The Archaic Owls of Athens: Classification and Chronology / (C.M. Kraay)

THE
NUMISMATIC CHRONICLE
AND
JOURNAL
OF THE
ROYAL NUMISMATIC SOCIETY
Edited
by
JOHN WALKER
M.A., D.UTT.,
P.S.A.
Keeper of
Coins
,
British Museum
E. S. G. ROBINSON
C.B.E., M.A.,
D
.LITT., F.B.A.,
F.S.A.
and
C. H. V. SUTHERLAND
M.A.,
D
.LITT.,
F.M.A.
Deputy Keeper of Coins,
Ashmolecm Museum
SIXTH SERIES
Volume XVI
LONDON
THE ROYAL NUMISMATIC SOCIETY
1966
This content downloaded from 83.85.130.64 on Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:48:09 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE ARCHAIC OWLS OF ATHENS:
CLASSIFICATION AND CHRONOLOGY1
[SEE
PLATE
XIII]
The date and circumstances of the introduction of the owl
coinage
of
Athens,
destined to become one of the most
prolific,
influential and
lasting coinages
of the ancient
world,
have been
long debated; yet
even
today, despite greatly
increased
knowledge
of archaic Greek
art,
disagreement
seems as wide as
ever,
and the dates
proposed
still
fluctuate from end to end of the sixth
century.
In 1858 Beul2 felt unable to hazard
any precise
date for the earliest
owls, although
he believed that some must antedate the Persian Wars
and was
obviously
attracted
by
the idea of a
synchronism
between the
expulsion
of
Hippias
in 510 and the initiation of the owl
coinage.
Imhoof-Blumer in 18823 and Six in 18954
essentially
followed
Beul,
but
thought Hippias
himself was
responsible
for the
coinage. Head,
however,
in 18875 went to the other extreme and attributed the
earliest owls to Solon at the
beginning
of the sixth
century;
this view
he later modified in favour of
566, giving
the initiative to Pisistratus.6
Another
champion
of
Pisistratus, though
at a
slightly
later
period
of
his
career,
was E.
Babelon,
who favoured 550.7 That this intermediate
view has become the orthodox
position today
is
largely
due to the
work of C. T.
Seltman,8
who
surpassed
his
predecessors
in elaboration
of
argument
and in his detailed treatment of the
coinage.
A similar
date was
implied by
Ashmole's
stylistic comparison
of the head of
Athena on a
single
coin with similar heads in vases and
sculpture.9
1
In
writing
this
paper
I have been
especially
indebted to two
scholars,
Dr. E. S. G.
Robinson,
with whom I have
repeatedly
discussed Athenian
problems,
and Mr. E. J. P.
Raven of
Aberdeen,
who has
generously put
at
my disposal
his own
very
detailed notes.
Another obvious debt is to Dr. C. T. Seltman
; although
I have found
myself compelled
to
disagree
with some of his
conclusions,
the
present paper
rests
very largely
on the
material he has assembled and classified.
Les Monnaies
Athnes, pp.
33 ff.
8
Annuaire de la Soc.
franc,
de Num.
1882, pp.
89 f.
4
N.C.
1895, pp.
175 f.
5
H.N.' p. 311;
cf. B.M.C. Attica
(1888), p.
xx.
6
H.N .2
(1911), pp.
368 f.
7
Trait
,
ii. 1
(1907),
col. 35.
8
Athens
,
its
History
and
Coinage before
the Persian Invasion
(1924), pp.
40 f. in
support
of 561. More
recently
Seltman has
preferred
Head's revised date of 566
(N.C.
1946, p.
101 and Greek
Coins2, p. 49).

Trans. Int. Num.
Congr.
1936
, pp.
17 ft. In view of the fact that
stylistic
criteria
have led different scholars to
widely differing
dates I have made no use of them in this
article,
but have tried to
rely
on what seemed to me the more
objective
criteria of
internal
development
and hoard
analysis.
This content downloaded from 50.63.197.136 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 13:55:35 PM
44 C. M. KRAAY
A recent
supporter
of Head's
original
Solonian date is H. A.
Cahn,
while Gabrici
agrees
with the
Hippian
date of Imhoof-Blumer and
Six.1 It is the aim of this
paper
to revive
-
with some new
arguments
-
the old view that the owl
coinage began
in the last
quarter
of the
sixth
century.
The nature
of
the
problem
The owl
coinage
of
Athens,
so far as it comes within the
scope
of
this
paper, comprises
two main
phases;
in the earlier of these the
helmet of Athena is unwreathed
DPI.
XIII.
1],
whereas in the second
it is wreathed with olive and a small
waning
moon is added above
the back of the owl on the reverse
[Pl.
XIII.
2];
these two additions
were made
early
in the fifth
century.2
The unwreathed owls are not
only extremely numerous,
but also
vary considerably
in
style
and
fabric;
this accounts for the wide
range
of dates
proposed
for the
start of the owl
coinage,
for different scholars have selected different
groups
of coins as
representing
the earliest issues. Those who have
selected
primitive-looking
or
clumsily
executed
specimens [e.g.
PI.
Xm.
3]
have been drawn to
early dates,
while those who have been
guided by early
letter-forms
combined,
as
they are,
with advanced
style
and
technique [e.g.
Pl. XIII.
4]
have favoured a later date. The
date, therefore,
of the earliest owls cannot
profitably
be discussed
until the
preliminary question,
which owls are the
earliest,
has been
finally
answered.
Accordingly,
the
following
sections will be devoted
to
assembling
evidence which bears
upon
the classification of the
early
owls.
Classification:
the evidence
of technique
In some series the
development
of
technique provides
the surest
guide
to the
sequence
of
issues;
at
Selinus,
for
example,
the
develop-
ment of the reverse from a
plain
incuse
square
to an incuse
square
containing
a
leaf,
and later a leaf and
legend,
is clear and
logical.
But
for the archaic owls of Athens
technique provides
no such clear
guidance; though style may vary,
all owls have two
fully developed
types,
and most are struck in a uniform
technique whereby
dies
carved in
deep intaglio
are
impressed upon dumpy
flans which tend
to be
slightly
too small to accommodate them. Yet there is some
evidence of technical
development
which is not taken into account
by
champions
of the earlier dates.
1
Cahn,
Museum Helveticum
1946, p. 133; Gabrici,
Tecnica e
cronologia
delle monete
Greche
, p.
54.
2
Their date is discussed
below, pp.
55 ff.
THE ARCHAIC OWLS OF ATHENS 45
The owls were not the earliest
coinage
of
Athens,
but were
pre-
ceded
by
those
anepigraphic
coins with
changing types
known as
'wappenmnzen'.1
Within this series there is clear evidence of tech-
nical
development.
The earliest didrachms have
upon
their reverses
a
simple
incuse
square
divided
diagonally [Pl.
XIII.
5]. Upon
the
latest
didrachms, however,
the first
step
toward the
adoption
of a
reverse
type
is taken
by
the insertion of a small
panther's
head into
one
triangle
of the incuse
square [Pl.
XIII.
6]. Finally,
on the
'wap-
penmnzen'
tetradrachms the
panther's
head
(or occasionally
a bull's
head)
has
grown
so as to fill the whole incuse
square
and has become
a true reverse
type [Pl.
XIII.
7].
The
technique
of the
'
wappenmnzen'
is
essentially
the same
throughout, although
it is seen in its most dis-
tinctive form
upon
the tetradrachms. These are thin and
spread,
and
the flans
appear
to have been disks flattened before
striking;2
the
incuse
square
is small and
neat, fitting comfortably
within the total
area of the reverse. The
'wappenmnzen'
can be
regarded
as a
single
series in the course of which a true reverse
type
was
developed.3
If
this be
accepted,
then it would be reasonable to
expect
that the earliest
owls should show some technical
affinity
with the
'wappenmnzen'.
Classification:
the evidence
of design
and
epigraphy
The
technique
of the
great majority
of owls is
noticeably
different
from that of the
'wappenmnzen'.
The flans are thicker and more
globular;
the incuse
square
of the reverse is
distinctly larger4
and
rarely
fits
completely
into the
flan;
the surround of the
square
is no
longer flat,
but
usually
swells
up
on each side in a
gentle
curve.5
1
I here
accept
without discussion the view that this series is
Attic,
which seems to be
confirmed
by
the distribution of finds as well as
by
the obvious
appropriateness
of some
types
such as owl and
amphora.
Seltman has
postulated
a certain alternation between
the latest issues of
'wappenmnzen'
and the earliest
owls;
there
is, however,
no dis-
agreement
about the
priority
of the earliest
'wappenmnzen'
over the first owls.
8
This
appears
to follow from the fact that when the
edge
of the reverse
punch
has
broken
off,
the flat field of the surround extends into the area of the incuse
square
without
any change
of level
(cf. Seltman, pl. xiv, P261);
the flat surface is thus the
original
surface of the
blank,
untouched
by
the
die,
and is not
produced
in the act of
striking.
I owe this
point
to Mr. Raven.
8
I do not mean to
imply
that there were no
gaps
of time between individual issues,
but
only
that
they
need not have alternated with coins of different fabric. Seltman 's
reconstruction involves an alternation of owls and
'wappenmnzen' (to correspond
with the successive
ascendancy
of the
tyrants
or their
opponents)
and a
separation
of

