“The ‘owls’ from the 1973 Iraq hoard,” American Journal of Numismatics 12 (2000), pp. 9-58.

8 James A. Schell scholarship when applied to the coinage of Philip II and Alexander III. Based on the evidence presented, it appears that Philip II adopted the Corinthian standard, used by the Chalcidian League, for his coinage. Alexander III selected the Attic standard for his imperial issues but continued coinage on the Corinthian standard in Macedonia. REFERENCES Bellinger, A. R. 1963. Essays on the coinage of Alexander the Great. ANS Numismatic Studies 11. New York: American Numismatic Society. Casson, L. 1994. Travel in the ancient world. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Head, B. V. 1967. Historia numorum: a manual of Greek numismatics. Reprint of 1911 2nd ed. Chicago: Argonaut. Kraay, C. M. 1976. Archaic and classical Greek coins. London: Methuen & Co. Le Rider, G. 1977. he monnayage d'argent el d'or de Philippe II frappe en Macedoine de 359 a 294. Paris: E. Bourgey. Morkholm, 0. 1991. Early Hellenistic coinage from the accession of Alexander to the Peace of Apamea (336-186 B.C.). Edited by P. Grierson and U. Westermark. Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge Univer- sity Press. Newell, E.T. 1937. Royal Greek portrait coins. New York: Wayte Raymond. Price, M.J. 1982. The earliest coins of Alexander the Great 2. Alexan- der's reform of the Macedonian coinage. Numismatic Chronicle 142:180-190. Price, M.J. 1991. The coinage in the name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus. London and Zurich: Swiss Numismatic Society. Troxell, H. A. 1994. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. The collection of the American Numismatic Society, Pari 8: Macedonia II, Alexander I - Philip II. New York: American Numismatic Society. Troxell, H. A. 1997. Studies in the Macedonian coinage of Alexander the Great. ANS Numismatic Studies 21. New York: American Numis- matic Society. AJN Second Series 12 (2000) pp. 9-58 © 2001 The American Numismatic Society THE "OWLS" FROM THE 1973 IRAQ HOARD (Plates 1-8) Peter G. van Alfen* In early 1973, nearly 150 silver coins said to have been found in Babylon appeared on the market in two lots. In subsequent years a number of strays came forward also considered to be part of one lot or the other, bringing the total number to over 400 coins.1 Generally * Department of Classics, WAG 123, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712-1181, USA (vanalfen@mail.utexas.edu). 1 No accurate final tally of the number or types of coins found in the hoard exists. Three earlier notices of the hoard appeared in Coin Hoards (CH 1.78, 11.49, and 111.22) which give a combined total of 308 coins. The most recent notice, CH VII.188, provides a figure, 302 coins, that is clearly derived from Price's (1991a) publication of a portion of the hoard. Price, however, does not list the 100+ Alexander III tetradrachms. I provide here the total from all published sources: Alexander III (Babylon): 8 decadrachms 114 tetradrachms Porus-type (Babylon? Susa?) 7 five-shekel 11 two-shekel 3 "Indian" two-shekel Lion staters (Babylon): 106 Hierapolis-Bambyce?: 1 Sardes: 1 siglos Macedonia, Philip II: 1 Cos: 1 9 10 Peter G. van Alfen called the "1973 Iraq", sometimes the "1973 Babylon", this hoard contained over 100 locally minted Alexander III imperial issues and lion staters, nearly two dozen coins of the "Porus" type, a handful of single coins from Macedonia, Cos, and the Levant, plus 165 Attic owls, mostly imitations. Due in part to the size of the hoard and diversity of its contents, its rapid dispersal, and specific scholarly interests, only portions of the hoard have been published to date. Durr's (1974) initial notice of the hoard concentrated primarily on the Porus-type coins, and Morkholm's (1974a, 1974b) and Shore's (1974) publications of the same year presented a few of the lion staters and owl imitations acquired by the Copenhagen museum. A fuller account of the hoard was offered by Price a number of years later, although this too was far from complete (1991a, 1991b :51, 451-457). It was also Price who set the date for the burial of the hoard, on evidence of the Alexander coinage, to 323/22 BC.2 This study focuses only on the 165 Athenian owl-type coins, 160 of which were acquired by the British Museum, 4 by the Copenhagen museum, and 1 by the American Numismatic Society. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS Any initial observation quickly reveals that the owls of this hoard are stylistically a very mixed group, even for a collection of a notori- ously monotonous coin type. In fact, one might venture that this collection is stylistically far less homogenous than most hoards of owls Athenian owl-type: 1 Artaxerxes III 1 Sabaces 161 tetradrachms (probable Attic and imitations) 2 drachms Total: 418 2 The imperial issues and lion staters from the hoard display monograms that go down the sequence of the main eastern mints to the issues signed M-AY of 323 BC. For this reason Price (1991a:67, 1991b:51) felt a date of 323/22 for the burial of the hoard is assured. Others, who have focused primarily on the Porus coinage, have offered a later date of c. 315 BC. Addressing these arguments, Lane Fox remarks, *'[w]e should not be too precise about the date of burial, but a date in or before 323 BC does fit the contents which we can best classify" (1996:91). Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard 11 found in the Levant and Egypt, or even farther east.3 I have identified fifteen distinct groups of two or more coins within this collection, almost all of them imitative, which do not include single examples, such as the Artaxerxes coin or the Sabaces coin, which rightfully form groups of their own. Grouping of the owls was determined first on the basis of die links and legends and other markings, and secondly on stylistic criteria. Three of the groups (probable Attic issues, fifth- century style, and miscellaneous imitations) are general categories for those coins that share distinctive traits but are not otherwise (die-) linked. The numbered groups (I-XII) contain coins which are die- linked or are clearly products of the same hand or workshop. All of these groupings and their criteria will be more fully explicated below, as will the historical implications of the individual groups. Sixteen of the owls, all of them probable Attic issues, bear counter- marks (Table 1); no graffiti were noticed on any of the coins. Since most of the imitations (coins in groups I-XII and miscellaneous imita- tions) were likely minted in Babylonia (see Discussion below), counter- marking may not have been a Babylonian practice, as might also be inferred from the near-total lack of countermarks found on lion staters and other Mesopotamian issues. In their study of fifth- and fourth- century Phoenician coinage, J. Elayi and A. Elayi noticed that coun- termarks seem to be found only on coins circulating outside of the region in which they were minted (1993:317). Also, as a phenomenon, the countermarking of Phoenician coins appears limited to a zone 3 This is only a general observation since I have not yet performed a full quantita- tive analysis of all the available material. Even so, Classical and Hellenistic hoards from Egypt of more than 10 coins seem to show considerable stylistic homogeneity among the owls, much like the hoards from Greece of the same period (cf. IGCH 1649, 1652, 1656, 1660, 1663; CH VII.151). Greater stylistic diversity is often seen in the owl-hoards from the Levant. For example, the owls from the "1989 Syria" hoard (CH VII.158), the subject of a study I hope to complete soon, show more variation (approximately six stylistic groups) than the Egyptian hoards (generally one to three groups), but still less than this hoard does (at least fifteen groups). See also IGCH 1504, 1507; CH VII.126, 133, 152; Elayi and Elayi (1993:no. 49), and a recent hoard probably from Syria (Elayi and Elayi 1994). A hoard of owl-imitations found in Afghanistan likewise shows little variation among the coins (Nicolet-Pierre and Amandry 1994). 12 Peter G. van Alfen comprising the southern coast of Asia Minor, the Levantine coast, and Egypt (Elayi and Elayi 1993:316). Following a similar pattern, coun- termarks frequently appear on Attic-style coins found in the Levant and especially in Egypt, both on imitations and on those thought to be authentic (cf. Dattari 1905; Hill 1922a:cxxxvi-cxl), Their function on these coins, however, is not entirely clear. Cities often counter- marked foreign coin to enable it to circulate freely with the city's juris- diction; private bankers or merchants also used countermarks to (re-) certify the coin. No doubt most, if not all of the countermarked owls from this hoard saw some circulation in parts of the Levant or Egypt before coming to rest in Babylonia. There may, in fact, be a number of links between the countermarks found here and those on coins found in Syria and Egypt (see Table 1). Table 1. Countermarks and Mint Marks Countermarks 2. 3^ Q 4. V 5. jT 6." a 8. ® 9.b O 10.c * ll.d x 12. « 14. # 15. 4 16. » 17.f Q 18. E Mint Marks_ 1. <g> 2. y a Cf. Hill (1922a:cxxxvii ) countermark 63. b Cf. Hill (1922a:cxxxvii) countermark 4. c Cf. Hill (1922a:cxxxvii) countermark 100. d Cf. Elayi and Elayi (1994) countermark B3. e Cf. Hill (1922a:cxxxvii) countermark 4. f Cf. Hill (1922a:cxxxvii) countermark 105. Aside from the countermarks, well over half (65%) of all the owls have slices or small cuts made on the surface of the coin with a chisel-like tool. Additionally, a number of the coins also have punch marks (not countermarks) made with a pointed, awl-like tool. These cuts and punches were undoubtedly made to test the coins for sub- aerate cores. By dividing the owls from the 1973 hoard into two groups, 1 4a I. qo 7. t) 13.e O Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard 13 probable Attic and imitations, and averaging the results by percentage, certain practices with the chisel become apparent (Table 2). Chisel cuts appear almost twice as frequently on the imitations as they do on the probable Attic coins. The greatest number of slices are single cuts on the reverse of the coin. Furthermore, those who cut the probable Attic coins generally avoided marking the obverse, or the obverse and reverse simultaneously, or making more than one cut. This is not the case with the imitations, where all manners of cutting occur far more often, particularly cutting the coin more than once on a side. It is open to question whether these tallies reflect different regional practices or a recognition among those handling the coins that some were unquestion- ably non-Attic and so deserved to be checked and checked again. Table 2. Chisel cuts Probable Attic issues (52 coins) Location Proportion of Total with Cuts Obverse 7% Reverse 25% Obverse and Reverse 5% Multiple 7% Imitations (113 coins) Location Proportion of Total with Cuts Obverse 13% Reverse 36% Obverse and reverse 15% Multiple 33% Note: 108 of the 165 (65%) Athenian-type coins from the 1973 Iraq Hoard have chisel cuts. The tabulated weights of the owls can be found in Table 3 and prompt some general remarks about the weights of all the owls. Because the fifteen groups presented here likely reflect several different mints operating as far apart as Athens, the Levant, Egypt, and Baby- lonia, separate tables are presented for each group with the exception 14 Peter G. van Alfen Table 3. Coin weights Probable Attic (52 coins) Below 15.99 ***** 5 16.00-16.04 0 16.05-16.09 ** 2 16.10-16.14 * * 2 16.15-16.19 0 16.20-16.24 ** 2 16.25-16.29 0 16.30-16.34 * 1 16.35-16.39 ** 2 16.40-16.44 ** 2 16.45-16.49 ** 2 16.50-16.54 * ** 3 16.55-16.59 * 1 16.60-16.64 * * * * 4 16.65-16.69 *** * 4 16.70-16.74 **** 4 16.75-16.79 ***** 5 16.80-16.84 ***** % Sj; 7 16.85-16.89 * * * 3 16.90-16.94 * 1 16.95-16.99 * 1 Above 17.00 * 1 Lowest-highest weight: 15.21-17.28 g Average weight: 16.52 g Median weight: 16.25 g 5th c. Style_ Attic (2 coins) Average weight: 16.60 g Imitations (4 coins) Average weight: 16.78 g Median weight: 16.74 g Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard 15 Groups I-V and Miscellaneous Babylo n (71 coins) Below 16.19 5 16.20-16.24 * 1 16.25-16.29 #### 4 16.30-16.34 ** 2 16.35-16.39 2 16.40-16.44 1 16.45-16.49 * 1 16.50-16.54 1 16.55-16.59 4 16.60-16.64 ^ ^ 3 16.65-16.69 =:< * * 3 16.70-16.74 ******* 7 16.75-16.79 6 16.80-16.84 **** 4 16.85-16.89 2 16.90-16.94 $ $ $ $ 6 16.95-16.99 3 17.00-17.04 ** 2 17.05-17.09 ** 2 17.10-17.14 *** 3 17.15-17.19 3 17.20-17.24 3 17.25-17.29 0 Above 17.30 $ $ 3 Lowest-highest weight: 15.28-17.57 g Average weight: 16.71 g Median weight: 16.42 g Group VI (2 coins)_ Average weight: 14.42 g Group VII (2 coins) Average weight: 16.15 g Group VIII (2 coins) Average weight: 15.78 g 16 Peter G. van Alfen Group IX (2 coins) Average weight: 16.51 g Group X (3 coins) Average weight: 14.06 g Median weight: 14.08 g Group XI (2 coins) Average weight: 16.40 g Group XII (2 coins) Average weight: 16.52 g Phoenician (2 coins) Average weight: 16.77 g Miscellaneous Imitations (41 coins) Below 14.99 *** 3 15.00-15.04 0 15.05-15.09 * 1 15.10-15.14 0 15.15-15.19 * 1 15.20-15.24 0 15.25-15.29 0 15.30-15.34 * 1 15.35-15.39 ** 2 15.40-15.44 0 15.45-15.49 0 15.50-15.54 *** 3 15.55-15.59 0 15.60-15.64 ** 2 15.65-15.69 0 15.70-15.74 0 15.75-15.79 * 1 15.80-15.84 0 15.85-15.89 0 15.90-15.94 0 Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard 17 15.95-15.99 0 16.00-16.04 2 16.05-16.09 0 16.10-16.14 0 16.15-16.19 0 16.20-16.24 0 16.25-16.29 0 16.30-16.34 ** 2 16.35-16.39 * 1 16.40-16.44 ** 2 16.45-16.49 * 1 16.50-16.54 * 1 16.55-16.59 0 16.60-16.64 ** 2 16.65-16.69 *** 3 16.70-16.74 ** 2 16.75-16.79 *** 3 16.80-16.84 *# 2 16.85-16.89 * 1 16.90-16.94 * 1 16.95-16.99 0 Above 17.00 4 Lowest-highest weight: 14.71-17.19 g Average weight: 16.26 g Median weight: 15.95 g Drachms (2 coins) Average weight: 4.14 g of groups I—V and the miscellaneous Babylonian coins which I feel are products of the same administrative unit; groups I-V and the miscella- neous Babylonian coins therefore are presented in one table. There are no examples in this collection of flew de coin; all of these coins were in circulation, some obviously for a longer period than others. Seventy- eight percent (128 coins) of the total number of owls have weights that fall between 16.00 and 17.00 g. A dozen of the tetradrachms 18 Peter G. van Alfen have weights above 17.00 g (one coin, no. 161, above 18.00 g), and two below 14.00 g (nos. 107, 113); the two drachms from the hoard have individual weights of 4.12 and 4.16 g. Although the number of coins available in each group is not large, nevertheless the frequency tables suggest the use of a number of differ- ent standards in this collection of owls. The frequency table for the probable Attic issues shows a curve skewed to the left with the mode at 16.80-16.84 g; the average weight for this group of 52 coins is 16.52 g, with only one example having a weight above 17.00 g. While the mean falls short of the presumed Attic standard of c. 17.17 g for the fourth-century tetradrachm (Naster 1983:83), the weights of these owls are generally consistent with other fourth-century hoards of owls containing authentic issues. For example, the average weight for the Thorikos hoard (IGCH 134) of 288 owls is 16.95 g,4 while the average weight for the Delos hoard (IGCH 110; 42 coins) is 16.52 g (Svoronos 1975:pl. 30). Wear or over-vigorous cleaning may account for some of the drop in weight, but some little-worn examples, e.g, no. 10 here, still are underweight (16.68 g), and as a group the probable Attic issues are considerably lighter than the Babylonian owls (groups I-V). Generally lower weights, e.g., between 16.00 and 17.00 g in collections of fourth- century style owls (Svoronos 1975:pls. 27-29) compared to fifth- century owls (Svoronos 1975:pls. 9-14) might point to a reduced late fourth-century Athenian standard in coin production; more work on this question should be done.d For the Babylonian owls (groups I-V and miscellaneous), the frequency table appears multimodal, with a greater range in weights (15.28-17.57 g) than found among the probable Attic issues; the average weight for this group of 71 coins is 16.71 g, sixteen of them have weights over 17.00 g. Strict control over the desired standard in 4 This average weight for the Thorikos hoard is from my own calculations. In his presentation of the hoard, Bingen selected only 61 examples "non-corrodees", all with weights above 17.00 g, for his metrological study (1973:57). The frequency table of these coins shows a mean of 17.15 g, which aligns with the presumed Athe- nian standard of c. 17.17 g. 5 Morkholm (1982) has noted a third-century reduction in the Attic standard in the East; perhaps there were other reductions earlier at Athens. Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard 19 the production of these coins seems to have been lacking, which makes determination of the standard difficult. The Attic standard is the like- liest candidate, although the Babylonian shekel of c. 8.33 g can not be discounted (Elayi and Elayi 1997:302); a rough approximation of two shekels with four drachms could easily have been made. The Babylo- nian shekel may also be the standard in use for groups VII, VIII, IX, and some of the miscellaneous imitations that have weights between 15.00 and 16.00 g. The generally low weights of the eastern owls, lion staters (also presumably minted on the Attic standard6), and Porus coins opens the possibility of other standards used for some of these issues. Price, in fact, thought a shekel of c. 8.00 g was the standard in use for the Porus coinage (1982:76, 1991a:65). The very low weights (c. 14.00 g) found in groups VI and X and other miscellaneous imita- tions suggest the Phoenician coin standard of 14.00 g (Elayi and Elayi 1997:304); stylistically the coins from groups VI and X appear similar to Phoenician issues and Levantine owl imitations. THE CATALOGUE Because of the consistency of type and type orientation among the owls, in the catalogue I note only the particular characteristics of each coin and use set descriptive terms to denote certain attributes. I have adopted a number of terms and observations from J. Bingen's (1973) study of pi-style owls; with few exceptions, the owls of this hoard are pi-style, a fourth-century style distinguished by the Il-shaped helmet ornament on the obverse. The presence or absence of the "point tragus" (a small dot representing the tragus of the ear) is noted; on the reverse, the number of dots found between the beak and the edge of the owl's body to right ("dots-beak") is recorded, as is the occurrence of a dot slightly above and between the owl's eyes ("dot-forehead"). 6 The weights of the lion staters are problematic. Newell recognized that the first issues were likely intended to be on the Attic standard, but that their weights rapidly became so light as to be the weight of three sigloi (1938:105f). However, they cannot have meant to be "triple sigloi" since their division into didrachms, hemidrachms, and obols points to a division by twos rather than threes. 20 Peter G. van Alfen Bingen described five types of the pi-ornament (types 1-5) which represent a possible chronological progression of the style. Generally, I have followed Bingen's classification, but because I find little or no variation among some of Bingen's types, types 2 and 3 especially, I indicate the pi-type more loosely, e.g., as pi-style 2/3, or simply as pi- style where part of the ornament is off-flan and/or difficult to distin- guish. Two types of earrings worn by Athena are differentiated: "hoop" means a circular ring with either no filling or a very small central pellet; "disk" means a filled-in circle or a hoop with a larger central pellet. Countermarks corresponding to the number given in the cata- logue can be found illustrated in Table 1. "Museum number" refers to the acquisition number of coins held either at the British Museum (BM) or the American Numismatic Society (ANS). Finally, I have included in the catalogue 31 coins that were not found with the Iraq hoard, but which either have die links with coins from this hoard or are part of the same series. All of these external coins are indicated by "X", e.g., X23. PROBABLE ATTIC ISSUES (nos. 1-52) If the Artaxerxes coin is included, only seven owls of fifth-century style were found with the 1973 Iraq hoard; these I have listed below separately. All of the remaining owls, whether probable Attic issues or imitative, at least so far as the obverse helmet ornament is recog- nizable, are fourth-century pi-style, ranging from Bingen's pi 2 to 5; there are no examples of the ornementation quadridigitee (QD). Because the coinage has not been subjected to exhaustive review, or even comprehensive overview, such as the work of Nicolet-Pierre and Kroll (1990) on third-century QD owls, attempting anything more than a cursory classification of later fourth-century pi-style owls is notoriously difficult. Three studies, those of Thompson (1957), Dodson and Wallace (1964), and especially Bingen (1973) have paved the way for future work on this coinage, but these studies dealt with only one hoard each and hoards that have been assigned burial dates in the third Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard 21 century, c. 290, c. 240, and 285 BC respectively, which compounds the problems of classification for our hoard. The origin of the pi-style coinage is likely linked to renewed interest in developing the Laurion silver mines after a prolonged period of near- inactivity in the first half of the fourth century, which may account for the relative scarcity of earlier fourth-century Attic owls (Kroll 1993:8). Under the mid-century financial reforms of Euboulos, 355-342, mining leases and activity at Laurion increased tremendously, with the result of massive new coinage being struck. Differing appreciably in style from the fifth- and early fourth-century series, this new coinage never- theless retained the same monotony and standardization of previous issues. If Bingen's questionable chronological progression for pi-types 1 through 5 can be accepted, the examples from this hoard demonstrate that within a generation of its inception, the pi-style coinage had already attained its latest stylistic manifestation (pi-type 5), an indica- tion, perhaps, of just how massive the coinage was. This new Athenian output predictably gave rise to many new series of imitations mimicking the pi-style, just as imitations had mimicked the fifth- century style decades before. I have placed the first 52 coins of the catalogue under the rubric "probable Attic" due to the suspicion that some of them may well be imitations; their findspot and the large number of imitations found with them suggest caution. The coins that are most suspect (nos. 46-52) are listed apart from the others. Furthermore, the closest paral- lels that I have found for most of these coins are not from hoards found in Greece but from hoards found in Egypt and the Near East, all of which include imitations: CH VII.125, "Egypt" (c. 350 BC),7 the 1992 Near East hoard (c. 333-300 BC; Elayi and Elayi 1994), and unpublished pieces from CH VII.158, "1989 Syria" (c. 333 BC). A considerable variety in both obverse and reverse details, as well as a lack of die links among the probable coins of this hoard defy grouping these pieces into coherent sets. For this reason I present them as one group. However, there are a few observations to be noted. 