“Two unpublished hoards and other ‘owls’ from Egypt,” American Journal of Numismatics 14 (2002), pp. 59-71.

AJN Second Series 14 (2002) pp. 59-71 © 2003 The American Numismatic Society TWO UNPUBLISHED HOARDS AND OTHER OWLS FROM EGYPT Plates 13-17 Peter G. van Alfen* Scattered among various trays of Athenian owls in the American Numismatic Society's Greek cabinet were the remnants of two unpub- lished hoards that have now been reassembled and are presented here for the first time. The 24 owls comprising the two lots were once part of the E. T. Newell collection, which was bequeathed to the ANS in 1944. The tags associated with the coins are in Newell's fine hand and provide clues to their origins. Those of the first group have written upon them the phrase "ex Nahman's 1923 hoard"; those of the second group have on one side of the tags "from find made in Egypt", while on the other side either the name "Endicott" (along with a price) or the phrase "Egyp- tian hoard F. M. Endicott 1926" appears. Thus, one group is called here Nahman's hoard, the other Endicott's hoard. As will be seen momen- tarily, there is little question that the two groups came out of the ground separately; the styles, patinas, and markings make this certain. The compilers of the Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards (IGCH) somehow overlooked the two hoards; none of the IGCH listings for Egyptian hoards containing Athenian owls provide information that can be linked to any of these coins. More recently, the editors of Coin Hoards, noting a brief remark in SNG Delepierre, list one hoard, CH VIII.151 "Egypt before 1925", that could be related to Nahman's * The American Numismatic Society, 96 Fulton Street, New York, NY 10038, USA (vanalfen@amnumsoc.org). 59 60 Peter G. van Alfen hoard. Like the coins of Nahman's hoard, SNG Delepierre nos. 1475, 1478, 1481, and 1482, are mid-fourth-century pi-style issues found in Egypt before 1925 that are free of any countermarks or cuts. Caution, however, is in order since there is little beyond coincidence that can tie Nahman's hoard to CH VIII. 151. There are other clues that might provide further information on the hoards. Newell spent the winter and spring of 1923/24 in Cairo reviewing and purchasing coins for his collection. From M. Maurice Nahman, an antiquities dealer located on Sharia Kasr en-Nil (Dattari 1905: 103 n.3), Newell purchased at least one hoard, the so-called Keneh Hoard (IGCH 1708; Newell 1927: 14). In a short note Newell sent to The Numismatist from Cairo, he wrote (1924: 302): "In fact, the unearthing of hoards seems to continue merrily. For even while this little summary was being penned the writer was shown a hoard of some 250 Athenian tetradrachms of the fourth century B.C." Could this be Nahman's hoard? For the Endicott hoard there are fewer clues. F. Munroe Endicott spent time in Cairo in the early part of the twentieth century as a secretary of the United States Legation to Egypt where he purchased coins from local dealers (Mosser 1941: 2). When he died in 1935 his collection of over a thousand Greek and Roman coins was given to the ANS by his heirs. A selection of these coins, including two Athe- nian owls (not related to the hoard), was published a number of years later by S. Mosser (1941). Endicott kept careful notes on his collection in an account book that was also donated to the ANS at the same time as the coins. Unfortunately, at some point in the nearly 70 years that have passed since the donation, this account book has been misplaced and cannot be found. Should the book be located, however, we can be almost certain that within it lies information on the purchase of the hoard and how it came into Newell's possession. THE CATALOGUE The following catalogue lists the coins of the two groups with their accession numbers, weights, and die axes; the illustrations of the coun- termarks noted can be found in Figure l.1 Also, since this opportunity 1 This figure is reprinted from the preceding article in this journal (van Alfen 2002); thus, not all of the countermarks found in the figure are found on the coins Two Unpublished Hoards Figure 1. Table of countermarks. 