Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros101I. ArticlesThe Eras of the cities of Norther...

I. Articles

The Eras of the cities of Northern Phoenicia (259/258 BC-AD 221/222)

Les ères des cités de la Phénicie du Nord (259/258 av. J.-C.–221/222 apr. J.-C.)
تقويمات مدن فينيقيا الشمالية (٢٥٩/٢٥٨ ق.م.-٢٢١/٢٢٢ م.)
Ziad Sawaya
p. 125-157

Résumés

Les cités de la Phénicie du Nord ont adopté plusieurs ères pour dater leurs monnayages. La présente étude réexamine leurs contextes géographiques, chronologiques, politiques et militaires. L’ère séleucide (312/311) a été la plus en vigueur : Orthosia, Tripolis et Byblos. Des ères d’autonomie sont enregistrées à Arados et sa Pérée (259/258) suite à la deuxième guerre de Syrie, ainsi qu’à Tripolis (101/100) après le départ des troupes d’Antiochos IX. Les cités libérées des Ituréens – Orthosia, Tripolis, Botrys et Byblos – ont adopté l’ère de Pompée (64/63). L’ère phénicienne de Cléopâtre VII (37/36) est confirmée dans les cités que Marc Antoine donna à la reine ptolémaïque : Orthosia et Tripolis. Les années régnales sont attestées à Tripolis et Byblos au début de la période romaine impériale. L’ère d’Actium (31/30) ne se rencontre que tardivement à Botrys seulement.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

  • 1 DN, p. 130, and 191.
  • 2 To cite some general examples: Vaillant 1688; Eckhel 1794; Mionnet 1811; Mionnet 1837; Imhoof-Blume (...)
  • 3 Six 1886; Clermont-Ganneau 1897; Clermont-Ganneau 1898; Rouvier 1898a; Rouvier 1898b; Rouvier 1899; (...)
  • 4 Seyrig 1950; Seyrig 1951; Seyrig 1954a; Seyrig 1954b; Seyrig 1964.
  • 5 Duyrat 2002; Duyrat 2005; Sawaya 2006a; Sawaya 2006b; Sawaya 2009; Abou Diwan 2010; Abou Diwan 2012
  • 6 Hoover 2010.
  • 7 For instance, the royal production of Ptolemy V in some mints of Phoenicia, such as Tripolis, Beryt (...)

1Eras mark the beginning of chronologies or calendars from which years are counted.1 Usually, they are inaugurated following specific important events, such as the foundations of dynasties, throne accessions (regnal years), cities gaining autonomy, decisive military victories, royal and imperial favors, or a major political change affecting a particular region. As they frequently bear dates, coins constitute our main source for the study of the Hellenistic and the Early Roman Levant eras. This fact has been acknowledged since the earliest numismatic endeavors beginning toward the end of the seventeenth century.2 Phoenicia is naturally embraced in all these works. Furthermore, the eras of its cities are identified or discussed toward the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth in several exclusive monographs that include their coins—mainly by J. Rouvier and G. F. Hill—and inscriptions.3 H. Seyrig published the fundamental studies on this subject in the 1950s and the 1960s based on the data available to him.4 His unpublished archives at the Bibliothèque nationale de France comprise several corpora for the Phoenician mints established with the known public and private collections. Seyrig’s solid conclusions therefore constituted the cornerstones of scholarly works for at least the subsequent six or seven decades. However, since then, abundant new material has become available and filled several gaps in Seyrig’s works. In this regard, I would cite the numerous public online collections as well as notably the Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum (SNG) and the Roman Provincial Coinage (RPC) printed and online projects. In addition, the questions of eras have recently been discussed in the corpora established by F. Duyrat, Z. Sawaya and G. Abou Diwan relating to the mints of Arados and its peraia, Botrys/Batrun, Berytos, Sidon and Tyre.5 O. Hoover recently published a handbook encompassing the Southern Levantine cities as a whole.6 Preparation of the corpora of Caesarea of Lebanon/ʿArqa, Orthosia/ʿAbdeh (at the estuary of Nahr el-Bared), Tripolis, and Byblos, by Z. Sawaya is still in progress and will be published progressively in the near future. As a result, the coin evidence from Phoenicia’s northern cities is now more complete. This makes it possible to revisit all the identified eras adopted by them during the period under study, spanning over five centuries from 259/258 BC to AD 221/222. This chronological range is exclusively determined by the coins issued by local authorities and in most cases bearing their ethnics. It does not include those same cities when operating as royal mints for the Ptolemies or the Seleucids, or as imperial mints for the Romans, since they were acting according to their official policies and needs.7 Their geographical range stretches from Arados and its peraia (Marathos, Carne, Gabala, Simyra, and Balaneia) to Byblos, including Caesarea of Lebanon/ʿArqa, Orthosia/ʿAbdeh, Tripolis, and Botrys. My inquiry thus encompasses several eras adopted in these cities: Seleucid, Pompey, Caesar, Mark Antony, Cleopatra VII (Phoenician and Egyptian), Actium and autonomy.

Arados and its peraia

  • 8 Head 1887, p. 666; Rouvier 1900, p. 143-168, and 237-260; Babelon 1930, p. 133; Seyrig 1964, p. 34, (...)
  • 9 Babelon 1893, p. CLIX; Will 1979, p. 235.
  • 10 Seyrig 1951, p. 213-216.
  • 11 Sartre 2001, p. 173-174, and 191-192.
  • 12 BMC Phoenicia, p. xiv-xv.
  • 13 Jones 1971, p. 239; Rey-Coquais 1974, p. 153-154; Millar 1983, p. 61; SC I, p. 335.
  • 14 Grainger 1991, p. 83.

2The era of autonomy at Arados is almost unanimously dated to the autumn of 259 BC (year 1 = 259/258 BC), but the reason/s for its acquisition is/are still debated. Some authors provide no explanation for their view,8 whilst others attribute several causes. The most accepted belief attributes the grant of autonomy to Antiochos II in the context of the Second Syrian War (260-253 BC) fought against Ptolemy II: Arados supporting Antiochos II,9 the latter’s need of Arados in order to conquer the Phoenician coast up to Berytos,10 and Arados’ contribution as a port and shipyard in support of Antiochos II.11 Another hypothesis attributes it to Seleucos II, as a reward for Arados’ backing in his dynastic struggle against Antiochos Hierax.12 A third explanation associates the start of this era with the abolition of the monarchy in Arados.13 A fourth view is that the correlation between the era’s beginning in 259 and the second Syrian war was coincidental, arguing for further research.14

  • 15 Duyrat 2005, p. 226-228.
  • 16 Sawaya 2006b, p. 458.
  • 17 Lindos II, 37 (The Lindos Chronicle); Trogus, 26; Frontinus, III, 9,10; Polyaenus V, 18; Athenaeus  (...)
  • 18 Sawaya 2006b, p. 458.
  • 19 Capdetrey 2007, p. 212; Hoover 2010, p. 10; Grainger 2010, p. 123-124, and 132.

3Several scholars have also recently come around to the idea that the Second Syrian War was the context for Arados’ acquisition of autonomy. F. Duyrat suggests that it was a royal grant in reward for Aradian resistance to Ptolemaic occupation.15 Z. Sawaya proposes some connection with the Seleucid occupation of Ephesus in 259/258 BC.16 As a matter of fact, the origins of this conflict go back to the Ptolemaic conquest of the Ionian and Carian coast by Ptolemy II who appointed his son and coregent Ptolemy to rule over these regions. The latter revolted against his father in Ephesus but was killed by his mercenaries, most probably in 259 BC. This event is associated by some late sources from the 1st c. BC to the 3rd c. AD with a land campaign by Antiochos II against Ephesus. The Seleucid king was then able to capture the city with the help of the Rhodian fleet that defeated its Ptolemaic counterpart.17 Since the Second Syrian War had a strong naval component, Z. Sawaya proposes that Arados contributed to the Seleucid navy and that its fleet played a very active role in the campaign that led to Ptolemaic Ephesus falling into Seleucid hands in 259/258 BC.18 L. Capdetrey, O. D. Hoover and J. D. Grainger also link the strategic importance of this city, as well as its fleet and naval arsenal, with the royal grant of autonomy.19

  • 20 Davesne 1991; Davesne 1999. He even interprets the appearance of the Aradian Era on the coins in 24 (...)
  • 21 Duyrat 2005, p. 226-228.
  • 22 EH I, no. 86; Lorber 2018, p. 478-479. Lorber’s dating is based on the absence of Ptolemaic gold co (...)

4However, A. Davesne is the sole scholar yet to challenge 260/259 BC as the starting point of the Aradian era. Based on a coin hoard found at Hüseyinli köyü (CH IX, no. 489), which he dates to 259/258 BC, he believes that Ptolemy II occupied Arados in 261/260 BC, while marching toward Daphne near Antioch at the outbreak of the Second Syrian War. He asserts that following the Seleucid counterattack, Arados was liberated and inaugurated its era in 260/259 BC.20 It is worth noting that Davesne’s view was never followed by subsequent scholars who examined the question. His case is refuted by F. Duyrat on solid numismatic grounds.21 Recently, his dating and conclusions have also been rendered obsolete by C. C. Lorber, who situated the closure of the Hüseyinli köyü hoard in 274 BC.22

  • 23 Six probable emissions may be added, but this is not certain.
  • 24 Duyrat 2005, nos. 1158-1165; Hoover 2010, no. 61.
  • 25 Duyrat 2005, nos. 1404-146; Hoover 2010, no. 86.
  • 26 Duyrat 2005.
  • 27 Rouvier 1901a, no. 401, identifies an emission in the year 367 (AD 108/109) in the name of Trajan b (...)

5Arados produced over 205 distinct coin issues stretching over 481 years, all dated according to the local era of autonomy.23 Nevertheless, this era is attested for the first time on silver Alexandrine tetradrachms struck by the island city in its year 17 (243/242 BC).24 The following year 18 (242/241 BC) witnessed the first civic bronzes bearing dates corresponding to this era.25 Its latest known appearance is encountered on Roman Provincial bronzes of the city issued in year 498 (AD 239/240) under Gordian III. My corpus of Aradian coins is assembled from the work of J. Rouvier cross-referenced with the unpublished corpus of H. Seyrig (file HS 148), F. Duyrat’s monograph, RPC I-III, the online versions of RPC IV.3, RPC VI and RPC VII.2, as well as from some unpublished private and public collections. F. Duyrat had provided an extended classification of the Hellenistic coinage (around 178 emissions) with a remarkably full die study to which readers can refer. It is therefore not reproduced here.26 However, the coinage struck during the Roman Imperial period still awaits similar treatment. Its 27 or 28 emissions are listed in Table 1.27

Table 1. The coinage of Arados between 38/37 BC and AD 239/240.

  • 28 Erroneously dated to the year 297, AD 38/39.

Aradian era

Year 222

38/37 BC

Mark Antony

RPC I, no. 4466

Year 224

36/35

Mark Antony

RPC I, no. 4467

Year 225

35/34

Mark Antony

RPC I, no. 4468

Year 229

31/30

Civic

RPC I, no. 4473

Year 231

29/28

Civic

RPC I, no. 4478

Year 233

27/26

Civic

RPC I, no. 4469

Year 235

25/24

Civic

RPC I, no. 4474

Year 236

24/23

Civic

RPC I, no. 4470

Year 241

19/18

Civic

RPC I, no. 4471

Year 252

8/7

Augustus

RPC I, nos. 4481A, and 4482

Year 258

2/1

Augustus

RPC I, no. 4483

Year 263

4/5 AD

Augustus

RPC I, no. 4483A

Year 284

25/26

Tiberius and civic

RPC I, nos. 4475, 4479, and 4484

Year 285

26/27

Civic

Rouvier 1900, no. 204 (pl. Z’, no. 24)

Year 297

38/39

Caligula and civic

RPC I, nos. 4476, 4480, and 4486-4487

Year 307

48/49

Claudius

RPC I, nos. 447228, 4477, 4481, and 4488-4489

Year 308?

49/50?

Claudius

RPC I, no. 4490

Year 325

66/67

Nero

RPC I, nos. 4491-4493

Year 352

93/94

Domitian and civic

RPC II, nos. 2039-2043

Year 365

106/107

Trajan and civic

RPC III, nos. 3814-3818

Year 374

115/116

Trajan

RPC III, no. 3819

Year 375

116/117

Trajan and civic

RPC III, nos. 3820-3824

Year 421

162/163

M. Aurelius & L. Verus

RPC IV.3 online, nos. 6746-6747 (temporary)

Year 422

163/164

M. Aurelius & L. Verus

RPC IV.3 online, no. 6748 (temporary)

Year 448

189/190

Commodus

RPC IV.3 online, no. 6750 (temporary)

Year 456

197/198

Septimius Severus

Babelon 1893, no. 1172; BDL,
no. 365 (ex N. Tabet Collection, no. 77)

Year 477

218/219

Elagabalus

RPC VI online, nos. 8202-8210, and 8212 (temporary)

Year 498

239/240

Gordian III

RPC VII.2, nos. 3541-3543

  • 29 Imhoof-Blumer 1883, p. 445.
  • 30 Babelon 1893, p. CLXIII; Babelon 1930, nos. 3164-3172 (Marathos).
  • 31 Rouvier 1989b; Babelon 1930, no. 3163; Seyrig 1951; Seyrig 1964; Le Rider & Seyrig 1968, p. 11-16; (...)

6Earlier scholarly works do not recognize the use of the Aradian era by the cities of its peraia. They oscillate between suspecting29 and confirming30 the use of the Seleucid Era instead. However, most of the subsequent authors confirm that the Aradian era was also used to date the coinages of the main cities, sometimes until early in the first century AD: Marathos (55 emissions, 230/229-94/93 BC, 24/23 BC, and AD 25/26-48/49), Carne (15 emissions, 226/225-137/136 BC), Gabala (15 emissions, 225/224-53/52 BC), Simyra (2 emissions, 230/229-187/186 BC), and Balaneia (43/42 BC)31.

  • 32 BMC Phoenicia, p. cxix-cxx.
  • 33 Elayi 1990; Elayi & Elayi 1992, p. 148-149.
  • 34 Duyrat 2002, p. 35, no. 316.
  • 35 Hoover 2010, p. 56, no. 203.

7G. F. Hill “presumably” classifies to Tripolis a bronze coin from the Arthur Löbbecke collection in Berlin because of the presence of the Dioscuri’s pilei on the reverse. This type is associated with the Greek date ΔΚΡ (124) inscribed above it and the Phoenician letters aleph taw resh in the middle (ʾTR). G. F. Hill thinks that the latter possibly “conceal the Phoenician name of the city”. He calculates the date based on the Seleucid Era, corresponding thus to 189/188 BC. He therefore, though with some hesitation, proposes to identify the veiled female bust depicted on the obverse of this coin as Cleopatra I.32 J. Elayi and A. G. Elayi read the letters ʾTR on a silver coin that they date to the fourth century BC. They consider them to express the Phoenician name of Tripolis during the Persian period. According to these scholars, the Löbbecke coin is the earliest known coin from Hellenistic Tripolis.33 F. Duyrat attributes to Marathos, without explanation, a second specimen from the H. Seyrig collection (BnF H. Seyrig Y28455,44). She describes the bust of Tyche on the obverse but does not mention the Phoenician letters of the reverse. The date, read ΔΛΡ in a slip (i.e., year 134 = 126/125 BC) and acknowledged as year 124, is calculated to the Aradian era, placing it correctly in 136/135 BC.34 O. Hoover did likewise, while incorrectly recording that Tyche is turreted.35

  • 36 Sawaya forthcoming.
  • 37 For these bronzes, see: Balog 1964, nos. 217, and 253.
  • 38 See below p. 136-141.
  • 39 Sawaya 2009, nos. 1-46, suppl. 13, 49-69, and 133.
  • 40 Hoover 2010, nos. 9, 18, 20, 22, and 26-27.
  • 41 Mørkholm 1965, p. 65-66; Sawaya 2004, p. 129-130; Sawaya 2012, p. 273-274.

8Personal examination of the BnF coin shows that the Phoenician letters ʾTR are fairly legible on two lines between the Dioscuri’s pilei. This legend is also readable on another specimen from Paris (BnF Vogüé 384, fig. 1) not mentioned by F. Duyrat.36 The attribution of these coins to Tripolis may at first glance seem logical if Tripolis’ mint name ʾtrabulus (اطرابلس) attested on some Mamluk bronzes of al-Nasir Muhammad (third reign, AD 1299-1309) is considered as a later echo of the Phoenician letters ʾTR.37 However, a serious problem consequently arises regarding the era to which their date should be calculated. According to the Seleucid Era, year 124 is equivalent to 189/188 BC, which situates their production under Antiochos III (223-187 BC). Yet no autonomous coinages have been identified during his reign in northern Phoenicia. The eras of autonomy, Pompey and Augustus/“Actium” also attested in Tripolis38 would place their production respectively in AD 23/24, AD 60/61, and AD 93/94, all of which are too late considering the clearly Hellenistic fabric of the coins. The attribution of these coins to Tripolis can be corroborated by the allusion made on the reverse to the city’s patron gods—the Dioscuri. Nevertheless, the latter are also naturally worshipped as navigation divinities in several coastal cities. They are encountered, together with their pilei, on the coinages of Berytos39 and Ake-Ptolemais,40 just to cite a few neighboring mints from the Hellenistic period. The absence of Tripolis’ ethnic inscribed in Phoenician script on its municipal Seleucid coins does not seem to favor this city as the mint for the bronze coins inscribed ʾTR. The Tripolitan municipal coins are only inscribed in Greek. By contrast, Byblos, Berytos, Sidon and Tyre glorified themselves with pompous Phoenician legends on their municipal Seleucid coins.41

  • 42 Duyrat 2002, p. 48-51; Duyrat 2005, p. 312-315.
  • 43 Duyrat 2002, series 1, nos. 66-74.
  • 44 Duyrat 2002, series V, nos. 75-76.
  • 45 Duyrat 2002, series 4, nos. 84-171.
  • 46 Duyrat 2002, series 5, no. 172.
  • 47 Duyrat 2002, series 6, nos. 173-215.

