Date post: | 02-Jun-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | mariafrank |
View: | 235 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 9
8/10/2019 Milne_currency Ptolemaic Egypt.pdf
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: 01/10/2013 11:44
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent 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 Societyis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal
of Egyptian Archaeology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:44:38 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3854792?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ees8/10/2019 Milne_currency Ptolemaic Egypt.pdf
2/9
(200)
THE CURRENCY OF EGYPT UNDER THE PTOLEMIES
BY J. G.
MILNE
BEFOREthe
conquest
of
Egypt by
Alexander he
Great,
there was
nothing
that
could be
described
as
a
native
coinage
n circulation
n
the
country:
certain
metals,
usually gold
or
copper,
were
raded
n
exchange
both for ocal and for
foreign
business,
but
they
were
reated
as commodities
nd
were
not
given
standards f
value:
they passed
by
weight
at
the market
price.
Silver
is more
rarely
mentioned
n the recordsof business ransactions:
t was not
obtained
romlocal
sources,and,
though
a
substantial
amountmust
have
been
mported-
the inscriptionsof OsorkonI show that he had given at least 560,000poundsof silver,
mainly
manufactured,
o the
temples
n the first four
years
of his
reign-its
use seems
to
have
been
confined
o articlesof
luxury
or ornament. It is
true that
muchof this
silver
came
from Greek
ands n the formof
coin,
but the reason or this is that to the Greeks
coin was
virtually
an
ingot,
and
an
order
or silver
bullionwould most
naturally
be
met
by
the dis-
patch
of coinsto the
required
weight.
The
destiny
of
Greek
ilvercoins n
Egypt
is
clear
rom
the condition
of the
hoards-about
a
score n number
before he
Greek
onquest-that
have
been
recorded
1
they
are
typically
miscellaneous
ollections
rom
differentdistricts
and of
different
tandards,
ometimes
mixed
up
with
scrap
metal,
and often
hacked
to
test their
composition
n
such
a
way
as to obscurewhat was
the
most
essential
point
in a coin
for
the
purposes
of
a
Greek
rader,
he
badge
of
the
issuingauthority.
It wouldhave been
a
com-
plicated
affair
for an
exchange
agent
or
banker
to evaluate such
a
collection
n
terms of
specie:
treated
as
bullion,
they
simply
had
to
be
weighed
out. In
two or three cases their
destiny
is
even
clearer,
as
the
process
of
melting
and
remaking
he
metal
had
been started
before
he
hoardswere
concealed,
and
half-melted
oins or
lumps
from crucibles
are mixed
up
with the
coins.2
It
may
be taken
as certain that
these
coins,
so
far as the
Egyptian
merchants
were
concerned,
were
regarded
olely
as bullion.
It
might
have
been
expected
that,
after
the Persian
conquest
of
Egypt,
the Persian
coinage
of
gold
daricsand
silver
sigloi
would
have been
made
egal
currency
n
the
country;
but there
s
no
evidence hat
they
were
so used.
Two instances are
recorded
of
the
occurrence
f darics n
hoards,3
but
these
are
comparatively
ate,
and with the darics
here
were
gold
coinsof
Philip
II of
Macedon;
while
thereis only one casein whichsigloiwere found n a hoard,4andthen in associationwith a
mixed
lot of
Greek
ilver.
Sigloi
do not
occur
casually
on
Egyptian
sites,
as
practically
all
kinds of
currency
of later
periods
do,
and
it
seems
fair to
conclude hat
they
did not
form
an official
part
of the media
for
the transaction
of business
n
Egypt.
Herodotus,
t
may
be
said,
regardsAryandes
as
having
struck
silver coins when he was
satrap
of
Egypt;
but,
whatever
value
may
be
placed
on
the
story,
it does
not
suggest
that the
coins
were meant
for
local
use,
and
we need
not
suppose
hat
they
were.
An
approximation
o
coinage
may
be found n
some
pieces
of
gold
stamped
on
both
faces
with
hieroglyphic
igns,
the
reading
of
which s
good
Gold :
these
are
of
adjustedweight,
and
might
be
regarded
as
belonging
o
the
same
class as
the
early
Greekcoins of
pale
gold
1 The hoardsof Greek coins have been collectedand indexed by S. P. Noe, Bibliographyf 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
Herodotus
v,
166.
