REVUE BELGE DE NUMISMATIQUE

ET DE SIGILLOGRAPHIE

BELGISCH TIJDSCHRIFT
VOOR NUMISMATIEK EN ZEGELKUNDE

PUBLIÉE PAR LA UITGEGEVEN DOOR HET

SOCIÉTÉ ROYALE KONINKLIJK BELGISCH

DE NUMISMATIQUE DE BELGIQUE GENOOTSCHAP VOOR NUMISMATIEK
SOUS LE HAUT PATRONAGE DE ONDER DE HOGE BESCHERMING VAN

S.M. LE ROI ALBERT II Z.M. KONING ALBERT II

OFFPRINT

CLVII – 2011

BRUXELLES BRUSSEL
REVUE BELGE DE NUMISMATIQUE
ET DE SIGILLOGRAPHIE
____________________

BELGISCH TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR

NUMISMATIEK EN ZEGELKUNDE
 37

Kenneth A. SHEEDY & Damian B. GORE * ♣

ASYUT 422, SELTMAN GROUP P, AND

THE IMITATION OF ATTIC COINS

Abstract – ﬈e ‘Attic’ tetradrachm, Asyut 422, was identified by Price and Waggoner
as a contemporary imitation. Seltman placed a die-linked example in his group p.
His arguments for the attribution of this group to a mint set up by an Athenian
colony at Chalcis on Euboea are challenged. Compositional analyses using x-ray
fluorescence spectrometry are presented, which indicate that Asyut 422 was not
made of silver from Laurion.

introduction

he discovery in 1969 of the asyut hoard (igch 1644) at the site

T of ancient Lykopolis in Egypt, 200 miles to the south of Cairo, re-

sulted in Price and Waggoner challenging the standard typologies
and dating of coins from many archaic Greek mints.[1] e hoard also in-
spired and facilitated an important re-examination by Gale, Gentner and
Wagner in 1980 of the mineralogical and geological silver sources of archaic
Greek coinage.[2] Some 900 coins from this find (all dispersed onto the
market) were recorded by Price and Waggoner, and of these approximately
120 badly damaged coins were made available for a combined program of
neutron activation, atomic absorption spectroscopy and lead isotope ana-
____________________
* Kenneth A. Sheedy, Australian Centre for Ancient Numismatic Studies, Mac-
quarie University, nsw 2109, Australia; e-mail: ken.sheedy@mq.edu.au.
Damian B. Gore, Department of Environment and Geography, Macquarie Uni-
versity, nsw 2109, Australia; e-mail : damian.gore@mq.edu.au.
For comments on earlier dra s we wish to warmly thank Prof. J.H. Kroll, Dr. Eleni
Papae hymiou, Assoc. Prof. C.E.V. Nixon, Dr. W. Fischer-Bossert and Mr. G. Da-
vis. We also thank PANalytical for the provision of the Epsilon 5 spectrometer,
and A. Jonkers for the use of the Escape Depth calculator.
[1] M.J. Price & N. Waggoner, Archaic Greek Silver Coinage. ﬈e “Asyut” Hoard,
London 1975 (= Asyut).
[2] N.H. Gale, W. Gentner & G.A. Wagner, Mineralogical and Geological Silver
Sources of Archaic Greek Coinage, in D.M. Metcalf & W.A. Oddy (eds.), Metal-
lurgy in Numismatics 1, London 1980, p. 3-49.

rbn clvii (2011), p. 37-54.

38 kenneth a. sheedy & damian b. gore

lyses at Heidelberg and Oxford.[3] e hoard contained at least 165 Attic

coins, of which 15 were subject to compositional analysis. e present
study focuses attention on the ‘Attic’ tetradrachm Asyut 422 ( fig. 1), which
was accepted by Price and Waggoner, following the suggestion of Seltman,
as a contemporary imitation. [4] Here we present the results of an analysis
of the coin’s metal using x-ray fluorescence (xrf) spectrometry. In the dis-
cussion of our findings we wish to highlight a number of problems shared
with (and in part arising from) current studies of the imitations of classical
Attic coins.

seltman group p

Fig. 1 – Asyut 422. Australian Centre for Ancient Numismatic Studies

(Macquarie University) inv. 11a1 (17.03 g)

In the list of 165 Attic coins from the Asyut hoard catalogued by Price and
Waggoner, cat. 422 ( fig. 1) appears as one of two coins described as “con-
temporary imitations of group iii c.500-480 bc” .[5] Both coins have the cha-
racteristic types of Athens. e second coin, 423, is undamaged but weighs
only 14.62 g. e suggestion that it is an imitation is perhaps largely in-
spired by the olive twig on the reverse which grows from the middle of the
le wall of the incuse. Asyut 422 weighs 17.10 g and thus adheres comforta-
bly to the Attic-Euboic standard.
e Attic Asyut coins range from the earliest series minted at Athens,
the Wappenmünzen, through several of the main groups of archaic Athena/
owl coins identified by Charles Seltman in 1924 (the Asyut coins mostly

____________________
[3] Purchases by L. Beer and the Max-Planck-Institut, Heidelberg. L. Beer, Analysis
of Coins from the Asyut Hoard. An Introduction, in D.M. Metcalf & W.A. Od-
dy (eds.), op. cit. [n. 2], p. 1-2.
[4] M.J. Price & N. Waggoner, op. cit. [n. 1], p. 61.
[5] Ibid., p. 61. e coin is in the collection of the Australian Centre for Ancient
Numismatic Studies (inv. 11a1).
the ‘attic’ tetradrachm (asyut 422) 39

come from groups m and g).[6] In their publication of the Asyut coins
Price and Waggoner, having noted that the ‘variety of style within these
[Seltman] groups is such that an attempt must be made to break them
down further into broad artistic styles’, divided archaic Attic coinage into
six groups, one for the Wappenmünzen and five owl groups covering the
years c.510-c.480 bc.[7] Only three of these new owl groups were found in
the Asyut hoard (groups ii-iv, covering the years c.510-c.482 bc). Our coin,
422, is described by Price and Waggoner as a contemporary imitation of
group iii (c.505-500/490 bc). group iii is matched with Seltman group l,
but 422, as they note, belongs in Seltman group p where it is die linked to
Seltman 479 (a325 and p410) known from a tetradrachm formerly in the
Empedocles collection (Athens) and now in the Athens Numismatic Mu-
seum ( fig. 2).[8]

