• 1 Gatier 2014, p. 133-135 and 161; Gatier and Olivier 2015, p. 111-112. Three stone molds produced i (...)

1Weights are used to measure the mass of different products. They reflect the city’s control over the markets through specialized magistrates, the agoranomoi. Official weights can be prepared from metal (bronze and lead) cast in engraved stone or made exceptionally from stone. Lead was mostly used for its specific characteristics, mainly its low fusion point (327.4 °C), great malleability, and low cost. This metal was so vulnerable to the oxidation and corrosion elements that the weights’ mass altered easily. However, this inconvenience was compensated by the short life span of the objects depending on the rotation’s rhythm of the issuing agoranomoi. The production of weights in the Levant followed the Greek civic model (institutions, shape, iconography and epigraphy) that spread at the instigation of the Seleucids.1

• 2 Caquot 1955; Kraay 1968, p. 6-7; Le Rider 2001, p. 257-258 and 272; Doyen 2012; Doyen 2014, p. 266 (...)

2These instruments can be classified into two categories: scale/commercial weights and monetary weights. The latter were used, according to some scholars, for diverse products. Although frequently differentiated in Antiquity, it is sometimes difficult to determine the categories of the found specimens. Nevertheless, scholarly works offer a few distinctive cases. Monetary weights are recorded at Athens, Antioch, the Greek cities of Babylon and Seleucia on the Tigris (under the Parthians), and most likely at Hatra. Their existence at Athens has been concluded from chapter 10 of Aristotle’s Athenaion Politeia. During the first half of the fourth century bc, the Athenian standard of the monetary weight (± 4.30 g, monetary drachm; ± 430 g, monetary mina) is estimated to be about 5 % lighter than the commercial’s (± 4.52 g, commercial drachm; ± 452.5 g, commercial mina). The ratio between both minas has undergone several changes in Hellenistic Greece. A similar figure was recently calculated for Antioch’s monetary mina under Antiochos IV (435 g).2

• 3 Seyrig 1949.
• 4 Files HS 150-II, HS 332 and HS 337.
• 5 Three specimens from the R. P. Karam collection were acquired by the Musée national de Beyrouth.
• 6 Sawaya 2002; Sawaya 2004; Sawaya 2008; Sawaya 2009.
• 7 Augé and Sawaya 2002.
• 8 Kushnir-Stein 2002; Kushnir-Stein 2005; Finkielsztejn 2012; Gatier 2014; Finkielsztejn 2015.
• 9 Gatier 2016.
• 10 Pondera Online, An Online Database of Ancient and Byzantine Weights: https://pondera.uclouvain.be.

3The earlier publications relating to the lead weights of Hellenistic Berytos go back to the beginning of the nineteenth century. They were restricted to the discussion of some isolated specimens, found in clandestine excavations, that entered public and private collections. No attempt was therefore made to establish comprehensive monographies. It is only in the late 1940s that H. Seyrig started the publication of his pioneering analysis (classification, eras, weight standards, typology, interpretation of legends, letters and symbols, etc.) of these objects produced in the Hellenistic and Roman Syrian cities. He also announced a forthcoming part reserved for the Phoenician cities that was never achieved nor published.3 Nevertheless, regarding Berytos, a draft of his corpus with some preliminary conclusions can be found in his unpublished archives at the Cabinet des médailles de la Bibliothèque nationale de France.4 This corpus contained sixteen Hellenistic Berytian weights from public and private collections with the majority, 12 out of 16, located in Beirut (Musée national de Beyrouth: 9; Michel Chiha collection: 2; and American University of Beirut Museum: 1) and the rest in Paris (Cabinet des médailles de la Bibliothèque nationale de France: 2; musée du Louvre: 1; Chandon de Briailles collection: 1, currently not located). Some had photographs, while others were only drawn or were not illustrated at all.5 A few are actually lost or unavailable to consultation, which makes Seyrig’s archives the only evidence of their existence. The exploitation of the Seyrig’s archives regarding Berytos was sporadically made in the early 2000s, mostly by myself in a series of publications on the coinage of this city.6 I was once associated with Chr. Augé in a study of a lead weight found in Beirut excavations.7 Kushnir-Stein published two new specimens that appeared on the antiquity market, and Finkielsztejn and Gatier produced comprehensive studies on the Levant’s weights, including Berytos’ known specimens at the moment.8 The latter scholar published the surviving exemplars at the Musée national de Beyrouth, among which only one from the weights mentioned in Seyrig’s archives.9 Three new weights appeared recently on the antiquity market, two of which entered the Wadih Hadad collection (Beirut). Lately, nineteen of these exemplars entered the collaborative database Pondera Online.10 However, it should be pointed out that the latter is still an active evolutive project and thus subject to many modifications not always accessible to the public. An unfortunate attempt was made to consult the specimens from the M. Chiha collection mentioned in Seyrig’s archives. The photographic archive of the Musée national de Beyrouth suffered a lot of damages during the civil war and their examination in order to verify Seyrig’s readings was almost fruitless.

• 11 Mouterde 1942-1943, p. 23-33; Lauffray 1944-1945, p. 19-25; Mouterde 1949, p. 298; Mouterde and La (...)
• 12 Faraldo Victoria and Curvers 2002.
• 13 Curvers and Stuart 2005.

4The localization of the Hellenistic agora at Berytos has been proposed by R. Mouterde and J. Lauffray based on an inscription found between the port and Bâb es-Sarâya, mentioning Vespasian or Titus, Liber pater and tabernae. They locate it to the South of that site and of Weygand Street, that they identified as the Roman decumanus.11 Lauffray emphasizes the square’s transformation into the ‘forum oriental’ marked as point 11 on his urban layout of Roman Berytos. This area, delimited by the site BEY 031 to the North and the site BEY 113 to the South, has been excavated during the 1990s and has not revealed any ancient vestige. G. Faraldo Victoria and H. Curvers thus express some doubts regarding its interpretation as an open public space that would have belonged to the Oriental forum.12 These hesitations are then reiterated by H. Curvers and B. Stuart at the neighboring site BEY 158, situated due West of BEY 031.13 Three weights of the present corpus were excavated North of the Place des Canons/Place des Martyrs in Beirut. One (no. 3) was recently found in site BEY 002 under the Vieux Sérail/Petit Sérail, bordered to the North by Weygand Street, to the East by el-Shouhada street, to the South by the site BEY 026 and the statue of the Martyrs and to the West by Bechara el-Khoury street. The other two (nos. 16 and 18) were unearthed in an uncertain site to the North of the Vieux Sérail/Petit Sérail. These discoveries allow consequently to restitute a second century bc agora in the area South and/or North of Weygand Street. However, caution is highly recommended regarding its exact location. It still needs confirmation by archaeological excavations since artefacts, in this case an inscription and three weights, are subject to earth transportation during later construction activities.

• 14 Six circular weights are known from the Roman colony of Berytos: Du Mesnil Du Buisson 1926 (also S (...)

6My corpus encloses a total of twenty-three specimens arranged in chronological order.14 All of them are city weights and they are made of cast lead. Their description presents successively the proposed production date, the entry number, the physical shape, the presence or not of suspension loops, the dimensions in millimeters, the mass in grams, the conservation status when available, the previous bibliography, the denomination, the obverse’s type and inscription, the reverse’s type, the name of the agoranomos, the findspot, the previous and actual acquisitions, and the photographic credits. Each instrument is followed by a discussion of the different readings and their interpretations. No use of the Phoenician language is recorded. Eight obverse types are identified (table 1 below).

• 15 Rouvier 1896, p. 384-386.
• 16 Rouvier 1898, p. 445-448; Mouterde 1964, p. 156.
• 17 Roussel 1911, p. 433-434, nos. 1-2, and p. 438.
• 18 Lauffray 1977, p. 141.
• 19 Cohen 2006, p. 206.
• 20 Iossif 2014, p. 71; Lorber 2015, p. 68.

7The minting place can be generally defined through the ethnic and/or the civic types found on the obverse. The use of the ethnic is extremely rare on the weights of Berytos, as usual. It figures only twice, in Greek: ΛΑΟ ΦΟΙ (Laodicea of Phoenicia) and BH. Although unanimously attributed to the Seleucids, the precise reception date of the dynastic name is debated. At first, Rouvier places the name’s change between 203 and 175 under Antiochos III or under one of his sons Seleucos IV (187-175) and Antiochos IV (175-164). He even proposes the year 198 bc, after the Seleucid conquest of Phoenicia, since Antiochos III was the son of Laodice III.15 In a following article, Rouvier acknowledges that this change in the name was made in the honor of a Seleucid princess and may have occurred under Seleucos IV or Antiochos IV. Both of them were sons of Laodice IV, married to a Laodice and respectively fathers of Laodice VI and Laodice VII. Based on numismatic grounds, Rouvier, followed by Mouterde, considers that the refoundation of Berytos as Laodicea took place under Seleucos IV.16 Roussel notices in fact that the new name was used between 187 bc and 166 bc in two inscriptions from Athens and Delos.17 Lauffray thinks that Berytos took the new name after recovering from its destruction by Tryphôn around 145 bc.18 For Cohen, ‘It is not clear who named Berytos. Most likely it was either Seleucos IV or Antiochos IV. Both were sons of a Laodike III, the brothers of Laodike IV; both were married to a Laodike (possibly the same person); furthermore, each was the father of a Laodike’.19 Iossif and Lorber affirm the refoundation by Antiochos IV.20

• 21 Capdetrey 2007, p. 224.
• 22 OGIS 247; Roussel 1911, p. 433-434; Sawaya 2004, p. 110, note 7; Cohen 2006, p. 206.
• 23 The holder gained a certain prominence in the administrative chain. He was the first recipient of (...)

