The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens. Text / by Margaret Thompson

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 20:29 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.
39015010306465
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike / http://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#cc-by-nc-sa-4.0
50
1961
Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 20:29 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015010306465



/,
/-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword 1
Bibliography, Collections and Key to Abbreviations 11
The Sequence of Issues 27
Note on the Catalogue 80
The Early Period (196/5-169/8 B.C.)
Catalogue 82
Commentary 107
The Middle Period (168/7-182/1 B.C.)
Catalogue 138
Commentary 807
The Late Period (181/0-88/7 B.C.)
Catalogue 820
Commentary 892
Sullan Issues 425
Imitations 440
Hoards 478
Magistrates 546
Symbols 600
Statistical Survey
A. Amphora Letters 608
B. Control Combinations 618
C. Silver Analyses 622
D. Bronze Analyses 638
E. Weights 642
F. Die Positions 648
G. Annual Distribution of the Coinage 649

In Conclusion 723
Indexes 728

FOREWORD
For more than a century the New Style coinage of Athens has been a sub-
ject of serious numismatic study. Its attraction is easily understandable, for
in the field of Greek numismatics there is perhaps no series which presents a
greater challenge and at the same time holds out a more definite promise of
fulfilment. This is an abundant coinage, extensive in time, varied in style, and
rich in factual information. Its reverses provide the names of hundreds of
Athenian magistrates, the month dates of individual pieces, and an elaborate
system of control lettersthe only important omission is the years of striking.
If any undated sequence can be arranged in exact chronological order it would
seem to be this one and many scholars have applied themselves to the task. The
latest of these, Alfred R. Bellinger, has summarized the work of his predecessors
in his article "The Chronology of the Attic New Style Tetradrachms"; much of
what follows in the next few paragraphs is a repetition of his general survey.
E. Beule made the first attempt at a compilation of New Style issues. His
publication, Les monnaies d'Athenes (Paris 1858), includes nearly 2000 silver
and bronze coins, each issue illustrated with an engraving of a typical reverse.
In a few cases obverses are reproduced and also the fractional silver and bronze
which Beule thought related to the tetradrachm strikings. The arrangement is
uncomplicated. Monogram issues are separated from those with the names of
magistrates written out, but the second category has a strictly alphabetical
order. With the monogram emissions Beule indicated his judgment as to se-
quence, often giving specific dates with reference to historical events in the
period immediately succeeding the death of Alexander.1
1 In assigning the beginning of the New Style coinage to the last quarter of the fourth century
Beule was in agreement with earlier numismatic opinion (cited on pp. 93-100 of Les monnaies
d'Athenes). He failed, however, to mention or take into consideration one dissenting judgment

which time has vindicated. The Numismatic Chronicle in its 1854 volume (pp. 29-37) published
extracts of a letter from Charles T. Newton, British vice consul at Mytilene, which had been read
before the Royal Numismatic Society two years earlier by W. S. W. Vaux. In that letter, dealing
chiefly with a hoard of coins of Alexander the Great, Newton discussed very briefly the spread-
flan coinages of various Greek cities, ending with the observation, "It was about the middle of
this period, that is to say, about B.C. 200, that I should place the commencement of the broad
tetradrachms of Athens, which form the third, or more modern series of that mint." No reasons
were given in support of the date, which no doubt explains why Newton's suggestion was ignored
by later numismatists, but it is interesting to note that as early as 1852, six years before Beule's
volume appeared, an approximately correct date for the inauguration of the New Style series
was on record.
The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens
Beule's alphabetical arrangement of the issues with magistrates' names was
followed by Barclay V. Head in the British Museum Catalogue of 1888, but in
the later Historia Numorum (2nd ed., Oxford 1911) he outlined a chronological
classification of the coins, dividing them into six periods on the basis of style.
The general groupings which he mademonograms, two magistrates with ab-
breviated names, three magistrates, two magistrates with names in full were
accepted and retained by later scholars.
A still more elaborate study of stylistic sequence was presented by Jean
Svoronos. The monumental work on which he was engaged, Les monnaies
d'Athenes, was interrupted by his death but the illustrations he had assembled
were published a few years later by Behrendt Pick (Munich 1923-1926). There
is no accompanying text but the plates certainly represent Svoronos' con-
clusions as to general arrangement. Eight divisions of the coinage are indicated
and Svoronos' keen eye for style is apparent in the association of issues com-
prising the separate sections. However, with some deviation, the order within
each division is still alphabetical.
With the work of M. L. Kambanis the arrangement of the issues was given
a tool of precision which it had hitherto lacked. In a series of "Notes sur le
classement chronologique des monnaies d'Athenes," Kambanis presented his
crucially important discovery that obverse dies were sometimes transferred
from one issue to another and that where such transfer can be established there
is firm proof of chronological sequence. Unfortunately, like Svoronos, Kam-
banis died before the completion of his study, but the six articles he published
between 1928 and 1938 do present most of the links he had found and also
indicate the conclusions he had reached in respect to the arrangement of sec-

tions of the coinage.
In 1949 Alfred Bellinger gave fresh impetus to the study of the New Style
coins in the article cited above. His publication brings together the research
and conclusions of earlier numismatists, summarizes the present state of the
question, and indicates the direction that future study must take. Bellinger's
arrangement embodies the links published by Kambanis and is guided to a
considerable extent by Svoronos' groupings, but there are important deviations
which are carefully explained.
So much for the chronological order. While this work was going on other
aspects of the New Style coinage were receiving attention. J. Sundwall in
his Untersuchungen iiber die attischen Miinzen des neueren Stiles dealt with
the prosopographical material and drew up a most useful tabulation of third
magistrates, amphora letters and control marks associated with each issue.
The letters which indicate the months of striking were discussed by George
Macdonald in an article on "The Amphora Letters on Coins of Athens." Sund-
Foreword
wall and Svoronos attempted to explain the control markings which appear
below the amphora on all but the earliest New Style issues; a number of brief
articles, notably by Lederer and Svoronos, considered the problems raised by
individual issues. Reference will be made to all these studies in the pertinent
sections of the present publication.
From this research of the past hundred years many theories and assump-
tionsand one facthave emerged. Some of the hypotheses have been short-
lived, demonstrably untrue in the light of further study; others, although
grounded in probability rather than certainty, have been accepted by so many
authorities that they have solidified as basic premises, well-nigh indistinguish-
able from facts.
Before any new approach to the coinage is made, it might be well to differ-
entiate clearly between fact and theory. There is, I believe, only one fact which
has so far been established with regard to the New Style coinage of Athens,
namely that diverse issues made use of the same obverse die or dies, a circum-
stance which indicates chronological contiguity. Even this should perhaps be
qualified. It is conceivable that a die, discarded as worn but not thrown away,
was brought back into service after an interval to help meet an emergency
need for a large amount of money. Dies cut for the drachms, which were minor
issues as compared with the tetradrachm strikings, may have been carried over
several years, so that a link in the fractional silver does not necessarily imply
immediate sequence. However, unless there is conflicting evidence, it seems
safe to regard issues in which the same obverse die appears at the end of one
year and at the beginning of another as consecutive strikings.
All the rest is assumption, some of it firmly based, some of it tenuous. The

theories which have been most generally accepted are the following:
1. Our material is sufficiently complete so that the record of known issues
will be supplemented only slightly, if at all, by future discoveries.
2. The coinage is a series of annual issues, dated by the months of the civil
calendar, and for the most part continuous, down at least to 86 B.C.
8. Athens began striking this new coinage in 229 B.C. after the withdrawal
of the Macedonian garrisons and stopped sometime after Sulla, either in the
middle of the first century before Christ or in the time of Augustus.
4. Head's basic division of the issuesmonograms, abbreviated names,
three magistrates, two magistratesrepresents a chronological progression of
clearly-defined groups.
5. Certain magistrates are to be identified with historical personalities,
notably Antiochos and Mithradates with Antiochos IV of Syria and Mithra-
dates VI of Pontus.
6. The Delos material is important in determining what issues were struck
before 88 B.C., the date when the island was devastated by Mithradates' forces.
This means that all issues found on Delos must antedate 88 but it does not,
of course, follow that all issues not found there must be later than Mithradates.
There are three-magistrate issues, which clearly belong in an earlier period,
and a few of the late two-magistrate issues, which for one reason or another
must be dated before 88, missing from the Delos record, but with these ex-
ceptions, the strikings not represented in the Delos burials are assumed to
postdate Sulla.
Not all scholars have held all these assumptions but I think it is a fair
statement of the case to say that they do represent the consensus of numis-
matic opinion, at least prior to 1949. Then Alfred Bellinger published his
startling theory that the coinage began c. 180/79 B.C. and that one of its most
cherished landmarks, Antiochos Epiphanes, must be abandoned. At that time
I was not prepared to revise thus radically my "basic assumptions," but doubt
had been implanted and as I began to work over the coinage it became in-
creasingly clear that not only Antiochos IV and 229 B.C. must be discarded
but that other hallowed assumptions as well were demonstrably false or sus-
ceptible of strong challenge.
It is not easy to break with long-established tradition unless one enjoys
demolition for its own sake. I have tried to reconcile the evidence as I see it
with the basic premises outlined above and have abandoned some of the latter
only reluctantly and with trepidation. If the iconoclasm which emerges in the
following pages seems shocking to the reader, it has seemed no less so to me,
but there is some consolation to be derived from the reflection that truth is

often served through heresy.
This present study was undertaken in the belief that a new corpus of the
New Style coinage was needed if any firm chronological order were ever to be
established. Beule's listing, although it included all specimens known to him
of both silver and bronze, is a century old and furthermore unillustrated for
all practical purposes. The material gathered by Svoronos is extensive and the
coins are reproduced photographically, but the result is a selection rather than
a corpus. Svoronos seems to have been concerned chiefly with reverse variations
rather than with a complete record of obverse and reverse dies and although his
text might have provided a catalogue of unillustrated specimens, we do not
have it. Kambanis may have planned a corpus but the material which he left
does not indicate this.1
1 In 1951 the American Numismatic Society acquired the casts of 1699 New Style tetra-
drachms which Kambanis had assembled for his studies. Shortly thereafter, his heirs turned over
to us a group of notebooks and folders compiled by Kambanis during the course of his work.
Foreword
Yet it is a corpus which is needed, as Kambanis pointed out, if one is to
make full use of the basic contribution of the coins themselves. Prosopographical
and historical theories can be most persuasive but they remain theories until
they can be tested by the proof of chronology which the die links provide.
Since reference will be made from time to time to this material, it will be well to outline in some
detail just what it includes. There are five items of direct pertinence for the New Style coinage:
1) A summary listing of all specimens from nineteen public and three private collections,
together with a few coins in the hands of a dealer. This was drawn up in 1928-1929 and contains
data on third magistrates, amphora and control letters, and weights. According to Kambanis'
tally, the total is roughly 2100 tetradrachms.
2) A skeleton catalogue by issues, embodying the information from the sources above sup-
plemented with material from other public and private collections, from Svoronos' plates and
from sales catalogues. This is prefaced by what seems to be Kambanis' tentative sequence of
issues and to it is appended an elaborate table of weights. The total number of tetradrachms
here is 5918, and the great increase in the amount of material recorded would indicate that this
compilation, although undated, is later than No. 1 above.
3) A folder with a listing of the AHMHTPIOZ - ArAGITTnOZ coins, paralleling the record
in No. 2, together with mounted photographs of sixty-six specimens.
4) A folder containing similar listings and illustrations for thirteen issues of the three-magis-
trate period.
5) A third folder which is somewhat difficult to interpret. It consists in the main of a pen
and ink manuscript (pages numbered 16-84) which has been revised in pencil, and on the last
page there is the pencilled notation "Mykonos 23 Sept. 1938." This then is later than the last
of Kambanis' published studies. Pages are missing at the beginning but of what we have left
the first section discusses briefly a group of three-magistrate issues. This is followed by general

commentaries on various aspects of the New Style coinagemagistrates, symbols, weights,
amphora letters and so forth. Toward the end there is a section which recapitulates the evidence
for three die links already published, outlines the proof for one mentioned in print but not illus-
trated, and adds a new one. On the face of it, one might suppose that we have here Kambanis'
summary of his thoughts on the arrangement and significance of the coinage, intended perhaps
as a final "Note" in the series he published, but there are grave objections to this. The listing of
the three-magistrate issues in the early section of the manuscript is alphabetical and does not
even take into account the die links which Kambanis had published; there is a presentation of
the evidence for some die links but it is by no means inclusive; finally almost all of the pages
have been x'd over in pencil as though the material were for some reason outdated or discarded.
In view of the uncertainties concerning the manuscript, its contents must be appraised with
caution. Reference will be made to it but one cannot be sure that it represents Kambanis' final
thoughts on the New Style coinage.
It is in this manuscript that one finds the following observations which would seem to indi-
cate that Kambanis did not plan a corpus of the coinage: "Une derniere ressource pour nous
mettre dans la voie de telles recherches (into the arrangement of the issues) serait le style et la
fabrique des monnaies mais dans la plus grande partie des cas on ne saurait rdussir sans perseverer
dans les recherches laborieuses constitutes par une comparaison des coins. Le succes d6pend de
la quantite de materiaux dont on dispose En somme il n'y a qu'un corpus general qui aiderait
a une solution definitive. En attendant, on donnera ici quelques exemples de ces coincidences
des coins..."
The catalogue which follows is as complete as I have been able to make it.
Kambanis' collection of casts, reproducing 1699 tetradrachms, was a substantial
body of material on which to build but it required a great deal of supplementa-
tion. Between 1951 and 1960 I have added nearly 4500 tetradrachms and
800 fractions to his compilation for a complete record of all major collections
here and abroad, with one exception. Through the cooperation of Mme. L. N. Be-
lova, photographs of all the early and late coins in the Hermitage Cabinet have
been supplied. A detailed listing of some 300 additional pieces, all from the
three-magistrate period, was made by Henri Seyrig during a visit to Leningrad,
but it was not possible to secure photographs of these coins.1
Over the past century there has naturally been a substantial increase in
the number of known specimens, due in large measure to additional hoard
material. Beul6's compilation of 1858 contained fewer than 2000 tetradrachms.
Svoronos' publication sixty-five years later included reproductions of about
800 representative tetradrachms. Kambanis estimated that there were in 1938
over 10,000 New Style tetradrachms in private and public cabinets and stated
that he had himself recorded 7500 of them (this second figure is excessive; the
accurate count would be closer to 5000).2 The present catalogue contains
6193 tetradrachms, 701 drachms and 94 hemidrachms.
1 At the time this Foreword was written it was feared that the contents of the Berlin Cabinet
would also have to be omitted from the corpus. Most happily the vast amount of material in that
collection became accessible late in 1958 and during the course of the following ten months photo-
graphs and casts of 586 tetradrachms and fractions, of which I had had no previous record, were
secured through the kind offices of Prof. Dr. Arthur Suhle and Herr Eberhard Erxleben. When
news of the availability of this material reached me, work on the catalogue and plates had already

been completed. The Berlin entries have been inserted in their proper places but the catalogue
as a whole has not been renumbered. Twenty-one new obverse dies (nineteen for tetradrachms
and two for drachms) coming for the most part from the Berlin Cabinet have been given X num-
bers: 31X, 44X and so forth.
With regard to the Leningrad material, it is doubtful that the unrecorded specimens would
make any decisive change in the present record. M. Seyrig's listing adds nothing new in the way
of issues, magistrates, dates or control combinations. One would certainly find a fair number of
new reverse dies and probably some new obverse ones as well. Nearly four hundred and fifty
coins from the three-magistrate period were among the Berlin coins recently recorded and these
supplied seven new obverse dies, no one of them providing a link between issues. One would
expect perhaps four or five more from the 300 odd coins of the Hermitage but the chance of their
changing the well-established sequence for the Middle Period is negligible.
2 None of these totals represents an exact tally on my part. I have, however, added the tetra-
drachms for the first section of the coinage, that with monograms and abbreviated names:
Beule 314
Svoronos 196
Kambanis 726 (but, as explained below, more likely 600)
Thompson 1003
Foreword
How does this increase in material affect the assumption that our record
of issues is virtually complete? Beule knew 101 of the regular issues which
comprised the New Style output of the Athenian mint and also the two atypical
strikings without A 0 E. Fifty years later Head in the Historia Numorum was
able, as a result of the publications of Svoronos, Lobbecke and others, to add
eight late issues (two of them known only from drachms)1 and the O AEMOZ
striking. These were all illustrated by Svoronos, together with a variant of the
R - M and kerchnos coinage of the early period. Despite the tremendous
amount of material that Kambanis had studied, his listing included only one
new issuethat of ft-A without symbolan example of which had been
originally published by Lederer in 1926, and the unique tetradrachm from the
Petsalis Collection which goes with the AIONYCIOC - AHMOCTPATOC drachms
illustrated by Svoronos. In 1949 Bellinger reproduced a single coin of a hitherto
unknown issue, N'-Iwith two palms, bringing the count to 111 regular and
three irregular issues. In the present catalogue this total is decreased by two.
Only 110 regular and two irregular emissions are attributed to the mint of
Athens; the KOINTOZ - XAPMOZTPA and O AEMOZ strikings are classified as
imitations. All additions since Beule have been at the beginning or the end of
the coinage and the number of specimens known for each new issue is so small
(one or two for the late pieces; four for the earliest issue) that it is quite safe
Kambanis' figure of 7500 tetradrachms he had catalogued must be taken as a very rough estimate.
The listing which he compiled from diverse sources (item 2 in the footnote on p. 5) includes exactly
5918 pieces. But this does not mean that Kambanis had seen 5918 different specimens. The same
coin appearing in two sales catalogues is given two entries; coins described but not illustrated in
sales catalogues and published collections are entered although the chances are that most of them

found their way eventually into the private and public cabinets which Kambanis inspected. Two
issues have been checked with these repetitions in mind: that with monograms and rudder symbol
and that with AHMH - IEPQ and helmet symbol. For the first, Kambanis lists eighteen coins. Two
of these from different sales catalogues are the same piece; two others (Beul6 and Mavrokordatou
Collections) are nowhere illustrated and in all probability duplicate other entries. In any event,
for purposes of a corpus there are fifteen not eighteen rudder coins. With the AHMH - lEPfl issue
there are forty-six entries of which eight have to be subtracted as repetitions or unillustrated
specimens. In both instances the number of specimens whose separate identity can be established
is less by one-sixth than the count in Kambanis' notebook. Assuming that these proportions hold
throughout the series, one must then consider Kambanis' record as closer to 5000 than to 7500
tetradrachms. This is of no great significance except that his figures have led us to believe that
rather more coins have survived than is in all probability the case. Even with the addition of
hoard material uncovered since 1938,1 should be inclined to estimate that there are fewer than
8000 tetradrachms above ground today.
1 AlONYZIOZ-MNAZArOPAZ; 0EOOPAZTOZ - EMIZTO; KAAAIMAXOZ - ETTIK-
PATHZ; MENNEAZ-HPOJAHZ; TTANTAKAHZ- AHMHTPIOZ; TPYOQN - TTOAYXAP-
MOZ; AIONYCIOC -AHMOCTPATOC (dr.); AHMOXAPHC-T7AMMENHC (dr.).
to assume that all major issues have now been recorded. Hoards of the future
may provide a new striking or two at one extremity or the other of the series
and we may some day have a tetradrachm as a companion piece for the AHMO-
XAPHC -TTAMMENHC drachm, but on the whole the chances are good that we
now know all the issues.
No one would be so rash as to claim that we have a record of all the dies.
The situation with regard to the obverses is, however, more encouraging than
that which concerns the reverses. Prior to the autumn of 1955 when the writer
went abroad to assemble additional material, 1097 obverse dies for tetra-
drachms and over 3000 reverses had been incorporated in the catalogue. During
visits to various European museums 656 tetradrachms were added to the listing.
Of these only sixteen proved to have obverse dies not previously recorded, but
among the 656 coins, 271 new reverse-obverse combinations were discovered.
Many of the reverse dies, to be sure, were already known, but not as coupled
with these particular obverses. From this check it is obvious that our record
of reverse dies and reverse-obverse combinations is far from complete, but at
the same time it seems certain that the 1136 obverses illustrated on the plates
include the vast majority of surviving dies, and it is the obverses which are of
paramount importance for the chronology.
With the material at his disposal, Kambanis found 18 die links involving
24 issues, two of which must be eliminated.1 The present publication establishes
51 links involving 39 issues. One wishes that more strikings could have been
thus incontrovertibly bound together but all additional evidence is precious
and in some cases the individual links have a significance which transcends
that of the exact chronology.