9However, Phoenician letters were commonly used as control marks at Arados, Carne, Marathos, and to a lesser extent at Gabala (late third century-late first century BC). The number of letters used varied between one and five according to the various emissions and series all dated by the Aradian Era.42 By calculating the year 124 based on the Aradian Era, the “veiled female bust/Dioscuri’s pilei” series (136/135 BC) then fits naturally, through the use of the same bust and three Phoenician letters, within Marathos’ different “veiled goddess” series and their marking system, which regularly used three letters: Asclepios standing (bronze, 228/227-223/222 or 216/5 BC),43 Marathos standing (hemidrachms, 225/224-187/186 BC),44 Marathos standing (bronze, 222/221-152/151 BC),45 divinity standing (bronze, undated),46 and prow (bronze, 217/216-185/184 BC).47 To conclude, these arguments further support F. Duyrat’s attribution of the “veiled female bust/Dioscuri’s pilei” series to Marathos in 136/135 BC. The presence of the Dioscuri’s pilei on the reverse should not raise any objection since, like Tripolis, Marathos was a maritime city. The Phoenician letters ʾTR can thus be considered as control marks.

Caesarea of Lebanon/ʿArqa

  • 48 Honigmann 1953, p. 123-124; Aliquot 2003, p. 238-239; Cohen 2006, p. 204-205; Sawaya 2009, p. 220, (...)

10ʿArqa was renamed Herakleia in Phoenicia by its Greco-Macedonian conquerors. It fell under Ituraean control during the 1st c. BC and became the capital of one of their sections in the northern Lebanon. This city received the name of Caesarea ad Libanum in the early Imperial period and used it as an ethnic on its coins. Some of the latter are inscribed ITVR, thus still reflecting the Ituraean origins of the city at the beginning of the third century AD.48

  • 49 Saulcy 1874, p. 118-119; Head 1887, p. 669; Babelon 1893, p. 203-204; Rouvier 1901a, nos. 719-740; (...)
  • 50 See RPC VI online, nos. 8240-8241.
  • 51 See Kienast 1996, p. 177, for this event.

11The coinage of Caesarea is listed by J. Rouvier, H. Seyrig (Seyrig’s archives, file HS 154) and is completed by RPC IV.3 online, RPC VI online, as well as by the corpus that I am currently preparing with a die study. The mint did not produce coins during the Persian or the Hellenistic periods. It had a very brief bronze coinage in the Roman period. This Roman Provincial coinage started in the middle of the second century AD under Antoninus Pius and was interrupted at the end of Elagabalus’ reign. Only six emissions are known, usually struck in the names of the emperor and his Caesar (i.e. heir). These emissions are all dated according to the Seleucid Era.49 This is corroborated by the coins struck in the name of Severus Alexander as Caesar in the years 532 and 533.50 The former date should correspond to AD 220/221, since Elagabalus is known to have elevated Alexander to this rank on 26 (?) June AD 221.51 The era on which the year 532 should be computed thus begins in 312/311 BC and is undoubtedly the Seleucid’s. This is confirmed by the fact that the dates of the emissions fit within the reigns of the relevant sovereigns. The coins reflect the city’s elevation to a Roman colonia starting from 220/221 as well as the continuity of use of the Seleucid Era after this event.

  • 52 Rouvier 1901a, nos. 721, 723, and 730.
  • 53 RPC online IV.3, nos. 6779, and 6781 (temporary).
  • 54 Cf. Rouvier 1901a, no. 721.
  • 55 Mionnet 1837, p. 256, no. 87.

12J. Rouvier attributed two emissions to the years SE 460 (AD 148/149) and SE 465 (AD 153/154). According to him, the former are coins of Antoninus Pius while the latter are those struck for him and his adoptive son, Marcus Aurelius Caesar.52 The RPC online editor approves Rouvier’s readings but does not offer any argument to support his position.53 Some of these coins are only cited by early nineteenth-century numismatists, such as Sestini54 and Mionnet.55 The others belong to Rouvier’s own collection. However, no photographs are available to check the proposed readings and I did not encounter any of them during the preparation of Caesarea’s corpus of coins, even in the Rouvier Collection currently located at the American Numismatic Society in New York. Therefore, the emissions of years 460 and 465 are not included in the following list of Caesarea’s coinage (table 2).

Table 2. The coinage of Caesarea of Lebanon.

  • 56 RPC VI online, no. 8227 is erroneously dated to the year 530.
  • 57 RPC VI online, no. 8236, is erroneously dated to the year 532.

Seleucid Era

Year 461

149/150

Antoninus Pius & M. Aurelius Caesar

RPC IV.3 online, nos. 3980, 6770, 6777, 6783, and 6787 (temporary)

Year 462

150/151

Antoninus Pius & M. Aurelius Caesar

RPC IV.3 online, nos. 6778, 6784, 6786, and 6788 (temporary)

Year 467

155/156

Antoninus Pius & M. Aurelius Caesar

RPC IV.3 online, nos. 6780, 6785,
and 6790 (temporary)

Year 531

219/220

Elagabalus

RPC VI online, nos. 8227-8234,
and 30521-30522 (temporary)56

Year 532

220/221

Elagabalus & S. Alexander Caesar

RPC VI online, nos. 8235-8236, 8238, and 824057

Year 533

221/222

Elagabalus & S. Alexander Caesar

RPC VI online, no. 8242; BnF Y28455.48, and BnF sans cote 11.11 g
(Sawaya forthcoming)

Orthosia/ʿAbdeh

13J. Rouvier as well as RPC I, RPC I supplement, RPC IV.3 online, and RPC VI online list the coinage of Orthosia. H. Seyrig prepared an unpublished corpus (Seyrig’s archives, file HS 157). Mine is still ongoing with a die study (table 3). Consequently 23, or more probably 27, bronze coin emissions can be attributed to Orthosia throughout its history. A few may have been issued during the second century BC (4?), most (18) belong to the first century BC, while some others (7) stretch from the first to the third century AD. Although this city used three different eras for dating its coins, none correspond to a local era of autonomy.

  • 58 Moore 1993-1994, p. 54-59; SC II, p. 234-235, no. 1820. In fact, Houghton was the first to propose (...)
  • 59 Cohen 2006, p. 203-204.

14It is possible that Orthosia issued three emissions of Seleucid municipal bronze coins under the ethnic ΕΥΠΑΤΡΕΩΝ. They are struck in the name of Alexander I Balas during the Seleucid years 165, 166, and 167 (LEΞP, LςΞP, and LZΞP), which respectively correspond to 148/147, 147/146, and 146/145 BC. W. Moore suggests the location of the issuing mint on the basis of three factors: the L-shaped sign is used to introduce the date in regions formerly under Ptolemaic control; the upward orientation of the reverse legends (opposite to the usual Seleucid downward orientation); and the provenance of the known coins (Lebanon and perhaps Syria). He thereby deduces that they should be classified in a refounded northern Phoenician city that was previously garrisoned by Ptolemaic troops. Since Orthosia is located at a very strategic place that provides direct access to inner Syria via Emisa, W. Moore, followed by the authors of SC II, suggests that Orthosia may be the same as the issuing city Eupatria.58 Nonetheless, G. M. Cohen acknowledges the difficulty of identifying the town and the individual after whom it was renamed, Eupatreia or Eupatris.59

  • 60 Seyrig 1954b, p. 76.
  • 61 Seyrig Archives, file HS 157-I; Sawaya 2008, p. 96, note 261.

15The Seleucid Era was adopted for the earliest known local civic issue in year 214 (99/98 BC).60 This is confirmed by the Hellenistic appearance of the coin which links it to a dating system starting toward the end of the fourth century BC. A previous emission may belong to year 211 (102/101 BC), but this is uncertain.61

  • 62 Head 1887, p. 670; Babelon 1893, p. CLXXVI, and 214-215.
  • 63 Rouvier 1901b, nos. 867-872.
  • 64 BMC Phoenicia, p. lxxvi-lxxvii. In addition, he considers that if J. Rouvier’s reading of the year  (...)
  • 65 Seyrig 1954b, p. 73-78.
  • 66 Rey-Coquais 1978, p. 45, note 16; Baldus 1987, p. 123; RPC I, p. 644; Sawaya 2009, p. 168; Hoover 2 (...)

16B. V. Head and E. Babelon calculate the dates on the following civic coins according to the same era.62 J. Rouvier classifies them in three categories using the Actian Era (years 31, 32, 36, and 40), the Seleucid or Actian Era (year […]71?), and the Seleucid Era (year 292).63 G. F. Hill endorsed the Actian Era for J. Rouvier’s first category.64 H. Seyrig emphasizes that the Actian era is retrospective, thus appearing later in the reign of Augustus. Instead, he argues for the Pompeian era, starting in 64/63 BC in Phoenicia, as a calculation for J. Rouvier’s first category. According to him, the calculation to the latter era notably makes it possible to insert the Cleopatra VII coins issued by Orthosia into the hiatus that he records between the years 24 (41/40 BC) and 36 (29/28 BC). H. Seyrig believes that the Pompeian era was spontaneously adopted by some Phoenician cities (Orthosia, Tripolis, Botrys, and Byblos) that felt the beginning of a new age after being delivered by Pompey from tyrants and Ituraean danger.65 This view is accepted by J.-P. Rey-Coquais, H. R. Baldus, RPC I, Z. Sawaya, O. D. Hoover, E. Cohen, and L. Amela Valverde.66

  • 67 Sawaya forthcoming.
  • 68 Seyrig 1950, p. 43-46; Baldus 1973, p. 19-43; RPC I, no. 4530; RPC Suppl. I, no. 4530/5; Sawaya 200 (...)

17Many of E. Babelon’s and some of J. Rouvier’s readings are incorrect.67 Consequently, the corpus that I am preparing reveals eight issues produced by Orthosia with the Pompeian Era between 64/63 and 38/37 BC. After a short break in the coinage, the city struck two emissions of bronze coins with the effigy of Cleopatra VII on their obverse. They are dated to years 2 and 3 of the Lagid queen’s era in Phoenicia (equivalent to 36/35 and 35/34 BC). This era started in 37/36 BC when Mark Antony gave Orthosia, along with Tripolis, Berytos, and Chalcis under Mount Libanos, to Cleopatra VII. Its year 1 is situated by the coins that Berytos issued in her name in 32/31 BC bearing three dates at the same time: LN (year 50 of Berytos), Lς (year 6 of Cleopatra VII in Phoenicia) and LAK (year 21 of Cleopatra VII in Egypt).68 Five years later, Orthosia returned to the Pompeian Era for its civic coins in 29/28, 27/26, 25/24, 24/23, 21/20, and 15/14 BC.

  • 69 Seyrig 1954b, p. 76. The coins in question are presently located at the Cabinet des Médailles de la (...)
  • 70 RPC I, p. 645, and no. 4506; RPC Suppl. I-III, p. 164, no. S2-I-4505C.
  • 71 Sawaya 2009, p. 203; Sawaya forthcoming.

18The later monetary activity of this city is reduced to six Roman Provincial emissions and two civic emissions. It stretches from the first century AD to the third century AD and reckons its dates according to the Seleucid Era. The dating of the earliest issue is, however, debated, while the imperial effigy is undoubtably Julio-Claudian. H. Seyrig read LΔ in the left field of two coins and interpreted it as the fourth year of Tiberius’ reign (AD 17/18).69 At first, the authors of RPC I suggested that these letters could be the traces of ΗΞΤ (year 368), inscribed on Orthosia’s coins of Nero, before later accepting Seyrig’s reading.70 Personal examination of both coins cited by H. Seyrig shows that they were struck from the same obverse die and that his deciphering is correct.71

  • 72 Ronde 2006.
  • 73 Sawaya 2009, p. 203 (erroneously AD 40/41).
  • 74 RPC I Suppl. I-III, p. 163, no. S3-I-4505B.

19However, Seyrig’s interpretation is now modified by a new example published by A. Ronde on which LΔ-N (year 54) is clear and calculated according to the Actian Era (equivalent to AD 23/24, Tiberius).72 The possibility of the date being a regnal year must therefore be definitively rejected. However, I have previously argued that the decentration of the obverse die during the striking process might be responsible for the absence of the third Greek numeral letter representing the hundreds. Since the Seleucid Era is used for the Roman Provincial coinages of Caesarea of Lebanon/ʿArqa, Orthosia, and Tripolis, I restored the date as LΔ-N[T] (year [3]54). This interpretation would situate the date of the issue in AD 42/43, during the reign of Claudius.73 Meanwhile, the authors of RPC Supplement III acknowledge the presence of LΔ-N on the Ronde coin and propose the reading of LΔ-N[T?] based on a new specimen.74

  • 75 Auction 216 of the Classical Numismatic Group, lot 382 (12/08/2009).
  • 76 Purchased from the electronic Auction 302 of the Classical Numismatic Group, lot 279 (08/05/2013).
  • 77 Web Auction 20 of Leu Numismatik, lot 2058 (16 July 2022).

20Recently, I have encountered three new coins on which the T is distinctly legible: [L]Δ-NT (year 354, fig. 2)75, LΔ-NT (fig. 3, Wadih Hadad collection)76 and [L]Δ-NT (fig. 4)77. The imperial portrait on these coins is the same found on the other known specimens, hence closing the debate. Consequently, Orthosia did not produce any emission in the name of Tiberius in AD 17/18. The city instead struck an emission for Claudius in AD 42/43 using the Seleucid Era, as was the case for its later Roman Provincial coins. The use of the Seleucid Era by Orthosia is confirmed by the dates of the emissions fitting within the reigns of the relevant sovereigns Nero (SE 368 = AD 56/57), Antoninus Pius (SE 462 = AD 150/151), and Elagabalus (SE 531-533 = AD 219/220-221/222), as well as Severus Alexander Caesar (SE 533 = AD 221/222). One civic series is associated with Nero’s coins in SE 368 (AD 56/57). The final civic issue was struck in SE 495 (AD 183/184) during the reign of Commodus (bust of Tyche/Nike series). The use of the Seleucid Era for these civic emissions is surprising since the latest was produced in 15/14 BC during year 50 of the Pompeian Era.

Table 3. The coinage of Orthosia.

  • 78 Erroneously read year [3]31 SE.

Seleucid Era

Year 165?

148/147?

Alexander I

SC II, no. 1820 (1)

Year 166?

147/146?

Alexander I

SC II, no. 1820 (2)

Year 167?

146/145?

Alexander I

SC II, no. 1820 (3)

Year 211?

102/101?

Civic

Sawaya 2008, p. 96, note 261

Year 214

99/98

Civic

BnF H. Seyrig Y28455,82 (Sawaya forthcoming)

Pompeian Era

Year 1

64/63

Civic

Babelon 1893, nos. 148778, and 1491; BnF H. Seyrig Y28455,84-85; BnF 1973.214 (Sawaya forthcoming)

Year 4

61/60

Civic

SNG Fitzwilliam, no. 6040

Year 5

60/59

Civic

BnF H. Seyrig Y28455,86 (Sawaya forthcoming)

Year 6

59/58

Civic

BnF H. Seyrig Y28455,87 (Sawaya forthcoming)

Year 11

54/53

Civic

Vatican, no. 117 (cf. Seyrig’s archives, file HS 157-I)

Year 19

46/45

Civic

BnF H. Seyrig Y28455,88 (Sawaya forthcoming)

Year 24

41/40

Civic

BnF H. Seyrig Y28455,89 (Sawaya forthcoming)

Year 27

38/37

Civic

RPC I online, no. 4500A

Phoenician era of Cleopatra VII

Year 2

36/35

Cleopatra VII

RPC I, no. 4501

Year 3

35/34

Cleopatra VII

RPC I, no. 4502

Pompeian Era

Year 36

29/28

Civic

RPC I, no. 4503

Year 38

27/26

Civic

RPC Suppl. I-III, no. S2-I-4503A

Year 40

25/24

Civic

RPC I, no. 4504

Year 41

24/23

Civic

RPC I, no. 4505

Year 44

21/20

Civic

RPC Suppl. I-III, no. S2-I-4505A

Year 50

15/14

Civic

Chiha collection (cf. Seyrig’s archives, file HS 157-I)

Seleucid Era

Year 354

42/43

Claudius

Sawaya 2009, p. 203; RPC I Suppl. I-III, p. 163, no. S3-I-4505B; W. Hadad Collection WHC 231; RPC VI online, no. 4505B

Year 368

56/57

Nero and civic

RPC I, nos. 4506-4507

Year 462

150/151

Antonius Pius

Rouvier 1901b, nos. 876-877; RPC IV.3 online, nos. 6211-6212 (temporary)

Year 495

183/184

Civic

BnF H. Seyrig Y28455,103
(Sawaya forthcoming)

Year 531

219/220

Elagabalus

RPC VI online, nos. 8243? (temporary), and 8244 (temporary)

Year 532

220/221

Elagabalus

Rouvier 1901b, nos. 878-879; RPC VI online, nos. 8245-8248 (temporary)

Year 533

221/222

Elagabalus & S. Alexander Caesar

Rouvier 1901b, nos. 880, and 883; RPC VI online, nos. 8250-8256 (temporary)

Tripolis

21Tripolis produced Seleucid municipal, civic, Ptolemaic and Roman Provincial coins from the second century BC to the beginning of the third century AD. Several eras were used for their dating system including a local era of autonomy. These coinages are listed by J. Rouvier, SC II, RPC I and RPC III, as well as by RPC IV.3 online, RPC V.3 online and RPC VI online. H. Seyrig prepared an unpublished corpus that can be consulted in his archives (file HS 160). Except for F. de Callataÿ’s publication dedicated exclusively to the Hellenistic civic tetradrachms, no die studies are yet available. The intention of my ongoing corpus is to undertake this task (table 4).