62 Peter G. van Alfen has presented itself, an additional 34 (mostly) unpublished owls that were either produced or circulated in Egypt are also listed below; these coins are part of the ANS collection but are not part of either Nahman's or Endicott's hoards. A general discussion follows. NAHMAN'S HOARD What is most striking about this group of nine owls is the fact that none of them bear the countermarks or cuts so commonly found on coins coming out of Egypt. But without an idea of the composition of the hoard, we have no way of ascertaining how meaningful this obser- vation is; Nahman or Newell might have intentionally picked un- marked coins out of the lot. Stylistically the coins are mixed. Two of the coins, nos. 3 and 4, are unquestionably imitative and can be attrib- uted to Flament's Style A;" no. 9 have a suspicious appearance that might indicate an imitative origin. No. 8 is the only pi-style owl in the group; its presence brings the terminus post quern for the hoard down to the middle of the fourth century.3 At the other end of the temporal spectrum lies no. 1, a later fifth-century issue. The remaining owls, nos. 2, 6, and 7 are of the earliest profile-eye series that came out of Athens.4 1. ANS 1944,100.24201; 17.15 g; 9:00 2. ANS 1944.100.24224; 17.11 g; 9:00 3. ANS 1944,100.24226; 17.13 g; 9:00 4. ANS 1944.100.24227; 16.87 g; 9:00 5. ANS 1944,100.24228; 17.17 g; 9:00 presented in this study. The figure is reused in the hopes of making cross-checking and reference easier. " Flament (2001) identified a further sub-style, Style A, of those Egyptian imita- tive owl styles, Styles B, M, X, initially identified by T. V. Buttrey (1982). For further comments on this group, see van Alfen (2002: 16-20). 3 The owl corresponds to a Bingen (1973) pi-style I. Kroll (1993: 8) argues that the pi-style coinage began c. 350 BC. ' Kroll (1993: 8) suggested a date of c, 390-380 for this pre-pi-style profile-eye series. More recently, however, he has downdated the series to end shortly before the beginning of the pi-style coins c 350 (2001: 10 n.13). Two Unpublished Hoards 63 6. ANS 1944.100.24229; 17.15 g; 9:00 7. ANS 1944.100.24230; 17.17 g; 9:00 8. ANS 1944.100.24240; 17.18 g; 9:00 9. ANS 1944.100.83591; 17.16 g; 9:00 ENDICOTT'S HOARD In brutal contrast to the coins of Nahman's hoard, those of this group are among some of the most heavily countermarked that have come from Egypt. But again, without knowing the details, we cannot be sure if this is representative of the rest of the coins of the hoard, if in fact there were any. All fifteen are mid-fourth-century pi-style owls, primarily of Bingen's (1973) types IV or V; none of the coins appear to be imitative. No. 5 was struck on an unusual type of oval flan.0 1. ANS 1944.100.24324; 17.17 g; 8:00; obv. ctmk 9. 2. ANS 1944,100.24325; 17.23 g; 10:00; obv. ctmks 1 and 9; rev. ctmk 1 (x 2). 3. ANS 1944.100.24326; 17.12 g; 9:00; obv. ctmks 1 (x 3), 4, and 9; rev. ctmk 1 (x 3). 4. ANS 1944.100.24327; 17.20 g; 9:00; obv. ctmks 1 and 37; rev. ctmk 1. 5. ANS 1944.100.24328; 17.21 g; 9:00; obv. ctmk 38; rev. ctmk 1 (x 4). 6. ANS 1944.100.24329; 17.14 g; 9:00; obv. ctmks 37, 39, 40; rev. ctmk 1 (x 5). 7. ANS 1944.100.24330; 17.17 g; 8:00; obv. ctmk 9; rev. ctmks 1 and 4. 8. ANS 1944.100.24331; 17.15 g; 9:00; obv. ctmk 37; rev. ctmk 41. 9. ANS 1944,100.24332; 17.16 g; 9:00; obv. ctmks 42 and 43; rev. ctmks 1 (x 3), 29 and 38. 10. ANS 1944.100.24333; 17.24 g; 8:00; obv. ctmks 4 and 33; rev. ctmk 1. 11. ANS 1944,100.24334; 17.08 g; 8:00; obv. ctmks 1 (x 2), 3, 9, 28; rev. ctmks 1 (x 4) and 28. 12. ANS 1944,100.24335; 17.14 g; 9:00; obv. ctmks 34 and 44; rev. ctmks 41 and 45. D For comments on this type of flan see van Alfen (2002: 9). 