“A new Athenian ‘owl’ and bullion hoard from the Near East,” American Journal of Numismatics 16/17 (2004/5): 47-61. |
197 views |
AJN Second Series – (–) pp. –
© e American Numismatic Society
A New Athenian “Owl” and Bullion Hoard from the Near East
P – P G. A*
A recent hoard containing at least Athenian owls, both imitations and authentic types, and two silver “dumps” is catalogued and discussed. Dating from the late fourth century , the hoard shows remarkable affinity to the owl components of two other late-fourth century hoards, the Syria and Iraq hoards.
Presented here is a lot of Athenian-type “owls” and two silver “dumps,” all part of a hoard that recently appeared on the market. e lot contained a mix of probable Athenian coins and Egyptian and Levantine owl imitations quite similar to the owl components of the Iraq (van Alfen ) and the Syria hoards (van Alfen a); thus there is little reason to doubt that the coins compose (part of) one hoard, but whether this lot consists of the entire hoard is not known. Also not known is the nd spot—it was rumored to have come from the western coast of the Arabian Peninsula—although the presence of Egyptian and Levantine owl imitations, the marks on the coins, and the silver dumps together give this hoard a distinctively Near Eastern, particularly Levantine, character. A terminus post quem closing date of c. is provided by the presence of an Egyptian “Sabakes”-type imitation (no. , see below), while an ante quem date of c. is suggested by the lack of other datable pieces, e.g., Alexander or Phoenician types. But again, without a complete record of the hoard we cannot know if such pieces were at one time part of it. e ANS purchased two of the imitations (nos. and ) as well as the
*e American Numismatic Society, Fulton St., New York, NY , USA (vanalfen @numismatics.org).
48
P G. A
two silver dumps (nos. and ). Although I was not able to inspect physically the remaining coins, I was provided with digital photographs of the coins along with their weights and die axes.¹
G O
As noted, the composition of this hoard is roughly similar to the owl component of two other Near Eastern hoards, the Syria and the Iraq hoards. Of the owls in the present hoard (or ) are what I have termed “probable Attic” issues, meaning that they were likely minted in Athens. Because numerous mints in the ancient Near East produced imitations of Athenian coins, which many times are virtually indistinguishable from Athenian products save for a Semitic inscription or letter placed in an (in)conspicuous spot (see, for example, nos. –), and because there is a strong likelihood that these same mints may have produced “anonymous” imitations with no such marks to give away their non-Athenian origins (e.g., nos. –), and too because no complete study of later-fourth-century Athenian coinage has yet been completed, the best that we can say for these coins is that they were probably minted in Athens. Twenty-eight (or ) of the coins are listed as imitations, either because they are marked with Semitic letters or inscriptions, or because their style is clearly not Athenian. is – split is virtually identical to the – split between probable Attic issues and imitations in the Syria hoard which dates to the same period (of owls in that hoard, are “probable,” are imitations; see van Alfen a). e Iraq hoard, which is of slightly later date, c. , exhibits an inverse split: of owls in that hoard, (or ) are probable Attic issues, while (or ) are imitations (see van Alfen ). In that case, however, the abundance of imitative owls can be explained by the fact that the hoard contains a large number of imitations (a total of coins, or of the owl component) that were produced in or around Babylon where the hoard was found (van Alfen ). From the Levant and Egypt there are a number of other hoards dating to the second half of the fourth century with large or exclusive owl components.² Because many of these hoards were not well-published, or even well-recorded,
. I thank David Hendin for his help in procuring the photographs and additional information on the coins. . ese are (from the Levant): IGCH (Phoenicia, + Athenian types); CH . (e East, Athenian types); CH . (Lebanon, imitations); CH . (Eastern Turkey or Syria, + imitations, many with Semitic letters on Athena’s cheek); CH . (Ashkelon, imitation obols); CH . (Nablus, imitations); CH . (Near East, probable Attic and imitations); (from Egypt): CH . (Egypt before , Athenian types); Nahman’s hoard (+ probable Attic and imitations; see van Alfen b); Endicott’s hoard (+ probable Attic; see van Alfen b); IGCH (Semenood, Sabakes-type imita-