  • 79 See SC II, no. 1951.
  • 80 See SC II, no. 2383 (fig. 5, ANS 1944.100.76784).

22The earliest municipal bronze emissions were struck under Antiochos IV and Antiochos V respectively in the Seleucid Era years 147 and 149 (166/165 BC and 164/163 BC). The following one belongs to the same category under the first reign of Demetrios II (145-138 BC), but did not bear any date.79 Antiochos IX produced royal tetradrachms in SE 208 (105/104 BC) depicting Tyche holding a tiller and a cornucopiae within a laurel wreath on the reverse (fig. 5).80 The use of the Seleucid Era in Tripolis to date these coins is thus customary.

  • 81 Eckhel 1794, p. 372; Mionnet 1811, p. 393, no. 378; Babelon 1893, no. 1886; Rouvier 1903a, no. 1643 (...)
  • 82 Seyrig’s archives, file HS 160: 1-2. BMC Phoenicia, nos. 8-9; 3. Babelon 1893, no. 1886; 4. H. Seyr (...)
  • 83 Babelon 1893, no. 1886 (fig. 6); BMC Phoenicia: nos. 8 (fig. 7), and 9.
  • 84 ANS Newell 1944.100.72523 (ex Schroeder collection); BDL, no. 181 (ex N. Tabet collection, no. 601, (...)
  • 85 Also Sawaya forthcoming.

23The Seleucid Era was also employed for subsequent civic bronzes. The reverse depicts Nemesis standing within a laurel wreath, pulling at the chiton on her chest with her right hand, and holding a cubit-rule in her left. The date is inscribed on two lines in the right field and has been misinterpreted. J. Eckhel, Th. Mionnet, E. Babelon, J. Rouvier, and G. F. Hill all read LAΣ (i.e., SE 201) which places the emission in 112/111 BC.81 H. Seyrig lists 12 specimens from this series in his handwritten notes and the draft of the corpus that he was preparing.82 He interprets the letters LAΣ as LA Σ(EBAΣTOY) (i.e., “year 1 of Augustus”) and classifies the emission to 31/30 BC, which could also link it to the Actian era. Personal examination of some of these coins (fig. 6 and fig. 7),83 along with others unknown to H. Seyrig84 (fig. 8), indubitably reveals the presence of an iota to the left of the sigma in the second line. Therefore, the date of these coins should be rectified to LAIΣ (SE 211 = 102/101 BC).85

  • 86 See above, p. 132 and 134 (Orthosia), and below p. 144-146 (Byblos).
  • 87 Sawaya 2008, p. 93-101 in particular.
  • 88 Sawaya 2023, p. 88-93, nos. 15 (year 209, 104/103), 16 (year 215, 98/97), 17-18 (year 220, 93/92), (...)

24One wonders about the reasons behind Tripolis’ use of the Seleucid Era for dating these civic coins. In fact, this practice is not exceptional in northern Phoenicia. The coins of Orthosia struck in SE 211? (102/101 BC) and 214 (99/98 BC) as well as Byblos in SE 211 (102/101 BC), 215 (98/97 BC), 218 (95/94 BC), 230 (83/82 BC), 231 (82/81 BC), and 232 (81/80 BC) constitute undeniable evidence.86 It seems that the Seleucid grip loosened somewhat from 102/101 BC, allowing some restricted autonomy to these cities without any explicit detachment from royal influence. Such a scenario is also recorded after 102/101 BC for Berytos, which did not use the Seleucid Era on its civic coins. Instead, this city kept its Seleucid dynastic name (Laodicea of Phoenicia, 102/101-97/96 BC) before associating it with the original name (Berytos/Berit, shortly after 97/96 BC). The former is evicted from the subsequent civic coinage (87/86-82/81 BC), with the death of Antiochos XII, the last Seleucid representative in the region, and after the start of autonomy in 81/80 BC.87 Meanwhile, the lead weights issued by Berytos dated according to the Seleucid Era also confirm the city’s attachment to the Seleucids during the period 104/103-85/84 BC despite the production of its civic coins.88

  • 89 J. F. Vaillant cited by Rouvier 1898a, p. 7-8; Eckhel 1794, p. 375-377; Mionnet 1811, p. 392, nos.  (...)
  • 90 Six 1886.
  • 91 Babelon 1893, p. CLXXXVI-CLXXXVII, and 270-274, nos. 1860-1884, and 1896-1897; Babelon 1930, no. 31 (...)

25The era used for subsequent civic coins of Tripolis is debated, mainly because of the various misinterpretations of the letters inscribed on the reverses of the tetradrachms. J. F. Vaillant, J. Eckhel, Th. Mionnet and B. V. Head reckon their dates according to the Pompeian Era.89 J. Eckhel explains this adoption by Pompey’s liberation of Tripolis from the tyrant Dionysios mentioned by Flavius Josephus (Jewish Antiquities, XIV, 39). J.-P. Six suggests dating the earliest civic tetradrachms to the Seleucid Era, interpreting the letters AΣ on the reverse as year 201 (112/111 BC). According to him, the years 18, 29, 30, 31, and 32 attested on the rest of the tetradrachms should be calculated to a local era of liberty, owed probably to Antiochos IX, and starting in 201 SE (111 BC).90 E. Babelon, followed by J. Babelon, reckons the year 156 BC as its starting point.91

  • 92 Clermont-Ganneau 1897, a compte rendu to Rouvier’s presentation Les ères de Tripoli de Phénicie at (...)
  • 93 Rouvier 1898a.
  • 94 Rouvier 1898a, p. 28; Rouvier 1903a, no. 1675.
  • 95 Rouvier 1898a, p. 33-34; Rouvier 1903a, nos. 1639-1774.

26Ch. Clermont-Ganneau accepted, in 1897, J. Rouvier’s classification of the coins into three groups successively dated to the Seleucid Era, an autonomous era starting in 105 BC, and the Actian Era beginning in 31 BC. He additionally found support for the use of the latter by Tripolis in the Greek inscription of Maad, a village situated between Botrys and Byblos, dated to 9/8 BC, which refers to “… the year 23 for the victory of Caesar Augustus at Actium”. Ch. Clermont-Ganneau considered this era as “une ère de circonstance instituée par un sentiment d’adulation qui ne survécut guère à la mort d’Auguste”.92 In 1898, Rouvier reiterated this interpretation of the dates, notably the adoption of the Actian Era advocated up by the Maad inscription.93 He consequently interpreted the legend NI LKB inscribed on some of the coins as NI(KHΣ) LKB94 (i.e. “year 22 of the victory [at Actium]”). His organization of the civic coinage can be summarized as follows, and was reflected in his subsequent corpus:95

  1. 111-103 BC (Seleucid Era),

  2. 105-74 BC (national era),

  3. 74 BC-AD 221 (Seleucid Era),

  4. 31 BC-AD 13 (Actian Era with/or without Seleucid Era),

  5. coins with effigies of Mark Antony and Cleopatra VII (ca 30 BC),

  6. Cleopatra VII alone (52-29 BC).

  • 96 Macdonald 1905, p. 258. For the date of Sidon’s autonomy, see most recently: Abou Diwan 2010; Abou (...)
  • 97 BMC Phoenicia, p. cxvi-cxxi, and 200-207.

27G. Macdonald confirmed that Tripolis used the era of Sidon (111 BC) to date its coins.96 G. F. Hill identified Mark Antony and his first wife Fulvia on some Tripolitan bronzes and consequently dated them according to the Pompeian Era (LKΓ year 23, 41/40 BC). Furthermore, he considered LB (year 2) found on Cleopatra VII’s coins issued by Tripolis as her second regnal year in Egypt (50/49 BC). He qualified the use of the Actian Era alone, on some of Tripolis’ civic coins, as regnal years of Augustus. However, G. F. Hill placed the start of the era of autonomy in 112/111 BC, 111 “more” probably.97 His catalogue sets out the following scheme for the silver and bronze civics:

  1. ca 142/141-81/80 BC (Seleucid Era and era of Tripolis),

  2. 50/49 BC (Egyptian era of Cleopatra VII),

  3. 41/40 BC (Pompeian Era),

  4. 29/28 BC (Actian Era or regnal year of Augustus),

  5. 27/26 BC (Seleucid Era),

  6. 26/25 BC (Actian Era or regnal year of Augustus),

  7. 25/24 BC (Seleucid Era),

  8. 12/11 BC (Actian Era or regnal year of Augustus),

  9. 7/6 BC (Seleucid Era),

  10. AD 13/14 (Seleucid Era and regnal year of Augustus),

  11. AD 38/39-221/222 (Seleucid Era).

  • 98 Coins dated years 3, 5-9, 11, 14-15, 17-18, 20, 22, 24, 29-30, and 32 (tetradrachms and bronzes).
  • 99 Coins dated years 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 12-13, 18, and 23 (bronzes).
  • 100 Seyrig 1950, p. 38-43.
  • 101 To cite a few: Le Rider and Seyrig 1968, p. 17; Houghton 1983, p. 67; RPC I, p. 645-646; Callataÿ 1 (...)
  • 102 Mørkholm 1984, p. 103.
  • 103 Rey-Coquais 1978, p. 45, note 16; Baldus 1987, p. 123; RPC I, p. 645-646; Rigsby 1996, p. 496; Sawa (...)

28H. Seyrig acknowledged the complexity of G. F. Hill’s scheme, but accepted his arguments regarding the adoption of the Pompeian Era. He refuted the year 111 BC as the beginning of the era of autonomy since Tripolis was still under Seleucid control at this time, as evidenced by the emission of Antiochos IX’s tetradrachms in this city (105/104 BC). H. Seyrig structured the coinage of Tripolis in accordance with the major historical events of the Late Hellenistic period. Consequently, according to him, Tripolis obtained autonomy from Antiochos IX between 105 BC and 95 BC, and inaugurated its own era. The city adopted the Pompeian Era after its liberation from the tyrant Dionysios and incorporation into the Syrian province in 64/63 BC. When Mark Antony gave it to Cleopatra VII, Tripolis used her Phoenician regnal years in 36 BC. The clear return to the Seleucid Era took place in 31 BC. H. Seyrig organized the civic coins not dated to the Seleucid Era into two groups. He placed the dating of the first group in an era of autonomy, situated sometime between 105 BC and 95 BC,98 and the second group in the Pompeian Era from 64/63 to 42/41 BC.99 His classification of the bronze coins is mainly based on the “bust of Tyche/Nike on prow” series. The coins presenting a palm behind the Tyche bust are placed in the first group, while those depicting a stylis behind her and a star above the prow are assigned to the second group.100 The details of this organization can be consulted in the corpus draft found in file HS 160 of his archives. Most of the subsequent works accept H. Seyrig’s chronological range for the inauguration of Tripolis’ era of autonomy.101 Only Mørkholm was more precise, situating it ca 100 BC.102 The use of the Pompeian Era in Tripolis is also widely recognised.103

  • 104 Sawaya 2009, p. 164-174.
  • 105 For the specimens in question, see: Babelon 1893, nos. 1860, (fig. 9), 1861, and 1863 (fig. 10); Ro (...)
  • 106 See also Sawaya 2008, p. 96-97.
  • 107 Sawaya forthcoming.

29In an earlier publication, I followed H. Seyrig’s arrangement and dating of both eras’ emissions104. However, the above-mentioned civic bronzes of the “Nemesis within laurel wreath” series issued in SE 211 (102/101 BC) call for some substantial revision. Their reverse type placed within a laurel wreath is reminiscent of the Tyche type depicted on the tetradrachms that Antiochos IX issued at Tripolis in 105/104 BC. Both types of Tyche and Nemesis within a laurel wreath also appear on Tripolis’ bronze civic coins inscribed LA (i.e. year 1 [of autonomy]) (fig. 9 and fig. 10).105 These typological similarities and the shared laurel wreath enclosing both types leave no doubt about their “contemporality”. Year 1 should thus be placed right after SE 211 (102/101 BC), especially since the Nemesis type disappears from the following emissions. This would make 101/100 BC the inauguration year for Tripolis’ era of “autonomy”.106 Consequently, and with reference to the corpus and the SNG France 8 that I am preparing,107 the coinage of Tripolis between 101/100 BC and 42/41 BC should be divided into two phases. The first uses the autonomous era of Tripolis between 101/100 BC and 70/69 BC (18 emissions). The second uses the Pompeian Era and stretches from 61/60 BC to 42/41 BC (6 or 7 emissions).

  • 108 Seyrig 1950, p. 43-46; Baldus 1973, p. 25-26, and 33-34; RPC I, p. 645-646, no. 4510; Sawaya 2009, (...)
  • 109 Seyrig 1950, p. 43; RPC I, nos. 4511-4517; Sawaya 2009, p. 186, and 196-197.
  • 110 Eckhel 1794, p. 376 (Pompeian Era); Mionnet 1837, p. 283, and 285, nos. 210, and 216-218 (Seleucid (...)
  • 111 Rouvier 1898a, p. 16-20; Rouvier 1903a, nos. 1677-1679.
  • 112 Macdonald 1905, p. 260-261, nos. 10-11.
  • 113 BMC Phoenicia, p. cxix; RPC I, p. 646.

30Tripolis struck one bronze emission in the name of Cleopatra VII dated to the second year (LB) of her Phoenician era in 36/35 BC.108 Following the battle of Actium in 31/30 BC, this city returned to the Seleucid Era for its five bronze civic emissions struck under Augustus: years 286 (27/26 BC), 288 (25/24 BC), 306 (7/6 BC), 308 (5/4 BC), and 325 (AD 13/14). The latter is constituted from three series inscribed TKE (325) and MΔ (44) on the reverse.109 These dates were often misread and attributed to different eras by earlier scholars.110 J. Rouvier rectified their readings and calculated TKE MΔ respectively as belonging to the Seleucid and Actian eras.111 G. Macdonald compared these dates to the legend LTKZ (year 327) LB (year 2) encountered on the Tripolitan civic bronze coins of AD 15/16. Considering that LB surely matches year 2 of Tiberius’ reign, he concluded that MΔ should correspond to the 44th regnal year of Augustus’ reign (13/14 BC).112 G. F. Hill and the authors of RPC I accept G. Macdonald’s arguments and conclusion.113

  • 114 RPC I, nos. 4513-4514, dates SE 306 and 308.
  • 115 Rouvier 1903a, no. 1640; BMC Phoenicia, no. 19; Seyrig 1950, p. 38-43; RPC I, no. 4510.

31The choice of “Nike standing on a prow” as reverse type for one series struck in 13/14 may be interpreted as referring to the battle of Actium. Likewise, the civic issues of 7/6 BC and 5/4 BC also feature reverse types, “palm within wreath” and “Nike”114 that could also be hypothetically related to Actium. Nevertheless, as mentioned above p. 138, the “Nike standing on a prow” type appears on Tripolitan bronze coins issued long before this event, since the beginning of the first century BC: civic coins dated to the era of autonomy, civic issues dated to the Pompeian Era, and coins of the Phoenician era of Cleopatra VII.115 Even when attested on the civic coins issued after Actium in 25/24 BC, this type is associated with the Seleucid Era year 288 and not with an Actian Era date. The connection between these types and Actium cannot thus be established.

  • 116 Sawaya 2009, p. 178, 183-184, and 186.
  • 117 Sawaya 2009, p. 17, and 181-182.
  • 118 Sawaya 2002; Sawaya 2009, p. 26-28, 178, and 181-185.

