Two unpublished hoards and other owls from Egypt / Peter G. van Alfen

8/20/2019 Two unpublished hoards and other owls from Egypt / Peter G. van Alfen

1/27


2/27


3/27


4/27


5/27

AJN Second

Series

14

(2002) pp.

59-71

®

2003The

American

umismatic

ociety

TWO UNPUBLISHED

HOARDS

AND OTHER

OWLS

FROM EGYPT

Plates

13-17

Peter

G. van Alfen*

Scattered

among

various

trays

of

Athenian

owls

in the

American

Numismatic

Society's

Greek cabinet

were

the remnants

f two

unpub-

lishedhoardsthat have now been reassembled nd are presentedhere

for he first

ime.

The

24 owls

comprising

he

two lots were

once

part

of

the E.

T. Newell

collection,

which

was

bequeathed

to

the ANS

in 1944.

The

tags

associated

with

the

coins

are

in

Newell's

finehand and

provide

clues

to their

origins.

Those

of the first

roup

have

written

pon

them

the

phrase

ex Nahman's

1923

hoard ;

those of

the second

group

have

on

one side

of the

tags

from

indmade

in

Egypt ,

while on the

other

side

either he

name

Endicott

along

with

price)

or

the

phrase

Egyp-

tian hoard

F.

M.

Endicott

1926

appears.

Thus,

one

group

s called

here

Nahman's hoard,the otherEndicott'shoard.As will be seen momen-

tarily,

there

is little

question

that

the

two

groups

came

out of

the

ground

eparately;

he

styles,

atinas,

and

markings

make

this certain.

The

compilers

of

the

Inventory

f

Greek Coin

Hoards

(

GCH

)

somehow

overlooked

the two

hoards;

none of

the

IGCH

listings

for

Egyptian

hoards

containing

Athenian

owls

provide

information

hat

can

be

linked to

any

of these

coins.

More

recently,

he editors

of

Coin

Hoards

noting

a brief

remark

n

SNG

Delepierre

list

one

hoard,

CH

VIII.

151

Egypt

before

1925 ,

that could

be

related

to Nahman's

*

The

American

umismatic

ociety,

6

Fulton

treet,

ew

York,

NY

10038,

USA

[email protected]).

59

This content downloaded from 83.85.134.3 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 12:41:21 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions


6/27

60 Peter G. van Alfen

hoard.

Like the

coins

of Nahman's

hoard,

SNG

Delepierre

nos.

1475,

1478, 1481,

and

1482,

are

mid-fourth-centuryi-style

ssues

found n

Egypt

before1925 that are

freeof

any

countermarks

r cuts.

Caution,

however,

s

in order

ince

there s little

beyond

coincidence

hat can tie

Nahman's hoard

to

CH

VIII.151.

There are other clues

that

mightprovide

furthernformation n the

hoards. Newell

spent

the

winter and

spring

of

1923/24

in

Cairo

reviewing

nd

purchasing

coins for his collection. From M. Maurice

Nahman,

an

antiquities

dealer located on Sharia Kasr en-Nil

Dattari

1905:

103

n.3),

Newell

purchased

at least

one

hoard,

the so-called

Keneh

Hoard

(

GCH

1708;

Newell 1927:

14).

In

a short

note Newell

sent to The Numismatist

rom

Cairo,

he

wrote

(1924: 302):

In

fact,

the

unearthing

f hoards seems to continue

merrily.

or even while

this little

summary

was

being penned

the writerwas shown a hoard

of some

250 Atheniantetradrachms f

the fourth

entury

B.C.

Could

this be Nahman's

hoard?

For the Endicott

hoard there are fewerclues.

F.

Munroe Endicott

spent time in Cairo in the early part of the twentieth entury s a

secretary

f

the

United States

Legation

to

Egypt

where

he

purchased

coins

from ocal dealers

(Mosser

1941:

2).

When he died in 1935 his

collection

of

over

a thousand Greek and Roman coins was

given

to

the ANS

by

his heirs.