A New Athenian “Owl” and Bullion Hoard
49
F
F
we cannot be certain of their exact composition, or of the ratio of probable Attic to non-Attic imitations. It is, however, interesting to note that while a number of these hoards appear to have contained a mix of bona de Athenian issues and imitations, ve of the hoards (CH ., CH ., CH ., CH ., IGCH ) might have been composed exclusively of imitations. But without a more secure basis for our statistics (e.g., fully recorded and published hoards), it is difficult to know just how signicant these observations on probable Attic/imitation ratios might be. What the evidence (such as it is) may indicate, however, is that many areas of the ancient Near East in the late fourth century were generally well supplied with both real Athenian coins and their imitations in proportions that might have slightly favored real Attic issues. We might also expect to see hoards with a greater percentage of imitations coming from some local areas of Egypt, the Levant, and Babylonia where the imitations were intensively produced, as seems to be the case with the Iraq hoard, and perhaps the ve hoards just mentioned. As the real Athenian coins and their imitations circulated together, many of both sets were validated in various fashions, whether by chisel/knife cuts, countermarks, or punches. As can be seen in Table , the total number of coins so marked in this hoard is (or ); this proportion is virtually identical to the total number of validated owls (probable and imitative) in the Iraq hoard () and the Syria hoard (). Signicantly, the proportions of how many probable and imitative coins were validated and in what fashion are quite similar too between this hoard and the Syria (compare Table and van Alfen a: Table ; also see van Alfen : Table ). Six coins (nos. , , , , , and ) bear the so-called quatrefoil countermark (Fig. ), a countermark found extensively on coins circulating in Egypt in the late fourth century, which might have been used by the Persian administration there (van Alfen b: –); these six coins, which include the Egyptian-made “Sabakes”-type almost certainly passed through Egypt at some point in their circulating life. e second most frequent countermark (Fig. ), which appears on two coins (nos. and ), is similar to a countermark also appearing on coins found in Egypt (van Alfen b: Figure , no. , and p. , Endicott’s
tions); IGCH (Tell el Athrib, + AR, including probable Attic issues and imitations; the hoard also included a reverse Athenian-type punch die); also from Egypt and likely dating to the later fourth century are: IGCH (Egypt, probable Attic and imitations, including ve plated coins); IGCH (Memphis, h- and fourth-century Athenian types); IGCH (Naucratis, Athenian types).
50
P G. A
hoard no. ; p. , miscellaneous no. ). ree other different countermarks appear on nos. (obv.), (obv.), and (obv.), but cannot be seen well enough in the photographs to determine their design and so are not illustrated.
Proportion of Total with cuts and/or countermarks: Proportion of Total with countermark(s) only: Proportion of Total with cut(s) only:
Table : Chisel Cuts and Countermarks Entire Hoard ( coins)
Probable Attic Issues Only ( coins)
Proportion of Total with cuts and/or countermarks: Proportion of Total with countermark(s) only: on obverse and reverse: on obverse only: on reverse only: Proportion of Total with countermark on obv. and cut on rev.: Proportion of Total with single cut only: on obverse only: on reverse only: Proportion of Total with multiple cuts only: on obverse and reverse: on obverse only: on reverse only: Proportion of Total with single cut on obv. and rev.: Proportion of Total with multiple cuts on obv. and rev.:
Imitations ( coins)
Proportion of Total with cuts and/or countermarks: Proportion of Total with countermark(s) only: on obverse and reverse: on obverse only: on reverse only: Proportion of Total with countermark on obv. and cut on rev.: Proportion of Total with single cut only: on obverse only: on reverse only: Proportion of Total with multiple cuts only: on obverse only: on reverse only: Proportion of Total with single cut on obv. and rev.: Proportion of Total with multiple cuts on obv. and rev.:
A New Athenian “Owl” and Bullion Hoard Table . Tetradrachm weights Probable Attic Issues
A. Frontal-eye Style ( coins) Highest-lowest weights: .–. g Average weight: . g Median weight: . g B. Pi-Style ( coins) Below . ***** .–. * .–. ** .–. ** .–. * .–. **** .–. .–. * .–. .–. .–. * .–. * .–. * .–. ***** .–. **** .–. ******** .–. **** above . *