32In fact, the Actian Era is not recorded in the coinages of Phoenicia immediately after 31/30 BC. Arados, Sidon and Tyre continued to date their civic coins according to their eras of autonomy. Marathos used the Aradian calendar. Orthosia returned to the Pompeian Era. Although owing the restitution of his ancestors’ domains to Octavian/Augustus, the Ituraean Zenodoros of Chalcis under Mount Libanos used the Seleucid Era in the wake of Actium. Furthermore, both of his emissions in 31/30 BC (SE 282) and 26/25 BC (SE 287) present the earliest portrait of Octavian on the coins of the Syrian province.116 Only Berytos insinuated the victory at Actium in 31/30 BC and 29/28 BC with the reverses “Nike” and “Nike on prow”.117 Both types are exceptional to the city’s typological repertoire and should be linked with the first Roman colonial installation by Octavian in this city between September and October 30 BC.118 Nevertheless, Berytos dated these emissions successively to years 51 and 53 of its era of autonomy, beginning in 81/80 BC, instead of according to the Actian Era.

  • 119 See above p. 136.
  • 120 Seyrig 1954b, p. 74-75. Ch. Augé acknowledges Seyrig’s opinion: Augé 1989, p. 167-168.

33The sole certain reference to the Actian Era in Phoenicia and contemporary with the reign of Augustus is thus still the private Maad inscription.119 Despite its explicit citation in the inscription, H. Seyrig asserted that this era rarely survived the death of Augustus in Syria, where the regnal years of his successors were regularly used, citing the cases of Antioch, Orthosia, and Byblos. “Although they merge with it”, he expressed some doubts regarding the attribution of Augustus’ regnal years to the Actian Era.120

  • 121 Years 26 and Consul 12 (5 BC), 27 and Consul 12 (5/4 BC), 28 and Consul 12 (4/3 BC), 29 and Consul  (...)
  • 122 See RPC I, nos. 4242-4245, 4250-4256, and 4270-4271; Butcher 2004, p. 325-330, and 331, nos. 62-63.
  • 123 Rouvier 1899, p. 9-12; Rouvier 1901a, nos. 620-627. For the rejection, see: Seyrig 1950, p. 19-20, (...)

34The rarity of the Actian Era on Syrian coins cannot be doubted. It is only recorded at Antioch and Seleucia Pieria under Augustus and Tiberius. In fact, it is even designated as the “year … of Victory” (ETOΥΣ … NIKHΣ) on some of the tetradrachms issued at Antioch with Augustus’ portrait on the obverse and the seated Tyche on the reverse. These coins associate the Actian Era years with imperial consular dates or with Caesarean Era years (year 1 = 49/48 BC).121 The Actian Era years are also found on some provincial SC and civic bronze coinages of Antioch late in the reign of Augustus: years 25-30 (7/6-2/1 BC), 35 (AD 4/5), and 42-44 (AD 11/12-13/14). They were used for the last time under Tiberius in AD 14 (year 45) before being definitively discarded in favor of the Caesarean Era. The Actian Era appears once on the coins of Tiberius issued at Seleucia Pieria (year 47), but is associated with the emperor’s third regnal year (AD 16).122 Consequently, the Actian Era did not spread in Syria under Augustus and is not recorded at Antioch before its year 25 (7/6 BC). On the contrary, the era remained confined to the capital of the province, before it was used for the last time under his successor Tiberius at Antioch and Seleucia Pieria in AD 13/14 and 16. Therefore, J. Rouvier’s computation of dates according to the Actian Era on coins of Beroea, Apamea and Rhosus should be rejected.123

  • 124 Seyrig 1954b, p. 74-75, note 3; RPC I, nos. 4225-4228; this question is fully discussed below p. 14 (...)
  • 125 Macdonald 1905, p. 260-261, nos. 10-11; Seyrig 1950, p. 42.

35As argued above p. 133, Orthosia struck Roman Provincial coins dated according to the Seleucid Era instead of regnal years. This leaves only Byblos as a certain user of the latter dating system under Augustus (years 14 and 30, 18/17 BC and 2/1 BC), Tiberius (year 2, AD 15/16) and Claudius (years 5 and 6, AD 44/45 and 45/46).124 Therefore, the similarity of the dating systems TKE MΔ (325 and 44) and LTKZ LB (year 327 and year 2) on the coins of Tripolis under Augustus and Tiberius renders year 44, as G. Macdonald and H. Seyrig have asserted, an Augustan regnal year as well.125

  • 126 See above p. 133-134.

36From the technical point of view, the first regnal year of Augustus merges with the start of the Actian era on the coinages of Tripolis and Byblos. Accordingly, it seems that the outcome of the Battle of Actium was not as impactful for the region as was instantly the case with the actions of Pompey. The liberation from the tyrants and the Ituraeans in 64/63 BC as well as the geographical distance separating the region from Actium were certainly the reasons for this lack of impact. The local populations must have considered 31/30 BC as the beginning of Octavian/Augustus’ reign, and thus overlooked his “enthronement” by the Senate on 16 January 27 BC. This fact may also be reflected in the civic coins struck by Tripolis in the years following the Battle of Actium. Issues of 27/26 and 25/24 BC are dated only according to the Seleucid Era (SE 286 and 288). Likewise, coins struck by Orthosia feature only the Pompeian Era years 36, 38, 40, 41, 44, and 50 (29/28, 27/26, 25/24, 24/23, 21/20, and 15/14 BC).126

37The mint of Tripolis was closed for almost a quarter of a century, between AD 16/17 and 37/38. It reopened from AD 38/39 (under Caligula) until AD 221/222 (under Elagabalus) to intermittingly produce a Roman Provincial coinage with all its 14 emissions dated only according to the Seleucid Era. The identity of the era is corroborated by the concordance between the imperial portraits and titles with the dates inscribed on their coins.

Table 4. The dated coinage of Tripolis.

  • 127 The date ΔΙΦ (514) is not indicated: Sawaya (forthcoming).

Seleucid Era

Year 147

166/165

Antiochos IV

SC II, no. 1441

Year 149

164/163

Antiochos V

SC II, no. 1577

Year 211

102/101

Civic

Rouvier 1903a, no. 1643; BDL, no. 181 (ex N. Tabet Collection, no. 601)

Era of Tripolis

Year 1

101/100

Civic

Rouvier 1903a, nos. 1652, and 1658

Year 3

99/98

Civic

Rouvier 1903a, no. 1660; Callataÿ 1993, p. 112-113, D1/R1-D3/R9

Year 5

97/96

Civic

Rouvier 1903a, no. 1662

Year 6

96/95

Civic

Rouvier 1903a, nos. 1663-1664; BnF H. Seyrig Y28598,3 (Sawaya forthcoming)

Year 7

95/94

Civic

Rouvier 1903a, no.1665; Beyrouth 20 mm/9.34 g and Oxford 7.11 g cf. Seyrig’s archives, file HS 160-I

Year 8

94/93

Civic

Rouvier 1903a, no. 1669; Callataÿ 1993, p. 113, D4/R1

Year 10

92/91

Civic

Le Rider & Seyrig 1968, no. 335

Year 11

91/90

Civic

Callataÿ 1993, p. 113, D5/R1-R5

Year 14

88/87

Civic

Rouvier 1903a, no. 1670

Year 15

87/86

Civic

BnF H. Seyrig Y28598,6 (Sawaya forthcoming)

Year 17

85/84

Civic

BnF H. Seyrig Y28598,7; BnF H. Seyrig 1965.747 (Sawaya forthcoming)

Year 18

84/83

Civic

Callataÿ 1993, p. 113-114, D6/R1-R5

Year 20

82/81

Civic

Rouvier 1903a, no. 1671; BnF H. Seyrig 1968.146 (Sawaya forthcoming)

Year 22

80/79

Civic

Rouvier 1903a, no. 1674

Year 23

79/78

Civic

BnF H. Seyrig Y28598,12 (Sawaya forthcoming)

Year 29

73/72

Civic

Rouvier 1903a, no. 1676

Year 30

72/71

Civic

Callataÿ 1993, p. 114, D7/R1-R5

Year 32

70/69

Civic

Callataÿ 1993, p. 114-115, D8/R1-R2

Pompeian Era

Year 4

61/60

Civic

BnF H. Seyrig Y28598,2 (Sawaya forthcoming)

Year 6

59/58

Civic

Beyrouth 21 mm/8.11 g cf. Seyrig’s archives, file HS 160-I

Year 7

58/57

Civic

Rouvier 1903a, no. 1672

Year 10?

55/54?

Civic

BnF H. Seyrig 1965/746 (Sawaya forthcoming)

Year 13

52/51

Civic

BnF H. Seyrig Y28598,5 (Sawaya forthcoming)

Year 14

51/50

Civic

Rouvier 1903a, no. 1661

Year 23

42/41

Mark Antony & Fulvia

RPC I, no. 4509

Phoenician era of Cleopatra VII

Year 2

36/35

Cleopatra VII

RPC I, no. 4510

Seleucid Era

Year 286

27/26

Civic

RPC I, no. 4511, and RPC Suppl. I-III,
S2-I-4511A

Year 288

25/24

Civic

RPC I, no. 4512

Year 306

7/6

Civic

RPC I, no. 4513

Year 308

5/4

Civic

RPC I, no. 4514

Seleucid Era and regnal years

Years 325 & 44

13/14

Civic

RPC I, nos. 4515-4517

Years 327 & 2

15/16

Civic

RPC I, no. 4518

Seleucid Era

Year 350

38/39

Caligula

RPC I, no. 4519

Year 379

67/68

Nero and civic

RPC I, nos. 4520-4522

Year 428

116/117

Hadrian

RPC III, nos. 3828-3831

Year 459

147/148

Antoninus Pius & M. Aurelius Caesar

RPC IV.3, nos. 6799,
and 6804-6807 (temporary)

Year 514

202/203

S. Severus, J. Domna, Plautilla & Geta Caesar

RPC V.3, ID 69156, 69286, 69301, 69302127, and 94334

Year 515

203/204

S. Severus & J. Domna

RPC V.3, ID 69155, 69283, and 83438; ANS 1944.100.72593

Year 522

210/211

Caracalla

RPC V.3, ID 74143

Year 523

211/212

Caracalla & J. Domna

RPC V.3, ID 69158, 69261, 69263, and 69284

Year 527

215/216

Caracalla & J. Domna

RPC V.3, ID 69157, 69159, 69262, 69264, 69285, 69290, 69291, 69294, 69295, 78200 and 83439

Year 529

217/218

Macrinus & Diadumenian Caesar

RPC V.3, ID 69296-69299

Year 531

219/220

Elagabalus

RPC VI online, nos. 8257-8271 (temporary)

Year 532

220/221

Elagabalus & J. Soaemias

RPC VI online, nos. 8277-8289 (temporary)

Year 533

221/222

Elagabalus & S. Alexander Caesar

RPC VI online, nos. 8290-8297 (temporary)

Botrys/Batrun

  • 128 Sawaya 2006a.

38The coinage of Botrys was listed by J. Rouvier and H. Seyrig in his archives (file HS 151). It was the subject of a full die study and discussion by Z. Sawaya.128 The recent additions of RPC VI online provide some new unpublished series, but do not affect the number of known emissions. The monetary activity of Botrys is reduced to only five bronze emissions produced according to two different eras (table 5). The earliest is a civic issue inscribed LHK (year 28), while the rest belong to the reign of Elagabalus and are dated MΘC (sic, 249), CN or NC (250), NCA (251, with Julia Soaemias), and BNC (252, with Severus Alexander Caesar).

  • 129 Vaillant 1688, p. 126; Eckhel 1794, p. 372.
  • 130 Mionnet 1837, p. 250; Head 1887, p. 668.
  • 131 Babelon 1893, p. CLXV, and 191-192, nos. 1340-1341.
  • 132 Clermont-Ganneau 1898; Rouvier 1901a, nos. 620-627. For J. Rouvier, “Ce résultat n’a rien d’invrais (...)
  • 133 BMC Phoenicia, p. lx.
  • 134 Head 1911, p. 791; Babelon 1930, p. 141.

39The first emission was not known to early numismatists who also sometimes misread the later dates and mistook the identities of the sovereigns. J. F. Vaillant, doubted by J. Eckhel, dated the emissions of 251 and 252 according to an era counting from year 705 of Rome (i.e. 50/49 BC).129 Th. Mionnet, followed by B. V. Head, believed that the year 704 of Rome’s foundation is the starting point of this era (50 BC).130 E. Babelon was the first to calculate the years 250 and 251 according to the Actian era.131 Ch. Clermont-Ganneau and J. Rouvier both accepted this dating, but the latter also applied it to the first emission (year 28 = 2 BC).132 G. F. Hill accepted J. Rouvier’s computation since the “date, 252, occurring on coins of both Elagabalus and Severus Alexander Caesar, fixes the era as that of Actium”.133 This dating was followed in the second edition of B. V. Head’s Historia Nummorum, as well as by J. Babelon.134

  • 135 Seyrig 1954a, p. 69-71; Seyrig 1954b, p. 75, 77-78, and 80.
  • 136 Le Rider & Seyrig 1968, p. 17-18.
  • 137 Baramki 1974, p. 148, no. 1.
  • 138 Rey-Coquais 1978, p. 45, note 16; Baldus 1987, p. 133-134; Augé 1989, p. 167; Grainger 1991, p. 161 (...)

40H. Seyrig identified two eras at Botrys. He asserted that the coins of Elagabalus and Severus Alexander Caesar prove that the Actian Era was used by this city despite its rarity in Syria at this late period. However, he judged the style of Botrys’ year 28 coins as “too old” to belong to the same era and situated them in the Pompeian Era. On the one hand, his argument is based on Strabo (Geography, XVI, 2, 18) who mentions Pompey’s deliverance of Botrys from the Ituraeans. On the other hand, he puts this city in the same situation as its neighbors Orthosia, Tripolis and Byblos, which adopted the Pompeian Era in recognition of his peacemaking actions.135 H. Seyrig later reaffirmed with Le Rider the dating of Elagabalus’ coins in the Actian Era.136 Most of the subsequent scholarly works accept the opinion of H. Seyrig. Only D. C. Baramki considered “year 28” as equivalent to 27 BC without situating its era.137 This would make its starting point in 54 BC, but I really cannot see to what event this unknown era should be linked. Only a few scholars are a little less affirmative. These include H. R. Baldus, who nevertheless dates the emission to 37/36 BC (= year 28 of the Pompeian Era), and J. D. Grainger, who believes that the adoption of the Pompeian Era by Botrys is “just possible”.138

  • 139 Sawaya 2006a, p. 169-170.

41In my study of Botrys’ coinage, I pointed to the fact that the Actian Era is almost nonexistent on the coinages of the Phoenician cities. The only exception that I cited was the Tripolitan civic issue connecting the years 325 and 44. However, as discussed above p. 138-139, year 44 should be considered as a regnal year of Augustus. This leaves no clear evidence for the use of the Actian Era on Phoenician coinages during the Augustan period. As the starting point of the Pompeian Era was 64/63 BC in Phoenicia, its year 28 then corresponds to 37/36 BC.139

  • 140 Seyrig 1954b, p. 80; Sawaya 2006a, p. 160-168.
  • 141 See above, p. 131, for Severus Alexander’s date of designations as Caesar and Augustus.
  • 142 See Green 1997, p. 745.
  • 143 See Kienast 1996, p. 169-172, for the dates of Elagabalus’ and Macrinus’ reigns.
  • 144 Sawaya 2006a, p. 171-172.
  • 145 See above p. 132-135 (Orthosia), 137-138 and 141 (Tripoli), and below p. 144-146 (Byblos).

42Botrys suspended its monetary activity for over two and a half centuries, only to resume under the reign of Elagabalus with four emissions dated 249, 250, 251 and 252.140 The era to which they should be calculated is confirmed by the presence of the title Caesar and the absence of the title Augustus on the coins of Severus Alexander.141 Year 252 inscribed on his coins therefore corresponds to AD 221/222 and makes the year 31/30 BC the starting point of its era. This fact coincides with the year 1 of the Battle of Actium, which took place on 2 September 31 BC.142 Moreover, according to this era, the emission dated 249 is equivalent to AD 218/219 (1 October AD 218-30 September AD 219). It was struck a few months after the acclamation of Elagabalus on 16 May AD 218 and the death of his rivals Macrinus and Diadumenian in June AD 218.143 The era used to date the four emissions of Botrys under Elagabalus is thus indubitably Actian, as was confirmed by E. Babelon, Ch. Clermont-Ganneau, J. Rouvier, G. F. Hill and H. Seyrig: AD 218/219 (Actian year 249), AD 219/220 (Actian year 250), AD 220/221 (Actian year 251), and AD 221/222 (Actian year 252). The reasons for this late adoption are not clear. Maybe it stayed in use in local traditions, as was the case in the Maad inscription in 9/8 BC.144 Or perhaps the Pompeian Era fell into disuse in the region before the end of the first century BC. This is effectively what can be concluded from its last appearances on the coins of Phoenicia in years 23 (42/41 BC, Tripolis), 24 (41/40 BC, Orthosia), 25 (40/39 BC, Byblos), 26 (39/38 BC, Byblos), 27 (38/37 BC, Orthosia), 28 (37/36 BC, Botrys), 36 (29/28 BC, Orthosia), 38 (27/6 BC, Orthosia), 40 (25/24 BC, Orthosia), 41 (24/23 BC, Orthosia), 44 (21/20 BC, Orthosia), and 50 (15/14 BC, Orthosia).145 If this was the case, the return to the “Actian Era” on Botrys’ coinage early in the third century AD may then be interpreted as a reference to the beginning of the Roman imperial rule over the region in 31/30 BC under Octavian.

