THE ATHENIAN DECADRACHM Numismatic Notes and Monographs 168

End Notes

The designs of the Athenian decadrachms differ in several respects from those of the contemporary tetradrachms. Chester Starr, whose study of the Athenian coinage is the standard reference, describes them as follows: The decadrachms have entirely new designs. On the obverse the helmet of Athena has three olive leaves and a very heavy spiral, which breaks into a unique palmette; the hanging earring is also unparalleled in Athenian coinage. The head of Athena is simply but strongly portrayed; the lips are full with limited modelling on the cheek. Generally the eye is oval, but on Nos. 55 and 59 it is composed of two lines with complex, unequal curves The design of the reverse of the decadrachms is even more remarkable. The owl stands facing with outstretched wings; the alpha is to the right of the head, the theta and epsilon are on either side of the legs. The olive twig is in the upper left corner...; often its leaves are separated more than 90°. In a somewhat later group (Nos. 57 ff.), which is still within the same basic pattern, the leaves on the crest are not graduated, and the spiral and palmette come to point more at the first olive leaf. There is no moon. 1

While Starr's internal arrangement of the series is no longer valid, his description is to the point. Due to the large size of the decadrachms, the engravers had to make some changes to the design of the tetradrachm images. The most obvious change is the frontal presentation of the owl; the position of the wings has lead to some sweeping interpretations. It should be said, however, that a strong pictorial difference between the two highest denominations of the Athenian coinage was necessary for obvious reasons. The decadrachm owl is standing on the ground like that of the tetradrachms, with all six claws touching the ground-line. It is hard to say whether the owl is spreading its wings in order to start flying or flapping them while waking up or preening. Although ancient coin-engravers could be excellent in observing animal behavior, we should not expect too much characterization where a high degree of recognizability was as important as representational veracity. In any case, the rendering of the details is almost the same as with the tetradrachms. The short feathers over the owl's body are represented as small dots, those at the middle breast being a little bit larger than those on the flanks; only the "short trousers" around the hips have stripes instead of dots. The wings are divided into three sections: a) the mantle, the pennaceous feathers of which are represented as dots like those over the body, b) an upper row of short covert feathers, shown as short stripes, and c) a lower row of long covert feathers shown as long stripes. The two rows of covert feathers display different patterns: in some cases all the stripes point to the outside, in other cases only the upper row points to the outside while the lower row has a complex, fan-shaped pattern pointing inwards. There is much variation here. The proportions of both body and wings can also vary in several ways. The head of the decadrachm owl is similar to that of the tetradrachm owls, but it has some features of its own. First, the position is different. The tetradrachm owl is rendered in profile and has the head turned around; in many cases the head is thrown back somewhat and the owl is looking at a point above the observer. The head of the decadrachm owl, however, is in a strictly frontal position, the eyes focusing on the observer. The circular eyes are divided into pupil and iris, the pupil covering about 80% of the eye. The eyes of the decadrachm owl appear to be larger than those of the tetradrachm owls, although there is no difference insofar that just one framing row of feathers forms the outline of the head. The feet of the owl are rendered in the same manner as those of the tetradrachm owls, except that they are placed side by side instead of one after another. The legs have two parallel muscles, the feet have three claws each.

Due to the posture of the owl there is not much room on either denomination for symbols and letters. The contemporary tetradrachms have an olive sprig and a crescent in the upper left corner from which the owl is turning away, and a line of three letters running down at the right-hand side. The decadrachms display a different arrangement of these elements. The olive sprig is in the same place but more spread out, the leaves often separated more than 90°. The fruit is hanging at 45°, pointing to the shoulder of the owl. There is no moon, perhaps because the crescent would have become too small. On the other hand, the relations of the figures are balanced with such care that the engraver might have considered the crescent troubling to the harmony of the design. The placing of the three letters of the legend clearly results from the rearrangement of the owl and the olive. While the alpha keeps the position at the upper right corner, thus corresponding to the angle of the olive sprig (hence often placed diagonally), the theta and the epsilon are put at the bottom in the center, flanking the legs of the owl. There is a subtle symmetry to the reverse image resulting from these changes.

Turning to the obverse image, the difference between decadrachms and tetradrachms is less easy to see. There is Athena's head in the form known from all the contemporary Athenian coins; she is wearing a crested helmet of the Attic type with all the details at their usual places. Even the split of the plume is depicted on the decadrachms as it is on the tetradrachms. Only the ornamental embellishment of the bowl of the decadrachms has an addition: the palmette has a "tendril" spreading downwards and sometimes touching the ear. The three olive leaves above the visor are exactly as with the tetradrachm Athena Heads, the foremost leaf reaching to the top line of the bowl and sometimes beyond towards the plume. The coiffure is the same as well: the hair sweeps in long waves across the brow, with a large lock beside the ear. This "ear-lock" is sometimes rounded, as is the pattern of its inner strands. More often, however, it has a rectangular shape; in such cases the strands are arranged to form a V-shaped pattern. Sometimes it is clear that the hair waves above the forehead disappear behind the "ear-lock" (O 10); sometimes there is a small taenia holding waves and lock in place (O 3). Usually there is a single slim "cowlick" at the forehead. Athena is wearing her hair in an open fashion, that is to say, the hair is falling down behind the neckguard. Following archaic sculptural tradition, the hair is characterized in different ways according to its position. Around the face, the hair is shown in wavy, continuous strands, whereas the hair beside and beneath the neckguard is shown as small dots forming strands. The single strand beside the neckguard is just a line of dots joining the dotted strands beneath the neckguard. The bow-shaped pattern of these strands reveals that the hair is knotted at the back of the head, although concealed by the helmet. This is, in fact, no archaic coiffure but an early classical one. 2 Archaic taste, however, is reflected in the opulence of the jewels Athena is wearing. The double border of the neck truncation—a string above a dotted line—looks like a pearl necklace. The round ear-clip of the tetradrachm Athena has now changed into a tearshaped pendant. Curiously enough, the pendant does not fall vertically but is swinging forward, thus accentuating the line of the chin. 3

Lastly, there is the face. The archaic character of the Athena head on fifth-century Athenian coins has often been noted. It is an archaism without a certain archaic model. The Athena Heads of late sixth- and early fifth-century Athenian coins look entirely different in both typology and style. In fact, the Athena Heads of Starr's Group II.A and beyond (the decadrachms belong to Group II.C) are modelled according to early classical taste rather than on archaic predecessors. Upon closer examination, there are three features only which may be called archaizing: the twofold pattern of the hair already mentioned, the frontal eye within a profile face, and the so-called archaic smile. 4 The proportions of the face, however, are early classical rather than archaic, though there are some long faces that look more archaizing than others.

As Starr has pointed out, the eye is always oval, but there is considerable variation. A few dies only have a perfectly oval eye. Much more often the eye is almond-shaped, that is to say, it has an asymmetrical curvature both above and below, arching above towards the front and below towards the back. These almond-shaped eyes generally have a clearly separated caruncula lacrimalis (an area in the corner of the eye containing accessory lacrimal glands), or a pointed inner tip at least. There is no pupil, but due to the facial expression the look is always attentive and never blind. The facial expression is, of course, dominated by the smile. Smiling is a complex interaction of movements all over the face. The corner of the mouth rises, thus pushing up the flesh of the cheek. As a result, the area behind the lips deepens, producing a vertical fold in the cheek that joins the nasolabial fold. The brow rises, the eye opens widely. All these features are to be seen here. It should be mentioned that, although the conventionalized archaic smile may be intended, both the delicacy of the surface transitions and the understanding of muscular interactions are classical style through and through. In fact, some engravers ignored their instructions and created Heads of Athena that are almost avant-garde. Among the surviving specimens we find one die (O 13) that allows comparison with contemporary works of art; it will be argued that this die was made c. 460 bc (see below).

Starr knew twelve decadrachm specimens in 1970, the Bostonian lead trial piece not being figured in his catalogue. 5 As to die-links, he appears to have relied upon Seltman's study rather than checking the dies himself. In any case, he agreed with Seltman's opinion that the Delbeke and Rhousopoulos specimens (10a and 11a) derived from the same pair of dies. 6 This, however, is incorrect; the two coins share neither obverse nor reverse die. 7 Both authors also missed the obverse link between the Rhousopoulos and Morgan coins (11a and 13b), and Starr overlooked that the specimen from the Malayer Hoard (8b) shares the obverse die with the Burgon coin in the British Museum (7a).

Yet it would be arrogant to blame the two scholars for blunders. The decadrachms known to them were in many cases quite worn, and the Burgon coin is defaced by a deep test-stroke through Athena's forehead. It is always easier to make a die-study dealing with a great many specimens (particularly if the majority of them are in good condition) than with a few ones. The Elmali Hoard of 1984 (CH VIII 48) has improved the situation considerably.

Nevertheless, the decadrachms pose special problems due to their size. Plaster casts of the same piece prove to be different as to surface curvature and exactness of details. Photographs have a problem of their own: coins of so large a size and so high a relief cannot be photographed like smaller coins: the distance between camera and object has to be much greater than usual. Comparing pictures of the same piece reveals distortions varying according to the lenses used and to the distances applied. In one case, for example, the comparison of specimens is particularly troublesome because one coin was photographed from an angle that differed slightly from 90°, with the effect that Athena's face looked longer, her eye bigger, and the facial expression somehow different (30a). Fortunately, a distinctive die-break helped to attribute specimens to the die (O 17).

Forty decadrachms known to me may be regarded as genuine and valid for inclusion in a die-study. In addition, there are two lead trial pieces and two ancient forgeries (one of the latter is lost) which cannot be part of the die-study, even though one lead piece might stem from a die attested by valid specimens. The irregular specimens (trial pieces and forgeries) can be ignored without serious detriment to the study, for the relation between the numbers of specimens and dies is promising without them. Seltman knew nine specimens and he could have known one link between two specimens; Starr knew twelve specimens and could have known two links among four specimens, that is to say, Seltman had 22% of specimens interlinked, Starr had 33%. The new specimens have changed the figure entirely. The decadrachms included in the current die-study show more than 40 links among 35 specimens; that is to say, 87% of the 40 known specimens are interlinked. While the picture is clearer, there are still gaps. The sequence breaks into thirteen sections; just six die-combinations are attested by more than one specimen, and only one is attested by more than two specimens. We are still far from having the whole picture. In the future we may expect not only new die-links but new dies as well. Therefore we shall resist the temptation to go too far in interpreting the sequence that is proposed below.

The thirteen sections of the series are of varying lengths. There is one section including as many as twelve die-combinations, but the other ones are much shorter than that, seven including just one die-combination. Arranging them into a sequence relies on interpretation of differences in pictorial typology, technique and style, as small as they may be. Since the whole series might cover a short time-span—less than a decade seems reasonable—we cannot expect a stylistic change in the true sense of the word, particularly since the coinage in question disclaims the mainstream style of its age. Yet there is a technical feature that leads to a provisional arrangement where each section falls into one of a few groups.

The specimens of the biggest section (22–33) display a feature that was only noticed when a new specimen recently appeared on the market: the reverse imprint is very flat, the edge of the coin barely rising above the background of the quadratum incusum. Though the flatness was never conspicuous, each coin of the section does show it in one way or another. A close examination of all 40 specimens revealed no clear point at which a change occurred; rather, there is a gradual transition. There are specimens with a reverse imprint which looks extremely deep because at least one side of the edge raises exuberantly (1a, 3a, 6a, 14a). When compared with other specimens of their respective sections it turns out that "deepness" is a relative value and dependent on innumerable accidents of the minting procedure. In fact, there is a clear cause of imprints of so variable a deepness: the size of the reverse die. Of course, we must not expect that the power of the minting strokes was always the same. From the statistical point of view, however, the rule holds true that the larger the die the flatter the imprint. The measurements of reverse dies known to me are as follows:

1a 2.21 × 2.19 cm

5a 2.19 × 2.18 cm

21a 2.49 × 2.39 cm

23a 2.51 × 2.55 cm

29a 2.53 × >2.31 cm

The fact of a slight alteration does not by itself indicate whether the dies increased in size or shrank. Among late archaic and early classical coinages there is a general tendency for the size of the reverse image to increase, but there are exceptions and counter-movements as well. We have to look for another clue. On the one hand, one could argue that some obverse dies are more advanced in style than others insofar as the palmette on Athena's helmet approaches the first olive leaf, sometimes even touching its middle part. The tetradrachms of Starr's Group III (i.e., following the decadrachms) have the palmette already pointing downward along the leaf. 8 Obverse dies with "progressive" palmettes occur more often within sections with deep reverse imprints (O 3, O 4, O 7, O 8, O 10, O 11), while the big section with flat reverses contains obverses with "conservative" palmettes only (O 13–O 17). On the other hand, this typological trend is contradicted by another stylistic point. The one die mentioned above that is almost avant-garde (O 13) belongs to the big section with flat reverses. Since this die seems to have been made at the end of the series rather than at the starting point, the whole section has to be put near the end. Therefore it seems likely that the decadrachm reverse dies tended to increase in size. The need that the increasing die size would meet is not entirely clear. On the one hand, the deep reverse imprints corresponded with the traditional appearance of Athenian coins. On the other, decadrachms with flat reverses might have been introduced as easier to handle and more sturdy, too. Interestingly, the specimen from the Jordan Hoard (17a) was cut into halves diagonally, the cut running from one corner of the reverse imprint to the opposite. It may well be the Athenian mint-masters thought that deep reverses made coins of that large size too breakable and increased the die size accordingly.