This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:44:38 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Milne_currency Ptolemaic Egypt.pdf
3/9
THE
CURRENCY OF
EGYPT UNDER
THE
PTOLEMIES
201
or
silver,
but
for
the
fact
that
they
bear
no
sort
of
clue
to
the
authority
under which
they
were
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
most
probable
that
they
are
ingots
of
gold
made
up
after
the
convenient Greek
pattern
in
handy
lumps:
a
Greek
might
have
regarded
them
as
staters,
but
certainly
not
as
nomismata.1
The
only
coins which
can
be
definitely
accepted
as
struck
in
Egypt
before
the
time
of
Alexander
belong
to the
middle of the
fourth
century,
and are
copies
of Athenian
types
of
the
preceding
century.
In all
probability
these were
produced
to be
used
for
the
pay
of
Greek
mercenaries,
who were
employed
by
the native rebels
against
the Persian
rule,
and
would
naturally
want
to be
paid
in Greek
money:
an Athenian
general,
Chabrias,
had
been
sent
over,
and
might
have taken with
him
some
old
dies from the
Athenian mint as
part
of
his
equipment.
Two
specimens
of such Athenian
tetradrachm
dies
have
been found in
Egypt,
in
one
case
associated
with
a
quantity
of old coins
;2
and
another
hoard was
composed
of
defaced
Phoenician
coins,
scrap
silver,
and
melted
metal,
together
with new Athenian coins
of these old types, presumably just produced on the spot.3 But these copies of Greek coins
would
only
have
a
currency
value
to the
mercenaries,
and the
types
would
have
carried no
meaning
outside
the
camps
of the
insurgent party.
The same
may
be said of
a
solitary
gold
coin,
showing
like them
Athenian
types,
though
not from
regular
Athenian
dies,
which has
the
name of
Tachos,
the leader
of
the
rebellion:4
dies
for
gold
would
not be
procurable
from
Athens,
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
the
inhabitants
had
no
acquaintance
with
coinage
in
the
Greek sense-the
idea
that a
piece
of
metal
could
have
a
definite
purchasing
power
assigned
to
it,
apart
from
its metal
content
and
the
local
market
prices,
was
quite
outside their
experience.
Moreover,
the
system
of
coinage to which they were
introduced
was
complicated by
the fact that
it was on
a
bimetallic
basis,
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
of
a
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
fixed
ratio
of
10:1,
and bronze
as
a
subsidiary
token
currency;
but under
the native
kings
the
ratio of
gold
to
silver
had been
only
2:1.5
It
may
be doubted
whether
the
Alexandrine
system
would
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
was
an issue
of
tetradrachms
of
the normal
Alexandrine
types
:6
it
is not certain
whether
any
lower
denominations
were
struck
at
the
same
time.
These
tetradrachms
were
not of course
intended for
purely
local circulation:
they
would be current throughout the Empire, and
equally
the issues of
other
mints
would be
current
in
Egypt.
So
they
are found in
hoards
outside
the
country,
and
a
large
proportion
of
the
Alexandrine
tetradrachms
that have
come
from
Egypt
are
of external
mints. The
Egyptian
would
not need
to trouble
about the
mint-
marks
on
the
coins:
they
would
all be
classed
together
as
silver of
Alexander,
and the
aipyvptov
AAXeav8pelov
entioned
in an
Elephantine papyrus
of 311-10
B.C.7would doubtless
be of
this
kind.
But
a
change
began
to
be
manifest,
even
before
the death
of
the
boy
Alexander
put
an end
to all
pretence
of
unity
in the
provinces:
the silver
was
still struck
in
the
name
of
Alexander,
though
with new
types-on
the
obverse
a
head of
Alexander
the
Great
in
an
1
G.
F.
Hill in
Num.
Chron.,
926,
132.
2
J. N. Svoronosn Corolla umismatica,85:G.F. HillinNum.Chron., 922 14.
3
JEA
19,
119.
4
G. F.
Hill
in
Num.
Chron.,
1926,
130.
5
JEA
15,
150.
6
E. T.
Newell,
Alexander
hoards:Demanhur
New
York,
1923),
144-7.
7
P.
Eleph.,
1.
This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:44:38 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Milne_currency Ptolemaic Egypt.pdf
4/9
J.
