Roma Numismatics Ltd
Auction XV 5 Apr 2018
View prices realized
► Sale information
Find similar lots
Attica, Athens AR Dekadrachm. Circa 469/5-460 BC. Head of Athena right, wearing single-pendant earring, necklace, and crested Attic helmet decorated with three olive leaves over the visor and a spiral palmette on the bowl / Owl standing facing with wings spread, olive sprig to upper left, A-Θ-E around; all within incuse square. Cf. Fischer-Bossert, Athenian 9a (O5 [corr.]) and 11-13 (O7/R- [unlisted rev. die]), and cf. also R9, R11-14, R20 for other reverse dies clearly by the same engraver; Starr Group II.C, 59-60 (same obv. die [erroneously noted as different dies]); Seltman 450a, pl. 21 (same obv. die); BMC 40 = ACGC 188; Kraay & Hirmer 357; Morgan 178 = Consul Weber 1645 (same obv. die); Seltman 450a, pl. 21 (same obv. die); Rhousopoulos 1965 (same obv. die). 42.78g, 34mm, 10h.
Good Very Fine. Extremely Rare; one of remarkably few incontrovertibly authentic examples offered at auction in recent years.
Ex Triton XX, 10 January 2017, lot 151;
Ex collection of an antiquarian, Bavaria c. 1960s-90s;
Ex private German collection, acquired c. 1960s.
This coin, provenant from the same old collection (whence it was consigned to Triton XX) as the example sold in Roma Numismatics XIII (lot 127), shares the same obverse die as the latter example. Fischer-Bossert linked this obverse die (O7) with three reverse dies (R11-13), however it is also the same obverse die as that of F-B 9 (erroneously given as O5, but clearly the same as F-B 11-13) as evidenced by the location and shape of the prominent die break running from the brow through the eye, and the die break that runs through the ear. Moreover, in considering the stylistic properties of F-B 9, it is readily apparent that the reverse die (R9) is entirely different in character to F-B 10, but most similar to F-B 11-13 (R11-13); apart from the owls themselves, which are nearly indistinguishable from one another but for minor variances in the feet and plumage, the Theta is similarly mis-shapen across all of these reverse dies, and the uppermost bar of the Epsilon is upturned on R9 and R13, whereas this is not a characteristic of the neighbouring few dies preceding or subsequent (though R20, almost certainly also by the same engraver, bears these characteristics as well). The present coin, while struck from a previously unlisted die, shares precisely the same stylistic features as R9, R11, R12 and R13, and bears the distinctively mis-shapen Theta and upturned Epsilon bar common to R9, R13, and R20. The state of the obverse die meanwhile allows us to establish a basic chronology; the break across the brow and eye is already present, though in a very early stage, while the break in the ear, even allowing for the slight die shift seen on this coin, is demonstrably absent. We may safely conclude that this coin was struck prior to F-B 11-13, and F-B 9 (which is clearly the latest state of the die).
The dekadrachms of Athens have always been regarded as one of the greatest masterpieces in all of ancient coinage, and have ever been amongst the most highly prized possessions of private and institutional numismatic collections. The occasion for the striking of these imposing coins has been a subject of scholarly debate for many years, and several different theories have been advanced concerning the motivation for the striking of such a prestigious issue, and the source of the bullion used. Babelon (Traité II, col. 769-770) and Head (HN, pp. 370-371) both perpetuated a misinterpretation of a passage in Herodotos who said that Athens paid ten drachms to each of its citizens for surpluses from the Laurion mines (7.144.1). They both therefore dated the dekadrachm issue to c. 490 BC, shortly after the Battle of Marathon, a date which has been subsequently shown to be far too early. Robinson (NC [1924], pp. 338-340) proposed the victory at Salamis as the reason for issue, while Regling (Die antiken Münzen), advanced a similar view, suggesting the combined victories of Salamis and Plataea. Only Starr and Kraay (NC [1956], p. 55; ACGC, pp. 66-68) understood the dating to be later than the prevailing views, having themselves reviewed the hoard evidence. It was Starr (Athenian coinage 480-449 BC) who suggested the victory at the battle at the Eurymedon river in c. 469/5 as the reason for the issue. The subsequent discovery of the Asyut hoard in 1968 or 1969, and the Elmali hoard in 1984 confirmed the dating around the mid 460s BC.
