Alexander III, IV or V?

[numismo]

I have seen a number of Macedonian bronzes that are apparently
of Alexander III (ie: with the name of "an" Alexander) or "Alexander
Æ types" that have been attributed as either Alexander IV or even
Alexander V instead of the expected Alexander III (as per Price, etc.).

Most of the references I have only really suggest toward Alexander III
(Price, SNG ANS, SNG Alpha bank, the Price Festschrift, and a couple of
others). None hint towards anyone other than Alexander Gamma.

Can anyone perhaps direct me to the best article or group of articles
that specifically address the coins of the latter two successors, if such
articles are in fact out there (and assuming that they are not among
those I already have)? Any additional thoughts are also welcomed.
Has this been discussed on these boards somewhere else before?

Are there actually any of these coins in the name of Alexander that
are in fact firmly attributable to either Alexander Delta or Epsilon as
has been suggested by some of these other 'alternative' listings?

I understand that some were, or could have been, struck during the
times of these other two Alexanders and in the name of Gamma, but
I guess I refer to those that can be directly ascribable to the latter
Alexanders, not just in the name of the earlier Alexander the Great.

This probably relates mostly to those Æs types with Apollo on the
obverse and prancing horse on the reverse (cf.Price 338f), as these
seem to be the ones that are generally claimed to be of IV or V, but
any of the later types "could" be given to them, rightly or wrongly.
Eg: Not this item, but Æs that are not unlike this item here:
http://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=125975

What do you think?

Kind regards,

Walter Holt

[djmacdo]

I think the reason they are given to the later Alexanders is that they bear the same or similar field marks to tetradrachms of the Alexander III type tetradrachms that are agreed to be posthumous. I know of no direct evidence, but the attributions seem sensible to me.

[numismo]

Thanks Mac,
I can understand much of the "why" but I wondered whether I had
missed some important reference that I needed to get a hold of.

There was also the argument surrounding "in the name of Alexander
Gamma, but struck under Alexander Delta" (or Epsilon) versus simply
"a coin of Alexander the Great" (ie: its in his name therefore it is him).

I don't know enough to work out for myself whether the distinction
can be made, afterall they are both in the name of "an" Alexander,
the key is working out which one specifically.

It is enough to be in the name of the Alexander under whom it was
supposedly struck, and was it in fact struck posthumously or late
lifetime. I err on the side of caution, following Price's attributions but
where there is doubt I would like to know the best direction to take.

It is a pity that there isn't more available hoard evidence concerning
these, and many other, fascinating little bronzes.

Walter Holt

[djmacdo]

I don't think there is a best way to go. All we know and probably all the ancient Greek who received the coin in change would have known was that it bore the name Alexander. Certainly, Alexander's name continued long after any Alexander was alive, and so must have been in a sense used on posthumous coins bearing the name of Alexander the Great, but on the other hand, coins struck shortly after Alexander the Great's death bore the name Philip, clearly Philip III, and so by extension some of the contemporary coins bearing the name Alexander should refer to Philip III's co-king, Alexander IV. So, in a sense I guess both interpretations are correct for some of the coinage, but I doubt any one of us is going to be able to discern which Alexander, the dead Alexander III or the living Alexander IV, the mint meant when it wrote the name on coins--if indeed the mint really had a clear notion itself. There is a fashion in coin cataloguing lately to attribute the posthumous coinage with the name of Alexander to whomever it seems to have been struck under. That is, I guess, really the more accurate way of doing so, but I suspect his movement is due to salesmanship at least in some degree. After all, which would you rather own a posthumous tetradrachm bearing the name of Alexander or a tetradrachm issued by Demetrius Poliorcetes struck in the name of Alexander?