SAWAYA Ziad, coin finds from hellenistic and roman Berytos

THE COIN FINDS FROM HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN BERYTOS (FOURTH CENTURY BC – THIRD CENTURY AD) ZIAD SAWAYA The excavations conducted in the downtown of Beirut since 1991 on over a hundred sites yielded many thousands of coins stretching from the Persian period (fifth century BC) to the twentieth century AD. Since then, only a few final studies (sites BEY 006 and BEY 045) and preliminary reports (sites BEY 004, BEY 020 and BEY 133) have been published.1 The purpose of this paper is to study the coin circulation in Hellenistic and Roman Berytos by combining these earlier results with the database that I have been collecting from different sites since 1997 (sites BEY 002, BEY 004, BEY 026, BEY 125, BEY 133, BEY 142 and BEY 144). Except for BEY 125,2 the study of the coin finds from all of these sites is still in progress. As a result, this inquiry involves 1198 bronze coins, distributed as following: 9 Macedonian, 181 Ptolemaic, 466 Seleucid, 129 civic (Hellenistic / early Roman), 413 imperial (provincial, colonial, Greek imperial and other local coin categories). Therefore it will help to shed more light on the coin circulation in the city as well as on its historical implications based on a larger database and stronger evidence.3 Macedonian coins The number of Alexander the Great’s coins is very limited. They belong to the ‘head of Heracles / club, bow and quiver’ and the ‘Macedonian shield / Macedonian helmet’ series. However, this sample reflects the primacy of the mint that Price attributes to ‘Macedonia’, with five coins. Two coins bearing the letters AP are also recorded. Price classifies them to Arados by considering these letters as the initials of the city.4 Le Rider reports that they were found in quantities among the finds from Ras el-Bassit (Posideion) and attributes them to this mint.5 Only one coin seems to have been produced in Salamis, and the last one cannot be classified to any certain mint. Most striking is the absence of coins given to Byblos by Price.6 Ptolemaic coins Phoenicia fell to Ptolemaic rule between 310 BC and 200 BC. Ptolemy II occupies largely the first place with 142 coins (135 sure and 7 very likely). These figures would also increase if we take into consideration that many uncertain coins might belong to this reign (4 Ptolemy I or II, 13 Ptolemy II or III and 10 uncertain). Three other Lagid kings are represented in a very slight way: Ptolemy I (5), Ptolemy III (5) and Ptolemy VI (2). All of the coins of the founder of the dynasty are Alexandrian. Those of his son and successor Ptolemy II can be attributed to two main mints: Alexandria (76) and Tyre (57). Sidon and probably Cyprus are respectively represented by three and one coin. Most of the Alexandrian coins, characterized by the central cavities, were struck after the reform of 266/5 BC.7 Some of them, with no central cavities, should be classified early in 1 Butcher 1996; Sawaya 1997; Butcher 1998; Sawaya / Rahal 1999; Butcher 2002. 2 Sawaya, forthcoming. 3 An early sketch has been already drawn: Sawaya 2009, pp. 123-25. 4 Price 1991, no. 3334. 5 Le Rider 1986. Price 1991, no. 3427. 7 Svoronos 1904, nos. 158, 161, 416, 418, 439, 441, 449, 450, 452, 484 and 601. 6 THE COIN FINDS FROM HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN BERYTOS (FOURTH CENTURY BC – THIRD CENTURY AD) 377 this reign.8 A similar pattern can also be observed regarding the Tyrian coins, with the domination of the reformed ones.9 This situation shows a very small number of coins representing the early period of Ptolemy II’s reign, just as is the case for his father’s coins. It might reflect a very small economic activity in the city during the reign of Ptolemy I and the beginning of the reign of his successor. However, the peace and the organization that Phoenicia enjoyed under these monarchs should have encouraged some sort of economic development. Therefore the replacement of these old coins by the reformed ones after 266/5 BC is most likely. A new classification of the Tyrian coins was recently proposed.10 If we accept it, all of the Tyrian reformed coins of our assemblage would be struck under Ptolemy III. This would mean that the Alexandrian mint dominated under Ptolemy I and Ptolemy II whilst the Tyrian one dominated under Ptolemy III, against those