On the face of it, with just a cursory look, it's just another intermediate Athenian owl, part of the huge owl output by the Athenian Mint in the fourth century BC. All of the hallmarks distinguishing it from the fifth century owls are there: the more naturalistic profile of the eye, a delicate rendering of the vine on the helmet, the more squat owl on the reverse. But, if you are a dedicated owl junky, like me, you would know that this is an owl set apart from the subsequent owls produced with the demonetization of old owls in 254/3 BC, and the recycling of these coins through the method of hammering and folding the flans prior to striking, in essence a recycling program of sorts. John H. Kroll wrote an article on these Athenian coins of the first half of the fourth century, in which he basically asks, why are these coins so scarce, and what distinguishes them from the folded Pi owls of the second half of that century? First, let's look at the style and fabric of the coin. Athens, 393-254/3 BC Tetradrachm Intermediate 16.61 grams And for comparison, here is a classical owl from the fifth century, mass production period, after 449 BC: Athens, after 449 BC Tetradrachm Classical 17.18 grams Several characteristics jump out when comparing the two coins. The early intermediate owl's design and flan is much more compact. The rendering of Athena, on the early intermediate owl, is more naturalistic, with a eye that has a pupil and is quite wide (although not as wide as other examples), compared to the pupil-less classical eye that Kroll calls a frontal eye. Further, the earring on the early intermediate owl is suspended in a more natural manner compared to the classical owl, where the earring is connected to the ear with two lines, creating a less naturalistic rendering of the ear. The helmet's vine on the early intermediate owl is rendered in a very delicate fashion compared to the classical owl. This feature, along with a couple more, distinguished the early intermediate owl from the later Pi style owls. Looking as the reverse, the stylistic differences of the owls is very marked. Due to the compact nature of the flan and the die engraving, the early intermediate owl is very squat, with an oversize head, thick legs and talons, and very short wings and body. The Alpha is missing part of the left line, below the crossbar, allowing it to touch the owl's head about halfway down. The olive leaves seem quite similar between the two coins, except for the olive, which is barely present on the early intermediate owl. What are the basic differences between this owl of the first half of the fourth century and the Pi folded flan owls issued from 254/3 BC forwards? Athens, 354/3 BC Tetradrachm Pi Style, folded flan 16.66 grams First, and probably foremost, the Pi style owls were struck on flans of demonetized owls that were recycled - flattened and folded at least twice. The OP owl was struck on a new, cast flan. The Pi style owl shown above has some of the flan folding evident on the reverse, the the left of the owl. Second, the Alpha of the Pi style owl is now just below the owl's head. This is an important feature, for the placement of the Alpha, Kroll, suggest, is a quick way to distinguish the older owls from the reminted ones. Third, the rendering of the the helmet's vine undergoes changes in the size and orientation of the tendrils, in a number of ways with the Pi style owls. I don't want to enumerate all of the iterations of this design, but here is a link that discusses these variations in detail, for those not familiar with this complex subject: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=pi-style Why are these owls of the first half of the fourth century BC so scarce? Kroll does not think this is due to low mintages of these coins. To the contrary, the output is estimated to be quite high. There was an influx of Persian silver early in the century. Regarding the Persian silver, Kroll notes: "In 393 the Athenian Conon, as admiral of the Persian fleet that had defeated the Spartan navy at Cnidus, brought the fleet to Athens and with it a large subvention of Persian money to hasten the rebuilding of the Long Walls and the walls of the Piraeus and to continue naval operations against Sparta (Xen., Hell. 4·8·8-10)." However, Kroll does not exclude the possibility that the minting of silver coinage in Athens might have occurred prior to 393 BC. It also appears that mining activity at Laurium was quite active following the conclusion of the Peloponnesian War: "In any event, with the return of peace, the mineshafts, the washeries, and furnaces were still in place. The problem was the need for capital to amass and maintain the necessary amount of slave labor, a difficulty that continued to handicap the industry as