For over a century, classical archaeologists dated Hellenistic civic inscriptions primarily through epigraphic stylistic analysis—the practice of comparing letter forms, such as the serifs and curvature of Greek characters, against inscriptions of previously established dates. However, the discovery of closed stratigraphic coin hoards at several Anatolian sites has revealed significant discrepancies in these stylistic chronologies. In multiple documented excavations, municipal decrees bearing letter forms traditionally assigned to the late third century BCE were uncovered directly beneath undisturbed strata containing silver tetradrachms minted during the reign of Seleucus I (305–281 BCE). Because a decree cannot logically postdate an undisturbed layer deposited above it, these physical stratigraphic sequences demonstrated that certain archaic-style stonecutters' conventions persisted in regional workshops decades longer than classic stylistic sequences had assumed, or conversely, that innovative cursive flourishes appeared much earlier than conventional models allowed.
Based on the passage, which of the following is most strongly supported regarding the dating of Hellenistic civic inscriptions?
- ARegional stonecutters across Anatolia uniformly adopted innovative cursive lettering techniques prior to the reign of Seleucus I.
- BNumismatic evidence from coin hoards provides an absolute and infallible calendar date for every architectural stratum in which it is found.
- Inscriptions exhibiting letter forms characteristic of a later era may have actually been engraved during an earlier chronological period than stylistic analysis alone would suggest.Answer
- DEpigraphic stylistic analysis has been completely abandoned by archaeologists as an unreliable method for dating ancient texts.
- ESilver tetradrachms minted under Seleucus I were specifically produced to commemorate the municipal decrees found in the Anatolian strata.