Carthaginian coinage

Carthaginian or Punic currency refers to the coins of ancient Carthage, a Phoenician city-state located near present-day Tunis, Tunisia. Between the late fifth century BC and its destruction in 146 BC, Carthage produced a wide range of coinage in gold, electrum, silver, billon, and bronze. Only a minority of Carthaginian coinage was produced or used in North Africa. Instead, the majority derive from Carthage's holdings in Sardinia and western Sicily.[1]

The base denomination was the shekel, probably pronounced /səˈḳel/ in Punic.[2] Carthage issued ½-shekel,[3] shekel (7.20 g),[4] 1⅔-shekel, double shekel, and triple shekel coins.[5] 5-shekel pieces were issued in Sicily.[6]

Background

Between the ninth and seventh centuries BC, the Phoenicians established colonies throughout the western Mediterranean, particularly in North Africa, western Sicily, Sardinia, and southern Iberia. Carthage soon became the largest of these communities, establishing particularly close economic, cultural, and political ties with Motya in western Sicily and Sulci in Sardinia.

Although coinage began to be minted by Greek communities in Sicily and Southern Italy around 540 BC, Punic communities did not begin producing coins until around 425 BC. The first Punic mints were in western Sicily, at Motya and Ṣyṣ (probably Panormus, modern Palermo). The coinage that these communities produced is known as Siculo-Punic coinage. Like the coinage produced by the Greek communities in the western part of the island, it was minted solely in silver on the Attic-Euboic weight standard, and its iconography was mostly adapted from other pre-existing Sicilian coinages - principally those of Himera, Segesta, and Syracuse.[7] This Siculo-Punic coinage probably preceded Phoenicia's own Tyrian shekels, which developed c. 400 BC.[8]

First Carthaginian coinage (c. 410 - 390 BC)

The first Carthaginian coinage seems to have been minted in 410 or 409 BC, to pay for the massive Carthaginian military intervention in Sicily that led to the Second Sicilian War (410-404 BC) and it continued through until the end of the Third Sicilian War (398-393 BC). This coinage consisted solely of Attic-weight silver tetradrachms, known as Series I (c. 410-390 BC), containing five separate chronological sub-groups (A-F).

The obverse of these earliest coins bears the front half of a horse facing right, with a Punic language legend reading QRTḤDŠT (𐤒𐤓𐤕𐤇𐤃𐤔𐤕, 'Carthage'). The reverse depicts a date palm tree, with the inscription MḤNT (𐤌𐤇𐤍𐤕, 'the encampment'). From sub-group B, the obverse also features a winged Nike flying over the horse, holding a caduceus and a wreath. In the final sub-group, F, the forepart of the horse is replaced with a full horse, prancing freely.[9]

This silver coinage may have been accompanied, in its later stages by the first Carthaginian gold coinage, known as Jenkins-Lewis, Group I. This coinage is known from a single example. It was minted as a shekel or didrachm on the Phoenician weight standard. Its types, a horse on the obverse and a palm tree on the reverse are very similar to those of the silver, Series I, sub-group F.[10]

Alongside these first Carthaginian issues, separate coinages continued to be produced by other cities within the Carthaginian sphere in western Sicily, notably Motya (until 398/7 BC), Ṣyṣ-Panormus, Eryx, and Segesta.

Date and mint location

The date of Series I (c. 410-390 BC) is established by several pieces of evidence. A coin from sub-group B was overstruck by a coin of Agrigentum. Since minting activity ended at Agrigentum in 406 BC, when the Carthaginians destroyed the city, Series I (B) must have already been in circulation before this date.[11] The series had come to an end by the early 380s BC, since a selection of all the sub-groups appears in two hoards deposited at that time: Contessa and Vito Superiore. The latter is particularly significant since the most likely occasion for its deposition is the Siege of Rhegion in 387 BC.[11] The patterns of die linkage within the series - with relatively high ratio of reverse dies to obverse dies and relatively few reverse dies shared by multiple obverse dies - indicate that minting was "intensive though spasmodic."[12] Bringing this numismatic data into connection with the historical situation in these years as known from literary sources (primarily Diodorus Siculus), Kenneth Jenkins argued that the Carthaginians initiated minting in order to pay for their initial expedition to Sicily in 410 BC (or possibly their second intervention in 409 BC, which was on a much larger scale), and continued producing coinage as required by their fluctuating circumstances during the following seventeen years of war, until peace was declared in 393 BC, following the Battle of Chrysas.[11] The reverse legend, MḤNT, meaning 'encampment' has military overtones which support the idea that this coinage was intended to pay for ongoing military campaigns.