A

selection

of these

coins,

including

wo Athe-

nian owls

(not

related to

the

hoard),

was

published

number

f

years

later

by

S. Mosser

1941).

Endicott

kept

careful

notes on his collection

in an account

book that was also donated

to the

ANS

at the same time

as the coins.

Unfortunately,

t

some

point

in the

nearly

70

years

that

have passed since the donation,this account book has been misplaced

and cannot

be found. Should the

book be

located, however,

we

can be

almost

certain that

within t lies information

n the

purchase

of the

hoard

and how

it

came

into Newell's

possession.

THE

CATALOGUE

The

following

atalogue

lists the coins

of

the

two

groups

with

their

accession

numbers,

weights,

nd die

axes;

the

illustrations

f the coun-

termarks oted can be

found n

Figure

l.1

Also,

since this

opportunity

1

This

figure

s

reprinted

rom

he

preceding

rticle

n this

ournal

van

Alfen

2002);

hus,

ot

ll ofthe ountermarks

oundn the

figure

re

found n the oins



7/27

Two Unpublished Hoards 61

Figure

1. Table

f ountermarks.



8/27


has

presented

tself,

n additional 34

(mostly)

unpublished

owls that

were either

produced

or

circulated

in

Egypt

are also listed

below;

these coins are

part

of

the

ANS collection

but

are

not

part

of either

Nahmans or Endicotťs hoards.

A

general

discussionfollows.

NAHMAN'S HOARD

What is moststrikingbout thisgroupof nine owls is the fact that

none of them bear

the

countermarks

r

cuts

so

commonly

found on

coins

coming

out of

Egypt.

But without n

idea

of the

composition

f

the

hoard,

we have no

way

of

ascertaining

ow

meaningful

his obser-

vation

is;

Nahman or Newell

might

have

intentionally icked

un-

marked coins out of

the

lot.

Stylistically

he coins are mixed. Two of

the

coins,

nos. 3 and

4,

are

unquestionably

mitative

nd can

be attrib-

uted to Flamenťs

Style

A;2

no. 9 have a

suspicious appearance

that

might

ndicate

an imitative

origin.

No. 8 is the

only pi-style

owl

in

the group; its presence bringsthe terminus ost quernfor the hoard

down to the middle of

the fourth

entury.3

At the other end of the

temporal

pectrum

ies

no.

1,

a later

fifth-century

ssue. The

remaining

owls,

nos.

2, 6,

and

7

are

of the

earliest

profile-eye

eries hat came out

of Athens.4

1. ANS

1944.100.24201;

17.15

g;

9:00

2. ANS

1944.100.24224;

17.11

g;

9:00

3. ANS

1944.100.24226;

17.13

g;

9:00

4. ANS

1944.100.24227;

16.87

g;

9:00

5. ANS 1944.100.24228;17.17 g; 9:00

presented

n this

tudy.

he

figure

s reused

n

the

hopes

f

makingross-checking

andreferenceasier.

2

Flament

2001)

dentified

further

ub-style,tyle

A,

of hose

gyptian

mita-

tiveowl

styles, tyles

, M, X,

initially

dentified

y

T.

V.

Buttrey

1982).

For

furtheromments

n this

roup,

ee vanAlfen

2002: 6-20).

3

The owl

corresponds

o a

Bingen

1973)

pz-style

. Kroll

1993:

)

argues

hat

the

pi-styleoinage egan

. 350 BC.

4 Kroll1993: ) suggesteddate of c. 390-380 or hispre-pz-stylerofile-eye

series.

More

ecently,

owever,

e has downdated

he eries o end

shortly

efore

the

beginning

f he

pz-style

oins

. 350

2001:

0

n.13).



9/27


10/27


The attribution

f the

following

hree

coins to Endicotťs

hoard is

insecure.

F. M. Endicott

gave

no. 13

to the

ANS

in

1923. Its

patina,

style,

and countermarks

re consistent

with the twelve coins listed

above;

therefore

t is

probable

that the coin came

from the same

hoard.

No. 14

is

problematic.

