Milne, The Currency of Egypt under the Ptolemies

8/7/2019 Milne, The Currency of Egypt under the Ptolemies

1/9

Egypt Exploration Society

The Currency of Egypt under the PtolemiesAuthor(s): J. G. MilneSource: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Dec., 1938), pp. 200-207Published by: Egypt Exploration SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3854792 .

Accessed: 27/02/2011 13:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ees. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Egypt Exploration Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal

of Egyptian Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=eeshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3854792?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=eeshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=eeshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3854792?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ees


2/9

(200)

THE CURRENCY OF EGYPT UNDER THE PTOLEMIESBY J. G. MILNE

BEFORE the conquestof Egypt by Alexanderthe Great,there was nothingthat could bedescribedas a native coinagein circulationin the country:certainmetals,usually goldorcopper,weretradedin exchangeboth for local and forforeignbusiness,buttheyweretreatedas commoditiesandwerenot givenstandardsof value:they passedby weightat the marketprice. Silveris morerarelymentionedin the recordsof businesstransactions:it was notobtainedfromlocal sources,and,thougha substantialamountmusthave beenimported-the inscriptionsof OsorkonI show that he had given at least 560,000poundsof silver,mainlymanufactured,to the templesin the first fouryearsof his reign-its use seemstohavebeenconfinedto articlesof luxuryor ornament. It is true that muchof thissilvercamefrom Greeklandsin the formof coin,but the reasonfor this is that to the Greeksa coin wasvirtuallyan ingot, and an orderfor silverbullionwould mostnaturallybe met by the dis-patchof coinsto therequiredweight. Thedestinyof Greeksilvercoinsin Egyptisclearfromthe conditionof thehoards-about a scorein numberbeforethe Greekconquest-that havebeenrecorded;1they are typicallymiscellaneouscollectionsfromdifferentdistrictsand ofdifferentstandards,sometimesmixedup with scrapmetal, and often hackedto test theircompositionin sucha way as to obscurewhat wasthe mostessentialpointin a coinforthepurposesof a Greektrader,the badgeof the issuingauthority. It wouldhave beena com-plicatedaffairfor an exchangeagent or bankerto evaluate such a collectionin terms ofspecie:treatedas bullion,they simplyhad to be weighedout. In two or three cases theirdestinyis even clearer,as the processof meltingandremakingthe metalhad been startedbeforethe hoardswereconcealed,andhalf-meltedcoins or lumpsfrom cruciblesare mixedup with the coins.2It may be taken as certain that these coins, so far as the Egyptianmerchantswere concerned,wereregardedsolely as bullion. It mighthave beenexpectedthat, afterthe Persianconquestof Egypt, the Persiancoinageof golddaricsandsilversigloiwouldhave beenmadelegalcurrencyin thecountry;but thereis no evidencethat theywereso used. Two instances arerecordedof the occurrenceof daricsin hoards,3but these arecomparativelylate, and with the daricsthereweregoldcoinsof PhilipII of Macedon;whilethereis only one casein whichsigloiwere foundin a hoard,4andthen in associationwith amixedlot of Greeksilver. Sigloido not occurcasuallyon Egyptiansites, as practicallyallkinds of currencyof laterperiodsdo, andit seemsfair to concludethat they did not forman officialpartof the mediaforthe transactionof businessin Egypt. Herodotus,it may besaid, regardsAryandesas havingstrucksilver coins when he was satrapof Egypt; but,whatevervaluemay be placedon the story,it doesnot suggestthat the coinswere meantforlocaluse, andwe neednot supposethat they were.Anapproximationto coinagemaybe foundin somepiecesof goldstampedon bothfaceswith hieroglyphicsigns,the readingof which is 'good Gold':theseareof adjustedweight,and mightbe regardedas belongingto the sameclass as the earlyGreekcoins of palegold

1 The hoardsof Greek coins have been collectedand indexed by S. P. Noe, Bibliographyof GreekCoin-hoards(2nd edn., New York, 1937). 2 E.g. Noe, 143 (Benha el-'Asl)and 144 (Beni Iasan).3 Noe, 322 and 420. 4 Noe, 888. 6 Herodotusiv, 166.


