Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;robinjojo, post: 8218672, member: 110226&quot;]Sorry for the Very late response.&nbsp; The Starr groups are based on stylistic changes, a kind of tweaking of the basic design over the course of four decades or so.&nbsp; The stylistic distinctions do have historical context, at least in that the tetradrachms of, say, Starr Group II are contemporaneous with the decadrachms of the 470s as well as notable works.</p><p><br /></p><p>Here&#039;s an excerpt from his book on dating the group II owls, which should give you an idea of how these owls in general were dated.</p><p><br /></p><p><i>&quot;Once a new design or technique had been introduced into any of the Greek arts, the exploration of its possibilities proceeded commonly with an almost inexorable logic; but this refinement and stylization required a certain period of time and usually be followed through distinct stages. Group II.A which is transitional between Group I and Group II.B, exhibits such extensive changes that one cannot visualize their introduction in the next week, month, or even year after the inception of Group I.&nbsp; If Group I falls across the mid-470s, then Group II.A must be placed towards the end of the decade, thought the number of dies is too small to suggest a very lengthy period.</i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><i>This chronological position is much reinforced by the evidence of the white-figured lekythoi by the Bowdoin painter which were noticed under Group I.&nbsp; In these three vases Athena bears not only five leaves on her helmet, but also&nbsp; a spiral decoration which comes up the back of the helmet and breaks without any curl into a palmette, well above leaves.... This design can most easily be paralleled in the issues of Group II.A.&nbsp; The Spencer-Churchill vase has been placed c. 470, a date which would harmonize admirably the period suggested above for Group II.A; but, as was also observed at that point, it would be unsafe to press the evidence of one vase very far chronologically.&nbsp; At the least, however, the late 470s seem the most suitable point for Group II.A.&quot;</i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p>As for the heterogeneous old style owls, they are, of course beyond the scope of Starr&#039;s work, but the same approach to dating them towards the later period of the 4th century intermediate owls appears to be primarily based on style, especially regarding the pi or palmette on Athena&#039;s helmet.&nbsp; Folded flans are yet another criterion to put these coins in a chronological order, although not all intermediate owls possess this trait.</p><p><br /></p><p>Some heterogeneous also have design elements on the reverse that makes them very distinctive, as noted by Reid Goldsborough, in his very informative page on Athenian owls:&nbsp; <a href="http://rg.ancients.info/owls/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://rg.ancients.info/owls/" rel="nofollow">http://rg.ancients.info/owls/</a></p><p><br /></p><p>I am not entirely convinced that these very rare owls are Athenian in origin. Other mints in the east were producing imitations of classical and intermediate owls for over a hundred years, from the 5th to the late 4th and even 3&#039;rd centuries.&nbsp; Many&nbsp; were made in a manner to make them difficult to distinguish from Athenian coins, but others did evolve to more localized weights and designs which generally followed the originals, but on a much cruder level.&nbsp; Additionally some of these owls had designs and characters of local origin added to the die, sometimes on the reverse, but more commonly on the obverse.&nbsp; Is it possible that these heterogeneous owls, with their added reverse designs, be of eastern origin?&nbsp; I think it is a possibility, but going about to prove this is a challenge.</p><p><br /></p><p>Here&#039;s an intermediate owl of mine that I think is a heterogeneous type, incorporating what appear to be vines and leaves on the reverse, starting at the bottom right, curling up behind the owl, ending in the upper left, near the olive leaves.&nbsp; On the other hand the lines and &quot;leaves&quot; might be die breaks.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1442944[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>And two other heterogeneous owls without any added elements, but a very distinct styles, to say the least!</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1442954[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1442962[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>My understanding is that the recycling of older coins by the &quot;folding&quot; method was an expedient, due to production needs.&nbsp; This method eliminates the need to melt the coins and create new flans.&nbsp; I suppose that if one was very adroit in this process, new coins could be produced rather rapidly.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in