Early Coinage of Metapontion

Placing Metapontum

In the 8th century BC, Greek settlers embarked on a wave of colonization in Southern Italy, establishing cities that formed part of Magna Graecia. Attracted by fertile lands and strategic locations, settlers from Achaia in the Greek Peloponnese founded Sybaris in 720 BC and Croton in around 710 BC. These cities quickly flourished due to their strategic coastal positions which allowed them to combine trading with an agricultural based economy. Shortly afterwards city of Taras was founded in 706 BC by Dorians from Sparta. Sybaris wanted to prevent the expansion of Taras further South and so encouraged further Achaian settlers found Metapontum in around 700 BC on the site of an older Samnite settlement. It was located on the fertile grasslands between the Casuentus river on the west and Bradanus on the east.

The settlers were led by a man named Leukippos, who appears on some issues of the later coinage of the city. Of course, every Greek city has a foundation myth and in this case it was that there was an original Greek settlement established by Nestor of Pylos and his followers who sailed from Troy after its fall. Nestor was a one of the Argonauts and also assisted Heracles in his hunt for the Calydonian Boar, so he has a good pedigree for an oecist leading settlers to found a city. These foundation myths provided a useful justification for taking over land from the native populations – we were here first!

Metapontum was set amid good arable land, flat and with a good water supply from the rivers. It grew quickly and Strabo records of Metapontum that the city “so prospered from farming that they dedicated a golden harvest at Delphi.” [1] Whilst this could simply have been a sheaf of barley representing the farming wealth of the city, given the importance of the Oracle at Delphi it has often been interpreted as the badge of the city, barley, in gold. The badge or emblem of the Metapontum was an ear of barley [2] which featured on the coins of the city down to 280 BC when production ceased, making then easily recognisable. It has been suggested that there is an etymological link for both the city and its badge to the Greek word for the autumnal [harvest], metoporinos, making it a canting pun, which surface occasionally on Greek coins [3].

Introduction to Authorities and Sequences

The earliest and most comprehensive study of the early coinage is The Coinage of Metapontum by Sydney P Noe, who was the librarian, then curator, of the American Numismatic Society. His two-volume work was then annotated and extended by Amy Johnson. Noe divides the early coinage of the city into 12 classes which occur roughly in sequence based on stylistic development and die linkages. He then covers the double-relief coinage of the city. Other noted numismatists who have substantial works relating to Metapontum and more generally the mints of Southern Italy are N.K Rutter, who authored the principle reference work for these coins, and Colin Kraay, who provides extensive commentary on the challenges associated with the early issues.

Incuse Coinage

While it is possible to see the gradual evolution of coinage in Lydia and Greece over an extended period, the incuse coinage of Southern Italy appears suddenly in the mid-sixth century BC, Noe calls it “a spontaneous invention… evolved without any evolutionary development” [4]. That there was no development phase – there is no proto-incuse coinage in the region – is remarkable. The incuse type was used by the early Achaian cities in Southern Italy including Metapontum, Sybaris, Croton, as well as their daughter cities of Poseidonia, Kaulonia and Laus. There are short lived examples in the Dorian city of Taras and also in Rhegion (drachms only). [5]

The first thing to note for incuse coins is that the normal relieve obverse side is paired with a reverse which is sunk into the coin. On first seeing an incuse coin you may think that the reverse die simply pushed out the silver to form the obverse, but that is not the case. Two separate dies are used with the force of the die which creates the reverse incuse pattern causing the silver to fill the space in the obverse die.

A further interesting aspect of early incuse coins is that the die axis is nearly always 12 hours. That is, the orientation of the obverse and reverse dies on strike exactly aligned. For example, of the 101 incuse coins of Metapontum listed in the ANS Syllogue Nummorum Graecorum for Lucania, 100 conform to this alignment. The one that doesn’t is an overstrike which is exactly reversed. Noe suggests that this strongly indicates that interlocking dies were used in the manufacturing process, possibly coupled with ‘hubbing’ to create the reverse die. The double-relief coins which replaced the incuse coins in around 440 BC show no such alignment in die axis. This would seem to indicate that whatever manufacturing process was used for the incuse coins was not carried forward into the production of the double-relief coins and indeed may have changed in the later incuse period. [6] The thickness of the early coins is difficult to photograph, so I have included a video which demonstrates it.

