Evangelos Fysikas, "Alexander the Great on Greek banknotes". IBNS Journal, 2016 55/4. (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Numismatic Evidence for the Impact, Legacy, and Image of Alexander the Great
Ancient History: Resources for Teachers, 2016
Over three sections, I will discuss key examples of ACANS’ collection in relation to the impact, influence, and legacy of Alexander. I will also point to the key literature on the coins’ interpretation. The aim is to demonstrate how well numismatic evidence complements the syllabus, and how easy it is to introduce to the classroom. First, the famous Heracles/Zeus coins of Alexander will be discussed in terms of their iconography, impact, and legacy. Secondly, the paper will highlight how the Successors adapted Alexander’s iconography and portrait for their own purposes as a demonstration of Alexander’s impact. Finally, the lasting legacy of Alexander will be briefly discussed; the prevalence of portraiture on Hellenistic coins stems directly from Alexander and the patterns he established. For the most part I shall restrict the following to those living within a generation of Alexander. Alexander’s legacy and image have been employed for centuries, and given the focus here on the value of coins for the school syllabus, I do not wish to distract with evidence too far removed from the man himself.
On Coin Portraits of Alexander the Great and His Iranian Regalia
IN ENGLISH At some point in his reign, Alexander had coins issued in which Herakles’ face was indeed incorporated in the king’s portrait. This might betray an attempt at his deification. Thus the Herakles coin iconography and its corollary pro-paganda content is divided into two stages. The first had Herakles as a prototype of Alexander and a bearer of a pan-Hellenic message. The second was the time when Alexander had become Herakles, the living son of Zeus or Amon. While under Philip II the basic repertory of coin iconography included the head of Herakles and of Zeus, a new element was added under Alexander: Zeus seated on a throne and holding an eagle. It is no accident that coin iconography changed on Alex-ander’s coinage compared to that of his father’s issues. The figure of Zeus enthroned is a modification of Baaltarz, a motif known well enough from the Achaemenid mint at Tarsus in the 4th century. The similarity is seen in the posture of the seated figure and in the depiction of the throne which faithfully imitates the Achaemenid prototype. The figure of Zeus, too, was perceived by the Asians as their local deities: in the Levant and Babylonia, it was true especially of Baal82. For the Iranians, the associations tend-ed to be with Ahuramazda. In Kommagene (1st century BC) there is a relief depicting Zeus-Oromazdes/Ahuramazda – a clear example of cross-identification83. Coins of the Diadochs showing a deified Alexander replicate the iconography of a portrait known from the king’s coinage. If no monetary portrait of his had existed under Alexander, how could this similarity be accounted for? Smith concentrates on simi-larities between the king’s sculpted portraits with his monetary depictions. This is a valid perspective, but in a comprehensive treatment of the problem, it is necessary to scrutinize more closely questions involved in the role played by monetary issues with the king’s portraits in propaganda and in the concept of his rule. Smith brushes these problems marginally, which is understandable given her choice of subject mat¬ter. These limitations, however, cause some interpretive difficulties, such as those involving identification of the Iranian tiara. Analyzing Alexander’s royal ideology, one concludes that the ruler intentionally carried on as a monarch building his new empire, reaching out in many fields not only to Macedonian and Greek traditions but also – on an imperial level, not just locally – to the Iranian heritage (as by repeatedly using in coinage images of their insignia: the diadem and tiara). It is worth noting that on his coinage, including on the pieces with the tiara, Alexander usually precisely identified himself as the issuer. The portrait, too, was meant positively to identify the ruler. Still, most scholars maintain that Alexander never put his own portrait on his coins. By introducing his portrait on coins, Alexander drew from a firmly rooted tradition of the