This study of the New Style coinage of Athens would have been quite im-
possible without the assistance of the many individuals in diverse parts of the
world who have responded with unfailing courtesy and cooperation to my re-
quests for material and information. The listing of public and private collec-
tions, in the bibliographical section which follows, gives the names of those
through whose kind offices I have secured casts, photographs and data, but
that bare outline is a wholly inadequate indication of my profound gratitude
for help received. In numerous instances, museum curators and private col-
lectors not only have made available the coins in their custody and in their
cabinets but have gone out of their way to provide reproductions and in-
formation on other collections of which they had knowledge, thus adding
greatly to the completeness of this survey. My thanks for catalogue material
are also due to the European and American dealers who have brought coins
iKTHZI-EYMA and AHMH - IEPQ; NEXTQP - MNAZEAZ and EYMHAOZ - 0EO-
EENIAHZ. These erroneous connections are discussed fully in the commentaries (pp. 130, 461).
Foreword
in trade to my attention, and in particular to Dr. Herbert A. Cahn, Mr.
W. V. Royle Baldwin, Mr. Edward Gans and the late Mr. L. Forrer.
With his customary helpfulness Professor Henri Seyrig has supplied me
with an extensive record of coins from hoards and collections in Lebanon and
Syria and I am further indebted to him for the preparation of a detailed listing
of the contents of the Hermitage Cabinet, a time-consuming undertaking
which, I fear, was carried out at the expense of his own research projects.
M. Georges Le Rider offered to make casts and to check data with respect to
particular coins during a visit to the Berlin Museum and in so doing com-
pounded my already great obligation for photographs and casts of material
in Cretan and Athenian collections, much of which would otherwise have re-
mained inaccessible. The present study, like any survey of a major coinage,
has imposed a heavy burden on the facilities of the British Museum and I am
warmly grateful to Mr. G. K. Jenkins not only for the complete numismatic
record but also for many additional services in connection with special prob-
lems. Dr. E. S. G. Robinson has placed at my disposal his careful notes on
New Style hoard material which had passed through his hands and has most
generously shared and permitted me to publish his thoughts on the monograms
of the Sullan issues. From the beginning, Mr. Sydney P. Noe has taken a deep
interest in the course of the inquiry and has furthered its progress in every way
possible; the book is the better for his kindness.
Grateful acknowledgement is made of a grant from the Penrose Fund of
the American Philosophical Society which enabled me to spend some months
abroad examining and cataloguing a great deal of new material. That I was
able to complete the work at Athens in the short time available is due to the

assistance of Miss Eva Brann and Professor William P. Wallace who photo-
graphed at an earlier date large sections of the holdings of that cabinet, thus
providing me with a most useful preliminary record.
The cooperation and contributions of specialists in various fields are ac-
knowledged in relation to the pertinent sections of the study. For help of a
more general nature I am indebted to Professor John V. A. Fine and to Dr.
Homer A. Thompson for aid and guidance in connection with certain historical
and epigraphical problems. Basic research for the chapter on magistrates was
greatly facilitated by Dr. Irwin Merker's generosity in making an "indefinite
loan" of his copy of Prosopographia Attica. Preparation and presentation of
the material owes much to Miss Dorothy H. Cox for her skillful reproduction
of the numerous and often complicated monograms; to Mrs. Annade Lafayette,
Mrs. Beulah Shonnard and Miss Rose Mangini for competent and willing service
in cast-making and other tedious chores; to Mr. Raymond Johnson for the vast
amount of photography required; to Miss Joan Fagerlie for her kindness in
10
helping with the onerous task of reading proof; and to Mr. Sawyer McA. Mosser
and Mr. J. J. Augustin for the painstaking care with which they have seen the
volume through the editing and printing stages. The Council of the American
Numismatic Society has most generously and without hesitation assumed
the heavy financial burden of publication and I should like to express to its
members my sincere appreciation of their confidence.
Over the course of the years there have been many who could not choose
but hear. To my captive auditorsfamily, friends and colleaguesI tender
apologies and heartfelt thanks for the patience and forbearance with which
they have borne with me and with the coinage of Athens. No one of them has
been more sorely tried than Professor Alfred R. Bellinger and it is difficult to
express the measure of my gratitude for counsel and encouragement far beyond
the call of either duty or friendship.
As I think of the predecessors whose scholarly research laid the foundations
for the present study and of the contemporaries whose help has enabled me to
bring it to completion, I share Pascal's conviction that an author should speak
not of "my book" or "my history" but rather of "our book" or "our history"
since in it there is usually more of other people's than of his own. It is, then,
to all those others who have contributed in so many ways that our book is

gratefully inscribed.
BIBLIOGRAPHY, COLLECTIONS AND KEY
TO ABBREVIATIONS
(A few public and private collections cited in the catalogue do not appear in the listing
below. In these cases the record is based either on Svoronos' plates in Les monnaies
d'Athenes or on the cast collection which Kambanis had assembled for his studies and
the author does not know how complete it is.)
Aberdeen Collection of the University of Aberdeen. Catalogue of Newnham Davis
coins by E. S. G. Robinson. Material and information provided by E. J. P. Raven
and A. Cameron.
A J A American Journal of Archaeology.
AM Mitteilungen des deutschen archaologischen Instituts, athenische Abteilung.
Amsterdam Collection of the Kon. Akademie van Wetenschapen. Catalogue by U.
Ph. Boissevain. Material and information provided by A. N. Zadoks-Jitta.
Am. Univ. Beirut Collection of the American University, Beirut. Material and infor-
mation provided by D. C. Baramki.
ANA Conv. Cat. Catalogue of sales held in connection with the annual convention of
the American Numismatic Association.
Aug. 25-28, 1951. Phoenix, Arizona.
Aug. 1&-20, 1952. New York, N. Y.
Aug. 17-21, 1954. Cleveland, Ohio.
Andreopoulos Coll. Coins in the collection of Constantine Andreopoulos, Athens.
ANS Collection of the American Numismatic Society.
ANS-ETN American Numismatic Society, formerly the collection of Edward T. Newell.
ANS-Gautier American Numismatic Society, formerly the collection of Maurice Gautier.
ANSCent. Centennial Publication of the American Numismatic Society, New York,
1958.
ANSMN The American Numismatic Society Museum Notes.

Arch. Archaeometry, The Bulletin of the Research Laboratory for Archaeology and
the History of Art, Oxford.
Arch. Zeit. Archaologische Zeitung.
Ardaillon, E. Les mines du Laurion dans I'antiquiU, Paris, 1897.
Areihuse, Suppl. comm. (see under Florange-Ciani).
Athens Collection of the National Numismatic Museum. Material and information
provided by Irene Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou.
Athens Collector Coins in the collection of an Athenian resident who prefers to remain
anonymous.
Babelon, J. Catalogue de la collection de Luynes, II, Paris, 1925.
12
Baker Coll. Coins in the collection of De Vere Baker, Brownsville, Texas.
Ball Sales catalogue of R. Ball Nachf., Berlin.
VI: Feb. 9, 1982.
89: Fixed Price List 89, April 1987.
Bartlett Coll. Coins in the collection of F. Lewis Bartlett, Haverford, Pa.
Basel Collection of the Historisches Museum. Material and information provided by
W. Schneewind.
Bauer Coll. Coins at one time comprising the collection of G. Bauer, Rochester, N. Y.
BCH Bulletin de correspondance hellenique.
Beazley, J. D. Attic Black-figure Vase-painters, Oxford, 1956.
Bellinger, A. R. Two Hoards of Attic Bronze Coins, NNM 42, 1930.
Review of Noe, S. P., A Bibliography of Greek Coin Hoards, A J A, 1938, pp. 317-319.
"The Chronology of the Attic New Style Tetradrachms," Hesp., Suppl. VIII, 1949,
pp. 6-80.
The Excavations at Dura-Europos, Final Report VI: The Coins, New Haven, 1949.
"The First Civic Tetradrachms of Ilium," ANSMN VIII, 1958, pp. 11-24.
Benson Coll. Coins in the collection of Ireton Benson, Great Neck, New York.
Berlin Collection of the Staatl. Miinzkabinett. Material and information provided by
A. Suhle and E. Erxleben.
Berry Coll. Coins at one time comprising the collection of Burton Y. Berry, Istanbul.
Now in the cabinet of the American Numismatic Society and recently published: SNG,
The Burton Y. Berry Collection, Part I (Macedonia to Attica), New York, 1961.
Beule, E. Les monnaies d'Athenes, Paris, 1858.
BMC A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum.
Boeckh, A. The Public Economy of Athens (Eng. trans.), London, 1828.

Boissevain, U. Ph. Beschreibung dcr griechischen aulonomen Miinzen im Besitze der
Kon. Akademie der Wissenschaftcn zu Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 1912.
Booth Coll. Coins at one time comprising the collection of H. Booth, Poughkeepsie, N. Y.
Boston MFA Collection of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Catalogue by A. B. Brett.
Material and information provided by Hazel Palmer and Cornelius C. Vermeule.
Bourgey Sales catalogue of E. Bourgey, Paris.
Dec. 14, 1911. Coll. Chabenat.
March 27, 1912.
Dec. 8, 1928. Coll. Dr. V.
Dec. 5, 1932. Coll. G.
May 25, 1950.
Brett, A. B. Catalogue of Greek Coins, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1955.
Broneer, O. "Excavations on the North Slope of the Acropolis in Athens, 1931-1932,"
Hesp., 1983, pp. 329-417.
Brooklyn Mus. Collection of the Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, N. Y. Material and in-
formation provided by Bernard Bothmer.
Broughton, T. R. S. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, II, New York, 1952.
Brunswick Collection of the Stadtisches Museum. Material and information provided
by W. Jesse.
Bibliography
13
Brussels Collection of the Bibliotheque Royale (Cabinet des Medailles). Catalogue
of the de Hirsch coins by P. Naster. Material and information provided by
P. Naster.
Bucharest Collection of the Musee National des Antiquites de l'lnstitut d'Archeologie.
Material and information provided by E. Condurachi and B. Mitrea.
Budapest Collection of the Magyar Nemzeti Muzeum. Material and information provided
by L. Huszar and A. Kerenyi.
Cahn Sales catalogue of A. E. Cahn, Frankfurt am Main.
24: Fixed Price List 24, Nov. 1912.
60: July 2, 1928.
61: Dec. 8, 1928. Coll. Prof. Dr. Karl Hahn.
65: Oct. 15, 1929.
66: May 6, 1930.
68: Nov. 26, 1930. Coll. Moritz Simon et al.
71: Oct. 14, 1981.
75: May 80, 1932.
84: Nov. 29, 1988.
Caley, E. R. The Composition of Ancient Greek Bronze Coins (Memoirs of the American
Philosophical Society XI), Philadelphia, 1939.
Cambridge Collection of the Fitzwilliam Museum. McClean coins published by S. W.
Grose; Leake and other coins by F. Heichelheim who kindly made available his notes
on the New Style material in advance of publication. Material and information provided
by Philip Grierson, Harold Shrubbs and Graham Pollard.
Cambridge, Corpus Christi Lewis Collection of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.
Material and information provided by C. D. Bicknell.

Cancio Coll. Coins in the collection of Leopoldo Cancio, Washington, D. C.
Cary, M. "Sources of Silver for the Greek World," Milanges Gustave Glotz, I (Paris,
1932), pp. 133-142.
Cavedoni, C. Osservazioni sopra le anliche monete di Atene, Modena, 1886.
Chiha Coll. Coins in the collection of Michel Chiha, Beirut.
Ciani Sales catalogue of L. Ciani, Paris.
Oct. 25, 1920. Coll. F. M.
Dec. 12, 1921.
Feb. 20, 1935. Coll. General de Grandprey.
Coin Galleries Sales catalogue of Coin Galleries, New York.
Mail Bid Sale, March 9, 1956.
Colin, G. Le culte d'Apollon Pythien d Athenes, Paris, 1905.
Combe, C. Nummorum Veterum Populorum et Urbium, London, 1782.
Condurachi, E. "Les monnaies attiques dans les Balkans," Balcania VI, Bucharest, 1943.
Copenhagen Collection of the Danish National Museum (Kongelige Mont-og Medaille-
samling). Catalogue by W. Schwabacher. Material and information provided by
Georg Galster and Otto Morkholm.
Crosby, M. "The Leases of the Laureion Mines," Hesp., 1950, pp. 189-312.
"More Fragments of Mining Leases from the Athenian Agora," Hesp., 1957, pp. 1-23.
14
Damascus Collection of the National Syrian Museum.
Damascus Collector Coins in the collection of a Damascus resident who prefers to re-
main anonymous.
Daremberg-Saglio C. Daremberg with E. Saglio and E. Pottier, Dictionnaire des
antiquitis grecques et romaines.
Daux, G. "A propos des monnaies luculliennes," RN, 1935, pp. 1-9.
Chronologie delphique, Paris, 1948.
Davidson, G. R. and Thompson, D. B. Small Objects from the Pnyx: I, Hesp., Suppl.
VII, 1948. Hoard of New Style bronzes catalogued by Sarah Atherton, pp. 24-27.
Day, J. An Economic History of Athens under Roman Domination, New York, 1942.
DC A Dilos colonie athinienne (see under Roussel).
Del Marte Coll. Coins in the collection of Mrs. Del Marte, Salina, Kansas.
Dewing Coll. Coins in the collection of Arthur S. Dewing, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Dinsmoor, W. B. The Archons of Athens in the Hellenistic Age, Cambridge (Mass.), 1981.
The Athenian Archon List in the Light of Recent Discoveries, New York, 1939.
Dorotheum Sales catalogue of Dorotheum, Vienna.
March 26, 1957. Coll. A. Zeno.
Dow, S. "The List of Archontes, I. G.2 II 1706," Hesp., 1988, pp. 418-446.
Prytaneis, Hesp. Suppl. I, 1987.
"The Egyptian Cults in Athens," Harvard Theological Review, 1987, pp. 183-232.
"Archons of the Period after Sulla," Hesp., Suppl. VIII, 1949, pp. 116-125.
Doyle Coll. Coins in the collection of Edwin Doyle, Palo Alto, California.
Dresse de Lebioles Coll. Coins in the collection of Paul Dresse de Lebioles, Brussels.
Edinburgh Collection of the Royal Scottish Museum. Material and information provided
by R. Kerr and Michael Grant.

Edwards, G. R. "Panathenaics of Hellenistic and Roman Times," Hesp., 1957, pp.
820-849.
Egger Sales catalogue of Briider Egger, Vienna.
XXXIX: Jan. 15, 1912.
XL: May 2, 1912. Coll. T. Prowe.
XLI: Nov. 18, 1912. Coll. Mme. Ch.
XLVI: May 11, 1914. Coll. T. Prowe et al.
Emeleus, V. M. "The Technique of Neutron Activation Analysis as applied to trace
element determination in pottery and coins," Arch. 1, 1958, pp. 6-15.
Engel, A. "Notes sur les collections numismatiques dAthenes," RN, 1885, pp. 1-27.
Evelpidis Coll. Coins in the collection of Rena Evelpidis, Athens.
Fabretti, A. Regio Museo di Torino: Monete greche, Turin, 1883.
FD Fouilles de Delphes.
Fecht Coll. Coins at one time comprising the collection of Arthur J. Fecht, on deposit
at the American Numismatic Society.
Ferguson Coll. Coins in the collection of J. K. W. Ferguson, Toronto.
Ferguson, W. S. "The Oligarchic Revolution at Athens of the Year 108/2 b. a," Klio,
1904, pp. 1-17.
"Researches in Athenian and Delian Documents. I," Klio, 1907, pp. 218-240.
Bibliography
15
Ferguson, W. S. "Researches in Athenian and Delian Documents. II," Klio, 1908,
pp. 388-855.
Hellenistic Athens, London, 1911.
Feuardent Sales catalogue of Feuardent Freres, Paris (earlier Rollin and Feuardent).
May 22, 1908.
May 9, 1910. Coll. G. Durufle.
June 9, 1918.
June 11, 1913. Coll. G. Burel.
May 26. 1914.
July 8, 1919. Coll. W. T. Ready.
Dec. 17, 1919. Coll. M. Collignon.
Dec. 17, 1921. Coll. Engel-Gros.
Dec. 19, 1921.
June 18, 1924.
Fiorelli, G. Catalogo del Museo Nazionale di Napoli: Collezione Santangelo, Naples, 1866.
Catalogo del Museo Nazionale di Napoli, Naples, 1870.
Florange-Ciani Sales catalogue of J. Florange - L. Ciani, Paris.
Feb. 10, 1928. Coll. Mme. K.
Oct. 16, 1923. Coll. Mr. X.
Fixed Price List 1 (Supplement commercial de la revue Arethuse) 1924.
May 28, 1924. Coll. G. Gallet.
Dec. 18, 1924. Coll. Barrachin.
Feb. 17, 1925. Coll. Col. Allotte de la Fuye.
Feb. 10, 1926. Coll. Caron.
Forbat Coll. Coins in the collection of F. Forbat, Stockholm.