The incuse coins also typically have a repeat beaded edge pattern on the obverse, and a striated edge pattern on the reverse. It has been suggested that these edge patterns are part of maintaining the integrity of the thin flans as the moulded beading and ridges prevent bending or buckling. This makes them part of the engineering structure of the coin, as well as a decorative element [7].

I have yet to find a convincing argument as to why the incuse technique was used. Colin Kraay, who does not come to a robust conclusion on the use of the incuse technique, simply calls it a ‘Local peculiarity….expressing their political independence by diversity of coin type’, effectively they did it to be different. I am not sure if this overcomes the earlier observation of Charles Seltman “…this coinage must have been exceedingly expensive to produce - more expensive than any other ancient money. Meticulous adjustment of dies, slow technical production, a constant watch for small die-flaws which would have broken these thin coins; all these factors must have added to the cost of minting.” If you have choice of style, why chose the least practical? [7]

The coins were minted on the Achaian standard of a stater (or nomos) [8] of around 7.8g and being made up of three drachms. The weights are fairly consistent across the production of the early coinage.

The flan of these incuse coins was broader than those found elsewhere in the Greek world, with the earliest staters being around 30mm in diameter and then slowly reducing over the period of the production of incuse coinage to around 20mm, at which point they are replaced by double-relief coins of the same diameter. This reduction in diameter and the overall composition of the flans has led to them being described as either spread, medium or ‘dumpy’ in character. As a broad rule of thumb when looking at incuse coins, the approximate date can be assessed by this diameter. There is a good case to suggest that class 8 should really be at placed at some point prior to class 7 on the basis of diameter alone but I will come to that shortly.

Noe Classifications of Incuse Staters

As previously noted, the classifications used by Noe are based on stylistic development, primarily of the border of coin, but he also considers the flan diameter, which reduces in size across the incuse coinage of all the Achaian cities of the region. I will use the ANS collection where possible to illustrate the coins in each classification for the incuse staters. [9]

For class 1 the border consists of course dots but the primary identifier for the class is based on the bracts at the base of the barley ear on the obverse. The legend consists of the first three letter of the city name to the left and is sometimes retrograde. It’s difficult to see here but the legend on the reverse is in relief, which means it must have been cut into the die, which was otherwise in relief. This does speak to a two-stage process for the manufacture of the dies.

In the class 2 coins there is a distinctive refinement of the obverse border, where the beads are less coarse and are not raised but are on the same plane as the flan. Although it is hard to see in this example, there is now a fine border around the outside of the beads. Class 2 coins are fairly rare which indicates a short run of issues. The legend remains the same as class 1 but is never retrograde.

Classes 3 to 8 are really a single large group which have stylistic differences but do not necessarily form a sequence. With class 3 there is an increase in flan diameter (this increased in class 2 as well but it is now a lot more distinctive). The border on the reverse has undergone a change with the striations more narrowly separated and more regular. The barley ears are also more finely modelled. Not very distinctive in this example but the legend has now moved to the right.

Noe 4 is similar to Noe 3 however now the legend is separated across the left and right fields and the obverse border becomes further defined. On this example you can clearly see that the beads have both an inner and outer circle.

Noe class 5 is very easy to identify as it is distinguished by the addition of subsidiary symbols of the grasshopper on the obverse and an incuse dolphin outlined on the reverse. This is again a brief series comprising only four known obverse dies for the staters [10].

This class is very much sought after by collectors. There is no obvious reason why these animals appear on these issues. It has been suggested that the appearance of the grasshopper on the coins may commemorate the deliverance of the city from a plague of locusts through the intervention of Apollo. Indeed, the god has as one of his epithets 'Parnopios', the expeller of locusts. I would rather suggest that is indicates a short-lived alliance or meeting of minds with Taras. The grasshopper is a symbol associated with Metapontum and re-occurs frequently on its later coinage, whilst the dolphin is often associate with Taras, as you can see on this contemporary stater from that city. There are other examples of other so-called alliance coinage in the region which mix motifs e.g. Croton and Pandosia [11]. For completeness, the grasshopper does appear on some of the double-relief coinage of Metapontion and so is not unique to the incuse issues [12].