Figure 1. Die-link chart.

Unfortunately, there is no hoard evidence to suggest any arrangement of the series. The Elmali Hoard contained specimens from both ends of the series (3a as well as 32a), and the relevant coins do not show wear of different grades. The other hoards are too late to be conclusive.

As a result, various details of the arrangement must remain hypothetical, particularly in the case of the smaller sections. It is not possible to say whether the Berlin coin (1a) or the recut Brussels specimen (2a) comes first, and the same is true with the Berry and Garrett coins (9a and 10a). It is a pity that Seltman and Starr did not discuss the reasons for their respective arrangements, for both are similar in some ways to the one proposed here. If we disregard those specimens which have appeared after Starr's book the sequences are as follows:

There is some clear agreement. All authors concur that the Berlin and the Brussels coins are among the first ones and that the Paris coin has to be put near the end. The relative placings of the Kunstfreund and Rhousopoulos specimens are also similar to each other. Perhaps the disagreement as to some specimens—the London coin in particular—is even more interesting. At least in some cases the die-study has solved the problem; the London coin cannot be separated from the Frankfurt coin.

To conclude, I should again stress that the intrinsic structure of the series is by no means known. It would be hazardous to draw conclusions from forty specimens. The long die-chain at the very end of the series is more likely to be the result of accidents of discovery than indicative of a different pattern of production.

Large denominations require a much more sophisticated minting technique than the more common small ones. The Athenians took bigger risks than the other mints producing large silver denominations: the relief of the Athenian decadrachms is a good deal higher than those of the three Syracusan and the Akragantine decadrachm issues. 9 Hence the minting gaps which can be seen on several reverses, among them a remarkably big one (23a). 10 The slight change in the size of the reverse die over the course of the decadrachm series shows that the masters of the mint were experimenting. 11 Nonetheless, the high quality of all the decadrachms preserved is astonishing. The dies are always well centered on the flans. Granted, there are asymmetrical flans (for instance, 5 a and 19b), irregularities at the edge (the protuberance with 6b), edge cracks (1a, 6b, 7a, 32a) and doublestrikes (18a? 23a). The overall appearance is nevertheless excellent.

The rarity of both edge cracks and doublestrikes shows that the flans were red-hot when struck. Otherwise, no craftsman would have been able to deal with them. A minting device such as recently suggested for the Ptolemaic bronze coinage which would have produced standardized, circle-round coins is not likely to have been used. 12 There is too much variation of the flan shapes.

The high quality of mint practice applies to the weights, too. Eight specimens are heavier than 43 g, and sixteen more are heavier than 42 g. The halved specimen at 21.11 g (17a) might join them. Interestingly, the well-preserved specimens from the Elmali Hoard have raised the peak. This is minting al marco. The flans were not meticulously adjusted, as is usual with gold coins (minting al pezzo), but the Athenians set great store in the reliability of their coinage, so much the more with large denominations. 13 The distribution of weights is shown in Figure 2, with the Elmali Hoard highlighted; exact weights can be found in the Catalogue (below, pp. 33 ff.):

Figure 2. Histogram of the weight distribution (interval = 0.05 g).

Some of the old decadrachm specimens have stories preserved about their findspots, but such stories are often part of the commercial marketing of high-value coins and should not be trusted unquestioningly. Yet there may be some truth in them. Conspicuously, the first decadrachms to appear on the market were said to have been found in or near Attica. The majority, however, derive from hoards found in the Near East: Lycia, the Levant, Egypt, and Persia.

The first specimen to appear was the Paris coin from the Duc de Luynes and Lord Strangford collections (29a). Peter Oluf Brøndsted, who was, like Lord Strangford, a diplomat with an enthusiasm for ancient coins, makes the following claim of the coins origin:

The last point is of interest here. Whether or not the description of Megara as findspot is true, what can the remark "avec quelques autres semblables" tell us? Were more decadrachms offered to Lord Strangford? It is doubtful that false rumors would have circulated before the coin's sale, since these would have hurt the price. However, if the story was told to Lord Strangford only after he had bought the coin it could have been a trick in order to prepare the market for counterfeits still to be made. Strangford himself had another decadrachm which disappeared from the record in the course of the nineteenth century, presumably because it was highly dubious (F13). We learn from Count Prokesch-Osten's notes that the Athens market of the 1840s offered several decadrachms that he regarded as forgeries. 2 Prior to that, Brøndsted had seen decadrachm forgeries on the London market, probably the first specimens from Becker's production. 3 In any case, forgeries started to appear quickly. The story about a "Megara 1817 Hoard" may well be a deception.

But if Brøndsteds story is true, where have the "autres semblables" gone? The Berlin coin (1a) was seen by Count Prokesch-Osten in 1833 when the then owner settled at Nauplia. Soon thereafter, the London coin (7a) was bought somewhere in Greece (at that period, "Greece" meant the territories south of Thessaly) by the British consul at Patras. Another specimen that was said to have been found near Megara is the Lisbon coin from the Gulbenkian and Jameson collections (31a). This coin was published for the first time only in 1924. According to Sir George Hill, the Megarian provenance was a mistake, and the coin is said to have been found near Daphni instead, that is to say, halfway between Athens and Eleusis. 4 Intriguingly, Attic provenances recur. The Garrett coin, once in the Delbeke collection (10a), is said to have been found at Laurion before 1890. The Hunt coin from the Gillet, Seltman, and Kambanis collections (5a) is said to have been found near Spata, a town in Central Attica, in 1920. Lastly, there is the Rhousopoulos coin (11a) which does not have a findspot story, but is first heard of in an Athenian collection. 5

The list of Attic findspots of single specimens is overshadowed by the much longer list of specimens from Near Eastern hoards. The first one discovered was the Malayer Hoard (Iran, c. 1934) that contained the coin now owned by the German Bundesbank, Frankfurt (8b). 6 The next was the Tell el-Maskhouta Hoard (Egypt, 1947–48) 7 though the Berry coin (9a) was published as being derived from it only in 1971. 8 Rumors about a decadrachm in the Balkh Hoard (Bactriana, northern Afghanistan, 1966) cannot be corroborated, for the coin in question now turns out to be a forgery (F31). 9 The third certain instance was a Hacksilber hoard from Jordan (1967) that contained a halved specimen (17a). 10 The fourth is the massive Elmali Hoard (Lycia, Turkey, 1984) producing no less than thirteen specimens (3a, 4a, 8a, 12a, 14a, 16a, 18a, 19a, 19b, 20a, 20b, 22a, and 32a). 11 Lastly, there are rumors afloat that some of the decadrachms that appeared on the market during the late 1990s derived from a hoard found in Syria c. 1994. 12 Unfortunately the rumors cannot be substantiated in any concrete way.

Turning back to the specimens found in Attica or in nearby Megaris, the problem is now obvious. On the one hand we have stories about findspots scattered all over the Attic countryside, and the relevant specimens appeared within a time-span of some hundred years. On the other hand the lion's share of specimens available today was found in Near Eastern hoards. Of course, we cannot say how much of the whole decadrachm issue was exported. A part at least may have remained in the treasure chests of Athenian citizens to be concealed in savings hoards and discovered during the nineteenth century. Yet it is strange that we do not learn of recent decadrachm discoveries in the countryside of Attica, although both archaeological and building activities have been intensified during the second half of the twentieth century. Perhaps, then, there is some truth in the story told by Brøndsted about a decadrachm hoard found near Megara c. 1817.

Although there is now, as we shall see, a general consensus concerning the absolute chronology of the Athenian decadrachm series which can be subject to minor modifications at most, it is instructive to review the former proposals for the date of the Athenian decadrachms. It is not now fashionable to regard decadrachms as "medallions", but the temptation to date them by historical considerations rather than by numismatic evidence is still fairly strong. On the one hand it is clear that an issue of large denominations must have met a financial need. On the other hand the Greek state was at war often and in the case of Athens it is not hard to find one or another appropriate historical background as soon as we have arrived at a dating to a certain decade.

Before we turn to earlier theories it should be said that the issues of didrachms and drachms 13 that accompanied the decadrachms do not suggest any specific circumstance of production, but rather are to be explained as a reaction within the denominational structure of the coinage to the production of the decadrachms. It would have been strange if the decadrachms had not been accompanied by didrachms that enabled the people to convert the large denomination into smaller ones. Without the supply of medium denominations the citizen would have needed two decadrachms in order to get tetradrachms. Small change—hemidrachms, obols and even smaller denominations—might not have been accepted by an owner of decadrachms because small denominations tend to be underweight due to the increased relative costs of production. 14

When the first specimen of the Athenian decadrachms was found in 1817—the Lord Strangford coin that was to end up in the Paris Cabinet (29a) — it stirred up a debate about the authenticity of such coins. Mionnet's mistaken description of the coin as an octodrachm, and the immediate production of counterfeits along with the appearance of other (genuine) specimens occupied collectors and scholars for several decades. The first to raise the chronological question was Ernest Beulé in 1858. 15 His discussion of the matter is still worth reading, since he described almost all the points and considerations that have been taken into account in subsequent scholarship: Herodotus' account of a debate in the Athenian council about how to realize the revenues from the mines at Laurion where Themistocles succeeded in passing a bill to build up a fleet; 16 the problem of whether revenues had been paid to the Athenian citizens at all before; and the question of whether the term δεκάδραχμον occurs in ancient writings. Although Beulé was aware that dating the decadrachms to the time of Themistocles fitted several facts, he was not seduced by the superficially attractive historical circumstances. In a time when a reliable chronology of classical Greek coins was very much in the future, Beulé had more confidence in his eye than in ancient writings:

The age of Pericles is the latest period to which the decadrachms have ever been dated. Beulé is not likely to have taken the early years of Pericles' career into consideration; rather he probably had in mind Pericles' prime, that is to say, the years when the Parthenon was built (447–432 bc).