of Alexandria and Ptolemais known by two coins each. By adopting the classic arrangement, the number of Ptolemy’s III coins will be reduced to five, suggesting that the monetary mass put into circulation under Ptolemy II was enough to cover the Berytian economic activity under his immediate successors. The last Lagid king recorded among the finds is Ptolemy VI with two coins struck in Alexandria. They should be linked to his campaign in the region to help his son-in-law Alexander I Balas against Demetrios II. However, there is no reason to think that they circulated in Berytos, since Ptolemy VI did not occupy the city.11 Seleucid coins Phoenicia passed completely under Seleucid control in 199/8 BC following the victory of Antiochos III at Mount Panion (200 BC), during the fifth Syrian war. Berytos was no exception, as the coin evidence shows clearly (465 Seleucid coins). The oldest Seleucid coins belong to Seleucos I (1?), Antiochos II (1), Seleucos III (4) and Seleucos II-III (1).They must have been brought to this city during one of Antiochos III’s campaigns or later, as none of these early monarchs occupied the region. On the other hand, the huge number of Antiochos III’s coins (309) is the result of direct Seleucid control over Phoenicia. Most of the coins belong to the ‘head of Apollo / Apollo standing’ series attributed to an uncertain mint, which should be located in the newly conquered province of Phoenicia-Palestine. However, the head of Antiochos III represented as Apollo can be easily identified on few ones, which attributes them to the mint of Antioch.12 The same king is also represented by two other series that may be related to the fifth Syrian war, as the ‘trotting horse’ series and, on a relative larger scale, the small ‘elephant’ series are recorded among the finds.13 Most striking is the absence of higher denominations. This raises questions about the possibility of the continuity of circulation of the Ptolemaic bronze coins in Berytos after the Seleucid conquest. For these small Seleucid denominations would not seem to be sufficient for all kinds of daily transactions. One might object to this hypothesis, considering that the new conqueror would have eliminated the Ptolemaic coins and imposed his own coins as a political act to show who was the new master of the province. But this case should not be surprising since, and for economical reasons, Antiochos III did not impose his own precious metal coins on the newly conquered province, permitting thus the circulation of the Ptolemaic ones.14 This tolerant politic might also be reflected by the quasiabsence of coins from the newly established Seleucid mint at Tyre.15 No significant change to this situation is attested under Seleucos IV, represented by few coins from Antioch (3) and Tyre (1). 8 Svoronos 1904, nos. 302, 345, 351 and 418. Svoronos 1904, nos. 706-711, against no. 641. 10 Lorber 2008. 11 See Sawaya 2005, pp. 119-20. 12 Houghton / Lorber 2002a, no. 1055. 9 13 Houghton / Lorber 2002a, nos. 1088 and 1094. See Le Rider 1995; Houghton / Lorber 2002b. 15 Only three coins struck in Tyre may belong to this reign. But this attribution is not sure because of their bad state of preservation. Therefore they could also belong to any of his successors until Antiochos V. 14 378 ZIAD SAWAYA A very different pattern is recorded during the reign of Antiochos IV (92 coins). If the Tyrian mint is always present with a very low quantity of coins (4), the Antiochene one is completely absent. However, two new mints dominates the finds: Berytos (35) and Ptolemais (41). All of the Berytian coins are municipal bronzes: ‘Baal Berytos’ and ‘Astarte on prow’ series. The production of this category of coins started in 169/8 BC, which gives the terminus post quem for the start of their circulation. And since the cities that had municipal coinages, and later civic coinages, tended to refuse foreign coins on their territory, it is legitimate to assume that those of Ptolemais were put into circulation between 175 BC and 169/8 BC. All of these are serrati coins belonging to the ‘veiled goddess’ and ‘Apollo seated on omphalos’ series and we know nothing about their longevity. Meanwhile, other mints are represented among the finds by a very limited number of coins: Byblos (2), Ascalon (1), Cyprus (1, royal coin), uncertain south (2, ‘Goddess seated on throne, holding