Table 5. The coinage of Botrys.

Pompeian Era

Year 28

37/36

Civic

RPC I, nos. 4523-4524; Sawaya 2006a, nos. 1-4

Actian Era/imperial rule

Year 249

218/219

Elagabalus

Sawaya 2006a, no. 5

Year 250

219/220

Elagabalus

Sawaya 2006a, nos. 6-7; RPC VI online, no. 8213 (temporary)

Year 251

220/221

Elagabalus & J. Soaemias

Sawaya 2006a, nos. 8-12; RPC VI online, nos. 8214-8218 (temporary)

Year 252

221/222

Elagabalus & S. Alexander Caesar

Sawaya 2006a, nos. 13-28; RPC VI online, nos. 8219-8224 (temporary)

Byblos

43Byblos used multiple dating systems for its production of Seleucid municipal, civic and Roman Provincial coins from the second century BC until mid-first century AD. The following emissions, going up to mid-third century AD, did not feature dates on their coins. These coinages are listed by J. Rouvier, SC II, as well as by RPC I. H. Seyrig did not publish the corpus he was preparing (Seyrig’s archives, file HS 152). All the coins lack a die study, which I intend to carry out in my ongoing corpus (table 6).

  • 146 Eckhel 1794, p. 360; Mionnet 1881, p. 355-356, no. 134; Head 1887, p. 669.
  • 147 Imhoof-Blumer 1883, p. 443-444.
  • 148 Babelon 1893, p. CLXVII-CLXVIII.
  • 149 Rouvier 1901a, nos. 658-664, and 670-676; BMC Phoenicia, p. lxix, and 98, nos. 16-18.
  • 150 Babelon 1930, no. 3156.

44The earlier numismatic works are not unanimous regarding the eras used on some of Byblos’ coins (20 BC or 6 BC) nor the identification of their Roman emperors (Caracalla or Elagabalus).146 Imhoof-Blumer does not indicate the precise era to which the dates AIC (211) and AΛC (231) should be assigned on some civic coins, but attributes the years Γ (3), H (8), IE (15), K (20) and Λ (30) read on other coins to a particular era of Byblos or to the Pompeian Era.147 E. Babelon saw that the first group (i.e., years 211 and 231) is dated to the Seleucid Era and the second (i.e., the years 3, 8, 15, 20, and 30) to the Pompeian Era.148 J. Rouvier and G. F. Hill accepted the Seleucid Era for the first group (years 211, 215, 218, 230, 231, and 238), but proposed the Actian Era for the second (years 3, 8, 10, 15, 20, and 25).149 J. Babelon remained evasive on the question of eras.150

  • 151 See below, p. 144-145.
  • 152 Seyrig 1954b, p. 73-75. It is noteworthy that the “year 25” read by Rouvier (1901a, no. 673) is rec (...)
  • 153 Le Rider & Seyrig 1968, p. 18; Rey-Coquais 1978, p. 45, and note 16; Baldus 1987, p. 134; RPC I, p. (...)

45H. Seyrig accepted the use of the Seleucid Era for the first group. He pointed out that if the second group is dated to the Actian Era, then all its coins would have been struck during Augustus’ reign. Consequently, they would be dated with his regnal years and at least some of them would be expected to bear the imperial portrait, which is not the case. H. Seyrig emphasized that the use of regnal years is certain on the coins that Byblos issued in the names of Tiberius (year 2, AD 15/16), and Claudius (year 6, AD 45/46). He also recorded regnal years on both emissions of Augustus (years 14 and 30, 18/17 BC and 2/1 BC) at the same mint.151 Regarding the era of the second civic group, H. Seyrig discredited the use of a Caesarian Era for the same reason he argued against the Actian Era, notably for the emissions “between its years 2 and 26”. He thought that a local era of autonomy would not be impossible, but that it must be justified and that it would have survived during the imperial times. Therefore, H. Seyrig suggested a Pompeian Era for the second group of civic coins. By including the epigraphic material, H. Seyrig therefore proposed the adoption of three eras by Byblos: the Seleucid Era (102/101-82/81 BC), the Pompeian Era (62/61-39/38 BC), and regnal years (18/17 BC-AD 153/154). He included two inscriptions in the latter phase, one dated to year 14 of Trajan (AD 110/111) and the other to year 17 of Antoninus Pius (AD 153/154).152 He is followed by subsequent publications.153

  • 154 Saulcy 1874, p. 112-113.
  • 155 BMC Palestine, p. xvii-xviii, and 75, nos. 1-4.
  • 156 Seyrig 1954b, p. 73-75.
  • 157 SNG ANS 6, nos. 746-752.
  • 158 RPC I, p. 647-648, nos. 4225-4228.
  • 159 Sawaya 2009, p. 187.
  • 160 The full results of the excavation will be soon published by A. Seif, F. Beaino et alii in a forthc (...)

46The minting place of Augustus’ year 14 coins (LIΔ) is debated. These are civic bronzes depicting the bust of Tyche on the obverse and bearing the Greek legend CEBACTOC (Augustus) within a wreath on the reverse. F. de Saulcy attributed them to Caesarea in Palestine, taking the legend on the reverse to be the name that the city’s port received from Herod the Great in honor of Augustus. He affirms that these coins were destined for distribution to the people as a commemoration of the inauguration of Caesarea and its port during the 14th regnal year of Augustus.154 G. F. Hill rejected this view since this year of Augustus’ reign falls in 14-13 BC, long before the building of Caesarea was completed. He therefore attributes them to an uncertain Palestinian mint.155 Nevertheless, H. Seyrig affirmed that they are found in quantities on the beach of Byblos and unquestionably attributed them to this city. Although lacking the imperial portrait, he argued that the legend “year 14 of Augustus” indicates the use of regnal years by Byblos under the founder of the Empire.156 Like F. de Saulcy, Y. Meshorer attributed the LIΔ/CEBACTOC series to Caesarea, but dated it to AD 68 (?) under Nero.157 The authors of RPC I accept H. Seyrig’s attribution of this series to Byblos. However, they express some doubts about the identity of the emperor involved: Augustus?/Nero?158 In an earlier publication, I followed Seyrig’s view without discussing the problem.159 Recently, I identified another specimen from a controlled archaeological excavation near the city’s beach.160 This fact thus confirms the location of the earlier finds mentioned by H. Seyrig and supports his attribution to Byblos.

  • 161 For an overall view, see Sawaya 1998.
  • 162 See SC II, nos. 1442-1447.
  • 163 See SC II, no. 1823.
  • 164 See SC II, nos. 2044, and 2099.

47The development of dating eras in the coin production of Byblos can be reconstructed as follows.161 The Seleucid Era was, unsurprisingly, used for some municipal and royal coins struck in the city. It did not appear on the earliest municipal coins issued in the names of Antiochos IV and Antiochos V,162 but is recorded on issues of Alexander I Balas’ struck in SE 162 and 166 (151/150 BC and 147/146 BC). Another series in the name of the latter king is undated.163 Antiochos VI issued royal silver didrachms at Byblos in 171 SE (142/141 BC). Diodotos-Tryphon replaced the Seleucid Era with his own regnal years on the royal tetradrachms and didrachms that he struck respectively in 141/140 BC (LB, year 2) and 139/138 BC (LΔ, year 4). His municipal bronzes are left undated (c. 142-138 BC) as it is the case of Antiochos VII’s municipals (138-129 BC).164

48Byblos’ civic bronze coinage can be organized in three groups resembling those of H. Seyrig, but his scheme needs some minor adjustments based on the new data available in my corpus. The earliest group was dated to the Seleucid Era between 102/101 BC and 81/80 BC. The second group uses the Pompeian Era from 63/62 BC to 39/38 BC. The third group, not mentioned by H. Seyrig, does not bear any date. The last dated coin emissions of Byblos are Roman Provincial coins dated by regnal year. They are recorded in the names of Augustus in 18/17 BC (year 14) and 2/1 BC (year 30), Tiberius in AD 15/16 (year 2), as well as Claudius in AD 44/45 (year 5) and AD 45/46 (year 6).

Table 6. The dated coinage of Byblos between 169/168 BC and AD 45/46.

Seleucid Era

Year 162

151/150

Alexander I

SC II, no. 1822 (1)

Year 166

147/146

Alexander I

SC II, no. 1822 (2)

Year 211

102/101

Civic

BM 1930 2-6-57 [Rogers]

Year 215

98/97

Civic

ANS Newell 1944.100.70826, and 70829; BDL, no. 276; BnF Vogüé 329
(Sawaya forthcoming)

Year 218

95/94

Civic

Babelon 1893, no. 1378; ANS Newell 1944.100.70842, 70843, and 70845; BnF H. Seyrig Y28597,19 (Sawaya forthcoming)

Year 230

83/82

Civic

BMC Phoenicia, no. 16

Year 231

82/81

Civic

BMC Phoenicia, no. 17

Year 232

81/80

Civic

Le Rider & Seyrig 1968, no. 339

Pompeian Era

Year 2

63/62

Civic

ANS Newell 1944.100.70823, and 70824

Year 3

62/61

Civic

Le Rider & Seyrig 1968, no. 340

Year 4

61/60

Civic

Le Rider & Seyrig 1968, no. 341

Year 8

57/56

Civic

SNG Copenhagen, no. 136; BnF H. Seyrig Y28597,8 (Sawaya forthcoming)

Year 10

55/54

Civic

BMC Phoenicia, no. 18; BnF 1968/129, and H. Seyrig Y28597,13 (Sawaya forthcoming)

Year 15

50/49

Civic

Imhoof-Blumer 1883, p. 443, nos. 22-22a; Baramki 1974, no. 33; BM 1930-2-6-58;

BnF H. Seyrig Y28597,12 (Sawaya forthcoming)

Year 20

45/44

Civic

Babelon 1893, no. 1377; SNG Copenhagen, no. 137; BnF H. Seyrig Y28597,16 (Sawaya forthcoming)

Year 25

40/39

Civic

ANS Newell 1944.100.70827, and 70828; BM 1930-2-6-59

Year 26

39/38

Civic

Le Rider & Seyrig 1968, no. 342; BnF H. Seyrig Y28597,18 (Sawaya forthcoming)

Regnal years

Year 14

18/17

Augustus

RPC I, no. 4525

Year 30

2/1

Augustus

RPC I, nos. 4526, and p. 647-648

Year 2

15/16

Tiberius

RPC I, no. 4527

Year 5

44/45

Claudius

BDL, no. 752 (ex N. Tabet Collection, no. 287)

Year 6

45/46

Claudius

RPC I, no. 4528

Conclusion (tables 7-8)

49Arados was the first Phoenician city to produce civic coins dated according to its own era of autonomy during the Hellenistic period. The city’s autonomous status was granted by Antiochos II in 259/258 BC in the context of the second Syrian war fought against Ptolemy II. The island city certainly took advantage of its high strategic importance for the Seleucids. On the one hand, the kings needed its port, fleet, and naval arsenal. On the other hand, its geographic proximity to the Eleutheros River constituted the Seleucid’s southern frontier with the Ptolemaic enemy. However, the date of autonomy coincides with the naval victory that led to the capture of Ephesos, hence suggesting an active contribution by the Aradian fleet during this campaign as the reason for the royal grant. Arados used the local era from 243/242 BC until the end of its coinage in AD 239/240 under Gordian III. The main cities of the peraia adopted the same era because of their annexation by the island, or its political or/and economic influence over them. This era survived until 187/186 BC in Simyra, 137/136 BC in Carne, 53/52 BC in Gabala, and AD 48/49 in Marathos. Balaneia made only one emission with it in 43/42 BC.

50Unlike Arados and its peraia, the northern Phoenician cities to the south of the Eleutheros river did not produce any civic coinage during the third century BC. This was undeniably the consequence of Ptolemaic hegemony and its centralised monetary policy. Antiochos III achieved the conquest of Phoenicia in 199/198 BC and permanently annexed the region to the Seleucid realm. During the same year, he introduced the Seleucid Era (starting in 312/311 BC) into this region when in SE 114 he inaugurated his bronze royal coins at the mint of Tyre. These continued in production in SE 115-120, 122, and 124 (198/197-193/192, 191/190, and 189/188 BC; see SC I, no. 1078).

51However, it is only in 169/168 BC that Tripolis and Byblos began their monetary activity when certain cities including Berytos, Sidon and Tyre started to produce bronze municipal coins under Antiochos IV. When they were dated, the coins of Tripolis and Byblos naturally used the Seleucid Era: Tripolis (Antiochos IV, 166/165 BC; Antiochos V, 164/163 BC) and Byblos (Alexander I Balas, 151/150 BC, and 147/146 BC). The situation of Orthosia is not certain as it perhaps issued municipal coins in the name of Alexander I Balas under the ethnic “Eupatria” with Seleucid Era dates (148/147 BC, 147/146 BC, and 146/145 BC). Seleucid Era dates do not appear on Tripolis’ municipal coins produced under Demetrios II (145-138 BC). Antiochos VI struck royal didrachms at Byblos in 142/141 BC using the Seleucid Era when he revolted against Demetrios II with the help of Diodotos-Tryphon. The latter struck coins in Byblos after assassinating his protégé, usurping power, and proclaiming himself king. He interrupted Seleucid Era dating and replaced it with regnal years on his royal silver emissions at Byblos (141/140 BC, and 139/138 BC). Although Antiochos VII restored the dynastic era after vanquishing Tryphon and reuniting the kingdom, the municipal coins that Byblos issued in his name did not bear any date (138-129 BC).

52The dynastic wars resumed after a brief period of respite under Antiochos VII and thus increasingly weakened the Seleucids. Demetrios II (129-125 BC) had to face up to Alexander II Zabinas (128-122 BC) early in his second reign, with the result that the kingdom was divided between them. In consequence, Tyre inaugurated its own era of autonomy in 126/125 BC. Alexander II Zabinas occupied Berytos in the same year, while Demetrios II held the rest of Phoenicia.

53The struggle between the half-brothers Antiochos VIII (121-96 BC) and Antiochos IX (114-95 BC) dismembered the Seleucid territories completely. Both kings gave benefactions to several cities to gain their support. Sidon took advantage of this policy to achieve autonomy from Antiochos IX and started its local era in 111/110 BC. The situation in northern Phoenicia is unclear during this phase as this region was most probably disputed between both rival kings. Orthosia and Byblos did not have any coinage. Tripolis was under the control of Antiochos IX at least until 105/104 BC, as evidenced by the king’s tetradrachms issued in the city. Meanwhile, the Seleucid dynastic era was used by both belligerent kings. The situation was also the same when Tripolis and Byblos, and perhaps Orthosia, inaugurated their civic bronze coins in 102/101 BC. On the one hand, this means that Antiochos IX evacuated Tripolis before 102/101 BC to prepare his conquest of Antioch and Tarsus, accomplished in 98/97-96/95 BC. On the other hand, these cities obtained certain concessions from Antiochos IX or/and Antiochos VIII while acknowledging Seleucid influence by using the royal era.

54Orthosia used the Seleucid Era only once or maybe twice with its 102/101 BC (?) and 99/98 BC emissions. The interruption in this coinage can be linked to Ituraean expansion in northern Phoenicia at that time. Tripolis became an autonomous city in 101/100 BC while replacing the Seleucid Era with its own era on the silver and bronze civic coinages. By declaring a local era of autonomy, Tripolis sent a strong message about its power to face the ever-menacing Ituraeans. Byblos continued to date civic bronzes according to the Seleucid Era until 81/80 BC, with an interruption in its coinage between 94/93 BC to 84/83 BC included. This city’s political situation may have resembled that of Berytos, which recognized the nearest Seleucid authority, in this case Antiochos VIII, at least until the end of his reign in 97/96 BC. The control or influence of Demetrios III (97/96-88/87 BC) over Berytos from Damascus may have also been the case for Byblos, though this is currently unproven. The latter city resumed its coinage in 83/82 BC following the death of Antiochos XII (87/86-84/83 BC) and maintained Seleucid Era dating. This king was deeply involved in the intra-dynastic and Nabataean struggles and was the last representative of the Seleucid house in the region. Byblos and Berytos therefore found themselves gradually liberated from royal influence. Byblos produced its last civic emission using the Seleucid Era in 81/80 BC. Berytos became autonomous during the same year, although its era did not appear on the emission of 81/80-80/79 BC. This city started to make coins with the local era in its third year, corresponding to 79/78 BC. Meanwhile, Tripolis continued to use its era on the civic issues of 80/79 BC and 79/78 BC.

55The void left by the disappearance of royal authority in Phoenicia triggered a very troubled period in which the Ituraeans expanded their territory at the expense of the cities. However, the major cities like Arados, Sidon and Tyre were not affected by the Ituraean threat. The recurrent simultaneity of interruption and resumption in some Phoenician coinages can only be seen in this political context. Hence, the monetary production disrupted by Byblos in 81/80 BC and then by Berytos and Tripolis in 79/78 BC is no pure coincidence. This fact can be corroborated by the resumption of civic coinages in Tripolis and Berytos in the same year—73/72 BC. As was the case of Orthosia, two decades before, this break attested by these coinages should be associated with the escalating Ituraean threat. The reopening of Berytos’ and Tripolis’ mints was probably a consequence of the restoration of order in the region by the Armenian king Tigranes the Great in 74/73 BC.