8The latter is known for founding many cities in the scope of a political refoundation of the realm, a confirmation of the royal power, and an administrative reorganization around a civic model (the polis). Most of the times, these actions were nothing but a simple acknowledgement of the civic status for the cities that did not possess it.21 Antiochos IV is therefore our natural suspect for the refoundation of Berytos as Laodicea of Phoenicia. However, the earliest known mention of this Seleucid dynastic name (Λα[οδιχείαι] τῆι ἐν Φοινίχηι) appears in a Delian inscription dedicated to Apollo in 178 bc, under Seleucos IV.22 The latter’s minister, Heliodôros, was honoured in this inscription as companion of the king (σύντροφον) and préposé aux affaires (ἐπὶ τῶν πρα[γμάτων]); the latter office being regarded as the equivalent of a ‘vizir or minister’. He was charged of the Syrian and Mesopotamian regions’ government, which lead to some direct interventions in their administration.23 Emphasizing the honours bestowed on Heliodȏros in the inscription of Delos can be interpreted as a recognition for some direct actions he undertook on behalf of the king for the benefit of Berytos. The grant of the polis status and the name change during or prior to 178 bc could be among them.

• 24 This form is ‘opposed to the verbal form ἀγορανομοῦντος of the Southern Levant’: Finkielsztejn 201 (...)
• 25 See Seyrig 1950b, p. 31-35.
• 26 Rouvier 1897a; Rouvier 1897b.
• 27 Augé and Sawaya 2002. The coin finds from context 427 include one Antiochos III (SC I, no. 1088), (...)
• 28 Rouvier 1898; Rouvier 1899; BMC Phoenicia, p. li; Seyrig 1950a, p. 38; Sawaya 2009, p. 113.

9The office is presented in genitive (ἀγορανόμου) when mentioned on the weights.24 The dates are given in Greek numeral letters respecting the units, tens and hundreds order. They are introduced by the L-shaped sign only used in the regions that were under Lagid domination.25 Only one weight is not dated. The rest offers a large homogenous group, comprising twenty specimens, computed according to the Seleucid era (year 1 = 312/311). The adoption of this era by Berytos was established by Rouvier.26 It is archaeologically confirmed by the discovery of weight no. 3 during the official excavation under the Petit Sérail at the Martyrs square at Beirut (site BEY 002) in context 427, dated to the second century bc by the coin finds and the Hellenistic ceramics.27 Two weights were issued according to Berytos’ local era of autonomy (year 1 = 81/80).28

• 29 See Imhoof-Blumer 1883, p. 452, no. 68.
• 30 See Gatier 2016.

10This weight is only mentioned in Seyrig’s archives who reads LH–[..] on the second line. According to him, the curious word ΠΟΛΕΩΣ is only attested on some coins of Seleucia on the Tigris. On the obverse of the latter, it is inscribed under the form ΠΟΛΙC and associated with the bust of a turreted Tyche.29 It is not mentioned by Gatier.30

• 31 Pondera #1229, 1237, 13903 (Panticapaion), 3375, 3543, 16325 (Cyzicus), 3548, 3595, 14435 (Antioch (...)
• 32 Rouvier 1900, no. 435; Svoronos 1908, nos. 839-840, 1061, 1063 and 1285-1286.
• 33 Sawaya 2019-2020, p. 64-65 with the bibliography of the earlier works and their discussion.
• 34 Sawaya 2004, p. 112 and 134, nos. 2-4; SC II, nos. 1451-1452; Sawaya 2019-2020, p. 68.
• 35 Sawaya 2005; SC II, nos. 1824 and 1952; Sawaya 2019-2020, p. 70-72.

11The trident is depicted on various Hellenistic weights from Asia Minor and Syria: Panticapaion, Cyzicus, Antioch, Heraclea ad Mare, Laodicea ad Mare and some uncertain mints.31 Several unfitting considerations render the attribution of weight no. 1 to either one of them inappropriate: associations with other symbols, ethnics and different typologies. Most importantly, the use of the L-shaped symbol to introduce the date constitutes the irrefutable argument to eliminate the aforementioned cities as production mints and to attribute weight no. 1 to a former Ptolemaic possession. Being an attribute of Poseidon assimilated to the local Baal, the vertical trident (type T1a) is considered as the mint mark on a number of coins ascribed to Berytos under Ptolemy II (282-246, bronzes), Arsinoe II (274/273-270 or 268, gold mnaieia), Ptolemy III (246-222, bronzes), Ptolemy IV (221-204, bronzes) and Ptolemy V (204-180, tetradrachms).32 Among them, only the attribution of the latter’s to Berytos can surely be endorsed since they associate the initials of the city (BH) with the trident or even combines them within a monogram.33 These coins also confirm that the original name of Berytos was still in use on the eve of Antiochos III’s conquest. During the second century bc, this symbol is associated on the coins with the initials of Berytos’ Seleucid dynastic name, ΛΑΟ ΦΟΙ, inscribed in full letters or in a monogram. Consequently, the trident appears as a reverse type, crossed with a rudder and alone in a vertical position, on two municipal bronze coin series struck by the city in the name of Antiochos IV in 169/168.34 It is also used as a mint mark of Berytos, leaning slightly to the left or vertical, on the silver ‘eagle tetradrachms’ issued by Alexander I Balas (151/150, 150/149, 149/148, 147/146 and 146/145) and Demetrios II Nicator (146/145, 145/144 and 144/143).35 The trident is notably associated with the Berytian ethnic ΛΑΟ ΦΟΙ on weight no. 15 (104/103) of the present corpus. It is additionally attested on a couple of weights discovered in Beirut and its region. Weight no. 12 (129/128) was found in the surroundings of the city towards the end of the nineteenth century. Whereas no. 3 (179/178) was unearthed on the archaeological site BEY 002 in down-town Beirut. All of the aforementioned facts leave consequently no doubt regarding the attribution of weight no. 1 to Berytos.

• 36 No. 11 is the only recorded exception in 132/131.
• 37 Pondera #3603, 3639 and 12413 (visited July 24, 2023).
• 38 Pondera #3532, 3539, 3545 and 12076 (visited July 24, 2023). Other weights used the same reverse b (...)
• 39 Pondera #3505 (visited July 24, 2023).
• 40 Pondera #3588, 3601-3602 and 14850 (visited July 24, 2023).
• 41 Pondera #17224 (visited July 24, 2023).