51
Imitations
A. Style Group I ( coins) Highest-lowest weights: .–. g Average weight: . g Median weight: . g B. Style Group Ia ( coins) Highest-lowest weights: .–. g Average weight: . g Median weight: . g C. Style Group II ( coins) Highest-lowest weights: .–. g Average weight: . g Median weight: . g D. Style Group III ( coins) Highest-lowest weights: .–. g Average weight: . g Median weight: . g E. Miscellaneous Imitations ( coins) Highest-lowest weights: .–. g Average weight: . g Median weight: . g
52
P G. A
T C: P A I
Like many later fourth century hoards with owls, this hoard contains an abundance of pi-style types, so called because the ornament on Athena’s helmet up and behind the ear resembles the Greek letter pi. is series of owls was likely related to the mid-fourth-century nancial reforms of the Athenian statesman Eubolos, who served – , who initiated new mining leases and activity at Attica’s famed mines at Laurion, which in turn made new stocks of silver available for coining. Around the middle of the fourth-century, aer a period of apparent inactivity, the Athenian mint began to produce pi-style tetradrachms in great volume (Kroll : ). ese coins differed stylistically from their h- and early fourth-century predecessors in a number of ways, but most obviously in the helmet design and the shape of the eye (the pi-style types have a prole eye, the earlier types the Archaic frontal eye). In the Near East both types circulated together, both types also were imitated, and all four of these variations are found in this hoard, which is not uncommon. e probable Attic frontal eye types here mostly appear to be from the early fourth century (cf. Svoronos : pl. ); nos. – are quite worn and may in fact be earlier issues. J. Bingen () offered a typology for the pi-style owls, but most of these types here are either too worn or have the characteristic ornament off-an, making his typology useless in this case; thus, the probable Attic pi-style coins are arranged here by weight, which, as can be seen in Table , are generally close to the . g Attic tetradrachm standard. Wear or over-vigorous cleaning could account for the weight loss in many of the coins. e weights of the probable Attic frontal eye types are mostly lower, but again many of these coins are quite worn. With one exception (no. ), all of the owls in this hoard, probable and imitative, have a : die axis, a characteristic of the Athenian mint, and one oen copied by those mints producing imitations. Frontal Eye Types . . g; :, obv. ctmk? . . g; : (no marks) . . g; :; rev. punch . . g; :; rev. cuts . . g; :; rev. cuts . . g; :; rev. cuts Pi-Style Types . . g; : (no marks) . . g; :; obv. ctmk ; rev.: ctmk (x ) . . g; : (no marks)
A New Athenian “Owl” and Bullion Hoard . . g; :; obv. uncertain ctmk; rev. cuts; oval an . . g; :; rev. cuts . . g; : (no marks) . . g; :; rev. cut . . g; :; rev. ctmk . . g; :; obv. uncertain ctmk; rev. cut . . g; :; rev. cuts . . g; :; obv. cut; rev. cuts . . g; :; obv. cut . . g; :; rev. cuts . . g; :; rev. cut, punch . . g; :; rev. cut . . g; :; rev. cuts . . g; :; obv. cut; rev. cut . . g; :; rev. cut . . g; : (no marks) . . g; : (no marks) . . g; :; obv. punch . . g; :; rev. cut . . g; :; rev.: graffiti? . . g; :; rev. cuts . . g; :; rev. cut . . g; : (no marks) . . g; : (no marks) . . g; :; obv. ctmk (x ); rev. ctmk . . g; :; rev. cut . . g; :; rev. cut . . g; ?; rev. ctmk ; partially melted? . . g; : (no marks) . . g; :; rev. cuts . . g; :; obv. cut; rev. cuts . . g; :; obv. ctmk . . g; :; obv. punch?; rev.: partially melted? . . g; : (no marks) . . g; : (no marks) . . g; :; rev. cut . . g; :; rev. cut . . g; :; rev. punch . . g; :; rev. cuts
53
54
P G. A
I
When imitations of Athenian coins appear in large Near Eastern hoards, they can generally be divided into a number of stylistic groups; die links are also oen found within these groups (van Alfen : –). Such is the case here. is hoard contains four clear stylistic groups of imitations with two or more coins in each group; singletons of well-known types that have been found in large number in other hoards (e.g., no. , a “Buttrey” type, and no. , a “Sabakes” type) are also found here. Each of these groups and the singletons will be discussed individually below. First however, it should be noted that while with the probable Attic types a chronological progression from frontal to prole eye type (i.e., pi-type) coins is assured, with the imitations it is not. Prole and frontal type imitations might well have been produced concurrently in the Near East in the later fourth century; we have no way of knowing if all mints producing imitations kept up with the latest trends from Athens. A) Buttrey Frontal Eye Types . . g; :; rev. cut . . g; : (no marks) One of these two coins, no. , clearly belongs to a well-known type that was rst identied by T.V. Buttrey (, ), and can be classied as a Buttrey/Flament type X (see Flament and van Alfen a: –, pl. ); the other coin appears to be related to this anonymous Egyptian series (van Alfen a: pl. ) and may be a variant of a Buttrey/Flament type M.