wappenmnzen
'
didrachms with
panther
head from the tetradrachms
by thirty-six
years.
4
Most of the incuse
squares
of the
'wappenmnzen'
tetradrachms illustrated
by
Seltman on
pl.
xiv measure from 13 to 15
mm.;
most owls measure 16 mm. or more.
6
The reason is
presumably
that the flans were no
longer
flattened before
striking
but left in a more or less
globular shape.
46 C. M. KRAAY
There
are, however,
a few owls which
reproduce exactly
the tech-
nique
of the
'wappenmnzen' [Pl.
XIIL
8].
These are assembled in
Seltman's
Group H,1
but from his
plates
xiii and xiv it can be seen
that the small incuse
squares
were soon abandoned in favour of
larger
ones.2 Since this
group
contains the
only
owls which show
any
affinity
of
technique
with the
'wappenmnzen',
there is a
prima
facie
case for
regarding
it as the earliest
group
of
owls,
issued soon after
the
'wappenmnzen'
tetradrachms. Does this
group
exhibit
any
other features which can be
legitimately interpreted
as
signs
of an
early position
in the owl series?
The normal reverse
type
of an Athenian owl has the bird turned to
the
right,
with a
sprig
of olive above its back in the
top
left-hand
corner and the ethnic AGE written downwards on the
right.
From
this scheme there is
normally
no
variation,
even the
shape
of the
sprig
of olive
being
standardized as a
long
central stem with
berry
flanked
by
two
outward-spreading
leaves
[Pl.
XIII.
1, 13].
Yet in the
small
Group H,
which
comprises only eighteen
reverse
dies,
there is
an
astonishing
amount of variation. On six dies the owl is turned to
the left and on three of these the olive is
displaced by
a
large
crescent
[PI.
Xm.
8, 10] ;
and on three more the ethnic and the olive have
exchanged
corners. In
fact,
out of the
eighteen
reverse dies
only
nine
have the elements of the
type arranged
in the manner which elsewhere
was
strictly
standardized.
Passing
to the next
group
of owls
(Selt-
man's
Group
L on
plate xv),
almost all variation in the reverse
type
has
disappeared; apart
from a
single
reversal of the
positions
of
ethnic and
olive,
all that survives is a certain elaboration of the
sprig
of olive
[Pl.
XIII.
11],
which is nevertheless
tending
towards its final
form of one
berry
and two
flanking
leaves.
Variation in the reverse
type
is thus confined to two
groups
of owls
only,
and on Seltman's reconstruction first arose after a
period
of
forty years during
which the reverses of the owls had shown no varia-
tion whatsoever in
composition.
While it would be rash to
deny
the
possibility
of such variation
appearing temporarily
on
special
issues
in the midst of an otherwise
unvarying series,
an alternative
explana-
tion should be considered. Since some of the coins in
Group H,
in
1
Seltman
recognizes
the
affinity
with the
'
wappenmnzen
'
but
interprets
the owls
as
special
Panathenaic issues of the
reign
of
Hippias,
some
forty years
after the intro-
duction of the owl
coinage.
On
pl. xiii,
A195-P244 is
surely misplaced
since its reverse
is
quite
different from the others on the same
plate.
P246 is
actually
combined with
A 197 on
pl. xiv,
and not with A 196 as shown.
On
pl. xiv,
A 198 is combined with both a
large
and a small incuse
square.
which variation
mainly occurs,
show technical affinities with the
'wappenmnzen',
it is
surely possible
that
Group
H
represents
the
next issue after the
'wappenmnzen',
and therefore the first issue of
owls. Variation would then be due
merely
to
experiment
with a
type
which had not
yet
been
crystalized
into its final form. Conservatism
is such an
outstanding
characteristic of the owl
coinage
that variation
is much more to be
expected
at its
beginning
than in the middle of an
otherwise
unvarying
series.
The claim of
Group
H to include the earliest owls is
greatly
strengthened by
a consideration of the letter forms in the ethnic.
Though
these cannot
yield
a close absolute
date,
the
presence
of
earlier letter forms should be some
guide
to relative
chronology.
In
the
development
of the Attic
script
tends to be
displaced by
O and
the ^ with the
drooping
bars becomes
rectangular,
but at
any given
moment there is much
overlap
of different forms.
Among
the
eighteen
reverse dies of
Group
H four have
,
and
epsilon
is
nearly always
more or less
drooping [Pl.
XIII.
4, 8] ;
in the nineteen reverse dies of
Group
L occurs six times and
epsilon
is
again nearly always droop-
ing [PI.
Xin.
11, 12].
In all other
groups, including
all those
placed
by
Seltman earlier than
Group H,
O is invariable and
epsilon
uncom-
promisingly rectangular [Pl.
XIII.
1, 3, 13].
This distribution of letter
forms is
important
confirmation that the earliest owls are to be
sought
in
Group H; Group
L then
follows,
in
which, despite
the
survival of some
early features,
the details of the reverse
type
are
largely
standardized.
Three reasons have now been examined for
supposing
that the true
course of the
development
of Athenian
coinage
was from
'wappen-
mnzen'
didrachms, through 'wappenmnzen' tetradrachms,
to owl
tetradrachms
(Group H):
the reasons were
(1)
the technical
affinity
existing
between the
'wappenmnzen'
tetradrachms and some of the
owls of
Group H, (2)
the occurrence in
Group
H
(and
nowhere
else)
of a
high proportion
of what seem to be
early
and
experimental
versions of the reverse
type,
and
(3)
the use in
Groups
H and L of
early
letter forms which are absent from all other
groups
of owls.
But this is
only
the half of what needs to be
proved,
for Seltman
placed Groups C, E, F, Gi,
and Gii either earlier than or as
early
as
Groups
H and
L;
the second half of the
argument
must demonstrate
that this considerable
body
of
coinage
is
actually
later than
Groups
H and L.
48 C M. KRAAY
Classification
: the evidence
of
hoards
Hoards are difficult to evaluate because
usually
the circumstances
of neither formation nor burial can be determined with
any certainty.
A
single
hoard
may
be
wholly untypical
and its contents
may
thus
provide misleading
evidence.
If, however,
a number of hoards show
common features or combine to
produce
a coherent
picture,
their
evidence
obviously
deserves much more attention. This is not the
place
to embark
upon
a detailed
analysis
of archaic Greek silver
hoards. For the
present purpose
it will be sufficient to obtain a
rough
idea of the time
when,
and the
sequence
in
which,
owls first
appear
in them.
Archaic hoards are found
fairly frequently,
but of
comparatively
few have
adequate
details been secured before
dispersal.
Four well-
recorded archaic hoards do not include Athenian owls.
1. The
Persepolis
hoard1 is
important
because it is
exactly
dated
by accompanying
cuneiform documents to 515. It
contained, however,
only
four silver
coins,
so that no
great significance
can be attached
to the absence of
any particular
issue.
2. The Ras Shamra hoard2 contained
thirty-seven coins, nearly
all
from the North Greek area. It
might
be
argued
that this
represents
a
single consignment, brought
direct
perhaps by
a Thasian
trader,3
in
which, therefore,
no Athenian coins are to be
expected.
Its date is
obviously early, perhaps
c.
525/520.
3. The Demanhur hoard
(165 coins)
is a varied accumulation.4 It
had a substantial North Greek
nucleus,
but also numbers of coins
from central
Greece,
the
islands,
and Asia Minor. Of
particular
interest,
as
being
close
neighbours
of
Athens,
are the sixteen coins
of
Aegina
and six of
Corinth;
the latter are all of the
early variety
without reverse
type.
The date is
perhaps
c.
510/500.
4. The
Myt-Rahineh
hoard5 contained
twenty-three
coins and was
again very mixed, including
both
Aegina
and Corinth. To some
extent it
repeats
the contents of the Demanhur
hoard, although
the
latter
certainly
contains later coins. It should
probably
be dated
c. 520.
These four hoards thus fall within the last
quarter
of the sixth
century.
It
might
be
argued
that the absence of owls could not be
1
Trans. Int. Num.
Congr.
1936
, pp.
413 f.
a
Mlanges Syriens offerts
M. Ren
Dussaud, pp.
461 ff.
8
Herod. il. 44 for a temple of the Thasian Hercules at Tyre.
4
Z.f.N. 1927, pp.