G. MILNE
elephant-skin
ap,
on
the
reverse
a
figure
of
Athene-and the tetradrachms
were
kept
on
the
Alexandrine
tandard;
but
the smaller
coins,
the drachmas
nd
half-drachmas,
ereof
reduced
weight,
approximating
o
the
Asiatic
standard
commonly
knownas
Rhodian.1
The
reason for
this
change
was doubtless hat the
larger
coins
would be
required
as
much for
external radeasfor
nternal,
whilethe smallerwerefor localcirculation:o thetetradrachms
conformed
o the standard
of
the
Empire,
but
the drachmas ould
conveniently
be assimi-
lated
to
Egyptian
values
of
metal.
It is not
clear
at what
date
precisely
he
next
change
was
made
in
the standardof
the
silver:it
may
have
been
after the
death
of Alexander
V,
or
when
Ptolemy
took
the title
of
king
in
306,
or at some
intermediatedate.
The issue
of
tetradrachmswith
the name
of
Alexander
and the
types
describedabove
continued,
but
the
weight
was
reducedto
the
Phoenician
standard.2
This meant that
the
Alexandrine deal of a
commonstandard
or
the
Greek
worldhad
been
definitely
abandoned:
here
was
no
longer
a
single
authority
or
the
determination
f
the
circulating
alue
of
coins,
and
each
of the
Successors ouldfix
it
as
he
wished. Forthepurposes f external radewhich nvolvedpayments n silverPhoeniciawas
far
the most
importantpart
of
the dominionsof
Ptolemy:
Egypt imported
silver,
but
did
not
export
it;
but the
Phoenician
merchantswould
require
a
supply
of
silver
staters,
and
therefore
Ptolemy adjusted
his
coinage
o
their
valuation.
As
will be
seen,
it
was
this
prin-
ciple
which
governed
he standardof
the Ptolemaic
silver for the
next
century.
This
drop
n
the
weight
of
the
silver
stater was
accompanied
y
a
corresponding
rop
n
the
gold:
hitherto
gold
staters
and
double
staters of
the Alexandrine
tandard
had
been
coined
n
Egypt,
the
stater
being
approximately
f the
weight
of
two
Alexandrine
rachmas;
and
Ptolemy
reducedhis
staterto
the
weight
of
two
Phoenician
drachmas.
But
the
change
in the
silverstandard
had
been
due
n
part
at
any
rate
to
the
higher
value
of silver
as
against
gold
in
Egypt,
and
for
internal
purposes
t
was a
mistake
to
bring
downthe
gold to corre-
spond
withthe silver.
So
the
next
issue of
gold
was
of a
different
haracter:
he
weight
of
the
unit
was
approximately
hat of
the
double
stater
of
Alexander,
which
would
pass
outside
Egypt
on the basis
of
a
weight
equivalent
o
four
drachmas,
while
t
was
approximately
ive
times the
weight
of
the
Egyptian
silver
drachma:as all
Greek
gold
coinage
at
this
period
seems
to
have
been
intended
to
serve
merely
as
an
expression
of
silver
for
convenience
n
paying
arge
sums,
weight
against
weight
at
the
local
ratio
of
values,
t
was
obviously
desir-
able
to
securethe
acceptance
of
a
coin
by making
t of a
weight
that
could
be
related to
alternative
standardsused in
the areas to
which it
was
likely
to
be sent.
This
principle
governed
he issues of
gold
in
Egypt
till
the
middleof
the
reign
of
Philadelphus.
There
s
very
little evidenceof
the
use of
bronze
coins
in
Egypt during
he
earlier
years
of Greekrule; it may be surmised hat the classesof the populationwhowouldhave had
most
occasion
o use
it,
the
peasantry
and
artisans,
had not
become
amiliar
with
the
new
idea
of
coinage,
and
so low
values
werenot
issued n
any quantity.
The
first
plentiful
bronze
issueswere
afterthe
assumption
f
the
royal
itle
by
Ptolemy
n 306:
these
areof
the
ordinary
Greek
module,
with
nothing
much
more than an
inch in
diameter,
and
probably
erved as
tokens for
fractionsof
the
drachma:
here
is no
sure
basis on
which to
estimate
their
de-
nominations,
ut if
a
comparison
with
Syrian
oinage
anbe
accepted,
he
chief
denomination
may
have been a
half-drachma.