12The interpretation of the date LH[..] (year ..8) in the left field is rather problematic when considered to be limited to the Greek units’ digit. If computed according to the Seleucid era, this year would be equivalent to 305/304 which would be unreasonable to admit since Berytos was not yet under Seleucid control. Its calculation according to the local era of autonomy (year 8 = 74/73) would primarily seem justified by the mention of πόλεως, a genitive singular of πόλις, in the first line. Nevertheless, some technical, typological and ponderal considerations of the late second and first centuries Berytian weights do not fit weight no. 1 (table 1). Inscribing the agoranomos’ name became systematic only after 158/157 at Berytos.36 The latest use of the rectangular shapes is attested in 152/151 (no. 7). Those mentioned for 98/97 (no. 16) and 93/92 (nos. 17-18) are practically square as corroborated by their typology presenting a square inscribed within a square of egg-and-dart pattern. Their ‘rectangular’ measurements can therefore be explained by the presence of some irregularities at the edges originated by the molding process. Berytos adopted a specific typology closely related to the weights’ physical shapes starting from 132/131 at the latest. Accordingly, the type and inscription were systematically enclosed within a linear frame (square or pentagonal) surrounded by egg-and-dart pattern respecting the physical shape of the weights: 132/131 (no. 10), 129/128 (no. 12), 123/122 (no. 13), 119/118 (no. 14), 104/103 (no. 15), 98/97 (no. 16), 93/92 (nos. 17-18), 88/87 (no. 19), 85/84 (no. 20), 74/73 (no. 22), and 64/63 (no. 23). The shape of these instruments became pentagonal during the last four known emissions before and after the autonomy. The lattice pattern, sometimes adorned with the ‘Tanit sign’ (), became regular after 93/92 at the latest. The mina of no. 1 (> 634 g) does not correspond to those of the currently two known weights struck after the autonomy (74/73, no. 22, > 595.20 g; 64/63, no. 23, > 588 g) and the ~40-50 g difference between them is way too enormous to be imputed to the weight’s mass amplification by oxidation. The use of a blank reverse may be attributed to some late North Syrian influence that overwhelmed the weights of Laodicea ad Mare from the 1^st century bc to the first half of the third century ad. However, this practice was not exclusive as many earlier examples can be cited during the third-second centuries bc. As a matter of fact, the latter are recorded earlier at Laodicea ad Mare in 128/127, 116/115 and 106/105.37 Although the lattice pattern dominated at Antioch, blanks are surely encountered in 217/216, 213/212 and 160/159.38 The lattice pattern was also the commonest at Seleucia Pieria, but the blank reverse is attested between the third and second centuries bc.39 The known issues of Heraclea ad Mare present the lattice pattern (117/116 and 108/107) and the blank type (105/104 and 103/102).40 The sole emission of Demetrias ad Mare adopted the latter in 138/137.41 The current corpus undeniably shows that the blank reverse was locally the most preferred among both types (73.3 % against 26,7 %) between 182/181 and 98/97: cf. nos. 2-16. A late North-Syrian influence, from Laodicea ad Mare in particular, is therefore unlikely. Additionally, if that was the case, one would wonder about the reasons why Berytos’ agoranomoi would have been only influenced by the reverse types and not also by the multitude of physical shapes that distinguish the Northern Syrian city’s later weights (circular, triangular, polygonal, etc.).

• 42 The year 108 SE, and earlier, should not be included since it corresponds to 205/204, just before (...)

13These observations, coupled with Seyrig’s restitution of two unidentified Greek numeral letters at the end of the date, LH–[..], the rectangular shape of the weight, the simple raised border, the absence of the linear frame as well as the incompatibility of the weight no. 1’s heavy mina with that of the issues following 152/151 (groups 2-3) induce its attribution to an earlier emission. Consequently, the date (year 8) should be calculated to the Seleucid era and restituted with tens’ and hundreds’ digits in order to fit into the phase that followed the definitive conquest of Phoenicia by Antiochos III in 200-199/198: LH–[IP] (year [11]8, 195/194, under Antiochos III), LH–[KP] (year [12]8, 185/184, under Seleucos IV), LH–[ΛP] (year [13]8, 175/174, under Seleucos IV or Antiochos IV) or LH–[MP] (year [14]8, 165/164, under Antiochos IV).42

• 43 If my dating of weight no. 1 is correct, Berytos would then be, in the current state of knowledge, (...)
• 44 See Yon and Aliquot 2016, no. 1.

14With the aforementioned exclusion of a possible relation with the autonomy declaration, the mention of πόλεως and the start of the agoranomic activities at Berytos can be linked to its refoundation as a polis under its new dynastic name Laodicea of Canaan/Laodicea of Phoenicia. As the latter is attested in the inscription of Delos from 179/178 (OGIS 247), the exceptional mention of πόλεως should then be alluding to this event and excluding the production of weight no. 1 during the years [13]8 and [14]8 (175/174 and 165/164). Year [11]8 (195/194) should also be discarded since no agoranomic activity is known under Antiochos III. This leaves the year [12]8 (185/184) as the most likely date for the production of weight no. 1.43 Therefore, Berytos could have been refounded as Laodicea of Canaan/Laodicea of Phoenicia and have received the status of polis sometime between 187, the beginning of Seleucos IV’s reign, and 185/184. Byblos was probably granted the same civic status during this period, as attested in an inscription from 178 bc found in this city.44 The royal action regarding Berytos would not thus be isolated. It would rather seem to emanate from a general program regarding the organization of Phoenicia and Koile-Syria, in which Heliodȏros undertook a substantial part.

• 45 See Gatier 2014, p. 156.
• 46 Sawaya 2004, p. 138-139, nos. 95-104 (SC II, no. 1827); Sawaya 2019-2020, p. 73 (SC II, no. -).
• 47 Sawaya 2002; Sawaya 2009, p. 23-25, nos. 1-46, suppl. 13, 49-69 and 134-135, as well as p. 27-28, (...)

15The L-shaped symbol introducing the date induces to classify the production mint in the regions that were under Lagid domination in Phoenicia or the Southern Levant, notably a coastal city in accordance with the obverse’s type. The cities of the Southern Levant can be excluded for two reasons. First, their emblems were rare on the weights and rather uninformative regarding the identity of the issuing mint.45 Second, their weight’s obverses do not present the linear frame enclosing the type and the legend attested on various Hellenistic Phoenician weights attributed to Tripolis, Byblos, Berytos and Tyre. The attribution of the ‘dolphin entwined around a vertical trident’ (type T2a) to Berytos is undoubtable. It appeared on the reverse of the Seleucid municipal bronze coins issued by this city under Alexander I Balas (150/149) and Antiochos VII (136/135-134/133?).46 It is adopted as the main reverse type on the civic coins after the inauguration of autonomy in 81/80-79/78, 79/78, 72/71, 62/61 and 29/28. The ‘dolphin entwined around a horizontal trident’ (type T2b) is even used on the bronze emission’s reverse depicting Octavian on the obverse struck for the first Roman settlers in Berytos (29-27).47

• 48 The slight differences between the dimensions can be related to measurements taken at different po (...)
• 49 See Gatier 2016. No individual photograph of this weight was found in the archives of the Directio (...)

19Weight no. 4 is described (97 × 107 × 21 mm, 1 965 g), drawn and attributed to Berytos by Seyrig in his archives. He thinks that the bigger size of the epsilon (E) is probably the result of a correction in the mold to replace a former letter. He interprets M^–Γas μ(ηνὸς) γ´, i. e. ‘month 3’. By considering the disposition of the trident vertical, he reads without discussing the four letters inscribed on the bevelled sides as follows: Λ (above), H (to left), H (to right), ᴎ (retrograde N, below). After entering the collection of Shraga Qedar (1973-1983), the same weight with slightly different taken measurements (95 × 106 × 26 mm, 1 935 g) appeared on the antiquity market in the Auction Münz Zentrum that attributed it to an unknown Phoenician mint.48 The editor of this auction describes this weight as follows: two Phoenician letters gimmel yod (?, g and Y?) to the left of the trident oriented vertically, as well as, to the right of it in three lines, ‘signs’ successively above a ‘heiliger Stein’ (holy/sacred stone) and a Greek zeta (Z). This instrument was on display at the Musée national de Beyrouth before being lost during the Lebanese civil war (1975-1990) as Gatier did not find it when he published the collection.49 Its photograph recently found in Seyrig’s archives leaves no doubt about its identification with the weight from Auction Münz Zentrum.

• 50 Seleucia Pieria: see most recently Gatier 1991, p. 434-440. Antioch: Babelon and Blanchet 1895, no (...)

21The arguments for the attribution of weights nos. 1 and 3 to Berytos are also valid for no. 4 (type T1b). The four letters on the edges are not discussed by the previous commentators. Although it is difficult to precise because of the four possible starting points for reading, I believe that they form the initials/abbreviation of the agoranomos’ name (HNHΛ). Such case would not be so exceptional since it has already been recorded on some weights from Seleucia Pieria (106/105) and Antioch (65/64?).50

• 51 Gatier 2016, p. 251, no. 541; Pondera #11867-11870, 15076 and 17341-17343 (visited May 9, 2023).
• 52 Dunand and Duru 1962, p. 175; Gubel 1986; Elayi and Elayi 1997, nos. 392-294 and 396; Wolff and Fi (...)
• 53 Finkielsztejn 2016, p. 8-9, no. 2.

23The L-shaped symbol introducing the date links the weight to the Phoenician and Southern Levant regions. The prow’s type is attributed to Tyre on many square and circular weights.51 Instead of the trident, some of them are associated on the obverse with Nike, a quiver or a stern.52 However, dating weight no. 5 according to the Seleucid era excludes its attribution to the Southern Phoenician mint. This era is associated with a prow on a weight, found among the shipwreck of ʿAtlit, on which the trident is lacking.53 Berytos is therefore the appropriate mint to issue no. 5. The use of the trident as a mint mark at Berytos is fully discussed above (no. 1). Its association with a prow (type T3) should not be surprising as both are attributes of Poseidon, who was worshiped in this city as the local Baal.

• 54 Gatier 2016.

24This weight is only known from Seyrig’s archives in which it is assigned to Berytos. Seyrig does not find it when he consults the collection in June 1967. Nor is it mentioned by Gatier.54 The attribution of the obverse’s type (T2b) to Berytos is examined above (no. 2).

