“A fourth-century BCE hoard from the Near East.” American Journal of Numismatics 20 (2008): 191-234. more

© 2008 The American Numismatic Society AJN Second Series 20 (2008) pp. 155–198 A fourth century BCE hoard from the Near East Plates 47–58 Lisa Anderson* and Peter G. van Alfen** This article presents a hoard of 475 coins, mostly Athenian owls, found in the Near East that was buried between 334 and 330 BCE. Included in the study is an analysis of the later fourth-century Athenian weight standard. In 2006, the American Numismatic Society received a donation of 313 Athenian-type tetradrachms that was augmented in 2008 by an additional gift of 120 Athenian-type tetradrachms, including Athenian imitations from Egypt and the Levant, plus 36 additional coins minted in or by Sinope, Amisos, unnamed Persian satrap(s), Mausolus of Caria, Aspendos, Tarsus, Issos, Sidon, and Tyre. The 469 coins of the two donations (accession numbers 2006.12.1–313 and 2008.15.1–156), and six Athenian tetradrachms not donated to the Society (here R1–R6), are said to have come from the same hoard. Although nothing absolute is known about its provenience or its find date, the hoard was reportedly found nearly twenty years ago somewhere in the region of northern Syria.1 The general *Lisa_M_Anderson@brown.edu **vanalfen@numismatics.org. 1. By “northern Syria” we mean the general region where the modern states of Turkey, Syria and Iraq intersect. There is no information associated with the hoard, or that can be derived from the hoard itself, to indicate more specifically in which modern state’s territory the hoard was found. It is lamentable that with the loss of its exact provenience and circumstances of its discovery this hoard cannot provide an archaeologically datable context, hints about circumstances of deposit, or anything beyond the information derived from the coins themselves. 155 156 Lisa Anderson and Peter G. van Alfen composition of the hoard and the prevelance of cuts, countermarks, and graffiti support a Near Eastern provenance, whereas the general consistency of preservation and patina support the claim that all the coins were found together. As will be seen, this hoard, which we have designated “ANS Near East,” was likely deposited between 334 and 330 BCE, a key period of political and economic transition in Persian territories. Over 90% of the coins from the hoard are Athenian-style tetradrachms (“owls”), a preponderance of owls that is paralleled by other Near Eastern hoards of the later fourth century.2 Within the mix of owls are bona fide Athenian products that span a chronological range from the later fifth century to the last decades of the fourth century, and (un)marked Near Eastern imitations. The most numerous single type of coin in the hoard are bona fide Athenian pi-style owls of the later fourth century, comprising 360 coins or c. 75% of the total number of coins. This study is divided into four parts: the first section presents a description of the hoard coins and their dating; the second section offers an analysis of the cuts, countermarks, and graffiti found on the coins; the third section offers a wider study of the weights of pi-style owls that encompasses 1063 owls from this hoard and from other hoards found in the Aegean and Near East; the last section presents our general conclusions. I. Description of the Hoard The 475 coins from the hoard are all larger denomination silver issues, most of which date from the third quarter of the fourth century BCE. We have placed the coins into two broad groups, non-Athenian types, which are discussed first in a general west-to-east geographical sequence, and Athenian types. I.A: Non-Athenian type coinage Paphlagonia, Sinope, AR drachm Obv.: Head of Sinope, l., wearing necklace and earrings; border of dots Rev.: Eagle l., carrying dolphin; below and at r., legends in Greek and Aramaic 1. 4.78 g; 6:00; obv. 1 cut; in field r., ΘEOT(I); below, ΣINΩ (ANS 2008.15.1) 2. 4.49 g; 3:00; Aramaic inscription partially off flan, ’ARYWRT? (ANS 2008.15.2) 3. 5.06 g; 2:00; rev. 1 cut; Aramaic ’ARYWRT (ANS 2008.15.3) 2. See, for example, the 1973 Iraq hoard (van Alfen 2000), the 1989 Syria hoard (van Alfen 2002a), and the 2004 owl and bullion hoard (van Alfen 2004/5b). A fourth century BCE hoard from the Near East 157 Two of the Sinopian coins (nos. 2 and 3) have Aramaic legends naming the issuer, ’ARYWRT (Ariarathes) on no. 3, who is possibly the issuer of no. 2 as well. The Persian dynast Ariarathes, who ruled in Paphlagonia from c. 345 to 322 BCE, issued the bulk of his coinage between c. 330 and 322 BCE (Harrison 1982a: 166; 288–90). Although Newell (1931: 21–22) expressed doubts about being able to locate where in Paphlagonia these Aramaic inscribed coins were minted, Harrison (1982a: 266–290; 1982b) considers Sinope as the likeliest mint for this series and three other series of Sinopean imitations with Aramaic legends. Without a full study of the fourth century coinage of Sinope the question must remain open, however. The placement of no. 1 within the Sinopean series would also benefit from such a study. The legend ΘEOTI is well known, but the issues of this magistrate are not yet dated. Four coins with the legend ΘEOTI appeared in the Küchük Köhne hoard of c. 325–320 BCE (IGCH 1394; Newell 1931: nos. 9–12), which offers a terminus ante quem for this magistrate. Significantly, the weights of all three of these coins are well below the ideal of c. 6.0 g for Sinopean drachms but are closer to the siglos (?) standard of c. 5.1 g that Newell (1931: 22–23) proposed for the issues of Ariarathes. Pontus, Amisos, AR drachm (imitation?) Obv.: Female head l. wearing turreted crown; border of dots Rev.: Owl with wings spread facing and perched upon a shield; symbol in r. field 4. 5.12 g; 4:00; obv. 1 cut (ANS 2008.15.4) The style, misshapen symbol on the reverse, and lack of a magistrate’s inscription suggest that this coin is an imitation of the drachms produced at Amisos throughout the fourth century. Although Wroth (1889: 13) and Newell (1931: 7) affirm a distinction between drachms produced before 360 BCE and those after, this coin does not replicate the style of either series to an exact degree. Uncertain mint in Asia Minor, Royal Achaemenid Issues (?), AR (Chian) tetradrachm Obv.: Persian king kneeling r., drawing bow; border of dots Rev.: Horseman r.; border of dots 5. 14.85 g; 6:00; rev. 2 cuts (ANS 2008.15.5) 6. 14.91 g; 7:00; rev. 2 cuts (ANS 2008.15.6) 7. 14.97 g; 7:00; rev. 1 cut (ANS 2008.15.7) 8. 15.05 g; 5:00; obv. 2 cuts (ANS 2008.15.8) 9. 14.71 g; 11:00; obv. 1 cut (controlmarks rev.—‘o’ in field l.; under horse, dolphin) (ANS 2008.15.9) 158 Lisa Anderson and Peter G. van Alfen These five new coins of this enigmatic series offer little more of substance to Andrew Meadows’s (2002) analysis of the two dozen or so examples from the Pixodaros hoard (CH 9. 421). As Meadows predicted, the discovery of new coins has increased the total number of known dies; none of the examples here are linked to one another or to those from the Pixodaros hoard, thus reaffirming the arguments that this series was not an emergency or expeditionary coinage, but served more general purposes. Based on the Pixodarus hoard, Meadows tentatively dated those coins without controlmarks to before c. 341 BCE and those with controlmarks to sometime after. The relative wear of nos. 5–8 compared to our single coin with control marks, no. 9, could indiciate that these coins had been in circulation longer, but this is only speculation. Caria, Hekatomnid dynasty, Mausolus, AR tetradrachm Obv.: Head of Apollo facing Rev.: Zeus Labraundos standing r.; ΜΑΥΣΣΩΛΛΟΣ 10. 15.02 g; 11:00; obv. 2 cuts (ANS 2008.15.10) Mausolus, who reigned in Caria and Lycia from 377/6–353/2 BCE, produced a healthy stream of coinage during his tenure. Koray Konuk’s die study of the Hekatomnid dynasts identified 73 obverse dies for this series of Mausolus tetradrachms. We await the publication of this study in order to locate our coin within the series. Pamphylia, Aspendos, AR stater Obv.: Two wrestlers Rev.: Slinger standing r., in square border; triskeles in field r.; at l., downward, EΣTFEΔIIYΣ 11. 10.69 g; 11:00; MA (or MΛ) between wrestlers (ANS 2008.15.11) 12. 10.80 g; 11:00; obv. 2 cuts (ANS 2008.15.12) Oğuz Tekin’s (2000: 165–167) dating of the staters of Aspendos, which is based on the stance of the wrestlers among other things, places both of these coins firmly within the fourth series, c. 380/75–330/25 BCE. The relative wear of the coins, of no. 11 particularly, could indicate that these coins belong to a date earlier rather than later within the range of dates offered by Tekin. Cilicia, Tarsus under Mazday (Mazaios), AR staters Casabonne (2004): Series I, group B Obv.: Baal of Tarsus throned l., wheat over grapes in r. hand, staff in l.; at r. A fourth century BCE hoard from the Near East 159 upward, B’LTRZ in Aramaic; linear border Rev.: Lion attacking stag to l.; MZDY above in Aramaic, mem below; square border of dots 13. 10.52 g; 12:00; rev. 2 cuts (ANS 2008.15.13) 14. 10.64 g; 10:00; obv. 1 cut; rev. graffito “X” (ANS 2008.15.14) 15. 10.70 g; 8:00; rev. 2 cuts (ANS 2008.15.15) Casabonne (2004): Series I, group C Obv.: Baal of Tarsus throned l., wheat over grapes in r. hand, staff in l.; at r. upward, B’LTRZ in Aramaic; symbol below throne; border of dots Rev.: Lion attacking stag; MZDY above in Aramaic, mem below; linear border 16. 10.25 g; 11:00; rev. 2 cuts (ANS 2008.15.16) Casabonne (2004): Series II, group A Obv.: Baal of Tarsus throned l., wheat over grapes in r. hand, staff in l.; at r. upward, B’LTRZ in Aramaic; various letters and symbols below throne and in l. field; border of dots Rev.: Lion attacking bull to l.; MZDY above in Aramaic, samek mem below; linear border 17. 10.46 g; 10:00; rev. 1 cut (illegible under throne) (ANS 2008.15.17) 18. 10.48 g; 9:00; no marks (mem resh at l. in Aramaic and Phoenician) (ANS 2008.15.18) 19. 10.61 g; 6:00; rev. 1 cut (mem under throne, nun tau) (ANS 2008.15.19) 20. 10.62 g; 3:00; rev. 3 cuts (illegible under throne; ayin at l. ) (ANS 2008.15.20) Casabonne (2004): Series II, group B Obv.: Baal of Tarsus throned l., wheat over grapes in r. hand, staff in l.; at r. upward, B’LTRZ in Aramaic; below throne, mem; to l., resh; border of dots Rev.: Lion attacking bull to l.; MZDY above in Aramaic; linear border 21. 10.72 g; 1:00; rev. 3 cuts (ANS 2008.15.21) Casabonne (2004): Series II, group D Obv.: Baal of Tarsus throned l., wheat over grapes in r. hand, staff in l.; at r. upward, B’LTRZ in Aramaic; to l., nun tau?; border of dots Rev.: Lion attacking bull to l.; MZDY above in Aramaic; border of dots 22. 10.85 g; 8:00; obv. 4 cuts (ANS 2008.15.22) 160 Lisa Anderson and Peter G. van Alfen Casabonne (2004): Series IV Obv.: Baal of Tarsus throned l., holding staff in r. hand; at l., grape bunch and Phoenician resh; at r. upward, B’LTRZ in Aramaic Rev.: Lion attacking bull over city walls; above in Aramaic, MZDY ZY ‘L ‘BRNHR’ W HLK; border of dots 23. 10.62 g; 9:00 (ANS 2008.15.23) While it is clear that the Persian nobleman Mazday (Mazaios in Greek) was responsible for issuing a large volume of coinage from Tarsus in the third quarter of the fourth century BCE, less clear are the dates of his rule and the chronology of the several series of his coinage. At some point between c. 361 and 345 BCE, Mazday assumed satrapal powers in Tarsus and retained power until sometime around the Macedonians’ onslaught towards Persia (Casabonne 2004: 207–210). All of Mazday’s Tarsian issues are likely dated before the battle of Issos (333 BCE), by which time he had left Tarsus to undertake other responsibilities farther east. Casabonne’s (2004: 211–215) arrangment of the Tarsian issues into six series does not necessarily reflect the order in which the coins were issued, a matter that remains unresolved. Transeuphratene, Issos under Mazday, AR shekel Obv.: Baal of Tarsus type throned, l., holding staff in r. hand; at l., incense burner; at r. upward, B’LDGN in Aramaic; linear border Rev.: Lion walking r.; above in Aramaic MZDY; above and to r., symbol; beth below; border of dots 24. 