During
the
reign
of
Ptolemy
Soter,
and for
the
first
part
of
that
of
Philadelphus,
he
official
Egyptian
currency
ontinued
on
this
basis,
which
was
practically
hat
of
Alexander
1
J. N. Svoronos,
ra
vojllaiauaa
TWrV
IlToAc paLwv,
ii, pp. 7 ff., series v. 2. (TheheadofAlexanderhadappeared
with the
old
reverse
types
earlier,
but
no
change
n
weight
is
associated
with
this.)
2
Svoronos,
pp.
18
ff.,
group
1,
series .
202
This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:44:38 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Milne_currency Ptolemaic Egypt.pdf
5/9
THE
CURRENCY
OF EGYPT
UNDER
THE
PTOLEMIES
203
with a
reduced
silver
unit. But
it is
noticeable
that a
substantial
proportion
of the
silver
tetradrachms
of
this
period
are
punch-marked
or
scratched
with
signs,
which is
evidence
that
they
were
not
accepted
in trade
at
the
value
put
on them
by
the
issuing
authority.
Suoh
marking
is found
on
several
series
of
Greek
coins,
and
in
every
case it can be shown to
be due
to
the
original guarantee
of value
having
ceased to
be
effective;
for
instance,
the
coins
of
Aegina
were
freely punch-marked
after
the reduction
of
Aegina
by
Athens,
and
so were
the Persian
sigloi
after
the fall
of
the
Persian
Empire.1
It would
appear
that the
Egyptian
merchants
took
the
Ptolemaic
silver,
not
at
its
nominal
value,
but as
bullion,
which at
Egyptian
rates
would be
much
higher,
and
marked
the
coins to
signify
the fact:
it
was
probably
illegal,
but the
government
could not have enforced
the
acceptance
of their coins
at
an
artificial
rate without
causing
a
considerable
dislocation
of
trade,
and
so
acquiesced
in
the
practice.
The
situation
was however
obviously
unsatisfactory,
especially
in view of the
possession
of the
greater
part
of
Phoenicia
by
the Ptolemies:
the
coinage
which
was not suited
to
Egyptian 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
reasons
already
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,
which
belongs
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
can
be
assigned
by
their
mint-marks
to
the
mints
of
Tyre,
Sidon,
Ptolemais
Ake,
Joppa,
and
Gaza;
these are
normally
dated
by
regnal years.2
Coins
generally
similar
to
these,
but
with-
out
mint-marks,
are
also
found,
and
these
have been
regarded
as
the issues
of the mint
of
Alexandria.3
But
it
should be
observed
that the
coins of the
mints of Phoenicia
have
on
the
reverse the legend PTOAEMAIOY flTHPOX, not PTOAEMAIOY
BAVIAEfl as on
the
earlier
coins of Soter
and
Philadelphus
and the
later ones
of the second
and first
centuries:
this
distinctive
formula
may
have
been
adopted
for
use
in these
mints from
a
desire
to
consult
the
feelings
of
the Phoenicians:
the omission
of the
title
B
AS
AlEnY
would avoid
emphasis
on the
foreign
overlordship.
In
the
next
century
a
somewhat
similar
idea
may
be traced
in
the
coinage
of
the Seleucid
kings
at
their
Phoenician
mints:
this
was on
the
Phoenician
standard,
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
were
inscribed
on the
Antiochene
issues,
do not
appear.
As the
coins of the
series
under considera-
tion
which have
no mint-marks
bear
the
same
legend
as
those
with the mint-marks
of
Phoenicia,
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 on
much
the same
economic
footing
as
foreign
coins,
and
this renders
their
treatment,
or
maltreatment,
by
punching
more
understandable.
The
most
important
item
in the revision
of the
system
for the
purposes
of
Egyptian
local
circulation
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
size
and
weight
for
which there is
no
parallel
to be
found
in the
issues
of
Greece
or
Asia
Minor:
they
average
about six
times
the
weight
of the
chief
bronze
coin
of
Soter,
and
if,
as
is not
improbable,
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.
This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:44:38 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Milne_currency Ptolemaic Egypt.pdf
6/9
J. G. MILNE
drachma,
he
increase
n
weight
was
threefold.
Such
an
increase
cannot be
explained
as a
raising
of
the standard:
here are a
few instances
n
Greek
oinage
of the standardof
bronze
being
raised,
hough
he reverse
process
s
much
more
common;
but no
raising
by
more han
about
twenty-fiveper
cent.
is
known. The
only possibleexplanation
s that
the
government
decided
o initiate an
independent oinage
on a bronze
tandard,
whichwas
not to be
subject
to the fluctuations
of
prices
of
silver:
in
other erms
it
may
be said that
they
forsook
he
Alexandrine ilver
standard,
and
dissociated
heir
coinage
rom
the
Greek
ystem.