Nike, with bird at feet’ series) and Seleucia on the Tigris (1). Their circulation in Berytos is not certain. They probably reflect movements of individuals for commercial purposes. The quantity of Seleucid coins decreases drastically under Antiochos IV’s successors. The local mint dominates under Alexander I (10 coins) and Demetrios II (second reign, 7 coins) as a logical result of the ‘relative high’ Berytian production during these reigns. For the same reason, we would expect the same under Alexander II, but this monarch is only represented by two coins from Antioch. The latest Berytian municipal coin belongs to Antiochos VIII (1) who is also known by a coin from Antioch. However, the relation cannot be missed between the increase of the Antiochene and Tyrian coins among the finds and the suspension or the decreasing of the Berytian production: Antiochos V (1 from Tyre), Demetrios I (1 from Antioch and 3 from Tyre), Demetrios II first reign (3 from Antioch and 4 from Tyre), Antiochos VII (7 from Antioch), Cleopatra Thea and Antiochos VIII (1 from Antioch).16 Noteworthy is the lack of coins belonging to Antiochos VI, Tryphon and Antiochos IX, which supports the theory of the non-occupation of Berytos by any of those.17 However, the discovery of coins in the name of Demetrios III struck in the mint of Damascus supports the theory of his control, and not that of Antiochos IX, over Berytos after the death of Antiochos VIII. The number of coins is not large (9 coins), but it is way too significant since they were found on distinct sites, making their presence not accidental: BEY 002 (1), BEY 004 (2), BEY 113 (1), BEY 125 (1), and recently JEM 002 (Jemmayzeh quarter-Beirut, 2) and SFI 071 (Saifi quarter-Beirut, 2).18 Hellenistic and early Roman civic coins This category includes the coins (134) struck by the cities, not referring to any Seleucid or Roman ruler, from the last quarter of the second century BC to the end of the Roman Republic in 27 BC. It can be divided into two major groups. The first one, the oldest, contains the coins of Arados (19) and Marathos (2) produced between the third and the second centuries BC. The Aradians belong to four main series: ‘Poseidon on prow’, ‘prow with Athena Promachos as figure of prow’, ‘prow’ and ‘triple pointed ship’s ram’. Those of Marathos comprise the ‘Hero Marathos standing’ and ‘prow’. The repetition of these coins on most of the sites (BEY 002, BEY 006, BEY 020, BEY 026, BEY 125 and BEY 133), especially the Aradians, shows strong ties between the two cities and raises suspicions about the possibility of their circulation in Berytos. That would explain the reason why the Berytians adopted the Aradian monetary bronze system for their municipal and civic coinages.19 The Aradian coins arrived most probably after the Seleucid conquest, as it is hard to 16 17 Sawaya 2004. Sawaya 2004, pp 117-18 and 123-26; Sawaya 2005, pp. 99-124. 18 19 Sawaya 2004, p. 126; Sawaya 2008, pp. 98-99. Sawaya 2008, pp. 88-92. THE COIN FINDS FROM HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN BERYTOS (FOURTH CENTURY BC – THIRD CENTURY AD) 379 imagine them accepted by the Ptolemaic authorities knowing their closed monetary system. They might have been tolerated by the Seleucids as a complement to the small denominations pumped under Antiochos III. Does that mean that they replaced the ‘discarded’ Ptolemaic coins? This is in fact one answer to be obtained by studying the site finds from the excavations in Beirut. The second group of this category concerns the civic bronzes that Berytos issued during the period 102/1-82/1 BC and the ones that were produced after its autonomy era of 81/0 BC.20 Some of them go through the Roman republican period until 29/8 BC. The coin evidence, as it was expected, shows a predominance of local coins (70), indicating no tolerance towards the circulation of foreign coins. This certainly did not prevent some of them, most of the time by a single coin, from finding their way to the archaeological records as evidence of commercial relations or individual movements: Rhegion, Pergamon, Ephesos, Miletos, Cnidos, Cos, Perge (2 coins), Side (6 coins), Tripolis (early Roman), Byblos (Roman), Sidon (Hellenistic and Roman), Tyre (Hellenistic and Roman), Chalcis of Lebanon (3 coins, Roman), Damascus, Hasmonean kingdom, Dora (Roman), Ascalon (2, Roman). A coin from the ‘head of Octavian / dolphin entwined around trident within wreath’ series was found between the foundation courses of a wall from BEY 133. A few more were also found on other new sites that I am studying in Beirut. This ends the debate over their attribution in favour of Berytos and not Laodicea ad Mare.21 Coins from the imperial period With the establishment of the Empire new categories of coins were introduced, although some from the earlier periods, such as the civic coins, were continued (total of 418). The new coinages are generally called Roman provincial, since they were struck in the provinces, mainly the eastern ones. But I prefer to distinguish between their main different sub-categories, considering the political status of the issuing authorities. Therefore, the Latin-inscribed ‘colonial’ coins are assigned to cities like Berytos which received a Roman colony. The ‘Greek imperial’ coins comprise those of cities with no colonial status and which depicted the imperial effigy on their coins inscribed in Greek. The ‘civic’ coins do not show any reference to the imperial authorities. The circulation of these coins is basically limited to the territories of the issuing cities. However, I prefer to attribute the ‘provincial coins’ category to those struck in provincial capitals, such as the ‘SC’ series of Antioch, that were destined to circulate throughout the whole territories of the province. Augustus is the most represented emperor from the first century AD, with 42 coins. Following him come Claudius (38) and Vespasian (19). Some 24 coins belong to the Julio-Claudian dynasty and cannot be classified with more accuracy. The dominant mint is Antioch, with its 71-strong ‘SC’ series coins against 69 from the colonial Berytian mint. Many of the Antiochene coins are halved,which certainly contributed to the increase in their number. They weigh around 3-5 g after being cut, no doubt to compensate for the low production of the local denominations 5 and 6 (3-4 g and 4-6 g).22 Few of them belong to Augustus, and the bulk are struck in the name of Tiberius, Claudius and Nero, with the significant absence of the emperors from the Flavian dynasty. This means that they were fragmented towards the end of the first century AD and not during the third century as it is generally thought. Some foreign mints are very slightly represented by one coin each: Laodicea ad Mare (civic), Tripolis (civic), Sidon (civic), Nabataea (Aretas IV) and Alexandria (Claudius). A single civic coin from Ascalon is also recorded, but it might equally belong to the second century AD. However, when it comes to Judaea a different case is seen, with a total of 20 21 Sawaya 2008 ; Sawaya, 2009. Grant 1978, pp. 128-29 (Laodicea ad Mare); Sawaya 2002, pp. 125-26 (Bérytos); Sawaya 2009, pp. 182-83 (Bérytos). 22 For these denominations, see Sawaya 2009, pp. 129-45. 380 ZIAD SAWAYA 32 coins distributed as follows: 9 from the Judaean kingdom (mainly Herod Agrippa I and Agrippa II), 13 under the procurators of Judaea, 5 of the first Jewish revolt and 5 Judaea Capta. Some of them are clearly associated with Berytian and Antiochene coins as well as with material from the first century AD and they seem to have enjoyed a wide circulation.23 But we should bear in mind that the Herodian ones might be connected to the embellishment works in the colony paid for by the Judaean kings, and that those related to the first Jewish war might have been distributed by Titus during the victory celebrations held in Berytos or brought by Berytian veterans who participated in this war. The second-century assemblage shows two peaks under Trajan and Hadrian respectively with 61 and 32 coins. Thirty-three of the coins attributed to the reign of Trajan are pseudo-autonomous from Berytos. These coins bear the colonial title and do not mention the emperor. Their dating is not certain. And it is to be hoped that new finds will one day help in resolving this problem. The distribution of the mints in this century attests a clear Berytian domination and regression of the Antiochene: 76 against 31. Finds from Tyre show the presence of ten of the small ‘head of Tyche / Astarte on galley’ series. They are found on many new sites, giving the impression of a probable circulation before the start of the production of the small Berytian pseudo-autonomous series, although this fact is not