Beulé's approach had no successors. His arguments were overshadowed by the comparison of the Athenian decadrachms with those produced by mints in Sicily. Since in the latter case these large denominations were thought to carry a commemorative function, memorable occasions were looked for in the case of the Athenian coins too. 18 Ernest Babelon argued in favor of the battle of Marathon (490 bc), interpreting the olive leaves at Athena's visor as an allusion to a major victory. 19 Barclay Head agreed with him on the general context of the decadrachm issue: he might have had in mind the medals of his own age when declaring that coins of so large a size could also have been issued for the personal gratification of tyrants or kings "and not for common currency". 20 However, he would date the decadrachms to the age of Hippias (527–510 bc), thus arriving at the earliest date ever proposed. Percy Gardner maintained Babelon's date of 490 even though he had recognized the contemporaneity of the Athenian and Syracusan decadrachms and identified the latter with the Damareteia mentioned by ancient sources and therefore dated to the aftermath of the battle of Himera (480 bc). Gardner confirmed the general view that "Decadrachms seem in Greece only to have been issued on the occasion of some great national triumph". 21

Only Charles Seltman abandoned this view. His study of Athenian coinage laid the foundations for the scholarship in the field, although his chronology was strongly modified by his successors. Seltman was right in ascertaining that the Athenian coins issued around the years of Marathon were more primitive in appearance than the decadrachms. However, instead of taking seriously Gardner's idea which would have led to a date soon after the battle of Salamis (480 bc) he denied, to a limited extent at least, the commemorative character of the decadrachms: "There is reason to believe that the Athenians had no time immediately after Salamis to plan commemorative medallic issues." 22 Seltman had another kind of occasion in mind. Without quoting him, Seltman came back to the episode Beulé had noted (though rejected) of the alleged dividend of the revenues from the mines of Laurion. In the meantime, Herodotus' account of the controversy in the Athenian council and Themistocles' fleet bill had been supplemented by Aristotle's Atheneion Politeia discovered among the British Museum papyri in 1890. 23 Though the chapter in question was inconsistent and might derive from Herodotus anyway, the story appeared to be sufficiently corroborated to confirm a numismatic hypothesis. From Seltman's point of view, the amount of the dividend paid to the Athenians was crucial: ten drachms each. Seltman claimed that the Athenians had started distributing the dividend among the citizens some years before Themistocles persuaded the council to use the revenues for financing a ship building program. Seltman's argument was simple and circular: the existence of the decadrachms proved the dividend to have been distributed. The accompanying didrachm issue would show that the amount was sometimes paid in smaller denominations. His calculation of the total number of decadrachms issued was equally fantastic: estimating that "for some three or four years before that date [when Themistocles passed his bill] each fortunate citizen of Athens had, instead of paying income-tax, received the bonus of ten drachmae once a year" he multiplied the three year term by the number of Athenian citizens (30,000), thus suggesting the figure of c. 900,000 drachms minted in addition to the ordinary tetradrachm issues, the decadrachms accounting for the lion's share of the sum. 24 Dating the series now was easy: Themistocles fleet program was traditionally dated to 483 BC; accordingly, the decadrachms would have been issued during the years 486–484. 25

Seltman's theory did not convince his reviewers. Both Stanley Robinson and Kurt Regling expressed doubt about details of the construction. 26 Adhering to the commemorative function of the decadrachms, Robinson was inclined to see the battle of Salamis as the occasion of the issue. He could offer no definitive argument, however. It was Friedrich Mainzer who tried to cut the Gordian knot by challenging both the approaches of Babelon and Seltman. Reconsidering the historical sources, Mainzer contested Seltman's view that the Athenians ever distributed their revenues among the citizens; Themistocles, he argued, would have dismissed the first petition to do so in 483 bc. Furthermore, Mainzer argued that the olive leaves at Athena's visor were not a victory wreath (actually, not a wreath at all) but just another element of embellishment. A certain series of hemidrachms from Arcadia would show exactly the same feature without refering to any historical event, much less to a victory on the battlefield. This hemidrachm issue of Cleitor was to become an important piece of evidence, although scholars agree today that the hemidrachms copy the Athenian model without reference to any particular historical event. 27 Curiously enough, while refuting Seltman's and Babelon's conclusions Mainzer was Heading for a similar date; he thought the decadrachms might be a festival issue from soon after the battle of Marathon.

Others were less willing to abandon the search for a specific historical reference. If it was not Marathon, the next step was to consider the battle of Salamis instead. Soon after Gardner's publication, Kurt Regling had proposed to interpret the decadrachms as "Siegesmünze[n] von Salamis und Plataiai". 28 This was consonant with Seltman's overall chronology of the Athenian coinage, which had not yet been contested and easily accomodated a date in the late 480s. So rather than reopening the question of the overall chronology of the Athenian mint, scholars concentrated instead on elements of the design, particularly the reverse. Jan Hendrik Jongkees wondered whether the decadrachm owl with its opened wings was intended to depict the bird in flight; he thought of the good omen of a flying owl when the battle of Salamis was about to enter its crucial phase. 29 Hermann Sorge pondered the crescent that started to appear on tetradrachm reverses beneath the olive sprig some time before the decadrachm issue. While Barclay Head had related the moon to some Athenian religious rites, Sorge tried to prove that the moon on the coins of Athens represents exactly the phase it had entered during the battle of Salamis. 30 None of these proposals met universal acceptance. 31

Thus far, the debate about the chronology of the decadrachms was obviously lacking a firm numismatic basis. When Colin Kraay eventually wrote his pioneering study on the early Athenian coinage it inevitably had repercussions for the dating of the decadrachms. Paying attention to the hoard chronology he reconsidered, and substantially modified, the relative arrangement of Seltman's groups. 32 Although he was not able to establish the date when the Athenians switched from the so-called Wappenmünzen to the owl coinage—a problem that still remains controversial—it became quite clear that Seltman's dates were much too high. For instance, a series of early owls with extremely coarse style which Seltman had put in the middle of the sixth century was now shown to have been minted after the battle of Marathon. 33 A result to become decisive for the decadrachm issue was Kraay's dating of the first "wreathed" tetradrachm series: the hoard chronology suggests that this series cannot have started before the battle of Salamis. 34 Thus arriving at a date after 480 bc for the similarly "wreathed" decadrachms, Kraay set little store by the interpretations of moon and owl. Though considering occasions with commemorative aspects, he was inclined to turn to an economic explanation:

Economic aspects had been neglected in the debate before this point. When discussing the matter again and again with sceptics, Kraay reminded them of very simple facts of distribution and output: decadrachms would not have been appropriate to pay out a ten-drachms dole; a currency mainly of tetradrachms would have needed to have been supplemented not by decadrachms but only by a supply of drachms. 36 Yet Kraay had trouble in convincing his critics. William Wallace tried to re-establish Seltman's theory and pre-Themistoclean date, although he agreed with some of Kraay's late datings and even lowered the date of the earliest owls to the years when Kleisthenes reorganized the Athenian state (510–507 bc). 37 Herbert Cahn resisted Kraay's downdating for a long time. 38 Maria R. Alföldi maintained Seltman's date while changing the occasion of the issue. From her point of view, the decadrachms would have been used for paying for timber, that is to say, for financing Themistocles fleet. 39 In doing so, she appreciated the Near Eastern provenance of new specimens from the Jordan and Malayer Hoard (17a, 8b) but ignored the facts established by Kraay and Chester Starr.

For in 1970 Starr had published his study of early classical Athenian coinage. Like Kraay, Starr based his chronology on hoards. As yet, the Pentekontaetia did not provide reasonably dated hoards containing Athenian coins, but Starr relied upon the termini post quos given by Kraay's hoard chronology and the terminus ante given by the traditional date of the Athenian Standards Decree, 449 bc. Starr was able to arrange the Athenian coins minted within this bracket into five groups, the decadrachms making up his Group II.C. Starr did not provide a corpus—and only a few die links were observed by him—but a mere typology that nevertheless convinced many of his reviewers. 40 He confirmed Kraay's date of the earliest "wreathed" owls soon after the battle of Salamis, whereby he referred to the hemidrachm series of Cleitor that had been brought into play by Mainzer. 41 The Cleitorian hemidrachms, he argued, would not copy Athenian coins of a much earlier date. Based on the relative order of his groups and an estimate of their output, Starr arrived at the latest date of the decadrachms that had been taken into consideration by Kraay: the battle near the river Eurymedon (c. 469/465 bc). 42 Not being an adherent of the idea that decadrachms must be commemorative, Starr sought a purely economic stimulus and found it in the war booty that would have been minted soon after the battle. The decadrachms were now thought to span the mid 460s.

A few years later, Kraay's chronology of the early owls was corroborated by the Asyut Hoard ( IGCH 1644). 43 The Asyut Hoard also proved that the decadrachms could not have been minted during the decade following the battle of Salamis, whether the hoard's burial is dated to c. 475 bc or even later. From this point onward Starr's date was generally accepted. The fact that the Syracusan decadrachms which had for long been thought to be the "Damareteia" of 480 bc were now dated to the early 460s perhaps contributed to this acceptance. 44 Although the images of the Syracusan decadrachms are not archaizing, their style is roughly at the same chronological level as that of their Athenian counterparts (compare Pl. 1.A and 1.B).

Eventually the hoard found near Elmali (Lycia) in 1984 (CH VIII 48) confirmed the dating to the 460s. Comprising c. 1900 silver coins from numerous mints, this hoard contained 187 Athenian coins, among them 13 decadrachms. The tetradrachms ranged from early owls down to Starr's Group V.A, Series 1. 45 Accordingly, the decadrachms do not belong to the hoards final group, although they did not show much wear. It was agreed that the burial can be dated to c. 460, but there is no closing coin nor a definitive clue to the precise circumstances of deposit. The Athenian campaigns in the eastern Mediterranean are, of course, the broad historical background. 46

Including specimens from all major sections of the decadrachm issue, the Elmali Hoard must have been buried some years after the series came to its end. Although the exact chronology of Starr's groups is far from being settled, the admixture of 32 coins of Group V indicates that the typology developed a good deal quicker than Starr had thought. 47 In any case, the basis for Starr's terminal date for his Group V was fading away since more and more scholars were inclined to date the Athenian Standards Decree down to 425 bc. 48 The shift from Group V to the conventionalized style and the mass striking of the third quarter of the century must have had another reason. It seems more likely today that the removal of the Delian League treasury from Delos to Athens in 454 was the occasion, for it enabled the Athenians to dispose of the tribute much more easily than before. 49 All this suggests that the sequence of Starr's groups has to be pressed into a smaller time frame. Located near the middle of the sequence, the decadrachms seem to remain exactly where they were put by Starr, that is to say, soon after the battle of the Eurymedon, still in the first half of the 460s. 50

In or before 1994 a second decadrachm hoard was found somewhere in the Levant. This hoard which has come to be known as the Aleppo Hoard purportedly contained four decadrachms at least. Unfortunately, only a small and perhaps contaminated sample without any decadrachm was recorded in London. It is by no means sure which of the decadrachms that appeared on the market since 1994 may be traced back to the Aleppo Hoard. These new specimens have little in common in their wear and preservation, and so they might derive from more than one source. As far as the Aleppo Hoard can be reconstructed, it covered a wide range of Macedonian, Aegean, Phoenician, and Cyrenaic mints. Although there is no publication yet it is known that some of its contents point to a burial date after 440 bc. 51 Although it extends the die-study somewhat, the Aleppo Hoard does not help in fixing the date of the decadrachm issue. The same is true for the somewhat earlier Jordan Hoard ( IGCH 1482). 52

Having reviewed the previous scholarship we have to ask whether Starr's date will stand or not. As in other cases, the date depends largely on historical considerations. Starr cited Plutarch's remark that the sale of the Eurymedon booty had contributed to the public building program of Athens. 53 However, this does not mean that the lion's share of the war revenues was spent at once. In line with the general finance policy of Athens, a considerable amount of silver might have been stored in the treasury for some time, particularly if the much disputed peace of Kallias which brought a cessation in hostilities between Athens and Persia, is a historical fact. 54 If so, it might have caused the Athenian war expenditure to diminish temporarily. Nonetheless, there remained the expense of the maintenance a fleet with which to police the Athenian empire, including Cimon's siege of Thasos in 465–463.

Metallurgical analyses will not help any further. Some years ago Hélène Nicolet-Pierre pointed out that the Paris decadrachm appears to be made of Laurion silver. 55 The silver of some other Athenian issues is distinguished by a high gold content, which suggests an admixture of foreign silver. 56 Since the sale of the Eurymedon booty might have caused the influx of foreign silver to increase, it might be suggested that the fact that the Paris coin was struck of pure Laurion silver suggests that it was minted before Eurymedon. Yet it is equally possible that in the case of such high-value pieces as the decadrachm that the Athenian mint took special care to use only unadulterated Laurion silver.

As things stand, the style of the issue should be reconsidered. It has often been said that the so-called "Damareteion" issue of Syracusan decadrachms (Pl. 1.B) is more or less contemporary with the Athenian decadrachms. The Arethusa head does indeed resemble that of Athena on the Berlin coin (1a: die O 1; Pl. 1.A) in the proportions of face and upper head as well as the internal proportions within the face. Unfortunately, scholars still disagree whether the Syracusan decadrachm issue has to be dated shortly before or soon after the fall of the Deinomenid dynasty in 466 bc. 57 It is nevertheless clear that the Arethusa head is still more conservative than the obverse die O13 (22a–23a). The comparison between O1 and O13 reveals the stylistic spread of the series. Probably the Athenian issue lasted somewhat longer than its Syracusan counterpart. The question is, how long?