7.18 g; 11:00; obv. 1 cut (ANS 2008.15.24) Van Alfen (2008; this volume) argues that this coin is one of two known from a series issued by Mazday at Issos in the third quarter of the fourth century BCE. Phoenicia, Sidon under Mazday (and Evagoras), AR double shekels Obv.: Galley with oars over stylized waves; border of dots Rev.: Chariot l., with driver and king; servant behind; MZDY within curve upper l.; border of dots 25. 25.51 g; 11:00; rev. 1 cut (Elayi and Elayi 2004a, obv. die D10?) (ANS 2008.15.25) 26. 24.83 g; 1:00; rev. 2 cuts (ANS 2008.15.26) 27. 25.31 g; 12:00 (Elayi and Elayi 2004a, rev. die R5) (ANS 2008.15.27) 28. 25.68 g; 1:00; obv. graffito; rev. 1 cut (beth 20 above galley)(dies not in Elayi and Elayi 2004a) (ANS 2008.15.28) A fourth century BCE hoard from the Near East 161 Obv.: Galley with oars over stylized waves; border of dots Rev.: Chariot l., with driver and king; servant behind; ayin, ayin within curve upper l.; border of dots 29. 25. 77 g; 12:00 (rev. die R4, Elayi and Elayi 2004a) (2008. 15. 29) Four of the five Sidonian coins in the hoard were issued under Mazday (Mazaios), under whose oversight the Sidonian mint produced dated coins between c. 353 and 333 BCE (Elayi and Elayi 2004a: 660–664). No. 28 offers an unproblematic reading of the date “year 20” (334 BCE; Elayi and Elayi 2004b: 162), a coin which also presents new dies for Elayi and Elayi’s (2004a) series IV. 6. 1. m. The obverse of no. 27 is obscured, but the reverse die is linked to Elayi and Elayi (2004a) no. 1631, a coin from year 1; both of the other two Mazday coins are too worn to offer evidence for dating. Nestled within Mazday’s issues is a series represented here by no. 29 that was issued between 346–343 BCE under the Cypriot Evagoras during Sidon’s revolt from Persian hegemony (Elayi and Elayi 2004b: 161). Phoenicia, Tyre, AR shekels Obv.: Sea deity on a hippocampus r., drawing bow, over waves with dolphin; border of dots Rev.: Horned owl standing r., head facing, with crook and flail; year in field r.; border of dots Betlyon (1982) fifth series (357–355 BCE) 30. 9.27 g; 11:00; rev. 2 cuts (year 3; mem in field lower r. ) (ANS 2008.15.30) Betlyon (1982) sixth series (c. 355/54–352/51 BCE) 31. 8.78 g; 12:00; obv. 1 cut (year 3) (ANS 2008.15.31) 32. 8.52 g; 11:00; obv. 2 cuts and 1 square punch, rev. one cut (year 4; sade in field lower r. ) (ANS 2008.15.32) Betlyon (1982) seventh series (c. 347–332 BCE) 33. 8.63 g; 1:00; obv. 1 shallow cut, rev. 1 shallow cut (year 3) (ANS 2008.15.33) 34. 8.74 g; 12:00 (year 3?) (ANS 2008.15.34) 35. 8.51 g; 12:00; obv. 2 cuts (ANS 2008.15.35) 36. 8.66 g; 1:00 (year 15) (ANS 2008.15.36) Three of John Betlyon’s (1982) seven series of Persian-period Tyrian issues are represented in the hoard. Nos. 33–34, which are from the last (seventh) series minted under ‘Uzzimilk, c. (349)/347–332 BCE, are dated to 346, 340, and 334 BCE. 162 Lisa Anderson and Peter G. van Alfen I.B: Athenian-type coinage As is typical of Near Eastern hoards of the fourth century BCE, this hoard contains a mix of bona fide Athenian issues and their imitations, which were produced in various locales in the Levant and Egypt. “Marked” imitations are those that bear symbols or inscriptions that potentially indicate where the coins were struck and under whose authority; “unmarked” imitations are those that bear no such marks but are not bona fide Athenian products.3 I.B.1: Marked Imitative Owls Asia Minor?, AR tetradrachms Obv.: Helmeted Athena r. Rev.: Owl standing r., olive branch and moon behind; symbol in lower r. field 37. 17.31 g; 9:00; obv. 1 cut, rev. 1 cut (sphinx symbol) (ANS 2008.15.37) 38. 17.18 g; 6:00; rev. 1 cut (Phrygian helmet symbol) (ANS 2008.15.38) Wolfram Weiser’s (1989) study presented a corpus of similar owls with elaborately engraved devices or symbols in the lower right field of the reverse. The symbols identified by Weiser include a bearded head in profile, a crowned male head in profile, a facing lion’s head, and a bucranium. Weiser argued that these owls were issued under Kyros the Younger at Sardis as the prince initiated his bid for the Persian throne at the end of the fifth century. Nos. 37 and 38 offer new symbols for Weiser’s corpus, a crowned sphinx and a Phrygian helmet, both in profile. At first glance both coins might appear to be previously unrecorded specimens from the same series; a closer look reveals, however, that no. 38 is stylistically unrelated to no. 37 and to Weiser’s owls. Weiser’s owls and no. 37 are based on later fifth century Athenian types (with profile eye), no. 38 instead takes its cues from the later fourth century Athenian pi-style series (see below). Wartenberg (1998: 51) published an owl with Phrygian helmet symbol that, while it is not die-linked to our example, is also of a later fourth century style; she suggested a date of c. 330 BCE but was not willing to suggest an attribution. If indeed both of these owls were minted in the same location, which is in no way certain, the change in style might attest to the longevity of this series of imitative owls. Weiser’s arguments for locating the mint in western Asia Minor are mostly circumstantial; no evidence yet unequivocably ties these owls with symbols to any one minting locale, which could just as likely be in eastern as in western Asia Minor, or even in the Levant. However, a Persian context seems likely due to the 3. For further explication on the terminology and problems of ancient imitative coinage see van Alfen (2005). A fourth century BCE hoard from the Near East 163 nature of some of the symbols involved.4 The Phrygian helmet and sphinx appear as both types and symbols on other eastern coinages, notably from areas around Cilicia and the Levant.5 Two other owls with symbols unknown to Weiser also exist, both with fifth century type obverses: one in a private U.S. collection featuring an unfortunately worn and uncertain symbol but one that is not shaped like those already recorded (above), and another owl recently appearing in a Numismatica Ars Classica sale (NAC 46, April 2008, lot 296) featuring a bull’s head in profile.6 Egypt, Memphis (?) under Artaxerxes III, AR tetradrachms (?) Obv.: Helmeted Athena to r. Rev.: Owl standing r., olive branch and moon behind; (Demotic) inscription upwards r.; (Aramaic) inscription in lower or upper l. field Van Alfen (2002a) Type III 39. 16.76 g; 8:00; rev. 1 cut (O7/new die) (ANS 2008.15.39) 40. 16.96 g; 9:00; rev. 1 cut (O9/new die) (ANS 2008.15.40) 41. 16.50 g; 9:00 (new die/new die) (ANS 2008.15.41) Van Alfen (2002a) Type IVa 42. 16.77 g; 7:00; rev. 1 cut (new die/new die) illegible Aramaic? in field l. and r.) (ANS 2008.15.42) 43. 16.94 g; 8:00; rev. 1 cut and 1 countermark? (obv. same die as no. 42/new die) (ANS 2008.15.43) 4. Meshorer (SNG ANS 6, no. 2), for example, attributed to either Tyre or Gaza Weiser’s pl. XVI, no. 8, a coin in the ANS collection (ANS 1971.196.3) featuring a facing lion’s head as the symbol on the reverse. 5. The Phrygian helmet symbol, for example, appears as an ancillary device on fourth century staters of Aspendos (e.g., CNG 30 1994, lot 180; Hess Divo 307 2007, lot 1283), while a similar sphinx appears as a type on the fourth century bronze coinage of Kaunos (e.g., Lanz 131 2007, lot 173); silver fractions of Cilicia (?, e.g., CNG mail bid 73 2006, lot 414), Samaria (Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 87, no. 24), and Philistia (Gitler and Tal 2006: 184, no. XIII. 14D). Also see Gitler and Tal (2006: 165-175) for a range of Philistian issues, mostly small fractional silver issues imitating Athenian coinage, with a variety of symbols in fields on the reverse. 6. The coin, in the David Wray collection, weighs 16.34 g and has a 10:00 die axis. 164 Lisa Anderson and Peter G. van Alfen Van Alfen (2002a) Type IVb 44. 16.89 g; 8:00; obv. 1 countermark, rev. 1 cut (new die/new die) (ANS 2008.15.44) Van Alfen (2002a: 24–27) produced a corpus of the seventeen examples of this series known after the 1989 Syria hoard (CH 8. 158) came to light. The new hoard adds an additional six examples, which include four new obverse dies (nos. 41–44) and six new reverse dies (nos. 39–44). The obverses of nos. 42 and 43 are die linked; the obverses of nos. 39 and 40 are die linked to van Alfen (2002a) nos. 7 and 9 (O7 and O9 respectively). While the addition of four new obverse and six new reverse dies to the corpus indicates that this series was sizeable, no new information is shed on the sometimes illegible inscriptions on the reverse of the coins. François Gaudard (pers. com.) notes that the Demotic inscriptions on the type III coins (nos. 39–41) represent two variants or styles—B1 and B2—of the Persian king Artaxerxes’ name, B1 being the abbreviated version.7 The new examples of type IV coins (nos. 42–44), unfortunately, offer no new readings of the legends on types IVa-c, which being neither recognizably Demotic nor Aramaic remain indecipherable to specialists (Vleeming 2001: 1). I.B.2: Unmarked Imitative Owls The following owls are unmarked imitations produced somewhere in the eastern Mediterranean, possibly in the Levant: Obv.: Helmeted Athena r. Rev.: Owl standing r., olive branch and moon behind 45. 16.65 g; 8:00; obv. 1 cut (ANS 2006.12.16) 46. 16.92 g; 6:00; rev. 1 cut (ANS 2006.12.46) 47. 17.00 g; 7:00; rev. 1 cut (ANS 2008.15.45) 48. 16.35 g; 10:00 (ANS 2006.12.35) 49. 16.79 g; 9:00; rev. 1 cut (ANS 2006.12.36) 50. 16.98 g; 9:00; obv. 1 cut, 1 ctmk; rev. 2 cuts (ANS 2006.12.45) 51. 16.31 g; 9:00 (ANS 2006.12.49) 52. 16.52 g; 1:00; rev. 2 cuts (ANS 2006.12.50) 53. 16.72 g; 7:00 (ANS 2008.15.46) 54. 16.17 g; 10:00; obv. 1 ctmk; rev. 2 cuts, 3 ctmks (ANS 2008.15.47) 7. The name on B1 reads Artkhtsh: cf. Vleeming (2001) nos. 8, 9; van Alfen (2002) p. 26, nos. 7–8. The name on B2 reads Artkhshtsh: cf. Vleeming (2001) nos. 10; and in this hoard nos. 39 and 40. A fourth century BCE hoard from the Near East 165 More problematic are the following group of owls first identified by Theodore Buttrey (1982, 1984) in two brief papers a quarter-century ago. Buttrey contended that his types B, X, and M were not products of Athens, but rather imitations produced in Egypt. In a series of more recent papers and in his monograph, Christophe Flament (2003, 2004, 2005, 2007) has challenged this attribution, reattributing the coins to Athens. Flament’s arguments are as follows. Their clearly unusual style is due to the use of engravers with lesser talent than those normally employed (2003: 7), an exigency brought on by the difficulties the Athenian faced in the aftermath of the Peloponessian War. Metal analysis indicates little difference between types B and M and earlier fifth century Athenian coins produced presumably with Laurion silver. Furthermore, the Piraeus hoard (CH 5. 