64 Peter G. van Alfen The attribution of the following three coins to Endicott's hoard is insecure. F. M. Endicott gave no. 13 to the ANS in 1923. Its patina, style, and countermarks are consistent with the twelve coins listed above; therefore it is probable that the coin came from the same hoard. No. 14 is problematic. While the countermarks fit with the other coins here, its frontal-eye style does not. Hoards with both types of coins, frontal eye and profile eye, are of course common enough. The tag with the coin says only "found in Egypt" with no indication that Endicott gave it. The label on the box ("Egyptian Hd"), however, is the same as that on the boxes of the twelve above. Finally, Endicott gave no. 15 to Newell, and its countermark and style suggest that it could be part of the hoard, although the tag, which is arranged differently than the others, only denotes an Egyptian prove- nance. 13. ANS 1923.165.1; 17.24 g; 8:00; obv. ctmk no. 9; rev. ctmk no. 19. 14. ANS 1944.100.24222; 16.59 g; 9:00; obv. ctmk 49(?); rev. ctmk nos. 8 and 46. 15. ANS 1944.100.24321; 17.21 g; 9:00; obv. ctmk no. 9; rev. ctmk no. 3. TELL EL-MASKHOUTA (IGCH 1649) Of the six to ten thousand owls found in this famed hoard, the ANS received only a small number, but these have not been published as a group before. The coins are consistent with those published by Robinson (1947) and Naster (1948),6 in so far as they are late-fifth- century, frontal-eye owls. In addition to bona fide Athenian owls, the hoard produced a great number of imitative and plated varieties; nos. 6 and 7 are plated, nos. 8 and 9 are imitative.' The dies of no. 6 were of high quality and, as far as the preservation of the coin shows, indis- tinguishable from those of Athens. Were it not for the bronze disease breaking through the silver plating from the core, this coin would 0 For more recent comments and bibliography on this hoard see Kroll (2001: 11 n.14). No. 9, in fact, is a Philisto-Arabian issue from the Burton Berry collection; this coin was first published in SNG BYB no. 701. Two Unpublished Hoards 65 certainty pass as an authentic Athenian issue today, and no doubt in antiquity as well. The situation with no. 7, however, is quite different since the large, awkward profile eye of the obverse unquestionably betrays a non-Athenian product. 1. ANS 1949.128.1; 17.18 g; 4:00. 2. ANS 1949.128.2; 17.16 g; 9:00. 3. ANS 1949.128.3; 16.79 g; 9:00; obv. graffito "X"; cut in edge (x 2). 4. ANS 1949.128.4; 17.17 g; 9:00; obv. ctmk 20. 5. ANS 1949.128.5; 17.19 g; 10:00. 6. ANS 1949.103.5; 15.03 g; 1:00 (plated). 7. ANS 1951.17.4; 16.53 g; 9:00 (plated); obv. ctmk 18(?). 8. ANS 1951.17.2; 3.88 g; 9:00. 9. ANS 1960.176.14; 17.19 g; 12:00 (= SNG BYB no. 701; SNG ANS 6 no. 1). MISCELLANEOUS OWLS The remaining group consists of coins that are either known to have an Egyptian provenance (nos. 2, 4, 6, 9-10) because it is so stated on their tags, or very likely did because the countermarks and/or patterns of cuts and countermarking are consistent with other coins known to have come out of Egypt (nos. 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 11-25). Nos. 2 (which has an imitative character reminiscent of one of Buttrey types8), 13, and 18 are of frontal-eye fifth-century type, the rest are pi-style owls. No. 12, like no. 2, appears to be an imitation. The unusually high weight of no. 16 is because the coin was partially melted and fused to what appears to be another coin.9 1. ANS 0000.999.10176; 17.33 g; 9:00; obv. ctmk 1. 2. ANS 0000.999.53378; 16.12 g; 9:00; obv. ctmk (?). 3. ANS 1941.131.552; 17.07 g; 9:00; obv. ctmk 45; rev. ctmk 1. 4. ANS 1944.100.24242; 14.60 g; 9:00; obv. ctmk 49 (?); rev. ctmks 9 (?), 46 and (?). 8 See note no. 1 above. 9 Kroll (2001) notes a similar phenomenon with an owl from an Egyptian hoard. 66 Peter G. van Alfen 5. ANS 1944.100.24315; 17.05 g; 9:00; obv. ctmk 49; rev. ctmk 50. 6. ANS 1944.100.24316; 17.17 g; 9:00; obv. ctmk 47. 7. ANS 1944.100.24317; 17.19 g; 9:00; rev. ctmk 1 8. ANS 1944.100.24318; 17.17 g; 8:00; obv. ctmk 29 (?). 9. ANS 1944.100.24319; 17.13 g; 9:00; obv. ctmk 48; rev. ctmk 1 (x 2). 10. ANS 1944.100.24320; 17.17 g; 9:00; obv. ctmk 1 (x 3); rev. ctmk 1 (x 3). 11. ANS 1944,100.24398; 16.94 g; 9:00; obv. ctmks 14 (?) and 29; rev. ctmk 14 (?). 12. ANS 1944.100.24488; 17.01 g; 9:00; obv. ctmk 32. 13. ANS 1953.171.222; 16.98 g; 9:00; obv. ctmk (?); rev. 2 cuts; ctmk (?)• 14. ANS 1953.171.234; 17.17 g; 9:00; obv. ctmk 9; rev. ctmk no. 1. 15. ANS 1953.171.236; 17.24 g; 9:00; obv. ctmk 1; rev. ctmks 15 and 33. 16. ANS 1953.171.237; 18.25 g; obv. ctmk 8. 17. ANS 1955.163.1; 16.55 g; 9:00; obv. cut; ctmks 4 and (?, x 2); rev. cut; ctmks 1 and 50. 18. ANS 1957.172.1122; 16.84 g; 6:00; obv. ctmks (?) and 3. 19. ANS 1957.172.1132; 16.91 g; 9:00; obv. cut; ctmk 20. 20. ANS 1968.34.65; 17.18 g; 9:00; obv. ctmk 28; rev. ctmk 4 (= SNG BYB no. 695). 21. ANS 1974.26.290; 17.21 g; 9:00; obv. ctmk 9; rev. ctmk 3. The last four /h-style owls listed below (nos. 22-25) were part of the same donation to the ANS in 1954. Two of the coins (nos. 24 and 25) bear countermarks similar to those found on other owls known or presumed to have circulated in Egypt. Because all four coins display an identical (and unusual) patina, are similarly underweight, and are part of the same donation, it is very likely that these coins came from one hoard, perhaps found in Egypt. Which hoard that might be, however, is unknown; furthermore, no suggestion can be made since no other information concerning these coins is available. 22. ANS 1954,162.5; 16.42 g; 9:00. 23. ANS 1954.162.6; 16.80 g; 9:00. 24. ANS 1954.162.7; 16.77 g; 9:00; obv. ctmks 14, 47, and (?). 25. ANS 1954,162.8; 16.60 g; 9:00; obv. ctmk 20. Two Unpublished Hoards 67 DISCUSSION With the exception of the coins from the well-published Tell el- Maskhouta hoard, little is known about the various groups of owls listed above save that they were found (or likely found) in Egypt. Thus, the observations one can make about the coins are fairly limited. Of the 58 tetradrachms presented in this study, 41 (or 71%) have weights that are well above 17.00 g; many are quite close to c. 17.20 g, the Athenian tetradrachm standard. In light of other owls that have come from Egypt, such as the indigenous Sabakes series (van Alfen 2002: 27-31, table 2), the consistency in weight found here among these various unrelated groups is quite remarkable; the high quality of these coins is also reflected in the frequency of the 9:00 die axis. Thus, except for the eight (?) imitations found in this collection of 58 coins, we can be reasonably certain that the rest were products of Athens that had found their way to Egypt some time in the fourth century. Where there is much more information to be gleaned, however, is from the countermarks that many of these coins bear. Over the course of time, from the sixth century BC on, the use and function of countermarks presumably underwent a gradual develop- ment: "[i]t is the common view that the early countermarks were private marks of ownership or guarantees of worth, but that during the hellenistic period countermarking became a monopoly of civic or royal authority" (Howgego 1985: 1; cf. Le Rider 1975). Marking coins with countermarks, cuts, and graffiti was an enormously widespread practice in the Levant and Egypt during the Persian period (sixth to fourth centuries BC; Elayi and Lemaire 1998), arguably more so than in the Aegean. Even so, there has been little evidence to suggest that any Egyptian or Levantine marks were applied by civic or other state authorities rather than private merchants, bankers, or the like. However, two countermarks (Figure 1 nos. 9 and 38) and two related type-elements appearing on Egyptian-made coins could point to some official (i.e., non-private) use of countermarks in Egypt (van