28 ff.
6
R.N.
1861, pp.
414 ff.
significant,
because
'wappenmnzen',
which are
certainly
of an
earlier
date,
are
equally absent;
but this would not be a valid
objec-
tion,
because
'wappenmnzen'
didrachms do not seem
normally
to
have travelled far from
Athens,1
since
they
are
nearly always
found
in Central Greece.
'Wappenmnzen'
tetradrachms were
perhaps
too
rare for their absence to be
significant, although,
as will be seen
shortly, they
did travel far afield. Owls
certainly travelled,
and a
minimum conclusion from the evidence of these hoards would be
that
by
the last
quarter
of the sixth
century
owls were not
yet
either
common or
popular
in the Near East.
Soon after
500, however,
the
picture changes.
Three hoards are
here
significant.
The
great
Taranto hoard2 is
important
because its
date of burial can be fixed
fairly closely
from the
chronology
of the
S. Italian incuse coins which it
principally
contains. A fixed
point
in the
chronology
of these issues is
provided by
the incuse coins of
Sybaris,
which come to an end with the destruction of the town in
510;
at this
time the
thin, spread
flans had
only just begun
to contract. The
Taranto
hoard, however,
contained a few coins of
Metapontum
in
which the contraction had
progressed
a
good
deal
further;3
a date of
burial in the first decade of the fifth
century
therefore seems reason-
able. The hoard contained five Athenian
owls,
all from Seltman's
Group
H and all with the
neat,
small incuse
square
reminiscent of
the
'wappenmnzen'
tetradrachms.4 It is
interesting
to note that
there was also in the hoard a
'wappenmnzen'
tetradrachm5 and an
alliance coin of Chalcis and Thebes struck in the same
technique.
The Benha hoard is
thought
to have been buried about 485.6 Its
contents included four more or less intact
owls,
as well as
fragments
cut from five others. Three intact
specimens belong
to the latter
part
of Seltman's
Group H;
the obverse dies are in
general
similar to
Seltman's
A193,
A194
(pl. xiii); among
the reverses occurs P249
[Pl.
XIII.
4].
Of the
fragments
one
may
also be attributed to
Group
H.
The fourth intact coin
belongs
to
Group L,
with an obverse die
1
4
Wappenmnzen
'
didrachms have been recorded from Schubin in Poland
(Noe2,
no. 933 and
Seltman, pp. 133, 148)
and from the Sakha
(Egypt)
hoard
(Noe2,
no.
888).
The former is a notorious numismatic
mystery
of which the
provenance
is far from
being
above
suspicion.
The Sakha
4
hoard*
comprised
coins of such varied dates
(including
at least one modern
forgery)
that it can
hardly represent
a
single
unadul-
terated find;
there is no a
priori reason, however, why
its two
4
wappenmnzen
'
should
not have been found in
Egypt.
2
R.N.
1912, pp.
1 if.
8
Noe2,
no. 1052.
4
Seltman, Catalogue ,
nos. 285
(6)
and
(c),
286
(a),
and 287
(a)
and ( b
).
5
Ibid.,
no. 318
(a).
6
N.C.
1930, pp.
93
ff.;
N.C.
1931, pp.
66 ff.
B 6150 E
50 C. M. KRAAY
similar to A214
(pl. xv);
a
fragment
resembles A223 in the same
group.
Thus the owls in the Benha hoard are
slightly
later than those
from
Taranto;
as at
Taranto,
there is also a
'
wappenmnzen
'
tetradrachm in the hoard.
The third
hoard,
which is from
Zagazig,1
must have ben buried
substantially later,
for it
already
contains
eighteen
owls with wreathed
helmet and
waning moon;
but there are also
present
sixteen of the
archaic unwreathed
type.
Most of these are attributed to
Groups
F
and Gi
(discussed
further
below),
and thus
belong
to those
groups
the
temporal
relation of which to
Groups
H and L is now under
discussion.
Two conclusions are seen to
emerge
from a
study
of the hoards:
(1)
that owls do not occur in hoards until after
500,
2
and
(2)
that the
order in which the
groups appear
in the hoards is first H and L in
close
proximity,
and then F and G after an interval. These conclu-
sions
agree
with those
already
reached above
concerning
the
priority
of H and L.
But still more information can be extracted from the owls of the
Zagazig
hoard. Of the sixteen earlier owls one is
wholly
barbarous
with both
types
reversed. Of the
remaining fifteen,
six are classified
according
to Seltman as follows:3
Zagazig
No. Seltman Cat . No.
190 140
(Gp. F, 546-535)
191 ' 133
(b) (Gp. F, 546-535)
192
Jail
from same rev. die4 133
(a) (Gp. F, 546-535)
193 J
-
(Gp. F, 546-535)
194 170
(Gp. Gi, 546-527)
196 164
(c) (Gp. Gi, 546-527)5
199 54
(Gp. C, 561-556)
The
remaining eight
coins were
badly corroded, but,
so far as their
condition
allowed,
were
judged
similar to the above. The seven coins
which can be
accurately
identified
belong
to a
clearly
defined
group.
Three are linked
by
a common reverse
die,
and these share with no.
190 the rare feature of a row of studs
upon
the helmet of Athena
(see
p.
52
below).
The
remaining
three are of the same
general type,
1
Z.f.N. 1927, pp.
104 ff.
2
See further on
pp.
62 if.
3
Seltman refers to this hoard as
*
Aegean
Find*
(cf. Z.f.N. 1927, p.
120
n.).
4
According
to Seltman nos. 191 and 192 have the same obverse die.
8
This coin is illustrated
only
in Hirsch Cat.
vii, pl. iv,
no. 270. The reverse die
appears
to be Seltman 's
P126;
from the
photograph, however,
the obverse does not
seem to be the same as Seltman 's Al 13
(see particularly
the
ear).
struck
upon
thick flans which are
usually
too small for the
dies;
the
clumsy
and coarse-featured heads of Athena are surmounted
by
crest-holders decorated with a
prominent zigzag pattern.
The some-
what cruder
style
of no. 199 is reflected in the earlier date to which it
is attributed
by
Seltman. In
general, however,
there is no doubt that
the identifiable
specimens
from
Zagazig
are all
approximately
con-
temporary,
and there is no reason to
suppose
that the corroded coins
were of a different date or series.
According
to Seltman's
chronology
none of these coins were minted
later than 527 and all
may
be as
early
as 546. Also in the
hoard,
as
mentioned
above,
were
eighteen
owls with wreathed helmet and
waning
moon. The date of these
changes
is discussed further below
(pp.
57
f.),
but since these
examples
are not of the earliest
group
to have
these
additions,1 they
cannot have been minted earlier than
480,
and
may
be
substantially
later still. If all these dates are
correct,
then there
is an irreducible
gap
of
fifty years
between the two
groups
of owls in
this
hoard,
and the
possibility
of a much
longer
interval. The
presence
in a
single
hoard of two
groups
so far
apart
in time could be
explained
on the
hypothesis
that
they represent
two
homogeneous payments
of
owls made at different times. The ultimate
owner, moreover,
need not
have received the earlier
group
until
long
after it was minted. But on
the current
dating,
whatever circumstances are
postulated,
it does
remain somewhat
surprising
that the earlier
group
survived undis-
persed
for at least half a
century,2
and that in a
very
mixed
hoard,
in
which Athenian coins account for well over a third of the
total,
there
should be no
examples
of Athenian coins issued between about 527
and 480.
Some further similar evidence is
provided by
the
record, incomplete
as it
is,
of a hoard of Athenian and Chian coins discovered on Chios
in 1919.3 Of the earlier Chian
coins,
which have no
amphora
in front
of the
sphinx,
there was
only
one in the
hoard,
as
against
more than
six of the later
type
with
amphora.
The
amphora
was added
early
in
the fifth
century,
so that the hoard will have been buried some time
after about 490.4 From this hoard three owls are recorded:
1
On the earliest Athena's wreath has four
leaves;
this was then reduced to three
(as
in the
Zagazig hoard).
2
The fact that three out of seven coins are from the same reverse die
implies
that at
least
part
of the
group
had never been
dispersed
into circulation.
8
Seltman, p.
148 where Cat. no. 278
(recorded
as from this find)
should be added
in col. 6.
4
Only
coins without
amphora
at
Demanhur; amphora types already appear
at
Benha, Taranto,
and
Zagazig;
cf.
Baldwin,
A.J.N.
1914, pp.
40 f. for the date of the
change.
52 C. M. KRAAY
Seltman Cat. no. 183
Gp. Gi,
546-527