A close look at O13 suggests a final point of the series deep in the second half of the 460s. It has already been mentioned that the die is not archaizing but strictly avant-garde. There is a touch of smile left around Athena's lips, and both hair and profile eye do submit to the archaizing tendency, but as a whole this is a Severe Style composition. Therefore it should be possible to come to a better dating by stylistic comparisons.

It must be said at the outset that none of the works of art to be compared can be dated exactly. They are all dated to "c. 460" by common opinion. The backbone of the chronology is the complex of sculptures from the temple of Zeus at Olympia which was built from 472 onwards and dedicated in 457 bc. It is not hard to say whether a work of art of the Severe Style (c. 480–c. 450 bc) was created before rather than after the Olympia sculptures. However difficult in details, the overall style chronology in the decades 480–450 is far from being controversial. 58

The Athena head on O13 with its compact proportions, notably the arched forehead, the heavy chin and the fleshy cheek, evidently belongs with the sculptures made "after" the Olympia complex, that is to say, c. 460 bc. The best comparisons are the Heads of the seated woman on the relief from the island Ikaria (Pl. 3.F) and of the female flute-player on the side of the Ludovisi Throne (Pl. 4.G). 59 The Ikaria stele in particular shares the overall proportions of the Heads, the flat features of the relief and the relaxed facial expression with O13. The girls' Heads on the stele fragment from Pharsalos look more conservative, but this might be due to the provincial style of Thessaly. 60

It is easy to specify comparanda from the decade 460/50 the stylistic level of which can be distinguished from the Athena head of O13: the female head on the Melos Disc (Pl. 5.H), the girl's head on the Giustiniani Stele (Pl. 6.I), the "Mourning Athena" (Pl. 7.K) and the head of the seated woman on the banquet relief from Thasos (Pl. 8.L) all have different proportions. The lower part of the face has lost some volume, the chin is no longer heavy, the jawbone no longer protrudes. 61 Furthermore, the facial elements—eye, nose, mouth—are rendered in the right perspective, that is to say, they are shifted to the front of the head.

To sum up, the die O 13 must have been cut during the second half of the decade 470/60 and should actually be dated "c. 460". The same must be true for the die-chain 22–33, however archaizing Athena looks on O 14 and the following obverse dies. This is not to say that the decadrachm issue continued during the early 450s. If the battle at the river Eurymedon was its starting point (some date between 469 and 465), then the decadrachm issue did not conclude after one or two years, but lasted until the end of the decade.

Recently Hélène Nicolet-Pierre has pointed out that we do not yet know which one of the two decadrachm issues of Syracuse and Athens started first. 62 It is still controversial whether the Syracusan issue was the last display of tyranny or rather the celebration of liberty. At Athens, the political discrepancies were less harsh, but there was some turmoil as well. In 463/2 the Areopagus was deprived of its power; Ephialtes and his aspiring partisan Pericles introduced radical democracy to Athenian politics. A year later Cimon was ostracized and left Athens. It is hard to say whether the conclusion of the decadrachms has anything to do with the changes on the political stage. The decadrachm issue is likely, however, to have been a project of an "ancien regime".

A last question remains: the purpose of the decadrachm issue. Although we do not know the exact size of the issue we may suppose that it was much too large to have any other purpose than an economic one. The idea that large denominations were issued to celebrate victories on the battlefield stems from the modern habit of issuing large-size medals on such occasions. Medals, however, are usually either produced of cheap material or issued in quite small numbers, and medals are not legal tender. Decadrachms must be compared with the highest banknote available rather than with prestigious but non-monetary medals.

Although it is now commonly held that the issue of decadrachms served a monetary purpose, the comparison with high-value banknotes has to be qualified. While the modern state cares about a permanent supply of high-value banknotes, the ancient state issued the high denominations quite sporadically. For that reason numismatists keep looking for the special need that such an issue could have met, a consideration that appears to shift the problem from one field of history to another. In the end, it is the same field, since economic history has always been a part of the history of power. In fact, the decadrachms have often been thought to have been issued for payments of the state, that is to say, for arms expenditure. The Near Eastern findspots have fueled the idea that the decadrachms were issued for buying timber for the Athenian fleet. 63 This is an explanation worth considering, but the pedigrees of some specimens reveal that a certain amount of the decadrachm issue remained in Greece. 64 The didrachm series that accompagnied the decadrachms clearly shows that the decadrachms were expected to enter circulation. Obviously the high denominations met a need in the market: Athenian society of the 460s must have been monetized already at a fairly high level. The booty from the battles of Marathon, Salamis, Plataea, and Eurymedon was at least partly sold at Athens, thus leading to the repeated influx of sums rarely seen before. While fifth-century gold coins are often a symptom of crisis, the silver decadrachms are the symptom of a flourishing market. 65 From this point of view, the issue's drift to the East that is revealed in the Near Eastern provenances of the majority of the extant specimens might result from the lasting demand in the Levant for good silver, rather than from a sudden need of the Athenian state to import Oriental merchandise. 66

Nevertheless, we must wonder why Athens never again minted decadrachms. The output of the Athenian mint grew rather than shrank after 460. Although the conventionalized style of the Athenian tetradrachms minted during the second half of the fifth century makes a die-count difficult, it is beyond doubt that there was a real mass striking during the years of Pericles' prime, and perhaps still during the early years of the Peloponnesian War (431–404). But no decadrachms.

From the economic point of view, more decadrachm issues would have made sense. Before the Peloponnesian War the Athenian economy flourished, the properties of both citizens and metics grew, and the export of Attic silver continued. The absence of the high denomination in the period of Pericles is in fact a problem. Since a strictly economic explanation is not obvious, a sociological one may be appropriate, particularly since it is valid for later times too. The renunciation of the opportunity to supplement the vast tetradrachm coinage with decadrachms could in fact be due to a change of mentality in Athenian society. The power of Pericles and his successors was based on the assembly and on the council. While the poor, especially those located in the countryside, could not afford to attend the assembly regularly, each citizen was enabled to join the council by a daily wage of five obols that was instigated soon after the introduction of radical democracy (463/2). 67 As a result, notable families which did not adapt to the new situation soon lost their leading position in Athenian politics. Wealth, of course, did not lose its political power, but it was no longer regarded without mixed feelings. Wealthy citizens were forced to contribute to both theater performances and armament expenses. 68 Unlike their ancestors, they cared about concealing all provocative signs of a luxuriant life-style. 69 The envy of the crowd was proverbial, and in the fourth century wealthy Athenians often preferred to live their lifes abroad. 70 In short, the ideology of the radical democracy placed a taboo on all symbols of individual superiority, and so it may well be that the concomitant change of mentality prevented further issues of denominations that only a few people would be able to use. In the second half of the fifth century an average day's wage was a drachm. 71 Paying for something with decadrachms or even storing them up must have been beyond the imagination of the majority of the Athenian citizens. Politicians like Pericles and his partisans might have avoided the resumption of decadrachm issues so as not to be charged with adherence to oligarchic ideas.

Right and left are always from the point of view of the observer.

Obverse: Head of Athena facing right, wearing crested Attic helmet, ear-pendant, and necklace, the bowl decorated with three olive leaves and palmette.

Reverse: A-⊙-E. Owl standing facing, wings spread. Olive twig in the upper left field with two leaves and fruit. The whole within quadratum incusum.

1 O 1 Almond-shaped eye with caruncula lacrimalis. Tiny, flat cowlick. The bunch of hair in front of the ear is thick and softly rounded. The right olive leaf does not touch the dotted line of the crest but ends at the bowl. The palmette does not touch the left olive leaf, and the tendril spreading downwards does not touch the ear. The pendant hangs to the left of the jaw line. A line (necklace?) above the dots at the shoulder. (A die-break running from the eyebrow to the upper lid.)

R 1 The olive leaves spring from different points. Broad wings; the middle row of feathers is almost vertical, the lower row fan-shaped. Broad A with slightly slanting cross-bar, irregularly shaped ⊙ with eccentric point, ∃ with apparently uniform cross-bars. (A die-break beneath the right eye.)

a) 42.60 g, 4 h. Berlin, Prokesch-Osten (Flament, p. 51 fig.; B. Weisser in Münzen und Medaillen. Die Ausstellung des Münzkabinetts im Bode-Museum (Munich: Prestel, 2006), p. 46 fig.; A. Tzamalis, Nomismatika Khronika 17 (1998), pp. 123–126; H.D. Schultz, Antike Münzen. Bildheft (Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, 1997), p. 19 no. 22; S. Schultz, Antike Münzen. Griechische Prägung (Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, 1984), p. 24 fig. 12 (obv.); Starr, p. 33 no. 52; C. M. Kraay and M. Hirmer, Greek Coins (London: Thames & Hudson, 1966), p. 326 no. 357 pl. 118/XII; C. Seltman, Masterpieces of Greek Coinage (Oxford: Cassirer, 1949), pp. 38–41 figs. 11a-b; K. Lange, Antike Münzen (Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1947), p. 11 fig. (obv.); Jongkees, p. 109 pl.

II; K. Lange, Götter Griechenlands (Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1941), fig. 24 (obv.); Mainzer, pp. 37–54, pl. VI, 1; Svoronos, pl. 8, 15; K. Regling, Die antike Münze als Kunstwerk (Berlin: Schoetz & Parrhysius, 1924), p. 129 no. 331, pl. 14; Seltman, p. 211 no. 446, pl. 20 [A301/P381]; A. v. Sallet, Die antiken Münzen, p. 9 fig.; E. Babelon, JIAN 8 (1905), p. 47 fig. 14; Traité I 2, no. 1141, pl. 35, 8; J. Friedländer, ZfN 4 (1877), p. 2, 5; Beulé, p. 48 fig.; A. Prokesch von Osten, Inedita meiner Sammlung autonomer altgriechischer Münzen (Vienna: Hofund Staatsdruckerei, 1854), p. 29, pl. 2, 76; W. S. W. Vaux, NC (1853), p, 30; BM electrotype; BM Cast 21; Berlin Cast 6 of obv.; ANS cast. Purchased at Athens from Michel Iatrosc. 1853 but seen as early as 1833 at Nauplia. Obverse: two cracks, the first one at 4 o'clock, the second one at the neckguard. A deep cut almost splits the pendant. Reverse: minting-gap through the left eye. Deep scratch beneath the left wing.

2 O 2' Though no earlier stage is known, the die might be recut: the eye is bigger than usual and wrongly placed within the eye socket, thus overlapping the eyebrow. The nose might be redone as well, coarse as it looks. Otherwise, the details can be described as usual. The cowlick is tiny if there is one at all. The bunch of hair in front of the ear is thick and softly rounded. The right olive leaf does not touch the dotted line of the crest but ends at the bowl. The middle leaf of the palmette is longer than usual and touches the olive leaf just at the tip, whereas the tendril spreading downwards does not touch the ear. The pendant hangs to the left of the jaw line. A thin line (necklace?) above the dots at the shoulder. (Small cracks at the crest. A die-break in the curl of the tendril of the palmette. Big die-break in the field, beneath Athena's chin.) 1

R 2 Due to the condition of the only specimen extant, it cannot be said whether the olive leaves spring from the same point. Broad wings; the middle row of feathers is almost vertical, and the lower row as well. Narrow A with a slightly slanting cross-bar, irregularly shaped ⊙, ∃ with a short upper cross-bar. (Big die-break at the hanging olive leaf).

a) 41.61 g, 12 h. Brussels, de Hirsch 1272 (Starr, p. 33 no. 53; P. Naster, La collection Lucien de Hirsch (Brussels: Bibliothèque royale, 1959), p. 211 no. 1272, bought "probablement chez Rollin-Feuardent, 23 août 1882, 1.200 F[rancs]"; Svoronos, pl. 8,8; Seltman, p. 211 no. 445, pl. 20 [A300/P380]; Berlin Cast 7).