Fig. 2 – Athens Numismatic Museum (17.3 g). Formerly

Empedocles Collection. Seltman group p (cat. 479)

group p is a small cluster of tetradrachms, hemidrachms and hemiobols

which Seltman described as “rough imitations of coins in our group l issued
from the Civic Mint of Athens”.[9] group l was dated between 506 and 490
bc and this is where Seltman placed group p.[10] Roughness in style is, of
course, a feature of a good part of the later output of Attic owls (notably
Seltman’s group e – where roughness can be extreme). Nonetheless, Selt-
man felt that the coins in group p were “rougher in type and fabric than the
____________________
[6] C.T. Seltman, Athens. Its History and Coinage before the Persian Invasion, Cam-
bridge 1924.
[7] M.J. Price & N. Waggoner, op. cit. [n. 1], p. 56-62. C.M. Kraay, e Archaic
Owls of Athens: Classification and Chronology, nc xvi (1956), p. 43-68, demon-
strated that the chronological sequence of Seltman’s groups was incorrect, and
suggested a new order (groups h, l, m, g, c, e).
[8] M.J. Price & N. Waggoner, op. cit. [n. 1], p. 56-57 (group iii) and p. 61; C.T.
Seltman, op. cit. [n. 6], p. 94-98, 197-200 (group l) and p. 100-101, 215-216
(group p); cat. 479, p. 215.
[9] C.T. Seltman, op. cit. [n. 6], p. 100.
[10] Ibid., p. 197, 215.
40 kenneth a. sheedy & damian b. gore

products of either the Athenian or the Laurian mint” .[11] While he believed
the mint was not in Athens or Laurion, he accepted without question that
it was operated by Athenians because the coins could not be “regarded as
mere barbarous imitations – degraded types like the coins shown on [Selt-
man] pl. xiii·10-15”.[12] Seltman argued that the Attic owls of groups e and
f were produced at an “imperial” mint set up in Paeonia by Peisistratus,
and it was then natural to think again about the Athenian presence in this
region. [13] But the Persians had by then taken control of race.[14] Hippias
had withdrawn to Sigeum in 510 bc, but Seltman believed it unlikely the
tyrant would mint imitations of group l (which in Seltman’s scheme was
associated with the emerging democracy).[15] Miltiades, the ousted rival of
Peisistratus, was established in the racian Chersonese, and Seltman pro-
posed attributing various issues with changing types (collected under the
title group q) to a Hellespont mint operated by this tyrant and the mem-
bers of his dynasty.[16] But with the exception of one issue in which the
helmeted head of Athena appeared on the reverse they had apparently
shown no wish to copy Athenian coin types.[17]
Another settlement of Athenians, however, presented itself. Hippias
had initially fled to Euboea a er his expulsion from Athens. Chalcis and
ebes joined together in an attempt to restore him to power. But in 506 bc
the Athenians defeated Chalcis (Hdt. v, 15) and imposed a cleruchy of
some 4,000 settlers (Hdt. v, 77).[18] e settlement was short-lived (it was
abandoned in the face of the Persian threat in 490 bc) but it fitted very
neatly into the period that Seltman had allotted for group l (506-490 bc –
the exact life-span of the colony). In fact, it is hard to avoid the impression
that Seltman’s placing of group p with the Chalcis cleruchy directly
influenced his dating of group l (though this is not mentioned). Seltman’s
chronology may have also suggested to Price and Waggoner that Asyut
____________________
[11] Ibid., p. 100.
[12] Ibid., p. 100.
[13] Ibid., p. 56-60.
[14] Ibid., p. 100.
[15] Ibid., p. 98, 100.
[16] Ibid., p. 137-145.
[17] Ibid., p. 220, group q iv. Now see P.G. van Alfen, Asyut (igch 1644) Additions :
Cyrenica and “Chalcis”, snr 88 (2009), p. 141-156.
[18] On the history of Athens in this period, see M. Ostwald, e reform of the Athe-
nian state by Cleisthenes, in J. Boardman et al. (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History
vol. iv, Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean, Cambridge 1988, p. 308
(the defeat of Chalcis).
the ‘attic’ tetradrachm (asyut 422) 41

group iii, which is matched with group l, should similarly be dated

c.505-500/490 bc.
Seltman found supporting evidence for this attribution of group p in a
supposed epigraphic anomaly : the epsilon of the reverse ethnic has steeply
sloping bars (). is letter form, he argued, was found on contemporary
coins from Eretria.[19] e use of this letter form on the coins of a Euboean
town, however, hardly explains why an Athenian colony would abandon
the letters of its native home. In fact, it can be shown that perfectly normal
Attic tetradrachms also had the sloping bar epsilon (which Seltman himself
recognised in his catalogue entries).[20] ese coins are to be found in Selt-
man’s group h, which we now know contains the earliest of the Athenian
owls, as well as group l ( fig. 3).[21] It seems highly unlikely that an Athe-
nian colony would set about minting imitations of the mother city’s coins
without changing the ethnic. Certainly, no parallel comes to mind.

Fig. 3 – Paris, Luynes Collection 2033 (17.1 g).