Class 6 is distinguished from class 3 mostly by its reduced flan size, down to 27.5mm from 30mm (or above), and the legend will be on the right but is now 4 letters. The style of the letter A is useful here in identifying this class as it has a rounded top and slanted cross bar.

Classes 7 and 8 are oddities in that they do not really consist of coherent groups.

Class 7 is again easy to identify as the legend is extended to 5 letters in the left field. However, having placed them as a class Noe then goes on to point out that there is sufficient variation in coins with this extended legend that they could be interpolated into some of the other classes.

Class 8 is a bit of a dumping ground for what Noe calls ‘ unofficial imitations’. These are still attributed to Metapontum, but which he believes do not exhibit an understanding of the incuse manufacturing technique and so are viewed as cruder. In the example used to illustrate you can see an attempt at a class 4 coin perhaps, but the incuse does not correctly align with the number of ears on the obverse, the M is upside down etc. I did mention earlier that I would discuss the chronology of class 8 as the larger flan size stands out when you look at the sequencing of the coins. If these were ‘unofficial imitations’ there is no reason in my view to confine these to a specific period or class. By flan size they sit with the earlier phases of the spread incuse. Perhaps this was a secondary provincial mint, or copies by the native Lucanians? Rutter views them as perhaps a transitional group prior to class 3.

The next distinctive grouping is Noe class 9, which are characterised by having a much-reduced flan size, which can be as low as 23mm. From this point onwards the flans are referred to as medium – so you now have spread, medium and dumpy where the consensus is that the transition between the flan sizes was abrupt rather than gradual. On the Noe class 9 coins there is some variation in legends with 3-4 letters which can appear either left or right.

Class 10 continues the reduction in flan size, down to around 20mm and introduces a range of ancillary symbols. In this example it is a lizard, but you can also find ram’s heads, mule’s head or murex. Interesting that the grasshopper does not make a reappearance on these ones. The legend is MET.

Class 11 continues the diminution in flan size and loses the ancillary symbols.

Finally, Class 12 is similar to 11 save the re-introduction of the grasshopper as an ancillary symbol. In fact, I would swap 11 and 12. You would then get a nice sequence of MET with ancillary symbols moving to META with the grasshopper and then losing the grasshopper while retaining the legend. This approach would be strengthened by the fact that Noe die links an example of the double relief coins (more later) to one of class 11 so it makes sense for this to be the last in the series.

Overall when you look at the utility of Noe classifications they provide a framework for looking at the coins in terms of stylistic development (where in my view that development is from high to low) and to some degree in sequencing, but many of the classes could overlap or be re-arranged without having to look at any new evidence. Nevertheless, you will often see catalogues reference the Noe class of these coins, and indeed the main reference work for Southern Italy by N.K Rutter, retains these classifications.

Fractions

I have focused on the staters so far but now let’s turn to fractional coinage. There is an abundance of fractional coinage available (the Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards 1896 alone contained 750 fractions) and I have illustrated a few here.

The earliest fractions, running from around 540 BC, consist of drachms (third-staters), triobols, diobols and obols minted on the Achaian standard of approximately 7.8g tridrachm stater and all retain the barley ear on the obverse [13]. It is not fruitful to speculate on the dates for these coins in any except the broadest respect. Ann Johnston, who commented on and extended the work of Noe, allows for one observation only. Some of the fractional coins clearly belong to the early spread phase of the incuse staters, while the remainder can be assigned to the later phases. This can easily be seen here. The drachms can be aligned to the equivalent staters, so for example the top one here is similar to Noe 4, and the one below is Noe 1 as you can see from the bracts at the bottom of the barley ear. Just assessing the ANS collection, the average weight on the drachms is 2.60 so exactly as expected (for those more mathematically minded the standard deviation is 0.11) [14].

In the period within which the incuse staters were produced there are specific types for triobols, diobols and obols. The triobols feature an incuse ox-head on the reverse and have the bead and striation border; they may also have an abbreviation of the city name. The diobol has an ear of barley on the reverse with a circle on each side of the ear. This is a convention borrowed from Sicily where the two circles represent a denomination of two obols, though given the uniqueness of the design I am not sure why it is needed in this case. The obol is a smaller version of the stater, though given the size (typically about 9mm), there are some compromises in terms of the number of grains on the barley ear, legend etc.