3 O 3 Almond-shaped eye without a separated caruncula lacrimalis but with a pointed inner tip. Flat cowlick. The bunch of hair in front of the ear is broadly rounded, has a triangular pattern at the center, and is tied up by a narrow fillet. The right olive leaf does not touch the dotted line of the crest but ends at the bowl. The middle leaf of the palmette is longer than usual and touches the olive leaf just at the middle, while the tendril spreading downwards touches the ear. The pendant hangs to the left of the jaw line. (A die-break at the left tip of the eye runs upwards to and crosses the eyebrow. All the three specimens extant have two dents which must be due to the die: one at the upper cheek, just beneath the eye, and another above the ear, between the palmette's tendril and the left olive leaf. Thus the die has two protuberances which are not traces of rust.)

R 3 The olive leaves spring from different points. Broad wings; the middle row of feathers is almost vertical, the lower row fan-shaped. Narrow A with a "modern", horizontal cross-bar, round ⊙, ∃ with a short middle cross-bar.

a) 42.91 g, 4 h. Current disposition unknown, from the Elmali Hoard CH VIII 48, MJPP 10.063. Two traces of abrasion at the stomach of the owl.

4 O 3 As above.

R 4 The olive leaves spring from different points. Broad wings; the middle row of feathers is vertical and the lower row as well. Broad A with a slightly slanting cross-bar, round ⊙, ∃ with a long middle cross-bar. The A is placed horizontally into the corner.

a) 43.05 g, 11 h. Current disposition unknown, from the Elmali Hoard CH VIII 48, MJPP 10.070 (S. Fried in Carradice, p. 5, pl. 3, 21).

5 O 3 As above.

R 5 The olive leaves spring from almost the same point. Broad wings; the middle row of feathers is diagonal, the lower row fan-shaped. Broad A with an "archaic", slightly slanting cross-bar, irregularly shaped ⊙, ∃ with a short upper cross-bar. (A die-crack above the right wing, i.e. "beneath" the cross-bar of the A. Two edge cracks running over the lower half of the right wing into the ⊙. Die-break at the upper left corner of the quadratum incusum, at the origin of the olive sprig.)

a) 42.90 g, 9 h. Sotheby's NY 19 June 1990, Nelson Bunker Hunt I, 66 (Wealth of the Ancient World, Cat. Fort Worth, Beverly Hills: Kimbell Art Museum & Summa Galleries 1983, p. 169 no. 66), ex Syd Weintraub Collection, Hollywood (B. McNall, Fun While It Lasted (New York: Hyperion, 2003), pp. 36–39) = Leu-MMAG 28 May 1974, Kunstfreund 147, ex Boston, Museum of Fine Arts (C. Seltman, NC (1946), p. 108 n. 35, pl. IX, 5 "in Boston"), ex [E. P.] Warren Collection (hors catalogue, but see C. Seltman, Greek Coins (London: Methuen, 1933), p. 94, 292 "Warren" pl. XIII, 2; Berlin Cast 2 (rev. splintered) with the notice "Kambanis 40 jetzt Warren" and the ticket "Kambanis 40 = Warren stgl") = Charles Seltman Collection, Cambridge (Starr, p. 34 no. 55 "Seltman Collection"; Seltman, p. 211 no. 447, pl. 20 [A302/P382] "Seltman, Cambridge"; ANS Cast with two notices: a) "Cast from a coin in Athens [illegible] Guide (1922). Taken by Mr. Noe, while in Athens", b) "Seltman, Athens, no. 447, in known possession"), ex Michael L. Kambanis Collection, Athens (cf. the Berlin cast above), allegedly found at Spata (Central Attica), 1922. Obverse: scratches at the tip of the left olive leaf and above the ear, corrosion all over the neck. Reverse: some minting-gaps at the stomach and over the left wing of the owl. Both sides show traces of horn silver.

The various notes about the owners deserve some explanation: a) The owner at Athens, where Noe took the ANS cast, might have been M. L. Kambanis. b) No genuine specimen has ever been recorded as being in the E. P. Warren Collection before and after the collection was published in 1906, but the Berlin notice "jetzt Warren" was written by Warren's cataloguer Regling himself, and the name is corroborated by Seltman who sold the coin. c) The notice "Boston" corroborates the notes alluding to Warren who sold the lion's share of his collection to the Museum of Fine Arts. However, he did so in 1904, i.e. 20 years before Seltman's book appeared, where the coin is still said to be in Seltman's collection. Warren died in 1928. 2 Seltman would have sold the coin to him soon after finishing his study (1924). On the other hand, it is by no means clear whether any other coin bought by Warren after 1904 ever came to Boston. Agnes Baldwin Brett's foreword to the Boston catalogue and the concordance to accession numbers which is chronologically arranged provide no explanation. 3 There are numerous gifts, even of a certain Mrs. Samuel D. Warren in 1903, but none credited to E. P. Warren.

6 O 4 Almond-shaped eye without a caruncula lacrimalis, but with a pointed inner tip. Cowlick. The bunch of hair in front of the ear is rounded, but its shape is long rather than broad; it forms a triangular pattern at the center. The hair at the temple touches the eyebrow. The right olive leaf slightly touches the dotted line of the crest. The palmette touches the left olive leaf at its tip with the upper leaflet, while the tendril spreading downwards does not touch the ear. The pendant hangs just to the left of the jaw line. Line (necklace?) above the dotted border at the shoulder. (Two point-like die-cracks: one at Athena's cheek, just to the right of the bunch of hair in front of the ear, and another just to the right of the curl of the tendril. Two more die-cracks emerge in the last combination only: a thin one beneath the nostril, and another at the chin, just beneath the lower lip.)

R 6 The olive leaves spring from almost the same point. Narrow wings; the middle row of feathers is diagonal, the lower row is almost vertical. Broad A with a slightly slanting cross-bar, irregularly shaped ⊙, ∃ with a short upper cross-bar. (A die-crack at the right edge of the hanging olive leaf. Another die-crack at the point of the ⊙.)

a) 43.03 g, die axis unknown. Private collection (Connoisseur; July 1988, p. 78 fig.; Der Münzen- und Medaillensammler. Berichte 27/159 (Jan. 1988), frontispiece and p. 348). Obverse: edge crack at 8 o'clock.

b) 42.67 g, 9 h. Private collection, allegedly from a Syrian hoard, found together with c. 10 Attic tetradrachms. Obverse: deep gash made by a chisel, at 11 o'clock; a crack in Athena's cheek. Reverse: crack (from the test-stroke), at 4 o'clock; some minor minting-gaps on the stomach of the owl.

7 O 4 As above.

R 7 The olive leaves spring from the same point. Narrow wings; the middle row of feathers is diagonal, the lower row fan-shaped and almost vertical. Broad A with a slightly slanting cross-bar, round ⊙, ∃ with a short upper cross-bar.

a) 42.70 g, 7 h. London, BMC Attica, p. 6 no. 40, ex Thomas Burgon, 1841 (C. M. Kraay, Archaic and Classical Greek Coins, p. 66 no. 188, pl. 11; Starr, p. 34 no. 62; B. V. Head, A Guide to the Principal Coins of the Greeks3 (London: British Museum, 1959), p. 22 no. 31, pl. 11, 32 [sic] Svoronos, pl. 8, 16; Seltman, p. 211 no. 449, pl. 21 [A304/P384]; Traité I 2, col. 771 f. no. 1143 [a]; head, HN2, p. 371 fig. 208; W. S. W. Vaux, NC (1853), p. 30 "[the coin] in the Museum was procured in Greece by Mr. Green, late Her Majesty's consul at Patras, and passed into Mr. Burgon's collection, from whom it was purchased by the British Museum about twelve years ago"; Berlin Cast 5 "ein weiteres Dekadr.: Thomas (Kat. no. 1500) ex Strangford, abgeb. bei Brondsted voyages2 p. 188, cf. p. 300 - dürfte aus Sotheby Kat. 14.VI.[I8]87 'a gentleman' stammen, lot 381", added by another hand "Nein" (cf. below). Obverse: deep gash made by a chisel, at 2 o'clock; a long scratch on the neck-guard. Reverse: edge crack (from the test stroke), at 2 o'clock.

The disagreement documented on the Berlin Cast 5 deserves an explanation. The Berlin curator was wrong twice: a) The Strangford specimen mentioned is the de Luynes coin. 4 b) The Sotheby Sale of a gentleman (who was, according to the BM copy, a certain "Hoffmann": the Paris dealer?) did not offer a decadrachm nor (more than) 381 items. So the curator might have had in mind rather the Sotheby's 27 June 1887 sale "A Cabinet of Select Greek Coins" [Thomas Jones Collection], where no. 381 is indeed an Athenian decadrachm. Unfortunately, that specimen is lost (NA2; see below, p. 49 f.).

8 O 4 As above.

R 8 The olive leaves spring from almost the same point. Narrow wings; the middle row of feathers is diagonal, the lower row fan-shaped. Narrow A with a slightly slanting cross-bar, irregularly shaped ⊙, ∃ with a short upper cross-bar.

a) 42.93 g, 4 h. Private collection, from the Elmali Hoard CH VIII 48, MJPP 10.069. Reverse: deep minting gap on the stomach of the owl.

b) 42.60 g, 3 h. Frankfurt, Geldmuseum der Deutschen Bundesbank 2194/68 (M. R. Alföldi, Dekadrachmon, p. 91 pl. 1, 1) = MMAG 37, 5 Dec. 1968, 191 = "André Emmerich Gallery, Art of the Ancients (1968), 27" (Starr, p. 34 no. 57 "Commerce"), from the Malayer Hoard IGCH 1790 (D. Schlumberger in R. Curiel and D. Schlumberger, Trésors monétaires d'Afghanistan (Paris: Impr. nationale, 1953), p. 53 "Godard"; BM Cast 12 "decadr.sur la Moretti [sic] (12.65), 4 h, 42.61 gm" = M. J. Price, BoC 2, 4 (1977), p. 90 fig. 8 "shown 1965"). The coin is rather worn. Reverse: a deep gash in the right edge of the flan.

The notes about the first owners are difficult to explain. Strangely enough, the coin (or a cast of it?) was shown to the BM authorities in 1965, and seems to have been regarded as fake, at least by Price in 1977. "Moretti" certainly means the late Swiss collector Athos Moretti. If so, he would have bought the coin from the director of the Antiquities Service of Iran, André Godard. 5 Interestingly enough, the coin was shown in 1965, the very year of Godard's death. However, Moretti is not known to have collected anything other than Sicilian coins during the 1960s. The matter remains a mystery.

9 O 5 Almond-shaped eye; due to the condition of the only specimen extant it cannot be said whether it does or does not have a caruncula lacrimalis. No cowlick? The bunch of hair in front of the ear is rounded, its shape is long rather than broad. The right olive leaf rises above the dotted line of the crest. Due to the condition of the specimen extant, the shape of the palmette cannot be described. The pendant seems to hang exactly on the jaw line. A thin line (necklace?) runs above the dotted border at the shoulder. (A die-break runs downwards from the forehead, crossing eyebrow and eye. Another die-break gives the nose an aquiline shape. A third big die-break enhances the earlobe.)

R 9 Due to the condition of the specimen extant it is impossible to say whether the olive leaves spring from the same point. Narrow wings; the middle row of feathers is slightly diagonal, the lower row is fanshaped. Broad A with a slightly slanting cross-bar, irregularly shaped ⊙, ∃ with a long middle cross-bar. (Two die-breaks cover the lower half of the right wing.)

a) 42.41 g, 9 h. New York, ANS 1968.34.16 = SNG Berry 641 (Starr, p. 34 no. 58), from the Tell el-Maskhouta Hoard IGCH 1649 (B. Y. Berry, A Numismatic Biography, p. 66 "the single decadrachm in the hoard" no. 355; C. Starr, NC (1982), p. 130 n. 9). Obverse: traces of corrosion. Two scratches at Athena's cheek.

10 O 6 Almond-shaped eye without caruncula lacrimalis. Cowlick. The bunch of hair in front of the ear is rounded, its shape is long rather than broad. The right olive leaf touches the dotted line of the crest. Due to the condition of the specimen extant, the palmette cannot be described exactly; it does not seem to touch the olive leaf, and the tendril spreading downwards does not seem to touch the ear. The pendant seems to hang exactly on, or just slightly to the left of, the jaw line. There is a line (necklace?) above the dots at the shoulder.