While the countermarks

it

with

the

other coins

here,

its

frontal-eye

tyle

does

not. Hoards

with

both

types

of

coins,

frontal

eye

and

profile eye,

are of course common

enough. The tag with the coin says only found n Egypt with no

indication

that Endicott

gave

it.

The label

on the box

( Egyptian

Hd ),

however,

s the same

as that on

the boxes of the twelve

above.

Finally,

Endicott

gave

no. 15

to

Newell,

and

its countermark

nd

style

suggest

that it could

be

part

of the

hoard,

although

the

tag,

which

s

arranged

differently

han

the

others,

nly

denotes an

Egyptian

prove-

nance.

13. ANS

1923.165.1;

17.24

g;

8:00;

obv. ctmk

no.

9;

rev. ctmk

no. 19.

14. ANS

1944.100.24222;

16.59

g;

9:00;

obv. ctmk

49(?);

rev. ctmk

nos. 8 and 46.

15. ANS

1944.100.24321;

17.21

g;

9:00;

obv. ctmk

no.

9;

rev. ctmk

no. 3.

TELL EL-MASKHOUTA

(

GCH

1649)

Of

the

six to ten

thousand

owls found

n this famed

hoard,

the ANS

received

only

a small

number,

but these have

not been

published

s

a

group

before.

The coins

are consistent

with those

published

by

Robinson

(1947)

and

Naster

(1948),

in so far as

they

are late-fifth-

century, rontal-eyewls. In addition to bona fideAthenianowls, the

hoard

produced

a

great

numberof

imitative

nd

plated

varieties;

nos.

6 and

7 are

plated,

nos.

8 and 9 are

imitative.7

he dies of no. 6

were

of

high quality

and,

as far

as the

preservation

f the coin

shows,

ndis-

tinguishable

rom hose of

Athens.

Were

it not for the bronze

disease

breaking

through

the silver

plating

from

the

core,

this

coin

would

6

For

more ecent

omments

nd

bibliography

n

thishoard ee

Kroll

2001:

1

n.14).7

No.

9,

n

fact,

s a Philisto-Arabian

ssue rom

heBurton

erry

ollection;

his

coinwas

first

ublished

n

SNG

BYB

no. 701.



11/27


certainlypass

as an authentic

Athenian

ssue

today,

and

no doubt in

antiquity

s

well. The

situationwith no.

7,

however,

s

quite

different

since the

large,

awkward

profile

eye

of

the obverse

unquestionably

betrays

non-Athenian

roduct.

1.

ANS

1949.128.1;

17.18

g;

4:00.

2. ANS

1949.128.2;

17.16

g;

9:00.

3. ANS

1949.128.3;

16.79

g;

9:00;

obv.

graffito

X ;

cut

in

edge

(x 2).

4. ANS 1949.128.4; 17.17 g; 9:00; obv. ctmk20.

5. ANS

1949.T28.5;

17.19

g;

10:00.

6. ANS

1949.103.5;

15.03

g;

1:00

(plated).

7.

ANS

1951.17.4;

16.53

g;

9:00

(plated);

obv.

ctmk

18(?).

8. ANS

1951.17.2;

3.88

g;

9:00.

9ē ANS

1960.176.14;

17.19

g;

12:00

(=

SNG

BYB

no.

701;

SNG

ANS

6 no.

1).

MISCELLANEOUS

OWLS

The

remaining roup

consists

of

coins

that are either

knownto have

an

Egyptian provenance

nos.

2, 4, 6,

9-10)

because

it is so

stated on

their

ags,

or

very

ikely

did because

the countermarks

nd/or

patterns

of

cuts

and

countermarking

re consistent

with other coins

known to

have come out

of

Egypt

(nos.

1,

3,

5, 7-8,

11-25).

Nos. 2

(which

has

an

imitative character

reminiscent f

one of

Buttrey

types8),

13,

and

18 are of

frontal-eye

ifth-centuryype,

the rest are

pi-style

owls.

No.

12,

like no.

