Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 September 2015
The very term ‘third magistrate’ is really a misnomer, as Margaret Thompson has well argued. The men whose names appear as subsidiary signatures on New Style issues were probably contributors to the cost of this annual liturgy—often relatives, friends or political associates of the two men principally concerned. I would like to examine a few of them closely here.
The chronology of the coinage is now fortunately very tight from c. 140 B.C., mainly thanks to Margaret Thompson's magnificent publication. It is true that she herself wanted to move back the isssue of King Mithradates/Aristion from 87/6 B.C. to c. 120 B.C.—and with it the whole coinage—but the case against this is virtually overwhelming. The arguments surely need not be laboured here. One modification, however, should be made in the ‘low chronology’. I earlier followed Lewis in regarding the Apellikon/Gorgias issue as a fixed point in 88/7 B.C. It is certainly the last of the long series of ‘three magistrates’ issues, after which the mint continued with the King Mithradates gold and silver. But I had overlooked a grave historical difficulty.
The Peripatetic philosopher Athenion returned to Athens some time during the summer of 88 B.C., when Mithradates was already master of Asia Minor and threatening Thrace and Macedonia. He promptly had himself elected hoplite general, secured similar commands for his friends and within a few days established a tyranny. One of his friends—Apellikon of Teos—was put in charge of the fleet. With this he was despatched against Delos, in order to secure the island and its treasures for an Athens dedicated to Mithradates' cause. The surprise raid was a fiasco owing to the commander's incompetence and the resolution of the Italian community on Delos. Almost all Apellikon's force of 1000 men were killed or captured, his equipment destroyed. He was lucky to slip away to safety himself.
1 The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens (henceforth Athens)(1961) 587–99.
2 See Lewis, D. M., CR n.s. xii (1952) 291 fGoogle Scholar. and NC 7th series ii (1962) 275–300; Mattingly, H. B., NC 7th series ix (1969) 327–30Google Scholar and Historia xx (1971) 34–43. Margaret Thompson tried unsuccessfully to demolish Lewis, 's case in NC 7th series ii (1962) 301–33.Google Scholar
3 See NC 7th series ii (1962) 278. For the position of Apellikon's issue see Thompson, Margaret, Athens 367 f. and 392–9Google Scholar. She wanted to make the King Mithradates/Aristion issue supplementary to the main coinage and contemporary with Kointos/Kleas (Athens 416 f. and 421–4)Google Scholar. The Piraeus and Dipylon Hoards (Athens 503 f. and 508 f.) surely indicate that the King Mithradates issue follows Apellikon's.
4 See Atheneaus v 211e–15b (from Poseidonios). Ferguson, (Hell. Athens, 447 n. 1Google Scholar) decisively disposed of attempts to conflate Athenion and Aristion.
5 The best source is Appian, Mithrad. 4Google Scholar. 27–5. 30, from whom these details come.
6 There are at present gaps in months, E, I and Θ (Athens 367).
7 Euboulides/Agathokle were replaced by Zoilos/ Euandros in month Γ (Athens 261 f.).
8 IG ii2 1713 (= SIG 3 733) col. ii 5.
9 For the placing of Herakleides/Eukles (II) see Athens 315 f., 392 and 481 (Delos Hoard Γ), and my Appendix. For the calendar character of 104/3 B.C. see Hesp. xxvi (1957) 25 ff.
10 See Historia xx (1971) 42 f. and my Appendix. Professor W. K. Pritchett very rightly objected (by letter) to my hypothesis and I have accepted his point.
11 Lewis has developed these (by letter) and his criticisms have radically altered the plan of this article—I hope, for the better. I am very grateful to him.
12 There are two clear cases of other pairs returning. See the evidence of Ammo/Dio and Herakleides/Eukles (I and II) in Athens 63 and 274 f. and consult my Appendix.
13 See Lewis's, interesting argument in NC 7th series ii (1962) 276 ffGoogle Scholar. My dating only strengthens the case.
14 See Athenaeus v 214e καὶ μετ' οὐ πολù πάλιν κατήλθε θεραπεύσας πολλούς.
15 See Athens 346–68.
16 Hesp. iii (1934) 144–6. IG ii2 1714 lists a board of eight archons only, starting with the basileus. Prosopographically several fit 88/7 B.C. to perfection (see notes in IG ii2). If the list was inscribed during the ‘revolt’ of Athens, the absence of the eponymous archon can mean only one thing—none was appointed. If it was inscribed subsequently, why should the eponymous archon alone be passed over?
17 See Hell. Ath. 440 n. 1 and Kirchner, 's note in IG ii 21713Google Scholar. For the archon of 404/3 B.C. see Xen, . HG ii 3.1.Google Scholar
18 Dinsmoor, , Archons 283Google Scholar; Ferguson, op cit., 454 n. 6.
19 See Ferguson, op. cit., 444 n. 1; Kirchner, in IG ii 21713Google Scholar; Dinsmoor loc. cit.
20 Q. Oppius and M. Aquilius, who had tried to regroup Roman forces in Asia, were already prisoners of Mithradates before Athenion left for Athens (Athen. v 213 a–b). Their capture was soon followed by the fall of Stratonikeia and the attack on Rhodes. Appian's narrative, taken as a whole, suggests that these events belong to the late autumn of 88 B.C. (3. 17–4. 27).
