The Coinage Decree

"if anyone strikes silver coinage in the cities or uses coinage other than the coinage of the Athenians or weights and measures other than those of the Athenians".

This text forms part of the fragmentary Aphytis copy of the Athenian Coinage and Standards decree which was instructed to be sent each region of the Athenians symmachia, or alliance; one to the Islands, [one to Ionia], one to the Hellespont, one to the Thraceward region. The decree was to be inscribed on a stela in the marketplace of each city, where any officials who did not act in accordance with it were to lose their civic rights, their property confiscated, and a tithe given to the goddess. There is no complete surviving text of the decree and so what we know is constructed from fragments found in Smyrna, Syphnos, Olbia, Syme, Cos, Aphytis, and Hamaxitos, with only the latter three still available for study. A full translation of the available texts of the Athenian Coinage and Standards decree can be found at https://www.atticinscriptions.com/inscription/OR/155. Its fragmentary nature has generated much discussion on the meaning, intent, and impact of the decree, but the main question which is to be addressed is whether it was enforced and if so, whether it altered the coinage produced in these regions.

One of the early systematic evaluations of these questions was undertaken by E.S.G Robinson and published in his article The Athenian Currency Decree and the Coinages of the Allies [1949, Hesperia Supplements , 1949, Vol. 8]. However, this evaluation was based on the premise that the decree was published on or around 449 BC, rather than date of around 420 BC, which had been generally accepted before the discovery of the Cos fragment, and which has subsequently been re-established. The assignment of the earlier date by Robinson was based on the observations of Segre that Cos fragment, which is in Attic rather than Ionian lettering, contains a form of the letter Sigma which went out of use around 445 BC (the so-called three bar sigma issue). The decree must therefore be earlier than 445 BC. The assumption of the date at which this form of Sigma fell into disuse was later proved erroneous, and the later date of 420 BC for the Coinage decree was more likely. An interesting and unusual piece of corroborating evidence for the late date is to be found in works of the playwright Aristophanes. In his Birds, which is dated to 414 BC one of his characters, a statue seller, is discussing new laws and states that “Residents of Cloud-cuckoo-land must use the same weights and measures and currency as those in Olophyxia.”. The similarity of this comments which was poking fun at the Athenian authorities to the Coinage degree cannot be co-incidence and would point to the and even earlier date than 420 BC. Stronger evidence for the later date is the Hamaxitos fragment. As Hamaxitos did not become part of the Athenian empire until after the Mytilenean revolt in 427 (Thuc. 3.50.3), it is unlikely that the decree was promulgated before then.

While the date used within Robinson’s evaluation of the impact of the decree does not stand, it is interesting to review his results with the now generally recognised later date in mind (the data used include dates down to 405 BC, which overlaps with the now accepted date). Before we do so, let’s look at some of the key points in the decree. Firstly, it relates only to silver coinage. The omission of bronze coinage is not surprising as it would not have been used in international trade; however, gold or electrum (still in use in cities such as Cyzicus) is not included. The decree also governs two separate, though related, elements – mandating the use of Athenian coinage and also mandating the weights and measures used by Athens. Both of these requirements would certainly have facilitated trade between cities by creating a common standardised means of exchange. There are other possible obligations under the decree but the text too fragmentary to make a realistic attempt at interpretation – not that that has stopped people trying. Robinson sets out an assessment of the production of silver coins within the symmachia by region from end of the Persian wars at the battle of Mykale (479 BC) to the end of the Peloponnesian wars at the battle of Aegospotami (405 BC) . The tables he produced are broken down into the regions the decree was sent to and may be summarised as follows:

For the islands, the mints had substantially ceased production by 450 BC except for Melos, with Eretria starting to produce silver coinage again by 411 BC and most remaining islands re-commencing production by the end of the 5th century (following the defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian wars). For Robinson “In the Island district the course of the coinage is clear enough. With two exceptions output slackens after Mykale, till in mid-century it stops completely.”

