien-
tation are simply movements toward eleven o'clock or one o'clock, either of which variations
could represent nothing more than unintentional shifting of the dies due to carelessness on
the part of the workers striking the coins, there appears to be nothing further to be learned
from special study of this detail.
One exception to the standard orientation of the dies occurs on an imitation of the
SVVRA LEG PR0 Q issue, where a recognizably modern forgery of the SVVRA reverse
(R92) has its reverse set at five o'clock (Im. 7-7b = Witchonke, 16.95; see above, pp. 71-73).
Given the otherwise exceptional nature of the SVVRA type, the singular deviation of one of
the examples does not invalidate the general rule of unquestionably official AESILLAS

issues. This conclusion is furthermore strengthened by the fact that the only other example
of a truly deviant die axis (four o'clock) occurs on an otherwise suspicious tetradrachm that
must surely be an imitation rather than an official AESILLAS issue (Im. 5-5, p. 71). This
observation also applies to one drachm variety (Dr. Im. 1-1) that is otherwise anomolous and
suspect as a modern forgery (p. 71).
STRIKING PATTERNS
Enough evidence has been collected in this study to permit some discussion of the striking
patterns reflected in the various groups of issues presented in the Catalogue. The most
important advantage for this discussion is the greatly increased number of different reverse
dies now identified with the 102 obverse dies known. In previous die studies, Fisher identi-
fied 160 reverse dies and de Callatay, 269. Here the number has reached 377.5 With the
increased numbers have come more reverse die links and clearer evidence of the progressive
deterioration of individual obverse dies during the course of their use. Fisher correctly recog-
nizes 9 reverse die links and de Callatay, 13.6 The present study has identified 50.
5 Fisher, pp. 82-88; de Callatay, "Aesillas." In fact, de Callatay's R66-67 are the same reverse, R53 = R47,
and R72, said to be published by Thompson, Athens, pl. 73, A, does not exist as cited, so his actual total is
266.
Five of Fisher's alleged die links do not exist: O13-R30 = O14-R30, 015-R47 = 016-R47, 023-R62 =
024-R62, O34-R100 = O35-R100, and 069-R134 = O70-R134 are bogus because all the paired coins are
80
Reverse Die Connections
O-R
O-R
Fisher
de Callatay
1.
1-1
2-1
2.
1-2B
2-2B
O30-R81
= 031-R81 D12-R61 = D13-R61
3.
1-5
2-5
O30-R79
= 031-R79 D12-R60 = D13-R60
4.
3-8
6A-8
5.
3-12
6A-12
6.
3-13
6A-13

D16-R74 = D17-R74
027-R72
= 028-R72a D16-R73 = D17-R73
7.
4-15
5A-15
8.
4-15
6A-15
9.
4-16
5A-16
028-R78
= 029-R78
10.
4-16
6A-16
11.
5A-21
6A-21
12.
6B-26
7-26
13.
9-47
10-47
14.
9-48
81
44.
86-306
= 87-306
02-R4 =
03-R4
D92-R262
= D93-R262
45.
86-307
= 87-307
02-R3 =
03-R3
D92-R261
= D93-R261
46.
90-328
= 91A-328
47.
92-338
= 93-338
48.
93-342
= 94-342
49.
94-344
50.

= 95-344
95-357
= 96-357
Increasing the number of examples studied by more than 400 over Fisher's and de Calla-
tay's totals has produced 33 new die links. Furthermore, the careful collation of over 1,300
examples into a catalogue of approximately 1,000 different tetradrachms has repeatedly
provided better evidence for known examples, especially in the form of clearer illustrations
from different sources. This has made the difficult work of comparing and differentiating the
hundreds of reverse dies a far easier undertaking than it would have been otherwise and
provides noteworthy details about each group.
Group I, 01-06D. In the beginning, the Aesillas coinage has significant reverse die
linkage. Within group I eleven reverses carry over from one obverse to another, and in two
cases (R15 and 16), a single reverse is used with three obverses (04, 5, and 6). The pattern
of striking is, however, somewhat difficult to reconstruct, because it is not predictable.
Rather than following a simple progression of 01 with A, B, and C, 02 with C, D, and E,
and 03 with E, F, and G, the minting authorities often retired reverse dies for a period of
time, during which new reverses were prepared and used, and then brought the retired
reverse die out of storage and used it again. Thus the reverses cannot be arranged in a
simple progression carrying over from one obverse immediately to the next. On the contrary,
the evidence of degeneration visible on the involved obverses provides the only reliable infor-
mation for establishing the order in which the reverses were used within the life of a given
obverse. This arrangement is dictated by the objective evidence of die wear, and, in the
Aesillas coinage, it repeatedly eliminates the possibility of any simple, progressive ordering
of the reverses.
Periods of inactivity vary. In group I, R8 is used with 03 and then set aside until early in
the life of 06 (06A); R13 is also employed with 03 and then held back until 06A; and R16
is used with 04, retired until late in the life of 05, and then brought back a second time
after 06 had been used with six other reverses. Why the minting authorities chose to set
aside reverse dies that were not entirely worn out cannot be determined. But what matters
most is that the reused dies link both individual obverse dies and separate groups. R26, for
example, carries over between groups I and II, and, since there is more evidence of wear on
R26 with 07 than with 06, the relative sequence of groups I and II is confirmed.7
From die links and stylistic uniformity, the striking of issues in group I appears to have
been rapid and concentrated. The obverses are also unified by the consistently visible signs
of wear reinforced by the consistently large number of reverse dies known to have been used
with each obverse.8 Many of the more than 120 examples in the Catalogue are struck off-
center, despite the flan size being adequate for the dies. This occurs particularly in connec-
tion with 06, and it seems that extraordinary measures were taken to extend the productive
life of this obverse die.
Group II, 07-013. The striking pattern of this group is similar to group I. Internally,
there are ten reverse die links, with R48 connecting three of the seven obverses09, 010,
and 011. As in group I, the links occur unpredictably rather than in a straightforward
82
progression. R49, for example, is used with 09 and then set aside until late in the life of
01l; R50 jumps from 09 to 012B; and R51 from 09 to 0l2C. There are numerous signs
of wear on the obverses with 09 and 012 continuing after degeneration was clear and
extensive. Moreover, the number of known reverses used with each obverse continues to be
high.9
Group III, 014-015. Though connected to group II by a shared reverse (R61), 014 and
015 are distinguished from the series of issues minted under the authority of theta by re-
placement of theta with B- and 8. The style of the new obverses is also quite different from
those of groups I and II, but the pattern of striking is similar. The obverses are connected to
one another by two reverse die links (R82, R85), and the combination of visible wear, recut-
ting, and the use of numerous reverse dies014 (10) and 015 (5)indicate that the
minting activity was again rapid and intensive.
Group IV, 016-019. These issues are closely connected with the last issue of group II.
R76 is carried over from 013 and used with both 016 and 017. But since fewer examples
of 016-019 survive and are not as well connected with one another as the issues of groups
I-III, reconstructing their original sequence of production is difficult and remains somewhat
tentative. Fortunately, all issues of group IV have in common the addition of S I on the
obverse and an anomalous portrait style that permit their association as a distinct group.
There is, however, no clear indication of prolonged use of the obverses to the point of
obvious deterioration, and only 017 and 018 provide evidence of use with multiple rever-
ses017 with 7, and 018 also with 5. What this suggests is that group IV represents a brief
period of extraordinary activity carried out at the mint marked theta under the special
control of S I.10
Group V, 020-031. Reverse die linkage connects the early obverses of this group, 021-
032, and their style initially continues the distinctive ear-horn treatment of the previous

group. But despite the sporadic reappearance of added pellet controls, now placed beneath
the Q as well as between the legs of the sella, the 12 obverses of group V become increas-
ingly diverse in style and offer less evidence of a uniform pattern of production. 021 is used
with eight reverses, two of which are reused with later obverses, and 025, used with nine, is
twice recut to extend its life. However, several of the other obverses arc known from single
examples, and there is no evidence of prolonged use similar to 021 and 025. Overall, group
V thus presents the appearance of sporadic and uneven production replacing the intense,
uniform, and closely connected issues of the previous groups.
Group VI, 032-083. The 52 obverse dies of group VI represent over half of all the known
obverses of the regular Aesillas coinage. They do not, however, constitute a homogeneous
group either in style or in production. Considering the large size of the group, there is very
little die linkage between issues" and, overall, the survival record is poor. Seventeen of the
obverses are known from single examples;12 only 6 obverses preserve evidence of recutting to
repair damage resulting from prolonged use;13 and only 13 of the 52 obverses are used with
more than 5 reverses.11 This record points to sporadic rather than continuous minting, and it
is paralleled by a significant decline in overall concern for the maintenance of accurate
weight standards, lowered quality of die cutting, and less precision in striking.15
07, 9 dies; 08, 1; 09, 9; 010, 5; 0l1, 9; 012, 15; and 013, 6.
10 For an explanation of these obverse controls, see "Obverse Letters and Monograms," pp. 84-85.
11 Just eleven links, three of which are between the same two obverse dies (041A-C and 042A-B).
'2 036, 039, 049, 050, 052, 053, 066, 067, 069, 074, 075, 077, 079, 080, 081, 082, and 083.
' 032A-B, 033A-B, 038A-B, 041A-C, 042A-B, and 070A-B.
' 032, 8 dies; 035, 9; 038A-B, 8; 041A-C, 10; 042A-B, 10; 043, 8; 045, 6; 059, 7; 060, 6; 068, 6;
070A-B, 10; and 078, 8.
15 See pp. 75-79, describing the significantly underweight tetradrachms. For the declining quality of die
cutting and striking, see Commentary on group VI, pp. 59-62.
83
Group VII, 084-087. The CAE PR issues are not die linked either to group VI or group
VIII and include two obverses (085 and 087) that omit theta. It is possible that these
obverses were prepared separately from the minting authority of theta, but both of the dies
without theta are linked to obverses with theta (084 and 086) and both of the known reverse
dies used with 087 were first used with 086. This close linkage, together with the fact that
one of the three reverses used with 085 is shared with 084, suggests that the extraordinary
CAE PR issues were brief and at least began under the minting authority of theta. Volume
was clearly small. Only 086 occurs with more than three reverse dies (it has nine). 087,
used with only two reverses, has a severe die break on the high relief of the portrait. There
is nothing at present to indicate that this break is the result of prolonged use rather than
premature breakdown.
Group VIII, 088-0102. The 15 obverse dies of group VIII are not consistent in style but
are unified by their smaller flans, lighter average weight, applied pellets, and generally
poorer quality striking. Aside from 5 die links that are evenly spread through the 15
obverses, there is little evidence to associate individual issues, and the survival record is
inconsistent enough to suggest that there may be more issues not yet recorded. Four of the
15 obverses are known from single examples and 2 more from only 2 examples.18 There are,
however, more signs of intensive striking than survive for groups VI and VII. Five obverse
dies are used with more than 5 reverses,17 and there are obvious indications of deterioration
caused by prolonged use on 090, 091A-B, 093, and 097. It therefore appears that, despite
its stylistic inconsistency, the final group was produced with greater intensity than groups VI
and VII but, for unknown reasons, is equally poorly represented in the surviving material
available today.
Drachms. The striking pattern of the rare Aesillas drachms cannot be reconstructed with
any certainty. The only thing that seems clear about the production of the drachms is that

they were apparently not struck independently of the tetradrachms but rather as extraor-
dinary supplements to recognizable issues in the tetradrachm coinage. From the very small
number of surviving examples, it also appears that the drachm issues were very limited in
number and volumebut this conclusion may be modified by future discoveries, since the
survival ratio is extremely low.18
POSSIBLE CONTROL SYSTEMS
One of the most puzzling features of the Aesillas coinage is the addition of numerous
marks on the obverse and reverse dies. To begin with, what do the obverse controls of
theta, B-, and reversed beta mean? If, as most commentators believe, they provide the abbre-
viated names of distinct minting authorities, can we locate the places represented by the
different marks? And if these marks are absent, does that omission mean, as one numisma-
tist has argued,19 that yet another separate minting authority should be identified? Second,
what is the significance of the Latin letters SI added to several obverse dies already marked
with theta'! Do they indicate value, as some have believed?20 Or could they represent the
special authorization of a particular magistrate? Third, what do the letters and monograms
16 One example: 088, 0100, 0101, 0102; two: 092, 099.
"090, 12 dies; 091, 9; 093, 6; 094, 13; and 097, 6.
18 There are seven obverse dies represented for the eight known examples of undoubtedly authentic
drachms (Drachms, Dr. 1-Dr. 6, pp. 69-70). This yields a miserable survival ratio of 1:1.6.
19 See Gaebler, "Munzkunde," p. 177, and AMNG, p. 70.
20 See Friedlaender, pp. 179-80, accepted by Gaebler, "Munzkunde," p. 178; also Bellinger, p. 139, Alfoldi,
p. I11, and tentatively by Hill, p. 159.
84
intermittently added to the periphery of the reverse dies during groups I-III signify? If they
are not mint marks, as is now generally agreed, what other possible explanations are there?
Finally, what is the meaning of the pellets added intermittently to reverse and rarely to
obverse dies? Are they part of some elaborate system of accounting used by the mint to
control production of various issues? Are they intended to serve as subtle and somewhat
concealed proof of legitimacy? Or could they simply be marks of reference differentiating
the work of different die engravers? Previous numismatists have offered a number of plau-
sible and occasionally ingenious explanations for all of these puzzling features, and some
discussion has been initiated in the above commentaries to the groups where the involved
issues appear.
Obverse Letters, Monograms, and Pellets
Three distinct letter forms appear on obverse dies of the Aesillas coinage: theta, fr, and
reverse beta. S I cannot be considered in the same category, because the Latin letters S I
appear only on obverse dies that also have the letter theta and therefore obviously cannot
serve the same purpose as added theta, B-, and reverse beta. The possible meaning of S I on
the obverses has been discussed in the Commentary, 016-019, pp. 48-49.
Of the three principal obverse die marks, theta appears on all but eight of the 102 obverse
dies identified in this study, 01-04, 014-015, 085, and 087. Since theta issues are die
linked not only with those having no obverse die marks (01-04) but also with the obverse
die that replaces theta with B- (014), it might seem reasonable to conclude that theta identi-
fies the mint authority ultimately responsible for all issues of the Aesillas coinage regardless
of what marks were added to (or subtracted from) the obverse dies.21 The problem with this
conclusion is that it cannot offer a convincing explanation for the omission of and substitu-
tions for the theta mark. If theta is, in fact, the designation of the mint responsible for the
production of everything, why would it not be a constant feature, like the types or the