Seltman group l (cat. 333)

ere clearly were imitations of archaic coins from Athens and other
mints. Asyut 423, as noted above, was identified as another contemporary
imitation of group iii by Price and Waggoner; it is of light weight (14.62
g) for an Athenian tetradrachm, but well suited for a Phoenician weight
stater (14.4 g), and the strange position of the reverse olive sprig suggests a
misunderstanding of the type. Price and Waggoner also noted the exis-
____________________
[19] C.T. Seltman, op. cit. [n. 6], p. 100-101. B.V. Head, A Catalogue of the Greek
Coins in the British Museum. Central Greece, London c.1884, Eretria cat. 20-25,
pl. xxiii, 2-4. ese rare coins, which show a cow scratching itself, and on the
reverse, an octopus, are now placed in the last quarter of the 6t century and
should have come to end by c.500 bc. C.M. Kraay, Archaic and Classical Greek
Coins, London 1976, p. 91, cat. 268. e epsilon (which appears on the reverse) is
o en shown in retrograde (), but when facing to the right its bars are parallel (E)
or only very slightly slanted and do not resemble the steeply slanted letter () in
group p.
[20] C.T. Seltman, op. cit. [n. 6], p. 189 (group h), reverse iv.
[21] C.T. Seltman, op. cit. [n. 6]. Examples in pl. xiii (group h) and pl. xv (group l).
42 kenneth a. sheedy & damian b. gore

tence of a local imitation among the staters of Aegina found in the hoard
(Asyut 556) and comment that “apart from the certainty that it is not a
product of the Aeginetan mint, there is no clue to its mint of origin” .[22] e
existence of an apparently small group of “non-Athenian and Barbarous”
coins had been noted by Seltman, and these included a light weight (12.25 g;
Aeginetan standard ?) tetradrachm from another Egyptian find, the Zaga-
zig hoard of 1901.[23] e style and coarse fabric of Asyut 422 and other
coins in group p were taken by Seltman to be evidence that they were not
manufactured in Athens, but should we draw the same conclusion ? e
use of stylistic analysis to distinguish classical coins produced in Athens
from imitations, especially from the east, has met with a mixed reception,
and there are clearly some lessons to be learnt for the study of earlier issues.

oriental imitations
‘Oriental imitations’ of classical Attic coins have been known for some
time. Coins with the typical Athenian types but with Aramaic or other non-
Greek inscriptions, or with unexpected Greek letters, were listed, for ex-
ample, under the heading “Asiatic & Imitations of Athenian Coins of Uncer-
tain Attribution” in the 1888 British Museum catalogue, Attica – Megaris –
Aegina, prepared by B.V. Head.[24] But it was also recognised that there
were coins that varied only in style from the typical Athenian tetradrachms.
A modern debate concerning the identity and extent of oriental imitations
was ignited by T.V. Buttrey as the result of his 1984 conference report on
the unpublished 1934 Fayum (or “Karanis”) hoard of some 350 Attic tetra-
drachms buried at a Fayum site during the 4t century bc.[25] While But-
trey’s speculative report (which comes in advance of any proper study of
the hoard) has claimed attention, most of the lines of discussion had al-
ready been broached by G. Dattari in his insightful 1905 publication of the
____________________
[22] M.J. Price & N. Waggoner, op. cit. [n. 1], p. 73, 76, cat. 556.
[23] C.T. Seltman, op. cit. [n. 6], p. 217, pl. xxiii·14 (Berlin).
[24] B.V. Head, A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum. Attica – Mega-
ris – Aegina, London 1888.
[25] T.V. Buttrey, Pharaonic Imitations of Athenian Tetradrachms, in T. Hackens &
R. Weiller (eds.), Proceedings of the 9  International Congress of Numismatics,
Berne, September 1979, Louvain-la-Neuve & Luxembourg 1982, p. 137-140. e
hoard is being prepared for publication by C. Arnold-Biucchi. Now see C. Ar-
nold-Biucchi, La trouvaille de Fayoum 1933-1934 et le problème des chouettes
égyptiennes, in Annuaire de l’École pratique des hautes études, Section des sciences
historiques et philologiques, Résumés des conférences et travaux 139 (2006-2007),
p. 91. We thank J.H. Kroll for this reference and for his comments on the contents
of the find.
the ‘attic’ tetradrachm (asyut 422) 43

Tell el-Athrib hoard (igch 1663) containing an estimated 700 Attic tetra-
drachms.[26] Here Dattari isolated five separate styles in the engraving of
the head of Athena; the fi h style (in which it was “easy to notice the grad-
ual decline in art” ) suggested that as many as half the coins in this find
were imitations.[27] He proposed that they were not counterfeit Attic tetra-
drachms but the product of a pharaonic mint. Dattari challenged the pre-
vailing theory that Egypt had not produced coinage of its own prior to the
Macedonian conquest, suggesting that these imitations were struck by the
Egyptian pharaoh Tachos in 364 bc to help pay for the 20,000 Greek mer-
cenaries he had engaged to fight the Perisans. Furthermore, he argued that
the famous Athenian tetradrachm reverse die (which Dattari presented to
the Athens Numismatic Museum), said to have been found at the same
place and thus associated with the hoard, was not of Greek workmanship
(“the owl is very rude and lacks the elasticity found on the real Athenian
tetradrachms”) but was indeed “a genuine one, … prepared for the purpose
of striking money by order of some Egyptian Pharaoh” .[28]
In his observations on the contents of the Fayum hoard Buttrey pro-
posed that the genuine Attic tetradrachms, all of the 5t century bc, were
accompanied by three separate styles (x, b, m) of local Egyptian imitations
from the 4t century bc.[29] He speculated that a very high number of locally
manufactured dies were involved (many perhaps from one man) for the
coins of style b alone, and that this coinage was “vast”.[30] Buttrey does not
cite the Tell el-Athrib study of Dattari but goes on to make most of Dat-
tari’s key points. Buttrey similarly proposed that the imitations were pro-
duced by a pharaonic mint (Buttrey identifies this as Memphis), and again
sees them as the coins of the last of the pharaohs to confront the Persian
king, Artaxerxes iii.[31] Dattari’s conclusion that perhaps half the 700 tetra-
drachms in the Tell el-Arthib hoard were imitations, was the first warning
that we have underestimated the size of pre-Macedonian minting in Egypt,
but Buttrey makes far greater claims for the scale of these Egyptian imita-
tions, assserting that they constituted “a huge and unsuspected coinage”