56Tripolis dated the last known civic coins in its era of autonomy in 72/71 BC and 70/69 BC. This new interruption in the coinage from 69/68 BC may have been caused by local monetary reasons. However, it may also be related to the fall of the city into Ituraean hands following the withdrawal of Tigranes from the region. Ancient sources mention the tyrannies of Dionysios at Tripolis (Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, XIV, 39) and of Cinyras at Byblos (Strabo, Geography, XVI, 2, 18). Tripolis may therefore have lost its independence in 69/68 BC or a little later. Orthosia and Byblos fell to the Ituraeans respectively after 99/98 BC and 81/80 BC, and Botrys (Strabo, Geography, XVI, 2, 18) sometime early in the first century BC. In the absence of an authority capable of establishing order, the whole of northern Lebanon and the northern Beqaa was therefore ruled by the Ituraeans based in ʿArqa and Chalcis under Mount Libanos.

57Pompey liberated the cities from the Ituraeans, executed the tyrants and reorganized the region when annexing it to the Roman Republic. His actions created the feeling of a “new time beginning” and the Phoenician cities concerned therefore adopted a Pompeian Era starting in 64/63 BC. The earliest coin emissions were civic bronzes produced in Orthosia (64/63 BC), Byblos (63/62 BC), and Tripolis (61/60 BC). Ptolemy son of Mennaios, the Ituraean tetrarch of Chalcis, purchased the recognition of Pompey with 1000 silver talents. After using the Seleucid Era in 73/72 BC, he issued dynastic bronzes in 63/62 BC apparently dated according to the era of the Roman general that H. Seyrig qualified as “the era of recognition by Pompey”. At the same time, the eras of Arados (Arados and the peraia), Berytos, Sidon, and Tyre remained in use.

58When conflict broke out between Pompey and Julius Caesar, the former received military contributions from Phoenicia among other eastern regions. As Caesar crossed Syria in 48/47 BC after the death of Pompey, he bestowed benefactions on some cities. His actions led to the adoption of a Caesarian Era by the recipients, which included Antioch, Gabala, and Laodicea ad Mare. However, this event is overlooked by the coinages of the Phoenician cities due to their support for the Pompeian cause.

59The Pompeian Era continued to be used in Tripolis, Orthosia, and Byblos respectively until 42/41 BC, 41/40 BC, and 39/38 BC. The last Tripolitan emission using this era depicted the portraits of Mark Antony and his first wife Fulvia. Meanwhile, the Ituraeans of Chalcis under Mount Libanos returned to Seleucid Era dates on the coinage that Lysanias issued in 41/40 BC. Arados supported the Parthian invasion of the region in spring 40 BC and then entered into conflict against Mark Antony. In 37 BC, this city fell to Sosius, the governor of Syria newly appointed by the Roman triumvir, and thus issued a bronze emission in 38/37 BC depicting the portrait of Antony, and dated according to the local era.

60Mark Antony reorganized the East in 37/36 BC. The coinages of Phoenicia enable us to specify the political status of the issuing cities during this phase. The Roman’s control over Arados (36/35-35/34 BC) and Marathos (37/36 BC) is proved by his portrait on their coins. While the island city did not issue coins in 37/36 BC, Balaneia was detached from the Aradian peraia and acquired autonomy. This fact is reflected by the city’s coins being produced in the same year according to an “era of Antony”. Some feature Mark Antony’s portrait on the obverse, while others use only civic types. Several cities were given to Cleopatra VII and dated their coins according to her regnal years in Phoenicia: Orthosia (36/35-35/34 BC), Tripolis (36/35 BC), Berytos (36/35 BC and 32/1 BC), and Chalcis under Mount Libanos (32/31 BC). In addition, Berytos used the Egyptian regnal years of the queen for the second emission, as well as its own era of autonomy. Botrys received autonomy and dated its first emission to the twenty-eighth year of the Pompeian Era in 37/36 BC.

61There are no signs of the Actian Era in Phoenicia subsequent to this battle, which was fought in 31/30 BC. Arados (34/33 BC-AD 48/49) and Marathos (24/23 BC-AD 48/49) retained the Aradian Era for their civics. Orthosia returned to the Pompeian Era (29/28-15/14 BC). Tripolis oddly used the Seleucid Era instead of restoring the local or the Pompeian Era (27/26-5/4 BC). Berytos, Sidon and Tyre maintained their own local eras, although the former alluded to Actium by two reverse types in 31/30 BC and 29/28 BC. This general neglect of the battle is not in fact exclusive to Phoenicia. The Actian Era was rarely used in the province of Syria. It figured late in the reign of Augustus in the coinages of Antioch and Seleucia Pieria. Even after the restoration of the principality of Chalcis under Mount Libanos by Octavian/Augustus to the Ituraean Zenodoros, the latter associated his portrait with the Roman’s on his coins but dated them according to the Seleucid Era in 31/30 BC and 26/25 BC.

62The Actian Era did not long survive to the death of Augustus in 14 BC. It is only recorded on two occasions at Antioch and Seleucia Pieria during the early years of Tiberius’ reign. The suspected cases at Byblos (18/17 BC and 2/1 BC) and Tripolis (AD 13/14) turned out to be Augustan regnal years coupled by the latter city with the Seleucid Era. This association is only once repeated in Tripolis under Tiberius (AD 15/16). Byblos continued to favor the use of regnal years under Tiberius (AD 15/16) and Claudius (AD 45/46) before ceasing to mark dates on its subsequent coinage. Arados continued to produce its civic and Roman Provincial coins according to the local era until AD 48/49 and AD 239/240, respectively. The latter marked the end of Aradian coinage and its use of the city’s era. Meanwhile, the Seleucid Era was mostly employed in northern Phoenicia until SE 533. The sole exception is the coinage of Botrys, which used the years 249-252 of the “Actian/Augustan” Era to date its coin emissions under Elagabalus (AD 218/219-221/222).

Table 7. The eras of northern Phoenicia (259/258-39/38 BC).

Arados & peraia

Orthosia

Tripolis

Byblos

Aradian Era

Arados

Civic

243/242-40/39 BC

Aradian Era

Marathos

Civic

230/229-94/93 BC

Aradian Era

Simyra

Civic

230/229-187/186 BC

Aradian Era

Carne

Civic

226/225-137/136 BC

Aradian Era

Gabala

Civic

225/224-53/52 BC

Seleucid Era

Seleucid/Eupatria?

148/147-146/145 BC

Seleucid Era

Seleucid

166/165-105/104 BC

Seleucid Era

Seleucid

151/150-142/141 BC

Seleucid Era

Civic

102/101?-99/98 BC

Seleucid Era

Civic

102/101 BC

Seleucid Era

Civic

102/101-81/80 BC

Era of Tripolis

Civic

101/100-70/69 BC

Pompeian Era

Civic

64/63-41/40 BC

Pompeian Era

Civic

61/60-51/50 BC

Pompeian Era

Civic

63/62-39/38 BC

Aradian Era

Balaneia

Civic

43/42 BC

Antony

42/41 BC

Table 8. The eras of northern Phoenicia (38/37 BC-AD 221/222).

Arados & peraia

Caesarea

Orthosia

Tripolis

Botrys

Byblos

Era of Arados

Arados

Antony

38/37-35/34 BC

Era of Arados

Marathos

Antony

37/36 BC

Era of “Antony”

Balaneia

Antony & Civic

37/36 BC

Phoenician era of Cleopatra VII

Cleopatra VII

36/35-35/34 BC

Phoenician era of Cleopatra VII

Cleopatra VII

36/35 BC

Era of Pompey

Civic

37/36 BC

Era of Arados

Arados

Civic

34/33 BC-AD 48/49

Era of Pompey

Civic

29/28-15/14 BC

Seleucid Era

Civic

27/26-5/4 BC

Seleucid Era & regnal years

Civic

AD 13/14-15/16

Regnal years

Civic

18/17 BC

Roman Provincial

2/1 BC-AD 45/46

Era of Arados

Arados

Roman Provincial

8/7 BC-AD 239/240

Seleucid Era

Roman provincial

AD 149/150-221/222

Seleucid Era

Roman Provincial

AD 42/43-221/222

Seleucid Era

Roman Provincial

AD 38/39-221/222

Civic

AD 67/68

Era of “Actium”

Roman Provincial

AD 218/219-221/222

Marathos

Marathos

ΔKΡ (year 124 of Arados = 136/135 BC)

1. Bibliothèque nationale de France.

Orthosia

Orthosia

LΔNT (year 354 SE = AD 42/43)

2-3 & 4. Classical Numismatic.

Tripolis. Antiochos IX

Tripolis. Antiochos IX

HΣ (year 208 SE = 105/104 BC)

5. American Numismatic Society.

Tripolis. Civics

Tripolis. Civics

LAIΣ (Year 211 SE = 102/101 BC)

6. Bibliothèque nationale de France; 7. British Museum; 8. Banque du Liban.

Tripolis. Civics

Tripolis. Civics

LA (year 1 of autonomy = 101/100 BC)

9-10. Bibliothèque nationale de France.

I am deeply grateful to Oliver D. Hoover and John Crisp for enhancing my English.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Abbreviations

AJA: American Journal of Archaeology

AJN: American Journal of Numismatics

ANS: American Numismatic Society

BAAL: Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises

BAH: Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique

BDL: Banque du Liban

BM: British Museum (Department of Coins and Medals)

BnF: Bibliothèque nationale de France (Département des Médailles et Antiques, Cabinet des Médailles)

BSFN: Bulletin de la Société Française de Numismatique

JAsiat: Journal Asiatique

JIAN: Journal International d’Archéologie Numismatique

JRS: Journal of Roman Studies

MNB: Musée National de Beyrouth

NC: The Numismatic Chronicle

NumAntCl: Numismatica e antichità Classiche

RBN: Revue Belge de Numismatique et de Sigillographie

RN: Revue Numismatique

SE: Seleucid Era

Ancient sources

Athenaeus
Athenaeus, The Deipnophistae, Book V, Loeb Classical Library Volume II, Cambridge, Harvard University Press,1928.

Flavius Josephus
Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Books XIV-XV, trans. R. Marcus and A. Wikgren, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1943.

Frontinus
Frontinus, Stratagems, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1925.

Lindos II
C. Blinkenberg and K. F. Kinch, Lindos. Fouilles et recherches 1902-1914, Vol. II. Inscriptions, Copenhagen, 1931-1941.

Polyaenus
Polyaenus, Polyaeni Strategicon Libri Octo, Leipzieg, Teubner, 1897-1901.

Trogus
Justin-Trogue Pompée, Abrégé des histoires Philippiques de Trogue Pompée et prologues de Trogue Pompée, Paris, Classique Garnier, 1936.

Strabo
Strabo, The Geography of Strabo, Books XV-XVI, trans. H. L. Jones, The Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1930.

References

Abou Diwan 2010
G. Abou Diwan, Sidon de l’inauguration du monnayage municipal à la colonie sévérienne : approche historique et monétaire, 169/8 av. J.-C.–235 ap. J.-C., PhD, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris (unpublished).

Abou Diwan 2012
G. Abou Diwan, « Le monnayage civique non daté de Sidon : Opportunisme civique et pragmatisme royal (169/8-111/0 av. J.-C.) », AJN 24, p. 91-121.

Aliqot 2003
J. Aliqot, « Les Ituréens et la présence arabe au Liban du iie siècle a.C. au ive siècle p.C. », MUSJ 56, p. 161‑290.

Amela Valverde 2019
L. Amela Valverde, « Sobre la(s) era(s) de Pompeyo », Revista Numismática Hécate 6, p. 56-76.

Augé 1989
Ch. Augé, « La monnaie en Syrie à l’époque hellénistique et romaine (fin du ive s. av. J.-C.-fin du ve s. ap. J.-C.) », in J.-M. Dentzer and W. Orthman (eds.), Histoire et archéologie de la Syrie de l’époque achéménide à l’avènement de l’Islam, t. II, Sarrebrücken, p. 149-190.

Babelon 1893
E. Babelon, Catalogue des monnaies grecques de la Bibliothèque nationale. Les perses achéménides, les satrapes, et les dynastes tributaires de leur empire. Cypre et Phénicie, Paris.

Babelon 1930
J. Babelon, Catalogue de la collection De Luynes. Monnaies grecques. III. Asie Mineure et Phénicie, Paris.

Baldus 1973
H. R. Baldus, « Ein neues Spätporträt der Kleopatra aus Orthosia », Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 23, p. 19-43.

Baldus 1987
H. R. Baldus, « Syria », in A. M. Burnett and M. H. Crowford (eds.), The Coinage of the Roman World in the Late Republic. Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at the British Museum in September 1985, Oxford, p. 133-134.

Balog 1964
P. Balog, The Coinage of the Mamluk Sultans of Egypt and Syria, New York.

Baramki 1974
D. C. Baramki, The Coin Collection of the American University of Beirut Museum. Palestine and Phoenicia, Beirut.

BMC Palestine
G. F. Hill, A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Palestine (Galilee, Samaria, and Judaea), London, 1914.

BMC Phoenicia
G. F. Hill, A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Phoenicia, London, 1910.

Butcher 2004
K. Butcher, Coinage in Roman Syria. Northern Syria, 64 BC-AD 253, London.

Callataÿ 1993
F. de Callataÿ, « Les tétradrachmes hellénistiques de Tripolis », NumAntCl 22, p. 111-123.

Callataÿ 2002
F. de Callataÿ, « La production des tétradrachmes civiques de la Cilicie jusqu’à la fin du iie et dans la première moitié du ier s. av. J.-C. », in Ch. Augé and F. Duyrat (eds.), Les monnayages syriens. Quel apport pour l’histoire du Proche-Orient hellénistique et romain ? Actes de la table ronde de Damas, 10-11 novembre 1999 (BAH 162), Beyrouth, p. 71-91.

Capdetrey 2007
L. Capdetrey, Le pouvoir séleucide. Territoire, administration, finances d’un royaume hellénistique (312-129 av. J.-C.), Rennes.

Carlen & Lorber 2019
E. Carlen and C. C. Lorber, « The Fifth Syrian War Portrait Coinage. A Die Study », RBN 165, p. 167-235.

CH IX
A. Meadows and U. Wartenberg,
Coin Hoards. Volume IX. Greek Hoards, London, 2006.

Clermont-Ganneau 1897
Ch. Clermont-Ganneau, « Mémoire de M. Jules Rouvier sur les ères de Tripoli de Phénicie », Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, p. 429-431.

Clermont-Ganneau 1898
Ch. Clermont-Ganneau, « L’ère d’Actium en Phénicie », Recueil d’archéologie orientale, vol. II, Paris, p. 297-299.

Cohen 2006
G. M. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa, Berkeley.

Cohen 2011
E. E. Cohen, Dated Coins of Antiquity. A Comprehensive Catalogue of the Coins and How Their Numbers Came About, Lancaster-London.

CSE
A. Houghton, Coins of the Seleucid Empire from the Collection of Arthur Houghton, New York, 1983.

Davesne 1991
A. Davesne, « Les monnaies ptolémaïques d’Éphèse », Erol Atalay Memorial, Izmir, p. 21-31.

Davesne 1999
A. Davesne, « La seconde guerre de Syrie (ca. 261-255 avant J.-C.) et les témoignages numismatiques », in M. Amandry and S. Hurter (eds.), Travaux de numismatique grecque offerts à G. Le Rider, Paris, p. 123-134.

Davesne & Yenisoğanci 1992
A. Davesne and V. Yenisoğanci, « Les Ptolémées en Séleucide : le trésor d’Hüseyinli », RN, p. 23-36.

DN
M. Amandry (dir.), Dictionnaire de numismatique, Paris, 2001.

Duyrat 2002
F. Duyrat, « Les ateliers monétaires de Phénicie du Nord à l’époque hellénistique », in Ch. Augé and F. Duyrat (eds.), Les monnayages syriens. Quel apport pour l’histoire du Proche-Orient hellénistique et romain ? Actes de la table ronde de Damas, 10-11 novembre 1999 (BAH 162), Beyrouth, p. 21-69.

Duyrat 2005
F. Duyrat, Arados hellénistique. Étude historique et monétaire (BAH 173), Beyrouth.

Eckhel 1794
J. Eckhel, Doctrina Numorun Veterum, vol. III, Vienna.

EH I
T. Faucher, A. Meadows and C. C. Lorber, Egyptian Hoards. Vol. I. The Ptolemies, Le Caire, 2017.

Elayi 1990
J. Elayi, « Tripoli (Liban) à l’époque perse », Transeuphratène 2, p. 68-69.

Elayi & Elayi 1992
J. Elayi and G. A. Elayi, « La première monnaie de ʾTR/Tripolis (Tripoli, Liban) ? », Transeuphratène 5, p. 143-151.

Grainger 1991
J. D. Grainger, Hellenistic Phoenicia, Oxford.

Grainger 2010
J. D. Grainger, The Syrian Wars, Leiden-Boston.

Green 1997
P. Green, D’Alexandre à Actium. Du partage de l’Empire au triomphe de Rome, Paris.

Head 1887 (1911)
B. V. Head, Historia Numorum. A Manual of Greek Numismatics, Oxford (2nd ed. 1911).

Hoover 2010
O. D. Hoover, Handbook of Coins of the Southern Levant. Phoenicia, Southern Koile Syria (including Judaea) and Arabia. Fifth to First Centuries BC, Lancaster-London.

Hölbl 2001
G. Hölbl, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, London-New York.

Honigmann 1953
E. Honigmann, Patristic studies (Studie e testi, 173), Biblioteca apostolica Vaticana, Rome.

Imhoof-Blumer 1883
F. Imhoof-Blumer, Monnaies grecques, Amsterdam.

Jones 1971
A. H. M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, Oxford.

Kienast 1996
D. Kienast, Römische Kaisertabelle. Grundzüg einer römischen Kaiserchronologie, Darmstadt.

Le Rider & Seyrig 1968
G. Le Rider and H. Seyrig, « Objets de la collection Louis De Clercq donnés en 1967 au Cabinet des Médailles de la Bibliothèque nationale par le comte et la comtesse Henri de Boisgelin », RN 6, t. X, p. 7-40.

Lorber 2018
C. C. Lorber, Coins of the Ptolemaic Empire. Part I: Ptolemy I through Ptolemy IV, New York.

Lorber 2021
C. C. Lorber, « Numismatic Evidence and the Chronology of the Fifth Syrian War », in S. Honigman, C. Nihan and O. Lipschits (eds.), Times of Transition. Judea in the Early Hellenistic Period, Eisenbrauns.

LK
H. C. Lindgren and F. L. Kovacs, Ancient Bronze Coins of Asia Minor and the Levant from the Lindgren Collection, San Mateo, Quarryville, Pennsylvania, 1989.

Macdonald 1905
G. Macdonald, Catalogue of Greek Coins in the Hunterian Collection (Glasgow), vol. III, Further Asia, Northern Africa, Western Europe, Glasgow.

Ma 2004
J. Ma, Antiochos III et les cités de l’Asie Mineure occidentale, Paris.

Millar 1983
F. Millar, « The Phoenician cities: A Case-Study of Hellenisation », Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society New Series 19 (209), p. 55-71.

Millar 1994
F. Millar, The Roman Near East. 31 BC-AD 337, London.

Mionnet 1811
T. E. Mionnet, Description de Médailles antiques, grecques et romaines, tome cinquième, Paris.

Mionnet 1837
T. E. Mionnet, Description de médailles antiques grecques et romaines avec leur degré de rareté et leur estimation, Supplément, tome huitième, Paris.

Moore 1993-1994
W. Moore, « The ΕΥΠΑΤΡΕΩΝ Coinage of Alexander I Balas », AJA 5-6, p. 54-59.

Mørkholm 1965
O. Mørkholm, « The municipal coinages with portrait of Antiochos IV of Syria », Congresso Internationale di Numismatica, Roma, 11-16 Settembre 1961, vol. II, Atti, Rome, p. 63-67.

Mørkholm 1979
O. Mørkholm, « The Portrait Coinage of Ptolemy V: The Main Series », in O. Mørkholm and N. Waggoner (eds.), Greek Numismatics and Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson, Wetteren, p. 203-214.

Mørkholm 1983
O. Mørkholm, « The Ptolemaic Coinage in Phoenicia and the Fifth war with Syria », in E. van ’T Dack, P. van Dessel and W. van Gught (eds.), Egypt and the Hellenistic World. Proceedings of the International Colloquium Leuven, 24-26/V/1982, Leuven, p. 241-251.

Mørkholm 1984
O. Mørkholm, « The Monetary System in the Seleucid Empire after 187 BC », Ancient Coins of the Greek World. The Nickle Numismatic Papers, Waterlo (Ontario), p. 93-114.

Olivier & Aumaître 2017
J. Olivier and H. Aumaître, « Antoine, Cléopâtre et le Levant. Le témoignage des monnaies », in L. Bricault, A. Burnett, V. Drost, and A. Suspène (eds.), Rome et les provinces. Monnayage et histoire. Mélanges offerts à Michel Amandry, Bordeaux, p. 105‑122.

Rey-Coquais 1974
J.-P. Rey-Coquais, Arados et sa Pérée aux époques grecque, romaine et byzantine. Recueil des témoignages littéraires anciens, suivi de recherches sur les sites, l’histoire, la civilisation, Paris.

Rey-Coquais 1978
J.-P. Rey-Coquais, « Syrie romaine, de Pompée à Dioclétien », JRS 68, p. 44-73.

Rigsby 1996
K. J. Rigsby, Asylia. Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London.

Ronde 2006
A. Ronde, « Datation d’un petit bronze d’Orthosie de Phénicie à l’époque romaine », BSFN 9 (novembre), p. 238-241.

Rouvier 1898a
J. Rouvier, « Les ères de Tripolis de Phénicie », JAsiat (Janvier-Février), p. 5-34.

Rouvier 1898b
J. Rouvier, « L’ère de Marathos », JAsiat (novembre-décembre), p. 361-401.

Rouvier 1899
J. Rouvier, « Les ères de Botrys et de Béryte », JIAN 2, p. 9-16.

Rouvier 1900
J. Rouvier, « Numismatique des villes de la Phénicie : Arados, Béryte-Laodicée de Canaan », JIAN 3, p. 128-168 and 237-312 (nos. 1-619).

Rouvier 1901a
J. Rouvier, « Numismatique des villes de la Phénicie : Botrys, Gébal-Byblos, Caesarée du Liban-Arca, Carné », JIAN 4, p. 35-66 (nos. 620-751).

Rouvier 1901b
J. Rouvier, « Numismatique des villes de la Phénicie : Dora, Enhydra, Marathos, Orthosia », JIAN 4, p. 125-152 (nos. 752-885).

Rouvier 1901c
J. Rouvier, « Numismatique des villes de la Phénicie : Ptolemaïs-Acé », JIAN 4, p. 193-232 (nos. 886-1076).

Rouvier 1902
J. Rouvier, « Numismatique des villes de la Phénicie : Sidon », JIAN 5, p. 99-284 (nos. 1077-1624).

Rouvier 1903a
J. Rouvier, « Numismatique des villes de la Phénicie : Tripolis », JIAN 6, p. 17-46 (nos. 1625-1774).

Rouvier 1903b
J. Rouvier, « Numismatique des villes de la Phénicie : Tyr », JIAN 6, p. 269-232 (nos. 1775-2574).

RPC I
A. Burnett, M. Amandry and P. Ripollès, Roman Provincial Coinage. From the Death of Caesar to the Death of Vitellius, 44 BC to AD 69, vol. I, London-Paris (repr. 1998, 2006).

RPC Suppl. I
A. Burnett, M. Amandry and P. Ripollès, Roman Provincial Coinage. Supplement I, London-Paris, 1998.

RPC II
A. Burnett, M. Amandry, and I. A. Carradice, Roman Provincial Coinage. From Vespasian to Domitian (AD 69-96), vol. II, London-Paris, 1999.

RPC Suppl. I-III
P. Ripollès, A. Burnett, M. Amandry, I. A. Carradice and M. Spoerri Butcher, Roman Provincial Coinage. Consolidated Supplement I-III, 2015.

Sartre 2001
M. Sartre, D’Alexandre à Zénobie. Histoire du Levant antique. iv  e siècle av. J.-C.-iii e siècle ap. J.-C., Paris.

Saulcy 1874
F. de Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre sainte. Description des monnaies autonomes et impériales de la Palestine et de l’Arabie Pétrée, Paris.

Sawaya 1998
Z. Sawaya, « Cronos, Astarté : deux légendes phéniciennes inédites sur des monnaies de Byblos (ier siècle av. J.-C.) », BSFN (Mai), p. 93-99.

Sawaya 2004
Z. Sawaya, « Le monnayage municipal séleucide de Bérytos (169/8-114/3 av. J.-C.) », NC 164, p. 109-146.

Sawaya 2006a
Z. Sawaya, « Le monnayage de Botrys en Phénicie », RN 162, p. 159-180.

Sawaya 2006b
Z. Sawaya, « Le monnayage d’Arados hellénistique », NC 166, p. 439-471 (Review article of F. Duyrat, Arados hellénistique : étude historique et monétaire, BAH 173, Beyrouth, 2005).

Sawaya 2008
Z. Sawaya, « 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.) », NC 168, p. 61-109.

Sawaya 2009
Z. Sawaya, Histoire de Bérytos et d’Héliopolis d’après leurs monnaies. ier siècle av. J.-C.-iiie siècle apr. J.-C. (BAH 185), Beyrouth.

Sawaya 2012
Z. Sawaya, « Tyr à l’époque hellénistique de la conquête macédonienne à l’autonomie (332-126/5 av. J.-C.) », in L’histoire de Tyr au témoignage de l’archéologie, actes du séminaire international, Tyr 2011, BAAL hors-série VIII, Beyrouth, p. 269-284.

Sawaya 2023
Z. Sawaya, “The Hellenistic Weights of Berytos-Laodicea of Phoenicia (185/184?-64/63 BC)”, Syria 100, p. 71-118.

Sawaya 2024
Z. Sawaya, « The Relations between the Severan Emperors and the Cities of Phoenicia: Evidence for Imperial Privileges and Retribution », in J. Hoffmann-Salz, M. Heil and H. Wienholz (eds.), The Eastern Roman Empire under the Severans. Old connections, new beginnings, Göttingen, p. 83-114.

Sawaya forthcoming
Z. Sawaya, Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum France 8. Bibliothèque Nationale, Département des Monnaies, Médailles et Antiques. Phénicie, Paris.

SC I
A. Houghton and C. C. Lorber, Seleucid Coins. A Comprehensive Catalogue. Part I, Seleucus I through Antiochos III, New York-Lancaster-London, 2002.

SC II
A. Houghton, C. C. Lorber and O. D. Hoover, Seleucid Coins. A Comprehensive Catalogue. Part II, Seleucus IV through Antiochos XIII, New York-Lancaster-London, 2008.

Seyrig 1950
H. Seyrig, « Sur les ères de quelques villes de Syrie : Antioche, Apamée, Aréthuse, Balanée, Épiphanie, Laodicée, Rhosos, Damas, Béryte, Tripolis, l’ère de Cléopâtre, Chalcis du Liban, Doliché », Syria 27, p. 5-50 (Antiquités syriennes, IV, 1953, p. 72-117).

Seyrig 1951
H. Seyrig, « Arados et sa Pérée sous les rois séleucides », Syria 28, p. 206-220 (Antiquités syriennes, IV, 1953, p. 185-200).

Seyrig 1954a
H. Seyrig, « Le grand prêtre de Dionysos à Byblos », Syria 31, p. 68-73 (Antiquités syriennes, V, 1958, p. 86-91).

Seyrig 1954b
H. Seyrig, « Ères pompéiennes des villes de Phénicie », Syria 31, p. 73-80 (Antiquités syriennes, V, 1958, p. 92-99).

Seyrig 1962
H. Seyrig, « Le monnayage de Ptolémaïs en Phénicie », RN, 1962, p. 25-51 (Scripta Numismatica, 1986, p. 261-287).

Seyrig 1964
H. Seyrig, « Monnaies hellénistiques. XII. Questions Aradiennes », RN, p. 9-51 (Scripta Numismatica, 1986, p. 79-120).

Six 1886
J.-P. Six, « L’ère de Tripolis », Annuaires de la Société Française de Numismatique et d’Archéologie 10, p. 229-234.

SNG ANS 6
Y. Meshorer, Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. The Collection of the American Numismatic Society. Part 6: Palestine-South Arabia, New York, 1981.

SNG Copenhagen
O. Mørkholm, Sylloge Nummorun Graecorum. The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals. Danish National Museum, vol. VII, Cyprus to India, West Milford (New Jersey), 1982.

SNG Fitzwilliam
M. J. Price, Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, vol. IV, Fitzwilliam Museum, Leake and General Collections, part VIII, Syria-Nabathaea, London, 1971.

Vaillant 1688
J. F. Vaillant, Numismata ærea Imperatorum et Cæsarum in colonis, municipiis et urbius jure latio donatis, ex omni modulo percussa, I, Paris.

Will 1979
Éd. Will, Histoire politique du monde hellénistique (323-30 av. J.-C.), Nancy.

Haut de page

Notes

1 DN, p. 130, and 191.

2 To cite some general examples: Vaillant 1688; Eckhel 1794; Mionnet 1811; Mionnet 1837; Imhoof-Blumer 1883; Saulcy 1874; Head 1887 (1911).

3 Six 1886; Clermont-Ganneau 1897; Clermont-Ganneau 1898; Rouvier 1898a; Rouvier 1898b; Rouvier 1899; Rouvier 1900; Rouvier 1901a; Rouvier 1901b; Rouvier 1901c; Rouvier 1902; Rouvier 1903a; Rouvier 1903b; BMC Phoenicia.

4 Seyrig 1950; Seyrig 1951; Seyrig 1954a; Seyrig 1954b; Seyrig 1964.

5 Duyrat 2002; Duyrat 2005; Sawaya 2006a; Sawaya 2006b; Sawaya 2009; Abou Diwan 2010; Abou Diwan 2012.

6 Hoover 2010.

7 For instance, the royal production of Ptolemy V in some mints of Phoenicia, such as Tripolis, Berytos and Sidon, are not discussed here, notably because they bear no dates. For this coinage linked to the fifth Syrian war, see: Mørkholm 1979; Mørkholm 1983; Carlen & Lorber 2019; Lorber 2021. For the provincial tetradrachms issued by the Romans in Syria and Phoenicia, see: Prieur & Prieur 2000.

8 Head 1887, p. 666; Rouvier 1900, p. 143-168, and 237-260; Babelon 1930, p. 133; Seyrig 1964, p. 34, and 37; Le Rider and Seyrig 1968, p. 12; RPC I, p. 641-643; Millar 1994, p. 270; Callataÿ 2002, p. 80 (based on the data provided by F. Duyrat before the publication of her PhD Thesis defended in 2000 = Duyrat 2005).

9 Babelon 1893, p. CLIX; Will 1979, p. 235.

10 Seyrig 1951, p. 213-216.

11 Sartre 2001, p. 173-174, and 191-192.

12 BMC Phoenicia, p. xiv-xv.

13 Jones 1971, p. 239; Rey-Coquais 1974, p. 153-154; Millar 1983, p. 61; SC I, p. 335.

14 Grainger 1991, p. 83.

15 Duyrat 2005, p. 226-228.

16 Sawaya 2006b, p. 458.

17 Lindos II, 37 (The Lindos Chronicle); Trogus, 26; Frontinus, III, 9,10; Polyaenus V, 18; Athenaeus XIII, 593b. See also Will 1979, p. 234-235; Hölbl 2001, p. 43-44; Ma 2004, p. 34; Grainger 2010, p. 125.

18 Sawaya 2006b, p. 458.

19 Capdetrey 2007, p. 212; Hoover 2010, p. 10; Grainger 2010, p. 123-124, and 132.

20 Davesne 1991; Davesne 1999. He even interprets the appearance of the Aradian Era on the coins in 243 BC as the result of the city’s second liberation from Ptolemy III during the third Syrian war (‘the Laodicean war’, 246-241 BC). The village of Hüseyinli köyü is located 9 km due west of Antioch, half-way between this city and its port Seleucia Pieria: Davesne and Yenisoğanci 1992. The hoard contained 58 Ptolemaic gold coins (trichrysa) and 1 Seleucid bronze.

21 Duyrat 2005, p. 226-228.

22 EH I, no. 86; Lorber 2018, p. 478-479. Lorber’s dating is based on the absence of Ptolemaic gold coins issued after the monetary reform of 272 BC.

23 Six probable emissions may be added, but this is not certain.

24 Duyrat 2005, nos. 1158-1165; Hoover 2010, no. 61.

25 Duyrat 2005, nos. 1404-146; Hoover 2010, no. 86.

26 Duyrat 2005.

27 Rouvier 1901a, no. 401, identifies an emission in the year 367 (AD 108/109) in the name of Trajan based on an unillustrated specimen from his collection. Neither RPC nor I have encountered such an emission among his collection, mostly located at the American Numismatic Society. Nor has it yet been identified in other collections.

28 Erroneously dated to the year 297, AD 38/39.

29 Imhoof-Blumer 1883, p. 445.

30 Babelon 1893, p. CLXIII; Babelon 1930, nos. 3164-3172 (Marathos).

31 Rouvier 1989b; Babelon 1930, no. 3163; Seyrig 1951; Seyrig 1964; Le Rider & Seyrig 1968, p. 11-16; Seyrig’s archives (files HS 149, HS 153, and HS 156); RPC I, p. 638-644; Duyrat 2002; SC I, p. 335-337, nos. 927-931; Hoover 2010, p. 10-27, and 46-57.