• 55 Pondera #12071 (visited May 8, 2023). The weight in question would have been issued by Gabala beca (...)
• 56 Pondera #11865 (year 171 or 181, 142/141 or 132/131), 11872 (between years 161-169, 152/151-144/14 (...)
• 57 Pondera #11867-11870, 15076 and 17341-17343 [visited November 7, 2023].
• 58 Two minas are identified at Tyre: 465 g and 750 g, with the latter attested in 169/168 (Doyen 2014 (...)

35Despite the fact that the galley only seems to be encountered at Tyre,55 objects nos. 8-9 cannot be classified as coming from this mint for substantial arguments. The Berytian galley type is dated according to the Seleucid era, while the Tyrian is issued according to the local autonomy era. The use of the Seleucid era is restricted to the club type at Tyre.56 Dates are extremely rare on the Tyrian galley’s prow type.57 The legend is almost inexistant at the latter mint, where it is generally limited to the date, whilst that of Berytos is much more developed, presenting the office and the agoranomos’ name. The masses of nos. 8-9 do not correspond to the contemporary Tyrian minas,58 but they fit in the Berytian group 2’s mina. Therefore, albeit the galley’s type (type 4) did not occur on Berytos’ weights before, this city would be the perfect candidate for its production as its Hellenistic coinage and most of its weights express its devotion for the local Baal as Poseidon, including the galley’s prow (type T3) of weight no. 5 in 155/154.

• 59 Le Rider 1995; Houghton and Lorber 2000-2002. Recent coin finds from Beirut excavations showed tha (...)
• 60 Sawaya 2004, p. 115; Sawaya 2005, p. 118-119.

36Issued in the year following no. 7, the mina produced by Dôrotheos looks anomalous compared to the ‘four-year rhythm’, if any intentional, presently recorded at Berytos under Demetrios I. This emission may have had a political reason, as silver tetradrachms and municipal bronze coins were struck in this city in the name Alexander I Balas during the same year. As a matter of fact, the latter adopted the measures taken by Antiochos III extending the circulation of Ptolemaic gold and silver coins in Phoenicia and Coele-Syria.59 In addition, he started the production of the Seleucid silver ‘eagle’ coins following the Phoenician-Ptolemaic standard in Berytos, Sidon, Tyre, and Ake-Ptolemais, immediately after the conquest of Phoenicia and Coele Syria in 151/150.60 It is therefore likely that Berytos was the subject of some administrative changes in the context of the reorganization undertaken by Alexander I Balas, among which was the nomination of Dôrotheos as agoranomos for the year 151/150.

• 61 See Gatier 2016.
• 62 See Sawaya 2004, p. 138, no. 2.
• 63 Two minas are identified at Tyre: 465 g and 750 g, with the latter attested in 169/168 (Doyen 2014 (...)

40Only known by Seyrig’s archives, this weight is not mentioned by Gatier when he studies the collection of the Musée national de Beyrouth.61 Seyrig interprets the letter eta (H) at the end of the first line as ‘month 8’. He attributes the object to Berytos on the basis of the agoranomos’ name, Nikôn, shared with the weight no. 12. As argued above (no. 2), the L-shaped symbol introducing the date coupled with a naval device within a linear frame links weight no. 13 to a Phoenician mint. Tripolis (pilei of the Dioscuri) and Byblos (Isis head-dress, double cornucopia) can be excluded for their different civic emblems. The use of the Seleucid era does not fit with Tyre’s types of the prow and the galley. This leaves Berytos as the issuing mint of the weight. Such classification can be confirmed by the following arguments. The rudder (type T5) fits naturally to a coastal city and is even associated with the trident as the reverse type of a municipal coin series struck by Berytos under Antiochos IV.62 The agoranomos’ anthroponym appear exclusively on Berytian weights. The weight’s mina corresponds to Berytos (group 2) and not to Tyre.63

• 64 See Seyrig 1949, p. 45 and 48 (= 1985, p. 375 and 378); Finkielsztejn 2014a, p. 75 and 79; Gatier (...)
• 65 Dunand 1950-1958, p. 74-75, no. 7175, and plate CLXXXV, no. 7175.
• 66 This weight is described in an additional handwritten note to Babelon and Blanchet 1895 (no. 2248a (...)
• 67 Walters 1899, p. 361, no. 3010.
• 68 Pondera #1895 (visited April 14, 2023).
• 69 Pondera #14506 (Antioch, visited March 12, 2022), 11495 and 14264 (unclassified, visited March 12, (...)
• 70 Cf. above, note 63.

43All the aforementioned arguments regarding the attribution to Berytos are legitimate and one cannot but subscribe to them (type T6). The anchor is the Seleucid emblem and is mostly attested on a multitude of weights from Northern Syria (mainly royal, Antioch, Seleucia Pieria and Laodicea ad Mare) only with an unornamented salient border or without any border at all.64 Byblos is the sole Phoenician city to which the anchor is surely assigned, as one bronze weight was found there during the excavations of Maurice Dunand.65 However, it was combined with a caduceus and an unornamented salient border. The anchor figures alone without any border on another bronze weight said to have been found in Byblos, and acquired by Seyrig before entering the collection of the Cabinet des médailles de la Bibliothèque nationale de France (R.4472).66 The anchor depicted within an unornamented salient border is also attested on a bronze weight ‘found in Sidon’ and assigned to this city.67 This object is presently attributed to a North Syrian mint in Pondera.68 Therefore, the absence of the egg-and-dart pattern and the different styles of anchors exclude Byblos’ and Sidon’s candidacies from producing weight no. 14. In fact, the extensive accessible database of Pondera counts sixty-four specimens, comprising the present, adorned with the egg-and-dart pattern. With the exception of one specimen issued at Antioch and five not classified,69 most of them are attributed to Tyre, and on a lower scale to Berytos. Among these exceptions, the anchor appears on one weight from an unidentified mint (Pondera #12411) only as a secondary symbol associated with a caduceus, an amphora and a palm. The anchor is certainly not Berytos’ civic emblem. Its absence from the city’s different Hellenistic coinages undeniably proves it. But, and for the same reasons, neither is it Tyre’s. The dolphin entwined around a trident is a well-established Berytian civic emblem (types T1a-T1b). As asserted by the previous scholars, its association with the anchor is a close reminder of the former type. This fact can be confirmed by the mass of weight no. 14, which does not correspond to Tyre’s minas70 while fitting well in Berytos’ group 2.

• 71 Sawaya 2009, p. 23-25 and 27, nos. 1-46, suppl. 13, 49-69 and 133-135.
• 72 Eusebius of Caesarea, I, 10, 14 and I, 10,3-5; Lipiński 1995, p. 120-121. See notably Augé and Lin (...)

45The reasons for all the discrepancies in Seyrig’s reading, particularly regarding the date and omitting the ever-present L-shaped symbol introducing it, are not understood. He erroneously considers both of the proposed dates as equivalent to 104/103. In order to figure it out, I have recently requested from the Michel Chiha Foundation the photos of this weight, but have not received any answer. However, Seyrig emphasizes on dating the weight to 104/103 in a third document, ‘Laodicée-Béryte liste des monuments datés’ from his File HS 150-II. This leaves less doubts regarding the dating and comes in favor of the reading LΘΣ (year 209) instead of ΑΚΣ (year 221). The association of the trident with the Dioscuri’s caps (type T1c) is recorded on the reverse of Berytos’ civic bronze coins issued after the inauguration of the autonomy (in 81/80-79/78, 79/78, 72/71, 62/61 and 29/28).71 It can be related to the city’s mythical foundation when, as stated by Philo of Byblos, Kronos gave Berytos to Poseidon and the Cabiri, who Eusebius of Caesarea confused with the Dioscuri.72

• 74 See also Mouterde 1964, p. 156: event dated shortly after 111 bc.
• 75 Tyre inscribed them on the coins struck in its mint since 142/141 under Demetrios II: Seyrig 1950b (...)
• 76 Sawaya 2004, p. 124-126 and 143; Sawaya 2005; Sawaya 2009, p. 23-27 and 159-182.
• 77 Sawaya 2005, p. 97. To become inviolable, a city must first be consecrated to a divinity by the ki (...)

47This inscription should be placed in the context of the struggle over the region that broke up in 114/113 between Antiochos VIII and his half-brother Antiochos IX. The former is described as ‘savior’ and ‘benefactor’ of the city and must have saved it from the threat of his rival. In addition, he must have bestowed the honors of ‘sacred/consecrated and asyle/inviolable’ on Berytos towards 110/109 in order to consolidate the city’s loyalty to him.74 The reception of these titles is generally celebrated on the coins of the beneficiary city.75 However, they are not recorded on either Berytian municipal emissions produced in the name of this king in 117/116-114/113 (?), nor on the civic coinage of Berytos before and after its autonomy struck between 102/101 and 29/28.76 No trace of them is even encountered on the weights issued afterwards. It can thus be concluded that the ‘consecration’ and the ‘inviolability’ claimed by Berytos, if ever recognized by other states and sanctuaries as it should to be validated, did not survive the reign of Antiochos VIII that ended in 97/96.77

• 78 See Gatier 2016.