legend MAKAONQN? It is easy enough to understand the addition of special features as
21 This parallels precisely the conclusion offered by Kleiner in The Early Cistophoric Coinage, p. 120: "The
royal mint at Pergamum was responsible for striking cistophori on a regular basis for four Attalid cities:
Pergamum itself, Sardes, Synnada, and Apameia." For criticism of Kleiner's conclusion and presentation of
a different explanation, closer to the one offered here for the Aesillas coinage, see Merkholm, "Reflections,"
pp. 50-53. For Kleiner's response, see "Further Reflections," pp. 48-52.
Obverse Die Marks
No marks
theta
theta with S I
theta
theta with added pellet
CAE PR with theta
CAE PR without theta
theta
theta with added pellet
01-05A/06B
05B/06C-013
014
015
016-019
020-083
042B
084, 086
085, 087
088-0102
089, 090, 091A, 097
85
required, but one would expect them to be added, as the S I of 016-019, without replacing
the identifying mark of the minting authority.
The omission of theta from 01-5A/6B, 085, and 087, despite the borrowing of reverse
dies used with theta issues, seems more likely to indicate some kind of real shift in responsi-
bility for production away from theta than a disguise of theta'% true responsibility. If this is
the case, it means that the initial issues (01-5A/6B) were prepared somewhere else, perhaps
in the field under extraordinary circumstances rather than in any specific civic center, since
no specific designation is added. However, after making a beginning elsewhere, the operation
appears to have been moved to the location identified by theta. And when it arrived, the
authorities immediately acknowledged the new situation by adding theta to 05A/6B.
The opposite situation could therefore have been the case for 085 and 087. Here, after
beginning production at theta, the scene of operations may have moved to a new location in
the field not immediately connected with any civic center that could be designated by a
letter or monogram. Therefore, even though CAE PR continued to proclaim that these
extraordinary issues were produced on the Roman praetor's magisterial authority, the two
new obverses that were subsequently prepared under these special circumstances omitted
the normal theta mint mark.
Theta has always been identified as the city of Thessalonika, and this makes good sense.
Thessalonika was the most important city in Macedonia and the Roman capital of the
province of Macedonia after the suppression of the revolt led by Philip Andriscus in 149/8
B.C.22 For Thessalonika to be the mint for most of the Aesillas coinage is neither surprising
nor unreasonable, and there is no other credible candidate for a minting authority that
would have officially identified itself with the letter theta.
The identification of B- and 8 is less certain. It does seem clear that they are intended as
abbreviations for a minting authority just as the theta they replace, but exactly what loca-

tion is meant can only be conjectured. The Bottiaeans, whose principal city and mint was
Pella, have regularly been suggested as the most likely candidates,23 and could have been the
minting authority, but this cannot be considered as secure an attribution as that of Thessa-
lonika for theta. The significance of the Latin letters S I added to obverses that also have
theta has been discussed above.24
Reverse Die Marks and Pellets
There are a number of additions to various reverses, listed below, as well as pellets used
with the obverse dies marked with theta (see the Summary).
22 For details, see RE, "Thessalonica." At least since 1852 when Lenormant published a study of the
quaestorial coinages of the Roman province of Macedonia, theta has been identified as Thessalonika, see
Lenormant, "Questeurs Romains," p. 327.
23 On the Bottiaeans, see BMC, p. lx. For the connection with Aesillas, see Hill, p. 159, Gaebler, "Miinz-
kunde," p. 171, and AMNG, p. 71, 219-21; see also "Introduction," p. 26, nn. 31-33.
24 See "Introduction," pp. 48-49.
Reverse Die Marks
Associated Obverse Dies
A or alpha above wreath
pellet on lower knot of wreath
delta added to cista
pellet under sella and wreath
pellet under sella
beta under wreath
01-3, 06A-B, 07, 09
05A, 06A,
06C
010-011
012-013, 018
01
86
pellet under sella and on cista handle
pellet under sella
pellet under cista and sella
pellet under sella
pellet under Q
pellet under cista
pellet on handle of cista
pellet on lower knot of wreath
pellet on tail of Q
pellet under cista
020-021, 023-026, 028-029
025-027
085
088-091
090
090-091A
091A-B
091B
091B, 092-093
091B-0101, 0102(?)
On the basis of a die study of 321 Aesillas tetradrachms, Roger Fisher has argued that the
presence of die links joining different obverse letters and monograms significantly weakens
the identification of these features as mint marks.25 In Fisher's view, the Aesillas coinage was
produced at a single mint, and he organizes the issues into three sections according to the
presence or absence of pellets added to the reverses. No attention is paid to the stylistic

evolution of the coinage. Fisher simply follows the traditional arrangement and places the
CAE PR issue first, the mass of issues without theta and with theta or other marks second,
and the special SVVRA LEG PR0 Q issue last. The die study presented here indicates that
Fisher's basic organization is wrong, and the above table of reverse die marks shows that the
application of reverse controls is more varied and complex than even Fisher imagined.
Group I, 01-06C. Repeated off-center placement of reverse dies during the striking of the
first issues makes it impossible to inspect all dies for added controls, but where inspection is
possible, roughly half of reverses used with 01-02 have an A monogram placed just above
the upper knot binding the wreath (Plate 1, 01-2, 01-3, 01-5, 02-3, 02-5). Subsequent
reverse dies do not have A, but A appears in the same position on two reverses with 05
(R18, 20) and five with 06B-C (R26, 28, 29, 30, 32). The first examples of drilled dots or
pellets also occurs in group I (05A-21, 06A-21). In these first additions, the pellet is placed
at the central crossing of the two strands that form the lower knot of the wreath (Plate 2,
06A-21). At the end of group I, when theta had been added to 06, a tiny delta was also
cut into the surface of the cista on one reverse die (06A-27; see Plate 2). There is no certain
explanation for this unique addition, but it may be connected with the other additions of A,
and A as well as pellets to various reverse dies of group I. For further discussion, see the
Summary below.
Group II, 07-013. 07 begins striking with R26 which is carried over from 05. R26 has
the A monogram, and R34-35 which follow R26 also have it. R36 does not have this mono-
gram, and it does not occur again until R40 near the end of 07's life. 09 uses a reverse with
A at the outset, when the obverse is still fresh (R43), but that is its last occurrence.
With 010, pellets begin to appear more commonly on reverse dies. 010-53 and 010-54
are first, and both have two pelletsone under the sella, and a second under the lower
knot of the wreath (Plate 3, 010-53, 010-54). R53-54 are immediately reused with the
new 01l and are followed by two more reverses with the same combination of added pellets
(R55-56). After these four dies, however, the reverses that follow at the end of 01l have no
pellets. Beginning with 012A, only a single pellet appears under the sella if a pellet is added
at all (see 012A-60, -62; 012B-63B, -64; 012C-68, -70, XX, 12D-72; and 013-68, -72, -73,
-75). 012A-63A had no pellet at the earliest striking, but a pellet was later added under the
sella (Plate 4, 012A-63A and 012A-63B). Altogether, the addition of pellets to the reverses
25 Fisher, pp. 71-75.
87
of group II turns out to be less common and more unpredictable than might be expected.
With a known total of 42 new reverses prepared and used during group II, only 14just
one-thirdhave added pellets.
Group III, 014-015. No reverse pellets are carried over or added during the minting of
this special group. However, on two of the ten reverse dies used with 014 (R83 and R84), a
very small beta is inscribed below the lower knot of the wreath (Plate 5, 014-83).
Group IV, 016-019. Aside from the extraordinary substitution of SVVRA LEG PR0 Q
for AESILLAS Q on R92, only two of twelve other reverses have any additions. R93 has
a pellet under the sella, while the five other reverses used with 018 have nothing, and
RXX2 has a Latin S to the left of the club below the Aesillas legend (Plate 5, 017-XX2).
Group V, 020-031. Pellets occur sporadically on the reverse dies of this group: on one of
three reverses used with 020 (R100), on two of eight with 021 (R104, 110), on three of six
with 023 (R112, 115, 116), on one of two with 024 (R118), and on six of nine with 025A-C
(R119, 120, 125, and including three placed between the Q and the sella, 121B, 123, 124), on
one of one with both 026 and 027 (R126, 127), on two of four with 028 (R128, 131), and
on one of two with 029 (R133). The situation with R121B is noteworthy, because a pellet
was added, in a new position between the Q and the sella, after the reverse was already in
use (R121A). Subsequently, R123-124 and R126-128 also placed a pellet below the Q, but
after R128, when pellets occur, they are again placed under the sella.
Group VI, 033-083. None of the 166 reverse dies of this stylistically diverse group has
any added control, but one obverse (042B) appears to have an added pellet.
Group VII, 084-087. The CAE PR issues retain the AESILLAS Q reverse type, but
they have no known die links with any other group and only once apply a special reverse
control, as R302 has a pellet below the cista (Plate 11, 085-302).
Group VIII, 088-0102. A large number of different pellet controls are added to both

obverse and reverse dies of this group. In fact, there appears to be no reverse in group VIII
that does not have something added. On the obverses, 089 has a pellet just below the hair
and above the letter of MAKAONQN; and 090 repeats this feature (Plate 11, 089-313,
090-324). On 091, however, the obverse die is first used with no added pellet (091A) and
then receives a pellet in the same place as 089-90 (compare Plate 12, 091A-330 and 091B-
332). Following 091B there are several obverse dies with no pellets added, then 097 again
has a pellet now placed conspicuously under the thela (Plate 12, 097-361). After 097 no
further obverse dies have added pellets.
Between 088 and 091B, a pellet repeatedly appears on the handle of the cista (Plates 11-
12, 088-312, 089-313, 090-324, 091A-328, and 091B-335). This is not, however, a constant
feature. 090-323 omits the pellet on the cista handle, as do R330, 331, 332, 333, and 334, on
which the pellet shifts to a new place below the cista immediately to the left of the club (e.g.
Plate 12, 091B-332) or returns to the often used space beneath the sella (e.g. Plate 12, 092-
338). Immediately after R335, however, a combination of two pellets placed beneath the
sella and cista begins and becomes constant through the 34 reverses between R336 and
R372 at the end of the group, with only the brief exception of R338-339 that have only
one pellet beneath the sella (Plate 12, 092-338, 093-338).
There is, finally, one further addition to the reverse dies of group VIII that requires
comment. On the reverses prepared for 090, a pellet was added to the central cross of the
lower knot of the laurel wreath (e.g. Plate 12, 090-324). Although obvious, the pellet's
presence cannot always be verified because the lower area of the reverse die is often struck
off the flan. Careful examination of reverses used with all other obverses of group VIII
nevertheless indicates that this feature was only added to the reverses used with 090.
88
SUMMARY
Numerous special features are added to the Aesillas coinage. Letters, monograms, special
legends, and a host of tiny but intentionally placed pellet-like dots all come and go at one
time or another during the production of the official 102 obverse and 378 reverse dies
recorded in this study. Aside from the basic types themselves, along with the legend MAK-
AONQN, none of these special additions is constantly applied throughout the production of
the coinage. Even the name AESILLAS is replaced at one point (R92). Thela, the presumed
mint mark of Thessalonika, is also twice replaced (014, 015) and eight times omitted (01-
06B, 085, 087).
The A, A, and B letters added early on to reverse dies during groups I-III prove to be too
inconsistent and irregular in their appearance to be either mint marks or production controls.
A more reasonable explanation for their unpredictable presence, tiny size, and marginal,
often invisible and off-the-flan placement is that they may well represent identifying marks
of individual die engravers responsible for the dies on which the special marks appear.
The most puzzling additions remain the pellets. Fisher interprets them as part of a die-
control system,28 and his recognition of the widespread presence and intentional nature of
the pellets is important. The truth is, however, that the pellets are more complex in their
appearance and at the same time less extensive than Fisher recognizes. In fact, only 26% or
96 of the 377 reverses catalogued here have recognizable pellets.27 Group III and group VII,
both possibly prepared and struck under extraordinary circumstances, and group VI, the
largest and most stylistically diverse group, have no pellets added to the reverses at all.28
Groups II, IV, and V, all struck with the thela mint mark, have pellets added sporadically
under the sella, below the lower knot of the wreath, and between the Q and the sella. Group
VIII has a somewhat different pattern of pellet additions: a pellet first appears on the handle
of the cista, then on the tail of the Q, then under the cista, then under the sella, and finally

under both the cista and sella. Group VIII pellets are more consistently applied, with no
reverse entirely free of pellet additions, and the application of the pellets follows a more
systematic progression that can be accurately reconstructed. But does this reconstruction
suggest that pellets were used as production controls?
During issuing of groups II, IV, and V the inconsistent and unpredictable addition of
pellets argues against their use as production controls. If the mint authorities wanted to
add a subtle mark of legitimacy or visible sign to be used to identify a particular volume
of production, it makes no sense to use the dies haphazardly, as they clearly did. Particu-
larly in group II, the inconsistent use of reverse dies with and without pellets would have
made their use in accounting an impossible nightmare. This simply cannot be their intention.
On the other hand, if we think of the pellets in the same way as the tiny monograms and
letters added to a few reverses of groups I and III, a simpler and more reasonable explana-
tion becomes possible. In my opinion, the pellets are best explained as the identifying marks
of the die engravers responsible for the particular dies involved. This explanation would
account not only for the lack of any pattern of application but also for the shifting position
26 Fisher, p. 81, concludes "the AESILLAS issue seems to fall into two distinct groups and, in one of
these groups, a combination of letters and pellets as die marks was employed in a die control system." De
Callatay, "Aesillas," does not attempt to explain the pellets.
27 On the obverse dies, only five, 042B, 089, 090, 091B, and 097, have added pellets.
28 Furthermore, group I has only the single pellet added to the intersection of the wreath's lower knot on
05A-21 and 06A-21.
89
of added pellets. In other words, in order to differentiate their own individual work from the
work of other die cutters, somebut not allof the artists assigned to the preparation or, in
a few cases, the repair of the Aesillas dies added pellets. The pellets thus performed, in
effect, the same function that the letters or monograms had at the outset: they identified

the dies themselves and not the money produced from the dies.
OVERSTRIKES
Overstrikes have generated more scholarly controversy than any other feature of the
Aesillas coinage. When Margaret Thompson was confronted with the Aesillas overstrike on
the Athenian New Style issue of Demeas-Kallikratides (094-353), she shifted the entire abso-
lute chronology of the New Style issues back some 30 years from their previously accepted
and seemingly well documented association with the Sullan siege of Athens and its aftermath
to the undocumented decade near 120, far from the Sullan attack of 87.1 Scholarly disbelief
in this radical redating was spearheaded by David Lewis, who accepted the validity of the
Aesillas overstrike but proposed an entirely new and unexpected identification of the Roman
officials connected with the Aesillas coinage.2 Thompson, however, responded with yet
another overstrike, this time of a late posthumous Lysimachus tetradrachm of Byzantium
struck on Aesillas, and argued that the accepted date of the Byzantine Lysimachus issue
supported the traditional dating of the Aesillas coinage to "94-88" and could not be down-
dated so far as to accommodate Lewis's proposed early 60s for the Aesillas issues.3 Thompson
notwithstanding, Harold Mattingly subsequently sought to rescue Lewis by stretching the
date of the involved Lysimachus issue to "c. 70 B.C."4 Finally, Andrew Burnett, arguing
from new hoard evidence, has concluded that all connections between the Aesillas coinage
and known historical and prosopographical evidence must be abandoned and has proposed
a compromise date of "the early 70s" for the entire Aesillas coinage.5
At present, therefore, the conflicts created by the overstrikes remain far from satisfactory
resolution. Even so, almost no one has thus far accepted Christof Boehringer's compromise
explanation that after an original Aesillas issue, including the SVVRA group, ca. 90, the
type was periodically revived as required down to the end of the Roman Republic.6 Still, in
1984, Otto Merkholm offered a similar but more specific "hypothetical" compromise,
suggesting that there was an original group of Aesillas issues "c. 94-88," including the one
overstruck by Byzantium, and that the pellet controls on many Aesillas reverses represented
later "minor groups" of revived coinage, among which came the pellet reverse type that