Theresults
of
this
change
are
evidentalmost
at
once,
both
n
the
hoards
nd
n
the
papyri:
in
the
middle
of the third
century
the
typical
Egyptian
hoard consistsnot of
silver
tetra-
drachms,
as was
the case about
300,
but of
bronze
of
the two
largest
sizes,
which
may
be
taken
to
be drachmas
and
half-drachmas;
nd
payments
of
substantial
sums
in
bronze
appear
n
the
papyri.
The
fact
that
the
Ptolemaic
bronzeof this
period
had a
real
metal
value also
appears
rom ts
export
n
considerable
uantities
o
foreign
countries: he coins
of
this
series
have been found
all round
he
Mediterranean,
nd
even
as
far afield
as
Britain,
and in Italy they wereoccasionallyrestruck or the local bronzecoinage. Technically t
would
seem that
both
silver and
bronze
were
egal
tender
o
any
amount
n
Egypt,
and
no
adjustment
hould
have
been
neededas
between he two
for
the
reckoning
of
payments:
but
the fact that
silver
was
undervalued
s
currency
would
naturally
tend to
drive
it
out of
circulation:no one
would want
to
give
a
silver
tetradrachm
n
payment
for a
debt of that
amount,
f
he knewthat he
could
get
more han
four
drachmas or t in
the
silver
market.
Goldceased
o
play
an
mportant
part
n the
Egyptian
currency
fter he
reign
of
Philadel-
phus:
this
may
have
been to
some
extent due to the exhaustion
of
the Persian
reserve
which
had
been thrown
on
the market
by
Alexander,
and
the
consequent
ecovery
of
gold
values,
which
would make it
better
from
an
economical
point
of
view
for
the
kings
of
Egypt
to
export
their
gold
than
to
use it
for localcirculation;but in any caseinternal rade n Egypt
wouldnot
call for
a
large
supply
of coins
of
high
value. The
only gold
coinsstruck
n
Egypt
after about
270
are
differentiated
rom
he
regular
ilver
by
the choiceof
obverse
ypes:
the
Egyptian
silver tetradrachm
rom
first
to
last
continued
o
bearthe head of
Ptolemy
Soter,
with
only
one brief
exception,
resembling
n
this
consistency
he
great
Greekcommercial
coinages;
but
the
gold
of
the later
kings,
and
a
seriesof
silver double
staters,
had
portraits
of
the
reigning
king
or
his
queen,
alongside
of
which
ran
a serieswith
commemorative
or-
traits of
Arsinoe
I.2
The
former
eries
ended
n
the
reign
of
Epiphanes,
he latter went on
till
that
of
Euergetes
I.
Thesecoinsof
exceptional
ypes
and
exceptional
ize
were
probably
intended
quite
as
much
to
serve as
medals as to
be
used for
ordinary
circulation;
and this
supposition
s
borneout
by
the
absenceof
any
record
of their
having
been
found n
hoards.
Till the end of the thirdcentury,then, there was a dualcurrencyn Egypt: the mints
of
Phoenicia
continued
to
issue coin
for the
Ptolemies so
long
as
they
remained
n
the
possession
of
Egypt,
the
last
known
coin
of
the series
being
dated
in
year
4
of
Epiphanes.
But that
the
silverhad
ceased o
be currentat its nominalvalue
is shown
by
an
entry
in
an
account,
probably
of the end
of
the
third
century,
n which
a
man
pays
16
dr. 5?
obols
for a
silver
stater,
which
would
be
eitherof
Alexandrine r Phoenician
tandard:3 n
the
former
case the
silver
drachmawas
worth a
little
more than
four
Egyptian
drachmas,
n
the
latter
somewhat
more. This
agrees
adequately
with the
rate
of
exchange
known for the
first
century
s.C.,
which
gave
an
Attic
drachma
or a
Roman denarius
for
a
Ptolemaic
tetra-
drachm.
So
it
was
natural hat
for
purposes
f
trading
convenience
omekindof
adjustment
shouldbe made: in certaincases,mainlyofficialpaymentswhere argesums of moneywere
Svoronos,
nos.
1123-4,
1136.
2
The
series
begins
with
Svoronos,
p.
64.