3/9

THE CURRENCYOF EGYPT UNDER THE PTOLEMIES 201or silver, but for the fact that they bear no sort of clue to the authority under which theywere issued, and so lack the guarantee which was indispensable to the Greek idea of a coin.Obviously under these circumstances they could not have a face value, and it is mostprobable that they are ingots of gold made up after the convenient Greekpattern in handylumps: a Greekmight have regardedthem as staters, but certainly not as nomismata.1The only coins which can be definitely accepted as struck in Egypt before the time ofAlexander belong to the middle of the fourth century, and are copies of Athenian typesof the preceding century. In all probability these were produced to be used for the pay ofGreek mercenaries, who were employed by the native rebels against the Persian rule, andwould naturally want to be paid in Greek money: an Athenian general, Chabrias,had beensent over, and might have taken with him some old dies from the Athenian mint as part ofhis equipment. Two specimensof such Athenian tetradrachmdies have been found in Egypt,in one case associated with a quantity of old coins ;2 and another hoard was composed ofdefaced Phoenician coins, scrap silver, and melted metal, together with new Athenian coinsof these old types, presumably just produced on the spot.3 But these copies of Greek coinswould only have a currency value to the mercenaries, and the types would have carried nomeaning outside the camps of the insurgent party. The same may be said of a solitary goldcoin, showing like them Athenian types, though not from regular Athenian dies, which hasthe name of Tachos, the leader of the rebellion:4dies for gold would not be procurablefromAthens, so he had some made with the familiar types for his mercenaries.When Alexander conquered Egypt, therefore, it is fairly certain that the mass of theinhabitants had no acquaintance with coinage in the Greek sense-the idea that a piece ofmetal could have a definite purchasing power assigned to it, apart from its metal contentand the local market prices, was quite outside their experience. Moreover, the system ofcoinage to which they were introducedwas complicated by the fact that it was on a bimetallicbasis, and the ratio of metal values in Egypt had never been the same as in Europe. Egypt,like all the rest of the Empire of Alexander, was to be Hellenized, and the Hellenic ideal ofa universal Empire postulated a common currency of one standard for all provinces. Alex-ander had adopted the Athenian standard, which was based on silver, with gold at a fixedratio of 10:1, and bronze as a subsidiary token currency; but under the native kings theratio of gold to silver had been only 2:1.5 It may be doubted whether the Alexandrinesystemwould ever have taken root in Egypt, even if the Empire had held together.In the first instance a mint was set up in Egypt, presumably at Alexandria, and there wasan issue of tetradrachms of the normal Alexandrine types :6 it is not certain whether anylower denominations were struck at the same time. These tetradrachms were not of courseintended for purely local circulation: they would be current throughout the Empire, andequally the issues of other mints would be current in Egypt. So they are found in hoardsoutside the country, and a large proportionof the Alexandrine tetradrachms that have comefrom Egypt are of external mints. The Egyptian would not need to trouble about the mint-marks on the coins: they would all be classedtogether as silver of Alexander, and the aipyvptov'AAXeav8pelovmentioned in an Elephantine papyrus of 311-10 B.C.7would doubtless be of thiskind. But a change began to be manifest, even before the death of the boy Alexander putan end to all pretence of unity in the provinces: the silver was still struck in the name ofAlexander, though with new types-on the obverse a head of Alexander the Great in an

1 G.F. Hill in Num.Chron.,1926,132.2 J. N. Svoronosin CorollaNumismatica,285:G.F. HillinNum.Chron.,1922 14.3 JEA 19, 119. 4 G. F. Hill in Num. Chron.,1926, 130. 5 JEA 15, 150.6 E. T. Newell, Alexanderhoards:Demanhur(New York, 1923), 144-7. 7 P. Eleph., 1.


