FACE VALUES OF PTOLEMAIC BRONZE COINS OF THE SECOND CENTURY BC (original) (raw)

Abstract

This paper offers new hypotheses about the face values of Series 6 through 9. The reassessment was inspired by recently published epigraphic evidence from Cyrene and the hypotheses are tested extensively against monetary figures in Egyptian papyri. The paper also considers the identity of the female head with corkscrew curls that appears prominently in Series 6 and 7, and the significance of its permanent disappearance with Series 8, when Cleopatra III was at the apogee of her power. The introduction of Series 9 represents a major reform in which the bronze coinage was retariffed against the silver standard.

Figures (12)

In this version of the hypothesis, face values are aligned strictly with the proportionality of the weights, with the only irregularities introduced by varieties that were not included in Series 6a. The Zeus-Ammon 2 denomination was introduced in Series 6b, and the similarity of its weight to that of the Isis 2 denomination in Series 6a is a clue that they in fact represent a single denomination, in a deviation from the general rule that obverse types functioned as value markers; the two types appear in different sub-series, Isis 2 in Series 6a and 6e, Ammon 2 in Series 6b, 6c, and 6d anomaly that should . The Nilus denomination appears only in Series 6d and may represent an be considered separately. With the exception of Series 6d, Series 6 involve a Set of seven denominations rather than eight. Faucher and Lorber observed that the 60-drachm coin, which is commonly represented in Table 1A. Hypothetical face values for bronze coins of Series 6 (Faucher and Lorber)

In this version of the hypothesis, face values are aligned strictly with the proportionality of the weights, with the only irregularities introduced by varieties that were not included in Series 6a. The Zeus-Ammon 2 denomination was introduced in Series 6b, and the similarity of its weight to that of the Isis 2 denomination in Series 6a is a clue that they in fact represent a single denomination, in a deviation from the general rule that obverse types functioned as value markers; the two types appear in different sub-series, Isis 2 in Series 6a and 6e, Ammon 2 in Series 6b, 6c, and 6d anomaly that should . The Nilus denomination appears only in Series 6d and may represent an be considered separately. With the exception of Series 6d, Series 6 involve a Set of seven denominations rather than eight. Faucher and Lorber observed that the 60-drachm coin, which is commonly represented in Table 1A. Hypothetical face values for bronze coins of Series 6 (Faucher and Lorber)

Table 1B. Hypothetical face values for bronze coins of Series 6 (Picard and Faucher) '6 Fauc her and Lorber (2010), pp. 57-58. Cf. Picard and Faucher (2012), p. 68, arguing that an actual redefinition of metallic ratios by the Ptolemaic state is improbable and unattested in the written sources. 7 Fauc '8 Fauc equally her and Lorber (2010), pp. 57-58; Picard and Faucher (2012), pp. 67-68. her and Lorber originally assigned the Athena denomination to Series 6c, but admitted that it could belong well to Series 6a, 6b, or 6d, see Faucher and Lorber (2010), p. 40. It is treated as a part of Series 6a in all of their hypothesis concerning face values. 19 Bac her and Lorber (2010). n. 58.

Table 1B. Hypothetical face values for bronze coins of Series 6 (Picard and Faucher) '6 Fauc her and Lorber (2010), pp. 57-58. Cf. Picard and Faucher (2012), p. 68, arguing that an actual redefinition of metallic ratios by the Ptolemaic state is improbable and unattested in the written sources. 7 Fauc '8 Fauc equally her and Lorber (2010), pp. 57-58; Picard and Faucher (2012), pp. 67-68. her and Lorber originally assigned the Athena denomination to Series 6c, but admitted that it could belong well to Series 6a, 6b, or 6d, see Faucher and Lorber (2010), p. 40. It is treated as a part of Series 6a in all of their hypothesis concerning face values. 19 Bac her and Lorber (2010). n. 58.

In this version of the hypothesis, the proposed face values of the five largest denominations are not proportional to their average weights in Series 6a. This is much in contrast with earlier Ptolemaic mint practice; the face values of third-century bronze coins were proportional to their mean weights, and these weights were especially well controlled after the introduction of Series 3 in the latter 260s.2° Picard and Faucher did not offer an explanation for this deviance from proportionality. Possibly their adjustments were intended to eliminate the awkward face value of 2% drachms proposed for the smallest denomination by Faucher and Lorber, and to make the pentadrachm the smallest denomination of the monetary system.