____________________
[26] G. Dattari, Comments on a hoard of Athenian Tetradrachms found in Egypt,
jian 8 (1905), p. 103-114.
[27] Ibid., p. 105.
[28] Ibid., p. 110.
[29] T.V. Buttrey, op. cit. [n. 25], p. 137-140. Style b, for example, which features
large heads with a tall face, was represented by some 146 examples.
[30] Ibid., p. 138-139.
[31] Ibid., p. 139-140. e coins were actually bought from a local antiquities dealer,
and it is unclear how much weight can be placed on the purported ‘findspot’.
44 kenneth a. sheedy & damian b. gore

which was exported to all parts of the Mediterranean and which exceeded
the much more modest output of Athens itself during the 4t century.[32]
e reply to Buttrey by Flament is based on studies of engraving style,
distribution of finds, chronology and metal analyses.[33] e claim that
coins in style x, b, or m must be imitations is, as Flament argues, derived
from an exaggerated confidence that these styles cannot be Attic.[34] Exam-
ples of style m and b (the largest ‘Egyptian’ components) are known from
finds in Athens itself, notably the 1977 Piraeus hoard dated to the end of the
5t or the beginning of the 4t century bc.[35] Furthermore, specimens of
style m and b occur in a 1985 hoard from Naxos in Sicily dated to the de-
struction of the city in 402 bc.[36] Flament then argued that coins in styles
m and b might be linked to the Athenian expedition against Syracuse and
her allies. [37] e coins in style x, he suggests, might have been produced
in Athens in the 390’s bc when minting was resumed a er the war.[38]
Are judgments based on levels of engraving competence and an under-
standing of Athenian style in the study of archaic Athenian imitations also
susceptible to the same sort of challenges ? It might perhaps be argued that
our uncertain grasp of the range of engraving skills, which show a serious
decline in the later groups of Seltman (such as e), also undermines our
ability to distinguish the work of Athenian from non-Athenian die engrav-
ers. Seltman’s 1924 study hardly provides an accurate guide to the range of
archaic Athenian dies.
____________________
[32] Ibid., p. 139.
[33] Chr. Flament, À propos des styles d’imitations athéniennes définis par T.V. But-
trey, rbn cxlvii (2001), p. 39-50 ; id., Imitations athéniennes ou monnaies au-
thentiques ? Nouvelles considérations sur quelques chouettes athéniennes habi-
tuellement identifiées comme imitations, rbn cxlix (2003), p. 1-10 ; id., L’argent
des chouettes. Bilan de l’application des méthodes de laboratoire au monnayage
athénien tirant parti de nouvelles analyses réalisées au moyen de la méthode pixe,
rbn cliii (2007), p. 9-30. See also J.H. Kroll in this volume, p. 3-26. We wish to
thank Prof. Kroll for providing a copy of this conference paper.
[34] Ibid., esp. rbn cxlvii (2001).
[35] Chr. Flament 2003, op. cit. [n. 33], p. 6. M. Oeconomides, Contribution à l’étude
du monnayage athénien à l’époque classique : le trésor trouvé au Pirée en 1977,
rbn cxlv (1999), p. 17-20.
[36] Ibid., p. 1-2.
[37] Chr. Flament 2003, op. cit. [n. 33], p. 8-9.
[38] Chr. Flament, Le monnayage en argent d’Athènes. De l’époque archaïque à l’épo-
que hellénistique (c.550-c.40 av. J.-C.), Louvain-la-Neuve 2007, p. 123-124 ; id.,
Quelques considérations sur les monnaies athéniennes émises au iv e s., Quaderni
Ticinesi 36 (2007), p. 92-97.
the ‘attic’ tetradrachm (asyut 422) 45

Scientific techniques of analysis have substantially increased our under-

standing of these problematic coinages, but without necessarily providing
direct answers to the questions asked. In 2004 Flament and Marchetti pub-
lished the results of pixe analyses on Attic coins which included 18 coins
believed to be oriental imitations (twelve specimens of Buttrey style b and
six of style m), all or most from the Tell el-Maskhuta hoard.[39] ey found
that with only one exception (a coin in style m; ii·37.326 in figure 3) the
gold, copper and lead content of these “imitations” matched that of genuine
Attic tetradrachms (Laurion silver is here characterised by a low gold and
copper content and a high lead content). e one exception has a gold con-
tent of around 1% and a low concentration of lead.[40] e mint at Athens,
of course, must have used other silver besides that produced from local
mines at Laurion. On the other hand, a great deal of silver from Laurion
was in circulation around the eastern Mediterranean (and elsewhere) and
some of this must have been used for the issues of local mints. What we are
missing is evidence for the extent to which Laurion silver (or that from any
other source) was used in the minting of the coinages under examination.

the identification of greek silver sources

e use of compositional analyses to identify the sources of silver used to

mint Greek coins has a long history. Much of the research carried out has
been focused on the silver of Laurion; in a recent review of studies on its
mines and silver, Flament has pointed out that scientific investigations may
be traced back to 1750.[41] e 1980 study of the Asyut coins by Gale, Gent-
ner and Wagner, with which we began this article, built on a range of stu-
dies by other scholars (including the pioneering 1962 work of Kraay and
Emeleus using neutron activation analysis); largely on the basis of coins,
they presented lead isotope and chemical analyses that when studied col-
lectively might be used to recognise fields defining the silver mined at Lau-
rion, on Siphnos, and at a third important but unidentified source that they
believe may be in Macedonia or Lydia.[42] All 15 archaic Athenian owl coins
from the Asyut hoard subjected to lead isotope analysis were declared to be
____________________
[39] Chr. Flament & P. Marchetti, Analysis of Ancient Coins, in Nuclear Instru-
ments and Methods in Physics Research B 226 (2004), p. 179-184. e paper can be
accessed via http://www.sciencedirect.com/science.
[40] Ibid., p. 183.
[41] Chr. Flament 2007, op. cit. [n. 33], p. 9.
[42] N.H. Gale, W. Gentner & G.A. Wagner, op. cit. [n. 2]. C.M. Kraay & V.M.
Emeleus, ﬈e Composition of Greek Silver Coins : Analysis by Neutron Activation,
Oxford 1962.
46 kenneth a. sheedy & damian b. gore