³ Since the s the Buttrey/ Flament types have been thought to be anonymous Egyptian imitations, but in a recent article Flament () has cast doubt on this attribution, suggesting instead that Buttrey/Flament types M and B, at least, are actual Athenian products. Flament bases his premise on ) the presence of two type M and two type B coins in the Naxos hoard from Sicily, which dates to the end of the h century (and thus up-dates the coins from c. to c. ), ) the fact that examples of these types have also been found in Piraeus (the port of Athens), Egypt, and the Levant (i.e., within the orbit of “normal” Athenian tetradrachm circulation), ) on various assumptions about the reason imitation Athenian types were produced (e.g., a reduction in the availability of the coins from Athens in the late h century; the need to pay mercenaries), and ) on the metallurgical analysis of one coin that indicated high silver (.) and lead (.) content, which could be indicative of both Athenian manufacture and the use of Laurion silver.
. While the helmet ornament is similar to type M coins, Athena’s upper eyelid and hair is slightly different from most published examples. One critical piece of stylistic evidence— the owl’s feet—is off-an.
A New Athenian “Owl” and Bullion Hoard
55
While the arguments have merit, they are far from conclusive, as Flament himself admits (p. ). Given the degree of interconnectivity between many Mediterranean locales during the h–fourth centuries, it really should not be surprising that Egyptian-made Athenian imitations could turn up in Sicily or in Athens; there is really no need to look for a specic historical incident to account for the presence of the coins outside Egypt. Indeed, by the rst quarter of the fourth century the Athenians themselves were worried enough about imitative types that they passed legislation to protect their marketplace from any and all imitations, including presumably types that were minted in Egypt (Stroud ; see also van Alfen ). e fact that ve Athenian-type punch dies have been found in Egypt is additional proof that anonymous imitations were produced there (Vermeule : nos. –; Jonkess ). Furthermore, we should not assume that imitators would not produce coins with ne alloy, or that they would not have access to Laurion silver (cf. Xenophon Poroi .). If in fact no. proves to be a Buttrey/Flament type M, its appearance and the appearance of no. in this hoard, both showing far less wear than some of the other frontal eye types (nos. –), might also be problematic for Flament’s revised dating of the coins, since this hoard must date aer . With the exception of the Naxos hoard, this hoard, and perhaps the Syria hoard,⁴ no coins of the Buttrey/ Flament types have been found in hoard contexts that can provide reasonably secure numismatically-based dating evidence. In sum, the issue of the authenticity of the Buttrey/Flament types must remain open for now, at least until, for example, the crucial Karanis/Fayum hoard of of these coins, which served as the basis for Buttrey’s initial arguments [As this volume goes to press, I have been informed that it is to bepublished by Carmen Arnold-Biucchi in Revue numismatique]. B) Miscellaneous Semitic Inscribed Pi-Style . . g; :, rev.: Aramaic SWYK and symbol to r.; three Aramaic (?) letters in l. eld; obv. cut; rev. ctmk No. is from an equally well-known series of imitations produced in Egypt. Shortly aer he assumed power in Memphis in c. , the Persian satrap of Egypt, who is known to us as Sabakes, began to produce this series, which bear his name on the reverse in Aramaic in place of the usual Athenian ethnic. ree different types of these coins were produced within a fairly large mintage that likely continued from c. until Sabakes met his fate at the battle of Issus in . is coin is a type III (for an overview of this series see van Alfen a: –), sharing the same obverse die (O) with all other type III issues, but has an as yet unrecorded reverse die.