7 A number of these coins are illustrated in Nicolet et al. (1983:nos. 1472-1482). 22 Peter G. van Alfen A number of these coins (nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 38, 46, 47, 48) display a rare and peculiar treatment of Athena's eye. Whereas the more normative eye is engraved with curvilinear, or sometimes more straight- ened upper and lower eyelids rendered in such a way as to give a wide- eyed, almost upwards gaze, these examples have longer, flattened upper eyelids with a heavy parallel brow. The lower eyelids are appended sharply below with inset irises (often with pupils) that present a some- times stern, almost fierce expression. A half-dozen such obverses, quite similar to no. 4 here, came to light with the 1989 Syria hoard; Bingen's obverse no. 15 has a similar trait. Small irises, again often with pupils, are frequently seen among all of these coins rather than the blank sclera found on many pi-style obverses (cf. nos. 36 and 37; Svoronos 1975:pl. 20; Bingen 1973:passzm). With one exception (no. 6), the scroll at the base of the helmet (behind the ear) scrolls counterclockwise. On the reverse, the owls tend to have the more upright stance of Bingen's types 3 through 5. These owls are also characterized by shorter legs (and smaller feet) set more closely together than the spread, longer-legged versions seen on Bingen's types 1 and 2 and on the fifth-century series. The left leg on these later owls, as here, has a bulky, squarish feathering while the right leg is unadorned. No significant distinction exists among the ethnics, which have typically blocky letters, nor among the crescent moons and olive sprays. The leaves of the latter tend to be at right angles, the leaves themselves being more or less full, often with a distinct midrib. Four examples (nos. 10, 17, 31, 35) have elongated, oblong flans, a trait also seen among a number of probable Attic issues from the 1989 Syria hoard, as well as among fourth- and third-century examples illus- trated in Svoronos (1975:pls. 20.19, 26.24, 27.16-17, 28.3-4, 28.12). FIFTH-CENTURY STYLE (nos. 53-58) Because of questions raised by T. V. Buttrey (1982, 1984) con- cerning the minting location, Athens or Memphis, of many fifth- century style owls, I have set the following six coins apart from the probable Attic issues and the imitations. While the treatment of the eye and other obverse features of nos. 53 and 54 differ, they do share similarities in fabric and reverse features, such as the stance and Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard 23 outline of the owl and the asymmetrical olive spray, parallels for which have come out of Egypt, Syria, and Greece (Svoronos 1975:pls. 26.1, 108.4-5, lll.l).8 These may well be Athenian. The abraded obverse of no. 55 makes it difficult to determine if the coin truly belongs to this group; the helmet ornament is notably different from most fifth- century types as is the treatment of the eye (note especially the pupil). In general configuration, the obverse of no. 55 seems close to fifth-century types, though distinct enough to be classified as an imita- tion. Nos. 56, 57, and 58 are undoubtedly imitations and likely the products of the same mint. The somewhat crudely executed owls and ethnics, and the fact that the E of the legend does not extend to the "ground" level upon which the owl's feet rest, as on most Athenian series, make these good candidates for being imitations. More telling, however, are marks found on the reverse below the owl's tail feathers (see Table 1). I have tentatively labeled these as mint marks, although their function and even design are uncertain. Because parallels for nos. 55-58 cannot be found, the origin(s) of the coins cannot be ascertained, although the possible die link and stylistic similarities of nos. 56-58 might indicate that these coins had not traveled far from their minting location. IMITATIONS (nos. 59-164) Listed first among the imitations are those groups that contain examples that have an Aramaic inscription in place of the Athenian ethnic (groups I-V). Many of the coins in these groups also bear addi- tional symbols. On the obverse, the number of parallel strands of beads below Athena's ear, which hitherto has not been of importance since all the probable Attic coins have only one strand, is now noted in the catalogue; some of the imitations have up to four strands. Groups I-V are almost certainly of Babylonian origin. As with the coins from this hoard, all other examples of similar or linked coins (the "X" coins of the catalogue), where provenance is known, are from collections found 8 From the 1989 Syria hoard there are four coins with a similar reverse, two of which have obverses very much like that of no. 54. 24 Peter G. van Alfen either in Babylon or in Babylonia generally (IGCH 1747, 1752, 1753, 1757, 1761); to date, with the possible exception of coins from an unprovenanced 1996 hoard (see note 24 below), no examples of these coins have been found outside of Babylonia. Aside from groups I-V, a Babylonian origin is also suggested for groups VII-IX and XI-XII. With the exception of two coins from the Levant (nos. 120 and 121), the origins of the remaining coins are left open. Group I (nos. 59-72, X1-X6) Based on the shape of the eye and facial structure, group I is divided into three subgroups: la (nos. 59-61, X1-X2), lb (nos. 62-66, X3), and Ic (nos. 67-72, X4-X6). All three subgroups share a highly distinctive helmet ornament, double volutes with projecting rays, which is unique among Athenian owl imitations.9 The coins of group la are distinguished by an open eye, those of group lb by an open eye with a more parallel lower eyelid and a stern, almost masculine face, those of Ic by a long flat nose and a lower eyelid that forms a slight hook. Most group I coins bear an inscription in Aramaic, although often the inscription is either off-flan or executed so lightly that it has worn to the point of illegibility. One coin, no. 62, shows no trace of an inscription, Aramaic or Greek. Furthermore, only one example, no. 60, has what may be a symbol on the reverse similar to those found in other groups, although it is formed so roughly (as the owl is) as to raise doubts. The owls are generally quite long-legged, have cleft heads, and in some cases have an unusual manner of representing the body feathers (e.g., nos. 67, 68). A number of coins in this group exist in other collections, as noted by the "X" designation.10 9 Nicolet-Pierre and Kroll (1990:pl. 4, B1-B4, C1-C4) illustrate examples of third- century imitations with a single volute ornament without rays. 10 Illustrations of the "X" coins, except for unpublished pieces in the ANS cabinets, are found in Babelon (1910), Newell (1938b), Le Rider (1972), Diebolt and Nicolet- Pierre (1977), and Nicolet-Pierre (1979). Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard 25 Group II (nos. 73-74, X7) The coins of this group are stylistically very similar to group I; no. 74 has the double volute helmet ornament, but has two strands of beads below the ear rather than one as on all group I coins. The helmet ornament on nos. 73 and X7 is indeterminable, but appears closer in design to that of group I than to the pz'-style ornament of the probable Attic coins and other groups. No. 73 bears the Athenian ethnic and X7 bears Aramaic MZDK; the inscription on no. 74 is off- flan. Group III (nos. 75-85, X8-X18) Group III coins are characterized primarily by the treatment of Athena's eye, the clearly demarcated iris and pupil, as well as the more upright and closely spaced M-shaped helmet ornaments in front of the pi ornament. The coins of this group have been placed into three subgroups: Ilia (nos. 75-80, X8-X10), Illb (nos. 81-83, X11-X14), and IIIc (nos. 84, X15). The eye of the Athena on Ilia examples is elon- gated and nearly frontal in appearance. Because the angle between the lines of the lower jaw and the front of the neck is obtuse, the head appears to be upturned. A die link exists between a few of the Ola obverses; those that are not linked were likely engraved by the same hand. More die links exist among the Illb obverses which differ from the Ilia examples primarily in the eye, which is more open and less elongated and is surmounted by a sharply angled eyebrow. The eye of group IIIc is similar, but the chin and lips are smaller. Although the state of the coins makes die links between the reverses uncertain, several of them are so similar in style and execution that they might be the work of one hand if not actual links. One such possible die link joins a Ilia obverse with a IIIc obverse (nos. X8, 84). What is most remarkable about group III reverses, however, is the fact that some examples in all three subgroups bear an Aramaic inscription and some the Athenian ethnic. Die links in subgroups Ilia and Illb show that the same obverse was used with both reverse types. Often the inscription, whether Aramaic or Greek, is crudely formed with letters misshapen or rotated or, in the case of no. 78, with the entire inscription reversed. 