A New Obol of Hippias of Athens

Mines, Metals and Money: Ancient World Studies in Science, Archaeology and History (Metallurgy in Numismatics Vol. 6), 2020

Archaic owl tetradrachms form an important subset of our research into Early Attic coinage. This paper analyses their physical characteristics and silver content based on measurements of 424 owl tetradrachms and 81 owl obols for comparison with fractional coinage. The paper proposes that the tetradrachms were deliberately minted at their ideal standard weight and with a consistently high purity of silver to make them acceptable as an export coinage. This stood in contrast to the preceding 'Wappenmünzen' and contemporary fractional coinage both of which were minted primarily for use in the domestic market place. Test-cutting in antiquity appears to have been carried out as a matter of routine checking primarily by overseas end-users, rather than on suspicion of individual coins.

Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 2025

Late in the sixth century BCE, the ancient Athenians overthrew the previous tyrant rulers and adopted a new democratic form of government militarily establishing themselves as a regional power. They constructed a fleet which played a crucial role in defeating the Persian invasion of 480/79 BCE and led to their creation of a naval-based empire. A key funding source for the ships was silver from the domestic mines at Lavrion situated in the southeast corner of Attica (Hdt. 7.144; Ath. Pol. 22.7). The current consensus based on earlier metal analysis is that the Athenians must have found and exploited the rich, so-called 'third contact' silver mines in 520-515 BCE, a discovery that led to the introduction of the larger tetradrachm monetary unit (Kraay, 1956) and the iconic 'owl' coin 'type' (Picard, 2001) as a branded medium for exporting silver. Here, we present new lead isotopic and elemental abundance data for 52 archaic Athenian owls (pre-479 BCE) combined with previously published legacy data for 12 other owls. The results show that only a small proportion of the coins were wholly struck from Lavrion ore or other discrete sources while most of the coins were struck from Lavrion ore mixed with ore from a single or homogeneous, geologically older source. Crucially, this was not the multitude of external sources used for the preceding Wappenmünzen series. We deduce that the discovery of the third contact only occurred shortly before 483/2 BCE, precisely as claimed in the literary sources, at which point Lavrion silver came to represent the bulk of the supply. This forces a reappraisal of the current paradigm since it seems that there was no abrupt and complete change of ore source to Lavrion, and therefore this cannot be connected with the introduction of the owl coin type. It also impacts our understanding of the very low gold content of Athenian owls compared with the earlier Wappenmünzen series, which should be attributed to the replacement of ore sources.

U. Peter & V. F. Stolba (eds.), Thrace – Local Coinage and Regional Identity, Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 77, Berlin: Edition Topoi, 2021, 231–262.

Coins bearing the legend ΜΕΛΣΑ first came to notice in the 1990s; since then this numismatic riddle offered quite a challenge for research, regarding the identity of the issuing authority. Quite recently valuable information became available for several stray finds reportedly coming from an area near Shabla (in north-eastern Bulgaria). A reappraisal of the whole matter was due, tackling first with problems of historical topography; in the vicinity of the reported concentration area, the place name Καρῶν λιμήν or Portus Caria is attested in literary sources. It has to be noted that a limen (harbour), similarly to a polichnion or a fort, would not have been in the position to issue its own coins. Even if such an option might be considered, the omission of the ethnic name on the coins is hard to explain. Then, by using a process of elimination, the attribution of the ΜΕΛΣΑ coins to a city turns out to be highly unlikely (taking into account the territory borders of Kallatis, Dionysopolis and Bizone). In a similar fashion, the possibility for an unknown dynast to have struck the coins under discussion appears to be quite scarce, as the coin types do not seem to imply a ruler’s issue. The name Melsas is apparently of Thracian origin and provides a plausible connection to the mythical founder of Mesembria Pontike. Moreover, it seems preferable to adhere to the only known Melsas (the mythical figure) than to hypothesize the arguable existence of a historical person of that name. The filleted bull’s head employed for this coin issue is a significant element, linked with animal sacrifice and probably hinting to a founder hero. A logical solution would be to assume that this may be the coinage of a sanctuary, perhaps a non-urban sanctuary which, under circumstances that called for the use of currency, produced coins of a commemorative character. The chronology of the coins is addressed particularly on the basis of stylistic analysis and the testimony of overstrikes (ΜΕΛΣΑ specimens struck over pieces of Philip II, Alexander III and Kassander). It can be argued that such pieces may fit better in a “time of troubles” and that they could have been minted sometime in the period from c. 313 BC to c. 304 BC, alongside the rebellion of certain West Pontic cities against Lysimachos and the events that followed. An alternative dating, in the first decade of the 3rd century BC, would be also possible, framed within the historical context of the hostilities between Lysimachos and Dromichaites. Some further insights are put forward in brief, such as ritual practices related to local cults in the area under spotlight, as well as the Dorian connection(s) in a wider context. A possible clue may additionally emerge in association with the horothesia inscription of Dionysopolis, where an intriguing point of reference might hint at a conspicuous monument (a heroon?) of importance in broadening perspective.

MARBURGER BEITRÄGE ZUR ANTIKEN HANDELS-, WIRTSCHAFTS- UND SOZIALGESCHICHTE, 2010

The present article explores the use of diagnostic types in the interpretation of Classical Greek coin types. Whereas it is not always possible to say definitively whether given coin types may have had economic significance, political significance, both, or something else entirely for their recipients, the study of large numbers of coins, whether on the market, in public collections, or in hoards yields useful results. Investigation reveals that there was a large degree of coherence in the sorts of types employed by dozens of the most important issuing authorities of the Classical world. Any notion that the Classical period was a Wild West free-for-all of largely interchangeable and meaningless types now seems improbable. The common perception of extreme type flux before Alexander is mistaken, probably because scholars hitherto gathered their data and impressions from museum collections, whose acquisitions naturally tend towards new varieties, the unusual, and the unique, at the expense of the run-of-the-mill that in fact made up the bulk of coins in antiquity and the majority of the material on the market today. The Hellenistic centuries did indeed see a further standardization and limitation of what poleis put on their coins, but the process had its inception with the arrival of coined money in European Greece, circa 550 BC, not in the carnage of Chaeronea. The copying of well-known diagnostic types by other issuing authorities raises the question of intentionality, and this paper will explore two possible explanations for a close imitation of Athenian coin iconography. This article is not concerned with the widespread and multifaceted phenomenon of coin forgery for economic reasons (one thinks here especially of plated fourrées, or of the good-silver copies of Athenian owls made in the ancient Near East), since this has been well discussed already, but with the extent and semiotics of image appropriation on Classical Greek coinage.