1. The “Calchidian” weight standard and the archaic coinage of Himera, Zankle and Naxos M. Barbato – ANS Summer Seminar 2012 New York 7/25/12

2. Objective and scope of the research Investigate the weight standard in use at Himera, Zankle and Naxos that is the standard in use in the Calchidian colonies of Sicily which as first started the practice of minting in the island in the second half of the 6th cent. BCE

3. Variously called: “Aeginetan (reduced)”, "Calchidian”, “Euboic-Calchidian (Kraay), “micro-asian” (Breglia, Parise), “Euboeic” (Rutter). It is based on a denomination, the drachm, of around g 5,70-5,80 and fractions (mostly obols). Also lighter fractions ranging from g 0,17 to 0,19 (1/4 of an obol?) at Himera and and from g 0,06 to 0,12 at Zankle – hemitetartemorion ? (1/8 of an obol).

4. The scope of the research is to define exactly this weight standard Need of a reliable sample. a) where this “unusual” isolated weight standard could come from ? b) can we find any link to other standards in use in the archaic period in the Mediterranean area? c) In this perspective, what can we say about the monetary policy behind choosing this standard?

5. Background on the issues involved Reference works: Himera Kraay C.M., “The archaic coinage of Himera, Napoli 1984. Zankle Gielow H. E., “Die Silberprägung von Dankle-Messana.(Ca. 515-396 v. Chr.)”, in Mitteilungen d. bayerishcen numismatischen Gesellschaft 48, 1930, 1-54. Naxos Cahn H.A., “Die Münzen der sizilischen Stadt Naxos” Basel 1944.

6. Chronology Himera: 550/530 BC until 483 BCE (rise of the akragantine domination) Kraay 1984, p. 16. Zankle: 530/525 BC - 493 (the Samian conquest in 493 BCE). Caccamo 1993, p. 16 Naxos: 530/520 BC until 490 BC – (Ippokrates of Gela conquest the city) Cahn 1944, p. 14.

7. Define the exact value of the archaic coins from the three mints can we speak of a unique and unambiguous standard in use in all the three mints at the same time?

8. Size of the sample: Himera: 408 coins gathered (56 are fractions); 342 drachms and 53 obols used. Zankle: 314 coins gathered (65 are fractions); 195 drachms and 51 obols used. Naxos: 152 coins gathered (of which 72 are fractions); 72 drachms and 70 obols used.

9. Himera

10. Zankle

11. Naxos

12. Drachms

13. Obols

14. Hoard evidence: Himera IGCH 1644 (Asyut)3 dr. IGCH 1874 (Taranto hoard) IGCH 2063 (Bolognetta) 22 dr. IGCH 2071 (Monte Bubbonia) 1 dr. IGCH 2072 (Himera? 1892) 29 dr. IGCH 2079 (Messina 1940) ? IGCH 2084 (Selinunte) 2 dr. CH VIII (Selinunte 1985) 1 dr. Zankle IGCH 1644 (Asyut)29 dr. IGCH 2060 (Leontini 1906) “didrachm” IGCH 2061 (Calatabiano pre 1946) 6+ dr. IGCH 2062 (Messina 1895) 156 dr. IGCH 2064 (Schisò- Naxos) 1 dr. IGCH 2071 (Monte Bubbonia) 2 dr. (?) IGCH 2079 (Messina)? Naxos IGCH 2061 (Calatabiano pre 1946) 2+ dr. IGCH 2062 (Messina 1895) 30 dr. IGCH 2064 (Schisò- Naxos) dr. (?)

15. Drawing attention to weight standard a) Not much care of the weight of the single coins which wasn’t so well precised. (Nicolet-Pierre in AIIN 2000, p. 33)

16. b) How to consider this fluctuation in the “calchidian” coinage of Sicily (fiduciary issue?) c) Difficulties in accepting equivalences pointed out in the bibliography (g 17,46: g 5,83= g 8,73: g 2,91 = 1:3 ) d) Striking importance of the evidence from the Selinunte hoard 1985

17. Open questions and plan for completion “Monetary policy” (in parallel with the Achean colonies of South Italy)… How does Corcira fit in the picture? (Archaic staters of g 11,4-11,6) From Sallie 1982