In this version of the hypothesis, the proposed face values of the five largest denominations are not proportional to their average weights in Series 6a. This is much in contrast with earlier Ptolemaic mint practice; the face values of third-century bronze coins were proportional to their mean weights, and these weights were especially well controlled after the introduction of Series 3 in the latter 260s.2° Picard and Faucher did not offer an explanation for this deviance from proportionality. Possibly their adjustments were intended to eliminate the awkward face value of 2% drachms proposed for the smallest denomination by Faucher and Lorber, and to make the pentadrachm the smallest denomination of the monetary system.

Table 2. Hypothetical face values for bronze coins of Series 6 (Hazzard)

Table 2. Hypothetical face values for bronze coins of Series 6 (Hazzard)

Table 3. Hypothetical face values for bronze coins of Series 6 (Gorre and Lorber)

Table 3. Hypothetical face values for bronze coins of Series 6 (Gorre and Lorber)

The face val seems a bit i denominatio ue of the second denomination may appear debatable. A face value of 7% drachms mprobable on its surface, but it is implied if we assume a systematic equivalence to ns on the silver standard. Within this system the Nilus denomination of Series 6d falls between Zeus-Ammon 2 and the helmeted bust, suggesting it may have had a face value of 1% drachms deviation fro ; alternatively, the many anomalies of Series 6d may imply a more extensive m this set of denominations. LY

The face val seems a bit i denominatio ue of the second denomination may appear debatable. A face value of 7% drachms mprobable on its surface, but it is implied if we assume a systematic equivalence to ns on the silver standard. Within this system the Nilus denomination of Series 6d falls between Zeus-Ammon 2 and the helmeted bust, suggesting it may have had a face value of 1% drachms deviation fro ; alternatively, the many anomalies of Series 6d may imply a more extensive m this set of denominations. LY

u 1 s u 63, t tatereieroi in UPZ Ne eX U istence of a 4- proposals that Series 7 was introduced in 163 and that Series 7a—b included a denomination with he face value of 4 d Only one bank receipt attests the existence of small bronze denominations in the first sole reign of Ptolemy VI: nknown tax or mo he presumed date of the introduction of Series 7.*° The reference to a purse of bronze O. Bodl. I 46 (Thebes, 171/0), a receipt for 958 bronze drachms for an nopoly payment. Two bank receipts reflect use of coins of low value after 77, in a context datable to June of 161, has already been cited in support of drachm bronze coin. This source is consistent with, but does not prove, the rachms. Table 4. Types, metrology, and hypothetical face values of Series 6e and 7a—b

u 1 s u 63, t tatereieroi in UPZ Ne eX U istence of a 4- proposals that Series 7 was introduced in 163 and that Series 7a—b included a denomination with he face value of 4 d Only one bank receipt attests the existence of small bronze denominations in the first sole reign of Ptolemy VI: nknown tax or mo he presumed date of the introduction of Series 7.*° The reference to a purse of bronze O. Bodl. I 46 (Thebes, 171/0), a receipt for 958 bronze drachms for an nopoly payment. Two bank receipts reflect use of coins of low value after 77, in a context datable to June of 161, has already been cited in support of drachm bronze coin. This source is consistent with, but does not prove, the rachms. Table 4. Types, metrology, and hypothetical face values of Series 6e and 7a—b

Table 5. Types, weights, and hypothetical face values of Series 7a, 7b, and 7c 46 O. Bodl. 145 (Thebes, 173/2), receipt for 255 bronze drachms for the kallaiopoion (dyeing monopoly); SB VI 9419 (Syene, 166), receipt for 165 bronze drachms for the akrodruon (palm tree tax); O. Bodl. 1 49 = SBI 1093 (Thebes, 10 September 165), receipt for 135 bronze drachms for the ennomion (pasture tax). 47 Additionally, UPZ 1 91 (Memphis, 30 May 159) lists expenditures of 75 and 145 drachms; UPZ I 96 (Memphis, 10 March 158) records a payment of 155 drachms. Official bank receipts also support the existence of a pentadrachm in Series 7: O. Stras. 1 14 (Thebes, 16 March 150), for 575 bronze drachms, and O. Bod. I 64 (Thebes, 9 July 150), for 3,485 bronze drachms, both for the skuteon (shoemakers’ tax); O. Bodl. 171 (Thebes, 149 or 138), for 3,315 bronze drachms for the apomoira. 48 Thamnenn (9N1)9\ n