Forbes, R. J. Metallurgy in Antiquity, Leiden, 1950.
Frankfurt am Main Collection of the Historisches Museum. Material and information
provided by Friedrich Friedmann.
Frankfurter Miinzhandl. Sales catalogue of Frankfurter Miinzhandlung, Frankfurt am
Main.
87: March 81, 1941. Coll. Freiherr v. L. et al.
99: Oct. 2, 1958.
Frey Sales catalogue of H. P. R. Frey, Freiburg im Breisgau.
Sept. 24, 1954.
Froehner, W. Monnaies grecques de la collection Photiades Pacha, Paris, 1890.
Gaebler, H. "Die autonome Miinzpragung der Makedonen, Amphaxier und Botteaten,"
Z/N, 1897, pp. 169-192.
Die antiken Miinzen Nord-Griechenlands, III, 1 (Makedonia und Paionia), Berlin, 1906
Gans Sales catalogue of E. Gans, Berkeley, California.
Mail Bid Sale 15: May 4, 1955.
Mail Bid Sale 16: April 19, 1960.
Geneva Collection of the Muse d'Art et d'Histoire. Material and information provided
by A. Roehrich.
Giamalakis Coll. Coins in the collection of Stylianos Giamalakis, Herakleion, Crete.
i6
Gilbert, G. The Constitutional Antiquities of Sparta and Athens, London, 1895.
Gillespie Coll. Coins in the collection of J. U. Gillespie, New Smyrna Beach, Florida.
Glasgow Collection of the Hunterian Museum. Catalogue by G. Macdonald. Material
and information provided by Anne S. Robertson.
Glendining Sales catalogue of Glendining and Co., London.
March 9, 1981.
Jan. 81, 1951. Coll. W. Cunningham.
Oct. 10. 1951. Coll. G. H. Abbott.
April 18, 1955.
March 7, 1957.
Oct. 4, 1957.
Gotha Material and information on the coins of the Gotha Cabinet, on deposit at
Munich, provided by Konrad Kraft.
Grabow Sales catalogue of L. Grabow, Rostock-Berlin.
July 9, 1980.
XIV: July 27, 1939.
7: Fixed Price List 7, Dec. 1954.
Griffen Coll. Coins in the collection of James J. Griffen, White Plains, New York.
Grose, S. W. Catalogue of the McClean Collection of Greek Coins (Fitzwilliam Museum),
Vol. II, Cambridge, 1926.
Grotefend, C. L. Chronologische Anordnungder athenischen Silbermiinzen, Hannover, 1872.
HA Hellenistic Athens (see under Ferguson).
The Hague Collection of the Koninklijk Kabinet van Munten, Penningen en Gesneden
Stenen, 's-Gravenhage. Material and information provided by A. N. Zadoks-Jitta.
Hamburg Material and information on coins in private collections in Hamburg provided

by Walter Havernick and Vera Jammer Hatz.
Hamburger Sales catalogue of L. Hamburger, Frankfurt am Main.
May 27, 1929. Coll. Geheimrat von Kaufmann.
May 29, 1929. Berlin Museum duplicates et al.
June 11, 1930.
98: April 3, 1988.
Hannover Collection of the Kestner-Museum. Material and information provided by
Margildis Schltiter.
Hart Coll. Coins in the collection of H. St. John Hart, Cambridge.
Harvard Univ. Collection of the Fogg Museum of Art, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Mass. Information provided by Miriam S. Balmuth.
Haughton Coll. Coins at one time comprising the collection of H. L. Haughton.
Head, B. V. A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum (Attica-Megaris-
Aegina), London, 1888.
Historia Numorum, 2nd ed., Oxford, 1911.
Heichelheim, F. "On Ancient Price Trends from the Early First Millenium b. c. to
Heraclius I," Finanzarchiv XV, 1955, pp. 498-511.
Fitzwilliam Museum: Leake and General Collections, SNG IV, Part IV (Acarnania-
Phliasia), London, 1956.
Bibliography
17
Helbing Sales catalogue of O. Helbing Nachf., Munich.
Oct. 24, 1927. Coll. Hofrat Hermann et al.
Nov. 8, 1928.
70: Dec. 9, 1982.
88: Aug. 19, 1941.
Herakleion Collection of the museum at Herakleion, Crete.
Hesp. Hesperia. Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens.
Hesperia Art Sales catalogue of Hesperia Art, New York-Philadelphia.
Mail Bid Sale, April 28, 1953.
VI: Fixed Price List VI, Nov. 1958.
X: Fixed Price List X, Oct. 1959.
Hess Sales catalogue of A. Hess Nachf., Frankfurt am Main-Lucerne.
March 18, 1918.
194: March 25, 1929. Coll. Vogel.
202: Oct. 28, 1930.
207: Dec. 1, 1931. Coll. Kommerzienrat H. Otto.
208: Dec. 14, 1981.
March 7, 1985.
Hill, G. F. Catalogue of John Ward Coll. (in J. Ward, Greek Coins and Their Parent
Cities, London, 1902).
"The Frequency-Table," NC, 1924, pp. 76-85.
Hirmer Coll. Coins in the collection of Max Hirmer, Munich.
Hirsch Sales catalogue of J. Hirsch, Munich.
VIII: May 18, 1903.
XIII: May 15, 1905. Coll. Rhousopoulos.

XVIII: May 27, 1907. Coll. Dr. F. Imhoof-Blumer et al.
XIX: Nov. 11, 1907.
XXI: Nov. 16, 1908. Coll. Consul E. F. Weber.
XXIX: Nov. 9, 1910. Coll. J. P. Lambros.
XXXII: Nov. 14, 1912.
HN Historia Numorum (see under Head).
Hopper, R. J. "The Attic Silver Mines in the Fourth Century B. c," The Annual of
the British School at Athens, 1958, pp. 200-254.
IG I2 Inscriptiones Graecae, Vol. I (editio minor, Berlin, 1924). Inscriptiones Atticae
Euclidis anno anteriores, ed. F. Hiller von Gaertringen.
IG IP Inscriptiones Graecae, Vols. IIIII (editio minor, Berlin, from 1918). Inscriptiones
Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores, ed. J. Kirchner.
Insc. Dilos Inscriptions de Ddlos, (Champion), from 1926.
Istanbul Collection of the Archaeological Museum. Material and information provided
by Nekriman Olcay.
Jameson Collection R. Jameson: monnaies grecques antiques, Paris, 1918.
JI AN Journal international d'archeologie numismatique.
John Hopkins Univ. Collection of the John Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Material and information provided by Sarah Elizabeth Freeman.
i8
Jongkees, J. H. "Notes on the Coinage of Athens: VII. O AEMOS and Antenor's
Tyrannoktones," Mnemosyne, 1947, pp. 145-160.
Judd Coll. Coins in the collection of J. Hewitt Judd, Omaha, Nebraska.
Kambanis, M. L. "Notes sur le classement chronologique des monnaies d'Athenes,"
Arethuse, fasc. 21, Oct. 1928, pp. 121-185; BCH, 1982, pp. 87-59; BCH, 1984, pp. 101-
137; BCH, 1935, pp. 101-120; BCH, 1986, pp. 101-117; BCH, 1988, pp. 60-84.
Karlsruhe Collection of the Badisches Landesmuseum. Material and information
provided by Friedrich Wielandt.
Kirchner, J. E. "Zur Datirung der athenischen Silbermunzen der beiden letzten vor-
christlichen Jahrhunderte," ZfN, 1898, pp. 74-105.
"Zu den athenischen Miinzserien mit Monogrammen," ZfN, 1898, pp. 266-276.
Prosopographia Attica, Berlin, 1901-1908.
Imagines Inscriptionum Atticarum, 2nd ed., Berlin, 1948.
Knobloch Coll. Coins in the collection of F. S. Knobloch, New York.
Kohler, U. "Numismatische Beitrage," ZfN, 1885, pp. 103-115.
"Zur Geschichte des athenischen Miinzwesens," Sitzungsberichte der koniglich
preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1896, pp. 1089-1097.
"Cber die attische Goldpragung," ZfN, 1898, pp. 5-16.
Kraay, C. "Gold and Copper Traces in Early Greek Silver," Arch. 1, 1958, pp. 1-5;
Arch. 2, 1959, pp. 1-16.
Kress Sales catalogue of K. Kress, Munich.
90: June 11, 1951.
96: June 21, 1954.
Kricheldorf Sales catalogue of H. H. Kricheldorf, Stuttgart.
Oct. 15, 1955.

Ill: Feb. 25, 1957.
IV: Oct. 7, 1957.
V: Oct. 20. 1958.
VII: Nov. 12, 1959.
Larfeld, W. Handbuch der attischen Inschriflen, Leipzig, 1902.
Lauffer, S. Die Bergwerkssklaven von Laureion. II: Gesellschaftliche Verhaltnisse,
Aufstande (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur Mainz,
Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftliche Klasse, 1956, No. 11).
de Laval Coll. Coins at one time comprising the collection of Georg de Laval, Stockholm.
Sold at auction by Glendining and Co., April 18, 1955.
Natl. Mus. Lebanon Collection of the National Museum of Lebanon at Beirut.
Lederer, P. "Ein unbekanntes athenisches Tetradrachmon," ZfN, 1926, pp. 55-61.
Lee Sales catalogue of M. G. Lee, Cairo.
May 10, 1954. Coll. Comte Max de Zogheb.
Leningrad Collection of the State Hermitage. Material and information provided
by L. N. Belova.
Le Rider, G. "Monnaies a legende grecque et monnaies des rois d'Elymaide," Numis-
matique susienne: monnaies trouvdes d Suse de 1946 d 1956 (Memoires de la Mission
Archeologique en Iran T. XXXVII), Paris, 1960.
Bibliography
19
Locker Lampson E. S. G. Robinson, Catalogue of Ancient Greek Coins Collected by
Godfrey Locker Lampson, London, 1928.
Lockett Coll. Coins at one time comprising the collection of R. Cyril Lockett. Catalogue
by E. S. G. Robinson. Sold by Glendining and Co., 1955-1961.
London Collection of the British Museum (Dept. of Coins and Medals). Catalogue of
Athenian coins by B. V. Head. Material and information provided by G. K. Jenkins.
Lund Univ. Collection of the Historiska Museum, Lund University. Material and in-
formation provided by Brita Maimer.
Macdonald, G. "The Amphora Letters on Coins of Athens," NC, 1899, pp. 288-321.
Catalogue of Greek Coins in the Hunterian Collection, Vol. II, Glasgow, 1901.
Coin Types (Rhind Lectures), Glasgow, 1905.
Magie, D. Roman Rule in Asia Minor, Princeton, 1950.
Mass. Hist. Soc. Coins in the collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society,
Boston.
Mavrokordatou Coll. Coins at one time comprising the collection of E. N. Mavrokor-
datou. Published by Svoronos, JIAN, 1912, pp. 1-44.
Meletopoulos, A. N. "ANEKAOTON A9HNAIKON TETPAAPAXMON," Parnassos, 1883,
pp. 774-776.
L. Meletopoulos Coll. Coins in the collection of Loris Meletopoulos, Kephissia, Athens.
In the catalogue a few coins are listed merely as Meletopoulos Coll.; these pieces, once
in the collection of A. N. Meletopoulos, are not included in his son's cabinet.
Meritt, B. D. Athenian Financial Documents of the Fifth Century, Ann Arbor, 1932.
"The Inscriptions," Hesp., 1984, pp. 1-128.
"Greek Inscriptions," Hesp., 1942, pp. 275-308.

"Greek Inscriptions III: Decrees and Other Texts," Hesp., 1957, pp. 51-97.
The Athenian Year (Sather Classical Lectures, Vol. 82), Univ. of California Press,
Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1961.
Merzbacher Sales catalogue of E. Merzbacher Nachf., Munich.
Nov. 2, 1909.
Met. Mus. Art Collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Catalogue
of the John Ward coins published by G. F. Hill. Material and information provided by
Christine Alexander.
Milan Collection of the Musei d'Arti del Castello Sforzesco.
Milne, J. G. "The Coinage of Aradus in the Hellenistic Period," Iraq, 1988, pp. 12-21.
Kolofhon and Its Coinage: A Study, NNM 96, 1941.
Mommsen, T. The History of Rome (English trans, by W. P. Dickson for Everyman's
Library, 4 vols.), New York, 1911.
Monatsblatt Monatsblatt der numismatischen Gesellschaft in Wien.
A. Morgan Coll. Coins in the collection of Alexander Morgan, New York.
Morgenthau Sales catalogue of J. C. Morgenthau, New York.
405: Oct. 5, 1989.
20
Moscow Collection of the State Historical Museum. Material and information provided
by Nonna Mets.
Mowat, R. "Trois contremarques inedites sur des tetradrachmes de Side," Corolla
Numismatica (Oxford, 1906), pp. 189-207.
Munich Coins in the Staatl. Miinzsammlung. Material and information provided by
Konrad Kraft and Peter R. Franke.
Miinster Collections of the Landesmuseum and the University. Material and information
provided by Peter Berghaus.
Miinz. u. Med. Sales catalogue of the firm of Miinzen und Medaillen, Basel.
XIII: June 17, 1954.
Fixed Price List 150, Oct. 1955.
Fixed Price List 154, Feb. 1956.
Fixed Price List 168, May 1957.
Miinzhandl. Basel Sales catalogue of Miinzhandlung Basel.
4: Oct. 1, 1985. Coll. Prince W. et al.
10: March 15, 1988.
de Nanteuil Collection de monnaies grecques H.deNanteuil, Paris (Florange-Ciani), 1925.
Naples Collection of the Museo Nazionale. Catalogues of the Santangelo and general
collections by G. Fiorelli. Material and information provided by Attilio Stazio and
Ettore Lepore.
Naster, P. La collection Lucien de Hirsch, Brussels, 1959.
Naville Sales catalogue of L. Naville, Geneva (Lucerne auctions).
I: April 4, 1921. Coll. Prof. S. Pozzi.
V: June 18, 1928. British Museum duplicates et al.
VII: June 28, 1924. Coll. C. S. Bement.

XII: Oct. 18, 1926. Coll. E. Bissen, J. Wertheim, Sir Arthur Evans et al.
XIII: June 27, 1928. Coll. R. Allatini, E. G. Spencer-Churchill et al.
XV: July 2, 1980. Coll. W. H. Woodward et al.
XVI: July 8,1988. Coll. R. de St. Marceaux, W. Carr, E. G. Spencer-Churchill et al.
XVII: Oct. 8, 1934. Coll. R. Burrage, Sir Arthur Evans et al.
NC The Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society.
Newell, E. T. "The Seleucid Mint of Antioch," American Journal of Numismatics
LI, 1917, pp. 1-151.
The Coinages of Demetrius Poliorcetes, London, 1927.
The Fifth Dura Hoard, NNM 58, 1933.
Mrs. E .T. Newell Coll.Coins in thecollection of Mrs. Edward T. Newell, Halesite, New York.
NNM Numismatic Notes and Monographs of the American Numismatic Society.
Noe Coll. Coins in the collection of Sydney P. Noe, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Noe, S. P. A Bibliography of Greek Coin Hoards (2nd ed.), NNM 78, 1987.
NS Numismatic Studies of the American Numismatic Society.
Oikonomos, G. P. "Sur la signification des contremarques monetaires grecques a
propos d'une nouvelle drachme de l'ile de Naxos," Praktika de VAcadimie d'Athenes III,
1928, pp.25-88.
Opusc. Ath. Opuscula Atheniensia (see under Schwabacher).
Bibliography
21
Ottaway Coll. Coins in the collection of Mrs. James Ottaway, New Haven, Connecticut.
Oxford Collection of the Ashmolean Museum. Material and information provided by
Colin M. Kraay.
PA Prosopographia Attica (see under Kirchner).
Panofka, T. "Selene Charinautes," Annali dell' Institute di Corrispondenza archeolo-
gica, 1840, pp. 201-203.
Paris Collection of the Bibliotheque Nationale (Cabinet des Medailles). Catalogue of the
de Luynes coins by J. Babelon. Material and information provided by J. Babelon and
Georges Le Rider.
Paris, Petit Palais Collection of the Petit Palais, Paris.
Photiades W. Froehner, Monnaies grecques de la collection Photiadis Pacha, Paris, 1890.
Pick, B. Tables for Les monnaies d'Athenes compiled after Svoronos' death by B. Pick.
Pink, K. The Triumviri Monetales and the Structure of the Coinage of the Roman Republic,
NS 7, 1952.
Piatt Sales catalogue of C. Piatt, Paris.
April 19, 1920. Coll. L. F.
May 11, 1921.
March 28, 1922. Coll. V. Luneau.
April 8, 1988.
Fixed Price List (undated). Coll. A.
von Post Coll. Coins in the collection of Eric von Post, Stockholm.
Princeton Univ. Collection of Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey. Material
provided by Louis C. West.
Pritchett, W. K. "Greek Inscriptions," Hes-p., 1940, pp. 97-140.
with Meritt, B. D. The Chronology of Hellenistic Athens, Cambridge (Mass.), 1940.

with Neugebauer, O. The Calendars of Athens, Cambridge (Mass.), 1947.
von Prokesch-Osten, A. Inedita meiner Sammlung autonomer altgriechischer Munzen
(Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften Wien, Philosophisch-
Historische Classe, 1854).
Rathgeber, G. "Ricerche intorno dodici inedite tetradracme attiche del Ducal Gabinetto
numismatico di Gotha," Annali dell' Institulo di Corrispondenza archeologica, 1888,
pp.31-54.
Neunundneunzig silberne Miinzen der Athenaier, Weissensee, 1858.
Ratto Sales catalogue of R. Ratto, Milan-Lugano.
May 13, 1912.
Fixed Price List 4, Oct. 1928.
April 4, 1927.
Feb. 8, 1928. Coll. Col. R. H. Morcom, Rev. A. W. Hands et al.
June 24, 1929. Coll. Rev. E. Rogers et al.
Oct. 9, 1984. Coll. A. Benassy-Philippe, Dr. A. Roehrich et al.
Raubitschek, A. E. "Notes on Attic Prosopography," Hesp., 1942, pp. 804-813.
"The Priestess of Pandrosos," A J A, 1945, pp. 484f.
"Sylleia," Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in Honor of Allan Chester
Johnson, ed. by P. R. Coleman-Norton (Princeton, 1951), pp. 49-57.
22
Ravel, O. Les "Poulains" de Corinthe, II, London, 1948.
Raven, E. J. P. "The Hierapytna Hoard of Greek and Roman Coins," NC, 1938, pp.
188-158.
"The Amphictionic Coinage of Delphi," NC, 1950, pp. 1-22.
Raymond Sales catalogue of W. Raymond, New York.
Mail Bid Sale, Jan. 81, 1989.
Mail Bid Sale, Oct. 16, 1945.
R-E Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft.
Regling, K. "Drei Miszellen: 1. Aesillas, auf Athen uberpragt," JIAN, 1908, pp. 241 f.
"Hellenistischer Miinzschatz aus Babylon," ZfN, 1928, pp. 92-182.
Reinach, T. Mithridate Eupator, Paris, 1890.
Rethymnon Collection of the museum at Rethymnon, Crete.
von Reutersward Coll. Coins in the collection of Patrick von Reutersward, Stockholm.
Rhode Is. School of Design Collection of the Rhode Island School of Design, Providence,
Rhode Island.
Riechmann Sales catalogue of A. Riechmann and Co., Halle.
XXX: Dec. 11, 1924. Berlin Museum duplicates et al.
Riv. Num. Rivista italiana di Numismatica.
RN Revue numismatique.
Robert, L. Etudes de numismatique grecque, Paris, 1951.
Roberts Coll. Coins in the collection of John T. Roberts, Denver, Colorado.
Robinson Coll. Coins in the collection of E. S. G. Robinson, London.
Robinson, E. S. G. Catalogue of Ancient Greek Coins Collected by Godfrey Locker Lamp-
son, London, 1928.
The Newnham Davis Coins in the Wilson Collection of Classical and Eastern Antiquities

