Triton XVII, Lot: 224. Estimate $5000. Sold for $32500. This amount does not include the buyer’s fee.

ATTICA, Athenian Exiles in Pontos(?). Circa 86 BC. AR Tetradrachm (29mm, 16.65 g, 12h). New Style coinage. In the name of the dēmos of Athens. Head of Athena Parthenos right, wearing triple crested Attic helmet decorated with Pegasos and floral pattern / Owl standing right, head facing, on amphora; A-ӨE across upper field, O ΔE-M-O/Σ in two lines across central field; to right, male(?) figure standing facing, holding spear loft in right hand, left hand on hilt of sword; all within wreath. Thompson 1365a (same dies); Svoronos, Monnaies, pl. 78, 27 (same dies); F.S. Kleiner, “The Giresun Hoard” in MN 19 (1974), 55 (same obv. die); SNG München 230 = Svoronos, Monnaies, pl. 78, 26 (same obv. die); Callataÿ pp. 306–7 and pl. 53, I (same obv. die); Roma VI, lot 511 (same dies). Good VF, minor flan flaw on obverse, area of delamination on reverse. Extremely rare, one of nine known, and one of only two not in a public collection.

Ex Lanz 153 (12 December 2011), lot 213 (as “Thracian(?) imitation of an Athens tetradrachm”).

This tetradrachm is part of an issue that has been debated as to its date and purpose. Rather than bearing the annual magistrates’ names, this issue is signed O ΔΕMOΣ (the dēmos), which was a reference to a sovereign body of citizens. By the third century BC, the dēmos (ὁ δῆμος), and especially that of Athens, represented not just local citizenry, but the concept of Greek institutional sovereignty - in effect, Greek democracy. So important had the concept of the dēmos become that it was personified and worshipped throughout the Greek world - even (as reported by Demosthenes) in such more rugged locales as Thrace (De Corona 18.92).

Struck from one obverse die and three reverse dies, a total of nine examples of this tetradrachm (including the present coin) are currently known to exist. Although similar to other New Style tetradrachms, this coin’s unusual style, the lack of die-linkage to any other New Style issues, and the low weight of the few specimens known to him, led J.H. Jongkees (Mnemosyne XIII [1947], pp. 145-160) to argue that it was an imitative issue, produced at a time of turmoil, evidenced by the emphatic use of ὁ δῆμος as the issuing authority. Consequently, Jongkees, following the earlier attribution of Wilamowitz in assigning these coins to Athenian fugitives who made their way to the camp of Sulla, placed this issue at the time of the pro-Mithradatic tyranny of Aristion in 87/6 BC.

During the First Mithradatic War (89-85 BC), Mithradates VI of Pontos challenged the increasing dominance of Rome in Greek affairs. By this time, Rome had conquered much of Greece and extended its influence over the region. Many of the Greek polei developed pro- and anti- Roman factions among their citizenry, the latter of whom desired to remove the Romans, but lacked the military power to acheive this goal themselves. In consequence, the Athenians appealed to Mithradates for assistence, who sent his general Archelaos to Greece with an army and navy. By 88 BC, the initial victories of the Mithradatic forces so emboldened the anti-Roman faction in Athens, that they were able to elect their pro-Pontic leader, Aristion, tyrant. The Romans under Sulla, however, soon began to push the Pontic army out of Greece and, after a long and brutal siege, retook Athens. In retaliation for Athens siding with Mithradates VI, the Romans laid waste the city and its treasures. Those who could do so, fled to the safety of their Pontic benefactor. Among them were Athenian citizens who considered themselves the true representatives of Athenian sovereignty – the dēmos.

While Jongkees and Wilamowitz thought this issue was struck by pro-Roman Athenians who took refuge with Sulla, later numismatists, followed by Thompson, have found that the hoard evidence suggests an attribution to the pro-Mithradatic Athenians who were exiled to Pontos following Sulla’s capture of Athens. This attribution to a mint in Pontos is bolstered by stylistic elements that Thompson, following Head, found to be more consistent with Athenian-type imitations struck by Mithradates at various Euxine mints. While the assignment to the pro-Pontic Athenians is the most likely, it is interesting that four of the six hoard coins recorded by Thompson were discovered in mainland Greece around Athens, and that three of them exhibit virtually no circulation wear. This suggests that it is also possible that this was an ad hoc issue minted somewhere in the vicinty of Athens by the pro-Mithradatic dēmos, perhaps using a Pontic diecutter who may have been part of the Pontic contingent in Attica at the time. As Pontic treasure provided for the support of Athens, these coins may have served to cover the expenses of the Athenian exiles as they made their way to safety in Pontos.