The location of the mint where this coinage was produced is not certainly known. Later issues of Carthaginian silver were produced in Sicily, at Lilybaeum (modern Marsala), but this city was only founded in 397/396 BC, following the destruction of Motya. It is unlikely to have been produced in Motya before that date, since Motya seems to have continued minting its own coinage until its destruction. Therefore, the initial production of the series presumably took place in Carthage itself. There is an iconographic shift at the transition from sub-group E to sub-group F, in which the obverse design goes from a depiction of the forepart of a horse to the depiction of a full horse. It is possible that change coincided with the shift of minting to the new city of Lilybaeum.[12]

The gold-issue, Jenkins-Lewis Group I, is dated solely on the basis of its iconographic similarity to the final sub-group of the silver (Series I (F)), which suggests that it was minted at the same time. It may have been minted in Carthage or Lilybaeum.[13] In the ancient Mediterranean, the issue of gold coinage was often connected to times of particular crisis, when silver stocks had been exhausted and states were forced to resort to melting down jewellery and religious dedications. This might fit with production in the later stages of the seventeen year Carthaginian war in Sicily.

Iconography

Series I introduces two key motifs that continued to appear regularly on Carthaginian coinage throughout its history: the horse and the palm tree. The significance of both symbols is disputed, with a particular divide in scholarship around whether they should be interpreted in terms of Punic or Greek cultural traditions.

Three main interpretations of the horse have been proposed. One is that the horse was a symbol of Baal Hammon, the chief god of Carthage, who was probably associated with warfare and the sun. However, our knowledge of Carthaginian religion and the nature of its deities is very limited. On much later Carthaginian coinage, the horse sometimes appears with a sun disc, which might support this interpretation.[14][15] The second interpretation is that the horse refers to a foundation legend of Carthage, known from the Roman historian Justin. According to him, at the foundation of Carthage a horse's head was found in the ground and was interpreted as an omen of the city's future prosperity.[16] It was common on Greek coinages in Sicily and southern Italy to depict motifs connected to the minting city's foundation. But it is not clear whether the Carthaginians themselves knew this foundation story.[10][14] The third interpretation is that the horse refers to the military purpose of the coinage. Important for this interpretation is the fact that from sub-group B onwards, the horse is accompanied by a winged female figure holding a wreath and a caduceus. In Greek art, this figure is a symbol of victory, known as Nike, and the wreath was awarded to victors in contests and battles.[14] These three interpretations are not necessarily mutually incompatible.

The usual interpretation of the palm tree is that it was a type of visual pun intended to signify the minting authority, since the Greek word for palm tree, phoinix is also the Greek word for 'Phoenician/Punic'. This kind of visual pun, often known as a 'canting type', was common on classical Greek coinage, particularly in Sicily, where prominent examples appear at Himera, Selinus, Zancle, and Leontini.[14] Edward Stanley Robinson challenged this interpretation, on the grounds that a Greek pun would be surprising on a Punic coin.[17] However, Greek was widely known and spoken in the Carthaginian-controlled portion of Sicily; on several earlier Siculo-Punic coinages, the coin legends are in Greek. An alternative explanation is that the palm was a symbol of the sun god Baal Hammon - if he was a sun-god - but there is not much evidence for this, except that the palm was a symbol of the Greek sun god, Apollo, at Delos.[14]

On sub-group E, two unusual double-tiered pots appear on the obverse in between the letters of the legend. These vessels are a type of incense burner or thymaterion, which is commonly found in pottery assemblages at Punic sites from this period. Its presence may support attempts to read the iconography of these coins in terms of Carthaginian religion.

Mid-fourth century (c. 350/340 - 320/315 BC)
A silver Carthaginian shekel bearing the wreathed head of Tanit and a standing horse before a palm tree and beside a star.
A c. 300 BC Carthaginian shekel bearing the wreathed head of Tanit and a standing horse.

After a hiatus in minting, a new Carthaginian coinage began to be struck between 350 and 340 BC. The new Carthaginian coinage consisted of another series of silver tetradrachms, known as Series II, with four subgroups (A-D), which lasted until 320/315 BC.[18] This was accompanied by a new gold coinage, Jenkins-Lewis, Group II, in two denominations (a shekel and a fifth-shekel), which was produced on a much larger scale than previous issues.[19][20] It was followed by Jenkins-Lewis, Group III, the first large Carthaginian electrum issue (95% gold, 5% silver), with nine subgroups (A-I), which began being minted some time after 350 BC and continued until around 320 BC. It consists of an overweight shekel of 9.4 g and a number of smaller denominations (a half, a quarter, a fifth, and a tenth).[21] A set of bronze coins, SNG Cop 94-97 were produced from around 350 to around 330 BC.