. No. from the Syria hoard (van Alfen a) appears to be a worn and abused type M.
56
P G. A C) Pi-Style Groups
Style Group I . . g; :; rev.: mem in l. eld (no marks) . . g; :; rev.: mem in r. eld (no marks) . . g; :; rev.: mem in r. eld (no marks) Style Group Ia . . g; :; rev. cut . . g; : Stylistically the coins of group I are related (the obverses of nos. and may in fact be die-linked) and are close enough to real Attic pi-style coins that to the unobservant they would likely pass as such were it not for the small Semitic letters inscribed on their reverses. Babelon (: –) long ago suggested that the solitary mem appearing on some Roman-period coins of Gaza might be an abbreviation for Marnas, the city’s patron deity. ence the attribution to Gaza of the much earlier Philisto-Arabian and Athenian imitation types sporting a solitary mem; for these earlier coins the attribution is perhaps conrmed by an imitative Athenian drachm bearing mem on the reverse, and ayin on the obverse (Gitler and Tal forthcoming: ch. ). Ayin is understood to be an abbreviation for the toponym Gaza (spelled ayin zayin he; Gitler and Tal forthcoming: ch. ). While toponyms and their abbreviations—as opposed to the personal names of rulers/officials and ethnics—do seem to occur more frequently on Athenian imitations than on other coin types from the Near East,⁵ the mem-Marnas connection may be stretching the evidence. Other solitary letters, such as beth, zayin, gimmel, and iod, also appear on Athenian imitations and are not easily explained by reference to a toponym, or even to personal names (Gitler and Tal forthcoming: ch. , and Table .). It may simply be that such letters served as dates or as control marks whose meaning would only fully be known to the officials in charge of producing the coins. Such solitary letters appearing on Phoenician coins, for example, have long been understood to serve this function (Elayi and Elayi ). Further evidence to support this view is found in this hoard.
. For example, there is a series of smaller denomination Athenian imitation types with the paleo-Hebrew (sometimes Aramaic) inscription YHD, which refers to the province of Judea (Meshorer : –); similarly there are various denominations, mostly tetradrachms and drachms, from Gaza, Ashdod, and possibly Ashkelon that bear the toponym either spelledout entirely or abbreviated (Gitler and Tal forthcoming). In other parts of the Persian east, in Cilicia and Egypt, for example, the name of the satrap and not the toponym was more commonly found on the coins, as on no. here.