Table 5. Types, weights, and hypothetical face values of Series 7a, 7b, and 7c 46 O. Bodl. 145 (Thebes, 173/2), receipt for 255 bronze drachms for the kallaiopoion (dyeing monopoly); SB VI 9419 (Syene, 166), receipt for 165 bronze drachms for the akrodruon (palm tree tax); O. Bodl. 1 49 = SBI 1093 (Thebes, 10 September 165), receipt for 135 bronze drachms for the ennomion (pasture tax). 47 Additionally, UPZ 1 91 (Memphis, 30 May 159) lists expenditures of 75 and 145 drachms; UPZ I 96 (Memphis, 10 March 158) records a payment of 155 drachms. Official bank receipts also support the existence of a pentadrachm in Series 7: O. Stras. 1 14 (Thebes, 16 March 150), for 575 bronze drachms, and O. Bod. I 64 (Thebes, 9 July 150), for 3,485 bronze drachms, both for the skuteon (shoemakers’ tax); O. Bodl. 171 (Thebes, 149 or 138), for 3,315 bronze drachms for the apomoira. 48 Thamnenn (9N1)9\ n

The continued existence of small bronze denominations is sources. O. Stras. I 18 (Coptos, 9 November 135) is a banl attested by some documentary k receipt for the payment of the apomoira in the amount of 5,608 drachms. O. Edfu II 242 (Edfu, 21 May 131) is a personal receipt acknowledging payment of 4 bronze drachms. O. Wilck. II 1083 (Coptos, 13 June 139) is another personal receipt acknowledging payment of 7 bronze drachms, with the implication that there must have been a bronze coin with the face value of either 1 drachm or 3 drachms.

The continued existence of small bronze denominations is sources. O. Stras. I 18 (Coptos, 9 November 135) is a banl attested by some documentary k receipt for the payment of the apomoira in the amount of 5,608 drachms. O. Edfu II 242 (Edfu, 21 May 131) is a personal receipt acknowledging payment of 4 bronze drachms. O. Wilck. II 1083 (Coptos, 13 June 139) is another personal receipt acknowledging payment of 7 bronze drachms, with the implication that there must have been a bronze coin with the face value of either 1 drachm or 3 drachms.

Table 6. Types, metrology, and hypothetical face values of Series 7d Throughout most of the second century, “Isis” marked the second largest bronze of the denominational system, standing in a 3 : 4 ratio with the double eagle bronze. In Series 7d the “Isis” bronze apparently served as the half denomination of the double eagle bronze. Its presence in the Tebtunis hoard implies that it later circulated alongside double eagle bronzes of Series 9 with similar weights and diameters. Probably the “Isis” bronze was considered equivalent in value to the double eagle bronzes it resembled in size. This possibility is supported by the fact that Zeus-Ammon is the only obverse type of Series 9, with the implication that obverse types lost their function as value markers after the introduction of Series 9.

Table 6. Types, metrology, and hypothetical face values of Series 7d Throughout most of the second century, “Isis” marked the second largest bronze of the denominational system, standing in a 3 : 4 ratio with the double eagle bronze. In Series 7d the “Isis” bronze apparently served as the half denomination of the double eagle bronze. Its presence in the Tebtunis hoard implies that it later circulated alongside double eagle bronzes of Series 9 with similar weights and diameters. Probably the “Isis” bronze was considered equivalent in value to the double eagle bronzes it resembled in size. This possibility is supported by the fact that Zeus-Ammon is the only obverse type of Series 9, with the implication that obverse types lost their function as value markers after the introduction of Series 9.