Marischal College Aberdeen, SNG I, Part II, London, 1936.
The Lockett Collection, SNG III, Part III (Macedonia Aegina), London, 1942.
"Some Problems in the Later Fifth Century Coinage of Athens," ANSMN IX, 1960,
pp. 1-15.
Rollin and Feuardent (see under Feuardent).
Romanos Coll. Coins in the collection of A. Romanos, Athens.
Ro Coll. Coins in the collection of M. Ro, Baden, Zurich.
Rosenberg Sales catalogue of Sally Rosenberg, Frankfurt am Main.
72: July 11, 1932.
Rostovtzeff, M. "Some Remarks on the Monetary and Commercial Policy of the
Seleucids and Attalids," Anatolian Studies Presented to William Hepburn Buckler
(Manchester, 1989), pp. 277-298.
The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, Oxford, 1941.
Roussel, P. "Les Atheniens mentionnes dans les inscriptions de Delos," BCH, 1908,
pp. 303-444.
D6los colonie athenienne, Paris, 1916.
von Sallet, A. Review of R. Weil, "Miinzfund vom Dipylon," ZfN, 1877, pp. 227f.
"Beitrage zur antiken Miinzkunde: Sulla's Pragung in Athen," ZfN, 1885, pp.
881-884.
Bibliography
23
Salton-Schlessinger Sales catalogue of M. M. Salton-Schlessinger, New York.
Mail Bid Sale XXIII, Nov. 22, 1955.
Santamaria Sales catalogue of P. and P. Santamaria, Rome.
March 27, 1928.
Oct. 25, 1951. Coll. Prof. A. Signorelli.
Schlessinger Sales catalogue of F. Schlessinger, Berlin.
Feb. 26, 1984. Hermitage Museum duplicates (Hermitage 1).
Feb. 4, 1985. Hermitage Museum duplicates (Hermitage 2).
Scholz, J. "Uber einen Fund athenischer Tetradrachmen aus dem 2. JahrhmHert
v. Chr." Monatsblatt, No. 282, Nov. 1902, pp. 857-859.
Schulman Sales catalogue of J. Schulman, Amsterdam.
March 17, 1924. Coll. A. J. Van Eyndhoven et al.
281: March 6, 1958.
232: March 9, 1959.
H. Schulman Sales catalogue of H. M. F. Schulman, New York.
April 26, 1951. Coll. J. P. Morgan et al.
Schwabacher, W. "A Find from the Piraeus," NC, 1989, pp. 162-166.
The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals Danish National Museum, SNG (Attica-
Aegina), Copenhagen, 1944.
"Der Parthenos-archetyp der hellenistischen Silbermunzen Athens," Opuscula Atheni-
ensia I (Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae, Series in 4, II, 1958), pp. 104-114.
Seltman, E. J. "On Some Names, Symbols, and Letters on Coins," JIAN, 1913, pp.
8-10.
Serrure Sales catalogue of Mme. R. Serrure, Paris.
Dec. 5, 1908.

Seyrig Coll. Coins in the collection of Henri Seyrig, Beirut.
Shear, J. P. "The Coins of Athens," Hesp., 1933, pp. 281-278.
"Athenian Imperial Coinage," Hesp., 1936, pp. 285-382.
Sicelianos Coll. Coins in the collection of Demetrius Sicelianos, Athens.
Simonetta, B. "SulT attribuzione delle dramme di Ariarathes IV e di Ariarathes V,"
Riv. Num., 1958, pp. 11-20.
SNG Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. Aberdeen and Lockett Colls, published by
E. S. G. Robinson; Leake and General Colls., Cambridge, by F. Heichelheim; Copen-
hagen Coll. by W. Schwabacher.
Sophia Collection of the Musee National. Material and information provided by T.
Gerassimov.
Sotheby Sales catalogue of Sotheby, Wilkinson and Hodge, London.
May 28, 1894. Coll. R. Carfrae.
March 28, 1896. Coll. H. Montagu.
April 24, 1907. Coll. A. Delbeke.
May 4, 1908. Coll. H. O. O'Hagan.
Feb. 8, 1909. Coll. F. S. Benson.
April 22, 1909. Coll. Prof. L. White-King.
Jan. 19, 1914. Coll. Cumberland Clark et al.
24
July 20, 1914. Coll. L. Schlesinger y Guzman.
Dec. 1, 1924.
Stack's Sales catalogue of Stack's, New York.
May 26, 1951. Coll. J. H. South.
April 19, 1952. Coll. Sobernheim.
June 27, 1952. Coll. Berlin.
Stamires Coll. Coins in the collection of George Stamires, Princeton, New Jersey.
Stamires, G. "Greek Inscriptions II: Attic Decrees," Hesp., 1957, pp. 29-51.
Stephens Coll. Coins in the collection of Mr. and Mrs. F. Dorsey Stephens, Cuernavaca,
Mexico.
Stockholm Collection of the Statens Historiska Museum och Kungl. Myntkabinettet.
Material and information provided by Willy Schwabacher.
Stuttgart Collection of the Wurttembergisches Landesmuseum. Material and informa-
tion provided by Elisabeth Naii.
Sundwall, J. Untersuchungen iiber die attischen Miinzen des neueren Stiles (Ofversigt af
Finska Vetenskaps-Societetens Forhandlingar, XLIX, 1906-1907, No. 9 and L,
1907-1908, No. 1).
"Ober eine neue attische Serie Aiovuaios-ArmocrTpaTOs," Z/N, 1908, pp. 273f.
Nachtrdge zur Prosopographia Attica (Ofversigt af Finska Vetenskaps-Societetens For-
handlingar, LII, 1909-1910, No. 1).
Sv. J. Svoronos, Les monnaies d'Athenes.
Svoronos, J. N. "AANAKH KA1 AOHNAIKH APAXMH," JIAN, 1904, pp. 62-64.
TA NOMIZMATA TOY KPATOYS TON rTTOAEMAIfiN, Athens, 1904-1908.
"Monnaies inedites d'Athenes et de Mytilene," Riv. Num., 1908, pp. 313-322.
"Laurion," JIAN, 1915 (publ. 1922), pp. 53-70.

"TO MHTPfiON TOY 1AIZOY KAI H ZflcDOPOI AYJOY," JIAN, 1916-1917, pp. 1 to 159.
Les monnaies d'Athenes (Tresor de la numismatique grecque ancienne), Munich, 1923-
1926. Tables compiled after the author's death by B. Pick.
"Synopsis des coins faux de Christodoulos," JIAN, 1927, pp. 141-146.
Thompson, H. A. "Excavations in the Athenian Agora: 1951," Hesp., 1952, pp. 84-113.
"Excavations in the Athenian Agora: 1958," Hesp., 1954, pp. 81-67.
"Activities in the Athenian Agora: 1954," Hesp., 1955, pp. 50-71.
Thompson, M. "Some Athenian 'Cleruchy' Money," Hesp., 1941, pp. 199-236.
"Coins for the Eleusinia," Hesp., 1942, pp. 213229.
"The Beginning of the Athenian New Style Coinage," ANSMN V, 1952, pp. 25-33.
"Workshops or Mines," ANSMN V, 1952, pp. 35-48.
The Athenian Agora, Volume II: Coins, Princeton, 1954.
"The Grain-Ear Drachms of Athens," ANSCent (New York, 1958), pp. 651-671.
"Gold and Copper Traces in Late Athenian Silver," Arch. 8, 1960, pp. 10-15.
Thomsen, R. Early Roman Coinage, I (Nationalmuseets Skrifter, Arkaeologisk-Historisk
Roekke, V), Copenhagen, 1957.
Thureau-Dangin, F. and Dunand, M. Til-Barsib, Paris, 1936.
Toronto Collection of the Royal Ontario Museum. Material and information provided
by Neda Leipen and W. P. Wallace.
Bibliography
25
Totten Coll. Coins in the collection of Mrs. James Totten, Washington, D. C.
Tbingen Collection of the Archologisches Institut der Universitt. Material and
information provided by B. Schweitzer and H. Luschey.
Turin (Mus. Ant.) Collection of the Museo di Antichit. Catalogue by G. Fabretti.
Material and information provided by Silvana Finocchi.
Turin (Mus. Civ.) Collection of the Museo Civico. Material and information provided by
Vittorio Viale.
Univ. Cal. at Berkeley Collection of the University of California at Berkeley. Material
and information provided by H. R. W. Smith.
Univ. of Colo. Collection of the University of Colorado at Boulder. Catalogue by W. and
M. Wallace.
Univ. of Pa. Collection of the University Museum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Varoucha-Christodoulopoulou, I. "Hellenistic Asea. 4. The Coins," in E. J. Holmberg,
The Swedish Excavations at Asea in Arcadia (Lund, 1944), pp. 167-171.
Vaux, W. S. W. "Extract of a Letter from Charles T. Newton, Esq., Her Majesty's Vice
Consul at Mytilene, to Mr. Burgon of the British Museum, Chiefly Relating to a Hoard
of Coins of Alexander the Great, Discovered near Patras, in 1850," NC, 1854, pp. 29-87.
Velay Coll. Coins in the collection of Maxime A. Velay, New York.
Vienna Coins in the Bundessammlung von Medaillen, Mnzen und Geldzeichen. Material
and information provided by Eduard Holzmair and Karl Pink.
Vinchon Sales catalogue of J. Vinchon, Paris.
May 20, 1959.
Vogt, J. Struktur der antiken Sklavenkriege (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissen-
schaften und der Literatur Mainz, Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftliche Klasse, 1957,
No. 1).

Waddington, W. H. with Babelon, E. and Reinach, T. Recueil gdndral des monnaies
grecques d'Asie Mineure, I, I (Pont et Paphlagonie), Paris, 1904.
Walker, J. "A Mysterious South Arabian Coin-Legend," NC, 1948, pp. 39-42.
"The Lihynite Inscription on South Arabian Coins," Rivista degli Studi Orientali
XXXIV, 1959, pp. 77-81.
Wallace Coll. Coins in the collection of W. P. Wallace, Toronto.
Wallace, W. and M. "Catalogue of Greek and Roman Coins at the University of Colora-
do," The University of Colorado Studies, Vol. 25, no. 4 (Boulder, 1938), pp. 237-279.
Wallace, W. P. "Some Eretrian Mint Magistrates," The Phoenix, 1950, pp. 21-26.
The Euboian League and Its Coinage, NNM 184, 1956.
Warren K. Regling, Die griechischen Mnzen der Sammlung Warren, Berlin, 1906.
Washington Univ. Collection of Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. Material
made available by George Mylonas.
Weber L. Forrer, The Weber Collection, Vol. II, London, 1924.
Weil, R. "Mnzfund vom Dipylon," Arch. Zeit., 1876, pp. 163-166.
"Das Bndniss der Athener mit Mithradates," AM, 1881, pp. 815-337.
Westermann, W. L. The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity (Memoirs of the
American Philosophical Society, Vol. 40), Philadelphia, 1955.
Wilhelm, A. Beitrge zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde, Vienna, 1909.
26
Wilkinson Coll. Coins in the collection of J. S. Wilkinson, Toronto.
Winterthur Collection of the Stadtbibliothek. Material and information, including
photographs of casts from the Imhoof-Blumer collection, provided by H. J. Bloesch.
Wulff Coll. Coins at one time comprising the collection of Robert Wulff, Hamburg.
Yale Univ. Collection of Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. Material and
information provided by Alfred R. Bellinger and Theodore Buttrey. The latter also
secured casts of coins in a number of other collections.
Young, J. H. "Studies in South Attica. Country Estates at Sounion," Hesp., 1956,
pp. 122-146.
Zara Coll. Coins in the collection of Louis Zara, New York.
Z/N Zeitschrift fur Numismatik.
Zurich Collection of the Zentralbibliothek. Material and information provided by
D. Schwarz.

Zygman Coll. Coins in the collection of Edmund Zygman, New York.
THE SEQUENCE OF ISSUES
ft-A
No symbol
196/5
P-
82
W or 8 - M
Kerchnos and bakchos
195/4
P-
88
- * or (DANI
No symbol
194/3
P-
35
E-N
No symbol or cornucopiae
193/2
P-
86
Two palms
192/1
P-
38
*-n
Club
P-
40

191/0
ffp - m or #
Rudder
190/89
P-
41
S - Itl
Nike
189/8
P-
48
n -1
Trophy
188/7
P-
45
K -M
Grain-ear
187/6
P-
47
W> - *
Caps of the Dioscuri
186/5
P-
49
Cicada
185/4
P-
50
*-ft
Serpents
184/3
P-
52
-*
Term of Hermes
183/2
P-
55
AMMO - AIO
28
9E00PA - ZQTAZ
AIOrE -1TOZEI
AXAIOZ - HAI
AYZAN - rAAYKOZ
EnirENH - ZflZANAPOZ
nOAEMQN - AAKETHZ
MIKIflN - EYPYKAEI
A<DPOAIZI - ATTOAHEI
EYPYKAEI - APIAPA
KAPAIX - EPrOKAE
AQPOAIZI - AIOrE
AIONYZI - AIONYZI
AMMflNIOZ - KAAAIAZ
9EMIZT0 - GEOnOMnOZ
ZQKPATHZ - AIONYZOAQ
MHTPOAQPOZ - MIATIAAHI
AHM0Z9EN
AIOTIMOZ - MArAZ
EYMAPEIAHZ - AAKIAAM
KAEOMEN
XAPINAYTHZ - APIZTEAZ
OANOKAHZ - AnOAAflNIOZ
EYBOYAIAHZ - ArAGOKAH
ZftlAOZ - EYANAPOZ
AAMflN -ZflZIKPATHZ

EYMHAOZ - KAAAIOflN
HPAKAEIAHZ - EYKAHZ
0EOAOTOZ - KAEOOANHZ
HPAKAEIAHZ - EYKAHZ
ANAPEAZ - XAPINAYTHZ
IKEZIOZ - AZKAHniAAHZ
TIMOZTPATOZ - nOZHZ
AMOIKPATHZ - EniZTPATOZ
AflZIGEOZ - XAPIAZ
ahmhtpioz - ArAeinnoz
NIKHTHZ - AIONYZIOZ
APIZTIftN - QIAQN
APOnOZ - MNAZArO
EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOZ
NIKOfENHZ - KAAAIMAXOZ
Winged fulmen
162/1
P-
160
Dionysos
161/0
P-
163
Cornucopiae with grain
160/59
P-
166
Cicada
159/8
P-
170
Eagle on fulmen
158/7
P-
173
Tripod
157/6
P-
181
Dioscuri
156/5
P-
187
The Sequence of Issues
29
AHMEAZ - EPMOKAHZ
Headdress of Isis
125/4
P-
350
EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOI
Dolphin and trident
124/8
P-
354
Roma
123/2
P-
359
KOINTOZ - KAEAZ
Roma and Nike
122/1
P-
362
AnEAAIKflN - TOPriAS
Griffin
121/0
P-
364

BAZIAE MIGPAAATHZ -
APIZTIflN
Star between crescents
c. 121
P-
368
MNAZEAZ - NEZTQP
Kerchnos
120/19
P-
369
KAEOOANHZ - EniOETHI
Baitulos with fillet
119/8
P-
370
MENTfiP - MOZXION
Harmodios and Aristogeiton
118/7
P-
371
APX1TIMOZ - AHMHTPI
Isis
117/6
P-
372
AYZANAPOZ - OINOOIAOZ
Poppy-head and grain-ears
116/5
P-
374
AMOIAZ - OINOOIAOZ
Demeter
115/4
P-
375
EYMHAOZ - OEOEENIAHZ
Ares(?)
114/3
P-
376
NEZTflP - MNAZEAZ
Stag
NOTE ON THE CATALOGUE
The New Style series has been divided into three general periods: Early,
Middle and Late. Within each of these divisions, the catalogue and brief com-
mentary for component issues is followed by a discussion of the group as a
whole and the evidence upon which its chronological order is based.
An Arabic numeral is used for each obverse die; the different reverses
coupled with it are designated a, b, c and so forth. When the same reverse is
associated with two or more obverses, the relationship is indicated by bracketing.
Since the coinage will be familiar to most readers and since it retains its
basic types from beginning to end, descriptions have been kept to a minimum,
but significant variations in details are recorded in connection with individual
obverse or reverse dies. For the early monogram issues, some of which show
considerable irregularity in the rendering of the magistrates' names, only the
most common form is given in the heading of the issue, but all other versions
are included in the catalogue. After month and control letters1 and later third
magistrates are introduced, the order in the listing is always magistrate, month
letter, control letters. The placement of the last is indicated for all dies of the
early issues; from the striking of HPA-APIZTO<D on, the letters are almost
invariably below the amphora and only deviations from that position are noted.
References to private collections and sales catalogues are condensed. The
bibliographical section which precedes this note will provide more detailed
information.
An asterisk before a catalogue entry indicates that the coin is illustrated.
Every obverse die has been reproduced but for the most part only one of the re-
verses coupled with it has been shown. To have included in the plates all known
reverse dies would have added greatly to the completeness of the corpus but
it would also have entailed a great increase in the cost of publication and would

have made an already large volume still more unwieldy. Since the reverses are
not of primary importance in establishing the chronology, it was decided to
reproduce only a minimum number of them. A photographic record of all re-
verses listed in the catalogue is on file at the American Numismatic Society
and available to anyone wishing to use the material.
1 The terms "control letters" and "control combination" are used interchangeably to des-
ignate the capitals of the Greek alphabet (varying in number from one to four) which appear in
the left field or below the amphora. Discussion of the significance of these controls is reserved for
a special section following the catalogue.
Note on the Catalogue
3i
Admittedly it would have been most desirable to classify the bronze coinage
in relation to the silver of the New Style period. The writer is keenly aware of
this shortcoming in the present publication but for various reasons it is not
possible at this time to make the bronze strikings part of the record.
The standard types for the three silver denominations are as follows:
Tetradrachms
Obv. Head of Athena Parthenos r., wearing pendent earring, necklace and helmet of
triple-crested Attic type adorned with the protomes of four or more horses above
the visor, a flying Pegasus above the raised earpiece and a curvilinear ornament on
the shell. Border of dots.
Rev. A 0 E Owl r., head facing, wings closed, standing on amphora which lies on its side;
to left and right monograms or names of two or three magistrates. Normally a symbol
in the field, a letter on the amphora and a letter combination below it. All within a
wreath of olive.
Drachms
Types identical with those of the tetradrachms.
Hemidrachms
Types identical with those of the tetradrachms and drachms except that the owl stands
on a club instead of an amphora and month and control letters are normally omitted.
The earliest tetradrachms have the monograms or abbreviated names of two
magistrates, usually accompanied by a symbol. With the twelfth issue month
letters appear on the amphorae and then for a short time the dates are aban-
doned in favor of control letters below the vase or in the field. Toward the end
of the Early Period both month and control letters mark the reverses. During
the Middle Period, the names of three magistrates, a symbol, month and