15) would seem to confirm the Athenian origin of the coinage since the hoard contained, in addition to type B and M tetradrachms, drachms that are stylisitically related to the larger coins. The presence of these drachms, Flament (2005) insists, nullifies any lingering suspicions of non-Athenian origin since such “small” denominations rarely travel far from their place of manufacture. He concludes that types B and M are bona fide issues produced at the end of the fifth century. For type X, we still await the full publication of Flament’s arguments (cf. 2007: 123), but this too he assigns to Athens. While Flament’s arguments have merit, they are not conclusive. The recourse to expediency to explain sloppy or unusual styles has long been a favorite refuge for numismatists, but one that demands closer inspection. The Athenians did produce sloppy coins on occasion (e.g., Starr [1970], groups II and V; and many of the pi-style issues), perhaps because of pressures to produce more coins in a limited amount of time, but this was manifested more often in the quality of striking and flan production than the style of their die engraving. In their long minting history, the Athenians faced many dire moments but still managed to produce coins (e.g., the plated and gold issues of 406/5 BCE; Starr group II) that were of a style that was patently related to those that came before and after. This is simply not the case with types B and M (and X), which is why Buttrey marked them as imitations in the first place. In general, types B, M, and X are carefully produced coins with wellformed flans, consistent weights and die axes, that were made from well-engraved, but stylistically unusual dies. Despite Flament’s protests (2005), such traits could just as well belong to imitative owls as to Athenian coinage, as we have seen with the Egyptian Artaxerxes series of imitations (nos. 39–44) and those with symbols on the reverse (nos. 37–38). Nor are there fast rules that imitations need be of inferior, or even non-Athenian silver, and that they cannot circulate widely. The presence of the drachms in the Piraeus hoard might cause one to pause. But drachms still contained sufficiently high value to encourage their wider circulation and use far beyond their 166 Lisa Anderson and Peter G. van Alfen point of origin, as hoard finds also show;8 moreover a large number of imitative drachms were produced in the Levant (cf. Gitler and Tal 2006, passim). Who can say that these coins did not reach Athens in quantity? For the moment, we remain cautiously unconvinced by Flament’s arguments for assigning these coins to Athens and so prefer to keep them under the imitative rubric.9 It is hoped that Carmen Arnold-Biucchi’s forthcoming publication of the University of Michigan hoard, which was the object of Buttrey’s initial observations, will help to resolve many of the problems associated with this series. Obv.: Helmeted Athena r. Rev.: Owl standing r., olive branch and moon behind Buttrey type B 55. 16.60 g; 7:00; obv. 1 cut, 1 ctmk; rev. 2 cuts, 1 ctmk (ANS 2006.12.12) 56. 16.18 g; 8:00; obv. 1 cut; rev. 2 ctmks (ANS 2006.12.13) 57. 16.85 g; 9:00; obv. 3 cuts (patterned); rev. 2 cuts, 1 ctmk, graffito (ANS 2006.12.18) 58. 16. 64 g; 9:00; rev. 1 cut (ANS 2006.12.22) Buttrey type M 59. 16.71 g; 8:00; rev. 2 cuts, 1 ctmk (ANS 2006.12.5) 60. 17.05 g; 9:00; obv. 1 cut, graffito; rev. 2 cuts (ANS 2006.12.6) 61. 16.53 g; 9:00; obv. 1 cut; rev. 3 cuts (ANS 2006.12.7) 62. 16.32 g; 2:00; obv. 1 cut; rev. 2 cuts, 1 punch (ANS 2006.12.19) 63. 16.35 g; 8:00 (ANS 2008.15.48) 64. 16.61 g; 9:00; rev. 3 cuts (ANS 2008.15.49) 65. 16.89 g; 10:00; obv. 4 cuts (patterned); rev. 3 cuts (ANS 2008.15.50) 8. As a case in point, the following archaic and classical period hoards found at a distance from Athens contain Athenian didrachms: IGCH 359, 1165, 1644, 1874; the following contain Athenian drachms, obols or their fractions: IGCH 423 (41 obols found in Bulgaria!); 1203, 1227, 1482, 1790; CH 8. 73, 9. 275. Note too that in many cases these hoards, and others, contain small denomination coinage of other far away mints. Controlled excavations at Mit Rahinah in Egypt in 1986 produced two tetradrachms and one drachm of Buttrey’s type B, and four tetradrachms and two drachms of Buttrey’s type M (see Flament 2007: 208). By Flament’s same argument, the presence of these drachms at Mit Rahinah could justify a case for Egyptian manufacture! 9. Oeconomides (2006) likewise urges caution in her recent publication of a hoard found in Attica (1979 Ano Voula), which contained thirty Athenian type coins (twelve tetradrachms, seventeen drachms, and one triobol), including seven Buttrey type B and M tetradrachms. A fourth century BCE hoard from the Near East Buttrey type X 66. 16.80 g; 9:00; obv. graffito; rev. 2 cuts (ANS 2006.12.32) I.B.3: Bona Fide Athenian Owls 167 The majority of the coins found in this hoard are bona fide Athenian owls covering a time span of perhaps an entire century between the date of the earliest and latest issues. The coins fall into three broad categories, late fifth century, early fourth century, and pi-style owls. I.B.3.1 Late fifth Century Owls The considerable wear found on most of the following coins underscore their long circulation, to which the numerous test cuts and countermarks found on the coins also attests. Many are sufficiently well enough preserved, however, to be identifed as belonging to Flament’s (2007: 79–91) group III, which he places between 420 and 405 BCE. Obv.: Helmeted Athena r. Rev.: Owl standing r., olive branch and moon behind Flament (2007) group III 67. 16.51 g; 10:00; rev. 2 cuts (ANS 2006.12.1) 68. 16.75 g; 8:00; obv. 1 cut, 2 ctmks; rev. 2 cuts, 2 ctmks (ANS 2006.12.24) 69. 15.74 g; 8:00; rev. 2 cuts (ANS 2006.12.25) 70. 16.53 g; 9:00; rev. 2 cuts (ANS 2006.12.27) 71. 16.34 g; 9:00; rev. 1 cut (ANS 2006.12.28) 72. 16.81 g; 9:00; obv. 1 cut, 1 punch; rev. 2 cuts, 1 punch (ANS 2006.12.29) 73. 16.63 g; 9:00; obv. 1 cut; rev. 1 cut (ANS 2006.12.30) 74. 16.73 g; 9:00; obv. 1 cut; rev. 2 cuts (ANS 2006.12.31) 75. 16.37 g; 8:00; obv. 2 cuts; rev. 2 cuts (ANS 2006.12.37) 76. 16.59 g; 11:00; obv. 1 cut, 1 ctmk; rev. 1 cut (ANS 2008.15.51) 77. 16.06 g; 9:00; obv. 1 punch; rev. 1 cut (ANS 2008.15.52) Flament (2007) group III? 78. 16.82 g; 9:00; obv. 1 punch; rev. 1 cut, 1 punch (ANS 2006.12.2) 79. 16.55 g; 9:00; obv. 1 ctmk; rev. 1 cut (ANS 2006.12.3) 80. 16.85 g; 9:00; rev. 2 cuts (ANS 2006.12.8) 81. 16.50 g; 6:00; obv. 1 cut; rev. 3 cuts, 1 punch (ANS 2006.12.9) 82. 16.70 g; 8:00; obv. 1 cut; rev. 3 cuts (ANS 2006.12.10) 83. 16.60 g; 9:00; obv. 1 ctmk; rev. 1 punch (ANS 2006.12.17) 168 Lisa Anderson and Peter G. van Alfen 84. 16.28 g; 9:00; obv. 2 cuts, 1 punch; 1 cut, 1 punch (ANS 2006.12.23) 85. 16.55 g; 9:00; rev. 1 cut (ANS 2008.15.53) 86. 16.58 g; 9:00; obv. 2 cut, 1 ctmk; rev. 2 cuts (ANS 2008.15.54) 87. 16.58 g; 8:00 (ANS 2008.15.55) Uncertain group 88. 16.21 g; 9:00; rev. 1 cut, 1 ctmk, 1 punch (ANS 2006.12.4) 89. 16.89 g; 9:00; obv. 1 cut; rev. 3 cuts (ANS 2006.12.11) 90. 16.01 g; 9:00; rev. 1 cut, 1 ctmk (ANS 2006.12.14) 91. 15.88 g; 9:00; rev. 2 cuts (ANS 2006.12.15) 92. 16.39 g; 8:00; rev. 3 cuts (ANS 2006.12.20) 93. 16.68 g; 9:00; obv. 1 ctmk; rev. 3 cuts (ANS 2006.12.21) 94. 16.49 g; 9:00; obv. 2 ctmks; rev. 1 cut, 1 ctmk (ANS 2006.12.33) 95. 16.55 g; 9:00; obv. 1 ctmk; rev. 1 ctmk (ANS 2006.12.34) 96. 17.12 g; 8:00; obv. 1 cut; rev. 2 cuts (ANS 2006.12.40) 97. 16.8 g; 9:00; 1 cut, 1 ctmk; rev. 2 cuts, 1 punch (ANS 2006.12.42) 98. 16.68 g; 9:00 (ANS 2006.12.44) 99. 15.16 g; 10:00; rev. 2 cuts (ANS 2006.12.301) 100. 16.31 g; 9:00; obv. 1 cut, 1 ctmk; rev. 1 cut, 1 punch (ANS 2008.15.56) 101. 16.47 g; 9:00; obv. 1 cut, 1 punch; rev. 3 cuts, 2 punch (ANS 2008.15.57) 102. 16.92 g; 9:00; rev. 1 cut (ANS 2008.15.58) 103. 17.02 g; 9:00; rev. 2 cuts, 2 ctmks (ANS 2008.15.59) I.B.3.2 Early Fouth-Century Owls Hoards from Sicily (IGCH 2117; Nicolet-Pierre and Arnold-Biucchi 2000) and Egypt (IGCH 1663; Nicolet-Pierre 2004), as well as other finds in Attica (Kroll 2006), contain coins that are examples of early fourth century (c. 390 BCE) owls with subtle modernizations of the late fifth century types (cf. Flament 2007: 122). A dozen examples of this type were found in the hoard. Obv.: Helmeted Athena to r. Rev.: Owl standing r., olive branch and moon behind 104. 16.78 g; 9:00; rev. 3 cuts (ANS 2006.12.26) 105. 15.93 g; 8:00; rev. 3 cuts (ANS 2006.12.38) 106. 16.22 g; 10:00; rev. 2 cuts (ANS 2006.12.41) 107. 16.56 g; 9:00; obv. 1 cut, 1 punch; rev. 2 punch, 1 ctmk (ANS 2006.12.267) 108. 16.58 g; 9:00; 2 cuts on edge; obv. 1 punch (ANS 2008.15.60) 109. 16.31 g; 9:00; obv. 1 ctmk; rev. 1 cut, 1 ctmk (ANS 2008.15.61) 110. 16.77 g; 9:00; obv. 1 cut, 1 ctmk; rev. 1 cut, 2 ctmks (ANS 2008.15.62) A fourth century BCE hoard from the Near East 111. 16.60 g; 9:00; obv. 1 punch; rev. 1 punch (ANS 2008.15.63) 112. 16.66 g; 9:00; rev. 1 cut, 1 punch (ANS 2008.15.64) 113. 16.68 g; 9:00; rev. 2 cuts (ANS 2008.15.65) 114. 16.99 g; 9:00; obv. 1 cut; rev. 3 cuts (ANS 2008.15.66) 115. 17.10 g; 9:00; rev. 1 cut (ANS 2008.15.67) I.B.3.3 Pi-style Owls 169 The largest group of coins from the hoard are the 360 pi-style owls (nos. 116–469, R1–R6); their catalogue can be found in Appendix 1. Because of space considerations, not all of the pi-style owls are illustrated, but only those coins specifically mentioned in what follows. A complete photographic record of the hoard, including all of the pi-style owls, can be found on the American Numismatic Society’s digital publications website (www. numismatics. org/dpubs/). In the later fourth century the Athenians produced massive quantities of tetradrachms in an updated style featuring a pi-like floral element on Athena’s helmet and a consistently lowered alpha (no longer touching the owl at eye level) of the reverse legend. This new flood of coinage appears to be tied to and may have started when the Athenians were making major fiscal reforms under Eubolus’s leadership (355–342 BCE). This might have included an extensive recall and recoining of all available silver in Attica (Kroll 2006: 58, n. 4; cf. Kroll 1993: 8). How far into the late-fourth or early-third century the pi-style coins were produced is not yet known, nor is it known if production was heavier in some decades compared to others.10 Because no scholar has yet undertaken a comprehensive (die) study of the series, the rough bookend dates for the absolute chronology of c. 350–290 BCE cannot be refined, nor can we hint at a relative chronology. The fullest study of the series to date, that of Bingen (1973), remains useful as stylistic and typological analysis, but is perhaps misleading in its relative chronological implications (cf. Flament 2007: 128–130). A recently discovered hoard of pi-style owls in the excavations at the Athenian Agora may, when it is published, provide further insight into some of these dating problems (Camp 2005–06 and 2006–07; cf. Kroll 2006). The pi-style flans are generally quite small relative to the surface area of the dies, thus large portions of the type are off-flan; the flans also exhibit different production techniques compared to earlier Athenian coinage. These included the striking of flans made by the flattening and folding over of other coins, presumably to speed up the over-striking process (cf. van Alfen 2002, pl. 10, no. 3). If one divides the flan-shapes into rough categories of “round” and “irregular,” the vast 10. The gold coins (e.g., ANS 1959.254.19) produced under the Athenian tyrant Lachares c. 294 BCE are pi-style suggesting that the silver pi-style coinage may have lasted into the third century; see Kroll 1993: 10. 