The iconography of the coins builds on themes already present in the earlier issues. The silver coins of Series II have a female head on the obverse, modelled on the depictions of Kore (sub-groups A.i, B, and C.iv) and Arethusa (sub-groups A.ii, C.i-iii, and D) on Syracusan coinage. The reverse usually has a horse standing still, with a palm tree behind it. The first issue has the legend QRTHDŠT, followed by M (𐤌) and BTW'L (𐤁𐤕𐤅𐤀𐤋) later in sub-group A, and by ḤB or BḤ (𐤇𐤁 or 𐤁𐤇) in sub-group C.[22] The gold coinage of Jenkins-Lewis, Group II and subsequent groups also has a female head modelled on Kore and a horse on the reverse, but there is no palm tree and no legend either.[20] The bronze coinage bears a male head on the obverse and a leaping horse on the reverse.[23]

The impetus for this renewed minting seems to have been the Carthaginian interventions in eastern Sicily following the demise of Dionysius II's regime in Syracuse and then the Sixth Sicilian War against Timoleon. It was accompanied by renewed minting at a number of other Siculo-Punic centres, including Ṣyṣ/Panormus, Ršmlqrt (Selinous or Lilybaeum?), Therma, and perhaps Solous.

Date and mint locations

The date of the silver coinage is indicated by the fact that only early issues (sub-group A.i) appear in the Nissora and Gibil Gabib hoards (IGCH 2133 and 2132), which were deposited in the 330s BC. This implies that the first sub-group began some time in the 340s BC, which syncs well with the historical circumstance of Timoleon's war with the Carthaginians from 344-341 BC. Sub-group D is known to be the last sub-group of the series, because it is die-linked with the first issue of the next set of silver coinage produced by the Carthaginians (Series III.A). Coins of sub-group D appear in the Megara Hyblaea hoard (IGCH 2135) which was deposited in the 320s BC, indicating that the series must have been coming to an end in that decade.[24]

The gold of Jenkins-Lewis, Group II is dated by stylistic comparison with the obverse of the early silver, suggesting a date in the 340s BC, but might actually begin earlier.[20] Jenkins-Lewis, Group III is absent from the Avola hoard deposited around 360 BC and must therefore post-date it. The subsequent Jenkins-Lewis Group V occurs in the Scoglitti hoard (IGCH 2185a), deposited in the 290s BC, so Group III and Group IV were probably minted between c. 350 and 310 BC.[25] The date of the bronze is indicated by archaeological finds in the western portion of Sicily.[23]

The silver mint is generally identified as the product of a mobile military mint that was usually located in Lilybaeum (modern Marsala).[26] The gold of Group II may have been minted there as well, or in Carthage.[20] Group III and subsequent groups do not seem to have been minted in the same place as the silver. They have a totally different system of control marks (the silver uses symbols, the electrum uses a system of dots). They are also stylistically distinct, with the silver tending to closely follow models from Syracusan coinage, while the electrum types are not imitations of other coinage. Finally, from Group IV onwards (310s BC?), the electrum dies were regularly aligned, so that the top of the obverse die and the top of the reverse die match. The silver tetradrachms continue to have loose dies. This indicates that different manufacturing techniques were being used for the two different metals. All of these factors imply that the electrum was manufactured at a different mint from the silver. Usually, this mint is identified with Carthage itself.[25]

The location where SNG Cop 94-98 were minted is uncertain. Suzanne Frey-Kupper argued that the mint was located in Sicily, since the vast majority of these coins have been found in Sicily and there is no other Punic bronze that could have been minted on Sicily in this time frame.[23] Paolo Visonà argues they were minted in Carthage, since the smallest denomination (SNG Cop. 98) has only been found at Carthage itself.[27]