Table 7. Types, metrology, and hypothetical face values of Series 8 (115/4 and 114/3 BC) ‘here is no equivalent of the Athena denomination in Series 7 and consequently its value can nly be inferred from its weight. Our sample of this denomination is small compared to the other wo, and its average weight is accordingly less reliable. To the best of our current knowledge it veighed a bit more than one third of the Zeus-Ammon denomination, so it was probably valued it 4 drachms, by now quite a traditional denomination of the currency system, corresponding to me of the fundamental accounting units listed in the probably slightly later metrological text P. (Oln X TI 525. 1G1YLLLY LLU GU /0 W OJ /0. Series 8 offered a narrow range of denominations, reduced in comparison with Series 7c but complementary to Series 7d. Series 8 was consistent with the weight standard of Series 7d, which had reduced by one third the standard of Series 7c. The two denominations of year 3, with e obverse types Zeus-Ammon and Heracles, had average weights of 16g and 8g respectively.°® he corresponding denominations of Series 7c had average weights of 22.5g and c. 12g. ssuming that the obverse types still functioned as value markers, as they had since the troduction of Series 6 in 207/6, the Zeus-Ammon denomination of Series 8 was still worth 10 rachms (or one obol on the silver standard) and the Heracles denomination was again worth 5 rachms (or half an obol on the silver standard). Bag >bos

Table 7. Types, metrology, and hypothetical face values of Series 8 (115/4 and 114/3 BC) ‘here is no equivalent of the Athena denomination in Series 7 and consequently its value can nly be inferred from its weight. Our sample of this denomination is small compared to the other wo, and its average weight is accordingly less reliable. To the best of our current knowledge it veighed a bit more than one third of the Zeus-Ammon denomination, so it was probably valued it 4 drachms, by now quite a traditional denomination of the currency system, corresponding to me of the fundamental accounting units listed in the probably slightly later metrological text P. (Oln X TI 525. 1G1YLLLY LLU GU /0 W OJ /0. Series 8 offered a narrow range of denominations, reduced in comparison with Series 7c but complementary to Series 7d. Series 8 was consistent with the weight standard of Series 7d, which had reduced by one third the standard of Series 7c. The two denominations of year 3, with e obverse types Zeus-Ammon and Heracles, had average weights of 16g and 8g respectively.°® he corresponding denominations of Series 7c had average weights of 22.5g and c. 12g. ssuming that the obverse types still functioned as value markers, as they had since the troduction of Series 6 in 207/6, the Zeus-Ammon denomination of Series 8 was still worth 10 rachms (or one obol on the silver standard) and the Heracles denomination was again worth 5 rachms (or half an obol on the silver standard). Bag >bos

Table 8. Types, metrology, and hypothetical face values of Series 9 The large weight reduction of Series 9, in combination with the retariffing of the obol at 40 drachms, will have greatly diminished the intrinsic value of the bronze coinage. This particular reform may be responsible for the very elevated commodity prices of the late second and first centuries, most of which date after 113. The dramatic devaluation of the bronze coinaqce was reflected in its production methods.

Table 8. Types, metrology, and hypothetical face values of Series 9 The large weight reduction of Series 9, in combination with the retariffing of the obol at 40 drachms, will have greatly diminished the intrinsic value of the bronze coinage. This particular reform may be responsible for the very elevated commodity prices of the late second and first centuries, most of which date after 113. The dramatic devaluation of the bronze coinaqce was reflected in its production methods.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (100)