Achaemenid epoch in Asia Minor, when issues of satraps and dynasts featured likenesses of the issuers. In the (European mainland) Greek and Macedonian world, a monetary portrait did not exist before Alexander. Its introduc¬tion in Alexander’s local and imperial issues was among his many innovations designed to help build a new power. Such innovations and other achievements of Alexander made a great impact on royal coinage and iconography and on the way monarchical ideology was expressed in the Hellenistic epoch. IN POLISH O portretach monetarnych Aleksandra Wielkiego Uwagi na marginesie książki: F. Smith, L’immagine di Alessandro il Grande sulle monete del regno (336–323) Artykuł stanowi nie tylko recenzję pracy włoskiej badaczki Federiki Smith o monetach Aleksandra Wielkiego, ale też analizę istotnych aspektów ikonografii monetarnej tego króla. Aleksander Wielki wielokrotnie odwoływał się do propagandy monetarnej, stosując ją jako narzędzie realizowanej w Macedonii i potem w Azji i Egipcie polityki, polegającej na budowaniu imperium kosztem pokonanych Achemenidów. Aleksander szczególnie czcił Heraklesa i Zeusa, co w czasie jego panowania zostało wielokrotnie poświadczone. Zeus i Herakles mieli swoje lokalne odpowiedniki na podbijanych terenach Azji i w Egipcie i nie wydaje się kwestią przypadku, że stali się głównymi postaciami na monetach zaliczanych do podstawowych emisji Aleksandra produkowanych w mennicach położonych we wschodniej części basenu Morza Śródziemnego. Zdobycie panowania nad obcymi ludami Azji miało swoje konsekwencje w sferze propagandy monetarnej Aleksandra, gdyż zdobywca nie mógł ignorować lokalnych tradycji orientalnych (szczególnie ważne w tym względzie są wizerunki epoki achemenidzkiej na monetach Karii, Likii i Tarsu). Podobizny Aleksandra, stylizowanego na Heraklesa występują na monetach wybijanych za życia króla. Ale monarcha kazał się też przedstawiać i w innej stylizacji, m.in. z atrybutami Zeusa („indyjskie” dekadrachmy) czy w perskiej tiarze (monety z Memfis). Aleksander występował jako władca budujący nowe imperium i sięgający w wielu sferach nie tylko do tradycji macedońskich i greckich, ale też do tradycji lokalnych w Azji i Egipcie. Innowacje i osiągnięcia Aleksandra wywarły ogromny wpływ na charakter mennictwa i ikonografii królewskiej oraz sposób wyrażania ideologii monarchicznej w epoce hellenistycznej.
“Early Portraits of Alexander the Great: The Numismatic Evidence”
Art of the Hellenistic kingdoms: from Pergamon to Rome, ed. by Seán A. Hemingway and Kyriaki Karoglou. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Yale University Press., pp. 23-30., 2019
The paper looks at the coinage of Manbog (Hierapolis-Bambyce) in Cilicia, which presents the earliest depiction of Alexander the Great as a hunter. There are similarities to the so-called "Porus decadrachm", and it is argued that what is seen on both coinages belongs to Achaemenid imagery.
Gold coinage of Alexander's lifetime
With Alexander III, the issues of gold coins in Greece grew steadily for several factors, first of all the availability of metal, but also the need for large amounts of money for the maintenance of the army, the payment of the veterans and the establishment of a sovereign state that could have a monopoly on the minting of coins. Recognising the economic and political importance of having a uniform coinage in his empire, during his advance Alexander took over existing mints in the places he conquered and produced a prolific minting, while at other sites new mints were established where none had existed before. The longevity of the Alexandrian coinage was a unique phenomenon in Classical antiquity: in all, about 114 different mints produced Alexander coins over a period of 250 years. This paper is focused on the gold coins issued by Alexander III beetween 336 and 323 BC throughout the empire.
Journal of the Numismatic Association of Australia, 2019
The paper discusses the so-called Porus medallions associated with the military campaign of Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) in northern India, and specifically with the battle of the Hydaspes in the early Summer of 326 BC. At the present time, three types of silver medallion (of coin weight) and a unique gold medallion are known. We assess the propaganda message, and the doubts concerning the authenticity of some of these types.