48This weight is only known by Seyrig’s archives: L εισ´ | [τοῦ to right] (above), ἀγορα[ν](όμου) (below). The L-shaped symbol has an acute angle. Seyrig mentions that the agoranomos’ name and the design are erased, without clarifying if that was the result of a deliberate act, accidental or just worn out. However, the photographs reveal that the latter was the case. The nu is considered illegible by him, but is nevertheless visible on the weight’s drawing and photograph. This weight is presently lost and not mentioned by Gatier.78

• 79 Gatier 2014, p. 150.

49Its discovery in Beirut, to the North of the Petit Sérail at the place des Canons, and the inscription’s formula with the office at the end are surely the main reasons for Seyrig’s attribution to Berytos. He notes that possible attributions to Tyre and Sidon should be excluded because the inscribed Seleucid year 215 would then have exceeded their autonomy eras, respectively starting in the Seleucid years 187 and 202. In fact, computing year 215 according to the eras of Tyre and Sidon would date the weight to ad 89/90 or ad 104/105, which does not fit to its Hellenistic aspect. Gatier has recently pointed out that only locally produced weights are discovered during official archaeological excavations in ʿAmrit-Marathos, Jebleh-Gabala, Jbeil-Byblos, Beirut-Berytos and Maresha. He consequently stresses, contrary to a certain misconception, that weights did not generally travel far from their minting places, even in port sites where it may have been expected to encounter foreign ones.79 Acknowledging Gatier’s conclusion, I consider the findspot as the main argument for assigning no. 16 to Berytos. This can be corroborated, as argued above (nos. 1-2, 8-9), by two Phoenician and particularly Berytian weights’ characteristics: the enclosure of the type and legend within a linear square frame surrounded by an egg-and-dart pattern, and the dating according to the Seleucid era.

• 80 Gatier 2014, p. 155, considers that this sign symbolizes the city of Tyre, although not attested o (...)
• 81 Gatier 2016.

51Dain reads Ἀτάμονος (Atamôn), and a delta (Δ) at the end of the last line of the Louvre’s specimen (no. 17), and attributes it to Syria in general. Seyrig attributes both weights to Berytos, but as for no. 16 in accordance with the discovery of no. 18 in Beirut and the legend’s formula. He distinguishes Δάμονος (Damôn) and an alpha (A) on both exemplars. Kushnir-Stein accepts the attribution of no. 17 to Berytos. She thinks that the ^– indicates the delta as a digit equivalent to a quarter mina. Finkielsztejn considers this weight’s mint attribution as problematic since its reverse, with the ‘Tanit sign’ on the lattice pattern, is typical to the weights of Tyre.80 He follows Seyrig with the alpha reading. The instrument no. 18 is presently lost as Gatier does not record it.81

• 82 Sawaya 2004, 135 and 137, nos. 16, 27, 60-64 and 69, p. 138, nos. 92-94; Sawaya 2009, p. 162-163, (...)
• 83 Sawaya 2008, p. 64, 69-70, 72-73, nos. 2-3, 73-81, 111-114 and 117 (the aphlaston is not sure on t (...)

53As argued above (no. 16), the findspot, along with the use of the Seleucid era and the presence of the linear square frame within a square of egg-and-dart pattern, is decisive regarding the Berytian origin of weights nos. 17-18. The cornucopia is not an attribute of Baal Berytos-Poseidon. However, this object is related to Tyche, assimilated to Astarte in Hellenistic and Roman Phoenicia. Here, she is frequently depicted as a city-goddess, with a turreted headdress and a cornucopia, alongside maritime features. The appearance of Astarte on the reverse of the municipal coins of Berytos goes back to 169/168-164 during the reign of Antiochos IV and shows her standing on a prow while leaning with her left arm on a rudder. This type figures also on coins issued under Alexander I Balas in 150/149.82 Astarte holds additionally an aphlaston in her right hand on some of Berytos’ bronze civic issues before and after the autonomy: 102/101-97/96, after 97/96, 87/86-82/81, and without the aphlaston in 79/78.83 At first glance, the vertical cornucopia (type T7) may seem to refer to the city-goddess Tyche as it regularly accompanies her, in particular on civic coins of the Levant. However, her assimilation with the Phoenician Astarte, the mistress of the seas, does not make type 7 contradicting with the maritime typological repertoire of the Berytian weights in the users’ minds. The thorough inspection of the photographs undeniably shows that the upper inclined bars stop at the base line of the last letter of the last line, forming consequently a clear delta on both specimens.

• 84 See Gatier 2016.
• 85 Sawaya 2008; Sawaya 2009, p. 23-27.
• 86 Seyrig 1949, p. 39-40, nos. 1-4, and p. 45, nos. 1-5 (= 1985, p. 369-370, nos. 1-4, and p. 375, no (...)
• 87 Doyen 2014, p. 267-268.

57It is recorded in Seyrig’s archives, attributed to Berytos and dated to an undetermined period. Seyrig does not precise the metal’s nature of weight. The obverse letters are edited Βη(ρυτίων). It is not mentioned by Gatier in his publication of the Musée national de Beyrouth’s collection.84 The initials BH recall a period during which the dynastic Seleucid name was abandoned by the city. The comparison with the local civic coinage allows to insert this phase after 97/96 all through the first century until 29/28.85 As it is undated, no. 21 can be assigned to 84/83-82/81, after no. 20 (85/84) and before the autonomy. Similar undated square bronze weights from Antioch and Seleucia Pieria present only the ethnic associated most of the time with a denomination: δίμνουν, μνᾶ, ἡμιμναῖον, τέταρτον and ὄγδουν.86 Those inscribed τέταρτον weigh approximately the same as no. 21, which suggests the latter as a quarter mina produced according to a ~428 g standard. This fact remarkably recalls the ‘silver mina’ (435 g) identified by Ch. Doyen at Antioch under Antiochos IV.87

• 88 I am grateful to Charles Doyen for drawing my attention to this specimen.

58The editor at the Bibliothèque nationale de France considers this weight as Phoenician, reads T-H/O-Δ/O-ΡO, and describes a naiskos with a pediment at the obverse. The edition, description, mint attribution and dating by Pondera are all adopted here.88 In fact, the physical shape, the obverse’s frame associated with the egg-and-dart pattern, the standard and the legend’s formula without the office fit all with the last Berytian issues. The date (year 8) cannot be computed according to the Seleucid era since its corresponding year is 305/304, under Ptolemy I, but to the era of Berytos starting in 81/80 (74/73). The ear of wheat was not a civic symbol of Berytos. It may be linked with the poliad deity Tyche-Astarte, dispenser of good fortune, welfare, prosperity, and subsequently abondance.

• 89 Babelon and Blanchet 1895, additional page to p. 692, no. 2264f.

60Three main physical shapes are recorded. The probable earliest weight was rectangular (185/184?, no. 1). Weights nos. 2-3, issued in 182/181 and 179/178, were squared. The rectangular aspect is adopted in the following years: 158/157, 155/154, and 152/151 (nos. 4-5 and 7). The square shared the latter emission with the rectangle (no. 6), before dominating the subsequent years: 151/150, 132/131, 129/128, 123/122, 119/118, 104/103, 98/97, and 93/92 (nos. 8-18). This shape is also recorded in 84/83-82/81 (no. 21). Some of these are technically rectangular since a few millimeters differentiate their sides’ dimensions. This was the result of the casting process’ imprecision on nos. 3 and 16-18 as proven by the square frame containing the types and legends on the last three specimens. The latest weights are mostly pentagonal (also called gable-shaped89), with a square base topped by a triangle, a shape attested in the years 88/87, 85/84, 74/73, and 64/63 (nos. 19-20 and 22-23). Bevelling the edges is not common and is only recorded on three specimens produced in 185/184 (?) (no. 1), 158/157 (no. 4), and 132/131 (no. 11). The suspension loop appears firstly in 182/181 before becoming almost regular between 132/131, and 64/63 (nos. 2, 10, 13-14, 16-20, 22, and likely 23).

• 90 Gatier 2014, p. 138, finds that weight no. 2 resembles the Greek weights from the classical period (...)