1 Thompson, Athens, p. 382, pl. 138.
2 Lewis, pp. 296-99; see the detailed discussion of SVVRA and CAE PR above, "Introduction," pp. 23-
26.
1 Thompson, "Byzantium," pp. 54-65, who concludes, "Whatever its exact date, the striking clearly be-
longs to the period 89-84 B.C. and probably to the earlier years of the period. Its appearance over a tetra-
drachm of Aesillas confirms the traditional chronology of that Macedonian coinage" (p. 65).
4 Mattingly, pp. 151-54.
5 Burnett, p. 56, concluding, "The coinage cannot be connected directly with the Mithradatic Wars. Sura
is neither of the two known Republican Suras. The praetor Cae... cannot be either of the two Caesars, one of
whom is attested as praetor proconsul in Macedonia; indeed he may even not be a Caesar" (p. 57).
6 Boehringer, "Trapezunt," p. 62. Mattingly, p. 150, rejects the idea with the comment "I know of no
Roman parallel and the phenomenon of the Maria Theresa dollars cannot legitimately be invoked in this
context" (p. 156); Burnett (pp. 54-55) objects on the grounds that the "theory of an immobilised type has
been introduced to allow a long period between the overstrikes." However, Mattingly's revised dating of the
Limani hoard (IGCH 332) to ca. 70 (pp. 152-54) suggests, according to Burnett, that "the interval was very
short," because the "Athenian coins in the hoard went later than Mithradates and Aristion, i.e. almost to
the point at which Athens was overstruck by Aesillas, whereas the Byzantine coins included the group
which overstruck Aesillas, but nothing later." Burnett concludes from this that "the relative date of the
Athenian coins which included the coin overstruck by Aesillas is virtually the same as that of the Byzantine
coins which include the coin struck over Aesillas" (p. 55).
91
92
OvERSTRIKES
overstruck Athenian Demeas-Kallikratides sometime around 65 B.C.7 Given the number and
complexity of proposed explanations, it is important to remember that none is based on a
comprehensive die study of the Aesillas coinage.
Not two but fifteen overstrikes have come to light during the preparation of this study:
eleven are Aesillas overstrikes on other issues, and four are other issues overstriking Aesillas.8
Aesillas Overstrikes
1. 01-3, Aesillas? (Plate 1, 01-3)
2. 07-35, uncertain
3. 07-36, Thasos (Plate 3, 07-36; 14, 07-36)
4. 09-43, uncertain
5. 09-47, uncertain (Athens?) (Plate 3, 09-47)
6. 012A-61, uncertain
7. 012B-65, Athens (Niketes-Dionysios)9 (Plate 4, 012B-65; 014, 012B-65)
8. 012C-68, Thasos
9. 018-95, uncertain
10. 090-326, uncertain
11. 094-353, Athens (Demeas-Kallikratides)10 (Plate 14, 094-353)
Aesillas Overstruck
1. Byzantium, late posthumous Lysimachus tetradrachm11 (Plate 14)
2. Thasos, autonomous tetradrachm12
3. Maroneia, autonomous tetradrachm13
4. Maroneia, autonomous tetradrachm14
01-3 may not be an overstrike in the strictest sense, because the undertype appears also to
be an Aesillas issue (Plate 1, 01-3). Above the obverse portrait of 01-3 are the unmistakable
remains of the reverse laurel wreath bearing double-knotted ties characteristic of the early

groups of the Aesillas coinage. Since it is hard to imagine why the mint would want to over-
strike its own issues, it may be that the overstruck reverse is simply the same reverse used
for overstriking but now turned over and restruck, so that its reverse is now under the
obverse, and the former obverse has become the reverse.15
7 Merkholm, "Athens," pp. 35-38.
8 The principal source of information used to identify Aesillas issues overstruck by other coinages is the
invaluable ANS photographic study file that contains thousands of sale catalogue illustrations of Greek
coinages of all periods. Several hundred examples of the Hellenistic tetradrachms of Maroneia and Thasos
were examined for this study.
9 Bauslaugh, "Overstrikes" pp. 16-20, pl. 3, nos. 8 and 12; see Touratsoglou, "Zagliveriou Hoard," pp. 7-
20.
10 Regling, pp. 141-42; Thompson, Athens, p. 382, pl. 138.
11 Berlin; see Thompson, "Byzantium," pp. 54-65; Matttingly, pp. 151-54.
'2 Hirsch, 22-24 Oct. 1962, 2334.
SNGFabricius 301, 16.76.
14 Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer; see Schonert-Geiss, "Imitationen," p. 92, 20, and Maroneia, p. 193, 1169, 14.80,
30 mm.
15 Fisher, p. 69, n. 4, mentions that Imhoof-Blumer once reported to have seen an overstrike that he
believed could be Aesillas over Sura: '"Un exemplaire au nom d'Aesillas, dans le collection de M. Six, est
surfrappe sur un tetradrachme de Sura, a ce qu'il parait' (MonnGr, p. 60, n. 3)." 01-3 cannot be this coin,
because it only appeared in the Siderokastro 1961 hoard. Imhoof-Blumer does not, however, say that he is
certain that Sura is the undertype, and his example may represent the same situation reflected in 01-3.
OVERSTRIKES
93
Of the remaining overstrikes, six involve uncertain issues,16 but 09-47 may be over New
Style Athens, since the overstrike has left remnants of the dotted border of the obverse
used on Athenian issuesand the wreathed reverse, seemingly of olive leaves (Plate 3,
09-47). Unfortunately, even if Athens is the mint of the undertype, there is still insufficient
evidence to identify the specific issue within the New Style coinage. This is also the case
with two more of the overstrikes which occur on unidentifiable issues of the late Hellenistic
coinage of Thasos. The area below the chin on the obverse of 07-36 preserves the distinctive
hair design of the Thasian Herakles portrait, and the reverse retains traces of the Thasian
reverse legend [H]PA|KAOZ] in the area of the Q and features of Herakles' club around the
cista (Plate 14, 07-36 and compare Plate 14, Thasos). The reverse of 012C-68 has the upper
edge of what appears to be [HP|AK[A02] but no other traces. Finally, two overstrikes
occur on identifiable issues of the Athenian New Style coinage. One is almost certainly
Niketes-Dionysios and the other is Demeas-Kallikratides.17
In Thompson's relative ordering of the annual Athenian issues, both overstruck issues
belong to her late period, but Niketes-Dionysios comes 23 years earlier than Demeas-Kalli-
kratides.18 In the Aesillas series, there is also a major gap between the overstriking issues,
with 012B-65 belonging to the second group, coming sometime before the SVVRA LEG
PRO Q issue (see group II) and 094-353 coming from the latest group in the coinage
(group VIII). If we accept for the moment that SVVRA is most likely to be the historically
well attested P. Lentulus Sura, legate of C. Sentius Saturninus, governor of Macedonia 93-87,
then the issue overstriking Athenian Niketes-Dionysios must precede the end of Sura's term
as legate but need not be earlier than ca. 90 B.C.19 On the other hand, since 094-353 belongs
to the tightly unified group of issues whose style places them later than the CAE PR type,
and since 094-353 overstrikes an Athenian issue now generally agreed to date some ten
years after Sulla's siege of Athens in 87, Lewis's and Mattingly's proposed identification of

CAE PR with L. Iulius Caesar, possible propraetorian governor of Macedonia ca. 70 B.C.,
fits well with the numismatic evidence of prolonged production presented in this study.20 The
stylistic evolution of the Aesillas type, especially represented in the abandonment of double-
knotted ties in the wreath together with the compression and fattening of the individual
laurel leaves, is a gradual processnot an abrupt change. The subtlety of the stylistic devel-
opments suggests further that a significant passage of time occurred between the beginning
of the coinage and its termination after group VIII which is perfectly consistent with the
Athenian overstrikes. Niketes-Dionysios was issued about 27 years earlier than Demeas-
Kallikra tides, and 012B-65 does overstrike the earlier Athenian issue and 094-353, the
later. Unless we are prepared to reject these connections as nothing but blind luck, they at
least imply that these Aesillas issues are also separated by a number of years.
16 The off-center strike of the 07-35 reverse has left traces at the lower left border of what appears to be
the outline of an unidentifiable undertype; 09-43 has a vague outline of a main undertype (portrait?) on the
obverse below the chin of Alexander; 012A-61 has a very small ghost of the undertype on the reverse just
in the area of the Q; 018-95 has scant traces on the reverse near the cista; and 090-326 has indistinct
traces of lettering on the upper right edge of the obverse. Why there is no evidence of overstriking between
018 and 090 is uncertain. Of course, the mint apparently always tried to conceal evidence of overstriking,
and it may simply be that they did a better job after the early period of striking until the altogether sloppy
production of the final issues (see Commentary on group VIII); but political forces may also have played a
role.
17 For the identification of issues overstruck, see above, nn. 9 and 10.
18 See Thompson, Athens, pp. 28-29
19 For discussion of the historical and prosopographical evidence for Sura, see "Introduction," pp. 23-26;
for numismatic evidence, see Commentary on group IV, p. 49.
20 On L. Iulius Caesar, see "Introduction," pp. 24-25; for numismatic evidence, see Commentary on group
VII, pp. 63-65.
91
OvERSTRIKES
The evidence of other coinages overstriking Aesillas reinforces this conclusion. The critical
overstrike is Byzantium over Aesillas. In 1973, Thompson argued that hoard evidence dated
the posthumous Lysimachus issue that overstruck Aesillas to ca. 89-84 B.C.21 Despite
Mattingly's attempt to lower this date to ca. 70,22 it seems more likely, as Merkholm
observed in 1984,23 that Thompson's dating of the Byzantine issue is correct. Thus the over-
struck Aesillas issue must predate ca. 89-84, and this conclusion agrees, once again, with the
evidence of the Aesillas issue itself.
The Aesillas undertype belongs to the early groups of the coinage. While the exact connec-
tion cannot be determined, the presence of long, thin leaves and double-knotted ties in the
laurel wreath place the undertype in groups I-V (01-031, see Plate 14, Byzantium). This is
also the case with the Thasian and Maroneian overstrikes. On two of the three overstruck
issues, the partially preserved wreaths belong to the early groups with long, thin laurel
leaves and double-knotted ties.24 The reason for this consistency is easy to understand. The
strength of Rome's position in the Thraco-Macedonian region was shattered in 87, when the
forces of Mithradates VI invaded the region and plundered the territory of Rome's allies.25
Thasos, which had been on good enough terms for legate Q. Braetius Sura and apparently
Aesillas for both to produce Thasian coinage under their own authority,26 was now controlled
by Mithradates, as was Thracian Maroneia. Byzantium too was under Mitradatic influence,
so it seems likely that all three of these cities restruck issues of the Roman Aesillas coinage
that came into their possession during this period of extraordinary political and military
crisis.
The overstrikes examined here thus provide valuable confirmation and reinforcement of
the conclusions reached from the die study. The Aesillas coinage was not a short-lived
phenomenon of "two or three years at most," as Burnett believes.27 Early on, Aesillas over-
struck Athens Niketes-Dionysios, datable on Merkholm's "low" chronology to ca. 98/7. This

act of restriking must be later than that date, but certainly not decades later, as Lewis's
reconstruction would require, and it may have political implications, since the Athenians
sided with Mithradates VI and thereby became enemies of Rome. As a result, Athenian
coinage might well have been officially outlawed in Macedonia and restruck whenever it
came into official hands. Conversely, once Mithradates invaded Thrace and Macedonia, the
overstriking of Aesillas issues by the new allies of Pontus is equally understandable. And
perhaps, once the monetary conflict gained momentum, we can see a further reflection of
Roman retaliation in the overstriking of Thasian issues.28
21 Price, "Black Sea," pp. 1-12, divides the Byzantine posthumous Lysimachus coinage minted after ca.
155 into four stylistic categories. The issue overstriking Athens falls into Style 3 which he dates ca. 75-70 (p.
10). Thompson, "Byzantium," pp. 54-65, revises the date on the basis of Pollak's publication of the Bithynia
1928 hoard (IGCH 1384) that showed Price's Style 3 was dated a decade too late. Pollak dates it ca. 93-84
(p. 53).
22 Mattingly, pp. 151-54.
23 Merkholm, "Athens," pp. 36-37.
24 No. 2 (Thasos) preserves a good deal of the laurel wreath along the left edge of the Aesillas reverse. In
two places there appear to be double-knotted ties. On 3 (Maroneia) there remain parts of two bundles of the
reverse wreath at the lower right edge of the Aesillas reverse together with the letters [AESILL|AS. The
long, slender leaf form here fits best with leaves of groups I-IV. On 4 (Maroneia) the letters AE|SILLAS]
survive, but the wreath is too heavily damaged to determine its relative placement in the Aesillas series.
25 See Appian, Mithr. 12.5.
26 See discussion above, "Introduction," p. 23, with Plate 14.
27 Burnett, p. 55.
28 Notice the concentration of known overstrikes during the early groups of the Aesillas coinage. After
018 none appears until the very end of the coinage, while there are nine on other coinages between 07
and 018. This hardly seems the result of pure chance. Official policy seems far more likely, and the histor-
ical circumstances surrounding Mithradates' invasion provide better than adequate motivation.
OVERSTRIKES
95
But luckily it does not end here. Instead, more than a decade later, an Aesillas issue is
again sloppily overstruck on the Athenian issue of Demeas-Kallikratides, datable to about
ten years after the Sullan sack of 86. The Aesillas type involved this time bears little resem-
blance to the issues involved in the overstrikings focused around the Mithradatic invasion of
88. Its sloppy style, smaller, thicker flan, and specially devised reverse controls all reflect

both the passage of time and the change in artistic attitude toward the Aesillas type.
HOARDS AND CIRCULATION
Aesillas tetradrachms appear in first-century B.C. hoards found in northeastern Greece and
Bulgaria in the area equivalent to ancient Macedonia and Thrace.1 The following list records
only tetradrachms, because none of the rare drachms has yet appeared in a hoard context.
The provenance of the hoards reveals that circulation was surprisingly limited. Unlike the
New Style Athenian tetradrachms with which they were commonly hoarded or the contem-
porary autonomous tetradrachm issues of Thracian Maroneia and Thasos, Aesillas issues
circulated and were hoarded within a relatively small area during a period of less than 50
years. Disregarding the intrusive example reportedly buried with the Kozani 1955 hoard
(IGCH 457) in northwestern Greece,2 we have information about 22 deposits all reportedly
found in northeastern Greece and central Bulgaria. As Touratsoglou points out in his study
of coin circulation in Macedonia, no Aesillas issue has been reported from hoards in Thessaly
or any place further south in Greece.3
TETRADRACHMS OF THE AESILLAS TYPE IN HOARDS4
Hoard
IGCH No.
Cat. Group
Burial Date1
1. Kozani (Gr.) 19556
457 1
III
240-230
2. Strojno (Bulg.) 19617
924 1
III
ca. 908
3. Zlatograd (Bulg.) 1967