A New Athenian “Owl” and Bullion Hoard
57
To begin, on the reverse of nos. – the Athenian ethnic, ΑΘΕ, is bowed inward perhaps to accommodate the mem in r. eld; comparison with other real Athenian issues and many imitations show that the ethnic more commonly follows a straight vertical line, top to bottom. e ethnic on no. shows the same inward bowing, but no trace of a letter in r. eld, only the mem in l. eld. Also, the obverses of no. and nos. – all appear to be die-linked, yet the reverses of nos. – carry no solitary letters, nor is it likely that a letter in r. eld is offan since the ethnics on both nos. – are straight, not bowed, and so make it unlikely that there would be room for a letter in r. eld. ese ve coins (nos. –) are all closely related, yet show considerable variation in the treatment of the solitary letters or lack thereof. is variation suggests that the signicance attached to the letters (of lack thereof) was relatively specialized or secondary, as would be expected if they represented variables in production, such as different bullion sources, different officials, dates, and so forth. Note also that a coin from the Iraq hoard (van Alfen : no. ) appears related to these ve as well, having an obverse perhaps linked to nos. – here, but with no Semitic letters on the reverse. Style Group II . . g; :; rev. cuts . . g; :; rev. cut e obverses and reverses of these two coins appear to be, if not die-linked, then certainly the products of the same hands. While the style is reasonably close to that of Athens, the A of the ethnic on the reverse is missing a portion of one leg, giving the character a form similar to a backwards “P”. Style Group III . ANS ..; . g; : . . g; :; rev. cut . . g; : . . g; : . . g; : . . g; : . . g; : e obverses of all these seven coins are likely die-linked, as are the reverses of nos. –. Stylistically these coins are similar to a linked group from the Syria hoard (van Alfen a: nos. –), and perhaps (distantly) related to another die-linked group from the Iraq hoard (van Alfen : nos. –). e low weights of these coins suggest that the Athenian standard might not have been
58
P G. A
the intended mark, but rather the Babylonian/Levantine shekel of c. . g, which would give a double shekel of c. . g, a gure closer to the average and median weights of this group (see Table ) than the Athenian tetradrachm of c. . g. D) Miscellaneous Imitations e non-standard style of most of these eleven coins betrays their non-Athenian origins. No. may belong to stylistic group III, but the cut on the obverse makes the attribution less secure. e one stand-out in this group is no. , with its lefacing owl. Rarely seen, two other le-facing owl imitations were found in the Iraq hoard (van Alfen : nos. –), neither of which has any close affinity to this coin. . . g; :; obv. cuts . . g; :; rev. cut . . g; :; obv. cuts; rev. cut . . g; :; rev. cuts . . g; : . ANS ..;. g; :, obv. Athena to l. . . g; :; rev. cut . . g; :; obv. cut; rev. cut . . g; :; obv. ctmk (x ); rev. ctmk . . g; :; rev. cut . . g; : E) Dumps . ANS ..; . g . ANS ..; . g On one side (“A”) of both dumps there is a slight convexity along with a barely discernable geometric patterning, which likely formed as the metal cooled. e other side (“B”) of both is rougher and atter. Both appear to have been formed by pouring molten metal onto a at surface where they were le until cool. Neither of the two weights matches with any degree of accuracy any known standards, so it must be assumed that none was intended. is is no cause for surprise since most ingots and dumps found in Near Eastern hoards tend not to conform to weight standards, but rather seem to be randomly created (van Alfen ).
C
In most respects, as noted above under General Observations, this hoard conrms what we have come to expect from late fourth-century owl hoards from the Near East. Indeed, the degree of similarity between this and other hoards, especially the
A New Athenian “Owl” and Bullion Hoard
59
larger Iraq and Syria hoards, is in itself quite signicant, since it allows us to describe the patterns of circulation and use of owl-type coinage in the Near East with more condence. In sum, this and other hoards indicate that for a period of time c. – , in and around the major cities of the Levant, there was no shortage of the newer pi-style Athenian types, which in this hoard and the Syria hoard appear to outnumber the imitations almost :. e older style Athenian coins (e.g., nos. –) were still around in smaller numbers, many showing heavy wear aer decades of circulation. Despite the availability of actual Athenian coins,⁶ several political authorities, e.g., the Egyptian satrap and individual citystates, saw it to their advantage to produce imitations of the new pi-style coins. In addition to these officials it is quite likely that numerous lesser authority-type gures and private individuals saw it t to produce imitations as well. us, while there are a number of distinctive styles and groupings of imitations (e.g., style groups nos. I–III) that likely correspond to important issues—whether “official” or not—manufactured near where the hoard(s) was found, there are in addition large numbers of anonymous owls (e.g., nos. –, –) that could each represent the nancial needs and aspirations of numerous other (private) groups (farther away). e picture that develops of the role of the Athenian owl in Near Eastern exchange in the late fourth century is therefore chaotic. e owl was clearly an important type, well regarded and well recognized, and therefore intensively imitated, but since beyond Athens there was little means of exercising direct control over the manufacture and circulation of owls, any authority or individual could have been inspired to copy the coin; the degree to which they would faithfully reproduce the weight standard and metal quality would be le to individual discretion. e Semitic letters and inscriptions that appear on some imitations, e.g., nos. –, may have been intended, in part, by the imitators (in this case recognized political authorities) as a means of distinguishing their imitations from other imitations, and therefore allowed them to have some modicum of control over the circulation and recall of their coins. Although we cannot be absolutely certain of the actual nd spot of this hoard, it was not in Egypt, which again is signicant because of the presence of the Egyptian Sabakes-type (no. ). Other nds of the Sabakes-type outside of Egypt seem to be linked to Alexander the Great’s conquests, which effectively broke the coins
. Here it should be noted that one of the reasons oen given for the existence of imitative Athenian coins—reduction in the availability of the actual Athenian issues and high demand in the Levant and Egypt—does not seem to obtain here, albeit most such explanations focus on a presumed reduction of minting at Athens at the end of the h century, not the fourth. See, for example, Kraay (: ) and Figueira (: ).