61The majority of the weights have thick simple or mostly decorated projecting borders, except on three specimens. Although the raised simple rectangular border appeared on the probable earliest known weight (185/184?, no. 1), the square egg-and-dart pattern is attested in 182/181 (no. 2). No border was used in 179/178 (no. 3).90 The raised simple border took over in the 150s bc successively with its rectangular (nos. 4-5 and 7) and square (nos. 6 and 8-9) shapes. The egg-and-dart became the almost regular ornament of the borders from the year 132/131 onwards (nos. 10, 12-19 and 22-23), only to be replaced in 85/84 by the semi circles and lattice patterns, respectively on the inner and external sides of the border (no. 20). The border in not encountered on two specimens from 132/131 (no. 11) and 84/83-82/81 (no. 21). All the weights with decorated projecting borders are coupled with a simple form-fitting frame enclosing the types and legends: simple square (nos. 2, 8-10 and 12-18) and simple pentagon (nos. 19-20 and 22). This setting is lacking on the rest of the exemplars, notably those without borders (nos. 3, 11 and 21) and those with simple projecting borders (nos. 1 and 4-7).

• 91 Seyrig 1949, p. 72 (= 1985, p. 402).

62The reverse presents two main types. The earliest is blank on no. 1 from 185/184 (?). It was replaced by the lattice pattern, a framework of diagonally crossed lines also called ‘cross-hatched surface’ and ‘network of lozenges’. It ornamented the weight of 182/181 (no. 2) before being dropped in favor of the blank type from 179/178 to 151/150 (nos. 3-7 and 9). The latter is generally the most frequently adopted reverse type in Berytos and is also recorded in 132/131, 129/128, 123/122, 104/103, 98/97 and 84/83-82/81 (nos. 11-13, 15-16 and 21). This series is broken at intervals by the lattice pattern in 151/150, 132/131, 119/118, 93/92, 88/87, 85/84, 74/73, and 64/63 (nos. 8, 10, 14, 17-20, and 22-23). The lattice pattern is always associated with the egg-and-dart pattern on the obverse, and exceptionally with the ‘Tanit sign’ () on the reverse of three specimens from 93/92 and 88/87 (nos. 17-19). Seyrig links this reverse ornament with the prevention against altering the weights’ mass by trimming.91

• 92 The mina is a principal division of the Semitic and Greek ponderal systems whose mass differs from (...)
• 93 Gatier 2014, p. 154.
• 94 Finkielsztejn 2015, p. 94 and 97-98.
• 95 Finkielsztejn 2015, p. 64, nos. 36-40, and p. 66, nos. 55-55 (Arados), as well as p. 72, no. 96, a (...)

63A series of Greek letters and a few monograms occur in the field of seventeen weights. Those recorded on nos. 6 and 15 refer clearly to their denominations, with the letters MNA indicating the mina unit (μνᾶ),92 a value corroborated by the weights’ masses (542 g and 545 g). On no. 15, these letters are even preceded by an alpha and could be read A MNA (one mina). Other specimens associate the letter M to a symbol in a monogram (M^ν, nos. 3 and 5; Μ^–, no. 14), to a symbol in a monogram followed by a letter (M^– Γ, no. 4), to a letter (ΜΖ, no. 7; ΜΑ, nos. 8-9) or to a letter with a symbol in a monogram (MH῀, no. 11). The example of no. 3 (quarter mina) accredits Gatier’s hypothesis that the mu followed by a sign should be considered as a mark of the subdivision (half and quarter) of a mina.93 However, the case of no. 5 shows that this monogram can also indicate a full mina. Therefore, the distinction between both cases depends on the weight’s mass. The relevant mass of each of the aforementioned objects (no. 5, 476.20 g [510 g]; nos. 8-9, 512.50 g and 558 g; no. 14, 522.20 g) confirms consequently M^ν, MA and Μ^– as one mina signs. Weight no. 4 presents an exceptional denomination (originally 1 965 g). The combination between the inscription Μ^– Γ and the mass of this weight points to a three minas value. According to Finkielsztejn,94 such heavy denominations were generally rare towards the mid-second century BC, since they are generally recorded late in this century. Arados and Marathos offer the main examples of two minas from Phoenicia.95 The mu followed by a zeta (MZ) designates on weight no. 7 a half-mina denomination for the same reasons mentioned for no. 4.

• 96 Finkielsztejn 2007, p. 44; Finkielsztejn 2015, p. 89, table 19, nos. 126-128.
• 97 See Doyen 2014, p. 289; Finkielsztejn 2014b, p. 166.

66Based on the above discussion, an undeniable relation can be confirmed between these letters and the masses of the weights. This fact induces the recognition of a binary ponderal system of 1:1 (MNA, MA, M^ν and M^–, mina), 1:2 (MZ, half mina), 1:4 (M^ν and Δ^–, quarter mina), 1:8 (H and H῀, eighth mina) and 1:16 (ƑI, sixteenth of mina). The letter M can also be used for introducing fractions (M^ν for a quarter and MH῀ for an eighth) and an exceptional multiple (M^– Γ for three mina). A similar system is also recorded on some Tyrian scale weights inscribed with an alpha (1), a delta (4), and a Phoenician ḥet (8), respectively indicating the mina, quarter mina and eighth mina denominations.96 This binary ponderal system fits well with the one recorded in Syria and the Southern Levant under Antiochos IV.97

• 98 Seyrig 1949; Finkielsztejn 2014a, p. 62-64; Gatier 2014, p. 134.

67The weights are issued according to four different standards and constitute four groups. Most of them are chronologically well defined by their sure dates of production. Some scholars have already warned about the questions of the lead’s mass alteration during modern cleaning (reduction) and of its oxidation and transformation into hydrocarbonate (increase).98 Therefore, the following proposals of the theoretical ponderal standards must be seen in relative perspective.

• 99 Several minas are determined in Syria based on much smaller samples, for instance: ‘Six rough grou (...)

68The earliest, group 1 (table 2), stretching from Seleucos IV Philopator to Demetrios I Sôter and containing 4 specimens (185/184?, 182/181, 179/178 and 158/157),99 used the heaviest mina: nos. 2 (one mina; 1 × 631.95 g = ~632 g), 3 (quarter mina; 4 × 163.40 = 653 g) and 4 (three minas; 1935 ÷ 3 = 645 g / 1965 ÷ 3 = 655 g). The actual mass of no. 3 is 148.10 g after cleaning. This would mean that it was produced in correspondence to a mina of 592.40 g (4 × 148.10 g). However, its original mass was 163.40 g before the intensive electrolytical cleaning intervention which reduced its mass. The original mass is therefore adopted to calculate its approximate standard. The value of the mina according to which no. 1, a half mina, was issued is around 634 g (2 × 317 g) and thus justify its classification into group 1. This group’s mina could therefore be valued at an average of 643.65 g (~650 g).

• 100 Seyrig 1949, p. 74-76 (= 1985, p. 404-406); Finkielsztejn 2007, p. 37, considers among Seyrig’s da (...)
• 101 Finkielsztejn 2007, p. 40; Doyen 2014, p. 278, 284-289 and 294-295; Finkielsztejn 2015, p. 80. The (...)
• 102 For the value of the tetradrachms under Seleucos IV and Antiochos IV, see Hoover and Iossif 2008.
• 103 Le Rider 1995, p. 396-404; Houghton and Lorber 2000-2002. For the weight of the Ptolemaic drachm, (...)
• 104 Seyrig 1949, p. 52, no. 2 (= 1985, p. 382, no. 2); Doyen 2014, p. 295 and note 76 (IG II², 1013); (...)
• 105 For the value of the royal mina, see Finkielsztejn 2014a, p. 79, nos. 43-46, and Finkielsztejn 201 (...)
• 106 Doyen 2014, p. 278; Finkielsztejn 2015, p. 92, table 22, no. 147.
• 107 Situation also globally described for Phoenicia by Finkielsztejn 2007, p. 42.