969 1
ca. 909
4. SW Macedonia (Gr.) 1981'
I-III
ca. 90"
5. Siderokastro (Gr.) 1961
642 hundreds
I-III, VI, VIII
ca. 90T12
1 The geographical distribution of hoards containing Aesillas tetradrachms has been studied in Bulgaria
by Prokopov, "Circulation," pp. 3-11, and in Greece by Touratsoglou, Circulation, pp. 34-35 with charts II
and IIa.
2 See Dodson and Wallace, pp. 21 and 23, 28. They report that the dealer who sold the Kozani Hoard
insisted that the Aesillas tetradrachm was found with the rest, but, as they conclude, the Aesillas piece
cannot have been originally buried with the 27 other coins, which all date near the middle of the third
century B.C. The only explanation I can offer is that both the very worn Aesillas piece and the remaining
coins may have been found separately at a much later date, perhaps even later than the first century B.C.,
and then hoarded together once again and lost until their second discovery in 1955.
3 Touratsoglou, Circulation, p. 43, claims Aesillas types are "unknown in Thessaly and Epirus."
4 Hoards are listed chronologically, No. indicates the number of Aesillas issues reported to have been
originally in the hoard, and x indicates that the actual coins were not available for study.
5 Burial dates are taken from the IGCH or other publications as specified. T indicates the dates assigned
by Margaret Thompson in IGCH.
6 Dodson and Wallace cannot explain the presence of the Aesillas coin in this hoard and consider it in-
trusive, pp. 21 and 23 (see above, n. 2). Mattingly, p. 155, n. 35, also suspects a modern intrusion.
7 See in addition to IGCH 924, Schonert-Geiss, Maroneia, pp. 105-6, and Prokopov, "Circulation," p. 9,
13.
For the date given here, see the discussion on pp. 98-99. Without knowing of the Aesillas issue in the
hoard. Thompson, IGCH 924, dated it "c. 125-100?"
9 Dated ca. 90 by Prokopov; see the details on p. 99.
10 See CH 7, 133, and Burnett, pp. 54-67.
"Dated ca. 75 by Burnett; see discussion below, p. 99.
12 For problems with the reported contents and the dating of this hoard, see the discussion on pp. 99-101.
97
98
Hoards and Circulation
6. Haskovo (Bulg.) 197413
early 1st c. B.C.
7. Kerassia (Gr.) 1959?
653
VI
post 76T
8. Haskovo (Bulg.)?14
ca. 75
9. Thessalonika Environs (Gr.) 197615
40
ca. 75
10. Levka (Bulg.) 197316
ca. 75
11. Macedonia? (Gr.) 198617
16
IV, V, VI, VIII
ca. 70

12. Blagoevgrad Vicinity (Bulg.) 198118
ca. 200
VI, VII,19 VIII
ca. 65
13. Nea Karvali (Gr.) 196320
660
14+
V, VI, VIII
55-50
14. Macedonia? (Gr.) 19802'
10
V, VI, VII, VIII
ca. 50
15. Belitsa22 (Bulg.) 1956
976
ca. 50 or before
16. Platania (Gr.) 1959
663
VI, VIII
ca. 49
17. Kjustendil (Bulg.)?23
18. Cepeni (Bulg.) 1921/2
646
ca. 100
19. Kamenitsa24 (Bulg.) 1936
970
15
20. Zhabokrat (Bulg.)?25
"dozens"
21. Kroumovo (Bulg.)?26
99
ogy now accepted by most commentators,31 these issues correspond to 126/5, 124/3, and 102/
1 B.C. The AESILLAS issue comes from group IV, 017-76. By good fortune, it provides
three important and otherwise unknown reverse die connections: 1) with the extraordinary
SVVRA LEG PR0 Q reverse, 017-92, 2) with another AESILLAS obverse die struck with
the letters S I, 016-76, and 3) with the latest obverse die used in group II, 013-76.32
Zlatograd 1967 (IGCH 969), Plate 14, burial ca. 90 B.C.
A pot hoard found in 1967 about 30 miles southeast of Smoljan in south central Bulgaria,
the Zlatograd find contained one tetradrachm and eleven late Hellenistic tetradrachms of
Thasos.33 The hoard is today in the Plovdiv museum and will be published by Prokopov,
who assigns the burial date to ca. 90 on the basis of his forthcoming study of the Hellenistic
coinage of Thasos. The AESILLAS issue belongs to the earliest group I that lacks theta,
03-9.
Southwestern Macedonia 1981 (CH 7, 133), burial ca. 90 B.C.
Burnett gives no details about the location or circumstances of discovery connected with
this hoard that reportedly contained 32 tetradrachms: 5 LEG MAKAONQN, 1 from the
rare MAKAONQN issue, 8 AESILLAS, 3 Thasos, and 15 New Style Athens.3' The Athe-
nian issues are T436 AYZAN-l~AAYKOZ, T442, 443 nlrNH-2QZANAPOZ, T461, 464, 466,
470 nOAMQN-AAKTHZ, T485 MIKIQN-YPYKAI, T535, 541 KAPAIX-YPOKAl AIONY
and AIOM, T768, 770, 770 var., 775 var. 0OAOTOZ-KAOOANHZ, and T792 HRAK-
AIAHZ-UKAHZ. Using Merkholm's downdating of Thompson's absolute chronology, these
issues belong to 127/6, 126/5, 125/4, 124/3, 121/0, 106/5, and 105/4 B.C. The eight
AESILLAS issues come from group I: 03-10 (Burnett 25), 03-12 (26), 03-14 (27), 05A-
16 (32), 06A-21 (30), 06A-23 (31); and group III: 015-87 (29), 015-88 (28).
Siderokastro 1961 (IGCH 642), burial date part 1 ca. 90 B.C., part 2, ca. 65 B.C. or later35
This hoard was reportedly found in 1961 at Siderokastro in northeastern Greece some 20

km south of the Bulgarian border. Because the hoard was immediately broken up and
dispersed, there remains considerable uncertainty about its original size and content. In
1962 Thompson estimated the total at somewhere between roughly 420 and 650 tetra-
drachms, including a small quantity of LEG MAKAONQN issues, between 300 to 500
AESILLAS, and 120 to 150 New Style Athens.36 In IGCH 642, however, Thompson revised
the estimates on the basis of information provided by an Athenian correspondent. The new
total given was 400 to 500 with "some" LEG MAKAONQN, "hundreds" of AESILLAS,
and "100+" New Style Athens.
Thompson believed "the Siderokastro hoard is a combined deposit: Athenian and LEG
MAKAONQN pieces put aside in the late 130s or early 120s and Aesillas tetradrachms
31 See Merkholm, "Athens," pp. 29-42, cf. Touratsoglou, "Zagliveriou Hoard," pp. 17-18, and de Callatay,
"Hoards," p. 12 with n. 7
32 See full discussion above, Commentary on group IV, pp. 47-49.
33 At present, see Prokopov, "Circulation," p. 9, 10. Prokopov divides the Thasian issues into periods I
and II. The Thasian issues in the Zlatograd hoard come from period II. Prokopov's detailed study of the
Hellenistic Thasian tetradrachm coinage (and its imitations) is forthcoming. IGCH 969 lists 8 Thasos.
34 Burnett, pp. 54-58.
35 Burial dates differ because there appear to be two combined hoards of Aesillas tetradrachms reported
under the single name Siderokastro 1961.
36 Thompson, "Athens Again," pp. 319-20.
100
merged with them at a considerably later date."'7 Mattingly agreed and concluded that it
was "useless for chronology" because it was "really two hoards."38 The reason for this agree-
ment is the presence of LEG MAKAONQN issues that were, until recently, believed to be
securely dated to the period of the revolt of Andriscus between 148 and 147 B.C.39 In his
1986 publication of the Southwestern Macedonia 1981 hoard, however, Burnett showed that
the LEG MAKAONQN issues must be much later and must have preceded the Aesillas
coinage by only a short time."' Since the New Style Athenian issues also reportedly go
down to 0OAOTOZ-KAO<DANZ (106/5 on Merkholm's revised chronology), both of the
old justifications for believing Siderokastro represents a combined hoard have therefore been
eliminated, and the evidence can now be freshly reconsidered.
Forty-nine tetradrachms in the Catalogue reportedly originate in the Siderokastro 1961
hoard.
Group I: 01-2, 01-3, 01-5, 03-13, 05A-15, 06A-24, 06A-21, 06C-32.
Group II: 07-34, 07-35, 07-37, 07-41, 09-43 (2 examples: e, h), 09-44, 09-46, 011-56,
011-57.
Group III: 014-80, 014-83 (12 examples: c, l, v, hh, oo, zz, aaa, bbb, ccc, ddd, eee, fff),
014-84, 015-82, 015-86 (3 examples: f, g, h), 015A-88, 015B-88.
Group VI: 038A-168, 040-170, 042A-187, 043-189, 049-211, 061-244, 071-273.
Group VIII: 089-313, 094-345, 094-353 (2 examples: b, c).
While substantial, this list actually represents only a small fraction, perhaps less than 10%,
of the original number of Aesillas tetradrachms reportedly found in the hoard. As Thompson
originally observed," the widespread appearance of remarkably well preserved Aesillas issues,
particularly from groups I-III, in the sale catalogues of international coin dealers during the
years following the 1961 discovery of the Siderokastro hoard confirms its large size and
general profile.

There is, however, an unsuspected problem with the Aesillas material collected and attrib-
uted by Thompson to the Siderokastro hoard in records collected at the ANS. In 1962, when
Thompson searched for tetradrachms specifically attributed to the hoard by dealers and
curators with access to coins in commerce, she received casts and photographs of more
than 30 examples said to come from Siderokastro/2 Careful study of these records together
with information from all sources has produced the list of the 49 Aesillas issues given here.
The problem is that the listed issues divide very clearly into two distinctly different bodies of
material, one containing issues of the earliest period (groups I, II, III) and another including
middle and late issues (groups VI and VIII) characteristic of hoards dated later than 70 B.C.
A gap of at least 23 obverse dies of production separates the two concentrations015B-
038Aand, separately, they reflect the exact contents of other, better recorded, hoards
buried during the early and late phases of Aesillas circulation.43
17 Thompson, "Athens Again," p. 320. In IGCH 642 she repeated, "Almost certainly a combined deposit;
the Leg Makedonon and Athens coins taken from circulation c. 130-125 and the Aesillas pieces added to the
hd. some forty years later."
38 Mattingly, p. 155, n. 37.
19 See Mac Kay, pp. 15-40.
40 Burnett, pp. 55-56. Although it is possible to argue that the SW Macedonia 1981 hoard is another
example of merging of older with newer coinages, this seems highly doubtful in the face of the growing body
of contrary evidence. In 1991, Touratsoglou reported hearing of a new hoard discovered in Albania also
containing"LEG MAKAONQN, MAKAONQN, and AESILLAS together with Mithradates VI.
41 Thompson, "Athens Again," p. 319.
Compare the contents of the SW Macedonia 1981 hoard (LEG MAKAONQN, MAKCAONQN, AE-
SILLAS groups I, II, III, Thasos, Athens down to 105/4 B.C.) and Siderokastro part 1 (LEG MAK-
AONQN, AESILLAS groups I, II, III, Athens down to 106/5 B.C.) with Macedonia? 1986, ca. 70 (groups
IV, V, VI, VIII), Blagoevgrad 1981, ca. 65 B.C. (groups VI, VII, VIII), Nea Karvali 1963, ca. 55-50 B.C.
101
Attempts to recover examples that originated in the Siderokastro 1961 hoard have led to
some confusion. Fisher includes examples from Siderokastro under the names "Cahn hd."
and "Sepheriades hd." as well as "Schwabacher hd."14 Since these names are apparently
nothing more than the sources of information noted by Thompson in connection with mate-
rial attributed to the Siderokastro hoard, there would no real problem, if it were not for the
possibility that some Aesillas tetradrachms from the Nea Karvali 1963 hoard (IGCH 660)
may have been mistakenly attributed to the Siderokastro material.45 In de Callatay's cata-
logue, there are ten tetradrachms listed as coming from "IGCH 660: Cavalla" [= Nea Karvali
1963], none of which matches any of the ten examples from Nea Karvali hoard now in the
Kavala Museum. De Callatay's "Cavalla" examples do, however, correspond precisely to the
later issues (i.e. from groups VI and VIII) attributed to Siderokastro in Thompson's material
at the ANS.
In both cases, in de Callatay's "Cavalla" coins and in the later ANS Siderokastro exam-
ples, the issues belong to groups VI and VIII of the Aesillas coinage and follow some 23
obverse dies or more later than the rest of the coins attributed to that hoard. At the same
time, they closely parallel the profile of the Aesillas issues known from the 10 examples
today in the Kavala Museum derived from the Nea Karvali 1963 hoard. In consequence, it
seems justified to conclude that some mistake has occurred in the collection of material said
to come from the Siderokastro 1961 hoard and to exclude the later issues previously lumped
together with the rest of the Siderokastro hoard material. And, if we do this, the remaining
contents attributable to Siderokastro parallel exactly the contents of hoards that can be
securely dated to ca. 90 B.C.
Haskovo 1974 (CH 1, 92), burial date in "early 1st cent. B.C."
After its discovery in 1974, this small hoard reportedly went to the Haskovo Regional
Museum in south central Bulgaria. It supposedly includes 5 posthumous drachms of Alex-

