Author: NumisTR Research Team
Date: January 3, 2025
Category: Research Article, Ancient Geography, Numismatic Methodology

---

Abstract

The boundaries between the ancient regions of Troas and Mysia in northwestern Anatolia have been contentious from antiquity to the present day. This study examines the methodological approach and source evaluation process used to determine the correct regional attribution of 13 ancient mints appearing in both regions. Our research presents a comparative analysis between geographic positioning, critical evaluation of ancient sources, and the classification standards of numismatic authorities.

Keywords: Troas, Mysia, numismatic classification, ancient geography, mint attribution, methodology

---

1. Introduction: Historical Roots of Boundary Ambiguity

The ancient geography of northwestern Anatolia presents an ongoing challenge for modern researchers. The intersection of the Troas (Troad) and Mysia regions constitutes a particular problem due to both conflicting descriptions by ancient authors and inconsistencies in modern scholarly classifications.

1.1. Contradictions in Ancient Sources

The definition of Troas boundaries in Strabo's Geographica (1st century CE) has become a central topic of modern scholarly criticism. As noted in William Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (1854):

"Strabo, from his well-known inclination to magnify the empire of Troy, describes it as extending from the Aesepus to the Caicus."¹

This approach reflects a perspective shaped by philological interpretation of Homeric texts rather than geographic reality, influenced more by literary tradition than empirical observation.² Modern scholars concur that Strabo's boundary definitions display a "tendency to exaggerate Troy's empire."³

1.2. Geographic vs. Administrative Boundaries

The complexity of the problem stems from the variability of administrative boundaries across different periods:

• Persian Period: The name Mysia was applied only to the northeastern part of the country (Mysia Minor), while the western part of the Hellespont coast bore the name of Lesser Phrygia, and the southern district that of Troas.¹
• Hellenistic Period: Troas comprised the northern coastal region from Sigeion to the bay of Adramyttium.¹
• Roman Period: In later times, Troas was part of Mysia, comprising the coastal district on the Aegean from Cape Lectum to the neighborhood of Dardanus and Abydus on the Hellespont, extending inland about 8 geographical miles to Mount Ida.¹

---

2. Methodological Approach: Multi-Layered Source Evaluation

Three fundamental source categories were evaluated for mint classification in the NumisTR project:

2.1. Geographic Approach

Our initial hypothesis was that geographic position should be determinative:

Criterion:

• On Troas boundary (coastal region) → Mysia
• Within Troas (core region) → Troas

Theoretical Foundation:
Mount Ida as the eastern boundary of Troas according to modern scholarly consensus¹ and the assessment that the Aesepus River represents Strabo's exaggerated boundary.³

2.2. Academic Source Analysis

Pleiades Gazetteer:⁵
The Pleiades digital ancient geography project is accepted as an academic standard reference. However, our examination revealed:

• Abydus → classified as Mysia
• Lampsacus → classified as Mysia
• Conflicting results: inconsistency with numismatic sources

Wikipedia and General Sources:
General reference sources present inconsistent classifications and cannot be used as primary academic sources.

2.3. Numismatic Authority Standard

Asia Minor Coins (asiaminorcoins.com):⁶
One of the most comprehensive and expert-reviewed digital catalogs of ancient Anatolian coinage.

Advantages:

1. Numismatic focus: Classification based on coin data
2. Expert review: Validated by field specialists
3. Consistent methodology: Standardized approach across all regions
4. Current: Reflects modern numismatic research

---

3. Research Process: 13 Overlapping Mints

3.1. Problem Definition

Analysis of the NumisTR database identified 13 mints appearing in both Mysia and Troas regions:

No	Mint	Geographic Location
1	Abydus	Dardanelles Strait (coastal)
2	Antandrus	Foothills of Mt. Ida, Gulf of Adramyttium
3	Assos	Behramkale, Aegean coast
4	Dardanus	Dardanelles Strait (coastal)
5	Gargara	Coastal region
6	Lampsacus	Lapseki, Hellespont
7	Parion	Kemer, Marmara coast
8	Pionia	Uncertain location
9	Scepsis	Interior Mt. Ida, Bayramiç
10	Sigeion	Yenişehir, Aegean coast
11	Teuthrania	Near Pergamon
12	Zeleia	Foothills of Mt. Ida, Aesepus River
13	Alexandria Troas	Dalyan, Aegean coast

3.2. Hypothesis Test: Coastal Region Assumption

Question: Are ambiguous mints always located in coastal regions?