  1. Bogaert (1998/1999), pp. 64-65; Huß (2011), p. 192.
  2. Faucher and Lorber (2010), pp. 43-45.
  3. Poole (1883), pp. lix-lx and 78; Svoronos (1904), nos. 1380-1383; Kromann and Mørkholm (1977), nos. 274- 278.
  4. Faucher and Lorber (2010), pp. 47-49. On the imitations in the name of Antiochus IV, see Lorber (2007).
  5. Picard and Faucher (2012), pp. 76-78.
  6. Faucher (2013), pp. 54-56 and pp. 314-315, nos. 55-74.
  7. Faucher and Shahin (2006), pp. 140-141.
  8. Faucher and Shahin (2006), pp. 146-148; Faucher (2011), pp. 439-440.
  9. On the Gézeïr hoard, see Faucher and Shahin (2006); on the Megadim hoards, see Syon, Lorber, and Galili (2013).
  10. Syon, Lorber, and Galili (2013), pp. 1-2, 3 (hoard 3).
  11. Faucher (2013), p. 57, hinted that a demonetization might have been motivated by a desire to recycle the high- quality bronze of Series 8, but he emphasized the uncertainties of the transition from Series 8 to Series 9.
  12. Poole (1883), pp. lix-lx, 78, 79, 89, 93-94.
  13. Picard and Faucher (2012), pp. 63-64.
  14. For the "Egyptianizing" issue struck at Antioch, see Houghton, Lorber, and Hoover (2008), no. 1414. For the imitations struck in Egypt, see Lorber (2007), p. 31, fig. 3.
  15. Bianchi (2007), pp. 485-487.
  16. Bricault (2008), p. 85.
  17. Thompson (1998).
  18. P. Stras. II 81 (Thebes, 30 December 115), l. 14.
  19. P. dem. Cairo II 30602 and 30603 (Memphis, 6 April 115);
  20. P. dem. Ashm. 3 (Hawara, 21 April 115);
  21. Otto and Bengtson (1938), pp. 126, 152-156; Glanville and Skeat (1954), p. 56, no. 52; Minas (2000), p. 158. 71 Minas (2000), p. 158.
  22. Minas (2000), p. 158. 73 IAlexandria 22.
  23. Minas (2000), p. 158; Hölbl (2001), pp. 287-288.
  24. Krzyźanowska (1999), pp. 47-48.
  25. Picard (2005), pp. 85-86; id. (2008).
  26. The mean weight of 1.2g was calculated by D. Wolf (personal communication).
  27. Hoover (2008), p. 83; Syon (2016), p. 148, no. 13. The circulation of Ptolemaic pentadrachms in Coele Syria was significant enough to inspire a series of lead imitations in the Transjordan. 87 Personal communication.
  28. In fact, the mean weights calculated by Wolf further illustrate the metrological imprecision of Series 9. The mean weight of the pentadrachm, 1.2g, implies a bronze drachm of 0.24g, and this weight, divided into the mean weight of the largest Series 9 bronze, 7.75g, yields a result of 31 drachms, which should be rounded off to 30 drachms.
  29. P. Yale 13; Blouin and Burnett (forthcoming).
  30. Burnett, Amandry, and Ripollès (1992), pp. 688-690; Maresch (1996), pp. 110-111; Picard (2012), pp. 127-132.
  31. Pestman (1971), pp. 7-8; von Reden (2007), p. 154; Keenan, Manning, and Yiftach-Firanko (2014), p. 227; Markiewicz in Keenan, Manning, and Yiftach-Firanko (2014), p. 230; Vandorpe in Keenan, Manning, and Yiftach- Firanko (2014), p. 236. For examples using the legal formula of two drachms per mina per month, see P. Mich. III 190 (172 BC) and P. Dryton 19 (Pathyris, 7 November 129).
  32. Asolati, M. 2011. Nummi Aenei Cyrenaici: Struttua e cronologia della monetazione bronzea cirenaica di età greca e romana (325 A.C.-180 D.C.), Monografie di Archeologia Libica XXXII. Rome.
  33. Bianchi, R.S. 2007. "Images of Isis and her cultic shrines reconsidered: toward an Egyptian understanding of the interpretatio graeca," in L. Bricault, M.J. Versluys, and P.G.P. Meyboom, eds., Nile into Tiber: Egypt in the Roman World. Proceedins of the IIIrd International Conference of Isis Studies (Leiden/Boston), pp. 470-505.
  34. Blouin, K., and Burnett, A. Forthcoming. "From kings to emperors: The development and integration of the Egyptian monetary system into the Roman Empire," paper presented at the Orléans conference Money Rules!, 29 October 2015.