190
Gp. Gi,
546-527

278
Gp. Gii,
527-510
Between the Athenian and Chian coins in this hoard there is a dis-
crepancy
in date similar
to, though
smaller
than,
that between the
two
groups
of Athenian coins in the
Zagazig
hoard.
Moreover,
in
both
cases,
the
discrepancy
is due to the
dating
of the same
group
of
coins, namely
Seltman 's
Group
G.
Athenian owls do not occur in hoards buried before
500;
when
they
do occur after
500,
the issues dated
by
Seltman from 561-527
are not the first to
appear. Moreover,
when these issues
appear, they
do so in contexts in which coins of such
early
date seem isolated and
in need of
special explanation.
These considerations are sufficient to
constitute a case for
reassigning
these issues to the end of the
early
owl
series,
and for
proposing
for them a date after 500. Further
evidence will
support
these tentative conclusions.
Classification
: the evidence
of
the helmets
1
Several of the
early
owls in the
Zagazig
hoard show a row of
large
pellets ornamenting
the bowl of Athena's helmet
[PL
XHL
13]2
-
a
rare feature confined to Seltman's
Group
F
(546-536).
These
pellets
presumably represent
actual rivets on
contemporary helmets, but,
since
they
occur in a
single group only,
the fashion was
probably
short-
lived. The date of vases on which similar helmets are
painted
should
provide
some
guidance
for the date of the coins. On
vases,
as on
coins,
the fashion is
temporary
and is found
only
in the work of
red-figure
painters
such as
Brygos, Douris, Kleophrades
and
Alkimachos,
who
were active in the first
quarter
of the fifth
century
with some extension
into the second
quarter;
it does not extend back into the sixth cen-
tury.3
The coins which show this feature are
likely, therefore,
to
date from the first
quarter
of the fifth
century
rather than the third
quarter
of the sixth. The
importance
of this conclusion is that if
Group
F is to be dated after
500,
then
Group
G which
accompanies
it in the
Zagazig hoard,
and which is
essentially similar,
must likewise
be moved down. Thereafter there is no reason for
leaving Groups
C and E in isolation
fifty years
earlier. But about
Group
E there
is more to be said.
1
The matter of this section I owe to the kindness of Dr. E. S. G. Robinson.
2
Zagazig,
nos. 190-2.
Typical examples
are C.V. A.
Oxford
2
, p. 113, pl.
lxi. 2
(Brygos);
C.V.A. Brit.
Mus. 5
, p. 3, pl.
xlvi. 3 a and
p. 6, pl. liv,
3 a
(Alkimachos); Furtwangler-Reichhold,
Griechische Vasenmal er
i, pl.
34 and 104
(Kleophrades), pl.
53
(Douris).
Classification
: the evidence
of
the
'
barbarous
'
issues
Some Athenian
owls,
most of which are collected in Seltman's
Group E,
are so
crudely engraved
that Seltman
originally
believed
they
were struck at a Thracian mint
operated by
Pisistratus in exile
[PI.
Xm.
3, 9].1
He has since abandoned this view in favour of an
Athenian
origin, despite
their
incompetence; speaking
of one
par-
ticular coin he has said that 'it could have been made at
any
time
between 560 and 490'.
2
But while it is true both that bad
coinage
can
be
produced alongside good
at
any time,
and that
Group
E is the
work of
incompetent,
but for all that
Athenian, craftsmen, Group
E
cannot for two reasons
represent
the scattered
incompetent produc-
tions of the Athenian mint from a
period
of
fifty years
or more. For
in this
group
instances of coins
sharing
a common die are
unusually
common,
which
implies
concentrated
production
of coins of this
type
at a
particular
time. Moreover the hoard of these coins found on
the
Acropolis
of Athens in 18863 leads to the same
conclusion;
it was
presumably
formed from
coinage being
minted at a
particular
time
rather than as a result of the deliberate selection of the
ugliest
specimens
to be found in circulation.
The crucial
question is,
when was
Group
E minted? The
Acropolis
hoard is here little
help;
it
certainly
reached its final
position only
after the Persian Wars because it
lay among
the debris of the sack of
the
Acropolis,
but it could be
interpreted
as an old
offering piously
reburied. Yet the coins are
obviously derivative; they
are unskilled
copies
of more successful
productions
and should be close to their
prototypes
in date. The
prototypes
are
clearly Groups
F
[Pl.
XHI.
13]
and
G,
which have the same
lumpy fabric,
and in which there is the
same
delight
in
exaggerating
the
zigzag pattern
of the crest
support
-
a
simple design
well within the
competence
of the most unskilled
worker. We have
already
seen reason to think that
Groups
F and G
are to be dated after
500,
but the case will be
stronger
if a late date
for
Group
E can be demonstrated
independently
of its
relationship
to
Groups
F and G.
After some initial variation in
Groups
H and
L,
the
sprig
of olive
settles down into the form which is found on the
great majority
of
owls;
it
projects
at about 45 from the
top
left-hand corner of the
incuse
square
and consists of a
long
central stem with a
berry
at the
1
Seltman, pp.
56 ff.
2
N.C. 1946, pp. 105 f.
3
Svoronos,
Les Monnaies Athnes
, pl.
3.
54 C. M. KRAAY
end flanked
by
two narrow outward
pointing
leaves
[Pl.
XIII.
1, 13].
In
Group E, however,
the
arrangement
is often
very
different
[PI.
XIII.
3, 9].
The
sprig
often
hangs
almost
straight
down from the
upper edge
of the incuse
square;
the central stem is now short so that
the
berry
is enclosed between two
broad, pendent
leaves which are
outlined
by
a
peripheral
line.1 Elsewhere this scheme is found
only
on the earliest owls to have a wreathed helmet
upon
the obverse
-
namely
those which have four leaves in the wreath instead of three
[PI.
Xm.
2].2
The
position
of the
sprig
is
similar,
as is the short
central stem withdrawn between two
broad, pendent
leaves of which
the
edges
are
again emphasized by
a
surrounding
line. This
may
seem
a small
point
of resemblance between two issues which differ so much
in skill of
execution,
but its
significance
must be assessed in the
light
of the
great uniformity
of
design
which exists in the other issues of
owls. The olive
sprigs
of
Group
E and of the
early
wreathed issues are
undoubtedly
similar to each other and
quite
different from the
sprigs
either of the other
early
owls or of the later wreathed issues. It is
surely
far more
likely
that two
very
similar variations from an other-
wise uniform
pattern
should occur at about the same time than that
they
should be
separated
from each other
by
about
sixty years.
The
date of
Group
E cannot be far from that of the
early
wreathed
issues,
which will be discussed in more detail
below,
but which is in
any
case after 500.
Classification:
conclusions
The discussion
up
to now has fallen into two
complementary parts.
The first
attempted
to show that the earliest owls are to be
sought
in
Group H,
and the second that
Groups C, E, F,
and G are
(a)
to be
placed
late in the series of archaic owls and
(
b
)
to be dated after 500.
All the evidence has favoured what
may
be called the
logical
de-
velopment
of Athenian
coinage.
The
'wappenmnzen'
didrachms
lead into the
tetradrachms;
the
technique
of these is carried over into
the earliest
owls,
which soon
develop
a more
dumpy
fabric of their
own. The earliest
groups
show some
uncertainty
over the details of
1
This scheme is seen most
clearly
in
Seltman, pl. vi,
P94 and
P95,
and less com-
pletely
in a number of other dies on
pl.
v and
vi;
the
sprig
is
often,
in
part
at
least,
off
the flan.
2
Seltman,
P348-53
(pl. xvm-xix).
A number of features link this
group
to the
earlier unwreathed class rather than to the later wreathed owls: notice the hair on the
forehead marked in vertical lines instead of horizontal waves,
the
prominent zigzag
on
the crest-holder,
the
compact
and
upright
owl and the thick flans which are too small
for the reverse dies.
the reverse
type,
but a standard
design
is soon evolved which then
remains unaltered
throughout
a considerable
body
of
coinage.
Finally
an issue of
unusually
debased
style
shows
points
of contact
with the earliest issues to have a wreathed helmet. These results can
be summarized in a table and contrasted with Seltman 's classification.
Seltman New
classification
Wappenm.
2 dr.
Wappenm.
2 dr.
[Pl.
XIII.
5, 6].
C
Wappenm.
4 dr.
[PL
XHI.
7].
Wappenm.
2 dr. H
Wappenm. technique
: variation in re-
verses:
early
letter forms
[Pl.
Xffl.
4, 8, 10].
E F L Variation in reverses:
early
letter forms
[PL
xm.
11, 12].
Gi M
[PL
xm.
1].
Gii H Gii Uniform reverse
type;1
late letter forms.
Wappenm.
4 dr. Gi
L
CfJ [Pl.
Xffl.
13].
M E 'Barbarous'
group:
reverse
types
are re-
lated to N
[Pl.
Xffl.
3, 9].
N
-
first wreathed issues
-
N
[Pl.
Xffl.
2].
The
following
sections will
attempt
to determine the
approximate
dates of the end and of the
beginning
of the
early
owl issues.
The date
of
the end
of
the
early
owl issues
The end of the
early
owl series is marked
by
the addition of an
olive wreath to the helmet of Athena on the obverse and of a small
waning
moon above the back of the owl on the reverse
[Pl.
Xffl.
2].
Between these two additions there is some difference in scale. The
wreath is a
major change
in the form in which the
city goddess
is
portrayed;
henceforth it is
invariably present
on all denominations
of the
coinage.
The
crescent, however,
is a
comparatively
minor and
unobtrusive
addition,
set close in to the owl's back as
though
to
attract as little attention as
possible ;
it is confined to the tetradrachm
alone.2
Wreath and crescent both
appear
for the first time on the
group
of
tetradrachms to which the 'barbarous' tetradrachms without wreath
1
To determine the
sequence
of the
Groups
M to F would be
beyond
the
scope
of
this
paper.
The order here
suggested
is based
mainly upon
the
decreasing
size of the
head of
Athena,
and the
increasing prominence
of the
zigzag
on the
crest-support.
2
If the crescent has
any
reference to a
particular
battle or event in the Persian Wars
(see below),
and if the decadrachms are
interpreted
as
victory medallions,
it is
surpris-
ing
that it is not included in the
type
of the decadrachms. One or more crescents occur
as the reverse
types
of some of the smaller denominations later in the fifth
century.
56 C. M. KRAAY
(Group E)
are related
[Pl.
XIII.
2].1
As has been said
already,
this
small
group
of seven obverse dies has four leaves in the wreath and
is linked
by style
and fabric rather to earlier unwreathed issues than
to later issues with wreath. After this small
group
a number of minor
alterations
appear together
in the
design.
On the obverse the wreath
is reduced to three
leaves;
the
zigzag
of the
crest-support disappears;
the hair on the forehead is drawn in horizontal waves instead of
straight
vertical
lines;2
and the scroll on the bowl of the helmet
becomes
larger
and more elaborate. On the reverse the
pendent sprig
of olive becomes
fi* ;
the owl becomes less
compact
and
upright,
and
ceases to be
'one-legged';3
the ethnic tends to become
truly
vertical
and no
longer
to
cling
to the contours of the owl's
body,
and
finally
the flans become broader so as to accommodate
completely
the
incuse
square.4
At an
early stage
in this
group
must be
placed
the
didrachms and decadrachms of
Group
O. After these
preliminary
remarks the
question
of the date of the addition of wreath and
crescent can now be examined.
The answer has
usually
been
sought
in the
interpretation
of the
wreath and crescent themselves. The wreath can be
reasonably
inter-
preted
as a
sign
of
victory,
but
by
itself this affords no means of
choosing
between
Marathon,
Salamis
or, indeed, victory
over the
Persians in
general.
The moon at first seems more
explicit,
for it has
long
been
recognized
that it
invariably
has its horns to the
right
and
thus
appears
to be a
waning
moon in its last
phase.
A recent
study
has shown that this
phase
of the moon is
applicable
to the battle of
Salamis rather than
Marathon,5
and therefore
-
if this
argument
is
correct
-
the wreath and crescent must have been added in or after
480.
But, plausible
as this
argument is,
it
may
still be invalid
through
reading
too much into this lunar
symbol. Apart
from its
insignificance
1
Seltman,
A272-8. S.N.G. iii
(Lockett),
no. 1835 also
belongs
to this
group,
but
lacks the
crescent;
this
may
be evidence that the wreath was introduced
slightly
before
the
crescent,
or it
may
be
simply
an
engraver's
error: cf.
Seltman, pl.
xxiii. 1 1 for coin
with
crescent,
but without wreath.
2
Seltman,
A279
(pl. xix)
is transitional in that the hair is still marked with vertical
lines.
8
Seltman believes the
4
one-legged*
owls of
Group
C to be the earliest of
all;
on
my
view this feature common to the
early
wreathed
group
would be one more
sign
of a
late date.
*
Seltman 's
Group
N seems a little
heterogeneous.
It consists of
(1)
A272-8
(4-leaved
wreaths), (2) A279, 280, 281,
286
(3-leaved
wreaths: these are
perhaps
closest to the
didrachms and decadrachms of
Group O),
and
(3) stylistically
later coins which fall
outside the
scope
of this
paper.
8
Sorge,
Jahrbuch
fr
Num. und
Geldgeschichte ii, pp.
1 ff.
;
it is
impossible
to follow
Sorge
in
attributing
the owls of
Group H,
which have a crescent instead of a
sprig
of
olive,
to the months between the two Persian
occupations
of Athens in 480.
and its restriction to the tetradrachm it must be remembered that a
moon has to be shown as a crescent if it is to be
recognizable.
More-
over,
the uniform direction of the crescent
may
here be due to the
uniform direction of the reverse
type
as a whole. On certain fifth-
century
coins of
Corinth,
for
example,
the direction of the crescent
used as a
symbol changes according
to the direction of the
accompany-
ing
head of Athena.1
Although
the association of the moon with
Salamis
may
be
correct,
it is at best uncertain and affords no secure
foundation for
chronology.2
A sounder
approach
is
perhaps through
the historical events con-
nected with the
discovery
of the new and richer ores in Attica in
484,
whereby
Athens found herself with a hundred talents
surplus
in the
treasury.3
Whether or not
any
distributions of these funds took
place,
and whether or not a similar
surplus
accrued
year by year,
the fact
remains that between 484 and 480 the Athenians built a
very large
fleet.
Shortly
before this Athens
possessed only
50
ships
and had
resorted to
hiring
20 more from Corinth to attain
parity
with
Aegina.4
At
Salamis, however,
she was able to muster
180,
4
so that
something
approaching
150 triremes were
probably
built
during
these
years.
Such a
programme
would have
required
considerable
supplies
of
timber and other materials from
abroad;
the silver was available to
pay
for
them,
and its conversion into coin should be detectable in
a
sharply
increased number of dies.
Where can a suitable concentration of dies be found? If the wreath
and moon were added in
490,
then it must
obviously
be found in the
early
wreathed issues.
But,
if the additions were made after Salamis
and
Plataea,
the concentration will be
among
the late unwreathed
issues.
Using
Seltman's
figures
for the
early
wreathed issues the
following
result is obtained:
Group
N
(4 dr.)
21 obverse dies.6
Group
O
(10 dr.)
8