170 Lisa Anderson and Peter G. van Alfen majority of the pi-style flans are irregular.11 When compared to fifth century owls this situation is inverted, the majority of the fifth century owl flans are round, emphasizing what would appear to be either less care taken in later fourth century coin production or the manifestation of different production methods, in contrast to the seeming greater care taken in the previous century. Despite changes in the production of their flans, the Athenians maintained consistency in their die orientation. The pi-style tetradrachms of the ANS hoard have die axes predominantly at 7:00–8:00; only 20% of the pi-style owls have an axis of 9:00, while 40% are oriented at 8:00 and 33% are oriented at 7:00. This is in line with the general 7:00–9:00 orientation observed for tetradrachm dies from the later fifth and fourth centuries (de Callataÿ 1996: 59–60). Although the size of the pi-style series makes die links difficult to find, we have, nevertheless, observed a handful of die links among the owls in this hoard and between these owls and owls from another hoard.12 As noted in our general conclusions (below), the die links within the hoard could have implications for how the coins entered circulation. II. Cuts, Countermarks, and Graffiti Most of the coins from the hoard (348, 73% of 475) have some type of post-production surface marking, whether cuts, countermarks/punches and/or graffiti.13 The marks are remnants of the different modes of currency control that were commonly used in the Near East, but less so in the Aegean, where coins tended not to be heavily marked (cf. van Alfen 2004/5a: 17–19). Most of the marks were meant to convey precise information–to those equipped to decipher it–about the quality of the coin, its ownership, or its ability to circulate legally within a circumscribed area. Presently, we can only guess at the public or private nature and function 11. Here “irregular” comprises multiple categories: coins that are a variety of shapes but none of which could be considered reasonably round when struck, all generally with sections of the type off flan; those that were possibly round when struck but are currently misshapen; and those that are generally elliptical, ranging from egg-shaped to lozenge-shaped. “Round” includes those coins that are completely or almost completely round with only very minor irregularities. 12. Nos. 298 and 299 share the same obverse die; no. 298 appears to have been struck when the die was more worn. Nos. 326 and 336 share the same reverse die. No. 250 was struck from the same obverse die as no. 7 from the 1989 Syria hoard (van Alfen 2002a: pl. 1, no. 7). 13. “Cuts” are linear marks made with a knife or chisel that penetrate well below the surface of the coin. “Punches” are those marks made with an punch-like object whose head formed recognizable shapes like squares, circles, etc. “Countermarks” were also left by punch-like objects, but with more elaborately engraved designs. “Graffiti” are shallow scratches made with an awl or similar object. A fourth century BCE hoard from the Near East 171 of the institution(s) involved in the process of marking the coins since the only evidence we have for these institutions are the marks themselves (cf. Elayi and Lemaire 1998: ch. VI). With one exception, no. 28, a double shekel of Sidon, all of the graffiti appears on owl-type coinage, predominantly pi-style owls. The most common graffito is “X”, either a Greek chi or Aramaic tau, but perhaps simply the most basic mark known even to illiterates; this mark appears on coins nos. 67, 154, 162, 169, 213, 261, 462. Semitic shin is the next most common graffito appearing on coins nos. 60, 76, 343, 399. Gimel appears on no. 208 and possibly in triplicate on no. 28, while zayin is found on no. 212. The lengthiest graffito, the one on no. 28 excepted, is shin waw, appearing on no. 57, a Buttrey-type owl. Letter form countermarks are found in abundance if we accept the “o”-like punch as a Phoenician ayin (nos. 72, 74, 88, 101, 156, 204, 221, 229, 308, 384; cf. Elayi and Lemaire 1998, figure 14); the “c”- and “<”-like punches as Aramaic ayin (nos. 50, 68, 72, 79, 110, 111, 248, 250, 262, 324; cf. Elayi and Lemaire 1998, figure 13); and the “x”-like punches as Aramaic tau (nos. 88, 124, 155, 219, 252). The semiotic value of these punches might have been enhanced by their placement on the coin: only four out of the 25 coins listed here have these marks on the reverse. The ayin and tau generally appears on the obverse on Athena’s cheek. Other possible letter form countermarks include aleph (no. 97), gimel (no. 86), ayin (no. 324), ayin lamed (no. 68?), lamed (or waw?)(nos. 86, 110), and shin (no. 178). Countermarks that have received attention elsewhere include one thought to be a South Arabian kaph that appears on four owls (nos. 55, 57, 90, and 168?), and which may be related to Persian bureaucratic practice (Elayi and Lemaire 1998: 201–02), and a quatrefoil countermark that van Alfen (2002b: 67–69) argued was used in some capacity by the Persian bureaucracy in Egypt.14 While the semiotic value of the graffiti and countermarks is not questioned, the nature of the message conveyed by the cuts is less than clear. That the cuts were often intended to expose the core metal as a test for counterfeits is generally accepted, and this may well have been the motivation for most of the cuts observed in this hoard. But observations of patterning in the placement of the cuts, particularly on owl-type coinage, opens the door to the idea that the cuts were not always for tests, but may have, at times, represented a (crude) marking system in and of themselves (van Alfen 2002a: 6–7; cf. 2004/5: 17–19). The theory finds support in the presence of indisputable designs formed by multiple cuts on several of the 14. The quatrefoil appears on fifth century type owls: nos. 93, 95, 103; early fourth century type owls: 108, 112; pi-style owls: 119, 122, 178, 241, 290, 374; unmarked imitative owl: 54; and an Artaxerxes type imitation: 44. 172 Lisa Anderson and Peter G. van Alfen coins from this hoard. On three coins, two Buttrey-type owls (nos. 57, 65) and a Cilician stater (no. 20), three cuts form an arrow-like symbol; the same cut arrow symbol has been observed on owls from other hoards as well (Buxton and van Alfen forthcoming). Also appearing to be deliberately patterened are three cuts, one between the owl’s eyes, one across the neck, and a third up the body, that form a cross on three other owls from this hoard, something that has also been observed elsewhere (nos. 81, 93, 228; cf. Buxton and van Alfen, forthcoming). Whatever it was that the symbols created by the three cuts signified, those who produced them did so using the simplest, and most readily available tools, a knife or chisel, rather than specialized tools like punches or countermarks. Presumably the intention of making the three cuts was not to test for subaerate cores, but rather to create a lisible sign. If so, then it remains possible that other cuts were meant to be lisible signs and not necessarily test cuts, particularly when they appear in what must have been carefully preselected areas on the coin, e.g., between the eyes of the owl.15 We can see in Table 2 that there is a marked preference for the placement of cuts on the pi-style owls from this hoard, primarily single cuts between the owl’s eyes or across its neck or both together, which parallels the observations made on the cuts on owls from other hoards (van Alfen 2002: 67–69; Buxton and van Alfen, forthcoming). This lack of complete randomness could well have had semiotic significance.16 Tables 1 and 2 present the overall tally of all types of marks on the fifth century-type (37 coins; nos. 67–103) and pi-style owls (360 coins; nos. 116–469, R1–R6) from the hoard.17 As can be seen, the proportions of marks and types of marks found on these two groups of owls differ little from comparable fifth and fourth century owls found in other (near-) contemporary hoards.18 Looking only at the owls from the ANS Near East hoard, we note that there is not a considerable difference between the inclusive and exclusive proportions for the pi-style owls, whereas this is not the case for the fifth century type owls. This is to be expected, however, since the fifth century owls had been in circulation for much longer and thus could be expected to have accumulated more marks over time. This observation only re15. It is also possible that some cuts may have served double duty, both as tests cuts, but also, because of where they are placed, as signs that the cut was made by a particular institution or entity. 16. Buxton and van Alfen (forthcoming) discuss these problems at greater length and with a much larger data set. 17. In Tables 1 and 2, “Exclusive” means that the tally of whatever type of individual mark (e.g., countermark, graffito, etc. ) appearing on a coin is exclusive of other marks; “inclusive,” on the other hand, means it is counted with other marks of different types on the same surface. 18. Compare the 1973 Iraq hoard (van Alfen 2000, Table 2), the 1989 Syria hoard (van Alfen 2002a, Table 1), and the 2004 owl and bullion hoard (van Alfen 2004/5b: Table 1). A fourth century BCE hoard from the Near East Table 1. Marks on fifth century type owls in the ANS Near East Hoard Proportion of total marked: Proportion of total with ctmk/punches only: On obverse only: On reverse only: Proportion of total with single cut only: On obverse only: On reverse only: Proportion of total with multiple cuts On one side only: On obverse only: On reverse only: Proportion of total with single cut on obv. and rev. : Proportion of total with multiple on obv. and rev. : Proportion of total with more than two markings: 173 97% 3% (exclusive); 75% (inclusive) 3% (exclusive); 40% (inclusive) 0% (exclusive); 35% (inclusive) 11% (exclusive); 54% (inclusive) 0% (exclusive); 30% (inclusive) 11% (exclusive); 24% (inclusive) 16% (exclusive); 27% (inclusive) 0% (exclusive); 0% (inclusive) 16% (exclusive); 27% (inclusive) 5% (exclusive); 16% (inclusive) 5% (exclusive); 24% (inclusive) 54% Table 2. Marks on fourth century type owls in the ANS Near East Hoard Proportion of total marked: Proportion of total with ctmk/punches only: On obverse only: On reverse only: Proportion of total with single cut only: On obverse only: On reverse only: Proportion with cut in eye only: Proportion with cut across neck: Proportion with eye and neck: Proportion of total with multiple cuts on one side only: On obverse only: On reverse only: Proportion of total with single cut on obv. and rev. : Proportion of total with multiple on obv. and rev. : Proportion of total with more than two markings: Proportion of total with graffiti: 69% (inclusive of all marks) 8% (exclusive); 14% (inclusive) 3% (exclusive); 8% (inclusive) 3% (exclusive); 6% (inclusive) 34% (exclusive); 48% (inclusive) 2% (exclusive); 6% (inclusive) 32% (exclusive); 42% (inclusive) 28% (49% of rev cuts) 11% (20% of rev cuts) 6% (10% of rev cuts) 12% (exclusive); 16% (inclusive) 0% (exclusive); 1% (inclusive) 12% (exclusive); 15% (inclusive) 5% (exclusive) 3% (exclusive) 9% (one or both sides) 3% (inclusive) 174 Lisa Anderson and Peter G. van Alfen affirms the fact that the semiotic value of most any individual mark was exclusive of any other mark on the coin and that the individual marks had a temporal and geographically limited value (cf. van Alfen 2002b: 67–69). III. Weights of Pi-Style Athenian coins Among the 360 pi-style tetradrachms in the ANS hoard, the lowest weight is 14.73 g (followed by 15.12 g and 15.23 g), the highest weight is 17.45 g (which occurs twice, followed by 17.42 g), the median weight is 16.87 g, and the average weight is 16.81 g (see Appendix 1). Of the owls 268 (74%) fall between 16.50 and 16.99 g, while only 62 (17%) are 17.00 g and higher. Because the Attic weight standard for the fourth century is thought to have been well above 17. 