ander the Great and 10 tetradrachms: 2 AESILLAS, 2 Maroneia, 4 Thasos, and 2 New
Style Athens said to be from the "middle period."16 The profile of the hoard thus closely
parallels Strojno 1961, SW Macedonia 1981, and Siderokastro 1961, part 1, all of which
date about 90 B.C. This is very likely also the date of Haskovo 1974, but certainty will
not be possible until specific information about the AESILLAS issues in the hoard is made
available.
Kerassia 1959? (IGCH 653, RRCH 283), Plate 14, burial ca. 75 B.C.
Discovered near the ancient site of Aineia, located on the southeastern headland of the
ancient gulf leading to Thessalonika, this hoard contained 47 denarii and 1 tetradrachm of
AESILLAS, group VI, 077-275. Crawford reports the latest denarius as L. CASSI Q.F.,
RRC 386, 78 B.C.,47 and Thompson points out that the denarii present a nearly unbroken
(groups V, VI, VIII), Platania 1959, ca. 49 B.C. (groups VI, VIII), and Macedonia? 1980 (groups V, VI, VII,
VIII), and then Siderokastro, part 2 (AESILLAS groups VI and VIII).
44 Fisher, p. 81, n. 32. Both Cahn and Sepheriades provided information to Margaret Thompson, who
correctly placed the material with the ANS record of Siderokastro. It is not clear why Fisher wrongly dis-
associates them, but in the present Catalogue they are again identified as Siderokastro. Fisher's "Schwaba-
cher hd." (p. 86, 033-R89) undoubtedly results from the same confusion, since the coin in question is today
in the ANS trays with Thompson's Siderokastro hoard material.
45 See Nea Karvali discussion below with n. 55.
44 See CH 1, 92, Prokopov, "Circulation," p. 9, omits this hoard. Thompson, Athens, pp. 133-319, dates
the "middle period" of the New Style coinage between 168/7 and 132/1 B.C. This equals 136/5-100/99 B.C.
on Merkholm's downdating; see Merkholm, "Athens," p. 42.
47 Crawford, RRCH, 283, cf. RRC, table 13, "Coinage 78-49 B.C."
102
sequence between the 130s and early 70s, with one-quarter dating to 90-88 B.C.48 She argues
that the traditional 93-87 date for the AESILLAS piece fits well with the pre-Sullan
concentration of the hoard, while Lewis's downdating of AESILLAS to the early 60s creates
a "gap of perhaps ten years between the last denarius and the Macedonian tetradrachm."49
Mattingly counters that this gap "proves little or nothing," since, as he conjectures, the
owner "may have collected these Roman coins in some rather inaccessible part of Macedonia
or Thrace affected by the campaigns of C. Scribonius Curio (COS 76 B.C.) and subsequently
added the single AESILLAS when he came down to Aineia, where he buried and lost his
treasure."50 Burnett focuses on the visible signs of wear on the hoard coins and argues that
the AESILLAS piece is less worn than the denarii before 88 and comparable to those of 88-
78. "The composition of the hoard," he concludes, "suggests the early 70s as a terminus ante
quem for Aesillas."51 With so many conflicting opinions expressed, it seems a good time to
take a closer look at the AESILLAS tetradrachm itself.
The AESILLAS issue in the Kerassia hoard comes from group VI, 077-286. In the
current arrangement of issues, 077 is close to the end of group VI but certainly earlier
than both the CAE PR issues and the final, stylistically degenerate group of issues consti-
tuting group VIII. The hoard coin is not, as Burnett points out, very worn from circulation
(see Plate 14, 077-286). But how long it had circulated before it was mixed with the denarii
and buried is impossible to tell. However, it does seem correct to insist that this issue must
come a few years before the date of burial in the mid-70s. It would therefore follow that the
bulk of the AESILLAS coinage, except for limited segment of group VI and all of groups
VII and VIII, must come before 75 B.C.
Haskovo (CH 6, 44), burial ca. 75 B.C.
This hoard was found at an uncertain date in the district of Haskovo in south central
Bulgaria. There are conflicting reports of the exact contents. Coin Hoards 6, 44, gives a

total of 9 tetradrachms and lists 2 Thasos, 3 MAKAONQN TTPOTHZ, 1 AESILLAS, and
1 King Mithradates VI of Pontus. Prokopov, however, offers a somewhat different list of 6
tetradrachms and 2 drachms: 2 tetradrachms of Thasos, period II, 3 MAKAONQN
nPOTHZ, 1 AESILLAS, and 2 drachms of Dyrrhachium.52 The date given in Coin Hoards
is presumably based on the reported inclusion of a tetradrachm of Mithradates VI, but no
precise information about the specific issue of AESILLAS is available at present.
Thessalonika Environs 1976 (CH 5, 55), burial ca. 75 B.C.?
Neither the exact find spot nor details of the contents of this hoard have been published.
It is, however, said to have contained 500 Roman denarii and 40 Aesillas tetradrachms. Coin
Hoards puts the burial date at "75 B.C.?" without explanation, but Burnett comments that
the hoard appears "to date from at least the 50s."53 Until more details are provided, no
certainty about the burial date is possible.
Levka 1973 (CH 6, 49), burial ca. 75 B.C.?
Discovered in 1973 at Levka, in the district of Hoskova in south central Bulgaria, this
hoard reportedly contained at least 41 tetradrachms: 3 posthumous Alexanders, 5 MAK-
50 Mattingly, p. 155.
51 Burnett, p. 57.
52 See Prokopov, "Circulation," p. 9, 11.
M Burnett, p. 56, n. 14.
103
AONQN nPQTHZ, 3 AESILLAS (1 in the Haskova Museum, 2 in private collections), 5
Maroneia, 19 Thasos (15 in the Haskova Museum, 4 in private collections), 1 posthumous
Lysimachus of Byzantium, and 3 New Style Athens (1 in the Haskovo Museum, 2 in private
collections).54 Unfortunately, no detailed study has yet appeared, and Prokopov reports a
somewhat different list of contents than the details published in Coin Hoards 6. Prokopov
lists only 3 MAKEA0NS2N IIRS2THS, 3 AESILLAS (1 in Sophia's Museum of History,
06A-12), 5 Maroneia, 15 Thasos (including 1 barbaric imitation), 1 Byzantine Lysimachus
(apparently from Price's group 2 or 3),55 and 1 New Style Athens, EIIirENHZ-
ZS22ANAP0S (126/5 on Merkholm's dating).56 Uncertainty over the exact contents
notwithstanding, the date assigned to the hoard assumedly comes from the Byzantine Lysi-
machus, which should date to the late 80s or early 70s, but no certainty will be possible until
a full and accurate publication appears.
Macedonia? 1986, Plates 14-15, burial date ca. 70 B.C. or later
This hoard appeared in commerce in 1986 and was dispersed before a complete record
could be obtained.57 In addition to 127 Roman denarii, including 3 of L. CASSI Q.F. (RRC
386, 78 B.C.), 2 of L. RVTILI FLAC P. (RRC 387, 77 B.C.), 3 of SATRIENVS (RRC 388,
77 B.C.), 2 of L. LVCRETI TRI0 (RRC 390, 76 B.C.), and probably 1 of P. LENT P.F.L.
N Q (RRC 397, 74 B.C.) at the end of the Roman issues, there were reportedly 16
AESILLAS-type tetradrachms, 14 of which are recorded in the Catalogue: group IV, (1)
016-76; group V, (2) 020-102, (3) 023-115; group VI, (4) 032A-142, (5) 033-143, (6) 033-
144, (7) 041A-174, (8) 042A-182, (9) 043-194, (10) 063-247, (11) 068-256; group VIII, (12)
091B-334, (13) 094-349.
This is the only hoard yet reported to have a SVVRA LEG PR0 Q issue, and its presence
would be important if it truly belonged. This example (Im. 7-7a), however, has proven to be
a modern fake. The S I issue of group IV is nevertheless found in the Strojno 1961 hoard;

and while the Strojno example confirms that group IV did circulate before the 70s, group IV
cannot be as late as the end of the decade, because the Kerassia 1959? hoard, buried soon
after 76 B.C., already contains an AESILLAS tetradrachm (group VI, 077-286) that comes
considerably later in the reconstructed order of production than the S I and SVVRA issues
of group IV. On the other hand, a date in the early 60s for the final closing and burial of
Macedonia? 1986 may not be ruled out, if other evidence points to a date in the 60s for
group VIII.
Blagoevgrad Vicinity 1981, burial ca. 65 B.C.
According to Prokopov, a hoard of some 200 tetradrachms, all of AESILLAS, was discov-
ered in the vicinity of Blagoevgrad in south central Bulgaria in 1981 and dispersed before a
proper record could be made.58 Prokopov subsequently saw 14 examples from the hoard,
including at least one CAE PR issue (group VII, 086-310), but at the time, he was able to
photograph and publish only 9 coins: group VI, (1) 035-154, (2) 042A-187, (4) 043-183, (3)
045-198, (8) 076-280, (9) 076-282, (5) 078-293; and group VIII, (6) 094-352, (7) 097-362.
Because the AESILLAS issues were not hoarded together with any other coinages, the
dating of the hoard can only be tentative. However, the complete absence, at least among
M Prokopov, "Circulation," overlooks this hoard.
55 See Price, "Black Sea," pp. 9-10.
56 Thompson, Athens, pp. 173-181. For the revised dating, see above, n. 30.
57 I am indebted to Simon Bendall at A. H. Baldwin & Sons LTD, London, and Charles Hersh for pro-
viding the information reported here.
58 See Prokopov, "Hoard," pp. 11-15, 1-9, and "Circulation," p. 9, 7.
104
the recorded examples, of material from groups I-V suggests that the hoard was assembled
during the latest period of circulation of the AESILLAS types. During this period, the large
issues from groups I-III were gone, but groups VI-VIII remained common, while Roman
denarii had not yet become widespread in Macedonia and mixed with the Aesillas issues as
they almost always were after the 60s.59
Nea Karvali 1963 (IGCH 660, RRCH 336), Plate 15, burial ca. 55-50 B.C.
Originally known as "Kavalla 1963," the Nea Karvali hoard contained a mixture of
denarii and tetradrachms of AESILLAS.60 The 10 AESILLAS examples today in the
Kavala Museum belong to group V, (1) 025B-121B; group VI, (2) 033-145, (3) 036-158,
(7) 038A-164, (8) 038A-167, (4) 043-192, (5) 043-193,(8) 048-210, (9) 064-252; and
group VIII, 097-366.61 The museum also has 3 denarii, (1)L. SVLLA (RRC 367, 82 B.C.);
(2) L. RVTILI (RRC 387, 77 B.C.), and (3) PVTEAL SCRLB0 (RRC 416, 62 B.C.).
My own examination of the Nea Karvali hoard material in 1991 revealed that, contrary to
Mattingly's claim, all three of the denarii are less worn and have fewer signs of circulation
than the AESILLAS tetradrachms, and they do not differ from one another in any signifi-
cant way.6'2 On the other hand, the AESILLAS tetradrachms do show clear signs of circula-
tion, particularly at the points of highest relief on the obverse portrait and the reverse cista
and wreath (see Plate 15). There is, however, no clear difference between the wear of 025B-
121B and 097-366.63 Moreover, although 043-192 has the greatest evidence of wear, its
more worn condition contrasts sharply with that of 043-193, with which it is die linked
and therefore originally contemporary. What this suggests is that very little faith can be
placed in the comparative wear of the AESILLAS issues found in hoards.
It should be understood that the list of Aesillas tetradrachms assigned to the Nea Karvali
1963 hoard is greater than the number today in the Kavala Museum and may include a
59 Prokopov, "Hoard," p. 14, dates the hoard to 89 B.C. when the Medi invaded the Roman province. He

interprets the hoard as part of the payments made by the Romans to their Thracian allies, the Denteletes.
60 Based on information from T. Hackens, IGCH 660 gives ca. 100 denarii and ca. 14 tetradrachms, but
Crawford, RRCH 336, citing information from I. Varoucha-Christodoulopoulos and T. Hackens, gives 59
denarii and 24 tetradrachms. In RRC table 13 he identifies 25 denarii from the hoard. Mattingly, pp. 154,
n. 34, correctly points out that the Kavala Museum today has 3 denarii and 10 Aesillas tetradrachms from
the hoard. De Callatav. in "Aesillas," lists 12 tetradrachms under "IGCH 660: Cavalla," (1) D12-R60 [= 01-
5j, (9) D33-R112 [= 061-244?], (2) D43-R139 [= 042A-187], (6) D46-R152 [= 038A-167], (12) D47-R157 [=
043-189], (7) D48-R161 (= 040-169], (10) D62-R179 [= uncertain), (11) D70-R196 [= 071-273], (4) D81-
R218 [= 089-316], (5 and 8) D83-R227 [= 094-353], (3) D83-228 [= 094-345?]. Only 2 of these, de Calla-
tay's (6) D46-R152 and (12) D47-157, can possibly be connected with the 10 Aesillas tetradrachms now in
the Kavala Museum. However, all 12 of de Callatay's examples can be connected with issues in the Catalo-
gue from the Siderokastro 1961 Hoard (IGCH 642), and 11 of the 12 come from groups VI and VIII, whi-
chas argued abovedo not fit with the profile of the Siderokastro hoard as it can best be reconstructed.
De Callatay's record may help to explain why some sources give as high as 24 examples of Aesillas in the
Nea Karvali hoard. In compiling records of Siderokastro 1961, Thompson (or her informants) may have
mistakenly assigned coins from Nea Karvali 1963 to the far larger and better known Siderokastro hoard.
This suspicion is strengthened by the fact that 11 of de Callatay's "Cavalla" examples are exactly parallel to
the relative position within the Aesillas coinage occupied by the 10 examples now in the Kavala Museum,
and 9 of them may be the same coins assigned by Thompson to Siderokastro. For further problems with the
reconstruction of Siderokastro, see discussion above with n. 42.
81 Mattingly, p. 154, mistakenly states that 3 of the 10 Aesillas tetradrachms in Kavala are struck from
the same obverse die. In fact, two are from 038A and two from 043.
62 Mattingly, p. 154, claims that the Aesillas tetradrachms are "closely parallel in condition to the latest
Roman coins." This is inexplicable. Only 3 denarii, ranging from 82 to 62 B.C. are in the Kavala Museum,
and they cannot be differentiated from one another in terms of wear.
63 To judge the relative wear of 097-366 is difficult, because it is more corroded than the other examples
in the hoard. This is apparently the result of the poor quality of the silver, also reflected in the dark color
and rough feel of the coin.
105
number of examples wrongly attributed to the Siderokastro 1961 hoard, IGCH 642.M The
issues in question are:
Kavala Mus.
from IGCH 660
Group I:65
Group V: (5) 25B-121B
Group VI: (10) 33B-145
(3) 36-158
(8) 38A-164
(1) 38A-167
(2) 43-192
(7) 43-193
(4) 48-210
(6) 64-252
de Callatay's
"Cavalla" Hd.
Group VIII:
Siderokastro Hd. at
ANS (IGCH 642)
(1) 1-5
1-5
(6) 38A-167
38A-168
(7) 40-169
40-170