26 Peter G. van Alfen All examples with an Aramaic inscription bear the A symbol, although two examples not from the 1973 Iraq hoard (nos. X10, X12) have addi- tional symbols as well. On the basis of this symbol and a general stylistic congruity with the obverses and reverses of group III, I have included unclassified group III coins (no. 85, X16-X18) which individ- ually do not fit into any of the subgroups Illa-c. Group IV (nos. 86-98, X19-X23) The obverse and reverse execution of group IV shows greater refine- ment than that of group III, especially in the inscription and presenta- tion of the owl. Many examples are quite similar to those from Athens. All group IV coins, if it can be read, bear a carefully engraved and highly legible Aramaic legend. Often at the ends of the lines forming the individual letters there are small dots, presumably a decorative trait. There are no coins of this group with the Athenian ethnic. Where legible, all examples bear the symbol ©, or a possible variation 8 (no. 88, X20); two examples (no. 90, X19) have in addition the symbol A. In place of the crescent moon on the die-linked reverses of no. 93 and X21, an unusual triple-pronged crescent-like object appears. If not for the occurrence of a similar object in place of the crescent on the reverse of an example in the ANS cabinets (1944.100.81366), a reverse which is not linked to the others, this object might be taken to be the result of a die fault.11 As it is, it seems deliberate with an unknown significance. The subdivision of group IV into four subgroups is based upon obverse die links and differences primarily in the treatment of the eye and earring. On coins of IVa, both the eye and the disk earring are larger than those found on coins of the other subgroups. The flans of IVa coins are also smaller. A single strand of beads below the ear is the distinguishing factor between the otherwise similar obverses of IVb and IVc. The more recessed chin and mouth as well as a softer facial expression mark the obverses of IVd. 11 The reverse die found with the Egyptian Tell el-Athrib hoard (IGCH 1663) also has a three-pronged crescent. However, this unusual crescent is not well-formed as on our examples, which may indicate that in the case of the Egyptian reverse die it is in fact a die fault. For an illustration of the die, see Dattari (1905:pl. II, 2-3). Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard 27 Group V (nos. 99, X24-X26) There is only one example from this group which belongs to the Iraq hoard; the other three coins come from two other collections. Both the obverse and reverse of the two examples in the ANS collection (X24, X25) are die-linked; this reverse is also linked to no. 99. The owl of this group has a very distinctive striding posture, flattened oblong head, and stout feathered legs. The olive spray to left is opened to form an obtuse, nearly flat angle. Like some examples from group IV, the individual letters of the Aramaic inscription found on group V reverses bear decorative dots. There are no additional symbols. Obverses exhibit a refinement and delicacy in the rendering of certain details such as the eye and helmet ornament. Miscellaneous Babylonian (nos. 100-105, X27-X30) Although these ten coins cannot be placed in any of the above groups, they are likely issues from the same region or perhaps from the same mints as groups I-V due to stylistic similarities and their inscriptions. Of particular note are the symbols that appear on the reverses of nos. 101 and 103. Unattributed Groups The coins of groups VII (nos. 108-109), VIII (nos. 110, X31), IX (nos. 111-112), XI (nos. 116-117), and XII (nos. 118-119) may be Babylonian if only because the similarities or actual die links within the groups and stylistic similarities between some of the groups suggest a nearby minting location. The abstract portrayal of Athena in groups VII, VIII, and IX is completely unlike any of the Athenas found on the Babylonian issues (groups I-V), or imitations from Egypt and the Levant, and far more reminiscent of later imitations from South Arabia (see Svoronos 1975:pl. 111). All of the remaining catalogued coins bear the Athenian ethnic. Levantine As noted above, groups VI (nos. 106-107) and X (nos. 113-115) have weights and stylistic cues which are suggestive of Levantine 28 Peter G. van Alfen production, although their attribution to the Levant is not certain; their inclusion under this rubric is tentative. Price (1991a:68) attrib- uted nos. 120 and 121, both stylistically unrelated, to Phoenicia gener- ally, no. 120 to Gaza specifically; this coin almost certainly predates the destruction of that city by Alexander in 332. Both coins bear Phoenician letters of unknown meaning in addition to the Athenian ethnic. Diebolt and Nicolet-Pierre (1977:pl. 24, no. 14) illustrate an imitation of unknown provenance with similar inscriptions, having the Athenian ethnic and two small Semitic letters, likely Aramaic, tucked beneath the owl's breast. Miscellaneous Imitations (nos. 122-161) Generally, the imitative quality of these remaining unclassified coins is apparent. Because there are no die links, close stylistic similarities, or parallels found among these coins, their origins cannot be deter- mined. In his notes on the hoard in the British Museum, Price marked nos. 148, 149, 150, and 156 as possible Phoenician issues; I leave the question open. Drachms (nos. 162-163) These two drachms represent the only pseudo-Attic coins of smaller denomination from the 1973 hoard. The obverses may be related, but it is difficult to say with certainty. Some stylistic parallels—primarily the large, open eye—between these coins and drachms found with the Tel Tsippor hoard (IGCH 1514; Rahmani 1967:145 nos. 62 and 63) suggest that these are Levantine, as might the symbol on the obverse of no. 162. DISCUSSION An enormously complex phenomenon extending from the later part of the fifth century to well into the third, the minting of pseudo-Attic coins had as much to do with the availability of authentic owls, the expected exchange medium in local markets outside of Athens, as it did with greater political and economic factors. Persian satrapies, like those in Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor, produced imitations at various Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard 29 times for the discharge of governmental financial obligations for recipi- ents who presumably expected payment in Attic-type coin.12 Often the Persian issues betray their origins with supplementary inscriptions and symbols. Countless other moneyers, some presumed to have been private and some true counterfeiters, produced thousands of anony- mous imitations; the greater portion of the imitations from this hoard fall into this category. Obviously, there is no way to ascertain which of these anonymous imitations were produced privately or by the state, or the motivations that lay behind their production. The rougher, more caricatured types of imitations are not necessarily private issues. As the coins from the 1973 Iraq hoard indicate, quantities of authentic and imitative owls were in circulation in Babylonia by the late 320s; this area had become fertile ground for the production of Athenian imitations, many of which were undoubtedly produced under official oversight. This might have been the case only after c. 331, for coin use in Babylonia, as in most of the eastern Persian Empire before Alexander, was not widespread, nor did Babylonia likely possess a mint until after the Macedonian arrival. Newell (1923:140) suggested that Babylon had perhaps possessed a mint under the Persians. However, nothing which has come to light in the last several decades has offered support to this supposition (see Price 1991b:451). This is a point to which I will return shortly. The most informative pseudo-Attic coins from this hoard are those in groups I-V. Due to the Aramaic legend MZDK that most of these coins bear, they are also some of the more distinctive and better- known Athenian imitations. Discussion of these coins with the MZDK legend is usually linked with another series of imitations, minted in Egypt, with the Aramaic legend SWYK. Since the nineteenth century, scholarly debate over the correct reading and meaning of the legends found on the SWYK and MZDK coins has sometimes been bitter (cf. Newell 1938b:84; Lane Fox 1996:96-97). The SWYK legend is taken to be the Aramaic representation of a Persian name that has come to us through Greek and Latin sources as "Sabaces". Since Aramaic was used 12 The most recent and fullest account of pseudo-Attic minting in Egypt and Asia Minor appears in Figueira (1998:528-535). For pseudo-Attic coins in the Levant see Nicolet-Pierre (2000). 30 Peter G. van Alfen in administrative contexts in the fourth-century Achaemenid empire, its appearance on a coin with possible satrapal connections is not surprising. Written sources seem to name a Sabaces as the Persian satrap of Egypt who was killed at the battle of Issus in November 333, but the transmission of the name has been garbled in the manu- scripts; the variants "Tasiakes" and "Stasiakes" also occur.13 If it can be attributed to Sabaces, there exists a large series of imitations bearing his name, likely minted at Memphis over a period of years (340-333) before the battle of Issus (Price 1990, 1993). Though not yet subjected to a thorough study, the size of the "Sabaces" coinage is indicated not only by the large number of obverse and reverse dies found among existing examples, but also by the numerous additional inscriptions that sometimes appear to the left of the owl. Although most examples of these coins have been found in Egypt, a number have been found elsewhere: one example was found with the 1973 Iraq hoard (Morkholm 1974a :pl. 1, 6) and eight were found with the 1989 Syria hoard (Price 1993). Since Nicolet-Pierre's (1979) discussion of the reading SWYK, dissenting opinions opting for the reading SWYN have been voiced, primarily by E. Lipinski (1982), a possibility arising from the similar appearance of the archaic Aramaic letters kaph and nun. Those who prefer the reading SWYN attribute the coins not to Sabaces but to the Aramaic colony of Syene, modern-day Aswan. In light of two other series of Egyptian imitations with non-Greek legends, this reading seems unlikely. The first, an earlier series bearing the name in demotic of Artaxerxes III Ochus ("Artaxerxes Pharaoh"), the Persian Great King who reconquered Egypt in 343, and a later series with the Aramaic legend MZDK, understood as the name "Mazaces," clearly demonstrate the Persian practice of placing rulers' names on state- minted pseudo-Attic coins in Egypt. In fact, the practice was more widespread in the Persian empire of this period. Mazaios, for example, 13 Nicolet-Pierre (1979) addresses the textual variations and other historical problems associated with the MZDK and SWYK series. This section is largely based on her work. Also see Alram (1986) for a more recent treatment of the figures Mazaios (nos. 350-359), Artaxerxes III (no. 370), Sabaces (nos. 371-375), and Mazaeus (nos. 376-379). Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard 31 the satrap of Cilicia who was later transferred to Babylon, issued a series of staters and smaller denominations from Tarsus that bear his name in Aramaic (Newell 1920). Furthermore, stylistic parallels among all three of the Egyptian series indicate ongoing and successive minting during the decade immediately preceding the battle of Issus.14 Their use, at least initially, must have been to pay off the (Greek) mercenaries hired for the campaign to retake Egypt, later reasons for minting may have been tied to the threat of Alexander (Price 1993:32). The Persian minting of pseudo-Attic coins in Egypt is not surprising in light of the type's recognized status as official currenc}' along the Nile and the fact that anonymous imitations of the coin had been minted in Egypt since, very likely, the early fifth century (Figueira 1998:530- 532). Arrian (Anab. 3.1.2) notes that Darius, Artaxerxes Ill's successor, appointed Mazaces to be the satrap of Egypt, presumably after Sabaces had fallen in battle at Issus. A year later (November 332) Mazaces peacefully turned all of Egypt over to Alexander at Memphis. Mazaces' Egyptian series, with the legend MZDK in place of SWYK, was likely minted within the year 333/32 and perhaps for a short time after. As noted, examples of his pseudo-Attic series are often indistin- guishable from those of Sabaces, the only differences being the new legend and a new symbol, fn, replacing the symbol !K found on his predecessor's coins. Both of these successive issues were minted on large, well-formed, and comparatively thin flans. Remarking on the differences of fabric and style between the Egyp- tian issue of Mazaces and a number of presumed Babylonian issues bearing the legend MZDK, like those of groups I-V here, Newell (1938b:75) posited that Alexander, as an offer of gratitude for the surrender of Egypt, had given Mazaces an official position in Baby- lonia where he continued to mint his coins, a theory which has received mixed reviews. A number of historians, like P. Green (1991:269) have 11 The six new examples of the rare Artaxerxes issue that were found with the 1989 Syria hoard suggest a progression from an earlier frontal eye to a profile eye on the obverse. These examples with the profile eye are similar to what might be earlier issues of Sabaces. Except for the legend, some issues of Sabaces and Mazaces are virtually indistinguishable. "1 32 Peter G. van Alfen had little problem accepting Newell's theory. Others such as E. Badian have been disparaging; Badian, in fact, called it a "numismatist's myth" (1965:173 n. 4). As many have rightly noted, there is no evidence beyond the coins to back Newell's supposition. Two alternative explanations have been offered: A. B. Bosworth (1976) proposed a correction to Arrian's text that would make the garrison commander at Susa—the "Mazaros" noted only by Arrian—Mazaces, who minted the coins under Darius a few years before Alexander; Nicolet-Pierre (1979:229-230) suggested that these Babylonian coins might be imitations of imitations replicating the Egyptian Mazaces coins.10 As Lane Fox (1996:97) notes in reference to these explanations, both require stretching the historical, textual, and numismatic evidence beyond what it might easily bear; there may simply be an uncomfortable gap in the (textual) evidence concerning Mazaces in Babylonia. Certain features, however, of the Babylonian imitations, some of which relate to the lion staters, point to Mazaces as the direct minting authority, and might provide further (indi- rect) evidence of his presence in Babylonia after 331. Only one group from the Iraq hoard, group III, has in addition to the Aramaic legend MZDK the symbol It! which is found on Mazaces' Egyptian issues. Babelon's interpretation of this symbol as the Himyarite kaph has not fared well (1910:680); Lipinski's interpretation of it as a "schematized tripodal fire altar" may be closer to the truth (1982:29). More cautiously, one might interpret the symbol, like the symbol * on Sabaces' coins, as an arbitrary mark acting as a seal asso- ciated with a specific satrap. Sabaces' symbol, if it can be called such, appears on all of his issues regardless of whatever additional marks or inscriptions appear; only Mazaces' symbol and no other is found on his Egyptian coins and always in association with the inscribed name.16 1,1 Lipinski (1982:27) also suggested that the Egyptian Mazaces issues were imita- tions of the pseudo-Attic coins he believes the colony at Syene minted, thus making them also imitations of imitations. Lipinski (1982:29) remarks that "[a] further Egyptian imitation of the Athenian tetradrachm is characterized...by the hieroglyphic sign © of the sun, that might be the residue of the Greek 0...in addition, there is the Persian personal name mzdk, 'Mazdaka', written in Aramaic letters." Lipinski seems to imply that there is an Egyptian issue with the symbol 0 in place of the symbol fa. I am aware of no such Egyptian coin, nor does Lipinski provide an illustration or reference. Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard 33 With the Babylonian coins, this is not the case. Not only is the "Mazaces symbol" often replaced by another symbol ©, or group of symbols, but just as often there is no symbol at all associated with the name, as on some of the lion staters of Mazaios. It may be that the symbols used by Sabaces and Mazaces had a specific meaning or use within an Egyptian context, a meaning which changed or was adopted for a different use in Babylonia. Whatever their use in Babylonia, however, it is significant that while the symbols change, the name inscribed does not. On the Babylonian imitations there are three, or possibly four (if the second is not a variation of the first), major symbols: A) frl, B) 6, C) ©, and D) $?, augmented on only a few examples by the auxiliary symbols A and -nc. The delta appears with both symbols A and C, although it is rotated to left on the sole example where it appears with A (X10); the second group of auxiliary symbols appears only with A (X12). A glance at the distribution of the major symbols among groups I-V (see Catalogue) reveals that symbol A is found only in group III, symbol B in group IV. The differences in fabric and style between groups III and IV are enough to suggest either that there were two different officinae producing these two different groups, or that they were chronologically distinct issues.1' The regimented ap- pearance of the different symbols within these groups further suggests that the symbols were used in some manner by the same or different officinae. Like the cryptic symbols and monograms found on the Alexander imperials, these marks, or the lack of marks on coins of groups I, II, and V, may have served for control and tracking pur- poses, denoting sub-officials, source of bullion used, or mint marks identifying different officinae or different issues from the same work- shop. Although the imitations do not share any of the symbols found on the imperial issues, two of the symbols, O and A, might be related to similar symbols found on some lion staters.18 The use of all these Price (1991a:68) noted the difference in fabric and posited two mints for the coins, mint A and mint B. Ifi The delta symbol is found on a number of lion staters. In her dissertation, Waggoner (1968) suggested that the use of this symbol on the lion staters dates to the years between 329/28 and 323/22. One lion stater in the ANS collection 34 Peter G. van Alfen symbols in an apparently ordered fashion denotes centralized oversight, which further suggests that these imitations were an "official" coinage, as the similar series had been in Egypt. There is also another feature shared by the coins of groups I-V, as well as the lion staters and the gold darics minted in Babylon. Numer- ous examples of all these types display two small, diametrically opposed spurs, seams, or flanges on the edge of the flan, a feature which appears only on group I-V coins and on no other owls from this hoard or elsewhere.19 Both Hill (1922a:cxlii, 1922b) and Le Rider (1972:7) have commented on this feature, suggesting that the flanges or seams were the result of two hemispherical mold-halves poorly joined; a similar trait and method of production is noted on coins from Sicily. While this explanation holds for a number of these coins, particularly those with thick flans (c. 6 mm thick, e.g., nos. 61, 65, 70, 72) that suggest even greater thickness (i.e:, a sphere) before striking, it is not satisfactory in all cases. On a number of the imitations and lion staters, this feature is clearly not a seam or flange, but rather a spur. These flans were likely formed by pouring the molten metal into a stone (?) matrix of coin-shaped depressions linked by small channels (see Moesta and Franke 1995:100, pi. 59). Once the metal had hardened, the connected flans were removed from the matrix and separated from one another by either cutting or breaking the joining metal which had hardened in the channels. The spurs are the remnants of the metal from the channels, neither filed off nor hammered flat. Among groups I-V there is no apparent consistency in terms of what flans were produced using one or the other method. As in other areas of the East, those producing coins (for the first time?) might simply have adopted whatever method of flan production seemed most intuitive, (73.194.1) bears the symbol © in exergue in addition to the monogram V above the lion. The use of this monogram dates, according to Waggoner, to the time of Philip III. The use of the symbol © on this stater is the only such example that I have located. Although this coin likely dates to a period after 323, it suggests an adminis- trative link between the lion staters and imitations of groups I-V. The coins from the Iraq hoard on which this feature is most obvious are group I nos. 59, 62, 64, 65, 69, 71, 72; group II no. 73; group III nos. 77, 78, 79, 81, 96; group IV nos. X20, 90, 93, 94; group V nos. X24, X25. Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard 35 or best suited to the materials and skills available." In Babylonia, the methods adopted, for these coins at least, bore no direct relationship to current Greek methods of flan production, despite the fact that minting was unquestionably under Macedonian oversight.21 The basic relationship shared by the coins of groups I-V, the lion staters, and the gold darics indicated by this flan trait might again point to official control in the production of the Babylonian imitations. All three of these coinages were produced, if not in the same workshops, then workshops that were clearly related to one another by a distinctive, localized production method. There may be one other parallel between the lion staters and the imitations of groups I-V, namely, that Mazaces' and Mazaios's fates and those of their respective coinages may have followed somewhat similar lines. Mazaios, who became satrap of Cilicia in 361, struck various types of silver coins at Tarsus, including the precursor to the lion staters minted in Babylonia (see Bellinger 1963:60f). Opposing Alexander at the battle of Gaugamela, Mazaios, who by that time had been appointed satrap of Babylonia by Darius, surrendered Babylon to the Macedonians a month or so after the battle (October 331). Both Curtius (5.1.44) and Arrian (3.16.4) record that Alexander reinstated Mazaios as satrap of Babylon in addition to leaving a gar- rison and administrative staff behind in the city. Sometime shortly thereafter the new series of lion staters appeared which, like the Cili- cian issues, bore the seated Cilician god Baaltars on the obverse and a lion on the reverse along with Mazaios's name in Aramaic. Minted now on an Attic rather than Persic standard, there were at least four vari- eties or issues of the staters with the Aramaic legend, perhaps accounting for the production years 331-328.22 When Mazaios died in 328, his name was removed from the dies and was replaced with issue 20 See, for example, Huth (1998) for Arabian imitations minted on folded flans. 