3
UPZ, 149,
1.
32.
204
This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:44:38 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Milne_currency Ptolemaic Egypt.pdf
7/9
THE
CURRENCY OF EGYPT UNDER THE
PTOLEMIES
205
likely
to
be
involved,
regulations
were
issued
for
taking
bronze
at
a
discount,
to
compensate
for the
trouble involved
in
handling
it,
in
others it
was
taken at
par.
But as
the bronze was
exported
at
a
metal
value,
and
the silver was
mainly
used for
foreign
trade,
the
ratio of
metals
had to
be
related
to
external
values as
well
as
internal;
and,
though
there
are
no
definite
equations
recorded
in
the
third
century,
the terms
of
certain documents
suggest
that
the conversion
of silver
drachmas into
bronze
and
vice versa was
becoming
a
recognized
practice.
The
situation
was
altered
by
the
loss
of
the
Phoenician
possessions
of
Egypt
at
the
turn
of
the
century:
there
was no
longer
the
need
to
supply
the merchants of
Tyre
and
Sidon
with
silver
coinage,
but
Cyprus
still
remained
in
the
hands
of
the
Ptolemies,
and
did
not
use
the
heavy
Egyptian
bronze as
its normal
currency.
So
almost
simultaneously
with
the
last
issues
of
Ptolemaic
coins
from a
Phoenician
mint,
there
appeared
a
new series
of tetradrachms
at the
Cypriote
mints of
Paphos,
Salamis,
and
Citium.2
These continue
the
same
types,
but
go
back
to
theold
legend
of
P
TOAE
MA
OY
B
A
I
AEf
,
which
suggests
that
they
were struck
with a view to circulation in Egypt rather than in the outlying possessions; and they actually
did
circulate
in
Egypt
much
more
freely
than the Phoenician
issues,
occurring
in
considerable
numbers
in
hoards as well
as
sporadically.
It
is noticeable
that
they
are
not
punch-marked
like
their
predecessors,
which shows
that
they
were taken
at
their
face value
in
Egyptian
trade:
also,
while the
weight
of the coins
was
approximately
the
same
as
before,
they
were
of
inferior
metal:
analysis
shows
a
debasement
which
steadily
increased,
till at the
end
there
was
only
about 25
per
cent.
of
silver
in
them.
This can
clearly
be connected
with
the local
valuation
of silver
at the
end of the third
century
mentioned
above:
if
silver
was
worth
four
times
as much
in
Egypt
as
in
Greece,
the
Egyptian
drachma
should
only
contain one
quarter
of the silver
in
the
Greek.
Of
course this meant that
the
currency
of the debased
Ptolemaic
silver 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
Greece
and Asia
Minor,
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 the
bronze;
the two
had been
related
to suit
the
foreign
market,
and when outside
support
forsook
the
debased
silver
tetradrachm,
the bronze
drachma
lost
ground
in
sympathy;
and
its
collapse
was the
more
rapid
because
it had no
recognized equivalent
in
the
ordinary
Greek
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
of
bronze
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 the
third-century
bronze are common, and likewise of the later, but it is rare to come upon even
one
or two
stray
examples
of
the
third-century
coins
in a hoard
of the
second
century.
The
new model
of bronze continued
to be struck with little
variation
in
standard
till
the
end
of
the
Ptolemaic
dynasty;
and
the
valuation
put
upon
the
coins can be deduced
from
the
denominations which
appear
on the last issues
of
the
series
in
the
reign
of
Cleopatra
VII.
The
two common
bronze coins
of
this
reign
are marked
respectively
P
and
M,3
which
Regling
has
shown
to
represent
80 and
40 bronze
drachmas,4
and 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 this
period
in
papyri
postulate
the existence
of some
currency
in
which
the
drachma was
of
very
light
weight:
it
is common to
find statements
of
the
payment
of
many
talents
in bronze
money, which would have been an impossible burden in the third-century bronze with its
1
E.g.
P.
Mich.,
173.
2
The series
begins
with
Svoronos,
p.
217,
group
5,
2.
3
Svoronos,
p.
311,
Nos.
1871
and
1872.
4
Z.f.
Numism., 1901,
115.
This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:44:38 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Milne_currency Ptolemaic Egypt.pdf
8/9
J. G.
MILNE
drachma
weighing
about
a
quarter
of
a
pound,
but was
comparatively easy
when the
bronze
talent was
represented
by
seventy-five pieces
of
eighty
drachmas
weighing
perhaps
five
pounds
in all.