R 10 Both olive leaves spring from the same point. Narrow wings; the middle row of feathers is diagonal, whereas the lower row seems to be almost vertical. Very broad A with a short, slightly slanting crossbar, irregularly shaped ⊙ with eccentric point, ∃ with a short upper cross-bar.

a) 40.60 g, 7 h. Private collection = Leu-NFA 29 March 1985, Garrett III 52 = Leu-NFA 16 Oct. 1984, Garrett II 216, ex Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore (C. W. A. Carlson, SAN 5 (1973–74), p. 8 ), ex John Work Garrett Collection, ex J. Schulman, 1 Apr. 1927 = Sotheby's 24 Apr. 1907, Delbeke 139 (Starr, p. 34 no. 59b; Seltman, p. 211 no. 450b; A. Delbeke, RBN 48 (1892), p. 428 fig.; BM Cast 22) = Hoffmann 19 May 1890, Photiadès Pacha 532 (W. Froehner, Monnaies grecques de la collection Photiadès Pacha (Paris: H. Hoffmann, 1890), no. 532), allegedly found at Laurion. Although claimed by both Seltman and Starr, the die-link to the Rhousopoulos coin (11a) does not exist. "Our specimen... was heavily cleaned before the 1907 Sotheby's sale; I suspect it has been worked on further since then. Some metal has been removed from the lower rear of the helmet, which accounts for the disparity between the line of the helmet and the line of the crest. The weight must have been affected somewhat by this removal of metal" (Carlson, op. cit., p. 8).

11 O 7 Almond-shaped eye with caruncula lacrimalis. Cowlick. The bunch of hair in front of the ear is rounded, but its shape is long rather than broad. The right olive leaf rises above the dotted line of the crest. The palmette does not touch the olive leaf, while a tendril spreading downwards almost touches the ear. The pendant hangs to the left of the jaw line. (A die-crack runs down from the forehead to the cheek by crossing the eye. Another die-break in the center of the auricle.)

R 11 Both olive leaves spring from the same point. Narrow wings; the middle row of feathers is vertical, the lower row fan-shaped. Narrow A with a slightly slanting cross-bar, irregularly shaped ⊙ with eccentric point, ∃ with a short upper cross-bar.

a) 40.40 g, 4 h. Seen on the Paris market, Feb. 2007 = Vinchon 14 Apr. 1984, Comtesse de Béhague 123 = Hirsch 13, 15 May 1905, [Rhousopoulos] 1965 (Starr, p. 34 no. 59a; Svoronos, pl. 8, 13; Seltman, p. 221 no. 450a, pl. 21 [A305/P385]; Traité I 2, col. 771 f. no. 1143 [b]; Berlin Cast 1).

12 O 7 As above.

R 12 Both olive leaves spring from the same point. Narrow wings; the middle row of feathers in a slightly diagonal fashion, the lower row fan-shaped. Narrow A with a slightly slanting cross-bar, irregularly shaped ⊙, ∃ with uniform cross-bars. The left bar of the A keeps almost to the horizonal line.

a) 42.99 g, 1 h. Ankara, from the Elmali Hoard CH VIII48, MJPP 10.061.

13 O 7 As above.

R 13 The olive leaves spring from different points. Narrow wings; the middle row of feathers is short and slightly diagonal. A with a slanting cross-bar, round ⊙, ∃ with a short upper cross-bar. The left bar of the A keeps to the horizonal line.

a) Weight and die axis unknown. Current disposition unknown, stolen from Nino Savoca, Munich, 31 Jan. 1996, allegedly from one of the Decadrachm Hoards (Brand, p. 120ff., 130, fig. 10).

b) 39.00 g, 7 h. New York, ANS 1949.119.1 ex Wayte Raymond (Starr, p. 34 no. 60; H.L. Adelson, The American Numismatic Society; 1858–1958 (New York: American Numismatic Society, 1958), pp. 280 f., plate facing p. 188) = J. Pierpont Morgan Collection (W. Raymond, The J. Pierpont Morgan Collection (New York: Wayte Raymond, 1953), no. 178; Seltman, p. 212 no. 451, pl. 21 [A306/P386]) = Hirsch 21, 16 Nov. 1908, Consul Weber 1645 (Svoronos, pl. 8, 17; Berlin Cast 8). Two test cuts on the reverse, at 10 o'clock.

14 O 8 Almond-shaped eye without a separated caruncula lacrimalis. Cowlick. The bunch of hair in front of the ear is broadly rounded and has a triangular pattern at the center. The hair at the temple touches the eyebrow. The right olive leaf touches the dotted line of the crest. The middle leaf of the palmette touches the olive leaf just above its middle part, while the tendril spreading downwards does not touch the ear. The pendant hangs to the left of the jaw line. (A die-break above the point where the hair touches the eyebrow.)

R 14 The olive leaves spring from different points. Stout owl with narrow wings; the middle row of feathers is diagonal, the lower row almost vertical. Narrow A with a "modern", horizontal cross-bar, irregularly shaped ⊙, ∃ with uniform cross-bars.

a) 43.05 g, 7 h. Private collection, from the Elmali Hoard CH VIII 48, MJPP 10.066. Edge-crack (obverse at 7 o'clock, reverse at 10 o'clock)

15 O 8 As above.

R 15 The olive leaves spring from different points. The owl as stout as before, but with a long neck. Extremely narrow wings; the middle row of feathers is diagonal, the lower both fan-shaped (left) and vertical (right). Broad A with a slightly slanting cross-bar, round ⊙, ∃ with a short upper cross-bar. The left bar of the A keeps almost to the horizontal line. (Tiny die-cracks in the right upper corner of the quadratum incusum.)

a) 41.264 g, 3 h. Athens, Numismatic Museum BE 746 [130/1999] (J. Touratsoglou, Archaiologikon Deltion 54 (1999 [2005]), p. 19 fig. 1, 1; id., Nomismatika Khronika 18 (1999), pp. 17–19; id., Iλíov Mέλαθρov 2000 (Athens: n.p., 2001), pp. 103–105 with fig. [reverse the wrong way round]), allegedly from one of the Decadrachm Hoards (Brand, p. 113 f.). Obverse: minting gap at the middle olive leaf, and a scratch (?) beneath Athena's eye.

16 O 8 As above.

R 16 The olive leaves spring from almost the same point. Broad wings; the middle row of feathers is slightly diagonal, the lower row fan-shaped. Broad A with a slanting cross-bar, round ⊙, ∃ with a short upper cross-bar.

a) 43–00 g, 6 h. Ankara, from the Elmali Hoard CH VIII 48, MJPP 10.062. Scratch in Athena's eye.

17 O 9 Almond-shaped eye with caruncula lacrimalis. Cowlick. The bunch of hair in front of the ear has a round shape, but a triangular pattern at the center. The right olive leaf touches the dotted line of the crest; this dotted line has some tiny breaks just left of the leaf's tip. The middle leaf of the palmette touches the left olive leaf at its top. (Several diecracks along the line of forehead and nose. A large die-break above the visor's top and to the right of the right olive leaf is to be seen on 18a only.)

R 17 The short row of feathers above legs and tail is almost horizontal. Middle row of wing feathers is diagonal. Irregularly shaped ⊙. Big ∃ with uniform cross-bars.

a) 21.11 g, 7 h. Private collection = CNG 76/2, 12 Sept. 2007, 3049, ex John A. Seeger Collection, ex P.M. Heinmiller Collection, Pasadena (Starr, p. 34 no. 56 "American collection"), from the Jordan Hoard IGCH 1482 (C.M. Kraay and P.R.S. Moorey, RN (1968), p. 185, no. 41, pl. 20). Fragmented, i.e. cut down to a half. Some traces of verdigris at the reverse. The reverse has some flatness at the left and lower edge of the flan, like 5 a.

18 O 9 As before.

R 18 Middle row of wing feathers is diagonal, the lower row goes in the opposite direction, somewhat fan-shaped. Broad A with an "archaic" slanting cross-bar, irregularly shaped ⊙, big ∃ with short lower crossbar. The left bar of the A keeps to the horizonal line.

a) 42.92 g, 1 h. Ankara, ex NFA (rev. on flyer reprinted in Der Münzen- und Medaillensammler. Berichte 27/159 (Jan. 1988), frontispiece and p. 348), from the Elmali Hoard CH VIII 48, MJPP 10.067. The dotted line of the crest appears to be broken above the palmette, but a shadow of its original position is still to be seen. The phenomenon might be explained by a doublestrike rather than by a recutting of the die.

19 O 10 Almond-shaped eye with caruncula lacrimalis. Cowlick. The bunch of hair in front of the ear has a broad oval shape. The right olive leaf rises above the dotted line of the crest. The palmette touches the left olive leaf below its middle. A tendril of the palmette spreading towards the ear ends in a dot. The pendant hangs exactly on the jaw line. (A pointshaped die-crack like a beauty-spot below the lower lip.)

R 19 Large olive sprig, whose leaves spring from different points. Narrow wings, the middle row of feathers is diagonal. Narrow A with a slightly slanting cross-bar, round ⊙, big ∃ with uniform bars.

a) 43.06 g, 4 h. Ankara, from the Elmali Hoard CH VIII 48, MJPP 10.072 (S. Fried in Carradice, p. 5, pl. 3, 22)

b) 42.99 g, 11 h. Ankara, from the Elmali Hoard CH VIII 48, MJPP 10.068

c) Weight and die axis unknown. Private collection. A crack in the flan that is visible at 5 o'clock on the obverse. Small dent at the left edge of the reverse.

20 O 11 Almond-shaped eye without caruncula lacrimalis. Cowlick. The bunch of hair in front of the ear is broadly rounded. The right olive leaf touches the dotted line of the crest. The palmette approaches the left olive leaf but does not touch it; also the tendril spreading downwards does not touch the ear. The pendant hangs left from the jaw line. A line (necklace?) runs above the dotted border at the shoulder. (A die-break at the eyebrow, another jagged crack beneath the cowlick.)

R 20 The olive leaves spring from different points. Narrow wings; the middle row of feathers is diagonal, the lower row fan-shaped. Broad A with a slightly slanting cross-bar, round ⊙ with an eccentric point, ∃ with a short upper cross-bar. The left bar of A keeps to the horizontal line.

a) 43.05 g, 1 h. Ankara, from the Elmali Hoard CH VIII 48, MJPP 10.064. Obverse: traces of horn silver. Reverse: minting-gaps in the hanging olive leaf, the right eye, and on the stomach of the owl.

b) 42.91 g, 1 h. Ankara, from the Elmali Hoard CH VIII 48, M/PP 10.065. Reverse: minting-gaps on the stomach of the owl; furthermore, some traces of corrosion.

21 O 12 Almond-shaped eye with a caruncula lacrimalis. Tiny flat cowlick. The bunch of hair in front of the ear is broad and softly rounded and has a triangular pattern at the center. The right olive leaf just touches the dotted line of the crest. The palmette touches the left olive leaf at the middle with its lower leaflet; the tendril spreading downwards does not touch the ear. The peg of the pendant is not visible; the pendant hangs exactly on the jaw line. A line (necklace?) runs above the dotted border at the shoulder.

R 21 Due to the condition of the one specimen extant, it is not yet clear whether the olive leaves spring from the same point. Broad wings; the middle row of feathers is almost vertical, the lower row as well but leaning slightly inwards. Both the mantles of the wings and the tail have extraordinarily many dots. Broad A with a horizontal cross-bar, irregularly shaped ⊙, big ∃ with uniform cross-bars.

a) 43.61 g, 2 h. Private collection. Several air bubbles ("lunkers") at the edge of the flan. Obverse: tiny lunkers (rather than minting-gaps) at the bunch of hair. Reverse: scratch in the field left from the A.

22 O 13 Almond-shaped eye without caruncula lacrimalis. Flat cowlick. The bunch of hair in front of the ear is broadly rounded. The hair at the temple touches the eyebrow. The right olive leaf almost touches the dotted line of the crest. The palmette has one leaflet only; it is far from approaching the left olive leaf, while the tendril spreading downwards almost touches the ear. The peg of the pendant is visible at the right side of the earlobe; the pendant hangs to the left of the jaw line. A line (necklace?) above the dotted border at the shoulder. (Die-crack at the left end of the eyebrow, running into the hair. Two die-cracks at the lower lid.)