Certainly the Eurymedon victory provided both the celebratory occasion and the means to finance such a grand issue of coinage. In either 469 or 466 BC, the Persians had begun assembling a large army and navy for a major offensive against the Greeks. Assembling near the Eurymedon, it appears that the expedition's objective was to move up the coast of Asia Minor, capturing each city in turn, thus bringing the Asiatic Greek states back under Persian domination, and furthermore giving the Persians strategically important naval bases from which to launch further expeditions into the Aegean. Led by the Athenian general Kimon, a combined force of Delian League triremes moved to intercept the Persian force, and taking them by complete surprise, the Persian forces were utterly routed, 200 triremes were captured or destroyed, and their camp was taken along with many prisoners. The spoils were reportedly vast, and such a stunning triumph would have provided ample reason for Athens to strike coins displaying its emblematic owl now standing fully facing, its outspread wings a clear statement of Athenian military power.
Good Very Fine. Extremely Rare; one of remarkably few incontrovertibly authentic examples offered at auction in recent years.
Ex Triton XX, 10 January 2017, lot 151;
Ex collection of an antiquarian, Bavaria c. 1960s-90s;
Ex private German collection, acquired c. 1960s.
This coin, provenant from the same old collection (whence it was consigned to Triton XX) as the example sold in Roma Numismatics XIII (lot 127), shares the same obverse die as the latter example. Fischer-Bossert linked this obverse die (O7) with three reverse dies (R11-13), however it is also the same obverse die as that of F-B 9 (erroneously given as O5, but clearly the same as F-B 11-13) as evidenced by the location and shape of the prominent die break running from the brow through the eye, and the die break that runs through the ear. Moreover, in considering the stylistic properties of F-B 9, it is readily apparent that the reverse die (R9) is entirely different in character to F-B 10, but most similar to F-B 11-13 (R11-13); apart from the owls themselves, which are nearly indistinguishable from one another but for minor variances in the feet and plumage, the Theta is similarly mis-shapen across all of these reverse dies, and the uppermost bar of the Epsilon is upturned on R9 and R13, whereas this is not a characteristic of the neighbouring few dies preceding or subsequent (though R20, almost certainly also by the same engraver, bears these characteristics as well). The present coin, while struck from a previously unlisted die, shares precisely the same stylistic features as R9, R11, R12 and R13, and bears the distinctively mis-shapen Theta and upturned Epsilon bar common to R9, R13, and R20. The state of the obverse die meanwhile allows us to establish a basic chronology; the break across the brow and eye is already present, though in a very early stage, while the break in the ear, even allowing for the slight die shift seen on this coin, is demonstrably absent. We may safely conclude that this coin was struck prior to F-B 11-13, and F-B 9 (which is clearly the latest state of the die).
The dekadrachms of Athens have always been regarded as one of the greatest masterpieces in all of ancient coinage, and have ever been amongst the most highly prized possessions of private and institutional numismatic collections. The occasion for the striking of these imposing coins has been a subject of scholarly debate for many years, and several different theories have been advanced concerning the motivation for the striking of such a prestigious issue, and the source of the bullion used. Babelon (Traité II, col. 769-770) and Head (HN, pp. 370-371) both perpetuated a misinterpretation of a passage in Herodotos who said that Athens paid ten drachms to each of its citizens for surpluses from the Laurion mines (7.144.1). They both therefore dated the dekadrachm issue to c. 490 BC, shortly after the Battle of Marathon, a date which has been subsequently shown to be far too early. Robinson (NC [1924], pp. 338-340) proposed the victory at Salamis as the reason for issue, while Regling (Die antiken Münzen), advanced a similar view, suggesting the combined victories of Salamis and Plataea. Only Starr and Kraay (NC [1956], p. 55; ACGC, pp. 66-68) understood the dating to be later than the prevailing views, having themselves reviewed the hoard evidence. It was Starr (Athenian coinage 480-449 BC) who suggested the victory at the battle at the Eurymedon river in c. 469/5 as the reason for the issue. The subsequent discovery of the Asyut hoard in 1968 or 1969, and the Elmali hoard in 1984 confirmed the dating around the mid 460s BC.
Certainly the Eurymedon victory provided both the celebratory occasion and the means to finance such a grand issue of coinage. In either 469 or 466 BC, the Persians had begun assembling a large army and navy for a major offensive against the Greeks. Assembling near the Eurymedon, it appears that the expedition's objective was to move up the coast of Asia Minor, capturing each city in turn, thus bringing the Asiatic Greek states back under Persian domination, and furthermore giving the Persians strategically important naval bases from which to launch further expeditions into the Aegean. Led by the Athenian general Kimon, a combined force of Delian League triremes moved to intercept the Persian force, and taking them by complete surprise, the Persian forces were utterly routed, 200 triremes were captured or destroyed, and their camp was taken along with many prisoners. The spoils were reportedly vast, and such a stunning triumph would have provided ample reason for Athens to strike coins displaying its emblematic owl now standing fully facing, its outspread wings a clear statement of Athenian military power.