control letters are all inscribed on the dies. Finally with the Late Period, the
name of the third magistrate is omitted on many issues but symbol, month and
control letters are retained.
CATALOGUE OF THE EARLY PERIOD
ft-A NO SYMBOL 196/5 B.C.
(Plate 1)
Tetradrachms
1. Nike (?) driving biga r. on neckguard of helmet. No border of dots.
(A) *ANS-ETN (Anthedon Hd., ANSMN V, PI. IX, 8), gr. 17.00f
2. Nike (?) and biga on neckguard. No dots.
*Kambanis Coll. (Anthedon Hd., ANSMN V, PI. IX, 9), gr. 17.80
3. Biga on neckguard, driver not visible.1 No dots.
a. *von Post Coll. (Opusc. Ath, I, 1953, PI. I, 1 and la), gr. 17.19f
b. Paris = Lederer Coll. {BCH, 1938, PI. XVIII, 6) = Mainzer Coll. {Z/N,
1926, PI. VII, 1) = Hirsch (Lambros) 468, gr. 16.12 (oxydized>t
4 tetradrachms: 8 obverse, 4 reverse dies
This issue, unknown to Beule and to Svoronos, was discovered by Lederer
who published in 1926 a single example from the Mainzer Collection.2 The same
coin had been in the possession of Jean Lambros and included in the Hirsch
Sale of 1910 but without illustration and without indication of its uniqueness.
Subsequently several specimens turned up in the Anthedon Hoard of 1935.
These are undoubtedly the first coins of the New Style series. No one of the
three obverse dies has the circle of dots found on all other issues, with the
exception of one die from the next striking. A stylistic peculiarity of this emis-
sion is the minute representation of a biga and driver which appears on the
neckguard of Athena's helmet. On Obverse 2 the charioteer seems to be winged
and the rendering is generally similar to that of the Nike-in-quadriga symbol
of MIKI 0EOOPA. In all probability the tiny figure behind the horses on these
dies is also Nike. Were the victory representation on the obverse confined to
1 W. Schwabacher in publishing the von Post tetradrachm describes the obverse as having

a single horse (or perhaps a centaur) on the neckguard instead of the biga found on other dies,
and the plate seems to bear out his observation. However, a cast of the coin, examined under a
magnifying glass, shows two horses, the separate necks and heads definitely distinguishable.
There is no clear indication of a charioteer. A few faint markings behind the horses are so involved
with the curves of the helmet ornament as to make any identification inconclusive.
2 P. Lederer, "Ein unbekanntes athenisches Tetradrachmon," Z/N, 1926, pp. 55-61
The Early Period: Catalogue
33
the first issue of the coinage, one might be tempted to invest it with historical
implications, but its recurrence on two later emissions suggests that it is merely
the "signature" of a particular diecutter.
The monogram of the first mint magistrate was read by Lederer1 as ft. This
he thought indicated a name beginning 2N, ftNl, INfl, IflN or NQ. Of these,
IflN is the only combination which seems at all likely. However, the monogram
is actually W and not ft. The ANS coin from the Anthedon Hoard shows very
clearly a separate horizontal line between (a) and N; on the other reverses the
effect is gained by flattening the bottom of the omega across the top of the nu.
Thusn (or possibly r) must be considered as part of the monogram. Even with
this addition the elements present do not allow a wide choice in names. The
one which seems most probable is IT7TTS2N, all letters of which are in the mono-
gram. There is an Athenian of this name, ITTTTQN ANOinnOY KYAA9HNAIEYZ,
known from a funerary inscription of the second century B.C. (PA 7678; IG IP
6579) and the name occurs also in records of the fifth, fourth and third cen-
turies. TNQ [IIAI] is a second possibility.
A0 which, as Lederer pointed out, almost certainly would expand into
A0HN is too common a beginning to warrant any attempt at precise iden-
tification.
W or 8 - M KERCHNOS and BAKCHOS 195/4 B.C.
(Plate 1)
Tetradrachms
4. No border of dots.
(W) a. "London = Sotheby, Dec. 1924, 130, gr. 16.20 /
(IBP) b. "Athens {ANSMN V, PI. IX, A; Sv. 88, 7), gr. 17.05

5. Border of dots from here on.
(j|) a. "ANS-ETN (Anthedon Hd., ANSMN V, PI. IX, 10), gr. 17.05f
(8) b. Commerce 1953 (ANSMN V, PI. IX, B) =-- Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 901,
gr. 16.90; Stockholm, gr. 17.07 /
6.
(8) a. "London (BMC 286; ANSMN V, PI. IX, C; Sv. 88, 9), gr. 17.06t
dblst.
(8) b. Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 900 = Sv. 88, 10, gr. 16.55
(8) c. ANS = Baltatzi Coll. (Sv. 88, 11) = Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN, 1912,
1294), gr. 16.87t; Damascus Collector
1 Op. ext., p. 58.
34
7.
(/?) a. *Seyrig Coll., gr. 16.93f
{&) b. Munz. u. Med. List 154, 29 = Giesecke Coll. {ANSMN V, PI. X, D;
Sv. 33, 8) = Hirsch VIII, 1189, gr. 16.98
The particular interest of this issue lies in its variations: the addition of a
circle of dots to Obverses 5-7, the change in first magistrates and the appear-
ance on one die of a third monogram. Its earliest coins, those with PP, are
known from only two examples.1 Following is an unique tetradrachm in the
American Numismatic Society which has ^ in place of PP. The obverse of
this coin is also used with a normal 8 - M reverse and die breaks on No. 5b
indicate that it is the later striking (see ANSMN V, PI. IX, 10 and B). From
then on there is no variation in the S - M combination.
It is possible, of course, that we have here the coinage of two separate
years but it is not likely. The only reasons for dividing the issue would be the
difference in first monograms and the fact that one die has no circle of dots.
But there are other instances of a change in magistrates during the course of
a single year and the circle of dots need not have been added at the beginning
of an issue. Against separation is the strong evidence of continuity in symbol
and second monogram.
Apparently the tradition of an Athena head without dots was carried over
from the preceding issue by magistrates PP and M. The style of their one ob-
verse is closely related to Nos. 1-3 save that there is no biga on the helmet
but merely a sweeping horizontal line suggestive of it. Then PP was replaced
by & and a single reverse with a third monogram would seem to indicate that

for a time two men were associated with M in the minting magistracy.2 With
the change in first magistrates came a change in the design of the obverse. A
circle of dots was placed around the head of the goddess. Otherwise, Obverses 4
and 5 are practically identical, surely the work of the same engraver.
Four monograms appear on reverses of this issue. Like A of the preceding
year, they are unrevealing in their extreme simplicity. There are numerous
1 Kambanis did not know the Sotheby piece, now in the British Museum, but he published
the Athens coin in the BCH for 1938 (page 83). There the monogram is misread as PP which is
not surprising in view of the condition of the tetradrachm. A cast of it reveals that, like the
London specimen, it is definitely inscribed PP. The Athens reverse is later than the London one;
the obverse die coupled with it shows distinct flaws on the neck and nose which are not present
on No. 4a.
2 Bellinger suggests that there may have been from the beginning a third mint magistrate
who in this instance received recognition on the coinage. In this connection it should be noted
that the appearance of Ai on some reverses of XAPI - HPA is clearly a parallel phenomenon.
35
possibilities in names beginning TTAP and AP; MHT is little better though per-
haps in this case MHT[POAQPOI] might be suggested as a likely expansion
since the name occurs elsewhere in the New Style series. There are three donors
of that name recorded in an inscription of 183/2 B.C. [IG IP 2332; PA 10153,
10145, 10150). The third monogram of No. 5a would seem to stand for IIM...
orZMl...
Two symbols are shown on all reverses: a kerchnos with grain through its
handles in the upper right field and a bakchos beneath the amphora. This is
the only instance in the series of two symbols employed on all dies of a single
issue. The emphasis seems significant and when one reflects that both devices
are Eleusinian in connotation and that 195/4 B.C. was a year of the Greater
Eleusinia1, it is highly probable that the choice of the first symbols of the new
coinage was inspired by this important Athenian festival.
X-OANI NO SYMBOL 194/8 B.C.
(Plate 2)
Tetradrachms
8.
M instead of OANI; bakchos beneath amphora.
London (BMC 808; ANSMN V, PI. X, E; Sv. 33, 22), gr. 16.75f
9.
a. *Mrs. E. T. Newell Coll. (Anthedon Hd., ANSMN V, PI. X, 11), gr. 16.80f; Munich,
gr. 15.89 (pierced)
b. Vienna, gr. 16.85
10.
a. *Ro Coll., gr. 17.20f

b. Kambanis Coll. (Anthedon Hd., ANSMN V, PI. X, 12)
c. Kambanis Coll. (Anthedon Hd., ANSMN V, PI. X, 18)
d. Glasgow (Hunt. 78; Sv. 88, 24), gr. 17.28f
e. Athens (Sv. 38, 23), gr. 16.75
f. Lockett Coll. (SNG 1903), gr. 16.77f
g. Berlin (von Prokesch-Osten Coll., ZfN, 1926, PI. VII, 4), gr. 17.042
1 For the celebration of the Greater Eleusinia in the second year of an Olympiad, hence in
195/4 B.C., see W. B. Dinsmoor, The Archons of Athens, pp. 209-212.
* From the Zeitschrift article it is impossible to be certain of the identity of the obverse die
but a photograph secured from Berlin confirms the present classification.
36
Like the first issue, this striking has no symbol in the field, but one reverse
has a bakchos beneath the amphora. This is clearly a survival from the issue
immediately preceding and points to the contiguity of the two emissions as
well as to the position of No. 8 as the first coinage of the new issue.
In one other respect No. 8 differs from the other tetradrachms. The name
of the second magistrate, OANI, is rendered in monogram instead of in letters.
This identity of monogram and abbreviated name was first recognized by Beule"
and confirmed by Kirchner {ZfN, 1898, pp. 267 f.) who further pointed out that
the M monogram occurring on the serpents issue must also be read as Phanias.
It is quite likely that the Phanias of this issue is the same man who shared
office exactly ten years later with his brother Moschos.1
Beule saw in X all the elements of the name Lysimachos. This is possible
but it is noteworthy that on all reverses the most prominent feature of the
monogram is an X of four equal segments. By analogy with other monograms
one would suppose that if lambda were the initial letter it would have been
given greater emphasis, a result easily achieved by curtailing the upper seg-
ments of the X. One does in fact find just such a rendering in the first monogram
of the thyrsos issue and there I think the name does start with lambda. For X
I should suggest a name beginning XAI.
E - N NO SYMBOL or CORNUCOPIAE 198/2 B.C.
(Plate 2)
Tetradrachms
NO SYMBOL
11.
(N) a. *Glasgow (Hunt. 68; Sv. 83, 20), gr. 16.94f

(N) b. Berlin {ZfN, 1926, PI. VII, 2; Sv. 83, 19), gr. 16.72; Berlin, gr. 16.88
(N) c. Vienna, gr. 15.46 (worn)
12. Biga and driver on neckguard of helmet.
a. *Seyrig Coll. (Kessab Hd.), gr. 16.86f
(N) b. ANS-ETN (Anthedon Hd., ANSMN V, PI. X, 14), gr. 17.09f
13. Possibly biga and driver on neckguard.
a. Berlin (ZfN, 1926, PI. VII, 3), gr. 16.97
b. Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 8195), gr. 17.08f
CORNUCOPIAE
c. ANS, gr. 16.93f
d. *Berlin (von Prokesch-Osten Coll., ZfN, 1926, PL VII. 5; Sv. 88, 17),
gr. 16.85
1 The family is discussed in connection with the serpents issue (page 54).
37
14.
Paris (de Luynes 2073; Sv. 83, 18), gr. 17.05f
It was Lederer in the 1926 Zeitschrift article who supplied two new readings
of the second monogram, N and N, in place of the N of Beule and Head. The
first form he interpreted as NIKH[THI] and the second as HNI[OXIAHI] or
HNI[OXOI].
Actually the variation is even greater than Lederer noticed and more exten-
sive than indicated in the catalogue above. Nos. lib and c show N, Nos. 11a
and 12b have N, and of the other reverses only 18d gives a clear N. Nos. 13a,
b, c and 14 seem to have N while No. 12a is so poorly struck up that only N
appears on the coin.
What we apparently have is a series of carelessly cut monograms of which
N was the most accurate rendering. On some dies the lower diagonal of the
K was omitted and on many more the upper one as well was abandoned. The N
which remained lost its precision on most dies due to a merging of the heavy
strokes and a consequent filling in of the lower right corner of the monogram.
It seems to me that only one magistrate is indicated.1 Niketes is a likely
although not the only feasible expansion. The name occurs elsewhere in the
New Style series and the present magistrate may be a member of the family
of NIKHTHZ NIKHTOY T7EPrAZH0EN (see PA 10759 for stemma). Either the
Niketes who was epimeletes of the Mysteries in 215/4 B.C. (IG II2 847) or his
son is a possibility, the cornucopiae symbol perhaps indicative of the Eleu-
sinian connection.
Lederer believed that the first monogram should be read E0 rather than

0E. The latter, as he pointed out, would be rendered CE. In this I think he is
undoubtedly right. On all dies the E is strongly and clearly cut while on many
the curve of the 9 is only perfunctorily indicated. Attic names beginning E0
are rare. There is an E0EAANAPOZ AXAPNEYZ, a councilor of Oineis soon after
178/7 B.C. (PA 4637-8; IG II2 919; and for the date Hesp., Suppl. I, 1937,
pp. 125-6, no. 66).
Seven reverse dies have no symbol; three have a cornucopiae in the right
field. The division in the catalogue is primarily one of convenience as there
is no definite evidence for the placement of the no symbol strikings ahead of
those with cornucopiae. It seems possible that the omission of a symbol was
1 According to a footnote in Lederer's article, Regling too thought it possible that the
omission of the K was due to carelessness on the part of the diecutter and not indicative of a
different magistrate. Certainly there are variations in later issues which can scarcely be explained
except as careless workmanship.
38
carried over from the preceding year on the earliest reverses of the issue and
that the more careful rendering of the second monogram on Nos. 11-12 also
indicates that these dies belong at the beginning of the emission when one might
suppose that the engravers would show greater care in designating the magis-
trate. However, for a time at least, dies with and without symbol were in
simultaneous use. No. 13 has four reverses: a and b without cornucopiae, c and
d with it. The evidence of die breaks and recutting shows that 13d was the
earliest stage of the obverse and 13a next. On the ANS and Cambridge coins
(13c and b) the lower area of the die has broken down so badly that the hair
and neck truncation have been recut. It is clear then that reverses with and
without symbol are to be associated with both early and late stages of this
obverse die. The die flaws of the neckguard which appear on all four coins make
it impossible to be certain that a biga was part of the design as it undoubtedly
was on No. 12.
N-I TWO PALMS 192/1 B.C.
(Plate 2)
Tetradrachm
15.
ANS-ETN (Hesp., Suppl. VIII, 1949, PI. 3, 4), gr. 16.75f
NO MONOGRAMS NO SYMBOL
Drachms
16.
a. *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.10 /
b. Berlin (Sv. 33, 2), gr. 3.66
c. Stuttgart (Sv. 33, 1)

17.
Athens (Delos Hd. B, 13; Sv. 33, 3), gr. 3.75 /
Hemidrachm
18.
*Berlin (Sv. 33, 4), gr. 1.72
1 tetradrachm
4 drachms: 2 obverse, 4 reverse dies
1 hemidrachm
The unique specimen published by Bellinger in 1949 is still the only tetra-
drachm representing the fifth New Style issue. In its first monogram one finds
39
all but the last element of at least three names: Nikias, Nikagoras and Nikan-
dros. It may be that the two palms, one in the lower left field and one beside
the second monogram, are intended as a play on the name of the magistrate
or as a reference to agonistic victories.1 The second monogram certainly indi-
cates a name beginning EE.
With this one tetradrachm I would associate the first fractional issues of
the series. On his Plate 33, Svoronos brought together three drachms and three
hemidrachms without monograms and without symbol. These fractions as a
group he apparently regarded as belonging with the first issue of New Style
tetradrachms. Nos. 1-4 are indeed related but Nos. 5-6 must, I think, be sepa-
rated from them for three reasons. They are late in style, their obverses have a
circle of dots not found on Nos. 1-4, and the owl sits on a club as in all later
hemidrachm issues and not on an amphora as in No. 4.
Svoronos' Nos. 1-4 are represented by Nos. 16-18 in the present catalogue.
The first drachm and the hemidrachm (Nos. 16 and 18) are very similar in style;
the near identity of the reverses of Nos. 16c and 17 indicates that this last
fraction of rather different obverse style is to be associated with the other coins.
These drachm and hemidrachm strikings must be the first fractional coinage.
It does not follow that they must belong with the first tetradrachm issue. The
absence of dots on the obverse suggests such a relationship but actually this is
not conclusive evidence. All that it implies is that these fractions without dots
come before the trophy striking which has a drachm with dotted obverse. Once
the tradition of placing the circle of dots on the obverse of the drachm was
established it seems unlikely that it would be abandoned, but there is no reason
to suppose that the appearance of the circle of dots on tetradrachms and frac-

tions was necessarily a simultaneous phenomenon. It may well be that the
drachms were at first thought to be too small for an outline of dots (certainly
the size of the head on Obverse 16 left no room for such an addition) and that
the earliest dies omitted this feature even though it had become standard
practice for the tetradrachms. The same explanation would account for the
absence of symbols on the first fractions.
In style these fractions have nothing in common with Obverses 1-4, the
only tetradrachm dies without dots. The large head of No. 16 could be asso-
ciated with Nos. 6-7 and a connection with the second issue is possible on the
assumption that two diecutters were at work, the first producing No. 4 and later
No. 5 with dots and the other the drachms and then Nos. 6 and 7 with dots.
However, there are late elementsthe rather large Pegasus, the heavy visor,
the tortuous helmet ornamentwhich seem to bring No. 16 closer to No. 15
than to any obverse of the second issue. No. 17 is poorly preserved for purposes
1 For a possible historical implication see page 113.
40
of comparison, but it bears a resemblance to No. 14 and has the spread visor
which is a late feature on the tetradrachms.
Two other factors give some weight to an association of Nos. 15-18. The
first is tenuous because there is no certainty that all drachm issues are known.
But on the present evidence the earliest fractional strikings seem to have been
spaced rather than annual. For the period from 196 B.C. down to about 178
when the drachms began to be issued in abundance and with increasing regu-
larity, we have only three fractional issues: the one without symbol under
current discussion, the one with trophy symbol and the one with herm. As-
suming that the small change of the Old Style was sufficiently plentiful to
meet the needs of the years immediately after 196 and that the first striking
of New Style fractions came in 192, we have what seems to be a systematic
program of emissions spaced at four or five year intervalsin 192, in 188, in
183 and about 178.
The other factor concerns the strange decline of coinage in 192/1 B.C. From
the years preceding there are 4, 11, 11 and 11 tetradrachms; from those fol-
lowing we have 12, 25, 16 and 33. There are historical events (see page 113)
which explain a scanty emission but even so the disproportion is striking. It
becomes much less puzzling if the output of 192/1 included drachms and hemi-
drachms as well as tetradrachms.
*-n CLUB 191/0 b.c.
(Plate 8)
Tetradrachms
19. Biga and driver on neckguard of helmet.
a. *ANS, gr. 16.97f
20.