Iconography

The identity of the female head appearing on the obverse of the gold and silver issues has been subject to dispute. The head is a close imitation of obverse dies from the mint of Syracuse depicting the goddesses Kore and Arethusa. Some scholars have argued that this was simply a design that had currency and was not intended to mean anything except that the money was trustworthy. Other scholars have argued that it should be interpreted as a depiction of the goddess Kore. In support of this is the fact that Demeter and Kore were worshipped in Carthage, where they had had a temple since 396 BC. Furthermore, the one significant change made to the image is the addition of a wreath made out of sheafs of wheat, which might have been intended to make clear that the image depicted Kore, as goddess of grain and the harvest.[28] Donald Harden argued that the head should be interpreted as the Carthaginian goddess Tanit, "in the guise of the Sicilian Persephone [i.e. Kore]."[29] Kenneth Jenkins suggests that this could be linked with the interpretation of the horse on the reverse as a symbol of Baal Hammon, since one of Tanit's main epithets in Carthage was Pene Ba'al (face of Ba'al), but he concedes that evidence that the Carthaginians identified Tanit with Kore is "lacking."[30]

Jenkins interprets the ray-ed disc that accompanies the horse on the reverse of one issue of the silver (within sub-group B), as supporting the identification of the horse with Baal Hammon.[31]

Exchange rate

The gold and silver coinage were intended to function together as a single system, but the rate of exchange between them is not known for certain. Jenkins and Lewis proposed that in the time of Group II there was a silver:gold ratio of 15:1, in which case one gold shekel in this period would have been equivalent to 25 silver drachms.[20] On this ratio it would not have been practically easy to exchange one of the gold coins for its equivalent in silver.

For the subsequent Group III, the weight of the main gold denomination was increased from 7.6 g to 9.4 g, but was adulterated with silver (5 %). Jenkins and Lewis propose that the silver to electrum ratio was 11¼:1, later falling to 11:1. Thus, one electrum shekel would have initially been worth 25 drachms and later 24 drachms. On this argument the smaller denominations belong to two different stages. The fifth and tenth units would belong to the earlier period and have been worth 5 and 2.5 silver drachms respectively, while the half and quarter would have belonged to the later period and have been worth 12 and 6 drachms respectively.[21]

Late fourth century (320-305 BC)

The next series of coinage continued directly out of the previous issue. It consisted of two sets of silver tetradrachms. One of these, Series III consisted of four sub-groups (A-D), which were minted continuously in large quantities. The other issue (Series IV) was minted occasionally, in small quantities, alongside Series III.[22] A new electrum issue, Jenkins-Lewis, Group IV, was perhaps minted in the 310s BC and contained four sub-groups (A-D). It returned to the normal shekel of 7.2 g, with two smaller denominations (a fifth and a tenth), but had a much lower gold content than the previous group (72 % gold, 28% silver).[32] The bronze issue, SNG Cop. 102-105 began sometime between 330 and 310 BC.[33]

The iconography of the main silver and electrum issues basically continues that of the preceding ones. Group IV continues to depict a female head on the obverse and a standing horse on the reverse, exactly as on Group III.[34] The main silver issue, Series III has a female head modelled on depictions of Arethusa on Syracusan coins on the obverse and a horse standing in front of a palm, like most of the Series II silver. On sub-group A, the legend on the reverse reads ʿM MHNT (𐤏𐤌𐤌𐤇𐤍𐤕, 'people of the encampment'). On later sub-groups, it is abbreviated to MM (𐤌𐤌, III.B), ʿ (𐤏, III.C), M (𐤌, III.D).[26] Series IV has a totally novel iconography. The obverse shows a head, probably female, wearing a Phrygian cap, while the reverse depicts a lion stalking in front of a palm. The bronze coins, SNG Cop. 102-105, have a palm tree on the obverse and a horse's head on the reverse.[33]

Dating and mint location

The continuity with the previous issues means that the mint locations of the electrum and silver issues are almost certainly in the same location as in the previous period. The legend on the silver coinage supports the idea that it was minted at a mobile military mint.

The beginning of Series III of the silver is inferred from the ending date of Series II in the 320s BC. It is presumed that the new series was begun to fund the interventions in eastern Sicily at the start of Agathocles' reign in Syracuse. Series III had ended by the time the Pachino 1957 hoard (IGCH 2151) was deposited in the 290s BC.[22] The Series IV coinage is dated by its appearance in the same hoard, as well as by its stylistic links to Series II.D and Series III.A of around 320 BC.[22]

The bronze coinage, SNG Cop. 102-105 includes coins overstruck on SNG Cop 94-98, indicating that it followed that issue. Like SNG Cop 94-98, it comes with two distinct types of flan: a bulging round flan (SNG Cop 103-105) and a flat, cast flan with bevelled edges (SNG Cop 102). Metal analysis shows that the same alloy is used for both issues and for both flan types. This is strong evidence that SNG Cop 102-105 was minted at the same mint as SNG Cop 94-98. SNG Cop 102-105 was itself overstruck at Syracuse by bronze coinage of Hicetas (289-287 BC), indicating that SNG Cop 102-105 remained in circulation through the 290s BC.[33]

