Notae Numismaticae - Zapiski Numizmatyczne (14.2019)

YANNIS STOYAS

62

vary greatly from time to time,6 7 a general explanation for such phenomena should
be avoided; a probable cause for the countermarked Thessalian coin issues under
discussion should be sought ad hoc, within the chronological limits suggested by
the available fragmentary evidence.
Although it is not a largely known fact, it seems that the practice of countermarking
was quite widespread in the territory of Thessaly, as attested by examples from
several periods. For the earliest specimens, traced to the 5th century BC, there is
a comprehensive study/ so only a few side remarks should be made about them.
A number of Thessalian silver issues dated in the years c. 460-420 BC8 were
the first ones to be countermarked; this practice was continued also in the first half
of the 4th century BC. For certain countermarks, an intriguing interpretation has been
proposed: that they could had been employed as control marks in a procedure for
testing the quality of the metal or the weight of the coins;9 by discerning monograms
or letters that they could be read as “KA” or as “AK”, interpretations were put
forward that such engravings may signify the word KAAON10 or another appropriate
adjective.11 This theory should be examined with some caution on occasion, as e.g.
in the case of the countermark perceived as a monogram consisting of a large “A”
and a small “K”, whose meaning is quite uncertain.12 Similarly, a countermark was
tentatively viewed as the letter “K” with analogous connotations in another case,13

6 See e.g. DE CALLATAY 2000: esp. 103-125; STEFANAKIS and TRAEGER 2005; TSELEKAS
2010. See also HOUGHTON and LORBER 2002, vol. II, 37-45, and HOOVER 2008, vol. II, 157, 165, 195,
198-199; BRESSON 2018: 67-135.
7 LORBER 1999.
8 The monogram engraving on the neck of a horse on a silver obol of the early Thessalian Koinon, c. 470s -
460s BC (see BCD Thessaly II, lot 4: bust of horse / wheat grain), does not give the impression of a countermark:
it is in relief, rather lacking any trace of a punch. Viewed as part of the original coin type it may had been intended
for rendering a branding mark; see also BCD Thessaly I, lot 1002.
9 See LORBER 1999: 222, 226, 229-230, 236 (countermarks A, F, G).
10 See LSJ: s.v. Kcótóę, -rj, -óv, as in kc/./.ov äpyüptov (good or genuine silver, of fine quality; opp. Kißör]kov,
adulterated).
11 See FISCHER-BOSSERT 2000: 181, n. 9, bringing to notice the expression KaOapöv äpyupiov (pure
silver) and moreover commenting on the matter of such a countermark being employed for a private or a state
procedure; cf. also LORBER 1999: 229.
12 See e.g. on the obverse of a silver drachm of Larisa (c. 450/440-420 BC), which appeared in Classical
Numismatic Group, e-Auction 292, 5 December 2012, lot 47; ex BCD Collection; ex Sotheby’s, 9 December 1993,
lot 113 (part of); ’’Unknown findspot” / 1989 hoard (CH IX.65) - despite a word starting with “AK” being more
obvious, a connection with kh/.ov is hypothesized. More close to the point might be an adjective like ÖKißSpLov
or ÜKSpaiov; LORBER 1999: 229 (countermark F); see also 230, no. 3, pl. 20.3 (the same coin, auctioned later).
Also cf. LORBER 1999: 222, countermark G; 224, 226, 229, 230, no. 6, 236, pl. 20.6.
13 See e.g. on the obverse of another drachm of Larisa (c. 400-350 BC), that appeared in Roma Numismatics,
Auction 4, 30 September 2012, lot 129; ex BCD Thessaly II, lot 369.2; ex Brian Kritt, privately purchased in
November 1984; ex Stack’s, 10 June 1970, lot 221 - by reading this monogram as “K”, an interpretation as kcUov
has been followed.