Group
O
(2 dr.)
13_

Total
42_

1
Ravel,
Les Poulains de Corinthe
, T232,
233 and
T235,
237.
a
Presumably
there is some reason for the
addition,
which
may, nonetheless,
remain
obscure to us. Is it
possible
that it was added
only
as a
background
suitable for a
nocturnal bird ?
3
Ath. Pol.
22,
3.
*
Herod,
vi,
89.
6
Herod,
vili,
44.

The total is
actually 28,
but the seven dies with a 4-leat wreath have been
deducted,
since, supposing
the
changes
to have been made in
490, they
would
certainly
have been
issued before the
discovery
of the mines in 484. Moreover it is somewhat uncertain
whether all the coins included in
Group
N
really belong
to the same
decade;
cf.
above,
p. 56,
n. 4.
58 C. M. KRAAY
The numbers for the unwreathed
groups
are:
Group
C 15 obverse dies.
Group
Gi 42 obverse dies.
Group
E 26
Group
Gii 40

Group
F 15
Group
M 43

We have
already
seen that there are
strong
reasons for
believing
that
Groups
E and F
belong
to the
very
end of the series of unwreathed
owls,
and these two
groups
alone about
equal
in volume
Groups
N
and O.
But,
since E is
derivative,
its
prototypes
in either Gi or Gii
must also be included. It is thus clear that the late unwreathed issues
were
very
much
larger
than the
early wreathed,1
and were the result
of the new discoveries of silver which financed the
ship-building
programme.
Their low artistic
quality
must be attributed to the
urgency
with which the coins were
required;2
the wreath and crescent
must then have been added c.
479,
which thus marks the end of the
early
owl series.3
The date
of
the
beginning of
the
early
owl series
The earliest owls have been shown above to be those which in
Group
H are allied
by
their
technique
to the
'wappenmnzen'
tetra-
drachms. On the date of
Group
H
nearly
all
scholars, irrespective
of
their views on the date of the introduction of the owl
tetradrachm,
have been in close
agreement.
Seltman dated the coins to the Pana-
thenaic festivals from 526 to
514;4
Six and Imhoof-Blumer
regarded
them as the issues of
Hippias;5
Hill
put
one
example
after 51 16 and
Babelon
gave
most of them to
Hippias
and a few to the restored
1
The tetradrachm series of
Syracuse
shows a
comparable
concentration at about
this time.
Boehringer
allots 149 obverse dies to the seven
years
485-479. Even
allowing
for a somewhat
longer duration,
there is
clearly
a
very heavy
concentration.
2
Perhaps
the 'barbarous' issues of
Group
E were
produced
outside Athens
during
t he Persian
occupations
of the
city.
8
The occasion of the decadrachm issue remains elusive. Seltman
(
Greek
Coins*, pp.
104
f.)
seems
right
in
insisting that, though types may
be
commemorative,
size is due
only
to an
exceptional supply
of bullion or the need to convert it
rapidly
into coin.
Here the owl with
spread-wings
is
plausibly
connected with the
proverb y'av
Zirrarai
as a
sign
of
victory (cf. Thompson, Glossary of
Greek
Birds*, p. 78,
and
Jongkees,
Mnemosyne 1944, pp.
108
ff.).
Possible occasions seem to be
(1) 479,
after Plataea
(parallel
to the
Syracusan Demareteion), (2) 478/7,
the first
payment
of tribute and
the victories at
Cyprus
and
Byzantium (for booty
see Plut. Cim.
9,
3-6 and
Polyaen.
i.
34, 2)
and
(3)
the
Eurymedon campaign
of c. 467. A
possible objection
to
(1)
is that the
decadrachm has
only
three leaves in the wreath instead of
four,
and is therefore not the
first wreathed issue. In the case of (2) the owl with
spread wings might
be not
only
a
sign
of
victory,
but also
symbol
of the
spread
of the Delian
League
under Athenian
hegemony.
4
Pp.
72 ff.
6
See
p. 43,
nn. 3 and 4.

Principal
Coins
of
the Greeks
(1932), p. 9,
no. 35.
democracy.1
There is thus
agreement
that
Group
H is to be dated
within the last
quarter
of the sixth
century.
Within this
period
an
historically
suitable occasion for a
change
in
types
as dramatic as that from
'wappenmnzen'
to owls is
obviously
provided by
the
expulsion
of the
tyrants
in 510 and the establishment
of the
democracy;
Athena and the owl with the new and
explicit
ethnic would be
entirely appropriate
as
expressions
of a
newly
found
national
unity.
Yet such a
change
in
government
is
only
a
possible,
and not a
necessary,
occasion for a
change
of
types,
and there are
difficulties in a date so late. It looks
hardly possible
to cram the
great
and varied issues of
early
owls into the
space
of
thirty years.
Moreover
a
primitive looking
stater of
Cyrene
is overstruck
upon
an owl of
Group
H
;2
it would be
very surprising
if such a coin were to
belong
to the last decade of the
century,
and a somewhat earlier date is
therefore
preferable.3
On the other
hand,
the contents of the hoards
favour a date low in the sixth
century;
for
though
this evidence
may
be
misleading,
the hoards are consistent in
containing
no owls until
after
500, and,
when owls do
appear, they
do so in the
sequence
in
which
they
seem to have been issued. This
suggests
that the evidence
of the
surviving
hoards is not
wholly unrepresentative.
Moreover the
undoubtedly great
volume of the
early
owls as a class need not be
taken to
imply
a
prolonged period
of issue. Seltman's classification
involves a
remarkably steady production
of tetradrachms at the rate
of about 25 to 30 obverse dies
every
ten
years
for a
period
of about
eighty years;
but we have seen reason to
suppose
that
exceptionally
heavy
issues took
place
between 490 and
480,
whereas some issues
(particularly Groups
H and
L)
are
obviously very
much smaller.
Taking
into account these
conflicting factors,
the earliest owls can
hardly
be
placed
much earlier than the first
part
of the
reign
of
Hippias, say
between 527 and 520.
1
Trait
,
ii.
1, pl.
xxxiv.
17-18;
xxxv. 1
;
and relevant comment in text.
2
B.M.C.
Cyrenaica,
no. 2
(pl.
i.
10);
the
early
coins of
Cyrenaica
have
usually
been
dated
through
the Attic owls on which
they
are sometimes overstruck. The
profile
of
Athena is
larger
than on most
early
owls and seems to conform most
closely
to some
of the later dies of
Group
H
(e.g. Seltman,
A
193, 194, 196, 197).
3
The remarkable Chalcis/Thebes
alliance coin has been attributed to the
joint
action of Chalcis and Thebes
against
Athens in 506 as recorded in Herod, v, 74 f.
(cf.
Seltman, pp.
92
f.);
if this were certain,
it would
provide
a valuable fixed
point
for the
use of the fabric which it shares with Chalcis and the
'
wappenmnzen
'
tetradrachms;
but our own
knowledge
of
sixth-century history
is too
slight
for us to insist that 506 was
the
only possible
occasion for such an issue.
Early owls,
4
wappenmnzen
'
tetradrachms
and the
Chalcis/Thebes
alliance coin all
belong
to about the same date
(the
occurrence
of all three in the Taranto hoard is no
chance),
but that date must be determined
through
the owls.
60 C. M. KRAAY
In fact several features of the coins themselves
point
to a date
within the second half of the
century
rather than one at or before its
middle.
Perhaps
the most
important
of these is the existence of a
developed
reverse
type
on all owls. This was a
secondary development
in Greek
coinage
which took
long
to become
widely established;
indeed,
some
states,
like
Aegina,
never came to use an
indepen-
dent
type
for the reverse. And
many
states which
began
to coin in
the latter
part
of the sixth
century,
such as
Syracuse, Mende,
Acan-
thus and
Potidaea,
still
employed
an unadorned reverse
punch,
the
use of which lasted in some cases well into the fifth
century.1 Examples
of
two-type
coins
going
back into the sixth
century
are to be found in
Cyprus,
of which one is
present
in the
Persepolis
hoard of
515,2
and
at Cnidus. In the
west,
the coins of Sicilian
Naxos,
which all have
two
types
from the
beginning,
have been
put
as
early
as 550
;3
if this
date is correct
they
are
entirely exceptional, and,
in
any case,
their
technique
is not related to that of
Athens,
where the reverse die
grows
out of an
originally
unadorned
punch.
Nearer home the
group
of
coins attributed
by
Seltman to the Thracian Chersonese and
by
others to Chalcis affords an
interesting parallel
to Athens.4 The first
group
is
technically comparable
to the
'wappenmnzen'
didrachms
with
unadorned, diagonally
divided reverse
punches.
Then comes a
single
tetradrachm with a head of Hera on the obverse and a
quadriga
viewed
frontally
in the incuse
square
of the reverse.5 It is struck on
a broad flan with a
neat,
small incuse
square
and
high
obverse
relief,
just
like some of the owls of
Group
H
;
in fact the head of
Hera,
worn
though
it
is, strongly
recalls some of the Athena heads of
Group H,
such as A
194, 196,
with which it is
presumably contemporary.
The
conclusion to be drawn from this discussion is that
two-type
Athenian
coins would be
wholly
out of
place
in the middle of the
century
or
earlier. The
objection
is not so much that a man like Pisistratus was
not
capable
of
stimulating
a revolution in
technique,
but that the
early
dates
depend upon
the
primitive
execution of coins which are
nonetheless
technically highly developed;6 placed
in the middle of the
1
The case of
Corinth,
a close
neighbour
of
Athens,
would be
important,
if it were
not so controversial. I
myself
believe the second
type
was not introduced there until
the
very
end of the
century,
but the date
usually given
is around
540/530.
1
See
p.
48 above.
Cahn, Die Mnzen der Sizilischen Stadt Naxos , dd. 29 ff.
4
Seltman, chap,
xvii and
pl. xxiv; Gaebler,
J.D.A.L
1925, pp.
1 if.
Seltman, pl. xxiv,
A328-P414. It is
interesting
to note how a former obverse
type
becomes the new reverse
type, exactly
as
happens
with the
*
wappenmnzen
'
tetra-
drachm A208-P260 on
pl.
xiv.
In all Seltman 's
early groups
the incuse
square
has become so much of a traditional
survival that more than two
edges
are
rarely
on the flan.
temporary parallels,
un ine oiner nana an invention o a secona
type
in the last
quarter
of the
century
still allows Athens a
position
of
priority
in central
Greece,
even
though
the idea
may ultimately
have
been borrowed from farther east.1
A similar case can be made out for the
incongruity
of
major
issues
of tetradrachms in the middle of the sixth
century
or earlier.
Owing
to
the
high
value of silver in
early
times2 denominations
weighing
more
than 12
gr.
were
rarely employed;3
this
stage
is reflected in the Ras
Shamra hoard in which all coins are in the 8-12
gm. range except
one
of Abdera which reaches 15
gm.
The
output
of silver in the sixth
century, however,
caused its value to
drop
and denominations to
grow larger.
The effect of this can be seen in the Demanhur hoard in
which, though
the
great majority
of coins
weigh
less than 12
gm.,
there is also a number between
12 and 15
gm.,
as well as two Euboic
tetradrachms
(nos.
21 and
161) aiming
at a standard of about
17-4
gm.
A further
stage
is reached in the hoards after 500
(Taranto,
Benha and
Zagazig)
which contain numerous Euboic tetradrachms
from such
places
as
Acanthus, Terone, Mende, Potidaea, Athens,
Euboea and
Cyrene.4
At about the same time there
appeared, espe-
cially
in the
mining
areas of north
Greece,
still
larger
denominations
-
octodrachms and even double
octodrachms;5
most of
these,
how-
ever,
were soon abandoned.
Against
this
background copious
issues
of owl tetradrachms before the middle of the
century
are
wholly
out
of
place.
There is no need to
deny
that some tetradrachms on the
Euboic standard
may
have been minted as
early
as
550,
but at this
date
they
would have been as rare
compared
to didrachms as octo-
drachms were to tetradrachms in 500. In the last
quarter
of the
century growing
issues of tetradrachms would be
fully
in
harmony
with that
tendency
towards
larger
standard coins which was charac-
teristic of the
period.
Finally
the
ethnic,
which is
perhaps
the most
important single
difference between
'
wappenmnzen
'
and
owls,
must be considered.
1
The Demanhur hoard contains two coins attributed to
Cyprus,
which recall the
technique
of the
4
wappenmnzen
'
tetradrachms (nos.
130 and
133);
another
specimen
of no. 133
(from
the same
dies)
was in the
Persepolis deposit
and so must antedate 515
(see p.
48
above);
it is not
quite
certain whether it can
qualify
as
having
a reverse
type,
but some of the
markings
in the incuse
square
seem deliberate.
2
See Plut. Solon
23, 3,
where one drachma is said to be tne
price
oi a
sneep.
8
Aegina
12-5
gm.; Thasos, Lete,
&c. 10-5
gm.;
Corinth and
wappenmunzen
didrachms about 8-7
gm.;
Croesus 5-4
gm.
4
Likewise in the west the earliest tetradrachm is the
Syracusan, beginning
c. z.
6
Mlanges
Picard
ii, p.
968.
62 C. M. KRAAY
Issues which
began
before the middle of the sixth
century
tend either
to be
wholly anepigraphic (like Aegina
and the
'
wappenmnzen ')
or
else to have the shortest
possible inscription,
like the ? at Corinth.
The issues of
many
cities remained uninscribed until well into the
fifth
century,
and the
appearance
of an ethnic is often linked with the
development
of a reverse
type. During
the second half of the sixth
century, however,
a number of cities
began
to
employ
a form of
ethnic which is
something
more than a
single letter,
but less than the
whole name. This had the
advantage
of
being explicit
in a
period
when more and more cities were
adopting
the
practice
of
coining.
A
single
letter
might
be the initial of a number of
cities,
but there
could be no doubt about
META, SYPA,
?Po and
AA;
it is to this
class that AGE
belongs.
Once
again
the
possibility
of a master-stroke
of advertisement much in advance of its time cannot be
wholly
excluded,
but the
half-length ethnic, together
with the tetradrachm
denomination and the addition of a reverse
type,
are
developments
characteristic of the second half of the sixth
century;
taken
together,
they suggest
the last rather than the third
quarter
and to this extent
they support
the date
already proposed
above.
The historical
setting
The reasons for a
major change
in the
types
of Athenian
coinage
about 525 must be deduced
partly
from the internal evidence of the
coinage
itself and
partly
from the conditions in areas to which Athenian
coinage
travelled.
The
change
from
'
wappenmnzen
'
to owls involved five
major
innovations :
1. The size of the standard coin was doubled from a didrachm to
a tetradrachm.1
2. The
changing types
of the
'wappenmnzen'
were
replaced by
the
unchanging types
of the owl
coinage.
3. The
unexplicit types
of the
'
wappenmnzen
'
were
replaced by
the
perfectly explicit
national
types
of Athena and owl.
4. The
meaning
of the new national
types
was reinforced
by
the
addition of the ethnic AGE.
5. The numerous fractions which had been coined in the
'wappen-
mnzen' series were not
repeated
for the
early
owls.2
1
Though
this
strictly happened
within the
4
wappenmnzen
'
series,
it was so near
its
end,
and the
'
wappenmnzen
'
tetradrachms are so
few,
that it can be
regarded
as
part
of the
change-over
to owls.
This comes out
clearly
in Seltman's
Catalogue.
For
Group
F no fractions at all
These innovations
point
to one
thing only
-
a deliberate
attempt
to
popularize
Athenian
coinage
in
foreign
markets and to outbid rival
currencies. That
large lumps
were
popular
in
foreign
markets is
sug-
gested by
the
frequency
with which the octodrachms of the north
Greek states are found in the Near
East;
the tetradrachm
gave
Athens a distinct
advantage
in
weight
over her nearest
competitors,
Corinth and
Aegina.
The new
types
made the tetradrachm a more
elaborate and
striking object,
and the ethnic declared its
origin;
the
monotony
of the
types
served to consolidate confidence.
Finally
the
fractions,
which were
required
for retail trade at
home,
had no
place
in wholesale transactions abroad. This view of the
importance
of
foreign
trade is confirmed
by
the distribution of
finds; for,
whereas
'wappenmnzen'
didrachms are found
rarely,
if at
all,
outside
Attica and
Euboea,1
tetradrachms
(both 'wappenmnzen'
and
owls)
went far afield to
Egypt, Cyrene, Chios,
south
Italy,
and
Sicily.
The Near East at this time
provided
a
particularly
favourable
market for Athenian
enterprise.
The Persian
empire
was still
growing
and
consolidating
its hold on
Syria,
Palestine and
Egypt,
and in
Greek
eyes
the Persians stimulated trade. A deliberate
policy
of
encouraging
trade in
Lydia
was attributed to
Cyrus;2
numbers of
Greek traders
accompanied Cambyses
on his
Egyptian campaign,3
and Darius was
given
the nickname
/ccwnyAo?.4 Moreover,
Darius
reformed the administration of his
empire,
so that the
gifts
made to
the
king
at
irregular
intervals were
replaced by
a
regular
tribute
usually payable
in silver.5 In fact
throughout
the Near East the old
practice
of
payment
in kind was
giving way
to
payments
in silver.6
Thus, though
Greek sources had
long
been
supplying
silver to the
Near
East,
there is reason to
suppose
that the demand was
growing
appreciably greater
in the last
quarter
of the sixth
century.
The
reasons which
prompted
Athens to take
advantage
of this demand
cannot be discerned in
detail,
but the distribution of her
black-figure
ware shows that her traders were
increasingly
active in the Near East
can be
quoted;
for other
groups
before the addition of wreath and crescent there are
only
isolated
fractions,
with the
exception
of
Group L,
which has a
large range
of
fractions with unusual
-
and
presumably topical
-
reverse
types.
After the addition of
wreath and crescent fractions become commoner.
1
See above, p. 49,
n. 1.
2
Herod, i,
55.
3
Herod, iii,
89.
4
Herod, iii,
139.
5
Herod, iii, 89 ff. See
Herzfeld, Altpersische Inschriften ,
no.
5,
for stocks of silver
in
Egypt,
a
satrapy
that had no internal source of
supply.
6
The
early fifth-century
documents from
Persepolis
reveal this
very clearly;
see
Cameron, Persepolis Treasury
Tablets
, pp.
1 if.
64 C. M. KRAAY
in the second half of the
century.1
Silver was
presumably becoming
available from her own mines at
Laurium, for, though
almost
nothing
is known of their
history
before
484,
it is not
unlikely
that
the dramatic discoveries of that
year
had been
preceded by
less
sensational,
but still
useful,
strikes of metal.
A somewhat similar
picture
can be obtained from the
west,
where
there is a sudden and marked increase in the
import
of Athenian
pottery
from the middle of the
century.2
South
Italy
and
Sicily,
like
Egypt,
were areas which had to
rely mainly
on external trade for
their
supplies
of silver. The mines of southern
Spain
were an obvious
and convenient source which had been accessible
through
Phocaean
trade routes. But after about 540 southern
Spain
fell under the control
of the
Carthaginians,
who showed an
increasing hostility
to the
Greeks of the west.
Consequently
at the
very
time when
many
western states were
starting
their own
coinages, they
were cut off
from their natural source of silver. Here
again
Athens could
provide
an alternative source of
supply through
markets
already open
to her
pottery,
and finds of archaic owls in the west show that the
oppor-
tunity
was not missed.3
The
repercussions of
the
proposed dating
The
redating
of the introduction of the owl
coinage
to the last
quarter
of the sixth
century
will
inevitably
affect our ideas about the
development
of Athenian
coinage.
This
subject
cannot be treated in
full
here,
but
enough
must be said to show that the
proposed dating
does not involve a
wholly unplausible
account of the earlier
stages.
The
argument
has been that the owls
developed
out of the
4
wap-
penmnzen *,
which
must, therefore,
be attributed to the
period pre-
ceding
the introduction of owls in about 525. The
'
wappenmnzen
'
didrachm
issues, though varied,
seem not to have been
large,4
for
about a dozen
types
are
today represented by
no more than about
forty
obverse dies in all.
Stylistically
there is an earlier and a later
group (Seltman's Groups
B and D
respectively),
but the
phenomenon
1
Bailey, 'The export
of Attic black-figure ware',
J.H.S.
1940, fig.
4.
2
Bailey, op. cit., p.
68.
8
Sicilian hoards have
recently
been
conveniently
tabulated
by
Christ in Historia
,
1955, pp.
390
ff.;
see also 'Note' on
p.
67. The relevant Italian hoards are
Reggio
(Noe,
no.
854)
and Taranto
(Noe,
no.
1052).
It
might
have been
supposed
that Corinth
would have
played
the more
important part,
but Taranto is the
only
western hoard to
contain
early
Corinthian coins.
*
The
largest
issue was the chariot-wheel
type,
of which eleven obverse dies are
known.
of the same reverse
punches linking
different obverse
types
indicates
that some
types
were struck either at the same time or in close suc-
cession. The rate of use can
hardly
have been lower than one obverse
die a
year, and,
if an allowance of ten
years
be added to cover the
possibility
that in some
years
no coins were
minted,
a maximum
period
of about
fifty years
for the issue of
'wappenmnzen'
is
reached,1
which would mean that
they began
about 575 or after.2 In
any
case it seems
hardly possible
to
prolong
the series back to
any-
where near the
period
of Solon's reforms.3 What then is to be made
of the
passages
in Plutarch and the Ath. Pol
.,
which claim that Solon