  35. Bogaert, R. 1998-99. "Les opérations des banques de l'Égypte ptolémaïque" AncSoc 29, pp. 49- 149. Bricault, L. 2008. Sylloge nummorum religionis isiacae et sarapiacae. Paris.
  36. Burkhalter, F. 2014. "Change et les changeurs en Égypte ptolémaïque aux III e et II e s. av. J.-C.," BCH 138, pp. 563-581.
  37. Burkhalter, F., and Picard, O. 2005. "Le vocabulaire financier dans les papyrus et l'évolution des monnayages lagides en bronze," in F. Duyrat and O. Picard, eds., L'exception égyptienne ? Production et échanges monétaires en Égypte hellénistique et romaine: Actes du Colloque d'Alexandrie, 13-15 avril 2002, Études alexandrines 10 (Cairo), pp. 53-80.
  38. Burnett, A., Amandry, M., and Ripollès, P.P. 1992. Roman Provincial Coinage, vol. I: From the Death of Caesar to the Death of Vitellius (44 BC-AD 69). London/Paris.
  39. Cavagna, A. 2010. La crisi dello stato tolemaico tra inflazione e svalutazione del denaro. Milan.
  40. Picard (2005), pp. 85-86. Because of the finds of crude Series 9 bronzes in the Alexandria excavations, Picard and Faucher (2012), p. 92, reject the idea that the pieces found at Mirgissa were produced locally.
  41. Le Rider (1969), pp. 33-35; Faucher (2013), p. 58, for the possibility of ancient counterfeits. 98 Jungfleisch and Schwartz (1955), pp. 214-215; Faucher (2013), p. 58.
  42. Picard and Faucher (2012), p. 90; Faucher (2013), p. 58.
  43. Faucher (2011), pp. 439-440; Picard and Faucher (2012), p. 92.
  44. Clarysse, W., and Lanciers, E. 1989. "Currency and the dating of demotic and Greek papyri from the Ptolemaic period," AncSoc 20, pp. 117-132.
  45. Cox, D.H. 1959. Coins from the Excavations at Curium, 1932-1953, American Numismatic Society Numismatic Notes and Monographs 145. New York.
  46. Davesne, A. 1994. "Production et circulation des monnaies des premiers Ptolémées à Chypre," CCEC 22 (1994-2), pp. 13-18.
  47. Faucher, T. 2010. "Gravure et composition métallque des monnaies lagides," RN 166, pp. 95-108.
  48. Faucher, T. 2011. "La circulation monétaire dans le monde grec antique," in T. Faucher, M.-C. Marcellesi, and O. Picard, eds., Nomisma: La circulation monétaire dans le monde grec antique. Actes du colloque international Athènes, 14-17 avril 2010, BCH Suppl. 53 (Paris), pp. 433-447.
  49. Faucher, T. 2013. Frapper monnaie: La fabrication des monnaies de bronze à Alexandrie sous les Ptolémées, Études Alexandrines 27. Alexandria.
  50. Faucher, T., and Lorber, C. 2010. "Bronze coinage of Ptolemaic Egypt in the second century BC," AJN 22, pp. 35-80.
  51. Faucher, T., and Shahin, M. 2006. "Le trésor de Gézéïr (lac Mariout, Alexandrie)," RN 162, pp. 135-157.
  52. Gara, A. 1984. "Limiti strutturali dell'economia monetaria nell'Egitto tardo-tolemaico," Studi ellenistici 1, pp. 116-134.
  53. Gorre, G. 2012. "Les monnaies lagides et les papyrus démotiques," in O. Picard, C. Bresc, T. Faucher, G. Gorre, M.-C. Marcellesi, and C. Morrison, Les monnaies des fouilles du Centre d'Études Alexandrines: Les monnayages de bronze à Alexandrie de a conquête d'Aleandre à l'Égypte moderne, Études Alexandrines 25 (Alexandria), pp. 109-124.
  54. Gorre, G., and Lorber, C. Forthcoming. "The survival of the silver standard after the Grand Mutation," paper presented at the Orléans conference Money Rules!, 29 October 2015.
  55. Glanville, S.R.K., and Skeat, T.C. 1954. "Eponymous priesthoods of Alexandria from 211 B.C.," JEA 40, pp. 45-58.
  56. Grenfell, B.P., and Hunt, A.S. 1902. "Appendix II: The ratio of silver and copper under the Ptolemies," in B.P. Grenfell, A.S. Hunt, and J.G. Smyly, eds., The Tebtunis Papyri I, University of California Publications Graeco-Roman Archaeology I, Egypt Exploration Society Graeco-Roman Memoirs 4 (London), pp. 580-603.
  57. Hazzard, R.A. 1995. Ptolemaic Coins: An Introduction for Collectors. Toronto.