2,

appears

to be an

imitation.

The

unusuallyhighweight

of

no. 16 is because the coin was partiallymelted,and fused to what

appears

to be another

coin.9

1. ANS

0000.999.10176;

17.33

g;

9:00;

obv. ctmk

1.

2. ANS

0000.999.53378;

16.12

g;

9:00;

obv. ctmk

?).

3. ANS

1941.131.552;

17.07

g;

9:00;

obv. ctmk

45;

rev.

ctmk 1.

4. ANS

1944.100.24242;

14.60

g;

9:00;

obv. ctmk

49

(?);

rev. ctmks

9

(?),

46 and

(?).

8

See

note

no. 1 above.

9

Kroll

2001)

notes

similar

henomenon

ith n

owlfromn

Egyptian

oard.



12/27


5. ANS

1944.100.24315;

17.05

g;

9:00;

obv.

ctmk

49;

rev. ctmk 50.

6. ANS

1944.100.24316;

17.17

g;

9:00;

obv. ctmk 47.

7.

ANS

1944.100.24317;

17.19

g;

9:00;

rev.

ctmk

1

8. ANS

1944.100.24318;

17.17

g;

8:00;

obv. ctmk 29

(?).

9. ANS

1944.100.24319;

17.13

g;

9:00;

obv. ctmk

48;

rev. ctmk1

(x

2).

10. ANS

1944.100.24320;

17.17

g;

9:00;

obv. ctmk 1

(x 3);

rev. ctmk

1

(x

3).

11. ANS 1944.100.24398;16.94g; 9:00; obv. ctmks14 (?) and 29; rev.

ctmk

14

(?).

12.

ANS

1944.100.24488;

17.01

g;

9:00;

obv.

ctmk

32.

13. ANS

1953.171.222;

16.98

g;

9:00;

obv. ctmk

?);

rev. 2

cuts;

ctmk

(?)•

14. ANS

1953.171.234;

17.17

g;

9:00;

obv. ctmk

9;

rev. ctmk no. 1.

15. ANS

1953.171.236;

17.24

g;

9:00;

obv.

ctmk

1;

rev. ctmks 15 and

33.

16.

ANS

1953.171.237;

18.25

g;

obv.

ctmk

8.

17. ANS 1955.163.1;16.55g; 9:00; obv. eut; ctmks4 and (?, x 2); rev.

cut;

ctmks

1

and

50.

18. ANS

1957.172.1122;

16.84

g;

6:00;

obv. ctmks

?)

and 3.

19. ANS

1957.172.1132;

16.91

g;

9:00;

obv.

eut;

ctmk 20.

20. ANS

1968.34.65;

17.18

g;

9:00;

obv. ctmk

28;

rev. ctmk

4

(=

SNG

BYB no.

695).

21. ANS

1974.26.290;

17.21

g;

9:00;

obv. ctmk

9;

rev. ctmk

3.

The last

four

pi- tyle

owls listed

below

(nos.

22-25)

were

part

of the

same

donation

to the ANS

in 1954.

Two of the coins

(nos.

24 and

25)

bear countermarks imilar to those found on other owls known or

presumed

to

have circulated

n

Egypt.

Because all four coins

display

an

identical

and

unusual)

patina,

are

similarlyunderweight,

nd are

part

of the same

donation,

t is

very ikely

that these coins

came from

one

hoard,

perhaps

found

in

Egypt.

Which

hoard that

might

be,

however,

s

unknown;

furthermore,

o

suggestion

an

be made since

no

other nformation

oncerning

hese

coins

is available.

22.

ANS

1954.162.5;

16.42

g;

9:00.

23. ANS

1954.162.6;

16.80

g;

9:00.

24. ANS

1954.162.7;

16.77

g;

9:00;

obv. ctmks

14,

47,

and

(?).

25. ANS

1954.162.8;

16.60

g;

9:00;

obv. ctmk

20.



13/27


DISCUSSION

With the

exception

of

the coins

from the

well-published

Tell

el-

Maskhouta

hoard,

little is known

about the

various

groups

of

owls

listed

above save

that

they

were

found

(or

likely found)

in

Egypt.