carried out
changes
in the
coinage,
and
generally imply
that
coinage
(whether
Athenian or
other)
was known and
widely
used in Attica
in the
early
sixth
century?
The relevant sentences of the two
passages
can be set side
by
side:
Ath . Pol 10
7
Tp
8e
rrjs vofiodeaias iroirjoai
(
1
) T7JV
TCJV
Xp)V lTOKOlTrjV
Kal
fiera
ravra
(2) TTjV
T T v
fJLTpO)V
Kai
OraOflCJV
(3)
Kal
rrjv
rov vo
la paros avrjOLU.
(4)
ir* Kvov
yp eyvero
Kal ra
fxrpa fieira)
rwv &lS(x)Vcv Kal
(5) ff fJiv irprcpov 'ovaa araOfxv
ihofirjKovra Spa^/xs" venXrjpcdr]
rats
Karv
(6) fy
Se
apxaos xaPaKTVP Stp^X'
fiov.
Plut. Solon 15
KaroL rivs
eypaxfiav
cou ianv
vhporliv
(1)
OVK
aiTOKOTTTf XptiV,
AA tk)V
fjLcrpiorrjrt, Kov<j>io64vras yairrjaai
rovs
irvrjras,
Kal
crcLoxetav vofiaai
r
<f>t,Xavdp7TVfia
rovro
,
Kal
(2) rrjv fia rovrep ycvofxvqv
rv re
firpcv iravrjoiv
Kal
(3)
rov
vofiofiaros rifirfv.
(5)
Karv
yp
eiro
roe Spaxfiv rrjv
fivv rrprepov ehofirfKovra
Kal
rpiv
otioav.
Now if attention is confined to what Solon is said to have
actually
done,
as
opposed
to his
object
in
doing it,
these two
passages
have
much in common :
they
both
speak (a)
of an increase in the
fidrpa
and
(b)
of a new
system whereby
the mina was henceforth to be divided
1
It should be
emphasized
that this is
quite
a
generous calculation,
and that the
period might
well be shorter. Mr. Raven has made the
interesting suggestion
to me
that the
type
was
changed every
four
years
at the Greater Panathenaea. This would
also
give
a duration of about half a
century; starting
from the first Panathenaea in
566,
and
allowing
twelve
4
wappenmnzen' types,
it would
give
514 for the introduction of
owls. It is not
impossible, however,
that some
types
should be excluded from the
*
wappenmnzen
'
list
(see Robinson,
N.C.
1924, p. 332).
2
This fits in
very
well with the date
assigned by archaeologists
to
amphorae
of the
type
shown on the
coins;
for a
typical specimen,
dated to the second
quarter
of the
century,
see C.V. A.
Oxford 2, pp.
97 f. and
pl.
iv. 1.
8
I here
accept
the tradition which associates his reforms with the
period
of his
archonship
in 594.
B 6150 F
66 C. M. KRAAY
into one hundred drachmae instead of
seventy.1
Since Androtion is
earlier than the Ath. Pol . and was
presumably
known to the author of
the latter
work,
his account is best discussed first.
His first statement is
perfectly
clear
-
'he made the measures
larger'
-
and receives welcome
amplification
from the Ath. Pol.
-
'the measures became
larger
than the Pheidonian'. The
only yTpa
associated with Pheidon are measures of
capacity,2
and these were
used in Athens before Solon's
time; they
were then
replaced by
a
system
of
larger fierpa
which were used thereafter.
Androtion's next statement
requires
more discussion: the mina
was now to be divided into one hundred drachmae instead of
seventy
as
before,
and this
change
is described
by
the words rov
vofiiafiaros
TLpLTjv.
Here
again,
what Solon is said to have
actually
done is clear
enough; only
the extent of the
change
is obscure.
Fundamentally
this
is a
change
in the standard of
weights employed
at
Athens,
for the
mina was a
weight
and drachmae had become subdivisions of the
mina
long
before
they
became coins
weighing
a drachma
(of
silver or
gold).
The
weights
of the
surviving coins, however,
do show that the
change
introduced
by
Solon was from the
Aeginetan weight system
(widely
used in the
Peloponnese)
to the
Attic,
for the ratio of the
Aeginetan
to the Attic drachma is 70: 100.3 This
measure, then,
was
complementary
to the increase in the
xirpa
and had
exactly
the same
purpose
-
to free Athens from
dependence
on the
Peloponnesian
economic
system.
If Attic
coinage
was
already
in use or was intro-
duced at this
time,
then the
change
in the
weights
would have involved
the
coinage
as well. Androtion
evidently thought
this
happened,
for
he
envisages
debts contracted in coin
being repaid
in coin. But our
examination of Athenian
coinage
has shown that it cannot extend
back to the
beginning
of the sixth
century. Possibly
the
origin
of
Androtion's extension of a reform of the
weight-standard
to a reform
of the
coinage may
lie in the word nomisma. This
certainly
came to
mean
specially
a coin or a
coinage,
but
basically
it meant
anything
fixed
by convention,
and could be used of a standard measure of
capacity.4
1
The variant
*
seventy-three
'
in Plut. has been
convincingly explained
E B A O M H
KONTAFOYZAN
(< ihofi-^Kovr yovaav)
misread as
eSofxrjKOVTa
T
ovoav,
with r read as
*
three' and later
expanded
into Kai tdiGsv.
Cf.
Sandys,
Aristotle's Constitution
of
Athens
, p. 38, note; Brown,
N.C.
1950,
pp.
177 ff.
8
Seltman, pp.
123 f.
Anstoph.,
Thesmo.
348,
to v
xs f
tcov kotvlov to
vofiiaxa
hiaiAv
xaveTai
.
Once the idea of
coinage
had
crept
into the tradition it
grew rapidly
and was elaborated in the Ath. Pol . Here
again
we find the same two
enactments,
an increase in the size of the
fidrpa
and the subdivision of
the mina into a hundred instead of
seventy
drachmae. This latter
arrangement
is
curiously
called an increase
-
presumably
of the
number of
parts
into which the mina was subdivided. In addition an
increase of the nomisma is mentioned. Since this is
explained by
the
statement that in olden times the denomination in use was the di-
drachm,
the author must have
supposed
that Solon introduced the
tetradrachm,
the standard denomination of his own
day.1
The earlier
part
of this
paper
has
already
shown the difficulties in
the
way
of
attributing
to Athens
any coinage,
let alone
tetradrachms,
in the
early
sixth
century.
Just as Pheidon's invention of
prpa
and
dedication of
spits
were
expanded
into a
chronologically impossible
invention of
coinage,
so Solon's reforms of
weights
and
fidrpa
were
likewise extended to include a reform of the standard of the
coinage
and the introduction of the tetradrachm
denomination;
this was all
the easier at Athens because of the
tendency
to attribute to Solon
many
institutions and enactments of much later date.2 In the cases of
both Solon and Pheidon the basic cause of the mistaken attributions
seems to have been the fact that what were
originally
terms of
weight
only,
such as drachma and
obol,
came later to be the names of
denominations of the
coinage.
NOTE
Through
the kindness of Dr. G. V.
Gentili, Vice-soprintendente
at
Syracuse,
I have
recently
been able to examine in the
Syracuse
Museum the
six Athenian tetradrachms from the Mazzarino hoard
(Noe2
no. 667
=
Caltagirone,
Noe2 no.
188).
A date no earlier than 480 for the burial of this
hoard is indicated
by
its
contents, among
which are:
(1)
a
large
number of
Syracusan
tetradrachms of the
period 485-480,
(2)
several tetradrachms of
Gela,
(3)
several
examples
of the 'hare' tetradrachms of Messana and
Rhegium,
and
(4)
five didrachms of Himera with the crab of
Acragas
as reverse
type.
1
Cahn,
Museum Helveticum
1946, p.
137.
2
The Roman attribution of their
coinage
to the
kings provides
a third case of the
ante-dating
of a
coinage.
68 THE ARCHAIC OWLS OF ATHENS
The dies of the six Athenian tetradrachms I am unable to find
among
Seltman 's
illustrations,
but the
following provide very
close
parallels:
Inv. no, Seltman obv.
Group
31329
A105,
144
Gi,
Gii
31330
A239, 254,
257 M
31331 Al 09 Gi
31332 A176 Gii
31333 A181 Gii
31334 Al 77 Gii
Apart
from the
single
coin from
Group
M
(Seltman 506-490),
the latest
date for the remainder is 510
according
to Seltman. Most of the coins are
only lightly
worn and a minimum interval of
thirty years
between
minting
and burial seems excessive. In
fact,
the
accepted dating
involves a chrono-
logical anomaly
in this hoard
exactly
as it did in the Chios and
Zagazig
hoards discussed above
(pp.
50
if.).
There seems to be no reason
why
Athenian coins buried in the first
quarter
of the fifth
century
should
nearly
always
be at least
thirty years old,
as the current
dating requires.
The
great
hoard
recently
discovered at Gela is
reported
to contain a
large
number of archaic Athenian tetradrachms
together
with
many
examples
of the
early Syracusan
issues with small head in incuse
square.
Full details of this hoard will be awaited with the
greatest
interest.
C. M. Kraay
ATHENIAN COINS
1 : Oxford.
2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9,
12 : B.M.
5,
1
1,
Dr. E. S. G- Robinson.
7 : Jameson, No. 1 169c. 10 :
electrotype
in B.M.
(from Motya).
13 :
Boston,
No. 1044.
NUM. CHRON., 1956, PL. XIII

The Archaic Owls of Athens: Classification and Chronology / (C.M. Kraay)

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Archaic Owls of Athens: Classification and Chronology / (C.M. Kraay)

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

THE

Potrebbero piacerti anche