The exact date of
the
official
change-over
cannot
be
settled
at
present.
The new
silver
coinage
began
in
the second
year
of
Epiphanes,
so
far as known
coins
show,
but it
does
not
follow that
the alteration
in
the bronze
issues was
contemporaneous
with
this: it
is
quite
probable
that it was
effected
somewhat
later,
when
the
results
of the
depreciation
of
the
silver were
felt
in
trade.
But it seems
to be clear from
the evidence
of
P.
Mich. 182
that
the
change
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
in
silver
of the
old
coinage.
Whether the
payment
of the fine
would
have been made
in
this
old
coinage,
if
a
default had
occurred,
may
be doubted: but as
the
depreciated
silver
was
legally
of
the
same value
as
the
good
silver,
the terms
of
the contract
would
have
been
satisfied
by
payment
in
the new
tetradrachms. As a
matter of
fact,
the old
third-century
tetradrachms
lingered on in circulation, and are found mixed up with their debased successorsin hoards of
the
second
century
and
even later:
there is no
complete
break at
this
point
in
the silver
currency,
as there
is in
the
bronze. As the
Ptolemaic
coinage
was
from
first
to last
on
a
nominally
silver
standard,
even when
it
was
expressed
in
bronze,
the
purchasing
power
of
the standard
coin,
the
tetradrachm,
was
not affected
by
its
debasement,
any
more than the
purchasing power
of
the
English
silver
coinage
has
been
affected
by
its
debasement
in
1920.
But after the bronze
drachma
lost
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
purposes
a ratio had
to
be fixed
as between
the
silver
and
the
bronze
coins;
and
from
about 160 B.C. t
is the
normal
feature
in
accounts
to
convert
silver drachmas into
bronze
or
vice
versa. The rates vary considerably, but are
seldom
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
settlement
in
the
money
market:
it
is
not
clear
whether
the
government
made
any
attempt
in
the
second
century
to
control
the
movements,
but if
they
did it
seems to
have had
as
little effect as
similar
attempts by governments
have now.
Thirty years ago
the rate
of
the
piastre
to
the
pound
Turkish at
Smyrna, nominally
100:1,
varied
in
commercial
quotations
from 108:1
to 182:1. In
the last
years
of the
dynasty
Cleopatra,
as
we have
seen,
appears
to
have tried
to
stabilize the ratio
by
marking
her
coins as of
eighty
and
forty
bronze
drachmas,
which
suggests
a
ratio of
480
:;
at this
figure
the
coin of
eighty
bronze drachmas
would
be
an
obol
of
the
silver standard.
This
agrees
approximately
with
the
statement
of
Festus that
the
Alexandrian talent was of twelve denarii; as the silver content of the denariuswas about the
same
as
that of the
Alexandrian
tetradrachm,
this
gives
a
ratio of 500:1.
It
is
possible
that
in
the
second
century
the
government
intended
the bronze
to
be taken
at a
similar
rate,
but
as 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,2
are of
a
size
comparable
with
that
of
the
eighty
drachma
coins
of
Cleopatra.
The
evidence of
coins
found in
Egypt
shows
that
there was
more
joint
circulation of
silver
and
bronze
in
the second
and
first
centuries than
in
the latter
part
of
the
third,
and this
accords with
the
evidence
of
papyri-not
so much
the official records
as
the
stray
entries
in
private
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 every
1
Festus,
p.
359
(Miiller).
2
Svoronos,
Nos. 1224
and
1384,
and 1424.
206
This content downloaded from 193.92.136.160 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:44:38 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Milne_currency Ptolemaic Egypt.pdf
9/9
THE
CURRENCY
OF
EGYPT
UNDER
THE
PTOLEMIES
207
thirty
arourae;
and at
the
same
place
a
complaint
of the theft
of
six
hundreddrachmas f
coined silver
and
seven talents of
bronze.1
Fortunately
he
difference etween
he
silver
and
the
bronze
drachma
s
so
great
that
there
is little
risk of
confusion
whenwe
have to
decide
which s
meant
n a
statement
of
prices
or
payments:
but
the variations
n
the
exchange
ates
must be
taken
into
consideration.
1 P. Tebt.
739 and 743.
This content downloaded from 193 92 136 160 on Tue 1 Oct 2013 11:44:38 AM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp