DOI Heft:
Artykuły/Articles
DOI Artikel:Stoyas, Yannis: Wheat-Ears and Owls. Remarks on Thessalian Coins with Countermarks
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.57341#0077
WHEAT-EARS AND OWLS. REMARKS ON THESSALIAN COINS...
that they may have been employed in a way to mark a monetary value (as tesserae
nummariae) or rather a quantity of grain (as tesseraefrumentariae\ns with the second
case being more probable.115 116 From the perspective of an entirely demonetised
function, a proposal is put forward here that the wheat-ear and owl countermarks
could have been applied both in order to signify their end-users.117 In this case this
would mean that the wheat-ears may mark the producers and the place of origin,
while the owls possibly denote the customers and the place of destination. The little
owls on the countermarked pieces bear some affinity to the owls appearing on
the Athenian small change of the early 120s AD, as well as on the similar pieces dated
from the 140s to c. 175 AD.118 The whole procedure could have been easier to explain
if there was only the more common combination of the owl over the wheat-ear,119 it
could be argued that the rare pieces with the wheat-ear over the owl might have come
to be due to some temporary disruption in the transaction process because of some
confusion or haste, but one should remain skeptical of such an explanation. In any
case, the use in parallel of the two combinations seems to indicate their synchrony
and their possible perception as practical ‘trademarks’ of a sort.120
Keeping in mind the probability that either the countermarked pieces may
not have left Thessaly or that perhaps all of them were brought back, some further
notion could be offered for their function in the hands of their intended users. This
may be associated with the practice attested for the Hellenistic koinon to levy
a harbour tax, known as f| (e)iKOOTa, i.e. an eikoste or 5%, on imports and exports.121
Could the applied countermarks possibly have had something to do with custom
115 AMANDRY et AL 2006: s.v. tessera frumentaria, tessere.
116 For the discussion on the tesserae frumentariae and the tesserae nummariae see NICOLET 1988: 200-
202, esp. 412, n. 49 (“just as tessera frumentaria means a token entitling the holder to receive com, so a tessera
nummaria could be exchanged for money”). On this matter see also VIRLOUVET 1995: 11-17, esp. 310-327,
340-351, 369-371.
117 For an analogous idea cf. APERGHIS 2010: 84 (“Countermarking with either symbols or monograms
simply identifies the new end-users for whom old coins were reissued”); also 58 (“When two symbols are present,
this is often an indication of two end-users who are to be the intended recipients of a particular issue together”);
the comment refers generally to the symbols used on Seleucid coins as control marks. For a critique to this approach
(concerning the control marks, not the countermarks) see DE CALLATAY 2012: esp. 47.
118 See KROLL 1993: 116 (Period VA, c. AD 120-124; Period VB, c. AD 125/129—140s/150s; Period VC,
c.AD 140s/150s-c. 175), nos. 162-167,226-230.
119 In such a case, the Thessalian and the Athenian authorities could have made an agreement in order to deal
with the famine situation, by the use also of credit. The Thessalian corn-producers could have applied on the tokens
first the wheat-ear countermark upon dispatch to the distribution center; then the owl countermark could have been
applied on occasion upon the realisation of the shipment and in expectation of the payment.
120 A different theory could be advanced, e.g. accepting the existence of two Thessalian com-producers
involved: one using the wheat-ear countermark while the other the owl countermark. In this case things would
turn out to be very complex with regard to the significance of each stamp (marking a quantity, just the com owner
or something else?) and particularly with the cases of the two stamps appearing in tandem. In another scenario
one could wonder if the presence of the countermarked pieces in Thessaly could perhaps mean that a collective
shipment failed eventually to be paid, but this would remain in speculation.
121 See HELLY 2008: 29 (7G IX.2, 506b, /. 29 and /. 47), 91-96; MACKIL 2015: 496, 497.
75
that they may have been employed in a way to mark a monetary value (as tesserae
nummariae) or rather a quantity of grain (as tesseraefrumentariae\ns with the second
case being more probable.115 116 From the perspective of an entirely demonetised
function, a proposal is put forward here that the wheat-ear and owl countermarks
could have been applied both in order to signify their end-users.117 In this case this
would mean that the wheat-ears may mark the producers and the place of origin,
while the owls possibly denote the customers and the place of destination. The little
owls on the countermarked pieces bear some affinity to the owls appearing on
the Athenian small change of the early 120s AD, as well as on the similar pieces dated
from the 140s to c. 175 AD.118 The whole procedure could have been easier to explain
if there was only the more common combination of the owl over the wheat-ear,119 it
could be argued that the rare pieces with the wheat-ear over the owl might have come
to be due to some temporary disruption in the transaction process because of some
confusion or haste, but one should remain skeptical of such an explanation. In any
case, the use in parallel of the two combinations seems to indicate their synchrony
and their possible perception as practical ‘trademarks’ of a sort.120
Keeping in mind the probability that either the countermarked pieces may
not have left Thessaly or that perhaps all of them were brought back, some further
notion could be offered for their function in the hands of their intended users. This
may be associated with the practice attested for the Hellenistic koinon to levy
a harbour tax, known as f| (e)iKOOTa, i.e. an eikoste or 5%, on imports and exports.121
Could the applied countermarks possibly have had something to do with custom
115 AMANDRY et AL 2006: s.v. tessera frumentaria, tessere.
116 For the discussion on the tesserae frumentariae and the tesserae nummariae see NICOLET 1988: 200-
202, esp. 412, n. 49 (“just as tessera frumentaria means a token entitling the holder to receive com, so a tessera
nummaria could be exchanged for money”). On this matter see also VIRLOUVET 1995: 11-17, esp. 310-327,
340-351, 369-371.
117 For an analogous idea cf. APERGHIS 2010: 84 (“Countermarking with either symbols or monograms
simply identifies the new end-users for whom old coins were reissued”); also 58 (“When two symbols are present,
this is often an indication of two end-users who are to be the intended recipients of a particular issue together”);
the comment refers generally to the symbols used on Seleucid coins as control marks. For a critique to this approach
(concerning the control marks, not the countermarks) see DE CALLATAY 2012: esp. 47.
118 See KROLL 1993: 116 (Period VA, c. AD 120-124; Period VB, c. AD 125/129—140s/150s; Period VC,
c.AD 140s/150s-c. 175), nos. 162-167,226-230.
119 In such a case, the Thessalian and the Athenian authorities could have made an agreement in order to deal
with the famine situation, by the use also of credit. The Thessalian corn-producers could have applied on the tokens
first the wheat-ear countermark upon dispatch to the distribution center; then the owl countermark could have been
applied on occasion upon the realisation of the shipment and in expectation of the payment.
120 A different theory could be advanced, e.g. accepting the existence of two Thessalian com-producers
involved: one using the wheat-ear countermark while the other the owl countermark. In this case things would
turn out to be very complex with regard to the significance of each stamp (marking a quantity, just the com owner
or something else?) and particularly with the cases of the two stamps appearing in tandem. In another scenario
one could wonder if the presence of the countermarked pieces in Thessaly could perhaps mean that a collective
shipment failed eventually to be paid, but this would remain in speculation.
121 See HELLY 2008: 29 (7G IX.2, 506b, /. 29 and /. 47), 91-96; MACKIL 2015: 496, 497.
75