4/9

J. G. MILNEelephant-skincap, on the reversea figureof Athene-and the tetradrachmswere kept onthe Alexandrinestandard;but the smallercoins,the drachmasandhalf-drachmas,wereofreducedweight,approximatingto the Asiaticstandardcommonlyknownas Rhodian.1Thereason for this changewas doubtlessthat the largercoinswould be requiredas much forexternaltradeasforinternal,whilethe smallerwerefor localcirculation:so thetetradrachmsconformedto the standardof the Empire,but the drachmascouldconvenientlybe assimi-lated to Egyptianvalues of metal.It is not clearat what date preciselythe next changewas madein the standardof thesilver:it mayhave beenafter the deathof AlexanderIV, orwhenPtolemytookthe title ofking in 306, or at someintermediatedate. The issue of tetradrachmswith the name ofAlexanderand the types describedabove continued,but the weight was reducedto thePhoenicianstandard.2 This meant that the Alexandrineideal of a commonstandardfortheGreekworldhadbeendefinitelyabandoned:therewasnolongera singleauthorityforthedeterminationof the circulatingvalueof coins,andeachof the Successorscouldfix it as hewished. Forthepurposesof externaltradewhichinvolvedpaymentsin silverPhoeniciawasfarthe most importantpartof the dominionsof Ptolemy:Egypt importedsilver,but didnot exportit; but the Phoenicianmerchantswouldrequirea supplyof silverstaters,andthereforePtolemy adjustedhis coinageto theirvaluation. Aswill be seen,it wasthis prin-ciplewhichgovernedthe standardof the Ptolemaicsilver for the next century.Thisdropin the weightof the silverstater wasaccompaniedby a correspondingdropinthe gold: hithertogold statersand doublestaters of the Alexandrinestandardhad beencoinedin Egypt,the staterbeingapproximatelyof theweightof twoAlexandrinedrachmas;andPtolemyreducedhisstaterto theweightof two'Phoenician'drachmas.But thechangein the silverstandardhadbeenduein partat anyrateto thehighervalueof silverasagainstgoldin Egypt, and forinternalpurposesit was a mistaketo bringdownthe gold to corre-spondwiththe silver. Sothenext issue ofgoldwasof a differentcharacter:theweightof theunit was approximatelythat of the doublestaterof Alexander,whichwouldpass outsideEgypt on the basisof a weightequivalentto fourdrachmas,whileit wasapproximatelyfivetimes the weightof the Egyptiansilverdrachma:as all Greekgold coinageat this periodseemsto have beenintendedto servemerelyas an expressionof silverfor convenienceinpayinglargesums,weightagainstweightat the localratioof values,it wasobviouslydesir-able to securethe acceptanceof a coin by makingit of a weightthat couldbe related toalternativestandardsused in the areas to which it was likely to be sent. This principlegovernedthe issues of gold in Egypt till the middleof the reignof Philadelphus.Thereis very little evidenceof the use of bronzecoinsin Egypt duringthe earlieryearsof Greekrule; it may be surmisedthat the classesof the populationwhowouldhave hadmost occasionto use it, the peasantryandartisans,had not becomefamiliarwith the newideaof coinage,andso lowvalueswerenotissuedin any quantity. Thefirstplentifulbronzeissueswereaftertheassumptionof theroyaltitle byPtolemyin 306:theseareof theordinaryGreekmodule,with nothingmuchmore than an inch in diameter,andprobablyserved astokens for fractionsof the drachma:thereis no surebasis on which to estimatetheirde-nominations,but if a comparisonwithSyriancoinagecanbeaccepted,thechiefdenominationmayhave been a half-drachma.Duringthe reignof Ptolemy Soter,and for the firstpart of that of Philadelphus,theofficialEgyptiancurrencycontinuedon this basis,whichwaspracticallythat of Alexander

1 J. N. Svoronos,ra vojllaiauaa TWrVIlToAc'paLwv, ii, pp. 7 ff., seriesiv. 2. (TheheadofAlexanderhadappearedwith the oldreversetypes earlier,but no changein weightis associatedwith this.)2 Svoronos,pp. 18ff., group1, series i.

202


5/9

THE CURRENCY OF EGYPT UNDER THE PTOLEMIES 203with a reduced silver unit. But it is noticeable that a substantial proportion of the silvertetradrachms of this period are punch-marked or scratched with signs, which is evidencethat they werenot accepted in trade at the value put on them by the issuing authority. Suohmarking is found on several series of Greek coins, and in every case it can be shown tobe due to the original guarantee of value having ceased to be effective; for instance, the coinsof Aegina were freely punch-marked after the reduction of Aegina by Athens, and so werethe Persian sigloi after the fall of the Persian Empire.1 It would appear that the Egyptianmerchants took the Ptolemaic silver, not at its nominal value, but as bullion, which atEgyptian rates would be much higher, and marked the coins to signify the fact: it wasprobably illegal, but the government could not have enforced the acceptance of their coinsat an artificial rate without causing a considerabledislocation of trade, and so acquiesced inthe practice.The situation was however obviously unsatisfactory, especially in view of the possessionof the greater part of Phoenicia by the Ptolemies: the coinage which was not suited toEgyptian requirementswas quite suitable for the Phoenicians; and, so far as silver was con-cerned, the Phoenician merchants were more important than the Egyptian, for the reasonsalready stated. About 270 the whole system seems to have been revised, and separate treat-ment accorded to Phoenicia and to Egypt. There is a plentiful coinage of silver, whichbelongs to the reigns of Philadelphus, Euergetes, and Philopator, and consists almost en-tirely of tetradrachms: it is on the Phoenician standard, and the majority of the coins canbe assigned by their mint-marks to the mints of Tyre, Sidon, Ptolemais Ake, Joppa, andGaza; these are normally dated by regnal years.2 Coinsgenerally similar to these, but with-out mint-marks, are also found, and these have been regarded as the issues of the mint ofAlexandria.3 But it should be observed that the coins of the mints of Phoenicia have on thereverse the legend PTOAEMAIOY flTHPOX, not PTOAEMAIOYBAVIAEfl as on theearlier coins of Soter and Philadelphus and the later ones of the second and first centuries:this distinctive formulamay have been adopted for use in these mints from a desire to consultthe feelings of the Phoenicians: the omission of the title BASAlEnY would avoid emphasison the foreign overlordship. In the next century a somewhat similar idea may be traced inthe coinage of the Seleucid kings at their Phoenician mints: this was on the Phoenicianstandard, instead of the Alexandrine which was used at Antioch and other Seleucid mints,and so clearly intended for Phoenician trade; and on it the laudatory titles, which wereinscribed on the Antiochene issues, do not appear. As the coins of the seriesunder considera-tion which have no mint-marks bear the same legend as those with the mint-marks ofPhoenicia, it is fair to assume that, even if they were struck at Alexandria, they were de-signed primarily for circulation in Phoenicia. So far as Egypt was concerned, they were onmuch the same economic footing as foreign coins, and this renders their treatment, ormaltreatment, by punching more understandable.The most important item in the revision of the system for the purposesof Egyptian localcirculation was the introduction of an entirely new series of bronze coins,4 which were evi-dently intended to contain an amount of metal bearing some relation to their face values,so as to remove them out of the category of mere tokens. The largest of them are of a sizeand weight for which there is no parallel to be found in the issues of Greeceor Asia Minor:they average about six times the weight of the chief bronze coin of Soter, and if, as is notimprobable, they were issued as drachmas, while the earlier coin may have been a half-

1 Num. Chron., 1931, 177.2 Svoronos, pp. 78 ff., group 8, 1, series ii; 2, ii; 3, ii; 4, i; 5, i: p. 150, group 7: pp. 197 ff.3 Svoronos, p. 61, group 2: p. 156, group 4: p. 178, group 2. 4 Svoronos, pp. 64 ff., group 3.