late as the 350s (Poroi, 4·5). Nevertheless, the Athenians seem to have managed well enough over the first half of the century for sustained mining at a significant level." The fact that the extant owls of this period come from contemporary hoards suggests that quantities of them were exported to the the grain centers of Sicily and Egypt, prior to the recall of the old coinage for reminting in Athens. Kroll specifically looks at the occurrence of the early transitional owls in the Lentini 1957 hoard, the Manfria 1948 hoard, the Contessa 1888 hoard, the Licata 1926 hoard and the Tell El-Athrib hoard, in addition of two owls with unknown provenances, finding along with other coins a number of Athenian owls from the first half of the fourth century BC. A number of owls of an imitative nature also occurred in these hoards, leading to the speculation how extensive was their acceptance in the ancient world. Kroll suggests that these imitations might have been accepted in Athens, provided that they were of good weight and metal. So, the Athenian owls from first half of the fourth century BC held in Athens were presumably all recycled into the Pi style coinage starting in 354/3 BC, along with any remaining resident classical owls. That is why these fascinating and historically significant coins are a challenge for collectors to acquire. Here is the full article (pdf) by John H. Kroll: John H. KROLL Athenian tetradrachm coinage of the first half of the fourth century BC.pdf So, please post your comments, coins or anything else. Thanks
I have but one measly owl. Nonetheless I found the article to be most interesting. Only one thing confused me: " What are the basic differences between this owl of the first half of the fourth century and the Pi folded flan owls issued from 254/253 BC forwards? Athens, 353-354 BC Tetradrachm Pi Style, folded flan 16.66 grams" Is 353-354 meant to be 254/3?
That's a good question. The Pi style owls extended into the third century BC. This period is not well documented, and there is some confusion, at least in my mind, when it comes to attributing owls of this century. In the Pi style scheme of things the Pi style V extends to 297 BC, and the Quadridigité style, produced in Athens from 286 to 262 BC. This period included the Chremonidean War, which ended in 262 BC with the starvation and surrender of Athens. Yes 353-354 is should be 253/3. Thanks for the edit note. My hands often don't follow what my brain is trying to communicate.
It does essentially, with several changes in the design of the Pi, although the period after 262 BC is a little murky to me. The new style owls didn't start until the early part of the second century, leaving a gap, and I am sure that the Athenians were minting coins during this time. I have one owl that I think come from the mid to late second century, although, as I said, I am cannot say categorically this is the case. It was originally sold to me as an eastern imitation, but the folded flan suggests an Athenian origin. On the other hand I think it is just a possible that other mints adopted the folded flan technique of quickly making coinage for local use. Could this be a heterogeneous type Flament Group A, 260-230 BC? Possibly...
It's quite the interesting topic. Why didn't they melt the recalled owls instead of hammering them? Wouldn't that have been easier and neater?
By using existing coins that are within the correct weight range, the need to melt them and cast new flans is skipped, thereby speeding up the minting of the new owls by hammering the flans of the old coins flat, folding them and striking with the new dies. Apparently this was a very successful method. The Athens Mint continued to use this technique for decades to come.
I have been working on a hoard that contained several kinds of owls : Athenian tets of the 5th c., Egyptian Buttrey types (B, M and Buttrey-Flament X), Athenian intermediates of the first half of the 4th c. (I call them Lentini types), Athenian pi-style types nearly all of which are struck on folden flans, and 2 bizarre imitations of the pi-style. The post-353 pi-style are the most numerous but there are 25 intermediate Lentini types like your specimen. Here are some pics (I would not post the 25 !) It is true that they were the most beautiful of all Athenian owls.
The Lentini hoard had a high number of these owls, but they are much scarcer than the owls produced from 353 BC and later. I've spent many years trying to acquire this early transitional owl. They don't come for sale too often either at auction or on price lists. I cannot attribute my owl to any hoard, although it does show signs of such an origin, with its crystalized surfaces. There's also die rust on the obverse. But, stylistically, the obverse is very pleasing.