69No parallel to this ‘heavy’ mina, nor to the three minas of no. 4, is encountered among the Northern Syria’s third-and-second-centuries bc civic and royal weights. In fact, Seyrig has identified in this region a 500-550 g mina at Antioch and Seleucia Pieria during these centuries.100 This system was structured under Seleucos IV (mina of 500 g) and reformed by Antiochos IV (mina of 556.8 g). The latter’s actions were respected in the Southern Levant, where the mina was then based on 128 Attic drachms, corresponding to about 50 sheqels of ~11.13 g.101 Evidently, these calculations were based on the theoretical weight of the Attic drachm (4.35 g × 128). However, if the effective weights of the tetradrachms under Seleucos IV and the early years of Antiochos IV are taken into account, the mina of 556.8 g would then correspond to 130.39-131 drachms of 4.25-4.27 g. Calculated according to the drachms of Antiochos IV’s series 2-3 at Antioch (after 173/172 and after 169/168), this mina would be equivalent to 133.52-134.16 drachms of 4.15-4.17 g.102 If this line of reasoning is followed, the mina of Berytos’ group 1 would be equivalent to 148 theoretical Attic drachms, 150.80-151.51 Attic drachms after 173/172, and 154.41-155.16 Attic drachms after 169/168. The local sheqel would then be ~12.87 g. However, one should not ignore that Antiochos III tolerated the exclusive circulation of Ptolemaic gold and silver coins in Phoenicia and Coele Syria after their conquest. From a monetary point of view, he consequently isolated these regions from the rest of the Seleucid kingdom where the Attic standard ruled. Such politics allowed the gain generated by the exchange rates between Attic (tetradrachms of 17.20 g) and Ptolemaic (tetradrachms of 14.26 g) coins to enter the Seleucid treasury whereas it previously went to the Ptolemaic one.103 If such measures were also applied to the ponderal system of Berytos, its mina would then be worth ~180 Ptolemaic drachms (3.56 g × 180 = ~640.8 g mina). Similar heavy minas of 652.50 g, ~643 g, 658 g and 645 g are respectively recorded in Athens (end of second century bc), Laodicea-ad-Mare (106/105), Arados (end of second century bc), and Byblos (end of second-first century bc).104 No direct link can be detected between these and the Berytian weights for chronological—they date from between fifty and eighty years after Berytos’ group 1—and geographical reasons. Even the royal weight standard of the mina was not followed by this city through the whole reign of Antiochos IV (519 g) and at least during the first five years of Demetrios I’s (516 g and 536.8 g).105 Tyre also had a different epichoric mina (465 g) as well as a heavier one in 169/168 (750 g).106 Therefore, Berytos was not the only Phoenician city to use a different weight standard.107 What was the origin of its local standard used under Seleucos IV, Antiochos IV and in the early years of Demetrios I (185/184-158/157)? Undoubtedly, it was not Seleucid, and the lack of Berytian weights from the reigns of Antiochos IV (175-164) and Antiochos V (164-162) does not help to resolve this problem.

• 108 Based on only three weights, Finkielsztejn 2007, p. 45, identified at Berytos a standard of 550 g (...)
• 109 Finkielsztejn 2007, p. 40-41 and 51; Finkielsztejn 2010, p. 184; Finkielsztejn 2012, p. 133 and 13 (...)
• 110 Finkielsztejn 2014a, p. 73, nos. 24-26.
• 111 Gatier 1986, p. 375-378; Finkielsztejn 2014a, p. 73, nos. 32; Finkielsztejn 2015, p. 69, table 8, (...)

70Group 2 (table 3) includes twelve weights stretching over fifty-seven years, from the beginning of the second half of Demetrios I Sôter’s reign to the last years of Antiochos VIII Epiphanes: 155/154, 152/151, 151/150, 132/131, 129/128, 123/122, 119/118, 104/103, and 98/97. It is produced with a lighter mina (510-558 g) than group 1. No. 5 is a mina from 155/154 in a bad condition presenting some cracks on the obverse. Its actual mass, 476.20 g, deteriorated from the 510 g Seyrig weighed during the 1960s. Its initial value should therefore be higher than 510 g (1 × 510 g). Nos. 6-7 were issued in the same year, 152/151. The former is a mina (1 × 542 g) with an unknown state of preservation, but it is heavier than the badly-preserved no. 5. No. 7 is a very worn half mina with an actual mass of 210.80 g, making its mina 421.60 g. Earlier weighing in the nineteenth century gave a mass of 273 g, which indicates a mina equivalent to its contemporary no. 6 (2 × 273 = 546 g). Nos. 8 and 9 are two minas issued in the same year, 151/150. Both are in a good condition but the former was chopped twice, which explains the discrepancy between their masses and their respective standards (no. 8: 1 × 512.50 = 512.50 g; no. 9: 1 × 558 = 558 g). No. 10 is a very well-preserved quarter mina produced in 132/131 according to a mina of 522.60 g (4 × 130.65 g). The eighth mina from the same year (no. 11) is surely overweight with its 89 g. This would make its standard weighs 712 g, and would largely exceed the one fixed for the same year by no. 10. By contrast, the eighth mina no. 12 from 129/128 is underweight, giving a mina of 446.40 g (8 × 55.80 g). Therefore, it is more logical to consider the eighth mina no. 13 (8 × 66 g), issued 123/122, as the closest to the real mass of this denomination. Both nos. 12-13 have missing, or almost missing, loops. Consequently, they follow a mina of more than 528 g (8 × 66 g). Mina no. 14 from 119/118 is complete with its bent and not missing loop (522.20 g). Despite its bad preservation, mina no. 15 is the third heaviest of group 2 (104/103, 545 g). No. 16 is a quarter mina, with an almost missing loop, produced in 98/97. Its mass reveals a mina of 536 g (4 × 134 g). According to the theoretical weight of the Attic drachma at this time, the mina’s value would be ~550 g (4.35 g × 128 drachms) based on fifty sheqels of 11 g.108 This mina recalls the standard established by Antiochos IV after 169/168 bc following its administrative, monetary and ponderal reforms. Antioch (167/166 and 166/165) and the Southern Levant adopted it for their civic weights.109 Demetrios I used it for his royal weights in 161/160-150/149 (516 g and 536.8 g), as it was the case of the civic weights of Seleucia Pieria in 159/158 and 158/157 (528 g, 506 g and 516 g).110 It is also occasionally attested at Laodicea-ad-Mare, Marathos and Tyre but the dates cannot be determined.111 As a result, the reform of Antiochos IV took almost a decade and a half to knock on Berytos’ door. Calculated according to the Ptolemaic drachma of 3.56 g, the new ‘light’ mina (~550 g) would be equivalent to ~150 drachms (3.56 g × ~154.5 drachms), i. e. 30 Ptolemaic drachms less than the mina of group 1.

• 112 This evaluation is roughly based on the average weight of the tetradrachm at Antioch under Seleuco (...)
• 113 See Finkielsztejn 2014a, p. 71.
• 114 See Finkielsztejn 2014a, p. 70, as well as p. 73, no. 21, and p. 74, no. 41.

71Group 3 (table 4) includes six items stretching from the year 93/92 until 64/63. All of them have the particularity of being fractions presenting a quarter (nos. 17-18 and 23), an eighth (no. 19 and 22) and an exceptional sixteenth (no. 20) of a mina weighing between 555.60 g and 596 g. The significant discrepancy between the masses of both quarter minas issued in 93/92 (nos. 17-18), respectively 138.90 g and 149 g (minas of 555.60 g and 596 g), can be explained by their different dimensions. The eighth mina no. 19 from 88/87 weighs 73.50 g, corresponding to a mina of 588 g. The exceptional sixteenth mina no. 20 is a complete exemplar issued in 85/84 that gives a mina of 583 g (16 × 36.44 g). Although it was perforated to install a loop, the eighth mina of 74/73 (no. 22) is in a very good condition and suggests thus a mina of more than 595.20 g (8 × 74.40 g). The no. 23 is a quarter mina produced in 64/63, equating to a mina of 588 g (4 × 147 g). The group 3’s minas, with an average of 584.30 g, are lighter than those of group 1 but heavier than those of group 2. Their standard could be fixed at ~600 g. Calculated according to the theoretical Attic drachma of 4.35 g, the mina of group 3 would be equivalent to 134.32 drachms, corresponding to 50 sheqels of ~11.68 g. If it is computed according to the drachm of ~3.91 g recorded early in the first century bc at the royal mint of Antioch,112 this mina would be valued to 149.43 drachms. Nonetheless, the new mina stands at halfway between those of groups 1-2: theoretical ~650 g, ~600 g and ~550 g. Its earliest closest standard can be traced back to Athens (607.50 g). The latter was replaced by another of 652.50 g towards the end of the second century bc,113 similar to Berytos’ group 1 mina. It could also be compared to a mina of 571.50 g recorded in 187/186 at Seleucia Pieria. The Athenian mina of 607.50 g is also recorded at Heraclea ad Mare in 108/107,114 at least a decade and a half before Berytos’ switch in 93/92, or a bit earlier, from a ~550 g to a ~600 g mina. Therefore, group 3’s mina cannot be compared to any contemporary standard in Northern Syria, Phoenicia and the Southern Levant bestowing on it, as on group 1, rather an ‘epichoric’ character at that time.

• 115 See Sawaya 2008, p. 89.

72Group 4 is restricted to weight no. 21, a well-preserved quarter mina issued after a lighter mina (4 × 107 = 428 g). It would therefore have been produced according to a monetary mina around a quarter lighter (~28.66 %) than the contemporary ~600 g commercial mina. This fact would correspond to the recorded decrease in the mass of the denomination 1 of Berytos’ civic bronze coinage dropping from ~6.50-7 g to ~4-4.50 g (~30-35 %) during the phase 102/101-82/81.115

• 116 Caillemer 1969; Rostovtseff 1989, p. 437; Capdetrey and Hasenohr 2012b; Oliver 2012.

73Agoranomoi were nominated each year in the Greek cities to maintain the infrastructure of the agora; to make sure of respecting the city’s regulations as well as of the use of the weights, measures and local coins; to keep order, justice and security; to ensure sufficient supply and control the prices during the commercial transactions; and to collect taxes. Their number can vary from a city to another.116

• 117 This order has already been deduced by Kushnir-Stein 2005, p. 18*. However, Finkielsztejn 2012, p. (...)