(2) 42A-187
42A-187
(12) 43-189
43-189
49-211
(9) 61-?
61-244
(11) 71-273
71-273
(10) Uncertain
(4) 89-?
89-313
(3) 94-345
94-345
(5) 94-353
94-353
(8) 94-353
94-353
(9) 97-366
The close correspondence between the three groups and the exact match between at least
nine of de Callatay's "Cavalla" coins and Thompson's Siderokastro record suggest that de
Callatay's examples may well represent a significant part of the Nea Karvali 1963 hoard
that did not find its way into the Kavala Museum but disappeared into the international
numismatic market and was mistakenly attributed to the Siderokastro 1961 hoard.
Macedonia? 1980 (CH 7, 139), burial ca. 50 B.C.
The find spot of this hoard is assumed to be Macedonia, although no details are reported
by Burnett who published it in 1986.66 Together with 91 denarii ending with issues of
BRUTUS (RRC 433,1) and Q. P0MPEI RUFI (RRC 434, 2), both from 54 B.C., there are
10 tetradrachms of AESHXAS, group V, (96) 023-112; group VI, (99) 038A-162, (97)
065-253; group VII, (92) 085-300, (94) 086-303, (95) 086-309, (93) 087-306; and group
VIII, (100) 092-338, (101) 094-342, (98) 094-352. The large number of denarii dating from
the middle of the second century B.C. down to 54 permits precise and reliable dating of the
hoard to just before 50 B.C. Less certain is Burnett's belief that considerations of compara-
64 See above, n. 57, and above discussion of Siderokastro.
B De Callatay includes one example from the very beginning of the Aesillas coinage among the 12 coins
assigned to the Nea Karvali hoard. Thompson includes an example of exactly the same die combinations in
her accumulated material assigned to Siderokastro, and the two may well be the same coin. Other than this
dubious example, tetradrachms from groups I-III are not found in hoards dating after the 70s, and the ex-
ample assigned to Siderokastro displays no signs of extended circulation.
66 Burnett, p. 57, comments only that it is "presumably from Macedonia," having appeared on the Eu-
ropean market at Christie's Sale (4 Dec. 1981), lots 5-9 and 12-19.
106
tive wear between the denarii and the tetradrachms "very clearly puts Aesillas after the 80s
and before the 60s."67 Admittedly, there does appear to be clear evidence of wear on
Burnett's 96 (023-112) and 99 (038A-162), but that is not at all unexpected since they
come from groups V and VI and precede Burnett's 98 (094-352) by as many as 71 obverse
dies worth of production. On the other hand, Burnett's 92-95 all belong to the tightly linked
CAE PR issues of group VII and consequently must have been produced at close to the
same time.68 However, 95 looks noticeably more worn than 92-9469 and, given the variations
of wear within the 10 AESILLAS issues themselves, the idea of taking the most signifi-
cantly worn Aesillas pieces and comparing them with the Roman denarii seems unreliable.
The real importance of the AESILLAS issues in the hoard is that they support perfectly
the arrangement of issues given in the Catalogue by showing, once again, how the circulation
of the AESILLAS coinage tended to divide into separate phases over time. If Burnett were
correct that the AESILLAS coinage was produced in "only two or three years at most,"70
the hoard record should reflect this concentrated burst of activity. But rather than an undif-
ferentiated jumble of issues, the hoard record here again reflects the subtle but distinctive
progression between groups I and VIII. Simply put, the later the date of the hoard, the less
likely it is to have any representatives of groups I-V. In fact, after ca. 70 B.C. no examples
of groups I-IV appear in any of the hoards for which accurate records are available. The
Macedonia? 1980 hoard, being of later date and nearer 50 B.C., fits precisely into this
pattern and, when compared with the Southwestern Macedonia 1981 hoard with which it is
published, provides a perfectly clear representation of this difference. Southwestern Mace-
donia 1981, which should be dated to ca. 90 B.C., contains only issues from groups I-III,
while Macedonia? 1980, buried ca. 54 B.C., contains nothing from groups I-IV, only
twoboth wornfrom groups V and VI, and eight from groups VII and VIII.
Belitsa 1956 (IGCH 976), burial date ca. 50 B.C. or before

This was apparently a hoard of loot, including ingots of silver and a gilded cup together
with an assortment of different types of money exceeding 112 coins, which was discovered in
1959 at Belitsa in south central Bulgaria.7' In Sophia today there are reportedly 36 Roman
denarii together with 7 tetradrachms of AESILLAS, 28 of Thasos period II, 12 drachms of
Dyrrhachium, 27 tetradrachms of New Style Athens (down to 1 Sullan issue [Thompson72 86/
5 B.C.] and APXITIMOS-AHMHTPI [Merkholm73 83/2 B.C.]), and 2 cistophori. Mattingly,
alluding to Mme. J. Youroukovo in Sophia as his source, states that the denarii "seem to
come down to the early 50s as at Kavalla" [i.e. Nea Karvali 1963].74 If that information is
correct, the hoard must date from the middle of the century.
It may be possible, however, that Belitsa represents a consolidation and reburial of
hoarded material first acquired at the time of Sulla's campaigning in Greece and occupation
of Athens (i.e. the Macedonian, Thrasian, Illyrian, Athenian, and Asiatic issues) and secondly
joined with further accumulated material much later, perhaps 30 years later (i.e. the denarii
,i7 Burnett, p. 57.
68 See the Commentary on group VII, pp. 63-65.
69 See Burnett, p. 63. Compare particularly the wearing down of the high relief at the combined ear-horn
on the obverse and at the cista on the reverse.
70 Burnett, p. 55.
71 IGCH 976 lists the hoard under the spelling "Belica," while Thompson, Athens, p. 522, "Athens Again,"
p. 314, and Lewis, p. 285, list it as "Beliza." See also Mattingly, p. 155, and Prokopov, "Circulation," p. 9,
8.
72 Thompson, Athens, p. 522.
73 Merkholm, "Athens," p. 32.
7< Mattingly, p. 155, n. 36.
107
and perhaps the ingots and cup). This would explain the unexpected mixture of material
seeming to date ca. 80 with the reportedly later denarii. Unfortunately, nothing can be
learned from the Aesillas issues reportedly present in the hoard until more specific informa-
tion becomes available.
Platania 1959 (IGCH 663, RRCH 358), Plate 15, burial ca. 49 B.C.
This pot hoard contains an unusual mixture of metals and coins of different dates.75
Together with a diverse assortment of 39 bronze coins of Macedonia and Thrace, there are
2 denarii, Q. TITI (RRC 341, 90 B.C.) and CAESAR (RRC 443, 49 B.C.), and 2 tetra-
drachms of AESILLAS, group VI, 076-283, and group VIII, 094-353.76 If we accept Craw-
ford's dating of the CAESAR issue to 49 B.C., the date of burial must be a few years later
than previously assigned.77
While expressing reservations about the reliability of comparing high-relief tetradrachms
and low-relief denarii, Thompson nevertheless argues from a comparison of wear between
the Q. TITI denarius and the AESILLAS tetradrachms that their wear is consistent with
production at the same time. As a consequence, Thompson concludes, the hoard "may be
said to provide definite support for the high chronology [of the Aesillas issues]."78 Mattingly
and Burnett ignore both Thompson's claim and the hoard itself,79 but, once again, careful
study of the hoard material on permanent display at the Numismatic Museum at Athens
reveals only superficial wear at the highest points of relief of the locks on Alexander's neck
and the combined ear-horn together with minor smoothing of the wreath and cista on the
reverse. Obviously the AESILLAS pieces are not fresh, but to judge the duration of circula-
tion from the appearance of just two tetradrachms seems frankly impossible.
What is clear about the Platania examples is their placement within the evolution of the
AESILLAS issues. 076-283 comes near to the end of group VI and 094-353 close to the
end of all issues in group VIII. This is just what we would expect. Issues struck from the last

26 obverse dies of the AESILLAS coinage were clearly still in circulation and available for
hoarding down to the middle of the first century B.C. Early issues from the first 20 obverses
of groups I-IV were not, and none has yet appeared in any hoard dated later than ca. 70
B.C.
Kjustendil?, burial date uncertain
This hoard was found in the city of Kjustendil in excavations at a mineral spring below
the hill of Hissarlaka.80 Prokopov lists the original size as unknown but identifies 11 tetra-
drachms: 1 MAKAONQN nPQTHZ, 2 AESILLAS, 3 Thasos period II, and 5 New Style
Athens. Until the details of the Athenian and AESILLAS issues are made available, no
date can be assigned.
75 For the bronze issues, see Tourotsoglou, Circulation, p. 53, 31.
76 Fisher, pp. 84-88, lists 10 Aesillas tetradrachms as "Platania hd.," 022-R55, 022-R57, 030-R79, 054-
R119, 058-R123, 060-R125, 072-R138, 073-R141, 075-R147, 077-R155. It seems certain, however, that
none of these coins is actually from the Platania 1959 hoard, and none is to be identified with the two hoard
coins listed here. Probably the coins listed by Fisher are, in fact, from the Siderokastro 1961 hoard, but it is
not possible to be certain, because none is illustrated.
77 Crawford, RRC, p. 443, assigns the issue to after the beginning of the civil war, cf. Lewis, pp. 298-99,
who dates the hoard "c. 51" on the belief that the Caesar issue was minted 54-51. As Lewis notes, the hoard
coin is FDC and cannot have circulated for long. Even the very delicate texturing on the high relief of the
reverse elephant's leg is perfectly preserved.
79 Mattingly, p. 155, n. 37, catagorizes the hoard among those "useless for chronology," while Burnett,
pp. 56-57, makes no comment.
80 See Prokopov, "Circulation," p. 9, 4, and p. 5.
108
Cepeni 1921/2 (IGCH 646), burial date uncertain
Found in the western district of Pernik in southwestern Bulgaria, this hoard contained
exclusively AESILLAS tetradrachms.81 The number was estimated at close to 100, but the
coins were dispersed before a detailed record of varieties could be made. In IGCH,
Thompson dates the find to the decade between 90 and 80 B.C. on the basis of her belief
that the entire AESILLAS-type coinage was produced between ca. 93 and 87. Unfortu-
nately, without evidence of exactly which issues were present, it is impossible to determine
the date of the hoard.
Kamenitsa 1936 (IGCH 970), burial date uncertain
A pot hoard of 15 AESILLAS tetradrachms found about 25 miles south of Pazardzik in
southwestern Bulgaria,82 the Kamenitsa find cannot be accurately dated until information
about the precise AESILLAS issues is made available. Material from the hoard is today in
Plovdiv (7 examples) and Pazardzik (1).
Zhabokrat?, burial date uncertain
Prokopov reports a hoard of "several dozen" AESILLAS tetradrachms found at an uncer-
tain date at Zhabokrat in the district of Kjustendil in southwestern Bulgaria. No details of
the AESILLAS issues included are given, so at present no date can be assigned.83
Kroumovo?, burial date uncertain
No useful details about this hoard are as yet available. It was discovered at Kroumovo in
the district of Kjustendil at an unknown date and contained only an unknown number of
Aesillas tetradrachms.84 In the absence of specific details, no date can be assigned.
Noevtsi?, burial date uncertain
A dispersed find of uncertain date discovered at Noevtsi in the district of Pernik in south-
western Bulgaria, this hoard included denarii and tetradrachms of Aesillas, of which only 1
denarius of D. SILANVS L.E (RRC 337: 91 B.C.) and 2 AESILLAS tetradrachms are

reported by Prokopov.85 If SILANVS is among the latest denarii in the original hoard, its
early date could provide important evidence for establishing the absolute chronology of the
accompanying AESILLAS issues. However, until the recorded examples are published and
more information is made available, no date can be assigned and no conclusions drawn.86
Kjustendil District?, burial date uncertain
This hoard was discovered at an uncertain date in the district of Kjustendil in southwest-
ern Bulgaria.87 The original size is unknown, but Prokopov reports 6 denarii and 3 tetra-
83 See Prokopov, "Circulation," p. 9, 5. On the basis of the concentration of exclusively Aesillas issues and
Thompson's argument supporting an early date on the basis of overstrikes ("Byzantium," pp. 54-65), Proko-
pov concludes that the Aesillas coinage was struck over a very brief time and that the hoard can therefore
be safely dated to 93-88 B.C. (p. 7).
85 Prokopov, "Circulation," p. 9, 2, gives the original size of the hoard as unknown and provides no de-
tails about the two Aesillas issues mentioned. De Callatay, "Aesillas," lists this hoard as "Pernik."
86 Prokopov, "Circulation," p. 5, states without discussion that the SILANVS issue dates the Aesillas
pieces in the hoard.
109
drachms1 MAKAONQN nPQT0Z and 2 AESILLAS. Until the details of the denarii and
Aesillas issues are published in detail, no date can be assigned.
SUMMARY OF HOARD EVIDENCE
While 23 hoards appear in the preceding list, surprisingly few provide good evidence about
the absolute chronology of the Aesillas coinage. Many more offer tantalizing possibilities but
as yet have not been published with sufficient specificity to allow their contents to contri-
bute usable information about the internal arrangement and dating of the eight groups of
Aesillas types identified in this study. Nevertheless, the hoards for which there is adequate
information do fall into a pattern. The earliest issues of the Aesillas coinage, groups I-III,
appear in the Strojno 1961, Zlatograd 1967, SW Macedonia 1981, and Siderokastro 1961
part 1, all datable close to 90 B.C., at the time of the Macedonian governorship of C. Sentius
Saturninus.88
The Macedonia? 1986 hoard provides the additional information that group IV, which
includes issues marked with S I on the obverse and, at one point, SVVRA LEG PR0 Q
for AESILLAS on the reverse,89 clearly dates before the end of the 70s, because the hoard
contained more than 120 Roman denarii, none of which was reportedly later than 74 B.C.
The resulting date of this hoard near the end of the 70s thus supports the traditionally
accepted connection between the SVVRA reverse issue and Q. Braetius Sura, the well-
attested legate of governor Sentius 93-87, rather than Lewis's and Mattingly's hypothetical
legate, P. Cornelius Lentulus Sura, the brother-in-law of L. Iulius Caesar, conjectured
governor of Macedonia ca. 70-67.9" The contents of the Macedonia? 1986 hoard also reinforce
the evidence of the single Aesillas tetradrachm in the Strojno 1961 hoard which by itself
indicates that group IV and with it the extraordinary SVVRA issue entered circulation too
early to be connected with any magistrates of the early 60s.
The hoard record further supports the stylistic argument made in this study that the