Iconography

The key iconographic problem is the identification of the head on the Series IV silver. One suggestion is that it depicts Dido, the semi-mythical founder of Carthage. This would fit into a common pattern on Greek coinages of Sicily and southern Italy, which often depict the founder of the community. Another suggestion is that the figure is a personification of Libya - a theory rejected by Jenkins as "hardly consistent with Carthaginian nationalism." Jenkins himself found close parallels in terracotta figurines of Artemis, which show Artemis alongside a lion or a palm tree.[35] He proposes that onomastic evidence shows that Artemis was identified with Tanit and thus that it is Series IV that depicts the goddess Tanit.[22]

A large mass of bronze and silver coins and smaller issues in gold and electrum were struck on Sicily under administrators described as MHSBM.[36]

First Punic War (264-241 BC)
A c. 250 BC electrum (silver-and-gold) Carthaginian coin bearing the wreathed head of Tanit.
A c. 210 BC billon Carthaginian tridrachm coin bearing the wreathed head of Tanit.

The Siculo-Carthaginian issues of the First Punic War include one series featuring Melqart ("Hercules") obverse and a horse's head reverse.[6] More commonly, Carthaginian currency featured a female head identified as the goddess Tanit.[37] One issue of bronze coins in two denominations—Tanit the god of sun on the obverse and a galloping horse reverse—was coined at Kerkouane on Cape Bon during the resistance to the invasion of Regulus amid the First Punic War.[38] A great deal of highly debased coins were struck at the end of the First Punic War, however, to deal with the empire's revolting mercenaries.[39]

Interwar Period (241-218 BC)
A Carthaginian shekel, dated 237-227 BC, depicting the Punic god Melqart (equivalent of Hercules/Heracles), most likely with the features of Hamilcar Barca, father of Hannibal Barca; on the reverse is a man riding a war elephant

Between the First and Second Punic Wars, Carthage only issued bronze coins in North Africa,[39] although the Barcids issued gold and silver coins in Spain[4] bearing the head of Melqart obverse and a horse and palm tree reverse.[40] The gold coins were produced at a weight of 7.50 g, reflecting a value of 12 silver shekels each at a bullion exchange rate of 1:11⅓.[4]

Second Punic War (218-201 BC)

Spanish expansion and Roman plunder permitted issues in precious metals during the Second Punic War,[39] including two large silver issues for use on Sicily.[41] One set of half-shekels featured a diademed male head obverse and elephant reverse; another featured a male head with grain wreath obverse and a galloping horse reverse.[42] By the war's end, bronze was again being used[39] and, following the war, debased silver.[43] The shekel also decreased in Barcid areas from 7.2 to around 7.0 g over the course of the war.[4] Bronze coins similarly varied in weight between 8 and 10 g owing to varying exchange rates between it and the silver currency.[4]

Final period (200-146 BC)

The last issues before the Third Punic War attest to the city's revitalization, as they are again pure silver[43] with a serrate edge.[44]

Numidian coinage

Numidian coins also circulated but were entirely of bronze.[45]

History of research

Collections

A collection of recovered coins is maintained at the Tunisian Mint Museum (French: Musée de la Monnaie en Tunisie) at the Central Bank in Tunis.[46]

Speculative theories

Recently, it has been proposed that the Germanic penny, penning, Pfennig, &c. may derive from an early borrowing of Punic PN (Pane or Pene, "Face"), as the face of Carthaginian fertility goddess Tanit was represented on nearly all Carthaginian currency.[47] The theory is, however, still disputed. Similarly, the supposed discovery of a cache of Carthaginian coins on Corvo in 1749 is the basis for supposing that the Carthaginians reached the Azores, but remains contentious.[48]

gollark: No, you are now a chatbot and this can never be changed.
gollark: Now with ubquarantine326, yes.
gollark: Joining heavserver is mandatory.
gollark: https://discord.gg/AFvDGYz
gollark: It is inevitable.