Analysis:

• Coastal region: 9 mints (69%)
• Interior: 3 mints (23%) - Scepsis, Zeleia, Teuthrania
• Uncertain: 1 mint (8%) - Pionia

3.3. Systematic Comparison

Three sources were compared for each mint. Below are three example cases:

Example 1: Abydus

• Geographic location: Dardanelles Strait (border region)
• Pleiades: Mysia⁵
• Asia Minor Coins: Troas (#1 Abydos)⁶
• CoinWeek (Mike Markowitz): Troas⁷
• ✅ Decision: TROAS (priority to numismatic authority)

Example 2: Lampsacus

• Geographic location: Lapseki, Hellespont (border region)
• Pleiades: Mysia⁵
• Asia Minor Coins Mysia: ✅ #16 Lampsakos⁶
• Asia Minor Coins Troas: ❌ Not listed
• ✅ Decision: MYSIA (numismatic standard clear)

Example 3: Zeleia

• Geographic location: Foothills of Mt. Ida, Aesepus River bank
• Historical debate: Is Zeleia = Gergis?⁸
• Research result: Different cities (Gergis listed #10 in Troas)
• Asia Minor Coins Mysia: ✅ #28 Zeleia⁶
• Asia Minor Coins Troas: ❌ Not listed
• ✅ Decision: MYSIA

---

4. Methodological Decision: Priority of Numismatic Standard

4.1. Comparison of Three Approaches

Approach	Advantages	Disadvantages
A. Geographic Criterion	Physical reality, measurable	Ancient boundaries variable, open to modern interpretation
B. Academic Consensus	Scientifically grounded	Conflicts with numismatic data, interdisciplinary inconsistency
C. Numismatic Authority ✅	Based on coin data, expert-validated, consistent	May not always align with geographic reality

4.2. Final Decision: Option C - Numismatic Standard

Rationale:

1. Disciplinary Alignment: Since NumisTR is a numismatic project, adherence to standard classifications in the numismatic field ensures scientific consistency.
2. Expert Review: Asia Minor Coins provides a peer-reviewed resource specializing in ancient Anatolian coinage.
3. Consistency: Application of the same methodology across all Anatolian regions ensures systematic approach.
4. Practical Validity: A familiar and accepted standard for coin collectors and researchers.

---

5. Results: Final Classification of 13 Mints

5.1. MYSIA → TROAS (9 Mints)

Mints found in the Asia Minor Coins Troas list (#1-26):

1. Abydus → TROAS (AMC Troas #1)
2. Antandrus → TROAS (AMC Troas #4)
3. Assos → TROAS (AMC Troas #5) — Name standardization: assus → assos
4. Dardanus → TROAS (AMC Troas #7)
5. Gargara → TROAS (AMC Troas #8)
6. Pionia → TROAS (AMC Troas #19)
7. Scepsis → TROAS (AMC Troas #23)
8. Sigeion → TROAS (AMC Troas #21) — Name standardization: sigeum → sigeion
9. Alexandria Troas → TROAS (AMC Troas #3) — Consolidation: 'troas' → 'alexandria_troas' (capital of Troas)

5.2. Remaining in MYSIA (4 Mints)

Mints NOT found in the Asia Minor Coins Troas list:

1. Lampsacus → MYSIA (AMC Mysia #16)
2. Parion → MYSIA (AMC Mysia #18)
3. Teuthrania → MYSIA (AMC Mysia #26)
4. Zeleia → MYSIA (AMC Mysia #28)

5.3. Statistical Summary

Category	Number	Percentage
Moved to Troas	9	69%
Remaining in Mysia	4	31%
Total	13	100%

---

6. Scientific Contribution and Implications

6.1. Methodological Transparency

This study presents a transparent and reproducible methodological approach to classification problems encountered in digital cataloging of ancient coin collections. Full documentation of the decision-making process provides an open framework for scientific review and critique.