C. Lauranson-Rosaz & Ph. Delaigue (eds.), Mémoires des origines et stratégies de légitimation du pouvoir, Paris 2021 (1st ed. 2020), 81–103., 2021
Collective memory quite often lies in the nexus where social beliefs can be interwoven with legitimacy claims advanced by authority, while ideology customarily emerges to provide symbolic models and suasive images through which power is justified. The image of Alexander the Great persisted long after his passing and was disseminated over a large area, especially with the assistance of the means of coinage. Even more, the figure of Alexander transcended the Hellenistic Age and continued to have a significant impact, haunting the metallic fields of coins and coin-shaped artefacts. The appeal of the great campaigner was employed on occasion to draw attention to cities as ‘lieux de mémoire’, to evoke identity pieces from a glorious past, as well as to flatter ambitions of Roman emperors. As Alexander was transformed after a fashion into a model of chivalry, his images travelled through time surviving into the Renaissance and beyond. Building upon essays that take a broader approach, the present paper focuses on a few somehow neglected case studies, in an attempt to offer a more thorough analysis of the selected material. Such a case is constituted by coin issues of Smyrna with the representation of the local legend relating the ‘dream of Alexander’ (first emission appearing in the name of Marcus Aurelius; a couple more were minted just before the middle of the 3rd century AD). Another intriguing example is traced on ‘medallions’ of Abydos depicting the crossing of the Hellespont by Alexander; the query about the raison d’être of the initial appearance on an issue for Commodus as caesar leads to a rather revealing insight; quite interestingly this coin type was later re-used by Septimius Severus, Caracalla (as caesar), Severus Alexander and Maximinus Thrax. The lasting impression made by the numismatic portrait of Alexander the Great moves to another level as the discussion comes to certain Renaissance medallions. The focus is turned particularly on the reputed meeting of Alexander with the Jewish High Priest, illustrated on medals produced for Pope Paul III by the engraver Alessandro Cesati (1545/46), a subject rich in connotations.
The coinages of Alexander the Great and the République des médailles (16th-18th c.)
S. GLENN, F. DUYRAT and A. MEADOWS (eds.), Alexander the Great. A Linked Open World, Scripta Antiqua 116, Bordeaux, Ausonius, 2018, p. 195-233, 2018
Roville 1553a, f° 4r: "Car les spectateurs de ce théâtre non seulement délecteront leurs yeux, et ne les paîtront de vaine peinture: mais aussi rassasieront leurs esprits de la connaissance très digne des choses, et personnes, tellement que comme par un miroir verront en présente contemplation ceux qui des longtemps ne sont plus en vie, étant par ces oeuvres rappelés des basses ténèbres, en nouvelle lumière. Ils les regarderont présents par l'effigie, les entendront parlant par l'écriture, contempleront leurs hauts faits par l'histoire, et ramèneront les temps passés de toute mémoire d'homme, jusque à leur siècle présent". 8 Nothing in Orsini 1570. 9 See Le Digne 1601 (poem offered to Henri IV) or Vallemont 1706, 29 and 95 (dissertation dedicated to the Duke of Maine). 10 On the portrait of Alexander in Modern Times, see Schwarzenberg 1969, Gauthier 2008. 11 Patin 1672, 23: "Plurimos vidimus & eruditos quidem, qui cum Alexandri nomen in nummis legerent, statim Alexandri Magni ut praecipui istius nominis vultum coniiciebant, praesertim si facies decora & iuvenilis fuerit". 12 Painted for the count Nicolo Maffei of Verona, the portrait of Alexander the Great by Giulio Romano clearly reproduces the two sides of the Alexander staters. 13 On this misunderstanding by Charles Le Brun, see Leblond 1797, 617: "Le célèbre Lebrun, voulant enrichir ses belles compositions des Batailles d' Alexandre du portrait de ce prince, et se conformant à une tradition établie, avait cru devoir trouver ce portrait sur les médailles d'or dont il s'agit ; mais elles ne présentent réellement que la tête de Minerve, à laquelle cet habile artiste a donné un air plus mâle en l'adaptant à son sujet" and Encyclopaedia Britannica 1797, 29: "Minerva is very common on the coins of Alexander; and her bust has been mistaken by the celebrated painter Le Brun for the hero himself". 14 On this, see Grell & Michel 1988 (passim) and Cojannot-Le Blanc 2011. The coinages of Alexander the Great and the République des Médailles (16th-18th centuries)