SVVRA LEG PR0 Q issue is considerably earlier than the CAE PR issues. While the
groups of Aesillas issues that are closely associated with SVVRA appear in hoards dating
from ca. 90, the CAE PR issues are reported first in the Blagoevgrad Vicinity 1981 hoard
buried ca. 65 and are well represented only in the Macedonia? 1980 hoard of ca. 50. By this
time, the issues of groups I-IV with the SVVRA issue are entirely gone from circulation.
Moreover, the hoards suggest that Lewis's and Mattingly's proposed connection between the
CAE PR issues and L. Iulius Caesar, COS 64, who could have governed Macedonia in the
early 60s, may also be impossible.91 On stylistic grounds, group VIII appears to be the final
group in the Aesillas coinage, but if group VIII is truly later than the CAE PR issues, its
sequence clearly creates a major problem for the Lewis-Mattingly position, since the hoard
record appears to show group VIII in circulation before 70 B.C. And since the CAE PR
issues of group VII should be even earlier, it may in the end be necessary, as Burnett
warns,92 to abandon the long-held belief that CAE... must stand for CAE[SAR] and look,
instead, for an entirely new candidate in the early to mid-70s.
Despite its deficiencies, the hoard record is also clear about circulation. The Aesillas types
did not circulate widely and did not stay in circulation for long. Groups I-IV were minted
with numerous signs of rapid and intensive production, and the hoards indicate that they
** See Broughton, pp. 15-49, promagistrates 93-87 B.C.; cf. Sarikakis, pp. 69-71.
89 See the Commentary on group IV, pp. 47-49.
90 See discussion above, "Introduction," pp. 23-26.
Lewis, pp. 297-99, and Mattingly, pp. 155-61.
2 Burnett, p. 57.
110
were gone from circulation by ca. 75 B.C.in perhaps as few as 15 years.93 Moreover, the
burial of part 1 of the enormous Siderokastro 1961 hoard must have occurred immediately
after the coins left the mint, since we have today 64 examples of the same obverse-reverse
die combination (014-83), many of which can be traced back to the Siderokastro hoard that
reportedly contained "hundreds" of Aesillas tetradrachms.94
Given the northern direction of the circulation into modern-day Bulgaria reflected in the
hoards, it seems clear that the Aesillas coinage represented tribute paid to Thracian tribes
and buried by those tribes for safekeeping soon after the payments were received. The
arrival of more Roman money in the form of lighter-weight denarii in the wake of Sulla's
campaigns then changed the old pattern of circulation, and the new money rapidly replaced
the older, heavier tetradrachms. By the beginning of the Roman civil war in 49, they were
gone. They had served their purpose in the first quarter of the first century B.C. and yielded
to the denarius as Roman political and military control of the Thraco-Macedonian region
strengthened in the aftermath of the Mithradatic conflict.
93 See the discussion in the Commentary on groups I, pp. 35-36; pp. 40-42; II, pp. 45-46; and III, IV, pp.
47-49.

94 See discussion above, Siderokastro 1961, pp. 99-101, and Commentary on group III, 014-83, pp. 45-46.
CONCLUSION
As recently as 1985, it was the unquestioned opinio communis among numismatists that
coinage in the types of Aesillas began with the CAE PR group, continued with issues
having no inscriptional identification aside from the reverse legend AESILLAS Q, and
concluded with the special issue of a new authority, SVVRA LEG PR0 Q.1 But despite its
tidy reasonableness, this reconstruction has turned out to be wrong. Instead, careful reconsi-
deration of the numismatic evidence provided by an unprecedented inspection of approxi-
mately 1,000 examples shows that the stylistic evolution, die linkage, changing patterns of
production, overstrikes, and expanding hoard record all point to a more complex organization
that began with AESILLAS issues lacking any mint mark (01-05A/6B), changed to issues
marked with theta (07-013), temporarily substituted issues marked with B- and reversed
beta, resumed with theta issues but added S I (016-019) and, on one reverse, replaced
AESILLAS Q with SVVRA LEG PR0 Q (017-92), then returned to theta and
AESILLAS Q, first with pellets placed on some reverses (020-031) and subsequently with
no special features (032-083), then added CAE PR MAKAONQN on the obverse both
with and without theta (084-087), and finally returned again to the original AESILLAS Q
type but with a new arrangement of reverse pellets (088-0102). In short, the Aesillas
coinage is not simple, not uniform, not concentrated, not predictable. On the contrary, it
presents a scattered array of subtle but cumulatively recognizable traces of prolonged
production, immobilization of the type, and irregular striking in groups of issues that differ
from one another in size, concentration of minting activity, and application of special
features.
The Aesillas coinage also has more stylistic evolution than previous commentators have
recognized. From an initially smaller and more detailed portrait, the head of Alexander the
Great gradually becomes larger, more disjointed, and sloppier, with consistently less atten-
tion to detail, particularly in the schematic handling of the hair.2 On the reverse, the thin
laurel wreath of the early issues with delicate leaves and double knots gives way to a thicker

wreath with shorter, fatter leaves andon most diessingle knots instead of double.3
Compilation of the metrological statistics of the coinage reinforces the pattern of stylistic
evolution. The tetradrachms gradually lose weight from an average of 16.69 g in group I to
16.24 g in group VIII.4 At the same time, the maximum diameter of the flans shrinks. In
groups I-V the average diameter of the tetradrachms is 31 mm, while in groups VI-VIII, it
averages only 28 mm.5 The two changes may indeed be connected in that the lighter weight
is somewhat disguised by the later issues' thicker, more substantial feel that results from the
reduction in diameter and consequent thickening of the flans.
The Aesillas coinage was not truly "huge."6 This study has identified 102 obverse and 378
reverse dies. Compared to that total, Thompson identified 57 obverse and 92 reverse dies in
1 See e.g. Burnett, p. 56, Fisher, pp. 70, 82-88.
2 Compare examples from group I, Plates 1-2, and group VIII, Plates 11-12.
3 Even though the change from double knots to single knots is never complete, after group IV there are
no reverses with all double knots as is the rule previously in groups I-III.
4 See "Metrology," pp. 75-77.
5 See "Metrology," pp. 77-79.
6 Burnett, p. 56, makes this characterization on the basis of his belief that the Aesillas issues were all
minted within "two or three years at most" (p. 57). Admittedly, production of ca. 102 obverse dies in three
111
112
Conclusion
her catalogue of the Sullan issues of Athenian-type tetradrachms that she assigns to the
three years between ca. 86 and 84 B.C.7 Again, in comparison to the numbers used in the
"middle period" of Athenian New Style coinage, 102 obverse dies would be equivalent to the
production of about eight years of Athenian coinage.8 But since the hoard record indicates
that the Aesillas issues are spread roughly between 90 and 70 B.C., the annual output, if
divided equally throughout the period, would on average be the equivalent of about 5
obverse dies per annum versus more than 13 for New Style Athenian coinage and at least
19 for the Sullan imitations.
Reconstructing the original volume of production for ancient coinages is extremely pro-
blematic,9 but with a survival ratio of about 9 to 1, there is a good likelihood that the
present collection of material represents close to all the obverse dies and a substantial
majority of the reverse dies used to mint the Aesillas coinage. Hence, if the obverse dies
produced on average 10,000 tetradrachms each, the total number of tetradrachms originally
struck would be 1,020,000 and or approximately 680 talents of silver coin.10
It would be wrong, however, to imagine that the Aesillas tetradrachms were produced as a
steady, annual coinage over a period of approximately 20 years. On the contrary, what the
accumulated evidence indicates is that production was sporadic, with some periods of intense
minting activity, and some periods of low volume or even intermittent minting in response
to specific financial demands. Groups I-III reflect intense activity; group IV, more limited
production; group V, a further decline in the level of activity; group VI, intermittent rather
than regular production; group VII, a small but intense period of closely interconnected
issues; and group VIII, a return to more erratic production in response to specific needs.
The combined evidence of the earliest hoards with Aesillas tetradrachms and the Byzan-
tine Lysimachus overstrike on Aesillas makes it clear that the Aesillas issues began about 90
B.C." And this is critically important, because it confirms the long-held connection between

the extraordinary SVVRALEGPR0Q issue of group IV and Q. Braetius Sura, who served
as an important legate of Macedonian governor, C. Sentius Saturninus, between 93 and 87.12
The introduction of a new tetradrachm coinage at just this time therefore coincides with
Rome's expanding conflict with Pontic king Mithradates VI that also began in the late 90s.
Macedonia was crucially important to Rome's war effort in the east. Roman troops and
material needed to pass across the Balkans along the Via Egnatia through Macedonia to the
port city of Thracian Neapolis in order to be ferried across the northern Aegean to Asia.
Protecting this route from the potentially disruptive interference of neighboring Thracian
tribes was consequently essential to the Romans. By maintaining the alliance, goodwill, or
years could well be described as "huge." Crawford calls the Aesillas coinage "very large" (Coinage, p. 197)
and then assigns it to the decade "from the mid-80s to the mid-70s." This exaggeration is nothing new. For
example, in 1906, Hill claimed "coins with the name of Aesillas alone are among the commonest that have
come down to us" (p. 159).
I Athens, p. 438, n. 1. It should also be noted that Thompson believed her record of Sullan imitations was
very far from complete, and both the high number of obverse dies represented by single examples and the
relatively low number of different reverse dies compared to obverse dies clearly support this conclusion.
8 See Thompson, Athens, pp. 133-319, where 499 obverse dies are recorded for the 37 years of the period
or an average of 13.4 obverse dies per year.
9 See most recently, Howgego, pp. 1-31, esp. sec. 1, "Limits to Quantification," pp. 2-4.
10 On the average productivity of ancient dies, see Sellwood, pp. 217-31, esp. 226-29; Raven, pp. 1-22,
esp. 13-15; Esty, pp. 185-215; and Howgego, pp. 1-31, esp. 2-4. Based on modern experiments, the average
life of obverse dies appears to be roughly 10,000 coins.
tt See above, "Hoards and Circulation," esp. Strojno 1961, SW Macedonia 1981, Zlatograd 1967, and
Siderokastro 1961, part 1, all dating from ca. 90 (pp. 98-101), and "Overstrikes," Byzantium over Aesillas,
where Thompson, supported by Merkholm, dates the Byzantine issue that overstruck an Aesillas issue of
groups I-III to ca. 89-84 B.C. (p. 94 with n. 23).
12 For discussion and citation of historical sources, see "Introduction," pp. 23-26 with n. 15.
Conclusion
113
at least passivity of these tribes, Rome's greater strategic goals could be pursued with
maximum efficiency. Without Thracian cooperation, the effective strength of Roman foreign
policy in the east would have been greatly imperiled.13 What the numismatic evidence of the
Aesillas coinage appears to show, therefore, is that early in the first century B.C. the
Romans simply bought the cooperation they needed.
In an extremely helpful study of the distribution of hoards containing Aesillas issues found
in modern Bulgaria, Prokopov suggests that the coinage was minted for payments to the
Denteletes, an important Thracian tribe once concentrated in the upper Strymon river
valley.14 Other Thracians can no doubt be added. For instance, Diodorus reports that
between 93 and 87, Cotys, king of the Thracians, intervened in the interests of the Romans
and detained a certain Euphenes, the son of Excestus, who had declared himself king of the
Macedonians and exhorted the populace to revolt against Rome and restore Macedonia's
former independence.15 In return for his timely service, Cotys's reward from the Romans
could certainly have included money that the Thracian king subsequently distributed
among favored followers, who in turn buried the windfall in the territory they controlled.
The idea that the Aesillas coinage was intended for payments to the Thracians is supported
not only by the geographical distribution of hoards with Aesillas but also by other, more
subtle, numismatic evidence.
In the first place, it appears almost certain that not only Sura but Aesillas also issued
imitation Thasian tetradrachms.16 What this must mean is that the Roman authorities were
willing to provide money in whatever form was demanded or otherwise required by those
who merited special payments, and the popular and politically neutral Thasian money was,
on more than one occasion, the medium of payment employed by the Romans.17 Second,
there is the overall condition of the Aesillas coins. While exceptions admittedly exist, the
overall condition of the some thousand examples examined for this study is exceptionally

good. What this can only mean is that the Aesillas issues did not normally circulate for
long but were most of the time rapidly hoarded or otherwise demonitized by those who
received them.18 Fifteen of the surviving Aesillas tetradrachms studied are also pierced,
presumably for converting the coins to jewelryand this is a somewhat higher proportion
than occurs among illustrated examples of New Style Athenian coinage.1" Finally, the erratic
pattern of production with several intense periods of coining and several small sub-groups of
extraordinary issues20 is itself in better keeping with the idea of a coinage produced for
special payments than the contrary idea, once proposed by Barclay Head, that the Aesillas
13 For an important article discussing Rome's recognition of the strategic importance of cultivating and
maintaining good relations with the leading tribes in Thrace, see Chiranky, pp. 461-81, esp. p. 471 with
n. 56, and pp. 480-81.
14 See Prokopov, "Circulation," pp. 3-11.
15 Diodorus 37.5a. Euphenes reportedly raised a force bent on taking booty, but Excestus warned Sentius,
the Roman governor of Macedonia, and asked Cotys to dissuade his son from pursuing his anti-Roman en-
terprise. After Cotys detained Euphenes for a few days the crisis was averted and Euphenes was ultimately
acquitted of charges leveled against him. Chiranky, p. 480, also concludes that Diodorus's Cotys is the most
likely candidate to be identified with the Thracian king named Cotys who laid claim to territory belonging
to Abdera and forced the matter to arbitration by the Romans (SIG iii, 656).
16 Discussed in the "Introduction," p. 23.
17 This was no doubt also the reason why Sulla minted imitation Athenian tetradrachms in substantial
numbers. See Thompson, Athens, pp. 425-39.
18 The 213 tetradrachms illustrated on Plates 1-15 provide a good representative sample of the generally
excellent and little-worn condition of vast majority of Aesillas issues.
19 Thompson, Athens, has 25 pierced tetradrachms out of about 2,000 illustrated examples on her 202
plates. Here there are 15 out of the over 1,000 examples in the Catalogue (an exact comparison cannot,
however, be made, because Thompson does not indicate'piercing in her catalogue).
20 See Commentary, groups I (01-06D), IV (016-019), and VII (084-087).
114
Conclusion
coinage represents the Romans' attempt to supercede and replace the New Style Athenian
coinage, due to the Athenians decision to support Mithradates against Rome.21
The agreement and mutual reinforcement of these bits of evidence help to explain the
unexpected immobilization of the Aesillas type. The idea of a Roman coin type becoming
immobilized is very troubling to modern students of republican Rome's political and mone-
tary institutions.22 It is not, however, surprising or at all unusual to students of Hellenistic
Greek coinages. The continued demand for the types of Philip II, Alexander the Great, and
Lysimachus caused their coin types to be reproduced in virtually immobilized form down to
the first century B.C.23 Perhaps more importantly, Sulla's willingness to produce copies of
New Style Athens and the Thasian tetradrachms that seem to have been produced by Sura
and Aesillas also reflect Roman acceptance of the eastern population's preference for tradi-
tional, tried-and-true coin types over anything new and unfamiliar.21
The special Macedonian issues recently redated to the end of the second century or even
later also reflect this pattern in their copying of the immobilized MAKAONQN nPQTHZ
types with only the legend changed.25 But perhaps the best example yet identified comes
from the coinage of the Achaean League. As Boehringer shows from a careful reexamination
of the Poggio Picenze 1954 hoard (IGCH 2056; RRC 255), hemidrachms of the Achaean
League cities continued to be minted long after the League had been crushed and reorga-
nized by the Romans in 146.26 All of these examples represent the Greek world's different
attitude about coinage. It should be no surprise to discover that the Romans were willing to
immobilize and intermittently reproduce the Aesillas type if the people for whom the coinage
was intended made it clear that they wanted payment in this particular form of money.
The end of the Aesillas coinage is directly related to the increasing Romanization of the
Balkan peninsula and the gradual acceptance of the Roman denarius in the place of the
traditional Attic-weight tetradrachm coinages formerly preferred by its peoples. Hoards