32 BMC Phoenicia, p. cxix-cxx.

33 Elayi 1990; Elayi & Elayi 1992, p. 148-149.

34 Duyrat 2002, p. 35, no. 316.

35 Hoover 2010, p. 56, no. 203.

36 Sawaya forthcoming.

37 For these bronzes, see: Balog 1964, nos. 217, and 253.

38 See below p. 136-141.

39 Sawaya 2009, nos. 1-46, suppl. 13, 49-69, and 133.

40 Hoover 2010, nos. 9, 18, 20, 22, and 26-27.

41 Mørkholm 1965, p. 65-66; Sawaya 2004, p. 129-130; Sawaya 2012, p. 273-274.

42 Duyrat 2002, p. 48-51; Duyrat 2005, p. 312-315.

43 Duyrat 2002, series 1, nos. 66-74.

44 Duyrat 2002, series V, nos. 75-76.

45 Duyrat 2002, series 4, nos. 84-171.

46 Duyrat 2002, series 5, no. 172.

47 Duyrat 2002, series 6, nos. 173-215.

48 Honigmann 1953, p. 123-124; Aliquot 2003, p. 238-239; Cohen 2006, p. 204-205; Sawaya 2009, p. 220, and 254-256; Sawaya 2024, p. 89-90, 100-101, and 103.

49 Saulcy 1874, p. 118-119; Head 1887, p. 669; Babelon 1893, p. 203-204; Rouvier 1901a, nos. 719-740; BMC Phoenicia, p. lxxi, and 108-111, nos. 1-10; Sawaya 2009, p. 220.

50 See RPC VI online, nos. 8240-8241.

51 See Kienast 1996, p. 177, for this event.

52 Rouvier 1901a, nos. 721, 723, and 730.

53 RPC online IV.3, nos. 6779, and 6781 (temporary).

54 Cf. Rouvier 1901a, no. 721.

55 Mionnet 1837, p. 256, no. 87.

56 RPC VI online, no. 8227 is erroneously dated to the year 530.

57 RPC VI online, no. 8236, is erroneously dated to the year 532.

58 Moore 1993-1994, p. 54-59; SC II, p. 234-235, no. 1820. In fact, Houghton was the first to propose an origin in northern Phoenicia or Syria Seleucis for the coins in question. He also pointed out that ΕΥΠΑΤΡΕΩΝ was mistaken for ΕΥΠΑΤΟΡΟΣ before being corrected by M. J. Price. According to him, it “would appear to refer to the citizens of a community, perhaps the refoundation (under Antiochos V?) of a city normally known by another name” (CSE, p. 47, nos. 565-566).

59 Cohen 2006, p. 203-204.

60 Seyrig 1954b, p. 76.

61 Seyrig Archives, file HS 157-I; Sawaya 2008, p. 96, note 261.

62 Head 1887, p. 670; Babelon 1893, p. CLXXVI, and 214-215.

63 Rouvier 1901b, nos. 867-872.

64 BMC Phoenicia, p. lxxvi-lxxvii. In addition, he considers that if J. Rouvier’s reading of the year 292 is correct, then “the two systems of dating were in use at the same time” by Orthosia.

65 Seyrig 1954b, p. 73-78.

66 Rey-Coquais 1978, p. 45, note 16; Baldus 1987, p. 123; RPC I, p. 644; Sawaya 2009, p. 168; Hoover 2010, p. LX, LXXIV, and 58; Cohen 2011, p. 333; Amela Valverde 2019, p. 62.

67 Sawaya forthcoming.

68 Seyrig 1950, p. 43-46; Baldus 1973, p. 19-43; RPC I, no. 4530; RPC Suppl. I, no. 4530/5; Sawaya 2009, p. 26, nos. 72-75, as well as p. 113, and 176-177, corrected RPC I that makes year 50 of Berytos equivalent to 31/30 BC; Olivier and Aumaître 2017. The queen’s Phoenician era is associated with the Caesarian Era on the coins issued by Ptolemais in her name and Mark Antony’s (year 3 and year 15, 35/34 BC): Seyrig 1962, p. 34-35; RPC I, p. 658-659, and nos. 4741-4742. It is nevertheless not adopted in other cities that issued coins of Cleopatra VII. On the one hand, Damascus dated its coins according to the Seleucid Era (year 276, 37/36 BC; year 280, 33/32 BC): Saulcy 1874, p. 34-35, and nos. 2-4; Seyrig 1950, 34-35; Baldus 1973, p. 142-143; RPC I, p. 663-664, and no. 4781. On the other hand, Dora used the Egyptian era of the queen (year 19, 34/33 BC): RPC I, p. 660, and no. 4752.

69 Seyrig 1954b, p. 76. The coins in question are presently located at the Cabinet des Médailles de la Bibliothèque nationale de France: BnF Babelon 1494 (Babelon 1893, no. 1494), and BnF H. Seyrig Y28455,95.

70 RPC I, p. 645, and no. 4506; RPC Suppl. I-III, p. 164, no. S2-I-4505C.

71 Sawaya 2009, p. 203; Sawaya forthcoming.

72 Ronde 2006.

73 Sawaya 2009, p. 203 (erroneously AD 40/41).

74 RPC I Suppl. I-III, p. 163, no. S3-I-4505B.

75 Auction 216 of the Classical Numismatic Group, lot 382 (12/08/2009).

76 Purchased from the electronic Auction 302 of the Classical Numismatic Group, lot 279 (08/05/2013).

77 Web Auction 20 of Leu Numismatik, lot 2058 (16 July 2022).

78 Erroneously read year [3]31 SE.

79 See SC II, no. 1951.

80 See SC II, no. 2383 (fig. 5, ANS 1944.100.76784).

81 Eckhel 1794, p. 372; Mionnet 1811, p. 393, no. 378; Babelon 1893, no. 1886; Rouvier 1903a, no. 1643; BMC Phoenicia, p. 201, nos. 8-9.

82 Seyrig’s archives, file HS 160: 1-2. BMC Phoenicia, nos. 8-9; 3. Babelon 1893, no. 1886; 4. H. Seyrig (19 mm); 5. Beirut (19 mm; 4.50 g); 6. S. Haddad (18 mm); 7. Munich (18 mm; 4.84 g); 8-9. Vienna, nos. 22231-22232; and 10-12. MNB, nos. 753-755.

83 Babelon 1893, no. 1886 (fig. 6); BMC Phoenicia: nos. 8 (fig. 7), and 9.

84 ANS Newell 1944.100.72523 (ex Schroeder collection); BDL, no. 181 (ex N. Tabet collection, no. 601, fig. 8); LK, no. 2339.

85 Also Sawaya forthcoming.

86 See above, p. 132 and 134 (Orthosia), and below p. 144-146 (Byblos).

87 Sawaya 2008, p. 93-101 in particular.

88 Sawaya 2023, p. 88-93, nos. 15 (year 209, 104/103), 16 (year 215, 98/97), 17-18 (year 220, 93/92), 19 (year 225, 88/87), 20 (year 228, 85/84), and p. 105-106.

89 J. F. Vaillant cited by Rouvier 1898a, p. 7-8; Eckhel 1794, p. 375-377; Mionnet 1811, p. 392, nos. 374-376; Head 1887, p. 673-674.

90 Six 1886.

91 Babelon 1893, p. CLXXXVI-CLXXXVII, and 270-274, nos. 1860-1884, and 1896-1897; Babelon 1930, no. 3199.

92 Clermont-Ganneau 1897, a compte rendu to Rouvier’s presentation Les ères de Tripoli de Phénicie at the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres; republished Clermont-Ganneau 1898.

93 Rouvier 1898a.

94 Rouvier 1898a, p. 28; Rouvier 1903a, no. 1675.

95 Rouvier 1898a, p. 33-34; Rouvier 1903a, nos. 1639-1774.

96 Macdonald 1905, p. 258. For the date of Sidon’s autonomy, see most recently: Abou Diwan 2010; Abou Diwan 2012.

97 BMC Phoenicia, p. cxvi-cxxi, and 200-207.

98 Coins dated years 3, 5-9, 11, 14-15, 17-18, 20, 22, 24, 29-30, and 32 (tetradrachms and bronzes).

99 Coins dated years 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 12-13, 18, and 23 (bronzes).

100 Seyrig 1950, p. 38-43.

101 To cite a few: Le Rider and Seyrig 1968, p. 17; Houghton 1983, p. 67; RPC I, p. 645-646; Callataÿ 1993; Callataÿ 2002, p. 80; Sawaya 2009, p. 164-166; Hoover 2010, p. lix-lx, lxxiv, and l84.

102 Mørkholm 1984, p. 103.

103 Rey-Coquais 1978, p. 45, note 16; Baldus 1987, p. 123; RPC I, p. 645-646; Rigsby 1996, p. 496; Sawaya 2009, p. 168; Hoover 2010, p. lx, lxxiv, and 84; Nurpetlian 2010, p. 13; Cohen 2011, p. 388; Amela Valverde 2019, p. 63.

104 Sawaya 2009, p. 164-174.

105 For the specimens in question, see: Babelon 1893, nos. 1860, (fig. 9), 1861, and 1863 (fig. 10); Rouvier 1903a, nos. 1652, and 1658.

106 See also Sawaya 2008, p. 96-97.

107 Sawaya forthcoming.

108 Seyrig 1950, p. 43-46; Baldus 1973, p. 25-26, and 33-34; RPC I, p. 645-646, no. 4510; Sawaya 2009, p.113, and 176-177. For this era, see above p. 132-134.

109 Seyrig 1950, p. 43; RPC I, nos. 4511-4517; Sawaya 2009, p. 186, and 196-197.

110 Eckhel 1794, p. 376 (Pompeian Era); Mionnet 1837, p. 283, and 285, nos. 210, and 216-218 (Seleucid Era); Babelon 1893, nos. 1879-1882, and 1887 (era of Tripolis: 2 series; Seleucid Era: 1 series).

111 Rouvier 1898a, p. 16-20; Rouvier 1903a, nos. 1677-1679.

112 Macdonald 1905, p. 260-261, nos. 10-11.

113 BMC Phoenicia, p. cxix; RPC I, p. 646.

114 RPC I, nos. 4513-4514, dates SE 306 and 308.

115 Rouvier 1903a, no. 1640; BMC Phoenicia, no. 19; Seyrig 1950, p. 38-43; RPC I, no. 4510.

116 Sawaya 2009, p. 178, 183-184, and 186.

117 Sawaya 2009, p. 17, and 181-182.

118 Sawaya 2002; Sawaya 2009, p. 26-28, 178, and 181-185.

119 See above p. 136.

120 Seyrig 1954b, p. 74-75. Ch. Augé acknowledges Seyrig’s opinion: Augé 1989, p. 167-168.

121 Years 26 and Consul 12 (5 BC), 27 and Consul 12 (5/4 BC), 28 and Consul 12 (4/3 BC), 29 and Consul 12 (October-December 3 BC), 29 and Consul 13 (2 BC), 30 and Consul 13 (2/1 BC), 31 and Consul 13 (1 BC/AD 1), 36 and Caesarean year 54 (AD 6), 42 and Caesarean year 60 (AD 12), as well as 44 and Caesarean year 63 (AD 14). See RPC I, p. 608, and 614, nos. 4151-4160; Butcher 2004, p. 59-60.

122 See RPC I, nos. 4242-4245, 4250-4256, and 4270-4271; Butcher 2004, p. 325-330, and 331, nos. 62-63.

123 Rouvier 1899, p. 9-12; Rouvier 1901a, nos. 620-627. For the rejection, see: Seyrig 1950, p. 19-20, and 32-34; RPC I, p. 598, 631-632, and 634, nos. 4374-4375; Butcher 2004, p. 426-430, and 439-440; Hoover 2010, p. 303.

124 Seyrig 1954b, p. 74-75, note 3; RPC I, nos. 4225-4228; this question is fully discussed below p. 144-145.

125 Macdonald 1905, p. 260-261, nos. 10-11; Seyrig 1950, p. 42.

126 See above p. 133-134.

127 The date ΔΙΦ (514) is not indicated: Sawaya (forthcoming).

128 Sawaya 2006a.

129 Vaillant 1688, p. 126; Eckhel 1794, p. 372.

130 Mionnet 1837, p. 250; Head 1887, p. 668.

131 Babelon 1893, p. CLXV, and 191-192, nos. 1340-1341.

132 Clermont-Ganneau 1898; Rouvier 1901a, nos. 620-627. For J. Rouvier, “Ce résultat n’a rien d’invraisemblable, puisque d’autres villes syriennes, comme Berœa Antioche, Apamée, Rhosus, Séleucie, ont aussi employé l’ère d’Actium sur leurs monnaies” (Rouvier 1899, p. 9-12). Noteworthy, Beroea, Apamea and Rhosus did not actually use the era of Actium (see above, p. 139).

133 BMC Phoenicia, p. lx.

134 Head 1911, p. 791; Babelon 1930, p. 141.

135 Seyrig 1954a, p. 69-71; Seyrig 1954b, p. 75, 77-78, and 80.

136 Le Rider & Seyrig 1968, p. 17-18.

137 Baramki 1974, p. 148, no. 1.

138 Rey-Coquais 1978, p. 45, note 16; Baldus 1987, p. 133-134; Augé 1989, p. 167; Grainger 1991, p. 161; RPC I, p. 647; Sawaya 2006a, p. 169; Sawaya 2009, p. 168; Cohen 2011, p. 265; Amela Valverde 2019, p. 61.

139 Sawaya 2006a, p. 169-170.

140 Seyrig 1954b, p. 80; Sawaya 2006a, p. 160-168.

141 See above, p. 131, for Severus Alexander’s date of designations as Caesar and Augustus.

142 See Green 1997, p. 745.

143 See Kienast 1996, p. 169-172, for the dates of Elagabalus’ and Macrinus’ reigns.

144 Sawaya 2006a, p. 171-172.

145 See above p. 132-135 (Orthosia), 137-138 and 141 (Tripoli), and below p. 144-146 (Byblos).

146 Eckhel 1794, p. 360; Mionnet 1881, p. 355-356, no. 134; Head 1887, p. 669.

147 Imhoof-Blumer 1883, p. 443-444.

148 Babelon 1893, p. CLXVII-CLXVIII.

149 Rouvier 1901a, nos. 658-664, and 670-676; BMC Phoenicia, p. lxix, and 98, nos. 16-18.

150 Babelon 1930, no. 3156.

151 See below, p. 144-145.

152 Seyrig 1954b, p. 73-75. It is noteworthy that the “year 25” read by Rouvier (1901a, no. 673) is rectified to ‘year 26’ by H. Seyrig (p. 74, note 1). However, the latter date is confirmed on a specimen from the De Clercq Collection that H. Seyrig published with Le Rider (Le Rider & Seyrig 1968, no. 342) as well as by another unpublished coin from his own collection (BnF H. Seyrig Y28597,18; Sawaya forthcoming).

153 Le Rider & Seyrig 1968, p. 18; Rey-Coquais 1978, p. 45, and note 16; Baldus 1987, p. 134; RPC I, p. 647; Sawaya 2009, p. 168; Hoover 2010, p. lx, lxxiv, and 34; Cohen 2011, p. 265 (makes the era start in 65/64 BC); Amela Valverde 2019, p. 61.

154 Saulcy 1874, p. 112-113.

155 BMC Palestine, p. xvii-xviii, and 75, nos. 1-4.

156 Seyrig 1954b, p. 73-75.

157 SNG ANS 6, nos. 746-752.

158 RPC I, p. 647-648, nos. 4225-4228.

159 Sawaya 2009, p. 187.

160 The full results of the excavation will be soon published by A. Seif, F. Beaino et alii in a forthcoming volume of BAAL.

161 For an overall view, see Sawaya 1998.

162 See SC II, nos. 1442-1447.

163 See SC II, no. 1823.

164 See SC II, nos. 2044, and 2099.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Marathos
Légende ΔKΡ (year 124 of Arados = 136/135 BC)
Crédits 1. Bibliothèque nationale de France.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/syria/docannexe/image/17696/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 93k
Titre Orthosia
Légende LΔNT (year 354 SE = AD 42/43)
Crédits 2-3 & 4. Classical Numismatic.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/syria/docannexe/image/17696/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 244k
Titre Tripolis. Antiochos IX
Légende HΣ (year 208 SE = 105/104 BC)
Crédits 5. American Numismatic Society.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/syria/docannexe/image/17696/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 85k
Titre Tripolis. Civics
Légende LAIΣ (Year 211 SE = 102/101 BC)
Crédits 6. Bibliothèque nationale de France; 7. British Museum; 8. Banque du Liban.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/syria/docannexe/image/17696/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 216k
Titre Tripolis. Civics
Légende LA (year 1 of autonomy = 101/100 BC)
Crédits 9-10. Bibliothèque nationale de France.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/syria/docannexe/image/17696/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 183k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Ziad Sawaya, « The Eras of the cities of Northern Phoenicia (259/258 BC-AD 221/222) »Syria, 101 | 2024, 125-157.

Référence électronique

Ziad Sawaya, « The Eras of the cities of Northern Phoenicia (259/258 BC-AD 221/222) »Syria [En ligne], 101 | 2024, mis en ligne le 01 juin 2025, consulté le 06 mars 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/syria/17696 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/14z7z

Haut de page

Auteur

Ziad Sawaya

Lebanese University,
Department of Arts and Archaeology, Beirut
ORCID: 0009-0004-6262-2099
sawaya_ziad[at]yahoo.fr

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search