Philistia (Palestine), uncertain mint AR Tetradrachm. Imitating Athens, circa 450-400 BC(?). Head of Athena to right, wearing crested Attic helmet ornamented with three olive leaves above visor and spiral palmette on bowl, round earring with central boss, and pearl necklace; uncertain Aramaic or Phoenician letter on cheek, perhaps a taw(?) / Owl standing to right with head facing, olive sprig and crescent behind, ΑΘΕ before; all within incuse square. Unpublished in the standard references; for similar examples, cf. SNG ANS 3 (shin on cheek), Heritage 3042, 29128 (uncertain letter on cheek), CNG 97, 399 (aleph on cheek guard), CNG 84, 738 (shin on cheek), Leu Numismatik 83, 246 (aleph on neck); for general classification, cf. Van Alfen, Mechanisms III.C.2. 17.17g, 24mm, 7h.

Near Mint State. Apparently unique and unpublished, and of significant numismatic interest.

Ex Roma Numismatics Ltd, E-Sale 90, 18 November 2021, lot 677.

The fascinating specimen, which is struck in fine style and is a near-faithful rendering of the contemporary Athenian iteration, bears not a countermark but instead a raised letter on Athena’s cheek, probably either an Aramaic or Phoenician character and most closely resembling an Aramaic taw, that was cut into the original die. One comparable example, found in SNG ANS (3), has been linked to the Samaritan city of Shomron, owing to the presence of a shin-like character on the right cheek, but whether or not the letter observed here, and others akin to it, can genuinely be associated with particular governors, satraps, magistrates or indeed locales is, at present, uncertain.

The altering of imitative Athens tetradrachms from Levantine, Egypt and Arabia with (most commonly) Aramaic style countermarks and/or graffiti was widespread during the fifth-fourth century BC. Van Alfen, in his exhaustive and illuminating review of the subject (The 1989 Syria Hoard, 2002, p. 5), maintains that such punches were most likely the personal emblems of specific magistrates or bankers, and advises against attempting to associate marks with particular Eastern mints. With this in mind, the questions arises whether the letter observed in relief here should also be considered the mark of an individual as opposed to a city ethnic. Clearly, further investigation is required.