00 g, the overall low weight of the owls from this hoard deserves further exploration. In a recent paper, Elsen (2002) argues that the weight standard of the Athenian tetradrachm from the sixth through third centuries BCE was 17.28 g, based on a 432 g mina (and its corresponding 4.32 g drachm).19 Drawing evidence from textual sources, extant owls and issues of Alexander, Elsen presents solid arguments for the continuity of this theoretical mark. Nevertheless, the status of the Attic standard in the later fourth century is worth revisiting, both because it has attracted a fair amount of attention because of Alexander’s adoption of it (e.g., Mørkholm 1982; Price 1991a: 41–44), and because there appear to be anomalies in the weights of the pi-style owls. There is general agreement that the theoretical Attic standard for tetradrachms in the later fourth century lay between c. 17.20 and 17.30 g, while in reality the owls were not always struck at full weight. Mørkholm (1982: 143) suggested that the weight standard in the Levant under Alexander was between 17.30–17.40 g until 317 BCE, when it was reduced to 17.00–17.09 g, the first of several such Hellenistic reductions. Price (1991a: 43), in turn, demonstrated that Mørkholm’s elevated standard was based on false metholodogy and a sample size that was too small, and instead posited that the standard under Alexander was likely between 17.25 and 17.30 g, with most coins he observed falling within 2% of that range. Naster’s (1983: 83) focus on Athenian owls of the sixth through fourth centuries suggested a mark of 17.17 g.20 However, it has also been noticed that the weights of owls circulating in the Near East are more often than not significantly below the theoretical Attic standard. Bivar (1985: 615) concluded that the standard employed in this case was not the Attic, but rather a Babylonian shekel (c. 8.40 g) that when 19. Elsen’s standard of 17.28 g was independently confirmed by Kroll (2008: 45, n. 8) using different methods. 20. Naster’s data set was 457 coins from Svoronos (1923), though not the same coins as those in the Svoronos group used here see below. A fourth century BCE hoard from the Near East 175 doubled would provide a near-tetradrachm weight of c. 16.80 g. This, rather than the Attic, was possibly the standard employed by those producing Athenian imitations in the Near East (cf. van Alfen 2000: 18–19), but it is highly doubtful that the Athenians would have at any time adopted the shekel standard for themselves. The pi-style weights from the ANS hoard are no exception to the observed Near Eastern trend, which brings into focus the disparity between the theoretical standard and actual coin weights. Underweight coins are, of course, nothing new. Generally, this can be attributed to the desire not to surpass the theoretical weight mark in the production of coinage, careless minting practices, or planned fiduciarity (cf. Kagan 2006). In practice, as Elsen (2002) has demonstrated, the Athenians maintained their theoretical standard of 17.28 g for the tetradrachm but appear to have struck coins weighing on average c. 17.15 g; the c. 0.10 g difference (within c. 1% of the ideal weight) was undoubtedly an acceptable margin that erred on the side of caution to prevent the production of overweight coins, which would entail monetary loss for the state. Nevertheless, the average weight of owls found in the Near East is generally several tenths of a gram below even the work-a-day mark of c. 17.15 g, meaning that the discrepancy between the theoretical weight and actual average weight of these owls would appear to be closer to 3% off the mark rather than 1%. Our concern is whether this larger margin was, in fact, real, and if it was, what its significance might have been. To explore these issues, we have compiled a statistically sound data set that is both larger and more inclusive than those used previously. ANS Near East hoard: 360 pi-style tetradrachms (Figs. 1 and 2).21 This does not include the unmarked imitations. A number of the higher weight (above 17.10 g) tetradrachms in this portion of the hoard appear to be heavily worn, yet are all coated in an unusual dark patina that may be contributing to their higher weights: nos. 370, 372, 373, 375–379, 407, 409, 413, 433, 447. 1973 Iraq hoard (van Alfen 2000): 52 pi-style tetradrachms (Fig. 3). This does not include the tetradrachms classified by van Alfen as imitations. Thorikos 1969 hoard (Bingen 1973): 282 pi-style tetradrachms (Fig. 4). An important characteristic of this group is that the coins fall within a much shorter range than the other groups, with only two above 17.20 g and only one below 16.40 g, which, in comparison to the other groups, is unusual given the sample 21. Fig. 2 shows the trend of the weights of the 360 tetradrachms as a continuous series. Gaps in the line are weights that do not appear in the group, and the longer unbroken segments show where multiple coins have the same weight. Description of the Data Sets 10 20 30 40 50 0 weight 176 14.50 17.00 17.50 weight 15.00 16.00 16.50 15.50 Lisa Anderson and Peter G. van Alfen Figure 1. Weights of Pi-style Tetradrachms in ANS Near East Figure 2. Pi-style Tetradrachms in ANS Near East in Weight Order 15.79 and below 15.80-15.84 15.85-15.89 15.90-15.94 15.95-15.99 16.00-16.04 16.05-16.09 16.10-16.14 16.15-16.19 16.20-16.24 16.25-16.29 16.30-16.34 16.35-16.39 16.40-16.44 16.45-16.49 16.50-16.54 16.55-16.59 16.60-16.64 16.65-16.69 16.70-16.74 16.75-16.79 16.80-16.84 16.85-16.89 16.90-16.94 16.95-16.99 17.00-17.04 17.05-17.09 17.10-17.14 17.15-17.19 17.20-17.24 17.25-17.29 17.30-17.34 17.35 and up 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 20 30 40 50 0 A fourth century BCE hoard from the Near East Figure 3. Weights of Pi-style Tetradrachms in 1973 Iraq weight weight Figure 4. Weights of Pi-style Tetradrachms in Thorikos 1969 15.80-15.84 15.85-15.89 15.90-15.94 15.95-15.99 16.00-16.04 16.05-16.09 16.10-16.14 16.15-16.19 16.20-16.24 16.25-16.29 16.30-16.34 16.35-16.39 16.40-16.44 16.45-16.49 16.50-16.54 16.55-16.59 16.60-16.64 16.65-16.69 16.70-16.74 16.75-16.79 16.80-16.84 16.85-16.89 16.90-16.94 16.95-16.99 17.00-17.04 17.05-17.09 17.10-17.14 17.15-17.19 17.20-17.24 17.25-17.29 17.30-17.34 17.35 and up 15.79 and below 15.80-15.84 15.85-15.89 15.90-15.94 15.95-15.99 16.00-16.04 16.05-16.09 16.10-16.14 16.15-16.19 16.20-16.24 16.25-16.29 16.30-16.34 16.35-16.39 16.40-16.44 16.45-16.49 16.50-16.54 16.55-16.59 16.60-16.64 16.65-16.69 16.70-16.74 16.75-16.79 16.80-16.84 16.85-16.89 16.90-16.94 16.95-16.99 17.00-17.04 17.05-17.09 17.10-17.14 17.15-17.19 17.20-17.24 17.25-17.29 17.30-17.34 17.35 and up 177 178 Lisa Anderson and Peter G. van Alfen size. These coins, in what Bingen calls a circulation or emergency hoard instead of a savings or bank hoard (1973: 8), circulated closer to their mint of issue, which could explain both their higher average weights and tighter range. Svoronos: 292 pi-style tetradrachms illustrated by Svoronos (1923) on plates 20, 26–32 (Fig. 5). These coins come from hoards found in various parts of Greece, though some were also found in Egypt. This group has an unusually high number of low weight coins—23 are below 15.79 g. ANS ‘Egyptian’ Owls (van Alfen 2002b and 2004–5b): 77 pi-style tetradrachms, all presumably bona fide owls found in Near Eastern contexts, particularly Egypt (Fig. 6). Specifically, there are 15 tetradrachms from Endicott’s Hoard (2002b), 20 from “Miscellaneous Owls” (2002b)22 and 42 from “A New Athenian ‘Owl’ Hoard” (2004–5b). This group has an unusually high number of tetradrachms over 17.10 g (28 out of 77 or 36%), compared to 26% for Thorikos and 6% for ANS Near East. All Pi-Style (All categories combined): 1063 tetradrachms (Fig. 7). For the histograms we have adopted intervals of 0.05 g in preference to the 0.10 g used by Elsen (2002) and Mørkholm (1982: 141) in order to facilitate a more precise determination of where it is the weights begin to rise. Comparisons among the different data sets have been made based on percentages, rather than comparing the counts for each interval, in order to see the relative variations among the groups of different sizes. Despite Mørkholm’s theories for doing so (1982: 141; but see Price 1991a: 43), we have not adjusted for factors of wear since there is no accepted methodology for determining ancient coin wear over time and because it does not appear to be an important variable in the pi-style data sets as can be seen in Bingen’s (1973) analysis of the 282 pi-style owls found at Thorikos. Bingen’s histograms confirm Elsen’s work-a-day standard of c. 17.15 g in their comparatively high (vis-à-vis owls found in the Near East) weight distribution: an average of 17.137 g, a mode of 17.143 g and a median of 17.139 g, with the bulk of the coins falling in a range from 17.10–17.20 g (Bingen 1973: 57). Bingen’s decision to use only those coins he considered to be in the best condition, either “fleur de coin” or “traces de circulation perceptibles” meant that he selected only 61 out of the 282 coins in the hoard to achieve his results. The bias in his results is not perceptibly changed by the inclusion of all the owls from the Thorikos hoard as can be seen in Fig. 4. Thus his concerns about wear affecting the results in a significant manner were unwarranted. Also, while there are indeed no reliable statistics for how quickly ancient coins wore down in circulation and how this would affect 22. This total omits five tetradrachms that were either imitations or fifth century style, as well as one fused coin that is included in the published group. 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 A fourth century BCE hoard from the Near East weight weight Figure 5. Weights of Pi-style Tetradrachms in Svoronos Group (n= 292) Figure 6. Pi-style Tetradrachms in ANS ‘Egyptian’ Owls Group (n= 77) 15.79 and below 15.80-15.84 15.85-15.89 15.90-15.94 15.95-15.99 16.00-16.04 16.05-16.09 16.10-16.14 16.15-16.19 16.20-16.24 16.25-16.29 16.30-16.34 16.35-16.39 16.40-16.44 16.45-16.49 16.50-16.54 16.55-16.59 16.60-16.64 16.65-16.69 16.70-16.74 16.75-16.79 16.80-16.84 16.85-16.89 16.90-16.94 16.95-16.99 17.00-17.04 17.05-17.09 17.10-17.14 17.15-17.19 17.20-17.24 17.25-17.29 17.30-17.34 17.35 and up 15.79 and below 15.80-15.84 15.85-15.89 15.90-15.94 15.95-15.99 16.00-16.04 16.05-16.09 16.10-16.14 16.15-16.19 16.20-16.24 16.25-16.29 16.30-16.34 16.35-16.39 16.40-16.44 16.45-16.49 16.50-16.54 16.55-16.59 16.60-16.64 16.65-16.69 16.70-16.74 16.75-16.79 16.80-16.84 16.85-16.89 16.90-16.94 16.95-16.99 17.00-17.04 17.05-17.09 17.10-17.14 17.15-17.19 17.20-17.24 17.25-17.29 17.30-17.34 17.35 and up 179 100 120 180 10 15 20 20 40 60 80 0 5 0 Lisa Anderson and Peter G. van Alfen weight weight Figure 7. Weights of Pi-style Tetradrachms in All Pi-style Groups (n= 1063) Figure 8. Comparison of Pi-style Groups by Percentage of Group Totals All Pi Style Svoronos 1973 Iraq ANS 'Egyptian' Owls ANS Near East Thorikos 1969 15.79 and below 15.80-15.84 15.85-15.89 15.90-15.94 15.95-15.99 16.00-16.04 16.05-16.09 16.10-16.14 16.15-16.19 16.20-16.24 16.25-16.29 16.30-16.34 16.35-16.39 16.40-16.44 16.45-16.49 16.50-16.54 16.55-16.59 16.60-16.64 16.65-16.69 16.70-16.74 16.75-16.79 16.80-16.84 16.85-16.89 16.90-16.94 16.95-16.99 17.00-17.04 17.05-17.09 17.10-17.14 17.15-17.19 17.20-17.24 17.25-17.29 17.30-17.34 17.35 and up 15.79 and below 15.80-15.84 15.85-15.89 15.90-15.94 15.95-15.99 16.00-16.04 16.05-16.09 16.10-16.14 16.15-16.19 16.20-16.24 16.25-16.29 16.30-16.34 16.35-16.39 16.40-16.44 16.45-16.49 16.50-16.54 16.55-16.59 16.60-16.64 16.65-16.69 16.70-16.74 