R 22 Due to the condition of the one specimen extant, it is not yet clear whether the olive leaves spring from the same point. Broad, compact wings; the middle row of feathers is almost vertical, the lower row as well. The tail looks "combed" and fills the whole space between the legs. Narrow A with a slightly slanting cross-bar, irregularly shaped ⊙, ∃ with a short middle cross-bar.

a) 42.98 g, 9 h. Ankara, from the Elmali Hoard CH VIII 48, MJPP 10.071. Obverse: scratch in the field below chin; some traces of horn silver. Reverse: traces of horn silver, at the upper edge in particular.

23 O 13 As above.

R 23 The olive leaves spring from almost the same point. Broad but slim wings; the middle row of feathers has an arched outline; the feathers of both the middle and the lower rows are vertical. The bushy tail fills the space between the legs. Broad A with a slightly slanting cross-bar, "triangular" ⊙, crooked ∃ with uniform cross-bars. The A is placed horizontally into the corner. (Die-cracks around the ⊙; a flaw in the field in front of the right foot; small cracks left from the A.)

a) 42.52 g, 1 h. Baldwin's 50, 24 Apr. 2007, 21 (E. Papaefthymiou, The Celator 21.4 (2007), pp. 33–39). Reverse: doublestrike (to be seen at the feet of the owl). The big "gash" at the chest of the owl, the two small strikes beneath, and the "cuts" through both the eyes are not test-strokes but minting-gaps, perhaps the remnants of an overstrike. The edges of the big "gash" might have been cleaned up by a tool.

24 O 14 Almond-shaped eye without a caruncula lacrimalis but with a pointed inner tip. Tiny cowlick. The bunch of hair in front of the ear is softly rounded. The right olive leaf touches the dotted line of the crest. Gap between visor and the hair. The palmette touches the left olive leaf with its lower leaflet; the tendril spreading downwards does not touch the ear. The peg of the pendant is not visible; the pendant hangs a little bit to the left of the jaw line. No line above the dotted border at the shoulder. (A flame-shaped die-break runs above the visor, right from the right olive leaf; another flaw at the left end of the eyebrow.)

R 23' Recut: the field of the die has been reduced at the upper part (cf. the small cracks left from the A, which are nearer to the edge than before). The hanging leaf of the olive-sprig is slightly lengthened, its tip is now moving outwards. The background around the letters is reworked, thus reducing the flaws around the ⊙. The dots on body, wings, and tail of the owl are reworked, enhanced, and reduced in number. The head of the owl is redone as well. (The die-cracks around the ⊙ are flatter, but longer. A new crack at the right edge of the quadratum incusum runs to the right wing. The flaw at the right foot is bigger now.)

a) 43.38 g, 2 h. Private collection = Triton 10, 9 Jan. 2007, 230, "from a North American Collection of Numismatic Masterpieces". Minting gaps at the stomach of the owl.

25 O 14 As before.

R 24 The olive leaves spring from the same point. Broad, "angular" wings; the middle row of feathers is diagonal, as is the lower row but moving in the opposite direction. Tail smaller than before. Broad A with a slightly slanting cross-bar, round ⊙, big ∃ with a short upper crossbar. (Wave-like protrusions on the lower row of feathers of the right wing; a bow-shaped die-break between the left wing of the owl and the olive-sprig.)

a) 42.69 g, 8 h. Private collection (A. Meadows and R.W. Kan, History ReStored. Ancient Greek Coins from the Zhuyuetang Collection (Hong Kong: Zhuyuetang, 2004), p. 90 no. 31) = CNG Review 26 (Summer 2001), 52, allegedly from one of the Decadrachm Hoards (Brand, p. 112, fig. 8). Flan edge with several gaps.

26 O 15 Almond-shaped eye without a caruncula lacrimalis. Tiny cowlick. The bunch of hair in front of the ear is rounded, but long rather than broad. The right olive leaf touches the dotted line of the crest. The palmette touches the left olive leaf with its lower leaflet, the tendril spreading downwards does not touch the ear; the ringlet looks weak. The peg of the pendant is not visible; the pendant hangs exactly on the jaw-line. A line runs above the dotted border at the shoulder. (A die-break beneath the throat can be seen on 26b only.)

R 24 As before.

a) 40.59 g, 1 h. Leu 77, 11 May 2000, 206. Traces of corrosion all over the coin.

b) 42.30 g, 11 h. Gemini 3, 9 Jan. 2007, 133. Scratches on the bunch of hair in front of the ear. A dent at the jaw-bone, just beneath the bunch. Another dent at the chin. This specimen poses some questions. After having performed autopsy two times, I believe that it is genuine and derives from the same dies as the preceding specimen. However, this coin has been treated very badly.

The comparison reveals that all of the dots on the body of the owl are due to a recent recutting of the coin. There exist pictures of the coin with a dark brown patina, the coin must have been repatinated at some stage. Thereafter, it was cleaned a second time before being offered for sale at auction. Traces of recutting can be observed elsewhere as well: on the obverse the right olive leaf is like a sculpture projecting in front of a background, i.e., some material "behind" the leaf has been removed. A feature to be seen on the reverse is even more bewildering. The die-break running from the tip of the hanging olive leaf into the left wing of the owl is not an ordinary crack: it forms something like a step instead of an edge. If this is due to the die (which might have been damaged by a blow from a hammer, thus producing a step in the background of the image), the specimen must be the latest minted among those extant having this reverse die; if so, the wave-like die-breaks at the right wing of the owl must have been removed completely from the coin.

27 O 16 Almond-shaped eye without a caruncula lacrimalis. Flat cowlick. The bunch of hair in front of the ear has an almost rectangular shape. The right olive leaf touches the dotted line of the crest. The palmette approaches the left olive leaf with its long middle leaflet, the tendril spreading downwards does not touch the auricle. The ear pendant hangs a little bit to the right of the jaw line. Probably there is no line above the dotted border at the shoulder. (A die-crack running from the tip of the left olive leaf into the middle leaf. Another crack at the edge of the neck-guard. A large die-break at chin and throat. Another large die-break at the crest, above the palmette.)

R 25 Due to the condition of the one specimen extant, it is not yet clear whether the olive leaves spring from the same point. Broad wings; the middle row of feathers is vertical, the lower row as well. Tail smaller than before. Broad A with a horizontal cross-bar, small round ⊙, ∃ with uniform cross-bars. (Some flaws at the right side of the ⊙.)

a) 36.93 g, 4 h. Seen in commerce, c. 1995. Small minting gap at the right chest of the owl. Traces of horn silver all over the coin, and upon that many spots of cuprous oxide.

28 O 16 As before.

R 26 The olive leaves spring from almost the same point. Broad wings; the middle row of feathers is slightly diagonal, the lower row as well but moving in the opposite direction. Narrow A with a slightly slanting cross-bar, round ⊙ with an eccentric point, ∃ with "hanging" crossbars.

a) 42.01 g, 1 h. NAC 39, 16 May 2007, 41, ex Barry Feirstein Collection = Berk 109, 20 July 1999, 191. Obverse: small fissure at the eyebrow. Flan crack at 2 o'clock. Reverse: small minting gaps in the owl's right eye and chest.

Figure 3. Brøndsteds drawing.

a) 43.04 g, 3 h. Paris, de Luynes 2037 (H. Nicolet-Pierre in Studies Price, pp. 293–299, pl. 63, 1–2; Starr, p. 34 no. 615 C.M. Kraay and M. Hirmer, Greek Coins, p. 326 no. 358, pl. 118; J. in P.R. Roland-Marcel (ed.), Bibliothèque Nationale. Cabinet des Médailles et Antiques. Les Monnaies. Guide du Visiteur (Paris: Leroux, 1929), p. 29 f. no. 679, pl. VII; Svoronos, pl. 8, 14; J. Babelon, Catalogue de la Collection de Luynesy II (Paris: Florange & Ciani, 1925), p. 94 no. 2037 "Traité 1141" [wrong]; Seltman, p. 212 no. 452, pl. 21 [A307/P387]; N. Mushmov, AHTMHHTb MOHeT (Sofia: Gavazov, 1912), p. 478 no. 7429, pl. LXII, 16; Traité I 2, col. 771 f. no. 1142, pl. 35, 11; ANS cast) = Sotheby 29 July 1844, Thomas W. Thomas 1500 a = Sotheby 4 Aug. 1831, The property of a nobleman principally collected during his residence at Constantinople [Lord Strangford], 177 ("octo-drachm, 664 grs, see Mionett's Supplement III, p. 537, no. 7", bought by a certain Mr. Young), ex Lord Strangford Collection 6 (T.E. Mionnet, Description de médailles antiques grecques et romaines. Supplément III (Paris: Testu, 1824), p. 537 no. 7 "Octodrachme. Du portefeuille de M. le chevalier de Brondsted, agent de la cour du roi de Danemarck près le saint Siége"; 7 D. Sestini, Descrizione di molte medaglie antiche greche esistenti in più musei (Florence: Piatti, 1828), p. 76 pl. X, 13; P.O. Brøndsted, Voyages dans la Grèce, p. 188 fig. xliv (Fig. 3 above), pp. 300f. "Trois médailles d'Athènes;... la seconde, grande mé- daille d'argent, est de la collection de Lord Strangford ..., trouvée vers I'an 1817 auprès Mégare avec quelques autres semblables, est probablement une octodrachme; elle était inédite, autant que je Sache, avant que M. Mionnet, à qui j'ai communiqué le présent dessin très-fidèle, le publiât.... J'ai vu en- suite, dans les collections de Londres, 3 ou 4 octodrachmes contrefaites et évidemment fausses; mais quant à la médaille en question, que j'ai dans la suite souvent examinée chez Lord Strangford, je n'ai pu y découvrir le moindre indice de falsification"). Allegedly found at Megara 1817 "avec quelques autres semblables".

30 O 17 Almond-shaped eye without a caruncula lacrimalis but with a pointed inner tip. No cowlick. The bunch of hair in front of the ear is softly rounded. The tip of the right olive leaf does not rise above the bowl of the helmet. The palmette swings to a higher point than usual, thus approaching the left olive leaf with its lower leaflet only, while the tendril spreading downwards almost touches the auricle. The ear pendant hangs clearly to the left of the jaw line. A line (necklace?) runs above the dotted border at the shoulder. (A small die-crack at the left end of the eyebrow. Another, bow-shaped die-crack between earlobe and the stem of the palmette.)

R 27 The olive leaves spring from different points. Stout owl with broad wings; the middle row of feathers is almost vertical, the lower row moves slightly inwards. Narrow A with a horizontal cross-bar, irregularly shaped ⊙, ∃ with uniform cross-bars, a) 42.13 g, 3 h. Athens, Alpha Bank 10407 (D. I. Tsangari, Hellenic Coinage. The Alpha Bank Collection (Athens: Alpha Bank, 2007), pp. 182–183; ead., Nomismatika Khronika 24 (2005), pp. 12–13) = NAC 29, 11 May 2005, 183 = Goldberg 7 June 2000, 3125, ex Dr. Jon Kardatzke Collection. Reverse: minting gaps at the right eye and the right side of the chest.

31 O 17 As above.

R 27' Recut: the hanging olive leaf is broader.

a) 42.57 g, 3 h. Lisbon, Museu Gulbenkian 515 (J. Theodorou, "Athenian Silver Coins: 6th–3rd centuries bc; the current interpretation", in A. P. Tzamalis and M. ] (eds), Mvήtµ Martin Jessop Price (Athens: Hellenic Numismatic Society, 1996), p. 73 no. 32; G. K. Jenkins and M. Castro Hipélito, A Catalogue of the Calouste Gulbenkian Collection of Greek Coins, Part II, p. 42 no. 515; Starr, p. 33 no. 54) = Robert Jameson Collection, Paris (Seltman, p. 211 no. 448, pl. 21 [A303/P383]; [R. Jameson], Collection R. Jameson, III (Paris: Feuardent, 1924), p. 72 no. 2080). Allegedly found at Megara or, according to G. F. Hill, near Daphni. Reverse: minting gaps beneath the bill. To judge from to the Gulbenkian catalogue picture, the "cracks" to the left of the left wing of the owl to be seen on the BM cast are not on the coin (BM Cast 23).

32 O 17 As above.

R 28 The olive leaves spring from different points. Broad wings; the middle row of feathers is almost vertical, the lower row fan-shaped. Broad A with a clearly slanting cross-bar, small and round ⊙, ∃ with short upper cross-bar. The A is placed horizontally into the corner.

a) 43.01 g, 3 h. Tkalec-Rauch 16 Nov. 1987, 88, from the Elmali Hoard CH VIII 48, MJPP 10.060. One major and two minor edge-cracks. Reverse: the scratch at the stomach of the owl could be a minting gap.