6/9

J. G. MILNEdrachma,the increasein weightwas threefold. Suchan increasecannot be explainedas araisingof the standard:there are a few instancesin Greekcoinageof the standardof bronzebeingraised,thoughthe reverseprocessis muchmorecommon;but noraisingbymorethanabouttwenty-fivepercent.is known. Theonly possibleexplanationis that thegovernmentdecidedto initiate anindependentcoinageon a bronzestandard,whichwasnot to besubjectto the fluctuationsof pricesof silver:in othertermsit may be said that they forsooktheAlexandrinesilverstandard,anddissociatedtheircoinagefromthe Greeksystem.Theresultsof thischangeareevidentalmostat once,bothinthehoardsandinthepapyri:in the middleof the thirdcenturythe typical Egyptianhoard consistsnot of silvertetra-drachms,as was the case about300, but of bronzeof the two largestsizes,whichmay betaken to be drachmasand half-drachmas;and paymentsof substantialsums in bronzeappearin the papyri. Thefact that the Ptolemaicbronzeof this periodhad a realmetalvalue alsoappearsfromits exportin considerablequantitiesto foreigncountries:the coinsof this serieshave been foundall roundthe Mediterranean,andevenas far afieldas Britain,and in Italy they wereoccasionallyrestruckfor the local bronzecoinage. Technicallyitwouldseem that bothsilver and bronzewerelegaltenderto any amountin Egypt, andnoadjustmentshouldhavebeenneededasbetweenthe twoforthereckoningof payments:butthe fact that silverwas undervaluedas currencywouldnaturallytend to driveit out ofcirculation:no onewould wantto give a silvertetradrachmin paymentfor a debt of thatamount,if he knewthat he couldget morethanfourdrachmasfor it in thesilvermarket.Goldceasedtoplayanimportantpartin theEgyptiancurrencyafterthereignofPhiladel-phus:this mayhave been to someextent due to the exhaustionof the Persianreservewhichhad been thrownon the marketby Alexander,andthe consequentrecoveryof goldvalues,whichwould make it better from an economicalpoint of viewfor the kings of Egypt toexporttheirgoldthanto use it for localcirculation;but in any caseinternaltradein Egyptwouldnot call fora largesupplyof coinsof highvalue. Theonly goldcoinsstruckin Egyptafter about270aredifferentiatedfromthe regularsilverby the choiceof obversetypes: theEgyptiansilver tetradrachmfromfirstto last continuedto bearthe head ofPtolemySoter,with only one briefexception,'resemblingin this consistencythe greatGreekcommercialcoinages;but the goldof the laterkings,anda seriesof silver doublestaters,hadportraitsof the reigningkingorhis queen,alongsideof whichrana serieswith commemorativepor-traits of ArsinoeII.2 Theformerseriesendedin the reignof Epiphanes,the latter went ontill thatofEuergetesII. Thesecoinsofexceptionaltypesandexceptionalsizewereprobablyintendedquiteas muchto serve as medals as to be used forordinarycirculation;and thissuppositionis borneout by the absenceof anyrecordof theirhavingbeenfoundin hoards.Till the end of the thirdcentury,then, there was a dualcurrencyin Egypt: the mintsof Phoeniciacontinuedto issue coin for the Ptolemies so long as they remainedin thepossessionof Egypt, the last knowncoinof the seriesbeingdatedin year4 of Epiphanes.But that the silverhadceasedto be currentat its nominalvalueis shownby anentryin anaccount,probablyof the endof the thirdcentury,in whicha manpays 16 dr. 5? obolsfor asilverstater,whichwouldbe eitherof Alexandrineor Phoenicianstandard:3in the formercase the silverdrachmawasworth a little more thanfourEgyptiandrachmas,in thelattersomewhatmore. This agreesadequatelywith the rate of exchangeknown for the firstcenturys.C.,whichgave an Attic drachmaor a Roman denariusfor a Ptolemaic tetra-drachm.Soit wasnaturalthat forpurposesof tradingconveniencesomekindof adjustmentshouldbe made: in certaincases,mainlyofficialpaymentswherelargesums of moneywereSvoronos,nos. 1123-4, 1136. 2 The seriesbeginswith Svoronos,p. 64.3 UPZ, 149, 1.32.

