CNG 103, Lot: 92. Estimate $1500. Sold for $2300. This amount does not include the buyer’s fee.

SKYTHIA, Borysthenes. Circa 550-500 BC. EL Trite (15mm, 4.66 g). Lydo-Mylesian standard. Wheel with four spokes / Incuse rectangle divided into six compartments; incuse crescent on one side. Anokhin 151; H.S. Kim, “Electrum Ingot Hoard (2002)” in SNR 83 (2004), B corr. (not modern) = CNG 66, lot 648 = Rauch 71, lot 160; CNG 102, lot 174 (same die and punch). VF, some porosity, struck from worn obverse die. Extremely rare.

The settlement of Borysthenes off the northern coast of the Black Sea is one of the earliest Greek settlements in the region of Skythia. Bronze arrowhead money is well attested from this site, but recently electrum staters and trites (Anokin 150 and 151) have been published that are thought to originate there, perhaps as a consequence of trade with the Greek cities of northwest Asia minor.

In his article on the 2002 Ingot Hoard, Kim noted four struck coins that were included in the hoard, two staters of like the previous lot and two trites as in the present lot. While generally skeptical of the hoard in general, Kim notes that the ingots could be of ancient manufacture, but based on the their low gold content, the ingots must have been made not earlier than the 5th or 4th centuries BC. As for the coins, Kim concluded that these were likely modern forgeries, partially due to his skepticism over their general style and fabric, but mostly based on their metallurgy, which he thought should comport with the contemporary electrum at Kyzikos, Mytilene, and Phokaia, cities in the region that were still using electrum coinage as late as the 4th century. Recognizing that the coins were metallurgically compatible with the ingots, rather than the coins from these cities, he suggests that a modern forger probably made the coins from the ingots to increase the value of the hoard.

We would propose a different interpretation. The differences in style and fabric that he noted are not dispositive; these coins are products of a mint that previously had only been known to produce bronze coins and proto-coinage, one that is also at a geographically significant distance from other mints producing electrum. Thus, these differences could easily be explained by the coins being a novel production at a mint not well versed in electrum production, and the types likely had a local context, one which is not readily apparent to us today.

Kim’s metallurgic reasons for doubting the coins are also not dispositive. We know that the metal content of electrum varied in different regions and over time. As noted above, the hoard is from a region that is georgraphically distant from the cities whose electrum coinage Kim compared it to. We also are uncertain of the date of the deposit of the hoard. Moreover, we know virtually nothing of the circulation pattern of any electrum coins issued from Borysthenes, such that a metrologic incompatibility with coins from Kyzikos, Mytilene, and Phokaia would not be unusual even if they were contemporary. It is therefore not unreasonable that the metal content of the electrum coins in this hoard are not an exact match with coins of a certain time frame from mints located in disparate regions around the Black Sea.

In sum, there is very little that we know about the context of the hoard. These coins could even predate the trade of electrum coins across the Black Sea, and could have been intended for some other use where the types and metal content would not be inconsistent with normal commerce. Other than their novel appearance, there is very little to contradict accepting the coins as the product of an ancient mint. The fact that in the interim since Kim’s article more of these coins have come to light, and they have been accepted as genuine by V. A. Anokhin, a scholar who is intimately knowledgeable of coins from this region, should give us confidence.