16.75-16.79 16.80-16.84 16.85-16.89 16.90-16.94 16.95-16.99 17.00-17.04 17.05-17.09 17.10-17.14 17.15-17.19 17.20-17.24 17.25-17.29 17.30-17.34 17.35 and up A fourth century BCE hoard from the Near East 181 their weights, we may be able to use the fifth century owls from the ANS Near East hoard as a rough measuring stick. All 37 fifth century owls from the hoard show considerable wear since most had been in circulation for nearly a century by the time the hoard was buried. The highest weight in this group of owls is 17.12 g, the lowest 15.16 g; the median is 16.14 g, the average weight 16.49 g. If we assume that the coins when fresh weighed c. 17.15 g, on average each coin within the group lost a cumulative total of c. 0.65 g, or roughly 4% of its weight, over the course of nearly 100 years. We cannot say if the amount of wear that took place in the first decade of circulation was greater than subsequent decades, but it would appear that on average a single decade of circulation would make little discernible difference in the weight of the owls. For our purposes, this is a useful observation since the pi-style owls under consideration here, both those from the ANS Near East and other hoards, had presumably only been in circulation for a decade or two before they were concealed. Again, wear would seem not to be an important variable in our analysis. Here is a rundown of the possible actual (versus theorectical) weight standards for each group suggested by the histograms in Figs. 1–6: ANS Near East 1973 Iraq Thorikos 1969 Svoronos ANS ‘Egyptian’ Owls All Pi-Style 17.05–17.09 g 16.85–16.89 g 17.15–17.19 g 17.15–17.19 g (or possibly lower, 17.10–17.14 g)23 17.20–17.24 g 17.15–17.19 g (or possibly higher, 17.20–17.24 g)24 It is notable that the Svoronos group and Thorikos 1969 may have the same initial rise in weight at 17.15 g, although differing in their overall weight distributions, while the two main Near Eastern hoards are at least 0.10 g lower compared to the ANS ‘Egyptian’ Owls group, which is the highest. The extremely low weights observed for the 1973 Iraq hoard may be unreliable due to its small sample size or it may be a true reflection of the common pi-style weights in the region of Mesopotamia when it was concealed c. 323/2 BCE. The peaks at the upper end of the weight range of the combined group are entirely due to the high weights of Thorikos 1969, Svoronos and the ANS ‘Egyptian’ Owls group and do not reflect the initial rise detected in the ANS Near East and 1973 Iraq hoards. Comparison 23. Each interval has nine examples. 24. The 17.15–17.19 g interval has 47 examples; the 17.20–17.24 g interval has 17 examples. The higher total sample number again affects the determination of the first significant rise in the graph. The heavier interval is clearly an important group, but it is uncertain whether it should be counted as the most important rise and therefore indicative of the weight standard. 10 15 20 0 5 182 12 15 0 weight 3 6 9 Lisa Anderson and Peter G. van Alfen Figure 9. Detail, Comparison of Groups weight All Other Pi-Style n= 703 ANS Near East n= 360 Figure 10. Comparison of ANS Near East with All Other Pi-style Owls Thorikos 1973 Iraq Svoronos ANS Near East 15.79 and below 15.80-15.84 15.85-15.89 15.90-15.94 15.95-15.99 16.00-16.04 16.05-16.09 16.10-16.14 16.15-16.19 16.20-16.24 16.25-16.29 16.30-16.34 16.35-16.39 16.40-16.44 16.45-16.49 16.50-16.54 16.55-16.59 16.60-16.64 16.65-16.69 16.70-16.74 16.75-16.79 16.80-16.84 16.85-16.89 16.90-16.94 16.95-16.99 17.00-17.04 17.05-17.09 17.10-17.14 17.15-17.19 17.20-17.24 17.25-17.29 17.30-17.34 17.35 and up 15.79 and below 15.80-15.84 15.85-15.89 15.90-15.94 15.95-15.99 16.00-16.04 16.05-16.09 16.10-16.14 16.15-16.19 16.20-16.24 16.25-16.29 16.30-16.34 16.35-16.39 16.40-16.44 16.45-16.49 16.50-16.54 16.55-16.59 16.60-16.64 16.65-16.69 16.70-16.74 16.75-16.79 16.80-16.84 16.85-16.89 16.90-16.94 16.95-16.99 17.00-17.04 17.05-17.09 17.10-17.14 17.15-17.19 17.20-17.24 17.25-17.29 17.30-17.34 17.35 and up ANS 'Egyptian' Owls A fourth century BCE hoard from the Near East 183 of relative numbers among the groups shows interesting patterns (Figs. 8 and 9). The weights for Thorikos 1969 are much higher than the other hoards and have already begun to slope downward when ANS Near East reaches its highest numbers, with the Thorikos hoard most strikingly skewed toward the heavier end of the scale when compared to 1973 Iraq. When compared with the tetradrachms from the Svoronos group, Thorikos 1969 has a much higher percentage of higher weight coins, despite the fact that the two groups seem to have the same standard. The weights of ANS Near East when set next to the combined relative distributions of the other groups show again how underweight the 360 pi-style owls of the ANS Near East group are compared to all 703 of the tetradrachms used in the other groups (Fig. 10). For the hoards used here, there is a slight, but clear difference in the weight distributions of the coins circulating in Greece and Egypt on the one hand versus the coins circulating in the Levant and Near East on the other. Whether this is due to conditions present when the coins entered the archaeological record or is due to their manner of retrieval is unknown.25 We may, for example, be observing signs that underweight Athenian coins were deliberately selected (at Athens? in Phoenicia?) for transport (cf. Xen. Oec. 3.2) to areas in the Levant where any additional weight over c. 16.80 g could complicate rather than faciliate transactions based on shekels because it would require weighing individual coins instead of counting them. In other extra-Aegean areas, like Egypt, as the ANS ‘Egyptian’ group might demonstrate, full-weight owls may have been readily welcomed as a unit of value in and of themselves (cf. van Alfen 2004/5a: 24, n. 35). On the other hand, it is possible that post-depositional factors are contributing to these observations. If, for example, the coins from the ANS Near East hoard were cleaned by being dipped in acid, this could potentially have uniformly reduced their weights. Groups of coins cleaned in this manner or simply overcleaned—as possible, for instance, with other Near Eastern hoards found outside of excavation contexts—may no longer accurately represent their weights in antiquity, but we cannot speculate about the degree to which they might be changed. Under the circumstances, it is impossible to know whether the differences noticed between Thorikos 1969 on the one hand and the ANS Near East and 1973 Iraq hoards on the other are due to the fact that the first was properly excavated and cleaned or due to the fact that the coins in that hoard circulated in Attica, where 25. It is here appropriate to lament the fact that the weights of the owls from the 1989 Syria hoard (van Alfen 2002a) could not be included in these calculations to give a more balanced idea of the weights of coins known to have circulated in the Near East. The loss of the complete record of that hoard’s weights (among other things), resulting from its illicit excavation and almost immediate dispersal on the market, leaves a considerable gap in our analysis. 184 Lisa Anderson and Peter G. van Alfen owls closest to full weight would naturally be in demand. Overall, our analysis confirms Elsen’s theoretical standard for the Athenian tetradrachm of 17.28 g, which in practice resulted in coins weighing closer c. 17.15 g, but it also suggests that there is further work to be done on the weight differentiation and circulation patterns of Athenian tetradrachms in the eastern Mediterranean and farther east. IV. Overall Dating and Composition The bulk of the coinage—the pi-style owls—indicate that the hoard was deposited sometime after the 350s BCE, a claim that is supported by the non-Athenian types, which bring the date in closer to around the third quarter of the fourth century. While the Sinopean issues of Ariarathes (nos. 2–3) and the Aspendian staters (nos. 11–12) are from series that have been dated down to the mid-320s, these dates are not firm, nor can we be certain that the coins in our hoard are among the latest produced in those series. The dated Phoenician issues, a Tyrian shekel (no. 36) from 334 BCE, and a Sidonian double shekel (no. 28) also dated 334 BCE, provide a more rigid terminus post quem; we suggest a burial date between 334 and 330.26 The fact that, at least in what we have of the hoard, there are no issues of Alexander III supports a date before 330, assuming that Alexander’s issues had not yet reached wide circulation in the Near East by that time. Comparisons with the 1989 Syria hoard (CH 8. 158; van Alfen 2002a) are unavoidable: the two hoards are, for all intents and purposes, exactly coeval and both were reportedly found in the same general region. More importantly the composition of both hoards is strikingly similar with Sinopean, “Royal Achaemenid,” Tarsian, Issian, and Phoenician issues found in both, in addition to an abundance of owls including Artaxerxes-type imitations from Egypt.27 The possibility that these may be two parts of the same hoard cannot be discounted, yet it is perhaps just as likely that they were both formed from a similar pool of circulating currency that included, in the rough proportions of issues found in both hoards, coins from Athens and various parts of the Aegean, Asia Minor, Egypt, and the Levant. The geographical distribution of the minting locations of these coins follows more or 26. No. 28 is especially crisp, but no. 36, on the other hand, is not, nor is it even the crispest amongst the Tyrian coins (nos. 32 and 34 show less wear and are supposed to be c. 20 and 12 years older than no. 36). 27. Price (1993) suggested a date of c. 330 BCE for the 1989 hoard, which was said to have been found 100 km east of Aleppo. Of the 164 coins that Price recorded, 142 were Athenian owl types; the remaining 22 coins (see the catalogue, Price, 1993: 33–34) were from Sinope (4), Cyzicus (1), Ephesus (1), Tarsus (7), Hierapolis-Bambyce (5), and Tyre (4). For the owltype component of the hoard, see van Alfen (2002a). A fourth century BCE hoard from the Near East 185 less along the route the Macedonians took into the east. Die-linking among the Egyptian Artaxerxes issues (nos. 42 and 43) suggests that these coins left a satrapal treasury together, perhaps as a payment, and stayed together over the long trek from Egypt to Syria, which may also suggest a link to Alexander’s campaigns.28 However, there is not sufficient evidence to associate this hoard directly with Alexander’s campaigns; at most we might argue for a tangential link. Within the political and economic turmoil of the late 330s, it is possible that stocks of coins that normally would not have circulated far from home (e.g., the Egyptian Artaxerxes issues) might have been broken out of their more restricted circulation areas, as it were, and been swept up in the vortices of armies, baggage trains, and merchants that were criss-crossing the eastern Mediterranean. For this reason we do not know if the ANS Near East and 1989 Syria hoards are representative of “normal” circulation patterns for the Persian Fifth Satrapy in the period immediately predating Alexander’s onslaught. Only a more detailed study of the hoard evidence, one that traces trends for a number of decades before and after c. 330 BCE, and that encompasses a sufficient geographical range, might answer that question. 