204


7/9

THE CURRENCY OF EGYPT UNDER THE PTOLEMIES 205likely to be involved, regulations were issued for taking bronzeat a discount, to compensatefor the trouble involved in handling it, in others it was taken at par. But as the bronze wasexported at a metal value, and the silver was mainly used for foreign trade, the ratio ofmetals had to be related to external values as well as internal; and, though there are nodefinite equations recordedin the third century, the terms of certain documents suggest thatthe conversion of silver drachmas into bronze and vice versa was becoming a recognizedpractice.'The situation was altered by the loss of the Phoenician possessions of Egypt at the turnof the century: there was no longer the need to supply the merchants of Tyre and Sidonwith silver coinage, but Cyprusstill remained in the hands of the Ptolemies, and did not usethe heavy Egyptian bronze as its normal currency. So almost simultaneously with the lastissues of Ptolemaic coins from a Phoenician mint, there appearedanew seriesof tetradrachmsat the Cypriotemints of Paphos, Salamis, and Citium.2 These continue the same types, butgo backto theold legend of PTOAEMAIOYBA IAEf , which suggests that they were struckwith a view to circulation in Egypt rather than in the outlying possessions; and they actuallydid circulate in Egypt much more freely than the Phoenician issues, occurringin considerablenumbers in hoards as well as sporadically. It is noticeable that they are not punch-markedlike their predecessors, which shows that they were taken at their face value in Egyptiantrade: also, while the weight of the coins was approximately the same as before, they were ofinferior metal: analysis shows a debasement which steadily increased, till at the end therewas only about 25 per cent. of silver in them. This can clearly be connected with the localvaluation of silver at the end of the third century mentioned above: if silver was worth fourtimes as much in Egypt as in Greece,the Egyptian drachmashould only contain one quarterof the silver in the Greek. Of course this meant that the currency of the debased Ptolemaicsilver was practically confined to Egypt; no one outside would look at it at its face value,nor was it attractive as metal. So, while the third-century coins are found in Greeceand AsiaMinor,the second and first-century tetradrachms hardly ever occur there.But the debasement of the silver involved a revisiqn of the rates of exchange for thebronze; the two had been related to suit the foreign market, and when outside supportforsook the debased silver tetradrachm, the bronze drachma lost ground in sympathy; andits collapse was the more rapid because it had no recognized equivalent in the ordinaryGreek schemes of currency. Early in the second century the bronze drachma and its frac-tions ceased to be struck on the standard introduced under Philadelphus, and a fresh set ofbronze coins was issued, which must have been regarded as unrelated to the earlier series,since they are not found associated with them in hoards to any extent: large hoards of thethird-century bronze are common, and likewise of the later, but it is rare to come upon evenone or two stray examples of the third-century coins in a hoard of the second century. Thenew model of bronze continued to be struck with little variation in standard till the end ofthe Ptolemaic dynasty; and the valuation put upon the coins can be deduced from thedenominations which appearon the last issues of the seriesin the reignof CleopatraVII. Thetwo common bronze coins of this reign are markedrespectively P and M,3which Regling hasshown to represent 80 and 40 bronze drachmas,4and it is the more probable that this valua-tion can be carried back to the beginning of the series, as the sums recorded as paid at thisperiod in papyri postulate the existence of some currencyin which the drachma was of verylight weight: it is common to find statements of the payment of many talents in bronzemoney, which would have been an impossible burden in the third-century bronze with its1 E.g. P. Mich.,173. 2 The seriesbeginswith Svoronos,p. 217, group5, 2.3 Svoronos,p. 311, Nos. 1871 and 1872. 4 Z.f. Numism., 1901, 115.