certain. If this was the case, the production of the Berytian pseudo-autonomous would have happened under Hadrian, since the production of the Tyrian series stopped in 121/2 BC. The Trajanic issues struck in Rome for Syria are represented by three coins,24 as is also the case for the Sidonian mint. Meanwhile, eight foreign mints are recorded by only one coin: Nicaea, Parium, Smyrna, Tripolis, Byblos, Caesarea Maritima, Ascalon and Alexandria. The coins of Septimius Severus were included in the third-century finds. As would be expected, the highest peak is attested under Elagabalus (53 coins out of a total of 103 coins), because of the huge debit of the Berytian mint. In fact, this mint dominates the finds belonging to this period with 51 coins, whilst Antioch decreases more and more with only 9 coins to its account. Heliopolis makes a spectacular entry with 10 coins, and a clear progress of the Tripolitanian mint is recorded with 8 coins. To these three foreign mints, another fourteen should be added. Most of them are represented by one coin (Alexandria Troas, Samos, Corycos, Gabala, Caesarea ad Libanum, Sidon, Caesarea Maritima, Neapolis, Petra, Edessa and Carrhae), two coins (Laodicea ad Mare and Byblos), three coins (Tyre) or six coins (Sidon). The bulk of the finds were issued under Elagabalus and are dominated by Berytos with 25 coins: Alexandria Troas, Antioch (8 coins), Laodicea ad Mare, Caesarea ad Libanum, Tripolis (6 coins), Byblos, Tyre (2 coins), Neapolis, Petra and Edessa. BIBLIOGRAPHY Butcher, K. (1996), ‘BEY 006. The coins. Preliminary report’, BAAL 1, pp. 207-11. Butcher, K. (1998), ‘Coinage in sixth century Beirut. Preliminary observations’, Berytus 43 (19971998), pp. 173-80. Butcher, K. (2002), ‘Small change in ancient Beirut. Coins from BEY 006 and 045’, Berytus 4546, (2001-2002). Butcher, K. (2004), Coinage in Roman Syria. Northern Syria, 64 BC-AD 253, London. 23 Butcher, 2002, pp. 66-67. These coins show Greek or Latin inscriptions within wreath as reverse types: Butcher 2004, pp. 409-11, nos. 15 and 20-22. 24 THE COIN FINDS FROM HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN BERYTOS (FOURTH CENTURY BC – THIRD CENTURY AD) 381 Grant, M. (1978), From Imperium to Auctoritas, Cambridge. Houghton, A. / Lorber, C.C. (2002a), Seleucid Coins. A Comprehensive Catalogue. Part I. Seleucus I through Antiochus III, New York and Lancaster / London. Houghton, A. / Lorber, C.C. (2002b), ‘Antiochus III en Coele Syria and Phoenicia’, INJ 14 (20002002), pp. 44-58. Le Rider, G. (1986), ‘L’atelier de Posideion et les monnaies de la fouille de Bassit’, BCH 110, pp. 393-408. Le Rider, G. (1995), ‘La politique monétaire des Séleucides en Coelé-Syrie et en Phénicie après 200. Réflexions sur les monnaies d’argent lagides et sur les monnaies d’argent séleucides à l’aigle’, BCH 119, pp. 392-404. Lorber, C.C. (2008), ‘Ptolemaic bronze coinage of Tyre’, INJ 16 (2007-2008), pp. 11-27. Price, M.J. (1991), The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhideus. A British Museum Catalogue, Zurich and London. Sawaya, Z. (1997), “BEY 020. The coins”, in: Finkbeiner U. / Sader, H., ‘BEY 020. Preliminary report of excavations 1995’, BAAL 2, pp. 150-56. Sawaya, Z. (2002), ‘Les monnaies d’Octave au dauphin et trident, témoignage d’une première installation de vétérans romains à Bérytos vers 30 av. J.-C’, in: Augé, C. / Duyrat, F., Les monnayages syriens — Quel apport pour l’histoire du Proche-Orient hellénistique et romain?, Actes de la table ronde de Damas, 10-12 novembre 1999, Beyrouth, pp. 123-39. Sawaya, Z. (2004), ‘Le monnayage municipal séleucide de Bérytos (169/8-114/3 av. J.-C.)’, Numismatic Chronicle 164, pp. 109-46. Sawaya, Z. (2005), ‘Les tétradrachmes séleucides à l’aigle de Bérytos’, Numismatic Chronicle 165, pp. 99-124. Sawaya, Z. (2008), ‘Les monnaies civiques non datées de Bérytos: reflet d’un passage discret de l’hégémonie séleucide à l’autonomie (102/1-82/1 av. J.-C.)’, Numismatic Chronicle 168, pp. 61-109. Sawaya, Z. (2009), Histoire de Bérytos et d’Héliopolis d’après leurs monnaies (Ier siècle av. J.C.–IIIe siècle apr. J.-C.), Beyrouth. Sawaya, Z. (forthcoming),‘Les monnaies de BEY 125. Étude numismatique et historique’. Sawaya Z. / Rahal, F. (1999), ‘BEY 004 et BEY133. Les monnaies. Rapport préliminaire’, BAAL 3 (1998-1999), pp. 165-68. Svoronos, J. (1904), Ta Nomismatôn Ptolemaiôn, Athens.