In the Beginning. A Coin of Lydia

KINGS OF LYDIA. Kroisos, circa 560-546 BC. Siglos (Silver, 17 mm, 5.25 g), Sardes. Confronted foreparts of a lion and a bull. Rev. Two incuse squares, one larger than the other.

I have always been interested in the origins of things and that is no different for coins. It is generally accepted that the earliest coins were produced between 650 and 630 BC in Lydia by King Alyettes and were made from the naturally occurring alloy, electrum. The earliest bi-metallic coinage is attributed to king Croesus of Lydia from about 560 BC until his defeat by the Achaemenid empire in 546 BC, though there is considerable evidence that they continued to be minted after this date before being displaced by the Persian ‘Archer’ types. According to Herodotus, writing in the 5th Century BC, “They [the Lydians] were the first men (known to us) who coined and used gold and silver currency” [b.1, c.94].

The orthodox explanation for the origin of coinage is that they were a practical measure, the standardised weights avoided the need to weigh the coins individually on each transaction and the ‘seal’ of the issuing authority guaranteed the purity of the metal and its redemption value. I have noted elsewhere a variation in the weights of archaic coins which might undermine this to a degree but Robert R. Wallace in The Origin of Electrum Coinage notes that, specifically for electrum coinage of this period, “although the weights of some few coins differ markedly from the norm, the average consistency by weight of the early electrum issues is nonetheless impressive”.

The move from electrum to a bi-metallic approach can be explained as due to the variation in the ratio of gold to silver in electrum coinage (whether natural or artificially induced) which meant that the value could not be confidently assessed. The addition of ‘seal’ may have stabilised this problem by guaranteeing a redemptive value. This would mean that the value of a coin was not solely based on the weight of the metal but on the fact that it could be exchanged with the issuing authority for a known value. The move to bi-metallic coins would have reduced the problem further and Wallace argues that the timing of the move to bi-metallic coinage coincided with the discovery of cementation, which is a method used to separate silver and gold. This move also had the additional advantage of increasing the range of denominations available. Gold for high value transactions (such as the payment of mercenaries) and silver for lower value transactions. You could of course just reduce the size of the electrum coin, but this soon becomes impractical when you are down to 1/48th staters. It is at this point that the day-to-day use of coins for everyday commerce becomes feasible.

The early gold coins were minted on a heavy standard of a stater of about 10.7g, which was subsequently reduced to lighter standard of about 8.05g, with a gold-silver ratio of 10:1. The prevalent theory is that the heavy standard was to allow a like for like exchange for the existing electrum coins, so helping to remove them from the market and replace them with the new bi-metallic approach. The silver coins were minted on a consistent weight of 10.7g to the di-siglos stater. Purity was at first issue 97-98% but by the middle 4th century was 94-95%.

The lion was the type associated with the Lydian kings under Croesus’ father Alyattes and can be seen from the very earliest electrum coinage, but why was the bull introduced in counterpart? The use of the image of a Bull in itself is not unexpected – it has a long history as a symbol of strength and fertility and was sacred to many including the Hattians of central Anatolia in the 8th Century BC – but why is it shown in opposition to the lion? There are contemporary examples in other media of this lion-bull association, for example in a sculpture from the Met dated around 525. Whereas this and similar themes on the coins of Tarsus and Acanthus show the lion attaching the bull, the image on this stater shows more a match of equals. Some have argued this represents the Sumerian Ishtar and Dumuzi (known to have been associated with the lion and bull respectively), but this seems an unlikely transition from the Lion as the symbol of Lydian kings.

Addedum

I note above that the origin of coinage is generally attributed to King Alyattes but that does not mean that there are not competing claims. One such can be found on the Parian marble, a stone stele inscribed around 264 BC and found on the island of Parus. A fragment found in the Ashmoelian museum has the following text:

From the time of the Argive Ph[ei]don mad[e] [the] meas[ures] public [and] determined [we]ights and produced silver coins in Aegina, being eleventh from Heracles, 631 years. when [Pherecl]es was king of Athens.

The date provided in this inscription is equivalent to 895 BC. The marble provides a chronological sequence of events running from 1581 BC through to 264 BC and the later dates provide a good match with the historical evidence; however the earlier dates are suspect. Nevertheless, even if the date is incorrect, this inscription comes earlier in relation to the subsequent lines referring to Alyattes - From the time A[lyatte]s [be]came kin[g] over the Lyd[ians], 41 years (=605 BC), when Aristocles was archon in Athens.