33 O 17 As above.

R 24 As above.

a) 42.41 g, 8 h. Private collection. Reverse: edge crack at 4–5 o'clock, running into the right wing.

NA1) 42.00 g, die axis unknown. F. Lenormant, Description de médailles et antiquités composant le cabinet de M. le baron Behr 8 (Paris: Hoffman, 1857), no. 201, no illustration. "Nous ne connaissons que cinq exemplaires authentiques du décadrachme d'Athènes: un dans la collection de M. le duc de Luynes, un autre au Musée Britannique, un troisième encore à Athènes [Jameson? Rhousopoulos?], un chez M. de Prokesch-Osten, et enfin celui de M. le baron Behr. Dans le lot des pièces fausses à la fin de la vente, on trouvera un des exemplaires faux qui se fabriquent aujourd'hui en très-grand nombre en Grèce, et on pourra juger des différences qui les distinguent des exemplaires authentiques". E. Babelon, JIAN 8 (1905), p. 46 n. 2 "Jen ai vu un certain nombre d'exemplaires faux très habilement exécutés, dans le commerce. Cf. Lenormant, Catal Behr, p. 37, no 201" seems to have suspicions, while he cites the piece along with several genuine specimens in Traité I 2, col. 771 n. 3; G.F. Hill, NC (1921), p. 170. If this is not a fake (F92), it could be the specimen that Lucien de Hirsch bought in 1882 (2a).

NA2) 43.15 g, die axis unknown. Sotheby's 27 June 1887, 381 "Decadrachm. AR 9, Head of Pallas, r., rev. 30A. Owl, facing, wings open, sprig of olive (two leaves and a berry) in f. l., within deep square wt. 666 grs. 1. The obverse is injured by a deep cut which does not affect the reverse" [I found this hitherto unknown reference in the erroneous notice attached to Berlin Cast 5 of the BM specimen. The collector of "A Cabinet of Select Greek Silver Coins" sold by Sotheby's is called "Thomas Jones" by the BM copy and "Mr. Jones" by the ANS copy of the sale catalogue. There are no plates. The description leads to the assumption that it was not a genuine specimen but an electrotype of the BM coin (7a), cf. B. V. Head, A Guide to the Principal Coins of the Greeks2 (London: British Museum, 1932), p. 22 no. 31 pl. 11, 32 (sic)]. On the muddle documented by Berlin Cast 5, see above p. 37 f.

Like their modern counterparts, ancient trial pieces are in most cases made of lead. They had no value and no monetary function either. However, in those cases where pieces are coined on both sides, it can be difficult to distinguish them from emergency coinages. As a rule of thumb, the existence of any coinage must be ascertained by a sample of remnants. On the other hand, we know several ancient coinages from but a single specimen. 9 Thus the question is sometimes a matter of discretion. 10 If the lead piece has an irregular flan which is coined on one side only, there can be no doubt about interpreting it as a trial piece that was made for checking the die before or during the minting process. This holds true for the first piece below, now in the Boston Museum. The second piece, once in private hands, has a round flan and is coined on both sides. The small size of the second piece and its blurred images lead to the assumption that we should regard it as a forger's anima rather than as a trial piece. The present whereabouts of the second piece are unknown and I have not been able to examine it or to judge whether it is ancient or not.

The Bostonian piece has another problem. In the Boston catalogue the piece was said to share its obverse die with the Brussels coin (2a), but this is not the case. Having compared the relevant casts side by side, I am sure that it has the same obverse die as the Kunstfreund specimen (5a), that is to say O 3. Unfortunately, there is a series of modern forgeries the dies of which were taken from the coin in question (see the "Ars Classica" fake below). Due to the somewhat blurred features of the Boston piece (unusual in ancient lead strikes), it is difficult to say whether the die used was the ancient one or its modern copy. As far as the condition of the die can be established, there is nothing that would lead to a firm conclusion. There is no break at Athena's eye, but it is impossible to say whether this is due to the fresh state of the original die or the redone copy. The minor cracks exhibited by O 3 in its later stage would not necessarily be visible anyway. There are minting-gaps at the bowl and the crest of the helmet, but this does not help. Even the strange "collar" around the circle of the die finds a parallel in the raised border of another test-piece. 11 Potentially, a metallurgical analysis of the Boston piece would prove its authenticity.

Provided that the Boston piece is genuine, its purported findspot is intriguing. The piece is said to have been found on the Acropolis of Athens. This may be just another story told in order to force up the value, but it could be true. If so, the piece is not likely to have been stored like the dies used for the gold issue at the end of the Peloponnesian War which are attested among the treasures kept in the Parthenon. 12 Being almost valueless in intrinsic terms and useless for coin production, the trial piece might rather have been dedicated. Trial pieces could be used not only for intermediary checks of the dies during the minting process but also as models for other dies and as master copies of the engraver's work when he was seeking his next employment. Thus the trial pieces might have been regarded as tools like hammer and tongs rather than as works of art, and in ancient times tools were certainly worth dedicating. 13 In fact, two pierced trial pieces remind one of the well-known habit of hanging offerings on temple-walls. 14

LT1) Weight unknown, no die axis. Boston, MFA 58.1187. One-sided lead trial piece, allegedly found on the Acropolis of Athens (W. Fischer-Bossert, NC 162 (2002), p. 6 no.1; id., Boreas 23–24 (2000–01), p. 196 n. 14; Starr, p. 38 n. 34; M. Comstock and C. C. Vermeule, Greek Coins, 1950 to 1963 (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1963), p. 28 no. 98 "the die is [that of] the Brussels specimen"). The mirror of the die is encompassed by a collar-shaped border.

LT2) 11.2 g, die axis unknown. Current disposition unknown, formerly R. Argyropoulos [Rena Evelpidis] Collection, Athens (C. Conophagos et al., Nomismatika Khronika 4 (1976), p. 26 no. 11). Allegedly made from decadrachm dies. The figures are almost unrecognizable.

Ancient forgeries are usually plated, that is to say, a thin foil of silver, gold, or electrum that bears the imprints of the dies conceals a core consisting of bronze, iron, or lead. Pre-Roman cast forgeries are rare, since it was difficult to imitate pure metals by using inferior alloys. 1 Since the Athenian silver coins were appreciated, and examined, for their metal purity, cast forgeries were not an option. There is a vast series of plated Athenian tetradrachms and drachms that is usually dated to the last years of the Peloponnesian War (c. 406–404); based on a joke made by Aristophanes, this series is thought to have been minted as an emergency coinage by the Athenian authorities. 2 This is, of course, an exception. Plated forgeries are usually products of irregular mints, and this might be true for the two following coins, although I have had no chance to examine them.

AF1) 36.67 g, 4 h. Athens, Alpha Bank 1195 = R. Argyropoulos [Rena Evelpidis] Collection, Athens (C. Conophagos et al., Nomismatika Khronika 4 (1976), p. 26 no. 10). Bronze, silver-plated. Surface, with many cracks and fissures, looks like crumpled paper.

AF2) Weight and die axis unknown. Lost? Once Palestine Exploration Fund, found at Tell Zakarīya (Tel 'Azekah), Northern Shefelah Plain, 1898/99 (H. Gitler and O. Tal, The Coinage of Philistia, p. 16 "lost after the excavation"; R. Barkay, INJ 8 (1984–85), p. 5 no. 5; F.J. Bliss and R.A.S. Macalister, Excavations in Palestine during the Years 1898–1900 (London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1902), p. 26 "The earliest coin was an Athenian piece of 10 drachmas, coated with silver. Obverse: Archaic helmeted head of Athena. Reverse: Owl with olive branch and Persian counter-sign. Date, 526–430 B.C."; cf. F. J. Bliss, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 31 (1899), p. 24 "three coins, one Jewish, found at the depth of about 5 feet; the other two are much corroded, one found on the surface, the second at a slight depth. The general absence of coins is significant". No coins mentioned in the other preliminary reports). This cannot be the Evelpidis piece (LT2 above), for that one does not have a countermark.

Modern forgeries of the decadrachms started to appear very early, soon after the first genuine specimen, the Strangford coin (29a), became known. Due to the fact that Athenian decadrachms are extremely rare and accordingly much sought-after to the present day, decadrachm forgeries have appeared on a regular basis. Fortunately, the majority of them are easy to recognize, although some of them were dangerous when they were new. The only one that might remain dangerous is the "Ars Classica fake" (below, pp. 68 ff). Thus far, the most sophisticated counterfeiters of ancient coins, who are located in Greece and Italy, seem not to have tried to create a forgery of the Athenian decadrachms. It should be said that the controversial Gemini coin (26b) does not correspond to the oeuvre of any known master counterfeiter.

b. The second Strangford coin, before 1828

We know from various sources that Lord Strangford's collection contained two decadrachms. The first one, which was erroneously called an octodrachm by Mionnet, came into the possession of the Duc de Luynes and eventually the Paris Cabinet (29a). The other one was said to be a modern forgery, and so it soon disappeared. It is by mere chance that we have a drawing of it, or at least a drawing of its obverse.

Figure 4. Sestini's drawing.

In 1828 Domenico Sestini published a drawing composed of two different coins, both of which were then in the Strangford collection. Though possessing embellishments typical of the epoque, the drawing obviously depicts the reverse of the piece that later entered the de Luynes Collection. The coin obverse is less easy to judge. In Sestini's own words,

il disegno di questa medaglia che pesa 10 dramme mi fu rimesso da Trieste levato da due medaglie, perchè la parte dove è la testa di Pallade non corrisponde alla parte dove è la civetta. Lord Strangfort [sic] porto due medaglioni simili, uno del peso di 10. dramme, e l'altro d'otto, onde il rovescio della nostra appartiene a quello d'btto dramme. Io non posso giudicare di questi due medaglioni, per non averli veduti, e che la fortuna dovesse, dopo tanti secoli, favorire il genio di detto personaggio: dirò peraltro, che essendo egli a Pietroburgo, furono da uomini ben conoscitori, creduti genuini. Ma noi li crediamo opera dei falsificatori di Smirne, non essendo possibile, che Atene avesse voluto fare coniare due medaglioni uno di 10. dramme, e l'altro di otto. 9

It is clear that the drawing does not depend on the drawing sent by Brøndsted to Mionnet some years earlier (see Figure 3, p. 47). Interestingly, Sestini was able to identify the coin that was called an octodrachm by Mionnet. Either Sestini had seen Brøndsted's drawing, or the correspondent from Trieste who was himself baffled by the discrepancy had told him.

In any case, the obverse depicts a specimen other than the de Luynes coin. Although we cannot check the source, it is possible that it depicts the second Strangford coin, which disappeared before photography came into use. This second coin, then already suspected to be a product of the Smyrna forgers, 10 was sold along with the (genuine) first specimen in 1831 at the Strangford Sale, 11 and perhaps once more in 1844 at the Thomas Sale, then again along with the genuine specimen. It must be noted that the latter sale catalogue offers not a coin but "an imprint" of what is described as a fake. In any case, ten years later Count Prokesch-Osten mentioned the "second" coin as once having been in the Thomas Collection:

In der Sammlung Thomas befand sich eine zweite, zu 810.6 Par. Gran Gewicht. Ich habe sie nicht gesehen, kann also über ihre Echtheit nicht urtheilen. 12

The second Strangford decadrachm disappeared in 1844 at the latest. Unfortunately, the drawing of the obverse is not specific enough to single out the coin from the specimens known today, genuine or false. The different details of Athena's helmet suggest that it is not likely to be a Becker fake, and from its general appearance, it does not belong to another known group of fakes either.

• F13) 37.51 g, die axis unknown. Sotheby 29 July 1844, Thomas W. Thomas 1500b (not a second coin but an imprint of a fake). Sotheby 4 Aug. 1831, [Lord Strangford] 178: "Another, similar to the last, weighing only 579 grs. This has the appearance of an imitation of the last curious piece, probably from the Smyrna manufactory, from whence our continental neighbours have been supplied, and who, never having seen the original, have condemned all of this type as spurious".

End Notes

9	Sestini, Descrizione di molte medaglie, p. 76.

End Notes