b. *Mrs. E. T. Newell Coll., gr. 16.96f (only lower part of first monogram visible)
*The Hague (Sv. 83, 14), gr. 16.80
21.
a. ""Cambridge (Grose 5897; Sv. 83, 15), gr. 16.99|
b. *Ro Coll., gr. 17.00f
22.
Winterthur = Hamburger, June 1930, 756, gr. 16.94f
23.
a. *Naples (Santangelo Coll., Fiorelli 10788), gr. 16.78f
b. Paris, gr. 16.82f
4i
24.
*Paris (de Luynes 2077; Sv. 33, 12), gr. 17.05
25.
a. *London (BMC 289; Sv. 33, 16), gr. 16.87f
b. Berlin (Sv. 33, 18), gr. 17.07
c. Athens, gr. 16.35f
With the present issue the biga and driver design appears for the last time
on the coinage. Obverse 19 shows no trace of a wing on the charioteer but other-
wise the rendering corresponds with that of earlier dies.
The club, which on all other reverses is headed left, points in the opposite
direction on No. 19a. This slight deviation perhaps indicates that this reverse
was the first to be cut; there is no evidence for the relative position of the re-
maining obverse and reverse dies.
Heretofore the monograms have been comparatively simple. Normally there
is no problem as to what letters are present but these are seldom sufficient to
justify a definite identification. For the first magistrate of this club issue we
have a complex monogram which can, I believe, be accurately resolved. Its
constituents are clearly E, which because of its position is almost certainly the
first letter, Y, P, G) and A. Surely this is EYAWPO[S]. The name is not common in
Attic prosopography but a Eudoros of Kydathenaion is listed among the donors
of 183/2 (PA 5452; IG IP 2332). The "generous one" of the coinage of 191/0b.c.
may well be the same man.
R may stand for inTTC0[N] and represent a variation of the first monogram
of the series. It is difficult to see what else it could be except a name starting

with nw.
SP - m or #
RUDDER
190/89 B.C.
(Plate 4)
Tetradrachms
26.
(Si)
a. m instead of on this one reverse.
London, gr. 16.26 /
b. *ANS, gr. 16.91 /
27.
((h)
a. *Paris, Petit Palais
b. London (BMC 287), gr. 16.67f
c. Berlin (Sv. 34, 3), gr. 16.91
d. Athens (Sv. 34, 1), gr. 17.05
42
28.
29.
a.
*ANS-Gautier, gr. 16.43f
(AO
b.
Paris, gr. 16.77f
(AO
c.
Paris (de Luynes 2078), gr. 16.55f
(AO
d.
Helbing 83, 328 = Cahn 71, 338 = Ratto (Rogers) 340
(AO
e.
Leningrad, gr. 16.14 (pierced)f
a.
*ANS-ETN, gr. 16.81 /; Empedocles Coll.
b.
China Coll.; Berlin, gr. 16.76f
c.
Brussels (Sv. 34, 2), gr. 16.57; Petsalis Coll., gr. 15.88f
d.
Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 902, gr. 16.50
e.
f.

Cambridge (General Coll., SNG 3196), gr. 16.64 /
L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 14.25 (badly corroded)
g-
Berry Coll., gr. 16.83f
h.
Leningrad, gr. 16.52 /
29X.
Berlin, gr. 16.32f
30.
(A - A) a. Paris (Sv. 34, 5), gr. 15.50f
(A - A) b. Glasgow (Hunt. 66; Sv. 34, 4), gr. 17.06 /
There is no means of determining the order of obverse dies except in the
case of No. 26, which is the first of the issue. A die break directly behind the
Pegasus is more pronounced in No. 26b than in 26a. The reverse of No. 26a
is the only one with m as the second magistrate and its position preceding a
reverse with fit would thus indicate that the shift in officials came at the be-
ginning rather than at the end of the year.
Concerning No. 30 I have some reservations. The two coins may be imita-
tions and not products of the Athenian mint. The form of the first monogram
is the most abbreviated known for this issue and the /R version of the second
name is not encountered elsewhere. These deviations are not of great signifi-
cance in an emission marked by monogrammatic diversity, but there are also
some strange stylistic factors, notably the exaggerated eyes of the owl and the
peculiar arrangement of the horse protomes above the heavy visor. The weight
of the Glasgow specimen is 17.06 grams, that of the Paris piece only 15.50 but
it shows no sign of plating. However, if the coins are imitations they are copied
with greater fidelity than is generally the case in this period and their style is
43
not sufficiently abnormal to justify unqualified inclusion in the category of
imitations.
The first monogram is an elaborate one which takes at least four distinct
forms. P is the most common and seemingly the most accurate; the variations
(such as 26b, 27b, 28b) sometimes omit the clearly-defined P or A but the
missing letter can still be made out in what remains. NAYKPAT[HZ] seems to
me the most satisfactory resolution and this interpretation is strengthened by
the rudder which appears on all coins. What we seem to have is a personal
connection between the symbol and the name of the magistrate, such as may
have been the case with NIK... of the fifth striking and is undoubtedly true of
issues from a later period (e.g. HPA - APIITOO with the club and lion's skin of
Herakles). Any certain association of the mint official Naukrates with a known
Athenian of that name is impossible. He may belong to the family which sup-
plied the basileus of 214/8 B.C. [IG II2 1706; Hesp., 1983, PI. XIV, line 152)
conceivably he is the same manbut there are other possibilities.
yff who holds the second magistracy for most of the year is probably
API... but beyond that it is pointless to speculate. His predecessor m has a
more distinctive monogram. The essential elements are 9, X and M. These do
not combine easily; in fact the only name into which I can fit them is 0YMOX
[APHZ]. The name is of frequent occurrence in Athenian epigraphical records
of the fifth-third centuries B.C.
S-lfl NIKE 189/8 B.C.
(Plate 5)
Tetradrachms
31.

a. *Robinson Coll., gr. 16.97t
b. Dewing Coll., gr. 16.59f
c. Berlin (Sv. 35, 7), gr. 17.01
d. Athens (Sv. 35, 10), gr. 16.57
(f) e. Paris (Sv. 35, 8), gr. 16.42 /; Mrs. E. T. Newell Coll., gr. 16.90 /
31X.
Berlin (Babylon Hd., ZfN, 1928, p. 114, 59), gr. 15.92
32.
London, gr. 13.40 (broken)f
33.
Wilkinson CoU. = Lockett Coll. (SNG 1905), gr. 16.68f
44
34.
a. *Commerce 1956, gr. 16.88f
(*) b. Cambridge (Grose 5900; Sv. 85, 11), gr. 16.90f; Tubingen, gr. 16.45
35.
a. *London {BMC 298), gr. 16.65f
b. Sophia (Sv. 35, 9), gr. 16.77
36.
a. *ANS, gr. 16.42 /
b. Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.65f
The obverses of this issue are distinguished by an unusual rendering of the
Pegasus. This is not clearly visible on Nos. 31X-33 but on the other four dies
the winged horse has a long, thin and swirling lion's tail instead of the thick
straight brush which is its customary appendage. One might identify the crea-
ture as a griffin were it not for the distinctly equine legs and head, which seem
to indicate that what we have is merely a strange version of the traditional
Pegasus. This aberrant representation occurs on three other obverses belonging
to later issues.
In the Sylloge publication of the Lockett piece (No. 33) a A ? is recorded as
an amphora letter. From the cast I can see nothing to suggest that the coin was
dated and no other reverse of the issue has an amphora marking.
Beule thought that the bizarre form of the first monogram was due to its
inclusion of a beta and that BYTT[AKOZ] was a possible interpretation. This
seems somewhat farfetched. Certainly one does not get any clear impression
of a B from the monogram and it would have been easy enough to render

BYTT... in a more intelligible way (& for example). My feeling is that delta is
the dominant and initial letter and that AIOKA[HZ] is the most likely reading.
There are three donors of that name in the inscription of 183/2 B.C. cited before
(IG II2 2332) but there is no way of determining which, if any, of them was the
mint magistrate.
In the second monogram the essential elements would seem to be M and
either O or plus O. It looks like a simple rendering but extensive shifting of
the letters for possible combinations produced only YYIMOZ as an entirely
satisfactory solution. All the letters are present, even the terminal sigma. The
name is not common in Attic prosopography. If the monogram has been cor-
rectly resolved, there is a distinct possibility that the monetary official is
connected in some way with the YYIMOZ EIPEZIAHZ of a second century in-
scription from the North Slope of the Acropolis (Hesp., 1933, p. 412).
The Early Period: Catalogue 45
W- TROPHY 188/7 B.C.
(Plates 5-6)
Tetradrachms
37.
a. *Evelpidis Coll. = Meletopoulos Coll. (Sv. 85, 1), gr. 16.62; Commerce Beirut
1958
b. Empedocles Coll.
c. *Damascus (Tell Ahmar Hd.)
38.
Empedocles Coll.
39.
a. *Berlin gr. 16.881!
40.
Vienna, gr. 16.74; Moscow
41.
a. Romanos Coll.
b. Romanos Coll.
c. Copenhagen (SNG 111), gr. 16.49f
d. Budapest = Kress 96, 199, gr. 16.40t
42.
ANS-ETN, gr. 16.20f
43.
a. Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.67 /
b. The Hague (Sv. 85, 4), gr. 15.70
44.

a. *Paris (Sv. 85, 2, Feuardent), gr. 16.55 /
b. London {BMC 288), gr. 16.60f
c. Athens, gr. 16.74
d. Leningrad, gr. 16.23f
44X.
Berlin, gr. 16.20f
45.
Berlin, gr. 16.76f; Leningrad, gr. 15.17 (corroded)f
1 The obverse of this Berlin coin is illustrated by Svoronos (Plate 35, 5).
46
46.
a. *Berlin, gr. 16.83f; London {BMC 281; Sv. 85, 8), gr.
b. *Commerce Beirut 1958
47.
a. *ANS, gr. 16.26f
b. ANS, gr. 16.42f
c. London (BMC 284), gr. 16.06f
d. Bartlett Coll.
48.
() a. *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.94f
() b. L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 15.97
(<) c. Brooklyn Mus.
Drachm
49.
Athens (Sv. 85, 6), gr. 8.90f
1 drachm
From the evidence of surviving coins and the number of obverse dies, the
trophy striking is the heaviest thus far in the New Style series. It includes
drachms as well as tetradrachms and these are the first regular fractions of the
coinage in that they have monograms and symbol. Letters have not yet ap-
peared on the amphora or in the field although Beule records a Gotha tetra-
drachm, one of two in that cabinet, with FTP near the vase. I have a cast of
only one Gotha coin, a barbaric specimen (Plate 150, 1348). There is no way
of checking Beule's reading but it seems dubious inasmuch as no other piece

of this issue in my record or in that of Kambanis has lettering. Possibly the TIP
coin was also barbaric; possibly it had surface imperfections resembling letters.
No. 46, alone among the obverses of this issue, has the lion-tailed Pegasus
found on dies of the preceding Nike striking.
The two monograms are rendered with great care and consistency except
in the case of No. 89 which has a blundered and somewhat uncertain version of
the second combination. A distinct variant of this same monogram appears on
Nos. 48a, b and c, but the essential letters remain.
Beule remarks that, among other names, he finds AZKAHniAAHI in the first
monogram. All components are present and the possibility is strengthened by
1 A tetradrachm in Glasgow (Hunt. 64) weighing 15.22 grams is a cast replica of the British
Museum coin.
47
the fact that a magistrate of that name is connected with the coinage at a later
date. A prominent Athenian family of the third and second centuries (PA 11339
for stemma) had a EENGN AIKAHTTIAAOY (DYAAIIOI, donor in 247/6 B.C.
(IG II2 791 and Hesfi., 1942, p. 291), and a grandson of the same name was a
donor in 183/2 B.C. (IG II2 2332). The father of this second Xenon may have
been the mint magistrate of 188/7; conceivably the EE.. of the issue with two
palms is also a member of the family. Another Asklepiades, of Diomeia, is
known to have made a dedication to a sanctuary in 186/5 B.C. (Hesp., 1947,
p. 166).
The second monogram is highly uncertain. Beule suggests a name beginning
AEO but this is not convincing. E would seem to be the initial letter with an
upsilon indicated by the diagonal stroke at the top (on the three dies without
this line the right-hand part of the elongation which forms the middle bar of
the E gives Y when turned sideways). It may be that 0 is part of the name,
although there is no trace of a dot in the circle behind the epsilon, or the cir-
cular addition may be part of a reversed rho.1
TC-M GRAIN-EAR 187/6 B.C.
(Plate 7)
Tetradrachms
50.
(M) a. Lockett Coll. (SNG 1904) = Naville (Pozzi) 1594 (Sv. 84, 9, commerce),
gr. 16.79f; Athens, gr. 16.35f
b. *Vienna, gr. 16.57
c. "London (BMC 290; Sv. 34, 8), gr. 16.78t; Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 903,
gr. 16.90

d. Berlin, gr. 16.88f
e. Stockholm, gr. 16.92f
f. Damascus Collector
g. Leningrad, gr. 16.42 \
51.
a. *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.97f
b. Tubingen, gr. 16.18; Athens (Delos Hd. T, 2; Sv. 34, 7), gr. 16.70
c. Athens (Delos Hd. B, 1; Sv. 34, 6), gr. 16.40
((#) d. Berlin, gr. 16.10f
e. Berlin, gr. 16.64f
1 Svoronos (J I AN, 1907, p. 212) reads the monograms on the drachm as MATX and PEY.
H would seem a clumsy way of rendering the first letters, and the suggested order of the last
three surely cannot be right.
48
a. *Griffen Coll.; Empedocles Coll. = Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN, 1912, 1296),
gr. 16.12
b. *Natl. Mus. Lebanon
c. Berry Coll., gr. 16.99f
d. Bucharest, gr. 16.68
Benson Coll., gr. 16.76f
Cambridge (Grose 5898), gr. 16.88f
a. *Empedocles Coll.
b. *Paris, gr. 16.73|
c. Petsalis Coll., gr. 15.76/
d. Herakleion (Sv. 84, 10), gr. 16.80
Since amphora letters have not yet appeared and there is no evidence of
linking by reverse dies, the order of the obverses is arbitrary. The grain-ear
symbol, found in the lower left field, may have a festival significance in that
187/6 B.C. was a year of the Greater Eleusinia. The same symbol marks an
extensive group of fractions which Svoronos (Plate 34, 11-82) associates with
the -R - M tetradrachms. These grain-ear drachms and hemidrachms are
catalogued and discussed on pages 68-78, 145-147.
As magistrates Beule" suggests TAYK[flN] and MHT[POAQPOS]. The latter
interpretation is very probable and it is to be noted that two reverse dies of
the present catalogue, inscribed M, provide additional letters of the name:
MHTPO. This man may well be identical with MHT, second magistrate of
195/4 B.C. With respect to the first monogram, Beule's reading ignores the
definite N unless one assumes that all letters of TAYKflN were used with the

exception of the omega. If this is true, it would seem to represent a deviation
from the usual practice of including in the monogram all elements of the name
down to the stopping place. It is significant that omega is clearly indicated in
the monograms of the first and sixth strikings. Certainly the present monogram
gives the impression that r is the initial letter with N an integral part of the
name and O or P, possibly both, as additional constituents. Benjamin Meritt
suggests rOPrOINO[Z] and this seems to me a likely reading. The name is ex-
tremely rare at Athens, known only from a late fifth century inscription (IG I2
824,1. 82; B. D. Meritt, Athenian Financial Documents, pp. 136-148).
52.
53.
54.
55.
fcP - * CAPS OF THE DIOSCURI 186/5 B.C.
(Plate 8)
Tetradrachms
56.
a. *Munich (Sv. 87, 1), gr. 16.92
b. The Hague, gr. 16.80
c. ANS-ETN, gr. 16.18 /
d. Athens (Delos Hd. B, 11; Sv. 87, 4), gr. 16.60
57.
r * Berlin (Sv. 87, 2), gr. 16.77; Commerce 1955
58. I
La. Frankfurt am Main, gr. 15.64f
b. *Empedocles Coll.
c. Univ. of Pa. = Sotheby (White-King) 174, gr. 16.46
d. Commerce Beirut 1953
e. Berlin, gr. 16.45
59.
a. *Copenhagen (SNG 115; Sv. 37, 8), gr. 16.74f
(VI) c. Romanos Coll. (Sv. 37, 5), gr. 16.65
60.
a. *von Post Coll., gr. 16.90f
b. Oxford, gr. 15.86 (pierced)f
c. Johns Hopkins Univ., gr. 16.84; Istanbul, gr. 16.72f
61.

a. *Giesecke Coll. = Hess, Mar. 1918, 480 = Merzbacher, Nov. 1909, 2984, gr.
16.61; Stack's (Sobernheim) 885 = Stack's (South) 609 (restruck, probably
on an Alexander), gr. 16.68 /
b. Kambanis Coll. = Ciani, Oct. 1920, 59; Berlin, gr. 15.80 (pierced)
c. ANS-ETN, gr. 16.58 /
d. Leningrad, gr. 16.09 /
62.
a. *Empedocles Coll.
b. ANS-ETN, gr. 15.68f; Rhode Is. School of Design = Naville (BM dupl.)
2011, gr. 16.05
63.
ANS = Hirsch (Lambros) 462 = Warren (Regling 855), gr. 16.61f
5o
64.
a. *Berry Coll., gr. 16.92f
b. Dewing Coll., gr. 16.49f; Athens, gr. 15.95f
Nos. 57 and 58 are contiguous by reason of the reverse die link, the first
instance of such coupling in the series. Otherwise there is no indication of re-
lative position within the issue.
Both monograms are difficult. Kirchner {ZfN, 1898, pp. 275f.) reads the
first as TTOAYAPATOZ, but TTOAYAPKHZ or TTOAYKPATHI might be considered
preferable in that the monogram seems to have an H, suggested by the other-
wise unnecessary extension of both Y and P above the horizontal cross-bar.
The second monogram apparently has three distinct elementsY, r and
Owith A, P and O as possibilities. Although OPYriAAOp] is by far the most
satisfactory rendering, the name is not found in Attic prosopography. TPYA-
AO[Z], a known Athenian name, is conceivable but less convincing since one
would have to assume that the O form stands only for P and O.
CICADA 185/4 B.C.
(Plate 9)
Tetradrachms
65.
a.
on amphora
*Chiha Coll. (first monogram illegible)
b.