Thus,

the

observations ne can

make about the

coins are

fairly

imited.

Of the 58 tetradrachmspresented n this study,41 (or 71%) have

weights

hat are well

above 17.00

g;

many

are

quite

close to c.

17.20

g,

the

Athenian tetradrachm

tandard.

In

light

of

other

owls that have

come from

Egypt,

such

as the

indigenous

Sabakes

series

(van

Alfen

2002:

27-31,

table

2),

the

consistency

n

weight

foundhere

among

these

various unrelated

groups

s

quite

remarkable;

he

high quality

of these

coins s

also reflectedn the

frequency

f the

9:00 die

axis.

Thus,

except

for he

eight ?)

imitations ound n this

collection f

58

coins,

we

can be

reasonably

ertain hat the restwere

products

f

Athens

hat had found

theirwaytoEgyptsome time nthe fourthentury.Where here smuch

more

nformationo

be

gleaned,

however,

s from he

countermarkshat

many

of these

coins bear.

Over

the

course of

time,

from

he sixth

century

BC

on,

the use and

functionof

countermarks

resumably

underwent

gradual

develop-

ment:

[i]t

is the

common view

that the

early

countermarkswere

private

marks of

ownership

r

guarantees

of

worth,

but

that

during

the

hellenistic

period

countermarking

ecame a

monopoly

of

civic

or

royal

authority Howgego

1985:

1;

cf. Le Rider

1975).

Marking

oins

with

countermarks,uts,

and

graffitiwas an enormouslywidespread

practice

n

the Levant and

Egypt

during

he

Persian

period sixth

to

fourth

enturies

BC;

Elayi

and Lemaire

1998),

arguably

more so than

in the

Aegean.

Even

so,

there

has been little

evidence to

suggest

that

any

Egyptian

or

Levantine

markswere

applied by

civic or

other state

authorities rather

than

private

merchants,

bankers,

or the like.

However,

two countermarks

Figure

1 nos.

9 and

38)

and two related

type-elements

ppearing

on

Egyptian-made

oins

could

point

to some

official

i.e.,

non-private)

use

of countermarks n

Egypt

(van

Alfen

2002).

A

closer ook at

the behavior

of

countermarking

n coins with

a

(presumed) Egyptian

provenancemay

provide

additional corrobora-

tion.



14/27


One

of the most

ubiquitous

countermarks

ound on the owls is the

so-called

quatrefoilFigure

1 no.

1)

that

appears

almost

exclusively

n

coins

with

an

Egyptian provenance

pre-dating

he

Ptolemies.10 o date

I have located

66 individual

occurrences

f this mark

appearing

on 42

different

oins;

in this

study

alone of 58

owls,

the

mark

appears

41

times

on 20 different oins.

By way

of

comparison,

he next most

frequently ppearing

countermark

mong

these 58 owls is the

nefer

symbol Figure 1 no. 9), whichappears seven timeson sevendifferent

coins.

There is little doubt that

the

quatrefoil

was in

fourth-century

Egypt

the most

prevalent

ountermark.

Aside

from he

considerable

number

of

occurrences,

he manner n

which

the

quatrefoil

ppears

on coins

is

notably

different romother

countermarks:

)

multiple

ndividual

quatrefoil

marks

appear

on the

same

coin,

sometimes s

many

as

five

per

side;11

2)

quatrefoil

marks

cancel 12

ther

quatrefoil

marks,

but not

other

types

of countermarks

(other non-quatrefoil

marks

rarely

cancel one another but instead are

placed side by side);13 3) other types of marks cancel quatrefoil

marks.14

There are

two

primary mplications

o be derived from hese obser-

vations:

1)

the

quatrefoil

marks

were

applied

to the coins before

ny

other

marks,

and

2)

their semiotic

value was

low,

so

they

were

frequently

anceled.15

Also,

the

presumed

ommon

practice

of

applying

10

While here s

continuity

rom number

f thecountermarksound ere o

those

hat

ppear

n the coins

f

Ptolemy

,

the

quatrefoilirtuallyisappears

fromight. nly ne coinofPtolemy in the ANS'sextensiveollectionf this

ruler's

ssues ears

his

ountermark

1974.26.5401).