28. Commenting on die-links found among the Artaxerxes and Sabakes type Egyptian imitations in the 1989 Syria hoard, van Alfen (2002a: 50) notes that “[t]he coincidence of three sets of coins in two series found in one hoard over a thousand miles from their mutual place of origin requires explanation; the most logical of which would be that these six coins are the remnants of a payout by the Egyptian satrapal treasury, wherein one would expect to find large numbers of linked issues resting in the coffers together. To these six coins we should add the remaining twelve Artaxerxes and Sabakes types of the hoard; the evidence of the circulation of these types outside of Egypt is virtually limited to the 1989 hoard, so it would not be stretching the case much to assume that the eighteen coins left Egypt together as one lot. We cannot guess at the circumstances of the payment, or if the coins were turned over to the payee within Egypt or outside.” See also n. 12 above for die linking among the pi-style owls. To date no die links have been observed among pi-style owls recovered from the same Near Eastern hoard, with the exception of ANS Near East, which could mean that these coins too had traveled in batches from Athens and subsequent treasuries. 186 Lisa Anderson and Peter G. van Alfen References Betlyon, J. W. 1982. The coinage and mints of Phoenicia: the pre-Alexandrine period. Harvard Semitic Monographs 26. Chicago. Bingen, J. 1973. Le trésor monétaire Thorikos 1969. Thorikos 6: 7–59. Bivar, A. D. H. 1985. Achaemenid coins, weights and measures. In The Cambridge ancient history of Iran, vol. 2: the Median and Achaemenid periods, I. Gershevitch, ed., pp. 610–639. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buttrey, T. V. 1982. Pharaonic imitations of Athenian tetradrachms. In Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Numismatics, Berne, September 1979, vol I, T. Hackens and R. Weiller, eds., pp. 137–140. Louvain-la-Neuve and Luxembourg: Association Internationale des Numismates Professionels. ———. 1984. Seldom what they seem: the case of the Athenian tetradrachm. In Ancient coins of the Graeco-Roman world: the Nickle numismatics papers, W. Heckel and R. Sullivan, eds., pp. 292–294. Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press for the Calgary Institute of for the Humanities. Buxton, R. F. and P. G. van Alfen (forthcoming). A massive hoard of Athenian owls from the Near East: behavioral aspects. Camp, J. 2005–06. Anc. Agora. Archaeological Reports 52: 5–8. ———. 2006–07. Anc. Agora. Archaeological Reports 53: 3–7. Casabonne, O. 2004. La Cilicie à l’époque achéménide. Paris: De Boccard. De Callataÿ, F. 1996. Les monnaies grecques et l’orientation des axes. Glaux 12. Milan: Edizioni Ennerre. Elayi, J. and A. G. Elayi. 2004a. Le monnayage de la cité phénicienne de Sidon à l’époque Perse (Ve–IVe s. av. J. -C). Paris: Supplément no. 11 à Transeuphratène, Gabalda. ———. 2004b. Le monnayage sidonien de Mazday. Transeuphratène 27: 155–162. Elayi, J. and A. Lemaire. 1998. Graffiti et contremarques ouest-sémitiques sur les monnaies greques et proche-orientales. Glaux 13. Milan: Edizioni Ennerre. Elsen, J. 2002. La stabilité du système pondéral et monétaire attique (VIe–IIe s. avant notre ére). Revue belge de numismatique et de sigillographie 148: 1–32. Flament, C. 2001. À propos des styles d’imitations athéniennes définis par T. V. Buttrey. Revue belge de numismatique et de sigillographie 147: 39–50. ———. 2003. Imitations athéniennes ou monnaies authentiques? Nouvelles considérations sur quelques chouettes athéniennes habituellement identifiées comme imitations. Revue belge de numismatique et de sigillographie 149: 1–10. ———. 2005. Un trésor de tétradrachmes athéniens dispersés suivi de considérations relatives au classement, à la frappe et à l’attribution des chouettes à des ateliers étrangers. Revue belge de numismatique et de sigillographie 151: 29–38. ———. 2007. Le monnayage en argent d’Athèns: de l’époque archaïque à l’époque hellénistique (c. 550–c. 40 av. J. -C. ). Louvain-la-Neuve. A fourth century BCE hoard from the Near East 187 Gitler, H. and O. Tal. 2006. The coinage of Philistia of the fifth and fourth centuries BC: a study of the earliest coins of Palestine. Milan/New York: Edizioni Ennere/ Amphora. Harrison, C. M. 1982a. Coins of the Persian satraps, Ph. D. diss., University of Pennsylvania. ———. 1982b. Persian names on coins of northern Anatolia. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 41: 181–194. IGCH = Thompson, M., O. Mørkholm, and C. M. Kraay, eds. 1973. An inventory of Greek coin hoards, New York: American Numismatic Society. Kroll, J. H. 1993. The Athenian Agora vol. XXVI: the Greek coins. Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. ———. 2006. Athenian tetradrachms recently discovered in the Athenian Agora. Revue Numismatique 162: 57–64. ———. 2008. Early Iron Age balance weights at Lefkandi, Euboea. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 27. 1: 37–48. Meadows, A. 2002. Royal Achaemenid issues (?). In The Pixodarus hoard (CH 9. 421). Coin Hoards IX, R. H. J. Ashton, N. Hardwick, P. Kinns, K. Konuk, and A. R. Meadows, eds., pp. 210–212. London: Royal Numismatic Society. Mørkholm, O. 1982. The Attic coin standard in the Levant during the Hellenistic period. In Studia Paulo Naster oblata. I Numismatica antiqua, S. Scheers, ed., pp. 139–149. Louvain: Department Orientalistiek. Naster, P. 1983. Scripta nummaria: contributions à la méthodologie numismatique, Société Royale de Numismatique Marcel Hoc. Newell, E. T. 1931. The Küchük Köhne hoard. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 46. New York: American Numismatic Society. Nicolet-Pierre, H. 2001 (2004). Retour sur le trésor de Tel el-Athrib 1903 (IGCH 1663) conservé à Athènes. Arkhaiologike ephemeris 139: 173–187. ———, and C. Arnold-Biucchi. 2000. Le trésor de Lentini (Sicile) 1957 (IGCH 2117). In Pour Denyse: Divertissements Numismatiques, S. Hurter and C. Arnold-Biucchi, eds., pp. 165–171. Oeconomides, M. 2006. Contribution à l’étude du monnayage athénien à l’époque classique (suite): le trésor trouvé à Ano Voula en 1979. Revue Numismatique 152: 73–76. Price, M. J. 1991a. The coinage in the name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus. Zurich/London: Swiss Numismatic Society and British Museum Press. ———. 1991b. Circulation at Babylon in 323 B. C. In Mnemata: Papers in Memory of Nancy M. Waggoner, W. E. Metcalf, ed., pp. 63–72. New York: The American Numismatic Society. ———. 1993. More from Memphis and the Syria 1989 hoard. In Essays in honor of Robert Carson and Kenneth Jenkins, M. Price, A. Burnett and R. Bland, eds., pp. 32–35. London: Spink and Sons. 188 Lisa Anderson and Peter G. van Alfen Svoronos, J. 1923 [1975]. Corpus of the ancient coins of Athens. Chicago: Ares. Tekin, O. 2000. Aspendian ‘wrestlers’: an iconographic approach. In Mecanismes et Innovations Monétaires dans l’Anatolie Achéménide: Numismatique et Histoire. Actes de la Table Ronde Internationale d’Istanbul, 22–23 mai 1997, O. Casabonne, ed., pp. 159–169. Varia Anatolica XII. Van Alfen, P. G. 2000. The “owls” from the 1973 Iraq hoard. American Journal of Numismatics 12: 9–58. ———. 2002a. The ‘owls’ from the 1989 Syria hoard with a review of pre-Macedonian coinage in Egypt. American Journal of Numismatics 14: 1–58. ———. 2002b. Two unpublished hoards and other “owls” from Egypt. American Journal of Numismatics 14: 59–71. ———. 2004/5a. Herodotus’ “Aryandic” Silver and Bullion Use in Persian-Period Egypt. American Journal of Numismatics 16/17: 7–46. ———. 2004/5b. A new Athenian ‘owl’ and bullion hoard from the Near East. American Journal of Numismatics 16/17: 47–61. ———. 2005. Ancient imitative and counterfeit coinage in context. In Making, moving, and managing: the new world of ancient economies, 323–31 BC, Z. Archibald, J. Davies, and V. Gabrielsen, eds., pp. 322–354. London: Oxbow. ———. 2008. The later fourth century BCE coinage of Issos. American Journal of Numismatics 20: 199–208. Vleeming, S. P. 2001. Some coins of Artaxerxes and other short texts in the Demotic script found on various objects and gathered from many publications. Studia Demotica V. Leuven: Peeters. Wartenberg, U. 1998. Eastern imitation of Athenian tetradrachm. Numismatic Chronicle 158: 51. Weiser, W. 1989. Die Eulen von Kyros dem Jüngeren: zu den ersten Münzporträts lebender Menschen. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 76: 267–296. Wroth, W. 1889. Catalogue of Greek Coins: Pontus, Paphlagonia, Bithynia, and the Kingdom of Bosphorus. London: British Museum. A fourth century BCE hoard from the Near East 189 Appendix I. Catalogue of Pi-style Owls Cat. No. Weight (g) Axis cut obv. ctmk. cut rev. obv. 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 16. 54 16. 36 17. 03 16. 68 16. 78 16. 74 17. 06 16. 99 17. 02 16. 70 16. 97 17. 03 16. 61 16. 78 16. 90 16. 92 16. 71 16. 92 17. 05 16. 83 16. 24 15. 78 16. 90 16. 70 17. 01 16. 41 17. 06 16. 82 16. 70 16. 67 16. 77 16. 93 16. 37 16. 92 16. 97 9 1? (eye) 7 0 7 0 9 0 9 0 8 0 8 0 7 0 7 1 7 1 7 0 7 1 7 0 7 0 8 0 8 1 9 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 8 0 9 1 8 0 9 0 8 0 8 1 7 1 7 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 8 3? 9 0 8 0 9 0 0 0 0 2? 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 2 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 2? 0 1 1 ctmk. rev. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Notes ANS No. 2006. 12. 39 2006. 12. 43 2006. 12. 47 2006. 12. 48 2006. 12. 51 2006. 12. 52 2006. 12. 53 2006. 12. 54 2006. 12. 55 2006. 12. 56 2006. 12. 57 2006. 12. 58 2006. 12. 59 2006. 12. 60 2006. 12. 61 2006. 12. 62 heavily marked 2006. 12. 63 2006. 12. 64 2006. 12. 65 2006. 12. 66 2006. 12. 67 2006. 12. 68 2006. 12. 69 2006. 12. 70 2006. 12. 71 2006. 12. 72 2006. 12. 73 2006. 12. 74 2006. 12. 75 2006. 12. 76 2006. 12. 77 2006. 12. 78 2006. 12. 79 2006. 12. 80 2006. 12. 81 190 Lisa Anderson and Peter G. van Alfen count. rev. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Notes ANS No. 2006. 12. 82 2006. 12. 83 2006. 12. 84 2006. 12. 85 2006. 12. 86 2006. 12. 87 2006. 12. 88 2006. 12. 89 2006. 12. 90 2006. 12. 91 2006. 12. 92 2006. 12. 93 2006. 12. 94 2006. 12. 95 2006. 12. 96 2006. 12. 97 2006. 12. 98 2006. 12. 99 2006. 12. 100 2006. 12. 101 2006. 12. 102 2006. 12. 103 2006. 12. 104 2006. 12. 105 2006. 12. 106 2006. 12. 107 2006. 12. 108 2006. 12. 109 2006. 12. 110 2006. 12. 111 2006. 12. 112 2006. 12. 113 2006. 12. 114 2006. 12. 115 2006. 12. 116 2006. 12. 117 2006. 12. 118 Cat. No. Weight (g) Axis cut obv. count. cut rev. obv. 151 16. 71 7 0 0 1 152 16. 78 8 0 0 2 153 17. 18 6 0 0 1 154 16. 88 7 0 0 1 155 16. 87 7 0 1 0 156 16. 86 9 1 1 1 157 16. 87 8 0 0 1 158 17. 09 7 0 0 1 159 16. 91 7 0 0 0 160 17. 07 8 0 0 2 161 15. 35 9 1 1 1 162 16. 98 7 0 0 0 163 16. 81 9 1 small 0 0 164 16. 54 8 0 0 0 17. 01 7 0 0 2 165 joined 166 16. 86 8 0 0 0 167 17. 05 7 0 0 1 168 16. 99 6 0 2 0 169 16. 82 8 0 0 1 170 16. 48 6 0 1 0 171 16. 51 7 0 1 0 172 16. 44 8 0 0 2 173 16. 95 8 0 0 1 174 15. 83 9 0 0 0 16. 75 8 1 0 0 175 176 16. 75 7 0 0 2 177 16. 96 8 1 0 0 16. 92 7 0 5 0 178 16. 88 8 0 1 2 179 180 17. 04 9 0 0 2 181 16. 82 8 0 1 1 16. 80 8 0 0 1 182 16. 92 6 0 0 0 183 184 16. 94 7 0 0 1 185 16. 92 7 0 0 1 186 16. 99 8 0 0 0 187 16. 92 9 0 0 0 A fourth century BCE hoard from the Near East Cat. No. Weight (g) Axis cut obv. count. cut rev. obv. 188 16. 86 7 0 0 0 189 16. 82 8 0 0 0 190 16. 88 9 0 0 3 191 17. 08 7 0 0 1 192 17. 18 7 0 0 1 193 17. 37 7 0 0 1 194 16. 99 8 0 0 0 195 16. 80 7 0 0 3 196 16. 43 7 0 0 1 197 16. 85 8 0 0 0 198 16. 92 7 0 0 0 199 16. 48 7 0 0 0 200 16. 04 9 0 0 1 201 17. 03 8 0 0 0 17. 19 7 0 0 1 202 203 16. 89 8 0 0 2 16. 95 8 0 0 1 204 205 16. 86 7 0 0 1 16. 83 8 0 0 0 206 207 15. 23 7 0 0 0 17. 02 8 0 0 1 208 209 17. 06 8 0 0 0 16. 88 7 0 0 0 210 211 16. 