In Caria there is a reduction in production in many mints by 450 BC, except for Aspendos, Kelendris, Knidos and the cities of Lycia, which show steady production across the period. Kos restarts production in around 450 BC, with a number of the cities, such as Ialysos, Kamiros, Lindos and Rhodes restart production around 407 BC. Robinson sees the exceptions here as been due to the cities being on the outskirts of the symmachia (though Kos is explained as having deliberately flouted the decree).

Ionia shows a pattern which is similar to Caria, with some cities halting production by 450 BC, while others such as Chios, Phokaia, Samos and Teos showing no interruption over the period. By 405 BC all cities except for Assos and Erythrai have restarted production, and these follow soon afterwards. In the Hellespont, most cities ceasing independent production by 450 BC, except for Kyzikos (although silver production reduces) and Astakos, which interrupts its production a little later. Many cities restart production by 405 BC and by the end of the century all have restarted. Robinson does not see a clear pattern in either region.

Thrace shows the same pattern, with most cities halting production by 450 BC, except for Abdera, Akanthos, Maroneia, Mende, and reduced production in Aphytis and Neapolis. In Thrace the return to production is more staggered, with Thasos, Skione and Terone restarting by 424 BC. Robinson characterises this as “whereas there was a sudden and practically universal stoppage during the forties, by the thirties certain cities were coining again freely and their coinage was tolerated, even, perhaps, as at Mende, encouraged.”

There is no real disruption in the Euxine, with Pantikapaion and Sinope continuing production with few interruptions during the period. Robinson concludes that “the ban on coinage, though general, was not absolute, provides an automatic answer to our further question. Athens was not successful in forcing the exclusive use either of her standard or her coins on the allies, and the attempt seems to have been tacitly abandoned.” Another noted numismatist, Colin Kraay, also recognises that the evidence put forward by Robinson as “a survey of all relevant mints has produced an overall picture of interruption of coinage during the forties and thirties.”

So, with an understanding of the date of 420-414 BC for the Coinage decree, how do we explain the cessation of production in the mid-fifth century by a considerable number of mints, and the restart of production by many of them in the decade following the decree? It cannot be aligned to the decree itself.

This issue has been addressed by Lisa Kallet and John Kroll in their work The Athenian Empire in which they repeat the approach taken by Robinson and conduct are region by region assessment of the production of coinage in the period. They identify the cessation of minting during the second quarter of the fifth century by more than half of the forty-three poleis within the symmachia. This was balanced by twenty polies starting to mint coins for the first time and a further six restarting minting in the second half of the century. There is therefore confirmation of the gap in breadth of production which was noted by Gardner. However, they go on to note the overall character of local coinage within the symmachia as a decline in the production of the larger denominations that would have been used in international trade in favour of smaller denominations. They attribute this shift to the tremendous growth in Athenian coinage within the period, which circulated outside of Attica as high-value tetradrachms, replacing local issues. This is seen not as a response to a decree, but to a natural economic response to the availability of vast quantities of high-quality high value coins in circulation. Based on the number of obverse dies they estimate the Athenian production as greater than all other mints within the symmachia combined.

With the move outside of Athens to lower value denominations Kallet and Kroll point out a further aspect of the Decree which is absent – it does not differentiate between high value coinage and fractional denominations. It was surely not intended to cover fractions as Athens was in no position to coin the number of fractions to support all Poleis within the symmachia. This is where the second aspect of the decree discussed above comes into play – that of standardised weights. Does this mean that it was allowable to continue to mint local fractions as long as they conformed to the Attic weight standard?

Having established that the Athenian tetradrachm had become a defacto trade standard due to its overwhelming presence in the market, the introduction of the Decree seems to be an attempt to codify a position that was already partially in place. Whist there is some evidence that there was a measure of compliance, the later date of around 414 BC is only a few years before the disastrous defeat of Athens in the Sicilian expedition and the subsequent defeat by Sparta in 404 BC. Its impact would therefore have been limited by Athens inability to enforce it.