Alfen 2002). A closer look at the behavior of countermarking on coins with a (presumed) Egyptian provenance may provide additional corrobora- tion. 68 Peter G. van Alfen One of the most ubiquitous countermarks found on the owls is the so-called quatrefoil (Figure 1 no. 1) that appears almost exclusively on coins with an Egyptian provenance pre-dating the Ptolemies.10 To date I have located 66 individual occurrences of this mark appearing on 42 different coins; in this study alone of 58 owls, the mark appears 41 times on 20 different coins. By way of comparison, the next most frequently appearing countermark among these 58 owls is the nefer symbol (Figure 1 no. 9), which appears seven times on seven different coins. There is little doubt that the quatrefoil was in fourth-century Egypt the most prevalent countermark. Aside from the considerable number of occurrences, the manner in which the quatrefoil appears on coins is notably different from other countermarks: 1) multiple individual quatrefoil marks appear on the same coin, sometimes as many as five per side;11 2) quatrefoil marks "cancel"12 other quatrefoil marks, but not other types of countermarks (other non-quatrefoil marks rarely cancel one another but instead are placed side by side);13 3) other types of marks cancel quatrefoil marks.14 There are two primary implications to be derived from these obser- vations: 1) the quatrefoil marks were applied to the coins before any other marks, and 2) their semiotic value was low, so they were frequently canceled.1" Also, the presumed common practice of applying 10 While there is continuity from a number of the countermarks found here to those that appear on the coins of Ptolemy I, the quatrefoil virtually disappears from sight. Only one coin of Ptolemy I in the ANS's extensive collection of this ruler's issues bears this countermark (1974.26.5401). 11 E.g. Endicott's hoard no. 6. 12 I have adopted this term, for lack of a better one, to describe the practice of overstriking one counterstamp with another. " Examples of the quatrefoil canceling another quatrefoil: Endicott's hoards nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11 and Miscellaneous no. 9. Examples of side-by-side placement of non- quatrefoil countermarks: Endicott's hoard nos. 3, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14; Miscellaneous nos. 4, 11, 15, 24. u E.g. Endicott's hoard nos. 2, 4, 11; Miscellaneous no. 10. 1-> On coins with multiple non-quatrefoil countermarks, although they might be closely packed, rarely do the countermarks actually touch or cancel one another. The desire to preserve the legibility of the previous marks indicates that they contin- ued to serve some purpose, perhaps to establish some type of pedigree for the coin. Two Unpublished Hoards 69 one countermark per coin per handling would imply that those owls with more than one quatrefoil mark had passed through the same hands or process more than once. If the function of these marks was to prove ownership or guarantee the metal or weight of the coin, there was little need to reapply successively the same mark every time the coin reappeared for inspection; a single mark would suffice to convey the message. The behavioral characteristics of the quatrefoil, however, point to a process rather mechanical in its application, suggestive of an almost mindless administrative repetitiveness. Because the quatrefoil appears on the coins chronologically before other coun- termarks, the implication then is that the mark was applied before the coins reached a wider (public) circulation. The manner of application and the possibility of (temporarily) restricted circulation all suggest that the mark may have served some administrative purpose, perhaps for internal accounting by an organization like the state treasury. Since the marks had no value or understood meaning outside of this context, subsequent users felt no need to preserve them. Finally, we