of Laurion silver.[43] Of the 46 Asyut hoard coins minted at Aegina and

analysed by the same technique in this study, 17 were identified as being of
silver from Laurion and ten coins (plus a further four close to this field)
were said to be of silver from Siphnos.[44] e provenance studies of archaic
coins clearly suggested that Athenian owls were very largely minted from
Laurion silver. But the analyses taken from Aeginetan coins also indicated
that Laurion silver might have been used for many of the archaic coins of
other mints.
e debate concerning oriental imitations has arguably served to bring
the procedures and interpretation of metal analyses under greater critical
scrutiny.[45] Our ability to separate silver from the sources of Laurion and
Siphnos (which are not geographically far apart) has always been a key con-
cern. But the methods of study have not always been rigorous and the re-
sults are less convincing than might appear at first glance. In 1962 Kraay
and Emeleus speculated that silver from Siphnos was distinguished from
that of Laurion by a higher gold content.[46] eir data consisted only of
analyses taken from coins (there were no ores), and their reporting of
Siphnian silver was derived from the selection of one from three separate
patterns of composition within the sample of 51 Aeginetan coins covering
all periods (no coins from Siphnos itself were analysed). eir choice was
largely directed by comparisons with Attic coins. It is evident that their
study had serious flaws. Nonetheless, they concluded that Laurion silver
typically held Au < 0.04%, while Siphnian silver held Au > 0.2% with most
readings between 0.3% and 0.4%.[47] xrf studies of coins from Siphnos car-
ried out by Cowell and Lahanier suggest, however, that these ‘typical’ gold
levels for the identification of Siphnian silver need to be lowered.[48]
Among the twelve Siphnian samples of Cowell and Lahanier were six
coins, half the sample, with a gold reading which fell below 0.2%. Only one
(0.02%) fell below 0.04%. On the other hand, Gale, Gentner and Wagner
noted a few Attic samples from the 4t century bc which demonstrated a
relatively ‘high’ gold content, but the highest reading here was only
0.24%.[49] ey concluded that “Laurion silver with either high or low gold
____________________
[43] N.H. Gale, W. Gentner & G.A. Wagner, op. cit. [n. 2], p. 24-33.
[44] Ibid., p. 33-43.
[45] F. Liard, Les sources d’argent pour la frappe des monnaies grecques aux époques
archaïque et classique, rbn clv (2009), p. 159-176.
[46] C.M. Kraay & V.M. Emeleus, op. cit. [n. 42], p. 16 and 33.
[47] Ibid., p. 16.
[48] e results of M. Cowell and Ch. Lahanier are presented in N.H. Gale, W. Gent-
ner & G.A. Wagner, op. cit. [n. 2], p. 41, table 12.
[49] N.H. Gale, W. Gentner & G.A. Wagner, op. cit. [n. 2], p. 12.
the ‘attic’ tetradrachm (asyut 422) 47

values is the exception”. [50] But these exceptions are to be accepted as part
of a “natural variability”.[51] ey also suggested that gold may have been
introduced through the “accidental incorporation in the ore for smelting of
relatively gold-rich minerals, such as arsenopyrite or pyrite”.[52] In addition,
“if added iron took the form of relatively gold-rich iron ores from the gossan,
the gold/silver ratio could be enhanced in the extracted silver”.[53] Nonethe-
less, having pointed out the effects that smelting has on elements, they con-
clude that this leaves the Au/Ag ratio “as probably the most useful chemical
index of ore source”.[54]
e application of these techniques to the study of oriental imitations
effectively began in 1977 when Diebolt and Nicolet-Pierre presented neu-
tron activation analyses of copper and gold in the metal of Attic and orien-
tal imitation tetradrachms from the fi h and fourth centuries bc.[55] e
first part of their work matched 8 Attic tetradrachms recognised as pro-
duits normaux of the Athenian mint and 16 tetradrachms that were clearly
eastern but which employed Attic types; these coins were all dated to the
years 340-310 bc. ey found that the oriental imitations had a gold con-
tent of between 0.68% and 1.85%, while the actual Attic tetradrachms had
Au between 0.16% and 0.28%.[56] e imitations had between 3.04% and
8.10% copper while the Attic coins ranged between 0.42% and 4.60% cop-
per. ere was thus a clear distinction between the two groups of coins,
with the imitations uniformly having much higher gold levels. But the gold
levels for the normal Attic coins, when compared to other later studies, are
higher than expected (and this may be a feature resulting from the instru-
ments with which the tests were conducted). Nonetheless, the higher gold
levels of the imitations seem clear from this program.[57]
____________________
[50] Ibid., p. 32.
[51] Ibid., p. 13.
[52] Ibid., p. 20.
[53] Ibid., p. 20.
[54] Ibid., p. 23.
[55] J. Diebolt & H. Nicolet-Pierre, Recherches sur le métal de tétradrachmes à
types athéniens, snr 56 (1977), p. 79-91.
[56] Ibid., p. 85-86.
[57] In the second part, Diebolt and Nicolet-Pierre focused on 16 coins dated to the
second half of the fi h century bc that had been found in eastern hoards. Only
style suggested to Nicolet-Pierre that they were imitations. Here the gold levels
ranged from 0.16% to 1.22%. Some 11 coins fell below the 0.28% highest gold level
of the genuine 4t century Attic tetradrachms in part one. Only two coins were
higher than the 0.68% for the lowest gold level of the 4t century bc oriental imita-
tions. e copper levels were high, and this was used by Diebolt and Nicolet-
Pierre to claim that the imitations were employing non-Attic silver. But the copper
content is strongly influenced by the procedures of smelting and refining the ores.
48 kenneth a. sheedy & damian b. gore

