ІНТЕРПРЕТАЦІЯ ПОВТОРЮВАНИХ МОНЕТНИХ СКОРОЧЕНЬ (МОНОГРАМ): ДО ЗАВЕРШЕННЯ ДИСКУСІЇ
INTERPRETATION OF RECURRENT COIN ABBREVIATIONS (MONOGRAMS): TO THE COMPLETION OF THE DISCUSSION

Summary/Abstract: The purpose of the article is to investigate the patterns and causes behind the appearance of repeated abbreviations (monograms) found on various and/or identical series of coins, and to bring closure to a scholarly debate that emerged in the final quarter of the 20th century between prominent Ukrainian numismatists P. O. Karyshkovsky and V. O. Anokhin regarding the interpretation of this phenomenon. Overall, the article is a direct continuation of theoretical research into coin legends (letters, abbreviations, ligatures, monograms) from the Classical and Hellenistic Olbia. The study is based on standard scholarly methods, particularly systemic analysis, combined with the author’s own research developments. Notably, the article applies prosopographical tools recently introduced by the author, including prosopography proper, professional and hereditary transmission of monograms, and the synthesis of numismatic typologies with prosopographical interpretations, grounded in the reconstructed eponym chronology of Olbia. The uniqueness of the article’s objective lies in the fact that Olbia Pontica currently provides the most developed prosopographical framework, anchored in the synchronization of the eponym catalogue IOSPE I² 201. The aim is achieved by proposing an addition to the typological classification of ancient coinage —specifically, the identification of various groups and types of coins across a wide chronological range that belong to a single elite family, followed by an analysis of their abbreviations (monograms). This enables a more detailed examination of both coin circulation and inter-family relations, as well as broader historical processes. Scientific novelty. Based on Olbian coinage, the study advances our understanding of the patterns governing repeated monograms. Unlike earlier scholars who proposed onomastic interpretations devoid of historical context, this article presents, for the first time, prosopographical (historical) interpretations of a group of Olbian monograms from the Classical and Hellenistic periods, all linked to a single elite family. This article also puts an end to the debate that arose in the last quarter of the last century between P. O. Karyshkovsky and V. O. Anokhin on the interpretation of repeated abbreviations (monograms). Main results of the research. 1. The previously proposed interpretation of repeated monograms as manifestations of the ancient tradition of hereditary naming—usually from grandfather to grandson—is confirmed. 2. Hereditary transmission can span more than two generations, as seen in the inheritance of the monogram ΚΡΙ. 3. Some monograms, such as ΑΘΗ→ΑΘ, were inherited in non-consecutive generations (grandfather → grandson → great-greatgrandson). 4. Coin monograms could be inherited not only in coin legends but also in inscriptions, e.g. the silver monograms ΑΓΑ and ΧΑΙΡ (280–270 BC) reappear in decree IOlb 28+29+123+IOSPE I² 240 (215 BC), honoring sons of Apollonios and in the eponymous list IOSPE I² 201. 5. Inheritance may be recorded in diverse sources; for instance, the monogram ΣΙ appears across generations on both silver coins and an agoranomic stamp. 6. In some cases, simplification of monograms within a single year is observed, such as ΔΙΟ→ΔΙ on “Borysthenes” coin no. 36 (277 BC). 7. The examples illustrate the diversity in how the ancient tradition of hereditary naming was realized. 8. Dozens of examples of hereditary transmission of Olbian coin abbreviations (monograms) are well known. The core tradition of hereditary names is likely key in forming repeated monograms. 9. During the scholarly careers of P O. Karyshkovsky and V. O. Anokhin, information about the tradition of inheritance had not yet become part of academic knowledge. Accordingly, in addressing the issue of recurring abbreviations (monograms), P. O. Karyshkovsky relied on scholarly intuition and factual evidence. V. O. Anokhin interpreted the recurrence of certain abbreviations (monograms) as something that could not belong to eponyms and instead indicated the repeated participation of magistrates in coinage. The scholar made two serious mistakes in this thesis, which later had critical consequences. First, V. O. Anokhin was unaware that, due to a fundamental tradition of the ancient world – hereditary succession – repeated eponym names were an extremely common phenomenon. Examples of dozens of repeated eponym names from Olbia, Miletus, and Rhodes are provided in our articles and monographs. Second, owing to another fundamental tradition of the ancient world – the holding of a magistrate’s office chronologically close to that of an eponym – repeated magistrate names were also regular occurrences. Some repeated magistrate names belonging to the same family are cited even in this article. Thus, by ignoring the ancient tradition of hereditary name succession (or, more precisely, by being unaware of its existence) and the ancient tradition of holding a magistrate’s office chronologically close to that of the eponym, V. O. Anokhin treated recurring abbreviations as belonging to a single individual. This particular error proved critical: the return of magistrates to office (in Anokhin’s interpretation) could chronologically occur only within a single generation (no more than 30 years). On this basis, V. O. Anokhin was compelled to significantly narrow the chronology of the “Borysthenes” coinage and to support his reconstruction with a fantastical scheme in which six magistrates simultaneously participated in the minting of the “Borysthenes”. 10. This misconception, along with others, led V. O. Anokhin to develop a flawed chronological system for the minting of “Borysthenes” coins (310–280 BC instead of 330–217 BC with significant interruptions). 11. An addition to the typological classification of ancient coins is proposed: the identification, within a broad chronological range, of various groups and types of coins associated with a single elite family. This approach helps to explain the appearance of recurring abbreviations (monograms) and provides a solid basis for a more detailed analysis of both monetary circulation and the relationships among families, as well as the historical process as a whole. 12. A specific finding concerns the Nikeratus: from the 4th to 2nd centuries BC, they used several monograms (ΚΡΙ, ΝΙ, ΑΡΙ), with simplifications like ΑΡΙ → ΑΡ occurring both initially and upon inheritance. 13. Following the end of “Borysthenes” minting (220–217 BC), families like the Nikeratus and Pantakles-Kleombrots may have issued silver coins (ΚΡΙ, ΝΙ, ΚΛΕ, ΣΙ) to support depreciated “Borysthenes” coinage or as a concurrent emission. 14. Due to a lack of archaeological context, it remains unresolved whether counterweights with inscriptions ΚΡΙΤΟΒΟΥ, ΚΡΙΤ refer to Kritoboulos of the mid4th c. BC or his descendant; paleographic dating spans 350–200 BC. 15. Given the complexity of Olbian numismatic processes, the hypotheses proposed are preliminary and aimed at gradually refining interpretations through systematic analysis. The perspective of further research. The study confirms the potential of further research based on elite family structures and supports the development of a new typological classification model for ancient coins in Olbia and beyond.

• Details
• Contents