dating to the second quarter of the first century B.C. record this monetary development
and show clearly how the denarius at first circulated together with but then replaced alto-
gether not only the Aesillas coinage type but all other silver coinages.27 The last of the
Aesillas issues may have been struck as late as the early 60s, but the evidence is less than
certain, and all that can be said is that the Aesillas coinage ended when it was no longer
demanded by parties the Roman officials felt obliged to satisfy.
One final question remains. Can we reach a conclusion about the identification of group
VII's CAE PR? Lewis and Mattingly have certainly built an attractive case for connecting
the CAE PR issues with L. Iulius Caesar, the consul of 64,28 and at first glance, the arrange-
21 Guide, p. 112.
22 Note particularly Burnett's emphatic dismissal of the idea that the Aesillas type could have been im-
mobilized: "...moreover it is hardly credible that the name of a completely unknown Roman quaestor, and
not even that of his praetor, should have been immobilised as if he were Alexander the Great, King Lysi-
machus of Thrace or Philip of Syria" (p. 55). Similar unwillingness to entertain the idea that immobilization
could be the result of prolonged tenure in the same official position explains Broughton's insistence that
Aesillas must have been quaestor under L. Iulius Caesar in 94, then transferred to the staff of C. Sentius
in 93 and then either superceded or continued as proquaestor in 92 (pp. 13-18). For Broughton and other
Roman constitutional historians, there can be no unexplained inconsistency in the Roman cursus honorum.
23 See e.g. Price, "Black Sea," pp. 1-12.
24 For Sulla's imitations of Athens, see above, n. 17; for Sura and Aesillas striking Thasian-type tetra-
drachms, see above, "Introduction," p. 23.
25 For new dating (early first century B.C. instead of 148/7), see Burnett, pp. 55-56; cf. Crawford, Coin-
age, p. 197. The original MAK6AONQN nPQTH5 type began soon after the defeat of Perseus; see Boehrin-
ger, Chronologie, pp. 107-16.
26 Boehringer, "Achaischen Liga," pp. 163-67.
27 On Aesillas, see "Hoards and Circulation," pp. 97-110.
28 See discussion in the "Introduction," pp. 23-26.
Conclusion
115
ment of issues established in the foregoing study seems to provide new substantiation of
their proposed connection. There is, however, a problem. The hoard record seems to place
group VII at the beginning, not at the end, of the 70s.29 While it may be true that we are
talking only about shifting the date of group VII by less than a decade to allow contempo-
raneity with the proposed Macedonian governorship of L. Iulius Caesar, it is not, in fact, the
best and most objective interpretation of the numismatic evidence now available. Moreover,
if the early 70s are the correct dating of the CAE PR issues, it perhaps brings us back to
Burnett's cautionary insistence that CAE... may not stand for Caesar at all, but some
entirely unrecorded governor of the early 70s, who served "perhaps in 78/7 when Ap. Clau-
dius Pulcher, who had been assigned Macedonia as his province in 78, was prevented by
illness from taking up the post until the next year."30
In the end, it must be admitted that this study has not answered all of the questions that
surround the silver coinage in the types of Aesillas the Quaestor. But the crucial mystery of
the two overstrikes (one placing Aesillas near 90 B.C. and the other placing Aesillas at least
ten years after Sulla's sack of Athens) can now be resolved and their seemingly impossible
contradiction explained. And the Aesillas coinage, with its heavy concentration at the begin-
ning, near 90 B.C., can take its proper place in the economic and monetary history of Mace-
donia as an unexpectedly prolonged and complex series of issues reflecting Rome's
determination to preserve the cooperation or at least passivity of the powerful Thracian
tribes that threatened its communication lines to the east.
29 See "Hoards and Circulation," pp. 97-110, esp. the Macedonia? 1986 hoard, p. 103.

Burnett, p. 57.
INDICES
1. Historical Persons
Aesillas, identification of
quaestorship in Macedonia
coinage of Athenian types
Alexander III, the Great
Andriscus
Appian, Mithr. 12.5
Mithr. 29
Bottiaeans
Q. Braetius Sura
Ap. Claudius Pulcher, COS 79,
gov. of Macedonia 78/7
L. Cornelius Sulla Felix, sack of Athens, 86
P. Cornelius Lentulus Sura
Cotys, king of the Thracians
coinage of Athenian types
Demeas-Kallikratides (Athenian NS officials)
Diodorus 37.5a
Euphenes, Thracian rebel
L. Iulius Caesar, COS 90,
gov. of Macedonia ca. 94
L. Iulius Caesar, COS 64
Lysimachus, coinage type
Mithradates VI of Pontus, coinage type
Niketes-Dionysius (Athenian NS officials)
Perseus

Philip V of Macedonia
Plautus, Curc. 2.3.50
Plutarch, Sulla 11.4
Sallust, Cat. 29.3
C. Scribonius Curio, COS 76,
gov. of Macedonia 75-73
C. Sentius Saturninus, gov. of
Macedonia, ca. 93-87
Suura, hoard evidence
coinage of Thasian types
identification with Q. Braetius (or Bruttius)
Sura, legate under C. Sentius Saturninus
identification with P. Cornelius
Lentulus Sura, COS 71
Virgil, Aen. 10.1757-9
23
23, 113
see Index 3, Alexander portrait
85, 100
94 n.
23 n.
26, 29, 85
see Suura
115
24, 91, 95, 106, 110
see Suura
113
23, 26 n., 112, 114
24, 67, 91-92, 95
113
113
24
24-25, 93, 109, 114-15
21, 91-92, 94, 103, 114
22, 94, 102, 110, 112, 114
40, 92-94
22 n.
22
48 n.
23 n.
48 n.
102
23-25, 48, 93, 109
118
Indices
Thasos
Thessalonika
Alexander portrait
comparison to Mithradates
propaganda value
treatment of the hair
Coinage
control marks
diameters
die axes
die linkages
die wear
evolution over time
Hans
fractions
hoard record
imitations and forgeries
mint marks
overstrikes
pellets
piercing
production patterns
quality of striking
signatures
weights

Drachms
Fasti of Macedonia
Laurel wreath
double knot in
Legends
CAE PR
MAKAONQN ("of the Macedonians")
SI
Rome and Romans
attitudes toward coinage
cursus honorum
government officials
policy toward Macedonia
policy toward Thracians
symbols (cista and sella)
type immobilise
Thracian tribes
Denteletes
Medi
Bulgaria
Belitsa 1956 (IGCH 976)
Blagoevgrad vicinity 1981
Cepeni 1921/2 (IGCH 646)
Haskovo 1974 (CH 1, 92)
Haskovo'? (CH 6, 44)
Kamenitsa 1936 (IGCH 970)
Kjustendil?
Kjustendil district?
Kroumovo?
Levka 1973 (CH 6, 49)
Noevtsi?
Strojno 1961 (IGCH 924)
22-23, 92-94, 97-99, 101-2, 106-7, 1
26- 29, 36, 85, 88
3. Subjects
21-23, 51-52, 59-62, 64, 111
22
21-22, 25
22, 40, 45, 51-52, 59-60, 72
36, 41-42, 69, 83-89
69, 77-79
27, 31-32, 72-73, 79
9-10, 27, 35, 41, 46, 79-83
Indices
119
Zhabokrat?
98, 108
Zlatograd 1967 (IGCH 969)
97, 99, 109, 112 n.
Greece
Kerassia 1959? (IGCH 653, RRCH 283)
98, 101-2
Kozani 1955 (IGCH 457)
97
Macedonia? 1980 (CH 7, 139)
98, 101 n.. 105-6, 109
Macedonia? 1986
48, 73, 98, 103, 109
Nea Karvali 1963 (IGCH 660, RRCH 336)
98. 100 n., 101, 104-5
Platania 1959 (IGCH 663, RRCH 358)
98, 101 n., 107
Siderokastro 1961 (IGCH 642)
45-46, 92 n., 97, 99-101, 104 n., 105, 109-10, 1
SW Macedonia 1981 (CH 7, 133)
97, 99-101, 106, 109, 112 n.
Thessalonika environs 1976 (CH 5, 55)
98. 102
5.
Modern Authors

Boehringer, C.
31, 91, 114
Bompois, H. F.
26, 28
Broughton, T. R. S.
24 n., 114 n.
Burnett, A.
9, 91, 94, 97 n., 99, 100, 102, 105-7, 109-10, 1
114 n., 115
de Callatay, F.
9-10, 42, 46, 72 n., 79-81, 101, 104-5
Crawford, M. H.
101, 107, 112 n.
Draganov, D.
98 n.
Fisher, R. S.
9-10, 27, 42, 46, 48, 79-81, 86. 88. 101
Friedlaender, J.
48
Gaebler, H.
24, 26
Hackens, T.
104 n.
Head, B. V.
113-14
Hurter, S.
73
Kroll, J.
<t
Lenormant, F.
26
Lewis, D. M.
23-25, 91, 93-94, 102, 107, 109, 114-15
Mattingly, H.
25, 91, 93-94, 100, 102, 104, 107, 109. 114-15
Mommsen, T.
22 n.
Merkholm, 0.
5. 9-10, 27, 91, 94, 98-99
Price, M. J.
22
Prokopov, I.
99, 102-104 n., 108, 113

Plate 1

Plate 2
6C-27 6C-30 6D-33 7-26

Plate 3

Plate 4

Plate 5

Plate 6

Plate 7

Plate 8

Plate 9

Plate 10

Plate 11

Plate 12

Plate 13

Plate 14

Plate 15
PLATANIA 1959

Silver Coinage With The Types of Aesillas The Quaestor / by Robert A. Bauslaugh

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Silver Coinage With The Types of Aesillas The Quaestor / by Robert A. Bauslaugh

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 18:42 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.

WITH THE TYPES OF

AESILLAS THE QUAESTOR

THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 18:42 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015058136246

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 18:42 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015058136246

of their contribution to the

understanding of Hellenistic coinage

Group I, 01-06, obv. no theta (except 05B, 06C-D), rev. with/without A 32

Group II, 07-013, obv. theta, rev. with/without A and pellets 36

Group III, 014-015, obv. B- and 8, rev. with/without B, no pellets 42

no pellets, except R93 47

Group V, 020-031, obv. theta, rev. with/without pellets 49

Group VI, 032-083, obv. theta, rev. no pellets 52

Group VIII, 088-0102, obv. theta, rev. combinations of pellets 65

Drachms, Dr. 1 - Dr. 7 69

Ancient Imitations and Forgeries, Im. 1 - Im. 7, Dr. Im. 1 70

METROLOGY AND PRODUCTION CONTROLS 75

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 18:42 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015058136246

Possible Control Systems 83

HOARDS AND CIRCULATION 97

about 1,000 different tetradrachms, 8 drachms, 4 overstruck examples, and 14 imitations.

of development during the production of the coinage.

traditional arrangement of the coinage. In 1986 at the Tenth International Numismatic

Congress in London I offered the preliminary results of my own collection of material, at

forthcoming publication of two important hoards containing Aesillas tetradrachms by

was to publish a single new Aesillas overstrike on New Style Athens.

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 18:42 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015058136246

to the American Numismatic Society's library, I have gradually expanded my catalogue to

more than 210% more) in the present study!

D9=D40 (here=023), D21=D28 (here=025A-C), D51=D52 (here=034), D42=D55 (here=064), D63=D64

(here=097), 024=023 (here=091 A-B), 035=034 (here=07), 070=069 (here=070A-B).

coinage since the nineteenth century.

study including G. Akamates (Thessaloniki, University of Thessaloniki), M. Amandry

(Paris, Cabinet des Medailles), N. Asgari (Istanbul, Arkeoloji Miizerleri Mudurlugii), D.

Bachendorf (Frankfurt, Seminar fur Griechische und Romische Geschichte), S. Bendall

sitat, Gottingen), A. Burnett (London, BM), T. V. Buttrey (Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum),

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 18:42 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015058136246

F. Campbell (New York, ANS), L. Cancio (National Numismatic Collection, Washington,

D. C), M. Chiaravalle (Milan, Civiche Raccolte Archeologiche e Numismatiche), E. Clain-

Stefanelli (National Numismatic Collection, Washington, D. C), F. de Callatay (Brussels,

Institut d'Archeologie), G. Dembski (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum), B. Demetriadi

(Athens), K. Dimitrov (Sophia, Institut et Musee Archeologique), A. S. Fava (Turin, Museo

NY), H. Ingvaldsen (Oslo, Institutt for Arkeologi, Kunsthistorie og Numismatikk), C.

Koukouli-Chrysanthaki (Kavala, 18th Ephoreia of Antiquities), J. Kroll (Austin, U. of

Texas), H. Kiithmann (Munich, Staatliche Munzsammlung), W. Metcalf (New York, ANS),

H. Nicolet (Paris, Cabinet des Medailles), M. Oeconomides (Athens, Numismatic Museum),

B. Overbeck (Munich, Staatliche Munzsammlung), C. Petolescu (Bucarest, Muzeul National

de Istorie de Istorie a Rorhniei), M. Price (London, BM), I. Prokopov (Kyustendil, Museum

of History), H. D. Schultz (Berlin, Staatliche Museem zu Berlin), I. Touratsoglou (Athens,

CA), and J. Youroukova (Sophia, Institut et Musee Archeologique).

In addition, I want to acknowledge my extraordinary debt to Margaret Thompson, who

and to Otto Merkholm, who strongly encouraged me to undertake this investigation.

and study might never have reached publishable form.

are in basic agreement with the present study.

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 18:42 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015058136246

Brevard, North Carolina, 2000

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 18:42 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015058136246

Collections), New York.

American Journal of Numismatics, New York.

1978), vol. 2, Bibliographie (2nd ed., Mainz am Rhein, 1982).

Die Antiken Munzen Nord-Griechenlands (see Gaebler).

American Numismatic Society Museum Notes (New York).