turn to the dates of Nahman's and Endicott's hoards. As noted above, the presence of the pi-style owl in Nahman's hoard brings the date of burial for the hoard down to the middle of the fourth century, but because of the greater number of early fourth-century types, the date is probably not much after c. 350. By contrast, Endi- cott's hoard is composed almost entirely of pi-style issues, thus the date for the hoard is likely closer to the end of the century. It is worth noting that other hoards found in Egypt, like the Tell el-Athrib (IGCH 1663) and Memphis hoards (IGCH 1660), which like Endicott's hoard are composed of a high proportion of pi-style owls, also feature coins that are heavily countermarked. The coincidence of the return of Persian rule to Egypt (in 343 BC) and the apparent greater frequency of countermarking after 350, especially with the quatrefoil mark, is suggestive of further Persian administrative oversight in the monetary economy in Egypt after c. 340.16 16 See van Alfen (2002) for further discussion of Persian monetary administration in Egypt. 70 Peter G. van Alfen REFERENCES Bingen, J. 1973. Le tresor monetaire Thorikos 1969. Thorikos 6:7-59. 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. Dattari, G. 1905. Comments on a hoard of Athenian tetradrachms found in Egypt. Journal International d'Archeologie. Numismatique 8:103-114. Elayi, J. and A. Lemaire. 1998. Graffiti el contremarques ouest-se'miti- ques sur les monnaies grecques et proche-orientales. Glaux 13. Milan: Edizioni Ennerre. Flament, C. 2001. A propos des styles d'imitations atheniennes definis par T. V. Buttrey. Revue beige de numismatique 147:39-50. Howgego, C. J. 1985. Greek imperial countermarks: studies in the provin- cial coinage of the Roman Empire. London: Royal Numismatic Society. IGCH. Thompson, M., O. Morkholm, and C. M. Kraay, eds. 1973. An inventory of Greek coin hoards. New York: American Numismatic Society. Kroll, J. H. 1993. The Greek coins. Athenian Agora 26. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies in Athens. Kroll, J. H. 2001. A small bullion find from Egypt. American Journal of Numismatics 13:1-20. Le Rider, G. 1975. Contremarques et surfrappes dans l'antiquite grecque. In: J.-M. Dentzer, P. Gauthier and T. Hackens, Numisma- tique antique: problemes et me'thodes, pp. 27-55. Nancy-Louvain: Editions Peeters. Mosser, S. M. 1941. The Endicott gift of Greek and Roman coins including the "catacombs" hoard. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 97. New York: American Numismatic Society. Naster, P. 1948. Un tresor de tetradrachmes atheniens trouve a Tell el Maskhouta (Egypte). Revue beige de numismatique 94:5-14. Newell, E. T. 1924. Egyptian coin hoards. The Numismatist. (April): 301-302. Two Unpublished Hoards 71 Newell, E. T. 1927. Two recent Egyptian hoards. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 33. New York: American Numismatic Society. Robinson, E. S. G. 1947. The Tell el-Mashkuta hoard of Athenian tetradrachms. Numismatic Chronicle 7:115-121. SNG BYB. 1961. Sylloge nummorum graecorum: the Burton Y. Berry collection, part 1: Macedonia to Attica. New York: American Numis- matic Society. SNG Delepierre. H. Nicolet, J. Delepierre, M. Delepierre, and G. Le Rider. 1983. Sylloge nummorum graecorum, France: Bibliotheque Nalionale, collection Jean el Marie Delepierre. Paris: Bibliotheque Nationale. Van Alfen, P. G. 2002. The "owls" from the 1989 Syria hoard, with a review of pre-Macedonian coinage in Egypt. American Journal of Numismatics 14:1-57. Plate 12 Buttrey/Flament Miscellaneous Owls from the 1989 Syria Hoard Plate 13 Nahman's Hoard Two Unpublished Hoards Plate 14 Endicott's Hoard ."V. 'I "3. ' r?>" i (ft-* 10 *" Eftr T "* ""«» < A * * A/ 4: v : ■s. 13 J,-/ 14 Two Unpublished Hoards Tell el-Maskhouta (IGCH 1649) Plate 15 Two Unpublished Hoards Plate 16 Miscellaneous Owls Two Unpublished Hoards Plate 17 Two Unpublished Hoards