In their discussion of the techniques of chemical analysis, Gale, Gentner

and Wagner repeat the observation made by other scholars that not all mi-
nor or trace elements detected in the composition of a coin are of use in
establishing the characteristics of the silver from a certain location, for the
smelting and refining processes may alter the amounts of elements already
present and even introduce new elements.[58] In the partition of litharge
and silver through cupellation (the silver is extracted by oxidizing the lead
to litharge at a temperature of 1,000-1,100 oC) various chemicals will be-
have differently. Manganese, for example, may be removed in the slag,
arsenic will be lost in the fumes, and tin and copper will be reduced. e
usefulness of bismuth and silver levels in these analyses is still acknow
ledged. But gold will remain “at its initial value under all conditions and is the
only metal … apart from silver itself to survive cupellation completely”.[59] As
a consequence “we may expect gold to be the best parent ore indicator”.[60] It
is clear that a lot more work needs to be done before we can be confident
about the range of possible readings from any one source. icp-aes and lead
isotope analyses of eleven silver tetradrachms identified as both Athenian
and imitations of the second half of the 5t or early 4t century bc from
excavations at Tel Mikhal in Israel, led Gitler, Ponting and Tal to conclude
that while most had a lead isotope signature consistent with Laurion metal,
“there were two groups of metal with a Laurion lead isotope signature that
can only be distinguished chemically and this may have a technological ra-
ther than provenance-related explanation”.[61]

asyut 422 : the problem of the ‘imitation’

Are the coins in group p (and Asyut 422) Attic or imitations ? Seltman, as
noted above, concluded that these were not “barbarous imitations”, but
rougher versions of the Athenian product. A quick survey of the corpus of
archaic Athenian coins confirms a general resemblance to the style of the
dies placed in group l ( fig. 3). e head of Athena is compact and youthful
in appearance. e legs of the owl in group l tend to be parallel and some
slope forwards. e obverse of Asyut 422 has been disfigured by a deep,
spreading cut, but the same obverse die can be examined through the Em-

____________________
[58] N.H. Gale, W. Gentner & G.A. Wagner, op. cit. [n. 2], p. 7-8.
[59] Ibid., p. 8.
[60] Ibid., p. 8.
[61] H. Gitler, M. Ponting & O. Tal, Athenian Tetradrachms from Tel Mikhal
(Israel) : A Metallurgical Perspective, ajn ² 21 (2009), p. 29-49, quotation p. 41.
the ‘attic’ tetradrachm (asyut 422) 49

pedocles example ( fig. 2).[62] e rendering of the crest-holder as a wobbly

thin band suggests a misunderstanding of its function, but the same pat-
tern occurs on dies from group l (e.g. Seltman a217). e short rear flap
of the helmet, however, is strangely curved (especially at the front) and
there is little trace of Athena’s long tresses. e design of the ear and ear-
ring is unusual. e owl is perhaps the most unexpected element stylistical-
ly. Typically, the head of the Athenian owl is box-like in structure; even
when enlarged eyes dominate (rounding out the head contours) the transi-
tion from head to body is muted (and might only be evident from a ‘neck-
lace’ of dotted feathers). e head of our Asyut owl is heart-shaped. ere
is a decided indent between the eye-rings at the top of the head and then a
pinched conclusion at the neck which is punctuated by a beak which has
fallen to the chest. e marking of the feathers is coarse, with no trace of
the characteristic stippling. ere are many details which seem unparal-
leled (such as the treatment of the pupils of the eyes). Is this simply poor
workmanship or a rather different understanding of the subject ?
e rough styles of Attic issues produced just before the Persian inva-
sions (groups c, e), when the Athenian mint was attempting to mint vast
quantities of tetradrachms, show how low artistic standards could drop,
but the engravers of these issues still possessed the same understanding of
their subjects as the artists who produced the dies for group g. is under-
standing seems to be absent from the types of Asyut 422. It is possible, of
course, that the engraver was a foreigner now working in Athens. It is al-
ways difficult to place work that seems to skirt the boundaries of a per-
ceived style.

xrf and asyut 422

Asyut 422 was analysed by xrf spectrometry. e technique and its appli-
cation in numismatics have been discussed in detail elsewhere.[63] e coin
was analysed in a vacuum using a PANalytical Epsilon 5 cartesian geometry
energy dispersive x-ray fluorescence spectrometer, with a dual anode W/Sc
tube, and six measurement conditions (table 1).
____________________
[62] ere is a pattern on the helmet of the Empedocles coin which appears to be an
ivy leaf, but is not apparently matched on the helmet of Asyut 422. is is proba-
bly the result of a break in the die. We thank Mr. G. Davis for providing photos of
the Empedocles coin and for his remarks on the specimen.
[63] See for example M. Cowell, Coin analysis by energy dispersive x-ray fluores-
cence spectrometry, in A. Oddy & M. Cowell (eds.), Metallurgy in Numismatics 4,
Royal Numismatic Society, Special Publication No. 30, London 1998, p. 448-460.
50 kenneth a. sheedy & damian b. gore

Secondary Measurement Tube Tube

Elements
target live time (s) kV mA
Na-Mg Al 200 35 17
Al-K CaF2 200 40 15
Ca-Mn Fe 100 75 8
Fe-Ga Ge 100 75 8
Ge-Y Zr 100 100 6
Zr-U Al2O3 (Barkla) 100 100 6
Table 1 – xrf measurement conditions

Ti Fe Ni Cu Ag Au Pb Bi
Kα Kα Kα Kα Kα Lα Lα Lα
Escape depth
(﬈m) for meas- 5 12 17 21 298 34 42 46
ured x-ray lines
a average % 0.044 0.090 0.003 0.751 96.6 1.45 0.960 0.152
a %rsd 0.39 1.65 13.69 0.04 0.004 0.13 0.18 0.65
r average % 0.048 0.099 0.003 0.825 96.6 1.52 0.696 0.185
r %rsd 0.40 1.61 13.73 0.06 0.01 0.87 0.56 0.24
Average %
of a and r
0.046 0.095 0.003 0.788 96.6 1.49 0.828 0.169