8/9

J. G. MILNEdrachmaweighing about a quarterof a pound, but was comparatively easy when the bronzetalent was represented by seventy-five pieces of eighty drachmas weighing perhaps fivepounds in all.The exact date of the official change-over cannot be settled at present. The new silvercoinage began in the second year of Epiphanes, so far as known coins show, but it does notfollow that the alteration in the bronze issues was contemporaneous with this: it is quiteprobable that it was effected somewhat later, when the results of the depreciation of thesilver were felt in trade. But it seems to be clear from the evidence of P. Mich. 182 that thechange was operating before 182 B.C.; in this papyrus there is a record of a loan of 44T.4800dr. in bronze, though the penalty for non-fulfilment of the contract is expressed insilver of the old coinage. Whether the payment of the fine would have been made in this oldcoinage, if a default had occurred,may be doubted: but as the depreciated silver was legallyof the same value as the good silver, the terms of the contract would have been satisfied bypayment in the new tetradrachms. As a matter of fact, the old third-century tetradrachmslingered on in circulation, and are found mixed up with their debased successorsin hoards ofthe second century and even later: there is no complete break at this point in the silvercurrency, as there is in the bronze. As the Ptolemaic coinage was from first to last on anominally silver standard, even when it was expressed in bronze, the purchasing power ofthe standard coin, the tetradrachm, was not affected by its debasement, any more than thepurchasing power of the English silver coinage has been affected by its debasement in 1920.But after the bronze drachmalost its intrinsic relation to the silver and became a mere token,it collapsed at the first crisis and was no more than a term of account.The natural result of this was that for business purposesa ratio had to be fixed as betweenthe silver and the bronze coins; and from about 160 B.C.it is the normal feature in accountsto convert silver drachmas into bronze or vice versa. The rates vary considerably, but areseldom above 500:1 or below 400:1, and the average works out at nearly 440:1. This in-dicates that the rate of conversion, like exchange rates to-day, was a matter for settlementin the money market: it is not clearwhether the government made any attempt in the secondcentury to control the movements, but if they did it seems to have had as little effect assimilar attempts by governments have now. Thirty years ago the rate of the piastre to thepound Turkish at Smyrna, nominally 100:1, varied in commercial quotations from 108:1to 182:1. In the last years of the dynasty Cleopatra,as we have seen, appears to have triedto stabilize the ratio by marking her coins as of eighty and forty bronze drachmas, whichsuggests a ratio of 480 :; at this figure the coin of eighty bronze drachmaswould be an obolof the silver standard. This agrees approximately with the statement of Festus' that theAlexandrian talent was of twelve denarii; as the silver content of the denariuswas about thesame as that of the Alexandrian tetradrachm, this gives a ratio of 500:1. It is possible thatin the second century the government intended the bronze to be taken at a similar rate, butas the coins have no marks of value nothing certain can be said: the commonest pieces,which form the bulk of the hoards of the second and first centuries,2are of a size comparablewith that of the eighty drachmacoins of Cleopatra.The evidence of coins found in Egypt shows that there was morejoint circulation of silverand bronze in the second and first centuries than in the latter part of the third, and thisaccords with the evidence of papyri-not so much the official records as the stray entries inprivate papers. Thus in the middle of the second century we find a man at Tebtunis collect-ing four drachmas silver-i.e. a tetradrachm-and five hundred drachmas bronze on every1 Festus, p. 359 (Miiller).

2 Svoronos, Nos. 1224 and 1384, and 1424.

206


9/9

THE CURRENCY OF EGYPT UNDER THE PTOLEMIES 207thirty arourae;and at the sameplacea complaintof the theft of six hundreddrachmasofcoined silverandseven talents of bronze.1Fortunatelythe differencebetweenthe silverandthe bronzedrachmais so greatthat thereis little risk of confusionwhenwe have to decidewhichis meantin astatementof pricesorpayments:butthe variationsin theexchangeratesmust be takeninto consideration.

1 P. Tebt. 739 and 743.

Date post:	08-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hesham-elshazly
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

Milne, The Currency of Egypt under the Ptolemies

Documents