89 7 0 0 1 212 16. 89 9 2 0 1 213 16. 94 6 0 0 0 214 16. 99 8 0 0 1 215 17. 05 8 0 0 1 216 16. 70 8 0 0 0 217 16. 61 8 0 0 1 218 16. 97 8 0 0 1 219 16. 70 8 1 0 1 220 16. 99 7 0 0 1 221 16. 96 8 0 1 0 222 16. 96 7 2 0 1 223 16. 65 7 0 0 1 224 16. 79 8 0 0 0 count. rev. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Notes 191 ANS No. 2006. 12. 119 2006. 12. 120 2006. 12. 121 2006. 12. 122 2006. 12. 123 2006. 12. 124 2006. 12. 125 2006. 12. 126 2006. 12. 127 2006. 12. 128 2006. 12. 129 2006. 12. 130 2006. 12. 131 2006. 12. 132 2006. 12. 133 2006. 12. 134 2006. 12. 135 2006. 12. 136 2006. 12. 137 2006. 12. 138 2006. 12. 139 2006. 12. 140 2006. 12. 141 2006. 12. 142 2006. 12. 143 2006. 12. 144 2006. 12. 145 2006. 12. 146 2006. 12. 147 2006. 12. 148 2006. 12. 149 2006. 12. 150 2006. 12. 151 2006. 12. 152 2006. 12. 153 2006. 12. 154 2006. 12. 155 192 Lisa Anderson and Peter G. van Alfen count. Notes rev. 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Obv. linked to 1989 Syria no. 7 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 ANS No. 2006. 12. 156 2006. 12. 157 2006. 12. 158 2006. 12. 159 2006. 12. 160 2006. 12. 161 2006. 12. 162 2006. 12. 163 2006. 12. 164 2006. 12. 165 2006. 12. 166 2006. 12. 167 2006. 12. 168 2006. 12. 169 2006. 12. 170 2006. 12. 171 2006. 12. 172 2006. 12. 173 2006. 12. 174 2006. 12. 175 2006. 12. 176 2006. 12. 177 2006. 12. 178 2006. 12. 179 2006. 12. 180 2006. 12. 181 2006. 12. 182 2006. 12. 183 2006. 12. 184 2006. 12. 185 2006. 12. 186 2006. 12. 187 2006. 12. 188 2006. 12. 189 2006. 12. 190 2006. 12. 191 2006. 12. 192 Cat. No. Weight (g) Axis cut obv. count. cut rev. obv. 225 16. 65 8 0 0 0 226 17. 01 7 0 0 1 227 16. 92 7 0 0 0 228 16. 69 8 1 0 3 229 16. 72 8 0 1 0 230 16. 88 7 0 0 1 231 16. 80 9 1 1 1 232 16. 24 8 0 0 0 233 16. 66 7 0 0 1 234 16. 54 8 0 0 1 235 16. 73 8 0 0 0 236 16. 51 9 0 0 1 237 16. 93 7 0 0 1 238 15. 12 7 0 0 0 17. 00 9 0 0 2 239 240 16. 85 8 0 0 1 16. 79 9 1 2 0 241 242 16. 95 9 0 0 0 16. 92 6 0 0 0 243 244 17. 01 8 0 0 0 16. 79 7 0 0 0 245 246 16. 83 7 0 0 1 16. 96 6 0 0 0 247 248 16. 85 7 0 1 0 16. 78 7 0 0 1 249 250 16. 89 7 0 1 0 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 16. 99 16. 76 17. 00 16. 95 16. 90 16. 56 16. 86 16. 92 16. 91 16. 70 16. 91 9 7 8 8 7 8 9 8 7 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 A fourth century BCE hoard from the Near East Cat. No. Weight (g) Axis cut obv. count. cut rev. obv. 262 16. 72 7 0 1 0 263 16. 63 8 0 0 0 264 17. 12 7 0 0 1 265 16. 94 9 0 0 0 266 16. 55 8 0 0 1 267 17. 02 8 0 0 2 268 16. 84 9 0 0 0 269 16. 81 7 0 0 0 270 17. 00 7 0 0 0 271 16. 82 7 0 0 2 joined 272 16. 93 8 0 0 0 273 16. 80 8 0 0 0 274 17. 03 8 0 0 1 275 16. 95 8 0 0 2 276 16. 92 7 0 0 2 277 16. 49 9 0 0 0 278 16. 74 7 0 0 2 279 17. 22 7 1 1 1 280 16. 84 9 0 0 0 281 16. 76 7 0 0 0 282 16. 97 8 1 0 1 283 16. 57 9 0 0 1 284 16. 52 6 0 0 2 285 16. 54 8 0 0 0 286 16. 94 8 0 0 1 287 16. 87 7 0 0 0 288 16. 93 8 0 0 1 16. 97 7 0 0 0 289 16. 91 7 0 0 0 290 291 16. 88 9 0 0 0 292 17. 05 7 0 0 0 16. 79 6 0 0 0 293 16. 74 8 0 0 0 294 295 16. 78 7 0 0 0 296 16. 36 8 0 0 1 297 16. 99 8 0 0 0 count. rev. 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Notes 193 ANS No. 2006. 12. 193 2006. 12. 194 2006. 12. 195 2006. 12. 196 2006. 12. 197 2006. 12. 198 2006. 12. 199 2006. 12. 200 2006. 12. 201 2006. 12. 202 2006. 12. 203 2006. 12. 204 2006. 12. 205 2006. 12. 206 2006. 12. 207 2006. 12. 208 2006. 12. 209 2006. 12. 210 2006. 12. 211 2006. 12. 212 2006. 12. 213 2006. 12. 214 2006. 12. 215 2006. 12. 216 2006. 12. 217 2006. 12. 218 2006. 12. 219 2006. 12. 220 2006. 12. 221 2006. 12. 222 2006. 12. 223 2006. 12. 224 2006. 12. 225 2006. 12. 226 2006. 12. 227 2006. 12. 228 194 Lisa Anderson and Peter G. van Alfen count. Notes rev. 0 obv. linked to 2006. 12. 230 0 obv. linked to 2006. 12. 229 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ANS No. 2006. 12. 229 2006. 12. 230 2006. 12. 231 2006. 12. 232 2006. 12. 233 2006. 12. 234 2006. 12. 235 2006. 12. 236 2006. 12. 237 2006. 12. 238 2006. 12. 239 2006. 12. 240 2006. 12. 241 2006. 12. 242 2006. 12. 243 2006. 12. 244 2006. 12. 245 2006. 12. 246 2006. 12. 247 2006. 12. 248 2006. 12. 249 2006. 12. 250 2006. 12. 251 2006. 12. 252 2006. 12. 253 2006. 12. 254 2006. 12. 255 2006. 12. 256 2006. 12. 257 2006. 12. 258 2006. 12. 259 2006. 12. 260 2006. 12. 261 2006. 12. 262 2006. 12. 263 2006. 12. 264 Cat. No. Weight (g) Axis cut obv. count. cut rev. obv. 298 16. 60 8 0 0 0 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 16. 81 16. 80 17. 01 17. 07 16. 95 16. 95 16. 51 16. 54 17. 04 17. 07 16. 91 16. 59 16. 89 16. 76 16. 92 16. 97 16. 38 16. 70 16. 89 17. 26 16. 82 16. 77 16. 74 16. 54 16. 71 16. 85 16. 99 16. 33 16. 70 16. 88 16. 90 16. 99 16. 91 16. 97 16. 89 8 3 7 7 8 9 9 7 7 8 8 7 6 8 7 7 8 8 7 7 8 8 9 7 7 9 7 7 7 7 7 9 7 7 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 A fourth century BCE hoard from the Near East Cat. No. Weight (g) Axis cut obv. count. cut rev. obv. 334 17. 04 8 0 0 0 335 17. 02 9 0 0 1 336 16. 96 7 0 0 1 337 16. 65 7 0 0 0 338 16. 61 8 1 0 1 339 16. 90 8 0 0 1 340 16. 84 7 0 0 2 341 17. 02 8 0 0 2 342 16. 59 9 0 0 1 343 16. 57 8 0 0 1 344 16. 91 8 0 0 0 345 16. 49 7 0 0 1 346 16. 95 7 0 0 0 347 17. 01 11 0 0 1 16. 95 7 1 0 1 348 349 16. 98 6 0 0 1 16. 86 9 0 0 2 350 351 16. 91 7 0 0 0 16. 89 8 0 0 1 352 353 16. 99 9 1 0 1 16. 68 8 0 0 0 354 355 17. 09 7 0 0 0 16. 73 10 0 0 0 356 357 16. 24 9 0 0 0 16. 66 8 0 0 1 358 359 16. 87 7 0 0 1 360 16. 79 8 0 0 1 361 16. 50 9 0 0 4? 362 16. 91 7 0 0 0 363 16. 97 8 0 0 1 364 16. 56 7 0 0 1 365 16. 71 9 1 0 2 366 16. 63 9 0 0 1 367 16. 09 8 0 0 2 368 16. 88 7 0 0 0 369 16. 12 8 0 0 2 370 17. 32 9 1 0 1 371 16. 48 8 0 0 2 count. Notes rev. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 recarved dies? 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 195 ANS No. 2006. 12. 265 2006. 12. 266 2006. 12. 268 2006. 12. 269 2006. 12. 270 2006. 12. 271 2006. 12. 272 2006. 12. 273 2006. 12. 274 2006. 12. 275 2006. 12. 276 2006. 12. 277 2006. 12. 278 2006. 12. 279 2006. 12. 280 2006. 12. 281 2006. 12. 282 2006. 12. 283 2006. 12. 284 2006. 12. 285 2006. 12. 286 2006. 12. 287 2006. 12. 288 2006. 12. 289 2006. 12. 290 2006. 12. 291 2006. 12. 292 2006. 12. 293 2006. 12. 294 2006. 12. 295 2006. 12. 296 2006. 12. 297 2006. 12. 298 2006. 12. 299 2006. 12. 300 2006. 12. 302 2006. 12. 303 2006. 12. 304 196 Lisa Anderson and Peter G. van Alfen count. Notes ANS No. rev. 0 2006. 12. 305 0 2006. 12. 306 2 2006. 12. 307 0 2006. 12. 308 0 2006. 12. 309 0 2006. 12. 310 0 2006. 12. 311 0 2006. 12. 312 0 2006. 12. 313 0 2008. 15. 68 0 2008. 15. 69 0 2008. 15. 70 0 2008. 15. 71 0 2008. 15. 72 0 2008. 15. 73 0 2008. 15. 74 0 2008. 15. 75 2 2008. 15. 76 0 2008. 15. 77 0 2008. 15. 78 0 2008. 15. 79 0 2008. 15. 80 0 2008. 15. 81 0 2008. 15. 82 0 2008. 15. 83 0 2008. 15. 84 0 2008. 15. 85 graf: 2008. 15. 86 shin 0 2008. 15. 87 0 2008. 15. 88 0 2008. 15. 89 0 2008. 15. 90 0 2008. 15. 91 0 2008. 15. 92 0 thick hammered 2008. 15. 93 edges 0 2008. 15. 94 Cat. No. Weight (g) Axis cut obv. count. cut rev. obv. 372 17. 22 0 0 0 1 373 17. 21 9 0 0 1 374 16. 77 7 0 3 1 (small) 375 17. 23 8 0 0 1 376 17. 23 6 0 0 0 377 17. 35 9 0 0 0 378 17. 30 9 0 0 2 379 17. 45 8 0 0 0 380 17. 11 7 0 0 1 381 16. 84 7 0 0 0 382 16. 82 9 0 0 1 383 16. 81 9 0 0 4 384 17. 03 9 0 2 0 385 17. 08 8 0 0 0 16. 96 8 0 0 1 386 387 16. 97 8 0 0 1 16. 88 9 0 0 1 388 389 16. 56 8 0 0 0 16. 98 7 0 0 1 390 391 16. 89 8 0 0 1 16. 85 9 0 0 1 392 393 16. 74 7 0 0 0 16. 89 9 1 1 0 394 395 17. 08 8 0 0 1 16. 89 9 0 0 0 396 397 16. 73 8 0 0 2 398 16. 53 9 0 0 2 399 17. 02 8 0 0 2 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 16. 52 16. 96 16. 66 16. 90 16. 79 16. 94 16. 61 17. 42 9 8 7 7 8 8 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 A fourth century BCE hoard from the Near East Cat. No. Weight (g) Axis cut obv. count. cut rev. obv. 408 16. 87 7 0 0 0 409 17. 29 8 0 0 2 410 16. 91 6 0 0 0 411 16. 78 9 0 0 2 412 16. 79 6 0 0 1 413 17. 45 10 0 0 0 414 16. 87 6 0 0 1 415 17. 01 7 0 0 0 416 16. 92 6 0 0 1 417 16. 77 8 0 0 1 418 16. 89 9 0 1 1 419 16. 37 6 0 0 0 420 16. 18 8 0 1 0 421 16. 48 8 0 1 1 17. 03 6 0 0 1 422 423 16. 86 8 0 0 2 16. 53 7 0 0 0 424 425 16. 83 9 0 0 2 16. 78 8 0 0 1 426 427 16. 88 9 0 0 1 16. 80 8 0 0 1 428 429 16. 59 9 1 0 1 16. 67 8 0 0 0 430 431 16. 69 8 0 0 2 16. 97 8 0 0 1 432 433 17. 31 8 0 0 1 434 16. 86 8 0 0 0 435 16. 97 6 0 0 0 436 16. 77 9 0 0 0 437 16. 49 8 0 0 0 438 17. 05 7 0 0 1 439 16. 58 7 0 0 1 440 16. 95 8 0 0 0 441 16. 99 8 1 0 1 442 16. 87 8 0 0 1 443 16. 89 7 0 0 0 444 16. 70 8 0 0 1 445 16. 87 8 0 0 1 count. rev. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Notes 197 ANS No. 2008. 15. 95 2008. 15. 96 2008. 15. 97 2008. 15. 98 2008. 15. 99 2008. 15. 100 2008. 15. 101 2008. 15. 102 2008. 15. 103 2008. 15. 104 2008. 15. 105 2008. 15. 106 2008. 15. 107 2008. 15. 108 2008. 15. 109 2008. 15. 110 2008. 15. 111 2008. 15. 112 2008. 15. 113 2008. 15. 114 2008. 15. 115 2008. 15. 116 2008. 15. 117 2008. 15. 118 2008. 15. 119 2008. 15. 120 2008. 15. 121 2008. 15. 122 2008. 15. 123 2008. 15. 124 2008. 15. 125 2008. 15. 126 2008. 15. 127 2008. 15. 128 2008. 15. 129 2008. 15. 130 2008. 15. 131 2008. 15. 132 198 Lisa Anderson and Peter G. van Alfen count. rev. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 punch 0 0 0 0 0 0 Notes ANS No. 2008. 15. 133 2008. 15. 134 2008. 15. 135 2008. 15. 136 2008. 15. 137 2008. 15. 138 2008. 15. 139 2008. 15. 140 2008. 15. 141 2008. 15. 142 2008. 15. 143 2008. 15. 144 2008. 15. 145 2008. 15. 146 2008. 15. 147 2008. 15. 148 2008. 15. 149 2008. 15. 150 2008. 15. 151 2008. 15. 152 2008. 15. 153 2008. 15. 154 2008. 15. 155 2008. 15. 156 Cat. No. Weight (g) Axis cut obv. count. cut rev. obv. 446 16. 97 8 0 0 1 447 17. 16 8 0 1 0 448 16. 98 8 0 0 2 449 16. 99 9 0 0 1 450 16. 73 9 0 1 1 451 16. 84 8 0 0 0 452 16. 98 9 2 0 0 453 16. 64 8 0 0 0 454 16. 76 8 0 0 1 455 16. 88 8 0 0 0 456 16. 95 7 0 0 1 457 16. 92 8 1 0 2 458 16. 65 8 0 0 1 459 16. 71 6 0 1 0 16. 70 9 0 0 0 460 461 16. 82 9 1 0 1 16. 95 8 graf: X 0 0 462 463 16. 61 8 0 0 0 16. 95 8 0 0 0 464 465 16. 68 8 0 0 1 16. 71 9 0 0 1 466 467 16. 87 9 1 0 1 16. 61 8 2 0 2 468 469 16. 25 8 0 0 1 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 16. 79 16. 76 16. 61 14. 73 16. 72 16. 85 8 8 7 8 7 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Plate 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 A Fourth Century BCE Hoard from the Near East Plate 48 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Fourth Century BCE Hoard from the Near East Plate 49 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 A Fourth Century BCE Hoard from the Near East Plate 50 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 A Fourth Century BCE Hoard from the Near East Plate 51 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 A Fourth Century BCE Hoard from the Near East Plate 52 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 A Fourth Century BCE Hoard from the Near East Plate 53 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 A Fourth Century BCE Hoard from the Near East Plate 54 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 A Fourth Century BCE Hoard from the Near East Plate 55 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 A Fourth Century BCE Hoard from the Near East Plate 56 110 111 112 113 114 115 119 122 124 126 154 155 156 A Fourth Century BCE Hoard from the Near East Plate 57 162 168 169 178 204 208 212 213 219 221 228 229 241 248 250 A Fourth Century BCE Hoard from the Near East Plate 58 252 261 262 290 298 299 308 324 326 336 343 374 384 399 462 A Fourth Century BCE Hoard from the Near East