60
P G. A
free from their presumed restricted use in Egypt (van Alfen , ). Because no examples of the Sabakes-type have yet been found outside of Egypt in contexts that can be linked unequivocally to peaceful exchange, this hoard may provide the rst evidence of such use. But then again, the Sabakes coin may simply indicate that the closing date of this hoard came aer Egypt fell to Alexander’s forces in .
R
Babelon, M. . Traité des monnaies grecques et romaines II.. Paris. Bingen, J. . Le trésor monétaire orikos . orikos : –. Buttrey, T.V. . Pharaonic imitations of Athenian tetradrachms. In: T. Hackens and R. Weiller, eds., Proceedings of the th International Congress of Numismatics, Berne, September , vol I, pp. –. Louvain-la-Neuve and Luxembour: Association Internationale des Numismates Professionels. ———. . Seldom what they seem: the case of the Athenian tetradrachm. In: W. Heckel and R. Sullivan, eds., Ancient coins of the Graeco-Roman world: the Nickle numismatics papers, pp. –. Waterloo, Ont.: Wilifrid Laurier University Press for the Calgary Institute of for the Humanities. Elayi, J. and G. Elayi. . Abbreviations and numbers on Phoenician pre-Alexandrine coinage: the Sidonian example. Numismatica e antichità classiche : –. Figueira, T. . e power of money: coinage and politics in the Athenian Empire. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Flament, C. . À propos des styles d’imitations athéniennes dénis par T.V. Buttrey. Revue belge de numismatique : –. ———. . Imitations athéniennes ou monnaies authentiques? Nouvelles considérations sue quelques chouettes athéniennes habituellement identifées comme imitations. Revue belge de numismatique : –. Gitler, H. and O. Tal. Forthcoming. e coinage of Philistia of the h and fourth centuries : A study of the earliest coinage of Palestine. Nomismata . Jongkees, J.H. . Athenian coin dies from Egypt. Numismatic Chronicle : –. Kraay, C. . Archaic and classical Greek coins. Berkeley: University of California Press. Kroll, J. . e Greek coins. Athenian Agora . Princeton: American School of Classical Studies in Athens. ———. . e Piraeus hoard of plated drachms and tetradrachms (IGCH ). In: Charakter: aphieroma ste Manto Oikonomidou. Athens. ———. . A small bullion nd from Egypt. American Journal of Numismatics : –.
Plate 6 Frontal Eye Types
1
2
3
4
5 Pi-Style Types
6
7
8
9
10
A New Athenian “Owl” and Bullion Hoard
Plate 7
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
A New Athenian “Owl” and Bullion Hoard
Plate 8
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
A New Athenian “Owl” and Bullion Hoard
Plate 9
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
A New Athenian “Owl” and Bullion Hoard
Plate 10
47 A) Buttrey Types
48
49 Pi-Style Types B) Miscellaneous Semitic Inscribed
50
51 C) Style Group I
52
53
54 A New Athenian “Owl” and Bullion Hoard
Plate 11 Style Group Ia
55 Style Group II
56
57 Style Group III
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 A New Athenian “Owl” and Bullion Hoard
Plate 12 Misc. Imitations
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
75 74 76
A New Athenian “Owl” and Bullion Hoard
Plate 13 Dumps
77
78 A New Athenian “Owl” and Bullion Hoard
1
2
3
Twenty-two Alexanders in Ann Arbor