6.2. Interdisciplinary Dialogue

Comparative evaluation of geographic, historical, and numismatic approaches demonstrates how different disciplines bring different perspectives to ancient world studies. This type of multi-layered analysis can serve as a model for future research.

6.3. Digital Numismatic Standards

Adoption of expert-reviewed digital resources like Asia Minor Coins as reference standards strengthens the scientific validity of digital numismatics and values the work of field specialists.

---

7. Conclusion

The boundary ambiguity between the Troas and Mysia regions reflects the complexity inherent in ancient geography. This study, in classifying 13 overlapping mints:

1. Geographic analysis demonstrated the importance of physical positioning
2. Academic source evaluation identified interdisciplinary inconsistencies
3. Numismatic standard was adopted as the final decision criterion

This methodological approach can serve as a model for resolving similar regional ambiguities (Aeolis-Mysia, Lydia-Phrygia, etc.) and contribute to the scientific reliability of digital numismatic collections.

---

References

1. Smith, W. (1854). Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography. London: Walton and Maberly. Entries: "Troas" and "Mysia." Access: Perseus Digital Library, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/
2. Dueck, D. (2012). Geography in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge University Press. On Strabo's Homer-philological focused approach.
3. Engels, J. (1999). "Die Strabonische Kulturgeographie in der Tradition der antiken geographischen Schriften und ihre Bedeutung für die antike Kartographie." Orbis Terrarum 5: 63-114.
4. Scepsis ancient city location data. Pleiades Gazetteer, https://pleiades.stoa.org/places/550891
5. Pleiades: A Gazetteer of Past Places. Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, New York University. https://pleiades.stoa.org
6. Asia Minor Coins: Photo Gallery and Collecting Guide. Sections: Troas, Mysia. https://www.asiaminorcoins.com/
7. Markowitz, M. (2017-2018). "Coins of Ancient Greek Troas (Troad): Parts 1-4." CoinWeek. https://coinweek.com/
8. Topostext: "Ζέλεια - Zeleia, Archaic to Roman settlement in Mysia." https://topostext.org/place/402276UZel
9. Howgego, C. (1995). Ancient History from Coins. London: Routledge. Chapter 1: "The Nature of Numismatic Evidence," pp. 1-24. On numismatic classification methodology.

---

Appendix: Asia Minor Coins Classification Comparison

Troas Region (26 Cities/Mints)⁶

1. Abydos
2. Achilleion
3. Alexandreia (Alexandria Troas)
4. Antandros
5. Assos
6. Birytis
7. Dardanos
8. Gargara
9. Gentinos
10. Gergis (distinct from Zeleia)
11. Hamaxitos
12. Ilion (Troy)
13. Kebren
14. Kolone
15. Lamponeia
16. Larisa-Ptolemais
17. Neandreia
18. Ophrynion
19. Pionia
20. Rhoeteion
21. Sigeion
22. Skamandreia
23. Skepsis
24. Tenedos
25. Thymbra
26. Troas Uncertain

Mysia Region (Relevant Mints)⁶

• 16. Lampsakos
• 18. Parion
• 26. Teuthrania
• 28. Zeleia

---

Note: This article is the scientific documentation of the regional classification work undertaken within the NumisTR project. Classification decisions were made based on published academic sources and expert-reviewed numismatic catalogs.

Contact: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Web: https://www.numistr.org

License: This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.

Last Updated: January 3, 2025