75Only one agoranomos is recorded per year at the mint of Berytos (table 1). The name is generally given following the legend’s formula ‘date, name and office’,117 recorded on 12 specimens: nos. 5 (155/154), 6-7 (152/151), 10 (132/131), 12 (129/128), 13 (123/122), 14 (119/118), 16 (98/97), 17-18 (93/92) and 19 (88/87). This formula was not observed on the earliest known weights nos. 1 (185/184?, no office and no name), 2 (182/181, no office), 3 (179/178, no office and no name) and 4 (158/157, no office and a name). Therefore, the administrative decision that established the legend’s formula must have been taken sometime between 158/157 and 155/154, or on the occasion of the latter if there really was no emission/s separating them. This formula is not respected five times in the following issues. The order between the name and the office is inverted twice, in 151/150 (nos. 8-9) and 104/103 (no. 15). The office is not mentioned in 85/84 (no. 20), 74/73 (no. 22) and 64/63 (no. 23). The whole formula is missing twice, in 132/131 (no. 11) and 84/83-82/81 (no. 21).

• 118 Agoranomoi’s names appeared in Northern Syria on the weights of Antioch, without mentioning the of (...)
• 119 Iossif 2011, p. 217. See SC II, nos. 1835-1837, 1959-1963, 1965, 1967, 2107-2110, and 2195-2197.
• 120 See Rouvier 1903, nos. 1946-1994.
• 121 See SC II, nos. 1955-1957, 2101-2103, and 2187.

76The current corpus allows to identify ten anthroponyms of agoranomoi for at least thirteen emissions. Seven of them appear in only one emission: Mentôr (no. 2; 182/181), ΗΝΗΛ? (no. 4; 158/157), Zenodotos (no. 5, 155/154), Dôrotheos (nos. 8-9, 151/150), Damôn (nos. 17-18, 93/92), Diotimos (no. 20, 85/84), and Theodôros (no. 22, 74/73). Mentôr is the earliest agoranomos yet recorded in Phoenicia and the Southern Levant.118 His weight follows the model of the early Syrian issues by not mentioning the office. Dionysios (nos. 6-7, 10 and 23, 152/151, 132/131 and 64/63), and Gorgias (nos. 14-15 and 19, 119/118, 104/103 and 88/87) are each encountered in three emissions, whilst Nikôn appears in two (nos. 12-13, 129/128 and 123/122). Their recurrence may merely be explained as homonyms for different individuals. However, probable reappointments in office should not be discarded. In fact, the Seleucid silver coinage struck at Tyre presents examples of control marks for magistrates operating regularly or intermittently for a long period spanning between eighteen and twenty-five years (151/150 and 126/125).119 Some of them were even reconducted in office after the autonomy (126/125-107/106),120 totalizing thus a career spanning over twenty-five to thirty-five years. The longest sequence at Sidon was however much shorter by comparison to Tyre, with nine times spread over eighteen years (145/144-128/127).121 Sixty-eight to eighty-eight years separate Dionysios, the responsible for the weight no. 23 issued in 64/63, from his former homonyms. Consequently, they cannot designate the same person. The agoranomos’ name is not inscribed on four issues in 185/184? (no. 1), 179/178 (no. 3), 132/131 (no. 11) and 84/3-82/81 (no. 21). It is erased on no. 16 produced in 98/97.

• 122 Finkielsztejn 2014b, p. 177.
• 123 Rostovtseff 1989, p. 318, 366 and 940-942; Finkielsztejn 2003, p. 472; Finkielsztejn 2004, p. 247- (...)

77Rostovtseff thinks that the Seleucid administration had a department of weights and measures that issued the royal weights and controlled those produced by at least the greater cities’ municipal magistrates. Primarily, Finkielsztejn suspects a possible direct royal intervention in the agoranomic magistracy because of the pure Greco-Macedonian onomastic in most of the mints, notably on Maresha’s sekoma from 143/142. Nevertheless, he afterward asserts that this magistrature was completely a local activity despite the circulation of the weights in a larger area, mainly the Central and Southern Levant. For Finkielsztejn, this fact is reflected by the systematic absence of the weight’s value that had to be essentially recognized by the locals. The administration of trade was thus, according to him, entrusted to the local authorities in order to keep it efficient. He also thinks that, in the Levant, it is most probable that only the local agoranomoi were able to easily manipulate the traditional standards and that their Greek names ‘dissimulent, remplaçent ou traduisent des noms locaux, souvent théophores122’. Capdetrey considers that the association of an Idumean and a Greco-Macedonian as agoranomoi on the Maresha sekoma in 143/142 would suggest a double administration of weights and measures in this city at the same time: royal and local.123

• 124 Lexicon of Greek personal names online by the University of Oxford (https://www.lgpn.ox.ac.uk), I, (...)
• 125 For the coins of ʿAynel see recently Elayi and Elayi 2014, p. 234-297, nos. 886-1473.
• 126 Finkielsztejn 2007, p. 38; Finkielsztejn 2010, p. 179.
• 127 Reinach 1883, p. 467-472, nos. 1-6, and p. 473-474, nos. 1-2.
• 128 Roussel 1911, p. 433, no. 1 (IG II, 968).
• 129 I.Délos, 2593.
• 130 I.Delphes, III 2, 24.
• 131 I.Délos, 2598; IG II, 469 IV.
• 132 IG II, 470, II.
• 133 I.Délos, 2599.
• 134 Roussel 1911, p. 434, no. 4.
• 135 Roussel 1911, p. 434, no. 5.
• 136 Clermont-Ganneau 1888, p. 103, no. 2; Mouterde 1964, p. 161.

78The onomastic shows that most of the Berytian agoranomoi’s names have origins from a vast Greek-speaking region stretching a least from Greece (mainland and islands) to coastal Asia Minor.124 The probable name HNHΛ of weight no. 4 may conceal behind it the Phoenician anthroponym ʿAynal (ʿYNʾL) known from the fourth century bc on the coins of the king of Byblos.125 Such case is rather rare but not impossible as agoranomoi’s Semitic names can be recognized at Maresha.126 Despite the rarity of the latter names, the bulk should not belong to royal agents but to local magistrates adopting Greek names. This is what can be concluded from several inscriptions, from the city’s region as well as mainland Greece and the Islands, in which citizens of Berytos are known under Greek anthroponyms. Some of these are even encountered on the local scale weights—Dionysios, Gorgias and Nikôn being the commonest. The inscriptions from the Berytian Poseidoniasts’ sanctuary at Delos delivered some names of the koinon’s chiefs and benefactors: Mnaseas son of Dionysios, Apollodôros son of Apollophanes, Dionysios son of Sosipatros, and Gnomenos.127 Hierôn son of Gorgias is cited among the Panathenaic victors at Athens between 168/167 and 164/163.128 The latter anthroponym figures in the Delian ephebic list in 144/143.129 Nikôn son of Alexis is mentioned as paidotribe at Delphi in 128.130 The ephebic lists cite Nikôn, Dionysios and Gorgias at Delos as well as Nicomedes son of Nicomedes at Athens in 119/118.131 They mention Zênôn son of Irenaios and Galerios son of Agathônos at Athens in 107/106.132 An uncomplete name is attested on the Delian ephebic list of 105/104-103/102: […]enaios.133 Another Gorgias son of Dionysios is inscribed on a funerary stele from Rheneia,134 near Delos. Zênôn son of Militiados is mentioned in a second century bc inscription from Kos.135 A certain Dionysios son of Gorgias is recorded as ‘prêtre en second’ in an inscription from Imperial times found in the sanctuary of Baal Marqod at Deir el-Qalʿa near Beit Meri.136

• 137 Yon and Aliquot 2016, nos. 142, 149, 150, 201, 202, 426 and 447.
• 138 Gatier 2016, no. 562.
• 139 Cooke 1903, nos. 33-35; KAI, nos. 53 and 60; Masson 1969; Gibson 1982, nos. 40-44; Millar 1983, p. (...)
• 140 Millar 1983, p. 62 and 67; Apicella and Briquel-Chatonnet 2015, p. 12.

79These inscriptions confirm therefore the adoption of Greek names by Berytian citizens without being Seleucid officials. Such practice is not exceptional in Phoenicia. Several agoranomoi’s names from the present corpus are even attested for Sidonian citizens in Hellenistic and imperial inscriptions from Kos, Sidon and its region as well as from undetermined provenances: Mentôr, Dionysios, Dôrotheos, Nikôn and Diotimos.137 Dionysios is additionally found on a circular seal probably from Ras el-ʿAin at Baalbek.138 Some Phoenician citizens equated their names in both Greek and Phoenician on a number of inscriptions.139 Among them, Diotimos is restituted as Abdalonymos.140