  58. Hazzard, R.A. 2016. "A note on the Ptolemaic bronzes in Series 6," CdÉ XCI, fasc. 181, pp. 135-144.
  59. Hazzard, R.A., and Huston, S.M. 2015. "The surge in prices under Ptolemies IV and V," CdÉ XC, fasc. 179, pp. 105-120.
  60. Hölbl, G. 2001. A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, tr. T. Saavedra. London/New York.
  61. Hoover, O.D. 2008. "Ptolemaic lead coinage in Coele Syria (103-100 BCE)," INR 3, pp. 81-85.
  62. Houghton, A., Lorber, C., and Hoover, O. 2008. Seleucid Coins, a Comprehensive Catalogue. Part II: Seleucus IV through Antiochus XIII. New York/Lancaster.
  63. Huß, W. 2011. Die Verwaltung des ptolemaiischen Reichs. Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 104. Munich.
  64. Huston, S.M., and Lorber, C.C. 2001. "A hoard of Ptolemaic bronze coins in commerce, October 1992 (CH 8, 413)," NC 161, pp. 11-40.
  65. Jungfleisch, M., and Schwartz, J. 1955. "Réflexions de practicien sur les monnaies ptolémaïques en bronze," Bulletin de l'Institut d'Égypte 30, pp. 47-60.
  66. Keenan, J.G., Manning, J.G., and Yiftach-Firanko, U., eds. 2014. Law and Legal Practice in Egypt from Alexander to the Arab Conquest: A Selection of Papyrological Sources in Translation, with Introductions and Commentary. Cambridge.
  67. Kromann, A., and Mørkholm, O. 1977. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Danish National Museum. Egypt: The Ptolemies. Copenhagen.
  68. Krzyźanowska, A. 1999. "Remarks on the coins of Ptolemy VI found in Egypt," Notae Numismaticae III/VI, pp. 45-49. Tr. B. MacQueen.
  69. Le Rider, G. 1969. "Monnaies trouvées à Mirgissa," RN 1969, pp. 28-35.
  70. Lorber, C.C. 2005. "The development of Ptolemaic bronze coinage in Egypt," in F. Duyrat and O. Picard, eds., L'exception égyptienne? Production et échanges monétaires en Égypte hellénistique et romaine, Études alexandrines 10 (Cairo), pp. 135-157.
  71. Lorber, C.C. 2007. "Ptolemaic bronzes of Antiochus IV," RBN CLIII, pp. 31-44.
  72. Lorber, C. 2013. "The Grand Mutation: Ptolemaic bronze coinage in the second century B.C.," in S. Bussi, ed., Egitto. Dai Faraoni agli Arabi. Atti del Convegno Egitto: amministrazione, economia, società, cultura dai Faraoni agli Arabi/Égypte: administration, économie, société, culture des Pharaons aux Arabes, Milano, Università degli studi, 7-9 gennaio 2013 (Pisa/Roma), pp. 135-157.
  73. Lorber, C.C. Forthcoming. "The price (timê) of the silver stater in Ptolemaic Egypt," AncSoc 47, forthcoming.
  74. Maresch, K. 1996. Bronze und Silber: Papyrologische Beiträge zur Geschichte der Währung im ptolemäischen und römischen Ägypten bis zum 2. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Papyrologica Coloniensia XXV. Opladen.
  75. Masson, A. 2015. "Interpréter le matériel grec et chypriote dans un contexte religieux et thébain: l'example du quartier des prêtres de Karnak," in G. Gorre and A. Marangou, eds., La présence greque dans la Vallée de Thèbes (Rennes), pp. 25-43.
  76. Milne, J.G. 1925. "Double entries in Ptolemaic tax-receipts," JEA XI, pp. 269-283.
  77. Minas 2000. Die hieroglyphischen Ahnenreihen der ptolemäischen Könige: Ein Vergleich mit den Titeln der eponymen Priester in den demotischen und griechischen Papyri, Aegyptiaca Treverensia 9. Mainz.
  78. Mørkholm, O. 1979. "The portrait coinage of Ptolemy V: The main series," in O. Mørkholm and N.M. Waggoner, eds., Greek Numismatics and Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson (Wetteren), pp. 203-214.
  79. Otto and Bengtson 1938. Zur Geschichte des Niederganges des Ptolemäerreiches: Ein Beitrag zur Regierungszeit des 8. und des 9. Ptolemäers, ABAW N.F. 17. Munich.
  80. Pestman, P.W. 1971. "Loans bearing no interest?" JJP 16/17, pp. 7-29.