Table 2 – Elemental composition of Asyut 422

Measurements were made in triplicate and averaged for each side. For
elemental quantification we used Auto Quantify, PANalytical’s automated
qualitative spectrum analysis combined with a fundamental parameters
model. All data are reported as elements, and the analytical sum was set to
100%. e patina on this coin was invisible to the naked eye, but nonethe-
less was present chemically. Based on earlier unpublished work (D. Gore
and G. Davis) where we examined silver patinas via xrf analysis before and
a er abrasion, we understand the patina on similar silver coins to consist
dominantly of oxygen and hydrogen, but also (in order of atomic number)
the abundant environmental elements Cl, Ca and Mn. ese elements were
removed from the data, and the remaining elements normalised to 100%.
Some elements – particularly Ti and Fe – may be present in both the metal
and as environmental contaminants in the patina, so these elements were
not removed. As they are minor constituents, they have at most a minor
effect on the accuracy of the other components of the coin. Calculations of
x-ray escape depth based on the measured composition show that the lighter
the ‘attic’ tetradrachm (asyut 422) 51

elements (Ti-Cu) are indeed measured from the coin surface, but that the
more energetic K-lines of the heavy elements, particularly Ag, are meas-
ured from deeper within the coin, rather than just at the surface as is
commonly assumed with xrf analyses (table 2). Analytical precision was
assessed by triplicate measurements and calculated as a percentage relative
standard deviation (%rsd) for each element reported.

discussion of the xrf results

e high gold (1.45-1.52%) and bismuth (0.15-0.18%) contents immediate-

ly draw attention. Comparisons with the analyses in Gale, Gentner &
Wagner (and in Kraay & Emeleus) led us to conclude that this silver was
not from Laurion. [64] Gale, Gentner & Wagner found that readings from
their sample of Asyut owls (all believed to be of Laurion silver) were rela-
tively uniform in gold and lead content (in general the gold content varied
between 0.02 and 0.05%).[65] ey also found that the Athenian coins in
their sample were characterized by low amounts of Co, Cu, As, Sn, Sb and
Bi.[66] A closer match is to be found, however, with the analyses of two Ae-
ginetan coins in the Asyut hoard.

Mint of Aegina Price & Waggoner

Au Bi Cu Ag
reverse style Asyut hoard catalogue
Union Jack iib 432 1.32 0.083 0.081 98.2
Five sunken
471 1.58 0.81 0.81 97.4
segments

Table 3 – Chemical analyses of two Aeginetan coins from the Asyut hoard
(in %; from Gale, Gentner & Wagner 1980, op. cit. [n. 2], table 3)

e possibility that the silver came from Siphnos (evidently an impor-

tant source for the mint on Aegina) also seems unlikely. e very high and
distinctive reading for gold is also higher than the concentrations obtained
from the analyses made by Cowell and Lahanie of twelve silver coins
____________________
[64] See n. 48 and 50.
[65] N.H. Gale, W. Gentner & G.A. Wagner, op. cit. [n. 2], p. 12. In terms of the
variation in gold content see, for example, the analysis of the Athenian deca-
drachm, Luynes 2037, in relation to contemporary tetradrachms : H. Nicolet-
Pierre, Autour du décadrachme athénien conservé à Paris, in R. Ashton &
S. Hurter (eds.), Studies in Greek Numismatics in Memory of Martin Jessop Price,
London 1998, p. 293-299. We thank Dr. Fischer-Bossert for bringing this instance
to our attention.
[66] Ibid., p. 12.
52 kenneth a. sheedy & damian b. gore

minted by Siphnos (the highest reading was 0.61).[67] e chemical compo-

sition of the three coins (Asyut 422, 432 and 471) is unmatched in the range
of 131 archaic Greek coins from the Asyut hoard and other sources pre-
sented in Gale, Gentner and Wagner.[68] Further research may well reveal
that a (eastern ?) source produced silver with a relatively high gold content,
but it is always possible that the metal of this coin was created through
mixing metal from different origins.[69]

concluding discussion

e current debate concerning the identification of Attic imitations (and

estimates of the size of the output) has been focused on classical issues of
the late 5t and 4t centuries bc. e extensive evidence that has now ac-
cumulated for mints in Egypt, the Levant and other eastern lands has been
set out in some detail by Van Alfen (who builds on the pioneering work of
Nicolet-Pierre) in his analyses of recent hoards of owls from the Near East
and Egypt.[70] One must be impressed by the great diversity of possible
places of manufacture (and styles) that now present themselves. Imitations
of archaic Attic coins, however, have received little attention. [71] ey are
hardly numerous, and tend to be treated as ‘oddities’ rather than a phe-
nomenon of any significance. Yet they may well be evidence of some im-
portant developments. e increased production of coins at the Athenian
____________________
[67] Ibid., p. 41, table 12.
[68] Ibid., p. 14-17, table 3.
[69] On the question of mixed silver sources see Z.A. Stos-Gale, e Impact of the
Natural Sciences on Studies of Hacksilber and Early Silver Coinage, in M.S. Bal-
muth (ed.), Hacksilber to Coinage : New Insights into the Monetary History of the
Near East and Greece : a collection of eight papers presented at the 99  annual
meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, New York 2001, p. 53-76.
[70] Among the numerous studies made by Nicolet-Pierre, one might note: H. Nico-
let-Pierre, Les monnaies des deux derniers satrapes d’Égypte avant la conquête
d’Alexandre, in O. Mørkholm & N.M. Waggoner (eds.), Greek numismatics and
archaeology; essays in honor of Margaret ﬈ompson, Wetteren 1979, p. 221-230;
id., Les monnaies en Égypte avant Alexandre, in F. Duyrat & O. Picard (eds.),
L’exception égyptienne ?, Cairo 2005, p. 7-15; H. Nicolet-Pierre & M. Amandry,
Un nouveau trésor de monnaies d’argent pseudo-athéniennes venu d’Afghanistan
(1990), rn 36 (1994), p. 34-54. P.G. van Alfen, e “Owls” from the 1973 Iraq
Hoard, ajn 13 (2001), p. 151-167; id., e “Owls” from the 1989 Syria Hoard,
with a Review of Pre-Macedonian Coinage in Egypt, ajn 14 (2002), p. 1-57; id.,
Two Unpublished Hoards and Other Owls from Egypt, ajn 14 (2002), p. 59-71.
[71] Plated archaic Athenian coins have also occasioned little comment. C.T. Seltman,
op. cit. [n. 6], p. 216, pl. xxiii·1-8.
the ‘attic’ tetradrachm (asyut 422) 53