11

E.g.

Endicotťs oard o.

6.

12

I have

dopted

his

erm,

or ackofa better

ne,

o

describe

he

practice

f

overstriking

ne

counterstamp

ith

nother.

13

Examples

f he

uatrefoil

anceling

nother

uatrefoil:

ndicotťs

oards os.

2,

3, 5, 6, 9,

11 andMiscellaneouso.

9.

Examples

f

ide-by-sidelacement

fnon-

quatrefoil

ountermarks:

ndicotťs

oard os.

, 6, 9, 11,12,

14;

Miscellaneousos.

4, 11,15,

24.

14

E.g.

Endicotťs oard os.

,

4, 11;

Miscellaneous

o. 10.

15

On

coins

with

multiple on-quatrefoil

ountermarks,

lthough

hey

might

e

closely acked, arely o the countermarksctuallyouch r cancel neanother.

Thedesire

o

preserve

he

egibility

f he

previous

arksndicates

hat

hey

ontin-

uedto serve ome

urpose,

erhaps

o establishome

ype

f

pedigree

or he oin.



15/27


one countermark

er

coin

per

handling

would

imply

that those owls

with

more than one

quatrefoil

mark had

passed through

the

same

hands

or

process

more than once.

If

the function f these marks was

to

prove ownership

or

guarantee

the metal or

weight

of

the

coin,

there was

little need to

reapply

successively

the same mark

every

time the coin

reappeared

for

nspection;

a

single

mark would suffice

to

convey

the

message.

The behavioral characteristics f the

quatrefoil,

however, point to a process rather mechanical in its application,

suggestive

f

an almost

mindless dministrative

epetitiveness.

ecause

the

quatrefoil

ppears

on

the

coins

chronologically

eforeother

coun-

termarks,

he

implication

hen s that

the

mark was

applied

before he

coins reached a wider

(public)

circulation.

The

manner

of

application

and the

possibility

of

(temporarily)

estricted

irculationall

suggest

that the mark

may

have served

some administrative

urpose,perhaps

for nternal

ccountingby

an

organization

ike the state

treasury.

ince

the markshad no value or understood

meaning

outside

of

this

context,

subsequentusers feltno need to preserve hem.

Finally,

we turnto the dates of Nahman's and Endicotťs hoards.

As

noted

above,

the

presence

of the

pz-style

wl in Nahman's hoard

brings

the date of burial for

the hoard down to the middle of the fourth

century,

but because of

the

greater

number of

early fourth-century

types,

the date is

probably

not

much

after

c.

350.

By

contrast,

Endi-

cotťs

hoard is

composed

almost

entirely

of

pi-style

ssues,

thus

the

date

for the hoard is

likely

closer

to the end

of

the

century.

t is

worth

noting

hat other

hoards

found

n

Egypt,

like the Tell el-Athrib

(

GCH

1663)

and

Memphis

hoards

GCH

1660),

which ike Endicotťs

hoard are

composed

of a

high

proportion

f

pi-style

owls,

also feature

coins that are

heavily

countermarked.

he coincidence f

the return f

Persian

rule

to

Egypt

(in

343

BC)

and the

apparent greaterfrequency

of

countermarking

fter

350,

especially

with the

quatrefoil

mark,

is

suggestive

f further ersian administrative

versight

n the

monetary

economy

n

Egypt

afterc.

340.16

16

See van Alfen

2002)

or

urtheriscussionfPersian

monetary

dministration

in

Egypt.



16/27


REFERENCES

Bingen,

J. 1973. Le trésormonétaire

Thorikos 1969.

Thorikos

:7-59.

Buttrey,

T. V. 1982. Pharaonic

imitationsof Athenian

tetradrachms.