The smaller fractions do present a few difficulties in assigning denominations as there is some variation in the weight ranges. In the graph have included examples from auction houses as well as the ANS collection and when you look across a reasonably large set there are distinctive groupings around the expected weights. However, there are a couple of problematic groupings, where the type seems to be aligned to a different weight range (and remember, for Greek coins the value of the silver is aligned to the denomination). Just to complicate matters, nearly all dealers and auction houses will refer to both the ox-head and the barley and pellet types as diobols despite the clear indication that they are separate denominations.

Another example of the issues with fractions is the coin from my collection pictured here. In type it aligns to an obol; however, by weight it is heavier than a diobol. Rutter does list a slightly later 2.5 obol denomination, but the type is different.

Dating the Incuse Types

There is no absolute evidence for the date introduction of coinage in Metapontum. The approach that has been taken from the time of Barclay Head onwards is by comparison to the coins at other Achaian cities such as Sybaris [15] and the condition of coins found in coin hoards. The best guess is that the first incuse at Metapontum were around 10 years after those in Sybaris and so minted around 540 BC. For the end of the incuse coinage, Dr Athos Moretti [16] concluded that that based on hoard evidence the double-relief coinage at Metapontum and Croton was not adopted until c 440 BC, long after incuse reverses had been abandoned elsewhere. These dates therefore provide the boundaries of the period of incuse coinage and the later numismatist N. K. Rutter in examining the more up to date evidence does not find any cause to adjust them.

It is more problematic to provide a detailed internal chronology for the various Noe classes. Die linkages and stylistic changes (such as flan reduction) can provide a degree of sequencing and there are three other aspects we can look at , a comparison to incuse coins of other Achaian cities, hoard evidence and overstrikes. If we link the production techniques to those seen at Sybaris, there is no appreciable reduction in flan sizes at that city before its destruction in 510 BC, so that would suggest medium incuse staters should not precede that date. N K Rutter therefore aligns the spread incuse staters to before 510 BC and may have continued down to 500 BC. This chronology seems to be generally accepted. Further dating becomes really murky and revolves around the transition from medium to dumpy flans.

N. K. Rutter lists the medium incuse (class 9 and 10) as 510-470 or later [17], and the dumpy incuse (class 11 and 12) as 470 to 440 BC. This seems to have been based on work by Colin Kraay who examined 10 examples of medium incuse coins of Metapontum which had been overstruck on staters of Corinth and Selinus. He states “The most important coin here is one in the British Museum, on which the undertype can be seen to be one of the latest varieties of Selinuntine didrachm, on which the reverse type is a leaf together with the first four letters of the city’s name. Although the chronology of these didrachms is somewhat uncertain, there is no doubt that the end of the series extends into the fifth century; the involvement in Selinus on the Carthaginian side in 480 may mark its termination. In any case the superimposed medium incuse coin of Metapontum must itself fall well within the fifth century” [18]. This appears to be the basis for the use of 470 BC as the terminus for the medium flan staters.

Ann Johnson lists 12 new hoards that had been found since Noe’s classification of the series but finds “none is entirely satisfactory as regards completeness of survival or adequacy of information.” So, to summarise, there is a clear date sequence of coinage based on reduction in the flan size and die linkages but the Noe classifications to a degree are flexible and any attempt to pin dates to them is by consequence also needs to acknowledge the same flexibility.

Transition to Double Relief

The most well-known double-relief coins of Metapontum are the staters with the portrait heads of gods or heroes on the obverse which are minted from around 430 BC down to the end of production and have the barley ear relegated to the reverse. In the 10-year period between the end of the incuse coinage and the production of these types there are a number of distinct transitional types minted in double-relief. The first thing to notice is that all of these coins retain the obverse from the incuse period. The experimentation is happening on the reverse.

For me, the coin featuring Achelous is the most interesting.

On the Noe examples of this type there is evidence that there was a transition taking place from an epichoric lettering to a more standardised ionic letter form [19].