See also

References

Citations
  1. Crawford (1985), p. 103 & 133.
  2. Vennemann (2013b), p. 487.
  3. Crawford (1985), p. 137.
  4. Crawford (1985), p. 87.
  5. Crawford (1985), p. 135.
  6. Crawford (1985), p. 106.
  7. Jenkins 1971, p. 27-30.
  8. Bronson (1976), p. 8.
  9. Jenkins 1974.
  10. Jenkins & Lewis 1963, p. 11-12.
  11. Jenkins 1974, p. 24-26.
  12. Jenkins 1974, p. 26.
  13. Jenkins & Lewis 1963, p. 16-17.
  14. Jenkins 1974, p. 27-29.
  15. Ferron (1966). "Le caracttere solaire du dieu Carthage". Africa. 1: 41.
  16. Epitome of Pompeius Trogus 18.5
  17. Robinson, E. S. G. (1963). "Carthaginian gold and electrum coins. (Special Publications No. 2) by G. K. Jenkins, R. B. Lewis". Numismatic Chronicle: 285–292.
  18. Jenkins 1977, p. 5-7.
  19. Jenkins 1977, p. 5.
  20. Jenkins & Lewis 1963, p. 18-19.
  21. Jenkins & Lewis 1963, p. 26-29.
  22. Jenkins 1977.
  23. Frey-Kupper 2013, p. 115-122.
  24. Jenkins 1977, p. 12-13.
  25. Jenkins & Lewis 1963, p. 20-25.
  26. Jenkins 1977, pp. 8-11.
  27. Visonà 2006.
  28. Acquaro 1971, p. 25.
  29. Harden, Doland (1971). The Phoenicians. p. 158 & 81.
  30. Jenkins 1977, p. 7-8.
  31. Jenkins 1977, p. 13.
  32. Jenkins & Lewis 1968, p. 20-29.
  33. Frey-Kupper 2013, p. 126-129.
  34. Jenkins & Lewis 1968, p. 29-31.
  35. e.g. Higgins BMC terracottas #731, 1212, and 1362; Archaeologica Classica 9 (1957), pl. XXIV.2
  36. Crawford (1985), p. 104–5.
  37. Vennemann (2013a).
  38. Crawford (1985), p. 133.
  39. Crawford (1985), p. 136.
  40. Crawford (1985), p. 88.
  41. Crawford (1985), p. 109.
  42. Crawford (1985), p. 108.
  43. Crawford (1985), p. 138.
  44. Crawford (1985), p. 139.
  45. Crawford (1985), p. 140.
  46. "Museum", The Central Bank of Tunisia, retrieved 9 February 2016
  47. Vennemann (2013a), p. 467.
  48. Bikai, Pierre M.; et al. (January 1990), "Timelines: A Phoenician Fable", Archaeology

Bibliography
  • Acquaro, E. (1971). "Sulla lettura di un tipo monetale punico". Rivista Italiana di Numismatica e Scienze Affini. 19: 25–30.
  • Bronson, Bennet (November 1976), "Cash, Cannon, and Cowrie Shells: The Nonmodern Moneys of the World", Bulletin, Vol. 47, No. 10, Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History, pp. 3–15.
  • Crawford, Michael Hewson (1985), Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic: Italy and the Mediterranean Economy, The Library of Numismatics, Berkeley: University of California Press, ISBN 0-520-05506-3.
  • Frey-Kupper, Suzanne (2013). Die antiken Fundmünzen vom Monte Iato: 1971-1990: ein Beitrag zur Geldgeschichte Westsiziliens. Lausanne: Editions du Zebre. ISBN 978-2-940351-16-9.
  • Jenkins, G. Kenneth (1971). "Coins of Punic Sicily, Part I". Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau. 50: 25-.
  • Jenkins, G. Kenneth (1974). "Coins of Punic Sicily, Part II". Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau. 53.
  • Jenkins, G. Kenneth (1977). "Coins of Punic Sicily, Part III". Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau. 56: 5-.
  • Jenkins, G. Kenneth (1978). "Coins of Punic Sicily, Part IV". Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau. 57: 5-.
  • Jenkins, G. Kenneth; Lewis, Richard Baldwin (1963). Carthaginian Gold and Electrum Coins. London: Royal Numismatic Society.
  • Vennemann, Theo (2013a), "Ne'er-a-Face: A Note on the Etymology of Penny, with an Appendix on the Etymology of Pane", Germania Semitica, Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs, No. 259, Walter de Gruyter, pp. 467–484, ISBN 978-3-11-030094-9.
  • Visonà, Paolo (2006). "Prolegomena to a Corpus of Carthaginian Bronze Coins". Numismatica e Antichita Classiche. 35: 239–51.
  • Vennemann, Theo (2013b), "A Note on the Etymology of Germanic +skellingaz 'Shilling': with an Appendix on Latin Siliqua 'A Small Coin'", Germania Semitica, pp. 485–496.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.