Iolkos and Pagasai: Two New Thessalian Mints* - Royal Numismatic ...

IOLKOS AND PAGASAI 33
Classical and later sources, including an inscription of the Koinon of the
Magnetes, where, as we have seen, Pagasites is used as a demotic. 72 The same
epithet is given to Apollo by Hesychios (s.v. ���������).
The head on the obverse, which has a modest beauty, is not large; the face is
long and delicately worked, without plastic mass. It is framed by hair rendered
on the right as a solid mass, on the left as wavy ringlets. The neck is short; the
eyes are narrow, and the eyeballs drawn in linear fashion. The lips, rendered as
parallel lines, enclose a small mouth. These features occur also on the head of
Artemis Iolkia on the bronzes of Iolkos.
Chronologically the head is datable near the middle of the 4th century BC and
recalls the heads on coins of the cities of Magnesia: the Maenad on the bronzes
of Eurea, 73 and the eponymous nymph on the coins of Meliboia. 74 There is
some, but less, similarity with the heads on other Thessalian coins: the nymph of
Larisa, 75 the Hera of the Gomphoi, 76 the hero (Gyrton?) of Gyrton, 77 the Athena
of Pharsalos, 78 a nymph at Skotoussa, 79 the Lapith Mopsos on the bronzes of
Mopsion, 80 the Hera on the bronzes of Perrhaiboi, 81 and the nymph Boura (?) on
an obol of Atrax. 82 There is also a correspondence with a silver coin of Pherai
(350 BC) and with its bronzes of the 4th century BC. 83 One may also make
stylistic comparisons with the Apollo on coins from mints outside Thessaly,
such as Amphipolis, 84 Philip II 85 and Rhodes. 86 The stylistic congruence of the
head with the general artistic climate of the time is also clear from parallels with
72 Meyer 1942, col. 2298, s.v. Pagasai; IG IX 2, 1100, l. 4-5; IG IX 2, 1109, l. 4.
73 Rogers 1932, pp. 74-5, nos 210-1a, fig. 89; Warren 1961, p. 1, Pl. 1, 1 (with a discussion as to
whether Eurea belonged to Magnesia).
74 Rogers 1932, p. 128, no. 390, fig. 204 (1st half of 4th cent. BC); Warren 1961, pp. 1-3, figs 4
(silver), 6 (bronze).
75
Herrmann 1925, p. 41, Pl. 5, nos 4-14 (Group VII, Series A); p. 45, Pl. 7, nos 6-8 (Group VII,
Series M). According to the redating proposed by Martin 1983, pp. 1-34, especially p. 33, this series
belongs to the so-called last phase, dated conventionally between 375-320 BC. Lorber 2000, pp. 8-
12, 14, Pl. 3 (Late II) dates her Late Phase to the period beginning with the interference of Philip II
in the affairs of Thessaly.
76
Rogers 1932, p. 76, no. 214, fig. 92 (2nd half of 4th cent. BC).
77
Rogers 1932, p. 81, no. 229, figs 104-5 (2nd half of 4th cent. BC).
78
Lavva 2001, Pl. 16, nos 354-5. The high chronology proposed by the author, c.424-405/404 BC,
is not convincing. The coins in question belong to the 4th century BC.
79
Rogers 1932, p. 172, no. 543, fig. 300 (1st half of 4th cent. BC).
80
Rogers 1932, pp. 135-6, no. 412, fig. 221 (1st half of 4th cent. BC).
81
Rogers 1932, pp. 143-4, no. 438, fig. 238 (1st half of 4th cent. BC).
82
Demetriadi 2000, pp. 47-8, Pl. 6, no. 1.
83
Moustaka 1983, p. 110, no. 67, Pl. 10 (silver). For the bronze, see Rogers 1932, p. 163, no. 511,
fig. 277.
84
Lorber 1990, Pl. 12, fig. 56 (Type L, c.359/358 BC); Pl. 30, nos 65e-f (370/369 BC).
85
Le Rider 1977, pp. 395-6, Pl. 43, nos 504-6 (Amphipolis II, B).
86 Ashton 2001, nos 100-3 (c.385-late 340s BC).