on amphora
Munich, gr. 16.20; Evelpidis Coll., gr. 16.80
c.
on amphora
Commerce 1955
a.
on amphora
*Aberdeen, gr. 16.10f
b.
on amphora
Commerce 1957 (Zahle Hd.)
c.
on amphora
Lockett Coll. {SNG 1906) = Ratto (Rogers) 848, gr.
16.64f
d.
on amphora
Glasgow (Hunt. 78; Sv. 87,11), gr. 15.99f
e.
on amphora
Vatican (Sv. 37, 7), gr. 16.52; de Laval Coll., gr. 16.88
f.
on amphora
Copenhagen {SNG 116; Sv. 87, 9), gr. 16.59f
g-
on amphora
Amsterdam (Boissevain 47), gr. 15.88
66X.
E on amphora *Bucharest, gr. 16.30
1 In the Ratto catalogue the reading is E. Robinson in the Lockett publication gives it as T
(or E?); Kambanis lists it as f or E. I think it is almost certainly a gamma.
5i
67.
a. 0 on amphora Miinz. u. Med. List 150, 10; *Berlin (Sv. 87, 8), letter
uncertain, gr. 16.99
(E) b. I on amphora Glasgow (Hunt. 75; Sv. 87, 12), gr. 16.26f
c. ? on amphora Berlin, gr. 15.99
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
1 on amphora Kambanis Coll.; *Oxford (Sv. 37,10), letter uncertain,
gr. 16.20t
a. K on amphora *Munich (Sv. 87, 18), gr. 16.84; Empedocles Coll., letter
uncertain
b. ? on amphora ANS-ETN, gr. 16.62f
a. M on amphora Baltatzi Coll. (Sv. 87, 14) = Mavrokordatou Coll.
{JIAN, 1912, 1303), gr. 16.58
b. M on amphora *Natl. Mus. Lebanon; Berlin, amphora letter uncertain,
gr. 16.02
c. ? on amphora Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.87 /
d. ? on amphora Leningrad, gr. 15.87^
(E) a. M1 on amphora Glasgow (Hunt. 74; Sv. 87, 15), gr. 16.47 /; Paris, letter
uncertain, gr. 16.04f
b. ? on amphora *Paris, gr. 16.15f

? on amphora *Berry Coll., gr. 16.20 /
a. ? on amphora *Damascus (Tell Ahmar Hd.)
b. ? on amphora Uncertain (Sv. 87, 6, incorrectly assigned to Copen-
hagen2), gr. 16.58
Months: A, B, T, A, E, 9, I, K, M
1 Macdonald gives the letter as H?; Svoronos apparently read it as M or N since the coin is
at the end of his sequence. The date seems to me to be a worn M, definitely not N.
* This is probably an Athens specimen. I was unable to see a small group of coins which had
been on exhibit before the war. One of them, with the same weight as the Svoronos tetradrachm,
belongs to this cicada issue.
52
The introduction of dates on the amphorae is an innovation of the present
issue. With the exception of Nos. 72-73, the order of obverses is established
by these letters. On the evidence available there seems to have been a short
interval without coinage in the middle of the year, but it may be that illegible
or missing reverses were marked Z and H.
Beul6 lists an unique drachm with monograms and cicada symbol, infor-
mation on it having been communicated to him by M. Isambert. If such a coin
did exist, it has now disappearedat least there is no record of it subsequent
to Beul6's publication. One wonders if it could perhaps have been confused
with one of the common grain-ear drachms with = or Z in the left field.
Interpretation of the first monogram seems to me quite certain. E, the most
prominent element in the combination, is clearly the initial letter. To this
should be added K and O or Q with A and A as further possibilities. On several
of the reverses the upper diagonal of the K is brought in slightly from the end
of the top horizontal of the E while the lower diagonal extends to the tip of the
lowest horizontal of the same letter. This may be simply fortuitous or it may
reflect an effort on the part of careful die engravers to indicate the presence
of both A and A in the monogram. I think the reading is EIKAAIOI, all com-
ponents being present if one assumes a retrograde sigma. The name is rare and
in all probability the mint official of 185/4 B.C. may be identified with EIKAAIOZ
TPINEMEEYZ, donor in 188/2 B.C. (PA 4642; IG IP 2332).
ffl is identical with the second monogram of the Nike striking four years
earlier. Probably the same man Hypsimos ? is serving again as mint
magistrate.
4<-l*l SERPENTS 184/3 B.C.

(Plate 10)
Tetradrachms
74.
a. A on amphora *Sotheby (Montagu) 389 = Photiades 595, gr. 16.78
b. A on amphora London, gr. 15.78f; Berlin, gr. 16.98
A on amphora *Copenhagen (SNG 112; Sv. 35, 12), gr. 16.82f
B on amphora *Giesecke Coll. (Sv. 35, 13) = Hirsch (Rhousopoulos)
2032, gr. 16.92
a. B on amphora *Vienna = Egger XL (Prowe) 952, gr. 16.83; Berlin,
gr. 16.88
b. B on amphora Leningrad, gr. 16.42f
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
c. T on amphora London (Sv. 35, 14), gr. 16.88f
d. ?on amphora London (Sv. 35, 17), gr. 16.70f
e. ?on amphora Vatican
a. T on amphora *Am. Univ. Beirut, gr. 16.25f
b. ?on amphora Athens
Qft-Ai) a. Z on amphora *ANS, gr.16.50f; Hirsch (Sv. 35, 20), letter un-
certain, gr. 16.90
(1*1 -4*) b. ?on amphora Leningrad, gr. 15.36 (corroded)f
a. H on amphora *Brussels (Sv. 35,15), gr. 16.66; L. Meletopoulos Coll.
= Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN, 1912,1302), gr.15.75;
Berry Coll., letter uncertain, gr. 16.20f
b. H on amphora Empedocles Coll. = Weber 3513 (Sv. 85,16), gr. 16.54
c. 0 on amphora ANS-ETN, gr. 16.46f; Romanos Coll.
d. 0 on amphora Minister Landesmuseum, gr. 16.36
e. 0 on amphora Berlin, gr. 16.57
f. ?on amphora Athens, gr. 16.90; Ball VI, 273, gr. 15.90
g. ?on amphora Natl. Mus. Lebanon
h. I on amphora Breslau (Sv. 35, 21); Leningrad, gr. 16.44f
81.
83.
! on amphora
Commerce 1955, gr. 16.60f; The Hague, letter un-
certain, gr. 16.40

1 on amphora
ANS-ETN, gr.16.40f; Cambridge (Grose 5899),
letter uncertain, gr. 16.00f
a.
M on amphora
Berry Coll., gr. 16.51 /
b.
? on amphora
Seyrig Coll., gr. 16.55f
c.
? on amphora
ANS, gr. 16.00 /; Turin (Mus. Ant., Fabretti 3055),
gr. 16.67
d.
? on amphora
Dewing Coll. = Sotheby (Cumberland Clark) 189,
gr. 16.90 /
e.
? on amphora
Berlin (Sv. 35, 19), gr. 16.54
54
84.
a. N on amphora
b. N on amphora
c. ?on amphora
d. ?on amphora
Paris, gr. 15.83f
London (BMC 297), gr. 16.02f
Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.53
Kambanis Coll.
85.
a. ?on amphora
b. ?on amphora
c. ?on amphora
Frankfurt am Main, gr. 16.69f
Damascus Collector
Commerce (Sv. 35, 18), gr. 16.77; Commerce Beirut
1953
Months: A, B, T, Z, H, 9, I, M, N
As was the case with the preceding issue, the month letters give the ap-
proximate order of the obverses, save for No. 85 which has no legible markings.
On Obverses 79 and 82 one finds the peculiar Pegasus with lion's tail which
distinguished dies of the Nike and trophy emissions.
Kirchner {ZfN, 1898, pp. 267f.) was the first to identify the M monogram
of this striking with the & (<DANI) of the third issue of coinage. 1*1 he read as

Moschos and it was his belief that the two men were brothers: the first, OA-
NIA[Z] MOZXO[Y] KYAA0HN[AIEYZ] of a funerary inscription (IG IP 6599)
dated after 317/6 B.C.1; the second, MOZXOZ MOZX[OY] KYAA0HNAIEYZ,
secretary in a decree of the year of the archonship of Archelaos. Subsequently
in the Prosopographia Attica (10462) the secretary is cited as MOZXOZ MO-
ZX[lNOZ] KY[AA]0HN(AIEYZ) and the mint magistrates, Phanias and Moschos,
are regarded as his sons.
This second inscription is now restored by Dow (Prytaneis, pp. 81 ff., no. 36)
as MOIXOZ MOZ[XIQNOZ AJNKYAH0EN which would, of course, indicate a
different family. The revised reading, however, does not affect Kirchner's basic
premise, which seems to me valid, that the mint magistrates of 184/3 B.C. are
brothers from the family of Kydathenaion in which the two names occur. A
Phanias of Kydathenaion is known from a prytany decree of 155/4, published
by Meritt (Hesp., 1934, pp. 31 ff., no. 21) and by Dow (Prytaneis, pp. 148ff.,
no. 84), and there is the possibility that he is either identical with our mint
magistrate or else a son of one of the brothers of 184/3, the latter association
being perhaps the more likely.
1 For the ambiguity of this kind of dating see George Stamires (Tot 'EAeuo-fvia, 1,1946, p. 85).
As used here, "after 317/6 b.c." is merely a terminus post quern, the stone may have been erected
much later than the year mentioned.
55
The transposition of monograms during the course of the year suggests that
the two magistrates were of equal status. Phanias' name was given precedence
on eighteen reverse dies and that of Moschos on seventeen, covering five and
four months respectively of the coinage of present record. The shift in position
did not, however, coincide with the half year unless the arrangement of the
names on No. 79a represents an error on the part of the diecutter.
This issue, like that with cicada symbol, shows gaps in the month sequence:
A, E, K and A1 are missing in the current listing. The appearance of N on a few
dies provides the first indication on the coinage of an intercalary year.
Tetradrachms
86.
& - # TERM OF HERMES 183/2 B.C.
(Plate 11)
(A) a. T on amphora *Leningrad, gr. 16.85 (pierced) t; Paris, letter un-
certain, gr. 16.88 (pierced) \
(ft) b. ?on amphora Empedocles Coll.
(5\) r c. ?on amphora *Commerce Beirut 1953, gr. 16.67f
j d. ?on amphora Ferguson Coll.
87. |
(A) La. ?on amphora *Berry Coll., gr. 17.10f
b. A on amphora Empedocles Coll.
88.
a. ?on amphora *London (BMC 285), gr. 16.67 \
b. A on amphora *Commerce Beirut 1952

c. ?on amphora Feuardent (Engel-Gros) 52
d. ?on amphora Berlin, gr. 15.99f
89.
a. A on amphora *Empedocles Coll. = Baltatzi Coll. (Sv. 36, 3) =
Mavrokordatou Coll. {JIAN, 1912, 1293), gr. 16.87;
Oxford, gr. 16.27f; Arethuse, Suppl. comm. 1,330 =
Ciani, Dec. 1921, 58; Bauer Coll. (Gans Mail Bid
16, 308) = Ratto (Rogers) 341, gr. 16.80f
b. A on amphora Gotha, gr. 16.90
c. E on amphora ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.93f; Commerce Beirut
1953
1 Beule, however, records A on a Turin coin. If this is our No. 83c the date seems to me quite
illegible.
56
90.
a. E on amphora ""Berlin (Sv. 36, 2), gr. 16.60
b. S on amphora Paris, gr. 16.17f
91.
a. X on amphora ""Leningrad, gr. 16.76f
b. S on amphora Petsalis Coll.; Berlin, gr. 16.70f
c. S on amphora Glasgow (Hunt. 65; Sv. 86, 1), gr. 16.80|
d. H on amphora Athens (Sv. 86, 4), gr. 17.05
92.
a. 0 on amphora
b. j on amphora
(A) c. ?on amphora
Drachms
Paris (Sv. 36, 5), gr. 16.91 /
ANS-ETN, gr. 16.94|
Athens, gr. 16.79f
93.
a. H (P)1 on amphora ""London, gr. 4.21
b.? on amphora ""The Hague (Sv. 86, 6), gr. 3.49
Months: f, A, E, Z, H, 9,!
This third issue with amphora letters shows an apparent concentration of
coinage in the middle of the year, just the reverse of the emphasis of the two
preceding strikings. The letter zeta is retrograde on all known dies.2

Of the two monograms, the firstAP.. is too common to justify even a
tentative expansion. The second is carefully executed with the horizontal stroke
at the bottom joining the ends of the two outer verticals while the center
vertical is brought down below the horizontal. Two deltas are clearly suggested,
and I believe that the reading is AIOAOTOI, all elements of which are
present. Possibly this is the AIOAO who served for the Apollo issue eight
years later.
1 Possibly M, only the two vertical lines are visible.
s This letter seems to have given the diecutters a great deal of trouble. During the Early
Period it is almost invariably retrograde when the Z form is used. There are other examples of
the engraver's carelessness in failing to reverse a letter form on the die but such occurrences are
remarkably rare considering how easy it would be to make this mistake and how many individual
letters were required for an average die.
57
AMMfl - AIO KERCHNOS 182/1 b.c.
Tetradrachms
(Plate 12)
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
a.
No lettering visible
Copenhagen (SNG 125; Sv. 39, 10), gr. 16.87f
b.
Leningrad, gr. 15.44 (corroded)f
Romanos Coll.; Berlin
a.
ANS-ETN, gr. 16.46 /
b.
Aberdeen (Newnham Davis Coll., SNG 199),
c.

16.47f
Commerce (Sv. 39, 9, Feuardent), gr. 16.50
a.
Paris, gr. 16.67f; Athens (Delos Hd. T, 9; Sv. 39:
gr. 16.15
rb.
Athens, gr. 16.17f
|c.
M below amphora
Commerce Beirut 1952
La.
London (BMC 311; Sv. 39, 8), gr. 16.83f
b.
Berlin, gr. 16.66
c.
Munich, gr. 15.47
d.
A on amphora
Empedocles Coll.
e.
A on amphora
Berlin, gr. 16.76
a.
Kambanis Coll.
b.
A below amphora
Vienna, gr. 16.62
c.
M below amphora
Athens, gr. 15.50f; Damascus
d.
M below amphora
Berlin, gr. 15.94
58
The first AMMfl -AIO issue breaks with the pattern of month letters
established by the last three strikings. On most reverses there is no visible
lettering and although it could be pure chance that has left us twelve out
of twenty-one reverses with all trace of letters eliminated by time, it seems
more reasonable to suppose that some at least of these dies were originally
uninscribed.
On the nine remaining reverses we find A, M and AP.1 Conceivably A and M
are dates but if so their juxtaposition in Nos. 97-99 means that there was
coinage for only the first and last months of the year. In view of the number of
surviving coins and individual dies, this seems unlikely. The presence of AP,
undoubtedly a control combination, on one reverse and the occurrence of AP
and ME on dies of the next issue suggest rather that we have here the beginnings
of a new control system, with dates temporarily abandoned in favor of control
combinations: A (AP) and M (ME). Possibly in the early part of the year there
was an attempt to do without controls of any kind. The arrangement of the
reverses of No. 98 is determined by die flaws on the obverseinvisible on a,
faint on b and c, pronounced on d and ewhich place the A reverses after the
three without lettering.
The one reverse die link (Nos. 97b and 98a) helps to establish the sequence
of obverses. No. 94 with both reverses marked Al instead of AIO may represent
the initial phase of the striking. Otherwise the relative position of the entries
is arbitrary.
AMMfl is certainly AMMfl(NIOZ), possibly connected with the Ammonios
of the later AMMQNIOZ - KAAAIAZ striking.2 AIO in itself is not enough for
an identification but one can safely assume a relationship between the two men

since the names Dionysios and Ammonios occur in a family of Anaphlystos
prominent in Athenian affairs during the second century B.C.
nOAY - Tlffl PALM BEHIND OWL 181 /0 B.C.
(Plate 13)
Tetradrachms
101X.
BA below amphora *Totten Coll.
1 Kambanis records these and adds an Athens entry with T or E on the amphora. I have
examined the coin whose markings seem to be surface imperfections and not an obscured letter.
Sundwall gives N for a Berlin piece but I can see no trace of this letter on any of the Berlin coins.
2 It may be significant that on the two AMMfi - AIO issues and the later AMMBNIOZ -
KAAAIAZ emission the symbols are Eleusinian: kerchnos, coraucopiae and torches.
59
102.
a. BA below amphora
b. BM below amphora
c. M 1. field; B below amphora
d. Probably same
e. M 1. field; T below amphora
f. ?1. field; T below amphora
g. A 1. field; V below amphora
h. E 1. field; f below amphora
Athens, gr. 16.50f
London, gr. 16.54 /; Glasgow (Hunt. 80;
Sv. 88, 19), gr. 17.24f
Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.81f
Turin (Mus. Ant., Fabretti 8056), gr.
16.71
103.
AP A below amphora
Berlin, gr. 16.65
104.
a. Z 1. field; ME on amphora
b. Z 1. field; EP on amphora

c. S 1. field; ?on amphora
d. ?1. field; ?on amphora
Tubingen (Sv. 88, 12), gr. 16.63
Berlin (Sv. 88, 11), gr. 16.65; Athens,
letters on amphora uncertain, gr. 15.54f
Herakleion (Sv. 38, 18), gr. 16.90 \
Amer. Univ. Beirut, gr. 15.95f
105.
Z11. field; ?on amphora
Athens (Delos Hd. T,
Damascus Collector
6), gr. 16.50f;
106.
(TTOAI)
a. Z 1. field; EP on amphora
b. H 1. field; AP2 on amphora
c. H 1. field; EP on amphora
d. HI. field; ME on amphora
e. HI. field; ?on amphora
f. 9 1. field; EP on amphora
g. 0 1. field; ?on amphora
h. 0 1. field; ?on amphora
London = Ratto (Rogers) 844, gr.
16.73t; London, gr. 16.33f
London (BMC 805; Sv. 88, 14) gr.
16.78f
Oxford, gr. 16.91f
Copenhagen (SNG 119), gr. 16.67f
Munich, gr. 16.70
Leningrad, gr. 16.62f; Berlin, gr. 16.42
Berlin, gr. 16.56
Berlin, gr. 16.19
1 Svoronos reads ^ but it seems to be a zeta.
3 The British Museum Catalogue gives M (?) on the amphora. Pick (editing Svoronos) records
AM. It seems to me that AP is almost certain.
There is a plated coin at Glasgow (Hunt. 79) from the same pair of dies on which the visor
line and protomes of the obverse type have disappeared as the result of doublestriking.
6o
107.
108.
a. 0 1. field; OD1 on amphora "London (BMC 804), gr. 16.66|
(no- b. 01. field; EP2 on amphora Copenhagen (SNG 118; Sv. 38, 15), gr.
Tl) 16.54f; Paris (de Luynes 2075), gr.
16.80f
c. 01. field; ?on amphora Romanos Coll.
d. 1. field; ?on amphora *ANS (restruck, under type uncertain),
gr. 16.39f
a. I r. field; ?on amphora *von Post Coll., gr. 16.45|
b. No trace of month letter;
ME on amphora Amsterdam (Boissevain 48), gr. 16.33
rc. I r. field; AP on amphora Leningrad, gr.16.61f; Berlin (Sv. 38
j 18), letters uncertain, gr. 16.15
109. |
La. I r. field; AP on amphora * Vienna, gr. 16.45
b. I 1. field; ME (?) on amphora Berlin (Sv. 38, 16), gr. 16.14
c. 11. field; ME on amphora *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.61f; Athens (Sv. 38,
17), gr. 16.65|
110.
a. M 1. field; ME on amphora Paris, gr. 16.71|
b. M 1. field; ?on amphora * Athens (Sv.88, 20), gr. 16.60f
c. Ml. field; ?on amphora Athens (Delos Hd. V, 5), gr. 16.40f