mint, that begins with the change to the types of the helmeted head of
Athena and the owl c.520 bc, was probably the result of an increase in the
production of silver from the Laurion mines. e rates of increase and their
chronology have yet to be satisfactorily determined. Nonetheless, during
the first two decades of the 5t century (certainly in the second decade),
large quantities of these archaic owls were minted, and significant numbers
(as attested by the Asyut hoard) were exported to the Levant and Egypt.
It is possible that Asyut 422 and perhaps other coins collected in
Seltman’s group p were manufactured in the east ? If the production of
imitation Attic coins had begun in Egypt during the decades 500-480 bc,
the dates for Asyut 422, does this have any bearing on a problematic story
concerning the silver of Aryandes ? According to Herodotus (iv, 166) the
Persian governor of Egypt, Aryandes, produced silver of great purity
(coinage is here inferred). e veracity and meaning of this story have been
extensively debated.[72] If there had been a local Egyptian coinage at this
time, it may well have consisted of copies of well-known coinages. e
purity of the metal irresistibly leads us to recall the purity of Laurion silver.
Aryandes would not have been the last of the Persian satraps to mint imita-
tions of Athenian tetradrachms.
But the various debates and problems which now accompany the later
oriental imitations demonstrate the need for caution. ere is a need to
reassess the range and development of styles within the output of the ar-
chaic die engravers employed by the Athenian mint. e 1924 publication
of Seltman, the only attempt to present a comprehensive view of archaic
Athenian coinage, was based on a very small sample (105 Wappenmünzen
staters and 397 Owls, mostly found in only ten public museums).[73] Schol-
ars such as Kraay, Hopper and Raven have stressed that the absence of die-
links within this sample led Seltman to rely on (questionable) judgements
of style in his grouping of coins and in his proposed sequence of groups.[74]
____________________
[72] C. Tuplin, e Coinage of Aryandes, in R. Descat (ed.), L’or perse et l’histoire
grecque, rea 91 (1989), p. 61-83. Tuplin argued that Aryandes had minted a silver
coinage which might be identified as a variety of the Persian siglos. is was chal-
lenged by Martin Price on the grounds that no coinage was known to have been
produced in Egypt at this time (see M.J. Price in the discussion at the end of the
paper presented by Tuplin, p. 82-83). In the most recent discussion Peter van Alfen
has proposed that it was in fact bullion of the highest grade of silver and that no
minting of this metal occurred. P.G. van Alfen, Herodotus’ “Aryandic” Silver
and Bullion Use in Persian-Period Egypt, ajn  16-17 (2004-2005), p. 7-46.
[73] C.T. Seltman, op. cit. [n. 6].
[74] C.M. Kraay, op. cit. [n. 7]; E.J.P. Raven, Problems of the Earliest Owls of Athens,
in C.M. Kraay & G.K. Jenkins (eds.), Essays in Greek Coinage presented to Stan-
ley Robinson, Oxford 1968, p. 40-58; R.J. Hopper, Observations on the Wappen-
münzen, in Kraay & Jenkins, supra, p. 16-39.
54 kenneth a. sheedy & damian b. gore

Together with these problems went erroneous conclusions about dating,

the locations of ‘branch’ mints, and the political and economic context and
significance. In short, Seltman’s volume failed to provide a coherent under-
standing of archaic Athenian coinage, and must be seen as an insecure
‘framework’ within which to set any study of the origins of Asyut 422 and
the coins in group p.[75]
While scientific methods and techniques for the analysis of metal have
progressed, there is still a good deal to be done on many fronts, and these
are usually acknowledged in the studies that have been cited above. We
certainly need to have a better understanding, for example, of the effects of
smelting and refining ores in relation to the silver used for minting. e
size of the sample has always been a significant problem. Rather than a
small number of analyses (on which most studies are currently based), we
need a statistically significant number of readings from coins in the par-
ticular issues under investigation. is is now possible with the creation of
transportable xrf spectrometers. e data from such projects has the po-
tential to provide information about the (changing) sources of silver sup-
plied to the mint in defined periods of activity.[76]
If Asyut 422 and others in group p were minted by non-Greek people
in the east then they are the products from some of the first local mints to
be established in these regions. e impetus for minting may have been
closely tied to the influx of foreign coins. If the reputation of Athenian tet-
radrachms for the consistent purity of Laurion silver (a consistency that no
other coinage could offer) had already been established, then local eastern
mints may have chosen these types as a means of assuring the recipients of
their coins that the silver (taken from non-Laurion sources) was of a stan-
dard equal to Attic silver. e local minting of Attic imitations would then
be a means of promoting the circulation of non-Attic silver. But we need to
have a much better understanding of archaic Athenian production before
we can do much with the question of local imitations.

____________________
[75] A new corpus and die study, the Early Attic Coinage Project, is currently being
undertaken by K.A. Sheedy.
[76] A program of xrf studies of an estimated 800 archaic Attic coins, using a trans-
portable machine, is to be undertaken by D. Gore and K.A. Sheedy from 2011.