Notae Numismaticae - Zapiski Numizmatyczne (7.2012)

PROBLEMS IN THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF ARCHAIC GREEK COINAGE

aesthetic ąualities: the design, execution, and details of the engraving would ap-
pear to attest to great concem for the presentation of the coinage and how the coins
might represent the community. It is in this sense that Moses Finley voiced his oft
repeated dictum that Greek coins were “no morę than” a political phenomenon,
that is they served simply as a form of self-representation and civic pride, much
like, for example, monumental architecture.11 Although not all scholars have been
as gamę as Finley to place all of Greek coinage under this rubric, they are seduced
on occasion by the idea of “prestige” issues, coins produced solely with the intent
to use numismatic art or monetary value to enhance the political power of the is-
suer either at home or abroad.12 Civic pride as a motivation for production finds
support in a second century BCE decree from Sestos (OGIS 339), listing both pride
and profit as reasons for the introduction of a new series of bronze coins, but here
“pride” is morę likely an expression of political autonomy than prestige.13
Because so much of Greek history is a tale of civic destruction and hegemonie
takeover, and because the production of coinage has been seen as intimately linked
to the political identity of a community, it has generally been assumed that produc-
tion of coinage must cease with defeat. Once a polis rebuilt itself, or regained its au-
tonomy, its natural “right of coinage” would be asserted in revived coin production.
These assumptions have long been used to datę Greek coinage, providing the rather
precise dates of production for many series found in the literaturę. The dust has yet
to settle from Thomas Martin’s14 forceful challenge of these assumptions; although
Martin was able to demonstrate cases of continued coin production after an exter-
nal political takeover in the classical period, detractors have marshaled evidence,
mostly from the Flellenistic and Roman periods, which complicate MarthTs conclu-
sions.15 Political change generated from within is also used to datę coinage on the
assumption that different governments, or types of govemment, would desire new
coins, or would wish to celebrate political change with a commemorative issue.16

11 M. FINLEY, The ancient economy, Berkeley, Los Angeles 1985, pp. 53-54, 166-67. For a recent at-
tempt to interpret Athenian coinage as little morę than a political phenomenon see J. TREVETT, “Coinage and
democracy at Athens", [in:] A. MEADOWS, K. SHIPTON (eds.), Money and its uses in the ancient Greek world,
Oxford 2001, pp. 23-34.
12 Notions of pride or prestige ofiten appear in discussions of Sicilian coinage, e.g., C. KRAAY, Archaic and
Classical Greek Coins. Berkeley 1976, p. 209; P. VARGYAS, “Darius I and the daric reconsidered”, IA 35, 2000,
pp. 33—46 argues that the Persian daric was a prestige issue.
13 This decree has rightly received a lot of attention. For important recent discussions see LE RIDER, La nais-
sance de la monnaie..., pp. 241-43 and A. MEADOWS, "Money, freedom, and empire in the Hellenistic world",
[in:] A. MEADOWS, K. SHIPTON (eds.), Money and its uses in the ancient Greek world, Oxford 2001, p. 61.
14 T. MARTIN, Sovereignty and coinage in classical Greece. Princeton 1985.
15 See, for example, C.J. HOWGEGO, Ancient History from Coins, London 1995, pp. 40—42; MEADOWS,
"Money, freedom...”; LE RIDER, La naissance de la monnaie..., pp. 241 —43.
16 The Athenian owi coinage, for example, which was introduced around the time of the Kleisthenic re-
foms, is often caught up in these types of arguments. Some, like M. PRICE, N. WAGGONER, Archaic Greek