  81. Picard, O. 2005. "L'apport des monnaies des fouilles d'Alexandrie," in F. Duyrat and O. Picard, eds., L'exception égyptienne? Production et échanges monétaires en Égypte hellénistique et romaine, Études alexandrines 10 (2005), pp. 81-90.
  82. Picard, O. 2008. "À la recherché du pentadrachme d'Héron d'Alexandrie," in D. Gerin, A. Geissen, and M. Amandry, eds., AEgyptiaca serta in Soheir Bakhoum memoriam: Mélanges de numismatique, d'iconographie et d'histoire, Collezioni numismatiche 7 (Milan), pp. 39- 42.
  83. Picard, O. 2012. "Les monnaes de la province d'Auguste à la réforme de Dioclétien (30 av. J.- C.-297/8 ap. J.-C.)," in O. Picard, C. Bresc, T. Faucher, G. Gorre, M.-C. Marcellesi, and C. Morrison, Les monnaies des fouilles du Centre d'Études Alexandrines: Les monnayages de bronze à Alexandrie de la conquête d'Alexandre à l'Égypte moderne, Études Alexandrines 25 (Alexandria), pp. 125-169.
  84. Picard, O., and Faucher, T. 2012. "Les monnaies lagides," in O. Picard, C. Bresc, T. Faucher, G. Gorre, M.-C. Marcellesi, and C. Morrison, Les monnaies des fouilles du Centre d'Études Alexandrines: Les monnayages de bronze à Alexandrie de la conquête d'Alexandre à l'Égypte moderne, Études Alexandrines 25 (Alexandria), pp. 17-108.
  85. Poole, R.S. 1883. Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: The Ptolemies, Kings of Egypt. London.
  86. Reekmans, T. 1948. "Monetary history and the dating of Ptolemaic papyri," in Varia, Studia Hellenistica 5 (Lovanii/Lutetiae Parisiorum/Lugduni Batavorum), pp. 15-43.
  87. Reinach, T. 1928. "Du rapport de valeur des métaux monétaires dans l'Égypte au temps des Ptolémées," RÉG XLI, pp. 121-196.
  88. Rosamilia, E. 2017a. "The introduction of the bronze standard in Cyrenaica," ZPE 201, pp. 139-154.
  89. Rosamilia, E. 2017b. "Numismatica e documentazione epigrafica: I piedi monetale e l'introduzione del 'bronze standard' a Cirene," in M. Asolati, ed., Le monete die Crene e della cirenaica nel Mediterraneo: Probleme e prospettive. Atti del V Congresso Internazionale di Numismatica e di Storia Monetaria, Padova 17-19 marzo 2016, Numismatica Patavina 13 (Padua), pp. 83-100.
  90. Shahin, M. 2005. "A Ptolemaic bronze and silver hoard from Kom Trouga," in F. Duyrat and O. Picard, eds., L'exception égyptienne? Production et échanges monétaires en Égypte hellénistique et romaine. Actes du colloque d'Alexandrie, 13-15 avril 2002, Études alexandrines 10 (Cairo), pp. 91-116.
  91. Sijpesteijn, J. 1993. "A pawnbroker's account," AncSoc 24, pp. 51-59.
  92. Svoronos, J.N. 1904. Ta Nomismata tou Kratous ton Ptolemaion. Athens. 3 vols.
  93. Syon, D. 2016. Gamla III: The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations 1976-1989. Finds and Studies Part 2. IAA Reports 59. Jerusalem.
  94. Syon, D., Lorber, C., and Galili, E. 2013. "Underwater Ptolemaic coin hoards from Megadim," 'Atiqot 74, pp. 1-8.
  95. Thompson, D.J. 1998. "Demeter in Graeco-Roman Egypt," in W. Clarysse, A. Schoors, and H. Willems, eds., Egyptian Religion The Last Thousand Years: Studies Dedicated to the Memory of Jan Quaegebeur, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 84. (Leuven) Vol. I, pp. 699- 707.
  96. Thompson, D.J. 2012. Memphis under the Ptolemies. Princeton. Revised second edition of 1988 original.
  97. Vandorpe, K. 2002. The Bilingual Family Archive of Dryton, His Wife Apollonia and Their Daughter Senmouthis (P. Dryton), Collectanea Hellenistica 4. Brussels.
  98. Verhoogt, A. 2005. Regaling Officials in Ptolemaic Egypt: A Dramatic Reading of Official Accounts from the Menches Papers. Papyroloica Lugduno-Batava 32. Leiden/Boston.
  99. Von Reden, S. 2007. Money in Ptolemaic Egypt from the Macedonian Conquest to the End of the Third Century BC. Cambridge.
  100. Wolf, D. 2013. "A metrological survey of Ptolemaic bronze coins," AJN 25, pp. 49-118.