(Dis)unity in the Archaic monetary systems of the western Chalkidian Apoikiai
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first coins in the Mediterranean world were struck by a number of Lydian and Greek rulers in western Asia Minor sometime around the middle of the 7th century BC in electrum, a manmade alloy of gold and silver. Roughly a century later, around 540-30 BC, poleis in Asia Minor, the Greek mainland, and in the western Mediterranean began to strike coins predominantly in silver; by the end of the 6th century BC hundreds of poleis were producing silver coins. Among the earliest producers of silver coinage were the northern Aegean apoikiai (‘colonies’) of the Euboian poleis of Chalkis and Eretria as well as the metropoleis (‘mother-cities’) themselves, all of which began to strike coins sometime around the third quarter of the 6th century. The monetary connections between the northern apoikiai and the cities of Euboia included not just a shared weight standard and denominational structure, but also, in the case of Eretria and Karystos on Euboia and the apoikia Dikaia in the Chalkidike, shared numismatic iconography; the coins of these three poleis are so similar that attribution to one or the other is sometimes difficult (Figures 1–5). Common to all three was the cow with its head reversed on the obverse, while on the reverse of the coins there was either a sepia (cuttlefish) (Eretria, Dikaia) or a cockerel (Karystos, Dikaia), which also appeared as an obverse type on smaller denominations of Dikaia (Figure 4). Significantly, Chalkis on Euboia did not share iconography with these three cities, although the coins of Chalkis did share a similar denominational structure and weight standard with the others. Were such similarities in iconography and monetary attributes simply a case of imitation, a not uncommon occurrence among ancient coin producers, or a sign of more significant economic, political, or social relationships?
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".