In: T. Hackens

and R.

Weiller,eds.,

Proceedings f

the9th nterna-

tional

Congress

f

Numismatics,

erne

September

979 vol

I,

pp.

137-140. Louvain-la-Neuve

and

Luxembourg:

Association nterna-

tionale des NumismatesProfessioneis.

Dattari,

G. 1905. Comments

on a hoard of Athenian tetradrachms

found

n

Egypt.

Journal

International

Archéologie umismatique

8:103-114.

Elayi,

J. and

A.

Lemaire. 1998.

Graffiti

t

contremarques

uest-sémiti-

ques

sur les monnaies

grecques

t

proche-orientales.

laux 13. Milan:

Edizioni

Ennerre.

Flament,

C.

2001. À

propos

des

styles

d'imitations théniennes éfinis

par

T. V.

Buttrey.

Revue

belge

de

numismatique

47:39-50.

Howgego,C. J. 1985. Greekmperial ountermarks:tudies n theprovin-

cial

coinage of

the

Roman

Empire.

London:

Royal

Numismatic

Society.

IGCH.

Thompson,

M.,

O.

Morkholm,

nd

C.

M.

Kraay,

eds. 1973.

An

inventoryf

Greek

oin hoards.

New York: American Numismatic

Society.

Kroll,

J. H. 1993. The

Greek

coins. Athenian

Agora

26.

Princeton:

AmericanSchool of Classical Studies

in

Athens.

Kroll,

J. H. 2001.

A

small

bullion findfrom

Egypt.

AmericanJournal

ofNumismatics 3:1-20.

Le

Rider,

G. 1975.

Contremarques

et

surfrappes

dans

l'antiquité

grecque.

n: J.-M.

Dentzer,

P. Gauthier nd

T.

Hackens,

Numisma-

tique

antique problèmes

t méthodes

pp.

27-55.

Nancy-Louvain:

Editions Peeters.

Mosser,

S.

M. 1941. The

Endicott

gift of

Greek

and Roman

coins

including

he

catacombs

hoard.

NumismaticNotes

and

Monographs

97. New York: American

Numismatic

ociety.

Naster,

P. 1948. Un

trésorde tétradrachmes

théniens rouvé à

Tell el

Maskhouta

Egypte).

Revue

belge

de

numismatique

4:5-14.

Newell,

E. T. 1924.

Egyptian

coin hoards.

The Numismatist.

April):

301-302.



17/27


Newell,

E.

T.

1927. Two recent

gyptian

hoards.

Numismatic

Notes

and

Monographs

3.

New York:

AmericanNumismatic

ociety.

Robinson,

E.

S.

G. 1947. The Tell el-Mashkuta hoard of

Athenian

tetradrachms. umismatic

Chronicle

:115-121.

SNG

BYB .

1961.

Sylloge

nummorum

raecorum

the

Burton Y.

Berry

collection,

art

1

Macedonia

to

Attica

New

York: AmericanNumis-

matic

Society.

SNG DelepierreH. Nicolet,J. Delepierre,M. Delepierre,and G. Le

Rider. 1983.

Sylloge

nummorum

raecorum

France:

Bibliothèque

Nationale,

collection ean

et

Marie

Delepierre.

Paris:

Bibliothèque

Nationale.

Van

Alfen,

P.

G. 2002. The owls

from he 1989

Syria

hoard,

with

a

review of

pre-Macedonian

oinage

in

Egypt.

AmericanJournal

of

Numismatics

4:1-57.



18/27


19/27

Plate

13

Nahman's

Hoard

Two

Unpublished

oards



20/27


21/27

Plate

14

EndicotťsHoard

Two

Unpublished

oards



22/27


23/27

Plate 15

Tell el-Maskhouta

IGCH 1649)

Two

Unpublished

oards



24/27


25/27

Plate

16

Miscellaneous

wls

Two

Unpublished

oards



26/27


27/27

Plate

17

Two

Unpublished

oards

Two unpublished hoards and other owls from Egypt / Peter G. van Alfen

Documents