21 Gold darics and double darics on the Persian standard were among the first coins produced by the Macedonians in Babylon; often these coins bear Macedonian control marks. See Price (1991b:451-452) and Bellinger (1963:66-72). 22 Babelon (1910:475-478) published four examples, one with no extra symbol and one each with a wreath, a serpent, and a K. If the use of different symbols followed normal Greek practice of a different symbol every year, all the years of Mazaios' satrapy under Alexander would be accounted for. 36 Peter G. van Alfen marks that often parallel those of the imperial coinages; these "Greek" lion staters continued to be minted until the beginning of the third century and in other locations—Susa and Seleucia—beyond Babylon. If we accept Price's date of 323/22 BC for the burial of the Iraq hoard, we have a certain terminus ante quern for all of the coins. Mazaces' Egyptian issues, if they were coined in the year 333/32, or for a while later, provide a round terminus post quern since presumably the Babylonian imitations postdate those from Egypt.23 Mazaces' pres- ence is attested with Alexander in Memphis in November 332; Macedo- nian hegemony in Babylonia was secured by October 331. In the intervening months, Mazaces certainly could have flown to the Persian forces in Babylonia and continued his coinage there. However, his surrender of Egypt to the Macedonians would have ensured a cold if not fatal reception by the Persian King, so he likely remained with Alexander's forces. There is little doubt that Mazaios began minting his new staters in Babylon in late 331 or early 330, perhaps at the same time the Macedonian darics began to appear. This inauguration of minting activity in Babylon may also have prompted the advent of Mazaces' new imitations. As the Babylonian staters of Mazaios show, the Macedonians did make concessions to the Persian practice of naming the direct minting authority as had been done in Cilicia and Egypt before; a concession which has long been problematic, if not shocking, for historians and numismatists alike (see Bellinger 1963:62). In this context, there would be little point in placing Mazaces' name on the coins if he were not indeed responsible for them, especially through the course of numer- ous issues or on products from different officinae, as the symbols on the coins suggest. Despite the changes in symbols found on the coins, like the changes in symbols found on the earliest Babylonian lion staters, the legend MZDK remains steadfast in place. Erasing any indication of Mazaces' responsibility would have been as simple as either removing the name or any inscription entirely or reverting to the original Athe- 2i Lane Fox (1996:97) raises the possibility that the Babylonian coins may have been minted in Babylonia under Darius in late 333. Mazaces then moved west to coin the Egyptian issues in 333/32. However, Lane Fox also notes that this scenario is not very likely. Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard 37 nian ethnic in place of the name. This may have been what eventually happened. The Athenian ethnic appears in groups II and III; in group III one obverse die shares two reverses, one with the Aramaic legend and one with the Greek. Furthermore, one coin from group I (no. 62) and a recently surfaced coin with a group IV obverse show no trace at all of a legend, Aramaic or Greek.24 As Mazaios's name had been removed from his staters following his death, Mazaces' name might also have been removed from his Athenian types following a loss of authority. And again, as Mazaios's stater dies had been retooled or formed anew to reflect the change, so the dies for Mazaces' imitations might also have been altered. Admittedly, there is not enough evidence at this point to establish a chronology for the Babylonian imitations, but the change of legends in groups I-V, on analogy with the lion staters, is suggestive of change in authority. Choice of a legend, or no legend, in this context would not be left to the decision of a die-cutter. The minting of the Babylonian imitations may have begun concur- rently with the lion staters, and like the lion staters, continued for time after the original incipient of the coinage, Mazaces, had ceased to play a role in their production. As has long been recognized the fundamental historical problem regarding the Babylonian production of lion staters is answering the question "Why?" By analogy, the question might also be extended to the imitations. Why did the Macedonians allow turncoat Persians to mint copies of their earlier satrapal coins in their own name in Baby- lonia? The answer eludes us, but it might be related to an administra- tive need for coinage in an area that previously had none, or little. As textual and hoard evidence indicate, Babylonia, like most of the Near East, might not have been fully monetized before Alexander, or for some time thereafter (Joannes 1995:1478). A number of cuneiform 2-1 This virtually unworn coin came from the small, unprovenanced 1996 Lion Stater hoard. The reverse die was well centered and clearly shows that no legend, Greek or Aramaic, had been cut. In addition to this coin, the hoard contained one imperial tetradrachm from Ake, seven lion staters (one with Mazaios's name, one with no legend, and the rest with imperial marks), five other Athenian imitations (one group III with MZDK legend, the rest with the Athenian ethnic). The contents of the hoard point to a Babylonian provenance. 38 Peter G. van Alfen texts, for example, such as the Murasu archives, deal with transactions of various sorts requiring payment in silver. While these documents make it certain that silver and silver-equivalent credits were in general use in late fifth-century Babylon, M. Stolper, the archives' major commentator, considers the money in use to have been silver in what- ever form available, not necessarily minted metal (1985:29 n.110, 151). Furthermore, only one hoard from the region (IGCH 1747 = CH VII.90), uncovered in the last century, is securely dated to the period before Alexander's ingress (c. 385 BC). While this hoard does contain a small number of Persian and Greek silver coins, including several frag- mented Athenian owls, the additional presence of silver jewelry, vessel fragments, and amorphous lumps, indicates again that exchange in Babylonia at this time was based on bullion weight; coin type was inci- dental (Reade 1986; Robinson 1950; Naster 1970). Other fourth- century hoards from Babylonia either postdate or are contemporaneous with Alexander.20 Whatever use of coin there might have been before- hand, a greater use of coin as coin in the local Babylonian economy seems to have occurred with the events surrounding Alexander, as Babylon, perhaps for the first time, began to mint a number of different types of coins (Morkholm 1991:48; Price 1991b:73). Most of the Babylon mint's production of imperial issues and possi- bly gold darics can be tied to troop payments. Likewise, the Porus coins and imperial issues were undoubtedly related to troop payments of one sort or another (Lane Fox 1996; Thompson 1984). A similar purpose remains a possibility for the lion staters and Athenian imita- tions, but not one wholly without problems. Diodorus (17.64) notes that after his month-long stay in Babylon, Alexander gave the newly formed garrison of the city 1000 talents of silver with instructions to raise as many troops as possible. Perhaps the Babylon garrison, in turn, compelled Mazaces and Mazaios to produce coins for such a levy. Objections to this purpose, for the lion staters at least, have been voiced already. As Bellinger remarked, there would be little reason to mint a separate coinage(s), and Persian types at that, for 25 IGCH 1748, 1749, 1750, 1751, 1752, and 1753. Schlumberger (1953:11 no. 42) dates IGCH 1762 (= Noe 1109) to the first half of the fourth century. More recent work on this hoard has assigned a date of c. 250 BC. Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard 39 the convenience of a single body of mercenaries (1963:63). Also, the named Babylonian lion staters and imitations that have thus far come to light have been found only in Babylonia, in fact mostly in or near Babylon itself. Based on the evidence available, these coins, unlike the imperial issues, do not seem to have circulated much beyond the city, not a pattern consistent with on-the-move mercenaries. While Alexan- der did allow some local coinages to continue mostly for local purposes, the troops were likely paid, when coins were used, with his own impe- rial issues or special propagandistic types like the Porus coins. Both Bellinger (1963:62, 66) and Newell (1938b:88) have offered suggestions for the purpose of the imitations and lion staters within a local context: for trade or to aid the local economy or, in the case of the lion staters, as "temple money", money associated with or for use by the great temple of Bel (Newell 1938a :106 n. 14). This latter suggestion drew heavy fire from Bellinger (1963:64). While neither explanation is entirely satisfactory, both might be nuanced slightly. One could see the production of lion staters and imitations as a conscious attempt to monetize the economy for local administrative purposes. In their satrapal capacities elsewhere, Mazaces and Mazaios had used coin and perhaps realized the administrative advantage of using this type of exchange medium. Resuming official responsibilities in Babylonia, they may have coined more for their own administrative benefit than at the specific request of the Macedonians. Selection of their own types, the lion staters and Athenian imitations, would be a natural and perhaps innocuous choice; there were no local Babylonian types for them to copy. Factors of workmanship, widely varying weights and dies, particularly with the pseudo-Attic coins, give the impression that the group I-V imitations and lion staters were minted in haste; Waggoner has commented on a similar apparent haste in the minting of imperial tetradrachms at the Babylon mint (1979:272). This may explain the troublesome fact that on some of the imitations, primarily in groups I and III, the Aramaic legend is so sloppy that it cannot be read with certainty; Nicolet-Pierre (1979:230), in fact, claims to have read GWLDR on the worn reverse of an example from group I (X6).26 Hasty production may have led to the employ- 2f> This coin, in the ANS collection, unfortunately could not be located for me to confirm or deny this reading. Although much has been written concerning the 40 Peter G. van Alfen ment of numerous less-than-skilled die cutters, or die cutters who were unfamiliar with Aramaic; many of the coins display an equal unfami- liarity with Greek characters. When one looks for specific reasons for hastily minted coins meant for local circulation, which likely included a number of denominations,2' any number of possibilities come to mind: inter-regitinal trade, taxation, or public works. Given the evidence currently available, it is perhaps wisest not to favor one reason over another or, for that matter, to search for a more specific minting loca- tion within Babylonia, such as Opis or Uruk-Orchoi,"8 for the imita- tions. Explaining the appearance of the remaining Attic-type coins in the Iraq hoard is perhaps less problematic. Unquestionably Alexander's train brought with it significant numbers of authentic and imitative Attic-type coins. As communication between the East and the West became less restricted, and coin use in the East following in the wake reading of the Aramaic inscriptions on the Babylonian imitations, I feel all were intended to read MZDK. There are only subtle differences in the fourth-century forms of the Aramaic characters dalelh, nun, resh, and kaph, which a hasty or illite- rate die cutter could easily obscure. The fact that many of these inscriptions were written backwards, or have one or two characters reversed, suggests that not all the die cutters knew what they were cutting or were familiar with the script. Moreover, many of the inscriptions are either partially or wholly off-flan or worn to the point of (near) illegibility, which seems to be the case in the illustration of Nicolet-Pierre's GWLDR example (1979:pl. 26 f). Where the Aramaic is legible, or mostly so, the inscriptions can be rendered as MZDK. Nicolet-Pierre (1979:pl. 26 i) illustrates an example of a Babylonian MZDK drachm (weight 4.09 g), the existence of which suggests that the imitations, like the lion staters, were produced in a series of different denominations and thus that the coinage could be used not only for large transactions but for smaller daily trans- actions as well. 28 Newell (1938b:87-88) suggested these two locations for the mints of the imita- tions. The generally poor quality of the coins, he felt, excluded their production at the Babylon mint, which seemed to produce higher-quality issues. I am not convinced by this thesis since examples of finely and poorly made coins can be found among all Babylonian types: imitations, lion staters, darics, and imperial issues. All Babylonian types may have been produced at any number of mints throu- ghout the region, which also could explain factors of variety, style, and work- manship. Multiple mints, as in the case of the imitations, still could have been under the control of the same governor. Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard 41 of the coin-using Macedonians became more commonplace, a more extensive eastward flow of the owl is to be expected. As elsewhere, this likely gave rise to the production of local (anonymous) imitations, distinct from Mazaces' Persian imitations. The die links within the groups and the stylistic similarities among the coins of groups VI-XII suggest that these coins had not traveled far from the place where they were minted and therefore are likely local products. Some of these anonymous imitations might also have been "official" Babylonian issues. Significantly, however, these imitations copy the Athenian owl, and not the Persian. Whatever the purpose of Mazaces' Babylonian imitations, his named coins do not appear in the same quantities as the anonymous types. Perhaps they could not compete with the recognized status of the Athenian owl, a status that was soon to be overwhelmed by the Alexander-type tetradrachms in the East and elsewhere. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS For offering to me the opportunity to study these owls, as well as for his criticism on earlier drafts of this paper, I thank John Kroll whole- heartedly. I thank the ANS staff for their assistance in the early stages of this project, during the 1998 ANS graduate seminar, and Carmen Arnold-Biucchi above all for her unfailing friendship, sage advice, and criticism throughout. Martin Huth deserves singular gratitude for his helpful comments on an earlier draft and for providing his insights on the pseudo-Athenian phenomenon. My warm thanks also to Andrew Meadows and his staff at the British Museum, and to the Graduate School at the University of Texas at Austin for the funds used to visit London. Christopher Howgego, Lisa Kallet, Paula Perlman, and Ute Wartenberg also deserve thanks for their assistance and comments. All shortcomings, of course, are my own. REFERENCES Alram, M. 1986. Iranisches Personennamenbuch, Bd. 4: Nomina propria Iranica in nummis. Wien: Verlag der Qsterreichisches Akademie der Wissenschaften. 42 Peter G. van Alfen Babelon, E. 1910. Traite des monnaies grecques et romaines, vol. 2. Paris: E. Leroux. Badian, E. 1965. The administration of the empire. Greece and Rome 12:166-182. Bellinger, A. R. 1963. Essays on the coinage of Alexander the Great. ANS Numismatic Studies 11. New York: American Numismatic Society. Bingen, J. 1973. Le tresor monetaire Thorikos 1969. Thorikos 6:7-59. Bosworth, A. B. 1976. Errors in Arrian. Classical Quarterly 26:117-139. Buttrey, T. V. 1982. Pharaonic imitations of Athenian tetradrachms. In: T. Hackens and R. Weiller, eds., Proceedings of the 9th Interna- tional Congress of Numismatics, Berne, September 1979, vol I, pp. 137-140. Louvain-la-Neuve and Luxembourg: Association Interna- tionale des Numismates Professionels. Buttrey, T. V. 1984. Seldom what they seem: the case of the Athenian tetradrachm. In: W. Meckel and R. Sullivan, eds., Ancient coins of the Graeco-Roman world: the Nickle numismatic papers, pp. 292-294. Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press for the Calgary Institute for the Humanities. Dattari, G. 1905. Comments on a hoard of Athenian tetradrachms found in Egypt. Journal International dArcheologie Numismalique 8:103-114. Diebolt, J. and H. Nicolet-Pierre. 1977. Recherches sur le metal des tetradrachmes a types atheniens. Revue Suisse de Numismalique 56:79-91. Dodson, 0. H. and W. P. Wallace. 1964. The Kozani hoard of 1955. ANS Museum Notes 11:21-28. Diirr, N. 1974. Neues aus Babylonien. Schweizer Munzblatter 94:33-36. Elayi, J. and A. G. Elayi. 1993. Tresors de monnaies pheniciennes et circulation monetaire (Ve-IVe siecles avant J.-C.J. Paris: Gabalda. Elayi, J. and A. G. Elayi. 1994. Un nouveau tresor de tetradrachmes atheniens et pseudo-atheniens. Revue Numismatique 36:26-33. Elayi, J. and A. G. Elayi. 1997. Recherches sur les poids pheniciens. Paris: Gabalda. Figueira, T. 1998. The power of money: coinage and politics in the Athe- nian Empire. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Green, P. 1991. Alexander of Macedon, 356-323 B.C. Berkeley: Univer- sity of California Press. Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard 43 Hill, G. F. 1922a. Catalogue of Greek coins in the British Museum: Arabia, Mesopotamia and Persia. London: British Museum. Hill, G. F. 1922b. Ancient methods of coining. Numismatic Chronicle (1922):1-18. Huth, M. 1998. The "folded flan" coinage of eastern Arabia: some preliminary comments. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 9:273-277. Joannes, F. 1995. Private commerce and banking in Achaemenid Babylon. In: J. M. Sasson, ed., Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, vol. 3, pp. 1475-1485. New York: Scribner. Kroll, J. 1993. The Greek coins. Athenian Agora 26. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies in Athens. Lane Fox, R. 1996. Text and image: Alexander the Great, coins and elephants. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 41:87-108. Le Rider, G. 1972. Tetradrachmes "au lion" et imitations d'Athenes en Babylonie. Schweizer Miinzbldtter 85:1-7. Lipinski, E. 1982. Egyptian Aramaic coins from the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. In: S. Sheers, ed., Sludia Paulo Naster oblata, vol. 1, pp. 23-32. Leuven: Departement Orientalistiek. Moesta, H. and P. R. Franke. 1995. Antike Metallurgie unci Munzprd- gung: Bin Beitrag zur Technikgeschichte. Basel: Birkhause. Morkholm, O. 1974a. A coin of Artaxerxes III. Numismatic Chronicle 14:1-4. Morkholm, 0. 1974b. Athen og Alexander den Store Fra bystat til gud- dommeligt kongedomme. N ationalmuseets Arbejdsmark (1974): 89-95. Morkholm, 0. 1982. The Attic coins standard in the Levant. In: S. Sheers, ed., Studia Paulo Nasler Oblata, vol. 1, pp. 139-149. Leuven: Departement Orientalistiek. Morkholm, 0. 1991. Early Hellenistic coinage from the accession of Alexander to the Peace of Apamea (336-186 B.C.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Naster, P. 1970. Were the labourers of Persepolis paid by means of coined money? Ancient Society 1:129-134. Naster, P. 1983. Scripta nummaria: contributions a la methodologie numismalique. Leuven: Societe Royale de Numismatique Marcel Hoc. 44 Peter G. van Alfen Newell, E. T. 1920. Myriandros-Alexandria Kat'Isson. AJN 53(2): 16-31. Newell, E. T. 1923. Alexander hoards II: Demanhur, 1905. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 19. New York: American Numismatic Society. Newell, E. T. 1938a. The coinage of the eastern Seleucid mints from Seleucus I to Antiochus III. New York: American Numismatic Society. Newell, E. T. 1938b. Miscellanea numismatica: Cyrene to India. Numis- matic Notes and Monographs 82. New York: American Numismatic Society. Nicolet-Pierre, H. 1979. Les monnaies des deux derniers satrapes d'Egypt avant la conquete d'Alexandre. In: 0. Merkholm and N. M. Waggoner, eds., Greek numismatics and archaeology: essays in honor of Margaret Thompson, pp. 221-230. Wetteren: Editions NR. Nicolet-Pierre, H. 2000. Tetradrachmes atheniens en Transeuphratene. Transeuphratene 20:107-119. Nicolet, H., J. Delepierre, M. Delepierre, and G. Le Rider. 1983. Sylloge nummorum Graecorum France: Bibliotheque Nationale, Cabinet des Medailles, Collection Jean el Marie Delepierre. Paris: Bibliotheque Nationale. Nicolet-Pierre, H. and J. Kroll. 1990. Athenian tetradrachm coinage of the third century B.C. AJN 2:1-35. Nicolet-Pierre, H. and M. Amandry. 1994. Un nouveau tresor de monnaies d'argent pseudo-atheniennes venu d'Afghanistan (1990). Revue Numismatique 36:34-54. Price, M. J. 1982. The "Porus" coinage of Alexander the Great: a symbol of concord and community. In: S. Sheers, ed., Studia Paulo Naster oblala, vol. 1, pp. 75-82. Leuven: Departement Orien- talistiek. Price, M. J. 1990. New owls for the Pharaoh. Minerva 1:39-40. Price, M. J. 1991a. Circulation at Babylon in 323 B.C. In: W. Metcalf, ed., Mnemata: papers in memory of Nancy M. Waggoner, pp. 63-72. New York: American Numismatic Society. Price, M. J 1991b. The coinage in the name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus. Zurich and London: Swiss Numismatic Society and British Museum Press. Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard 45 Price, M. J. 1993. More from Memphis and the Syria 1989 hoard. In: M. Price, A. Burnett, and R. Bland, eds., Essays in honor of Robert Carson and Kenneth Jenkins, pp. 32-35. London: Spink. Rahmani, L. Y. 1967. A hoard of Alexander coins from Tel Tsippor. Schweizer Munzblatter 64:129-139. Reade, J. 1986. A hoard of silver currency from Achaemenid Babylon. Iran 24:83-84. Robinson, E. S. G. 1950. A silversmith's hoard from Mesopotamia. Iraq 12:44-51. Schlumberger, D. 1953. L'argent grec dans 1'empire Achemenide. In: R. Curiel and D. Schlumberger, ed., Tresors monetaires d'Afghanistan, pp. 1-64. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Shore, A. F. 1974. A Demotic inscription on a coin of Artaxerxes. Numismatic Chronicle 14:5-8. Stolper, M. W. 1985. Entrepreneurs and empire: the Muras'u archive, the Murasu firm, and Persian rule in Babylonia. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul. Svoronos, J. 1975. Corpus of the ancient coins of Athens. Chicago: Ares. Thompson, M. 1957. A hoard of Athenian fractions. ANS Museum Notes 7:1-11. Thompson, M. 1984. Paying the mercenaries. In: A. Houghton, S. Hurter, P. E. Mottahedeh, and J. A. Scott, eds., Festschrift fur Leo Mildenberg, pp. 241-246. Wetteren: Editions NR. Waggoner, N. 1968. The Alexander mint at Babylon. PhD dissertation, Columbia University. Waggoner, N. 1979. Tetradrachms from Babylon. In: O. Morkholm and N. M. Waggoner, eds., Greek numismatics and archaeology: essays in honor of Margaret Thompson, pp. 269-280. Wetteren: Editions NR. I Peter G. van Alfen cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm ci riri cm -Nm-^^ot-oo^ 2 = 22 2 2 2 S 22 -c-i^^.n^^M^ 2 = 22 2 2 2 = 22 g lllllllll 1111 1111 11 1 lllffills ilii fill If I iiiiiiiii |||| |||| || i i ;« iili a El 1 iNlIili ill JJJiili Jli I tllJJiJl SSSoSSSoS £ o S o 3 3 g p 2 S S > >■ > X > > x >■ >-^>.^ >=. > n m m 5 n M - - m cm cm - cm cm r- cm § - I = lllllllll Hll 1111 Disk Disk Disk & s s s >■>>•>• > >■ S >■ Pi 2/3 Pi 2/3 Pi 4/5 Pi 4/5 Pi-slyle Pi-slyle Pi 4/5 Pi-style Pi 2/3 Pi-style Pi 2/3 Pi 1/2 Pi 2/3 Pi 2/3 Pi 2/3 Pi 2/3 Pi-slyle Pi 2/3 Pi 2/3 & E Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard zz ,^ S a 2 r, II ill ill I 4 I ! i 11 1 i! il S5JS355SS1538 -S";5S 5SSS33 d d d ^ cvi d c-i c-i Hdd d d c4 mm m H m c4 c-i ci SSSS SSSSSSSSSi SSiSSS 2 ; « 5 s § 3 S 8 £ S? g 2 = 2 s = £ iiiiiiiiiiiii mill mill IIIIiffiffffiffII llllli 111111 iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiiiii 1 11 1 iiiii 111 If I i ill 1 il JlIlilJjjJl! i III ■gCM „ „ cm _ | ^ CM CM CM | |«- |« CM CM CM - 3 | --------------1-------1__ IIIIIIIIIIIII lillfl IIIIII 33iSSi£33£33;SB = o g 8 2 o £ 3 c = £ 8 8 ..........•*>•>• js js >- ss > >• z: >s >- >- > iEEEEESEEEEEE iliilS E E E e£ S 48 li M I s Peter G. van Alfen Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard I ! li 1 h it ll la II 2 2 2? 2 11 B 3 s3 cc p3 g 5 3 g S S 1 1 1 I III 2 I 2 5 £ i H c-i c*i £2 pc 22 UJ L1J < < III! s s s if 8 o S3 >- ^ >• r-i c^i If Iff 8 S 2 2 ■A A A s g S S3 I 1 11 1 1 | II 1 § i-liJ-illilll 1 l 1 I 3 § I I 1 11 " - li 1 a is a ■}. o u si o il s 1 S g ft 2? s s g s 1 1 I I © i i I I f J % A Alii J g s Jl ill ill * i I I I s§ 5 >Tls 1 1 1 ec 3 S i ll I* l! i! i i 5 3 5 3 * 5 c-\ Ti t-\ ri t-i ^ S c5 ds ^ cc -< S S 3 S s x s ? ? ? f * 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I i I h I s I s i_ s 1 I s 1_ 1 1 iililili ! I f f - - - I - I ill ° I f f f I f f f f f f AAA I A A A A A A Hill! MM Hil ;!l i s 2 5 S s ?, a S I A U * S3 50 Peter G. van Alfen JI ll i! 3 S 1 S I is I i it If ll s s s ! si ii Hiss c-« cvi cm cs r-i cj ~ 5| c-i c-i cm cm cm Ssgl sl SSSsl § S - £ X x x K r~ x KSRfSi5 s g £ X x x X SRfSg i_i_i_i i I I § I I I I ll I l l 1 I 1 ll s ulii ~< ■-! <20 CX M CJJ M M =0 CO SC S i s 2 S 1 13 S sSISs Is ii % iiis ! ll 1 Hi Hit tit!! IE H I Mil mil ii ii i mi t x g I i i =§t £ x^x^x Sfflfc - « I cm JN N N M M M i - -1 - -1 l I i i I I l If 1 iiii! !iifil!illlilJlii!|ffiff j Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard 51 JI iJl I z I •5 I I III I g X X X S X X X X 5 X £ X _ 0 — V- — gx XX Sag 8 x xxx Sx S x ■tE ^IB^E ll i! ii ii 1.4.120 !.4.107 c-i "35" >.4.108 1944. § ANS si 1 I s a S3 i X 2 2 2 XXX 1 5 x S 2 i r 8 X 1 M « T XXX 1 1 3 x 9:00 8:00 1 ..1, 9:00 9:00 S3 1 17.18 g 10.95 g II •£E h Hull 111 Ii ^ I i £22 ix x cm co g c>i cn = m « ^ cc : 1 p 2 N a 2: II i II 1_ I Mi 11 i li^H? i i|ii II I lllHll I Illl I | CM N m oM S|S CM CM CM p ^ CM — |, |s |s s I III -II I I I lllfl If ff iff ! IffMI j I' f si? Si Isss % 3 SsSlsS la S 52 Peter G. van Alfen Jl ill I I 5 I 1 ! ii = f- = iS sse?ss £ Rf=S p ^ ^ ^ 2 55 a, 55 _: ^ ^ ^ cm cm cm c-i cm ~ 5; " S cm wrid % % § I 1 I lll§ 1 in xx gasssSx 1—1 § £ S§ g g x x 5 I_I_I_I 1=-. 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 111, II 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 1111 < < < <tHE © © GK © © © 0< ©0©0 ll I 1 1 1 I I I I < i in I? I Ills 2 1 1 111 ii i ipi ; I I ill II I illj I 2 2 2 z 1 (off-flan) (cut) (worn) Yes No (cut) Yes (worn) Yes Dots-Beak (cut) (worn) (worn) 2 2 « ! ?i d « cm cm cm cm I ~ cm 5 0 cm 0] cm cm cm c: co co co co Earring Type Disk Disk Disk Disk Disk Disk Disk Disk Disk (cut) (worn) Hoop I loop Hoop Point , Tragus Yes (worn) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (cut) (worn) Yes Yes Yes U 11 e Mil Abstract pi-style Abstract pi-slyle Abstract pi-stylc Abstract pi-stylc IVb Pi-stylc Pi-slyle Pi-style Pi-style Pi-style 1. == r XX & § £ gg § 8 £ x Is g a s 1 Ji ill ill J i I 1 I i! '-2 h' it ll Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard c4 n c4 c* cm cm cm 1 1-1-1 S gSx S I x 3 2 §£ y s ill s S_J I 2 22 II 1 I,, Sill 1 ll If i ifi fiii i II 0© © ©© i in D 2 Q M != N II III I i ii lii i i 11 an 1 1 n .... _ ... j|. . . _ 11 I lit t I 1 I 1 U s s g IT s is £ S S £ is o o >■ >• «.>• ;» > >■ > > % > s. S. iff |! Iff, I f f fjltlf Is. Is Jl li 1 1 i Ii 21 54 li ijj i s I 1 ! a = II 5 § I si I 1 1,1 §IS S 8 1 1 .11 Peter G. van Alfen II | 1 1 2 1 1 £3 H iri « 1 1 Ji 1 0 ©CE © 0 1 s §11 I i is ii 2 2 II II CD O < < Chisel cut, rev. Punch mark center, i Chisel cut, rev. Two chisel cuts, rev. Chisel cut, rev. mark rev. o Punch if Yes (off-flan) No (worn) (cut) (worn) Yes No No Xo (worn) il 1 —!- - s « « fl Disk Hoop (worn) Disk Disk (worn) (worn) I loop Disk U1SK Point '. "tragus Yes Yes No (worn) No Yes Yes (worn) (worn) s s > > U Abslracl pi-style Abstract pi-style (off-flan) Pi-style Abstract pi-style Abstract pi-style Pi-slyle i VI Abstract pi-style Abstract pi-style VII Pi-style Pi-slyle J* § S 111 1 1 1 2 2 Group 108 109 Ji I i f I J il 11 fl il Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard 1 1 iri I I I .IT . ^ II { I ! 1 I 8 II = £2 ss p $ a II 2 S 2 11 11 1 if II i Is s .J J-r . ^ % S S I S t. mil OS s >- 5- >- ii H f IlltlJt all * Is s !=s f t I 1 1 - 1 1 1 2 CD <D < < J- I - I HII 52 56 Peter G. van Alfen ii 3 cm Die Mi IJnks N\ Reverse I iil ..2 2 Axis 11 i ibol Weight 11 !• I < J 1 1 s Dol-Foreheai 1* II Slrands I- It Poinl nt Tragus >■ > U i XII Pi-style Pi-stvle h 15 333 31335333 3933 « cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm' cm cm cm e-i cm 3 § SSS IIIIsIsI SSgg 55 SSS SSBBSISB SB EIB5 BSBSSSSS S5SS 11 111 llllllll llll fi iff ffiffffl lllf < < 111 llllllll 1111 s .1 n s II gpi llggig ii llll, iiii Iliiii ii flifi llll Iijjjj 11 I* ill 18*1*111 IIH -§|cm ||cm||^_m I --cm ~ --c, - 5; £ | £ - - ;=| f i ^ - li lit llfillii llll i* i iiini*i *U * III fIffIfif iff! SBS 3 § B § § § B B H 5 § § II ill iil l s I I I al i! 1 Ii it ll Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard 57 ~ ;sE § = I S 2 Bs SSSisS B'S sg2_ -3= ^ ^ -T -=T ^ ^ ^ - ^ -rf ^ ^ ^ CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM C~i CM CM CM CM CM CM C^l CM c£ c5 — c~ G £2 x 22 cc cc k cccc r^c^dS^ B SB § 5 § SI !! BSSSSs 3 2 2222 g SS I S § Si S§ §32222 S2 2S22 1 11 1 1 1 11 11 lillll ll llll 1 II I I f f| If Isill 1 11 1 1 1 11 11 lillll 11 ill! i ii i 1 1 ii 1 1 iiiili'iii i I g g g ^ « g ««! .=3 S -SB- !i 2 2 2 2 al gs > 10:00 > 10:00 > 10:00 > 9:00 8S 2 2 llll UJ LU itll i i i i ii i i 11 1 I II % % :— r- 11 (off-flan) No? (worn) (cul) 11 (cut) (worn) (worn) (cut) (worn) (worn) 3 (worn) 2? (off-flan) (worn) Disk Moop Disk? Disk? 1 (off-flan) (worn) No Yes (worn) (worn) (off-flan; 1 !,.. I f I ll 1, llllli ll Hi! iii 1! 1 1^ iiml li ill? SIIItStiff ft If illSfJiSItliil g g§ 5 S g § 5 g § 3 S S g 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 AJN volume 12 (2000) pp. 59-66 © 2001 The American Numismatic Society A HOARD OF UNPUBLISHED BRONZE COINS OF PTOLEMY CERAUNUS (Plates 9-11) Melih Arslan* and Ayca Ozen This hoard, found in Turkish Thrace in 1997, was bought on the antiquities market of Istanbul by the Ankara coin collector Ahmet Erhan Erdener. Currently the 61 coins published in this article are registered as in the possession of Mr. Erdener. It is likely that the hoard originally contained more specimens, for Mr. Erdener informed us that he declined to buy several worn specimens that seemed to have belonged to the hoard. The specimens of this hoard vary between 10 mm and 14 mm in diameter, and they weigh between 0.67 g and 3.69 g. All the coins carry on the reverse a variation of a legend that abbreviates the regal name BAIILEQ2 rTTOAEMAIOY. These hitherto unknown bronze coins can be divided into three distinct groups. Group I. On the obverse is the head of Poseidon wearing taenia and laurel wreath, on the reverse a trident and legend nTOAEM. There are two coins in this group (nos. 1-2). Group II. On the obverse is the head of Apollo wearing laurel wreath, on the reverse a cornucopiae (Schonert-Geiss 1970-72 Byzan- tium obverse types 2023-2024 and reverse types 2025-2029) with the legend BA1 TITO. Two coins (nos. 3-4) belong to this group. * Anadolu Medeniyetleri Miizesi [Museum of Anatolian Civilizations], 06240 Hisar, Ankara, Turkey. 59 Plate 1 Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard Plate 2 Plate 3 21 24 25 41 44 45 26 29 30 (MB 46 111 48 49 50 31 35 51 J? 54 36 38 39 56 59 60 Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard Plate 4 Plate 5 61 62 63 64 65 84 66 67 6^ 69 70 87 89 90 ■i ■I 71 91 92 94 96 m 76 9" 99 100 101 Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard Plate 6 102 103 104 106 108 109 110 111 "i, '■ rr 113 Till 1 14 116 ■■Hi 118 120 121 122 123 Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard Plate 7 PA 125; 126 129 , ■ . '* 130 "V 132 133 ' 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard Plate 8 i§iilp?ililiiii ■Hi 149 150 151 RIB! pljlpl 152 V ,1 153 154 155 ■■■ ■ 158 159 " -V" 160 162 161 Owls from the 1973 Iraq Hoard Plate 9 Hoard of Bronze Coins of Ptolemy Ceraunus