There are dotted borders around both the obverse and reverse which as similar to those found on Noe class V (and note that there are no reverse striations – the reverse is being treated as the obverse in terms of border). One of the examples of this coin used by Noe in his work is die-linked by him to a class XI incuse stater, which illustrates its position in the chronology.

The lettering also moves away from just the name of the city to also say ‘I am the prize of Achelous’. Achelous is also distinctive. You find him on the coins of many cities including Laus, Gela and Neapolis, but in those he is shown as a man-faced bull.

All of these features are unique to this type within the coinage of Metapontum and illustrate the experimentation taking place. Overall, the coin seems be archaicised, harking back to earlier coin motifs.

The next coin has a star formed of five barley ears on the reverse. The image is replayed in later bronze coinage using three ears of barley but is unique as a stater.

The coins on the right show from top to bottom, Heracles sacrificing over a square altar, Apollo holding bow and laurel tree, and Heracles holding a club over his shoulder. The poses of the figures seem to be consistent with the work of a single engraver, with each figure showing a displacement of the hip towards the left. In his work Art and Coinage in Magna Graecia, Ross Holloway suggests that the engraver of these coins may have been strongly influenced by a contemporary painting style, illustrated on the Niobid Krater discovered in central Italy and attributed to 460 BC [20]. I think he makes a good case here as you can see the similarities between the poses in the vase and those on the coinage. They are unusual enough not to attribute to simple chance.

It is at this point that I will wrap up as ancient art history is definitely not one of my strong points.

Notes and References

[1] Geography 6.1.15, Strabo

[2] The kernels of wheat are placed irregularly—those of barley are in groups of three. Noe, Coinage of Metapontum, Part 1

[3] A Silver Stater from Metapontum, Italy, in the Kelsey Museum Lyra D. Monteiro, http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.0054307.0016.104

[4] The Coinage of Metapontum, p3, Sydney P Noe

[5] “at this early stage in the history of coinage there was no generally accepted method of minting coinage, nor was there as yet any body of inherited experience.” - Archaic and Classical Greek Coins, p164, Colin Kraay.

[6] Die positions are obviously always upright in the spread incuse phase but are intermittently reversed in the medium and dumpy phases” – Anne Johnson, The Coinage of Metapontion, p50.

[6] The Incuse Coins of Southern Italy, p.22, C. H. V. Southerland

[7] They would have been aware of other coins styles e.g. IGCH 1897 deposited in Rhegion in 520 BC contains 2 Corinthian staters and of course the infamous Tarento hoard (deposit 508 BC) contains Athens, Aegina, Phocaea etc.

[8] Stater = ‘weight’, Nomos comes from nomisma ‘money’. “...but money has become by convention a sort of representative of demand; and this is why it has the name 'money' (nomisma) – because it exists not by nature but by law (nomos) “ – Aristotle, Nichomachian Ethics, 1133b.1

[9] Noe and Johnston have identified 100 dies for the first period of the incuse coinage, 60 for the second and 40 from the third one.

[10] Gorini 10-11 and p. 136-137

[11] “that some of its early incuse coins are struck in the joint names of Croton and some neighbouring town, e. g. VM (Sybaris), ΤΕ (Temesa?) and ΠΑΝΔΟ (Pandosia)” Head, Historia Numorum, p95.

[12] Lenormant, Grande Grèce, i. p. 128. For examples of later grasshopper motifs see Hoover, 1.1037 and 1.104.8

[13] Lazzarini mentions a half obol, Lazzarini (2017), p27.

[14] a measure of the amount of variation of the values of a variable about its mean.

[15] We know that the first period coinage in Sybaris halted in 510 BC, so if you have an estimate of the number of dies and the die lifespan you can work backwards to an originating date.

[16] Athos Moretti had one of the most extensive collections of the coins of Southern Italy and was sold at Numismatica Ars Classica 13 in 1998.

[17] Ann Johnson accepts 500 BC.

[18] CAULONIA AND SOUTH ITALIAN PROBLEMS Author(s): Colin M. Kraay Source: The Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society , 1960, Sixth Series, Vol. 20 (1960), pp. 53-82

[19] Rutter HN Italy, p132. The two reverse dies show a process of change from local to standard letter forms with changes to Chi, Iota, Omicron and Theta all evident.

[20] Art & Coinage in Magna Graecia, R Ross Holloway, p. 51