21 Athen. v 213c: 
Dinsmoor, keeping the mistaken dating of Athenion and Aristion, seems to have divined the identity of the two ‘anarchies’ (loc. cit.)
22 Note Arist. Ath. 13.1—of the early sixth century B.C.—
23 See op. cit. 440 with notes.
24 For the evidence see Thompson, Margaret, Athens 310–16 and 392Google Scholar. She is surely right to place the issue of Karaich/Ergokle before Aphrodisi/Dioge (p. 312)—both on the grounds of style and the pattern of control-marks (on which see p. 615). On its precise position see my arguments in Historia xx ( 1971 ) 40 f. The ‘intercalary’ issue of Euryklei/Ariara cannot go in 122/1 B.C., which is known as ordinary, so that Karaichos' issue cannot be inserted between it and Aphrodisi/Dioge. It should be put between Polemon/Alketes and Mikion/Euryklei instead. One small formal point clinches this. On the issues of Polemon and Karaichos the third magistrate's name often takes only one line (see plates 47 and 53 f.) in contrast to the general practice.
25 The only alternative placing would be before Aphrodisi/Dioge, but Margaret Thompson rightly rejects this on the basis of close stylistic study (p. 313). The pattern of control marks again supports her (p. 615).
26 The date of Menoites is certain: see my detailed arguments on the later second century archons in Historia xx (1971) 43–45. For Kos see Kroll, J., ANS Museum Notes xi (1964) 91–9 ffGoogle Scholar. For the Athenian funds see IG ii2 2336 as republished by Dow, (HSCP I (1940) 116 ff.)Google Scholar; Hesp. xxxvi (1967) 88 ff., no. 19, B. 38–44 with C. 51–63.
27 These archons' dates too are certain: see my article in Historia xx (1971) 43–45 ff.
28 For the parallels see PA 738, 6281 and 8574 ff. For the magistrates see Margaret Thompson's excellent summarising section (Athens 547–84). Kirchner listed only 10 men called Eumachos, (PA 5814–5821Google Scholar with 5813 a–b). Iason was ‘third magistrate’ also for Charinautes/Aristeas in 112/1 B.C. (144/3 T).
29 He signs in full as first magistrate. Margaret Thompson's account of him and his brother Alkidamos (pp. 566 and 549) was corrected by Lewis in NC 7th series ii (1962) 290 f. Eumareides was an ephebe in 138/7 B.C. (Fouilles de Delphes iii 2.23 col. ii 21).
30 See Athens 245. Eumachos is abbreviated EYM and EY on the small denomination of Antiochos/Karaichos (ibid. 157).
31 See Athens 595 f. with n. 1 on p. 596.
32 Note (Athens 558, 561 f., 576 f.) ΔΗΜΙ ΟΥΛΙ, ΔΙΟΝΥΣΙΟΣ ΚΕ, ΝΙΚΟΓ ΝΕ(ώτερος), and ΝΙΚΩΝ |∠| (Κηφισιεύς?). ΜΗΤРΟ ΔΙ in 126/5 B.C. seems to use the demotic to distinguish himself from the homonymous ‘third magistrate’ of the same year (ibid. 574). This might also explain the variants ΜΕΝΑΝ/ ΜΕΝΑΝΔРΟΣ in 134/3 B.C., but it is possible—as Margaret Thompson admits—that this is the same man, serving in two months (see her p. 573 with p. 147).
33 See Hesperia xxi (1952) 359 ff., no. 7, lines 73 and 75 and Meritt's notes on p. 365: IG ii2 1004, 4 f. and 1006, 5 f. and 52. The change of symbol (unrelated?) in the second issue does not disprove identity. See my Appendix (Table).
34 See IG ii2 2332, lines 72–4, 87, 114 f., 131 f., 136, 139 etc.: 2333, line 60.
35 See Athens 147 and 158–60 for discussion of the Antiochos problem. Margaret Thompson rightly identified the third and first magistrate, but claimed him as an Athenian citizen—using the Seleucid elephant either as a mere play on his name or as a compliment to a royal patron of Athens. For the stay of the future Antiochos VIII in Athens see Appian Syr. 68 and my arguments in NC 7th series ix (1969) 329 f. and Historia xx (1971) 36 ff.
36 For the position of Timarchou/Nikago see Athens 307, 310 f., 392 f. The evidence of control combinations confirms the placing of Mened/Epigeno (see p. 614). For 135/4 B.C. see Hesperia ix (1940) 128 and 133 (on no. 26, line 3 f.).
37 See Athens 147, 157 and 573: Hesperia xxxiii (1964) 215 (new fragment of IG ii2 1008 col. iv end: 
).
38 See IG ii2 2332, 131 f. Kirchner listed only 11 men called Agatharchos (PA 27–35 and 26a–b). Agathanax (PA 25), Agathandros (PA 26) and Agathaios (PA 23 f.) are even rarer at Athens.
