Ptolemy X Alexander’s Will

I’m reading:

Badian, E. “THE TESTAMENT OF PTOLEMY ALEXANDER.” Rheinisches Museum Für Philologie 110, no. 2 (1967): 178–92. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41244326.

For context see under 86 BCE in previous post.

He’s focused on testimony in Cic. Agr. 2.41. Here’s the Loeb from 1930 so you can follow along, but I’m reading Manuwald’s text translation and commentary from OUP 2018.

Manuwald brings in a note from Schol. Bob. on Cic. Reg. Alex. to support her interpretation:

on the previous page she notes “An absolute date for the embassy is not given”

Badian re hashes the idea that the King Alexander might be Alex II Pt XI before dismissing ID, but Manuwald doesn’t even both with mentioning alternative confidently IDing king as Pt X Alex 1 (d. 88) strangely without citing Badian. (sorting out the Ptolemies is famously confusing, earlier post)

Here’s the crux of Badian’s reconstruction (p. 189):

He thinks that Lucullus came to late to Tyre (p. 189):

So Badian doesn’t trust the Scholiast quoted by Manuwald, but is willing to believe the Cinnan regime got the money and then relieved itself of 3/4s the repayment. I’m generally inclined to think that Badian is over optimistic in his reconstruction, unless we can come up with better proof that Eastern silver flowed into Rome BEFORE the return of Sulla.

Badian ends with this observation (p. 192)

What would be proof of such an influx? Maybe a different trace element profile?