Months: B, V, A, Z, H, 0, I, M
Controls: A, AP, E, EP, M, ME, CO
The BM and Mr (or TM) lettering found on reverses b, c, and e of No. 102
can scarcely be explained as control combinations. At least as controls they
would be unparalleled in the entire New Style series and furthermore different
from all other control combinations in not being the initial letters of a Greek
word. Since this TTOAY - T183 issue uses both dates and control combinations
on later reverses, it seems clear that we have at the beginning of the year the
1 Read as B in the left field and OX on the amphora. The date seems definitely 0 and the
amphora letters OD, the straight line behind the D being merely the banding below the neck of
the amphora.
2 In the Sylloge the Copenhagen coin is described as having H in the left field and E<D(?)
on the amphora. A cast, however, shows a clear 0 and the same letter is unmistakable on the
de Luynes piece. The EO( ?) is either EP or EY, more likely the former; no legible amphora letters
are visible on the Paris coin.
3 This retrograde sigma is presumably intended as M.
61
same procedure but with only the first letter of the control combination em-
ployed in conjunction with the date. The occurrence of AP, EP and ME on other
reverses of this issue suggests strongly that B and r are the months with A, E
and M (standing for AP, EP and ME) the controls.
This is the first striking with both dates and control combinations and
there seems to have been considerable uncertainty as to their placement. Orig-
inally the month was below the amphora and the control lettering either below
or in the left field. With Z the month was shifted to the field, usually left but
occasionally right, and the controls, now invariably two letters, cut on the
amphora.
Month dates, supplemented in one instance by a reverse link (Nos. 108c and
109a), determine the order of obverses.
It was Beule who first recognized that TItfl should be interpreted as TIMAP-
XI4HZ].1 nOAY he expanded to nOAY[XAPHI]. Kirchner (ZfN, 1898, pp. 268
to 275) accepted Timarchides but identified his colleague as a brother Polykles,
the two men belonging to a well-known family of artists from Thorikos. Po-
lykles and Timarchides were assumed to have held the minting office about
197 B.C. This is some sixteen years too early but otherwise Kirchner's expo-
sition seems entirely sound.
AMMfl-AlO CORNUCOPIAE 180/79 B.C.
Tetradrachtns
111.
111X.
112.
a.
1. field
b.
1. field
c.
1. field

EY
Ifl below (MH
erased 1. field)
FTP 1. field
(Plate 14)
Gotha, gr. 16.51
Glymenopoulos Coll. (Sv. 39, 16), gr. 16.69
Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 909 = Sv. 89, 17, gr. 16.70
*ANS, gr. 16.40f
"Paris, gr. 16.47f
113.
La. nP 1. field Copenhagen (SNG 127; Sv. 89, 20), gr. 16.76 \
b. TIP 1. field Bucharest, gr. 16.52
1 The monogram in its common form, , does not seem to include an alpha. However, on
the earliest reverses, those associated with Obverse 102, the rendering is somewhat different: &
Here it is possible to supply the A from ^.
62
114.
114X.
115.
116.
117.
c.
ZO1
1. field
Chiha Coll.
d.
1. field
Naples (Santangelo Coll., Fiorelli 10786; Sv. 89, 11),
gr. 16.59f
re.
1. field
La.
1. field
Petsalis Coll. (countermarked)2, gr. 16.56 \; Damascus
Collector
1. field

b.
c.
Zfi
1. field
*Berlin (Sv. 39, 14), gr. 16.52
d.
EY
1. field
Munich (Sv. 89, 12), gr. 16.26; Herakleion (Cretan
Hd. II), gr. 16.74f
a.
MH
below
Berlin, gr. 16.24
b.
MH
1. field
Leningrad, gr. 16.45f
c.
12
1. field
Leningrad, gr. 16.21 f
a.
EY3
1. field
Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 8199; Sv. 89, 13), gr.
16.87 (Pl.)f
b.
npo
below
Athens (Sv. 89,18), gr. 16.65f
a.
EY
1. field
Paris, gr. 16.48f; Vatican
b.
1. field
London = Glendining, July 15, 1929, 374, gr. 16.54t
c.
Xfl
63
d.
c.
FIP 1. field
MH below
Princeton Univ., gr. 16.66
ANS-ETN, gr. 16.54f
119.
b.
a.
EY
1. field
Vatican
Ferguson Coll.
120.
b.
a.
EY
IQ
below
1. field
Bucharest, gr. 16.56
Geneva
Controls: E, EY, Zfl, M, MH, T7, nP(O)

Like the first AMMfl - AIO striking, this issue uses control letters but no
dates. Consequently the order of obverses is arbitrary save for the contiguity
of Nos. 112, 113, 114 as evinced by reverse links. A die break across the right
leg of the owl on No. 114a is proof that this stage of the reverse is later than
that of No. 113e.
Four distinct controls are employed. As was the case for the two preceding
issues, single letters are frequently used, the E presumably standing for EY, the
M for MH and the TT for FIP(O). Noteworthy variation occurs in the Zl control
which is also rendered as Xfl and IQ.
Beul6's list includes no example of a month letter. In Sundwall there is the
H read by Froehner on No. 612 of the Photiades Catalogue. The coin is not
illustrated and Kambanis notes, in entering this as an isolated instance of a
date, that it is Froehner's reading. The Leake Catalogue gives 9 on No. 115a,
but the surface of the amphora is gouged where a letter would have been cut.
I have found no evidence of a date on any coin of this issue.
AMMft-AlO served two years earlier, using then a kerchnos symbol.1
Beute assumes different second magistrates in consequence of his theory that
the symbol was the badge of the second official and that a change in symbols
would therefore denote a shift in magistrates. However, Beule's connection of
symbol and second magistrate is not valid and there is no reason to suppose
that the two AMMfl-AIO emissions involved any change in officials. There
are other instances of a repetition of mint service on the part of the same pair
of magistrates.
1 A third AMMft - AIO listing is given by Beule on the strength of a Copenhagen specimen
which seemed to him to have no symbol. This suppression of the symbol he explains as an economy
measure, a saving of either time or money. However, the Copenhagen coin (No. 94a) does have
a small kerchnos barely visible to the left of the foot of the amphora.
64
Tetradrachms
AAEI-HAIO TRIDENT 179/8 b.c.
(Plate 15)
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
a.
EY
1. field
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 16.81f; Berlin, gr. 16.21
b.
MH
1. field
Paris, gr. 16.52f
c.
np
1. field
London {BMC 809), gr. 16.62f
a.
npo

below
Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.82f
b.
1. field
London (BMC 810), gr. 16.93f; Athens, gr. 15.2
tallized)'f
a.
EY
1. field
Leningrad (Sv. 89, 5), gr. 16.65
b.
npo
1. field
Kricheldorf III, 1186, gr. 16.71
a.
MH
below
Kambanis Coll.
b.
MH
below
Romanos Coll. (Sv. 89, 4), gr. 15.80
c.
below
London, gr. 15.96 \
d.
np
1. field
Berlin, gr. 16.02
a.
MH
below
Milan; Berlin, gr. 16.64
b.
Xft
below
ANS-ETN, gr. 16.52t
c.
1SI
below
Athens, gr. 15.55 (crystallized)f
65
128.
? below *London (BMC 808), gr. 16.52f
Controls: EY, Zfl, MH, TTP(0)
All reverses associated with Obverse 121 and the first reverse of Obverse 122
have HA instead of the customary HAIO. In the case of No. 122 the two-line
form is the earlier since there are die breaks on No. 122b which do not appear
on No. 122a. Perhaps the name was broken on dies at the beginning of the year
and cut in a single line later. A reverse link relates Nos. 125-126; otherwise
there is no evidence for the arrangement.
Controls for this issue are identical with those of the second AMMfl - AIO
striking immediately preceding. Kambanis notes that neither he nor Beule
found any certain dates on the amphorae; I have found none. H is recorded for
No. 126a in the Hunterian Catalogue and repeated in Sundwall. There is a
banding line across the shoulder of the amphora but nothing else on the coin
except surface flaws.
Adeimantos or Adeistos would seem to be the only possible expansion of
AAEI. The former name is more common in Attic records and our magistrate is
very likely the Adeimantos of Ikaria known from a decree of 178/2 B.C. (see
under AAEI in the section on Magistrates). HAIO must surely stand for HAIO-
AfiPOZ but the name is common and it would be futile to attempt any precise
identification.
XAPI - HPA COCK WITH PALM 178/7 B.C.
129.
130.

Tetradrachms
HPA-
XAP1 a.
HPA-
XAPI b.
rc.
La.
b.
(Plate 16)
MH below *Berlin (Sv. 43, 1), gr. 15.29
EY 1. field Bucharest, gr. 16.91
nPO 1. field *Romanos Coll. (Sv. 43, 2, commerce), gr. 16.86
TTPO 1. field *Ratto (Rogers) 851, gr. 16.85
MH below 'Cambridge (Grose 5921; Sv. 48, 6), gr. 16.89f
KTH below
TTP 1. field
KTH below
FTP 1. field
Damascus
*ANS-ETN, gr. 16.89f; Berlin, gr. 16.39
Gotha, gr. 16.51; Berlin (Sv. 43, 3), gr. 16.90
nP 1. field
KT 1. field
Athens, gr. 15.45f
London, gr. 16.69f
KT 1. field *Paris, gr. 16.04|; Leningrad, gr. 16.37f; Berlin,
gr. 16.10
nP 1. field Herakleion (Sv. 48, 4), gr. 16.50
MEN below Giamalakis Coll., gr. 16.30; Athens, gr. 15.15
(crystallized) f
EY 1. field *Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.85f
EY below Gotha, gr. 16.62
EY 1. field * Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.15f
ME below London {BMC 512), gr. 16.65f
ME below;
A/ 1. field
MH 1. field;
A/ on amphora

ME below
MH below
*ANS-ETN, gr.16.69f; Athens (Sv. 43, 5), gr.
15.09f
Oxford, gr. 16.80
Paris, gr. 16.91f
AP below;
A/ on amphora *Commerce 1955, gr. 16.75f
HPA 1. field;
A/ on amphora Glasgow (Hunt. 95), gr. 16.84f
MH 1. field;
A/ on amphora Berlin, gr. 16.19
Controls: AP, EY, HPA, KT(H), ME(N), MH, nP(O)
67
There is no evidence for the arrangement of obverses save for the reverse
connections of Nos. 129-130, 131-132-183, 186-137. For the first time a single
reverse is used with three obverses (131d, 132a, 133b) and the order of transfer
is fairly certain. No. 131d shows a badly disintegrated obverse die, clearly in
its last stages; on Nos. 132a and b there are die flaws indicating a certain
amount of use; Nos. 133a and b represent an early stage of that obverse, defi-
nitely less worn than 133c. Two reverses (Nos. 129a-b) have HPA-XAPI. Since
the transposition is not repeated, this would seem to be an error on the part of
the engraver occurring possibly at the beginning of the year.
Obverses 132 and 134 are very similar, so much so that the latter may be a
recutting of the former. There are, however, variations, notably the size and
spacing of the dots, which make it difficult to believe that only one die is
involved. On Obverse 137 the protomes above the visor line are missing.
This omission recurs on dies of later issues and a general similarity of style
characterizing all these obverses suggests that they are the work of the same
engraver.
Controls AP, EY, ME, MH and FTP have been employed on earlier issues; HPA
and KT(H) are new. The use of three-letter controls is more common in this
emission than in previous ones.
In Beule there is no record of a month date except that he notes the marking
on the amphora of the Glasgow coin (No. 137b) which he suggests may be H or
M. Sundwall cites Beule as having read N on this piece and adds for his part
another N (J I AN, 1906, p. 311) and an M ? from a Berlin coin. Svoronos, how-
ever, in the JI AN publication reads the lettering correctly as A/ and Macdonald
publishes A/ for the Hunterian tetradrachm. The Berlin coin also has the mono-

gram. Kambanis lists A? for a Cambridge piece (No. 130b) and A with control
AP for a coin in his own collection. The latter is, I believe, the same specimen
which appeared in trade in 1955 (No. 137a) with the amphora marking A/. It is
impossible to read anything definite on the Cambridge specimen, possibly it
once had the same monogram.
The addition of A/ to certain reverse dies is puzzling. Most plausibly this
monogram represents the brief appearance on the coinage of a third magistrate,
as may have been the case with E on No. 5a of the second New Style issue.
These distinctive reverses have been placed at the end of the sequence but there
is no evidence for their exact position. With respect to No. 136, the two reverses
without A/ are later than those with the monogram as is attested by die breaks
at nape and chin on the obverse.
XAPI and HPA are expanded into XAPIAZ and HPAKAEIAHI by Beule\ There
are other names which are equally possible.
6s
138.1
(1)
139.
(2)
140.
(3)
141.
(4)
NO MAGISTRATES GRAIN-EAR c. 180-170 B.C.
Drachms
(Plate 17)
a.
rb.
c.
d.
a.
b.
he-
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
re-
|h.
| a.
|b.
l-c.
d.
e.
rf.

I i.
*ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.16f; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.27f
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.2St
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.25f
*ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.18f
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.07|
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.12f; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.18f
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.11f; Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.12f
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 8.86t
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.19f; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.23f
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.15f; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.18f; ANS (Attic Hd.),
gr. 4.19t; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.17f; Berlin (Sv. 84, 11), gr. 4.20
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.19|
Berlin, gr. 8.69
Berlin, gr. 4.03
*ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.28f; Vienna, gr. 8.95
Baltatzi Coll. (Sv. 84, 12), gr. 8.75
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.18f; Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.20f; ANS (Attic
Hd.), gr. 4.03t
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.21f; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 8.85 (corroded)
1 The parenthetical numbers are those of the catalogue of an earlier publication (M.Thomp-
son, "The Grain-Ear Drachms of Athens," ANSCent., 1958, pp. 651-671). In order to retain a
correspondence between the two listings the five new reverse dies provided by the Berlin material,
which became available only recently, have been inserted at the end of the appropriate
catalogue entries. No. 157X, although it has no letter in the reverse field, resembles Nos.
156-7 in the heaviness of its obverse style and it has accordingly been placed at the end of
Group II.
69
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.06f; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.17f; Athens (Salamis
Hd.), gr. 4.13f; Naville (BM dupl.) 2010, gr. 4.13, probably = Ratto,
May 1912, 760, gr. 4.13
Benson Coll. = Helbing (Hermann) 2965, gr. 3.78f; The Hague; Gotha,
gr. 3.42 (pierced)
*ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.15
*ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.21f; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 4.03
Z 1. field *Cambridge (Grose 5901; Sv. 34, 25), gr. 4.28f
1. field
1. field
1. field
T 1. field;
small r below
amphora
Al. field; A of
ethnic erased
from coin
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.13/; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.11f
Wilkinson Coll., gr. 4.01f; Copenhagen (SNG 122), gr.

4.09f; London (BMC 292), gr. 4.29
No letter
No letter
5 1. field
Z 1. field
Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.30f
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.21f; Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr.
4.31|; Noe Coll., gr. 3.61f; Copenhagen (SNG 121),
gr. 3.87 (pierced)f; Glymenopoulos Coll. (Sv. 84, 17),
gr. 4.10; ANS, gr. 4.00f
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.04 /
70
148.
(H)
149.
(12)
H 1. field
b.
fC.
g-
Lh.
k.
1.
1. field
1. field
1. field
1. field
1. field
1. field
2 1. field
T 1. field

T 1. field
A 1. field
H 1. field
E 1. field
= 1. field
= 1. field
L m. S 1. field
*ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.25f; Commerce (Attic Hd.)( gr.
4.27f; London {BMC 295), broken; Athens (Delos Hd.
B, 8; Sv. 84, 19), gr. 3.56f; Ratto (Rogers) 345, gr. 8.93
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.22f; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.16|
ANS (Attic Hd.j, gr. 4.27f
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.07f; Commerce (Attic Hd.),
4.31 /; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.31f; Berlin, gr. 8.94
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.06f; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.40f;
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.12f; London; Athens (Sv. 34,
16), gr. 8.90f
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.08f; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.08|;
Athens (Delos Hd. B, 2; Sv. 34, 15), gr. 8.68f
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.16f; Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr.
4.19f; Gotha, gr. 8.60; Berlin (Sv. 84, 22), gr. 4.16;
Athens (Sv. 34, 24), gr. 8.90f
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.26f; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.24|
Berlin, gr. 3.73
150.
(13)
A 1. field *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.18f
151.
(14)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
7i
152.
(15)
a.
1. field
b.
1. field
Feuardent (Sv. 34, 18), gr. 4.18
153.
c.
1. field
(16)
1. field
*ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.17f; Munich, gr. 2.96; ANS
154.
(Attic Hd.) with grain-ear erased from coin, gr. 3.97f
(17)
1. field
*ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.19f; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 3.68f;

155.
(18)
a.
1. field
b.
1. field
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.23f; Berlin (Sv. 34, 14), gr. 3.96
c.
1. field
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.14f; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.14t;
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.18f; Berlin, gr. 3.81
d.
1. field
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.11f; London {BMC 291), gr.
4.05; Copenhagen {SNG 120; Sv. 34, 20), gr. 4.04f
156.
e.
1. field
Berlin, gr. 3.92
(19)
1. field
157.
(20)
a.
1. field
*ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.04f; ANS, gr. 3.40f
b.
M1
1. field
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.26f; Feuardent (Sv. 34, 21),
gr. 3.55
c.
72
indication of mint magistrates. The series as a whole divides into two groups,
the components of each being frequently linked by the transfer of reverse dies.
Of these two issues, the first has no lettering other than the ethnic while the
second usually carries a single letter in the left field.1
Of the 148 grain-ear drachms in the catalogue above, 100 come from the
Attic Hoard acquired in large part by the American Numismatic Society in
1955. This find contained 78 other drachms of various periods and nine tetra-
drachms from the emissions of AAEI - HAIO, A - $, AlOcDA - AIOAO, AHMH -
lEPfl, %-fb, and KTHZI - EYMA (pp. 478f. of the section on Hoards). From the
evidence of wear, of proportionate representation and of stylistic parallels, it
is clear that the two groups of grain-ear fractions are close in time and that
both belong to the same decade as the tetradrachm strikings. Any restriction
of the 180-170 B.C. dating is difficult and somewhat tenuous. The twenty-one
obverse dies on Plate 17 show considerable diversity of style and there is no
clear-cut relationship of either the first or second group with a single issue of
the regular coinage. It seems likely that at least some new diecutters were
pressed into service for the special emissions of fractions and that these en-
gravers copied contemporary tetradrachms with varying degrees of fidelity.
Unfortunately, too, there is little regular drachm coinage other than that of
AHMH - lEPfl which belongs to the period under discussion and stylistic com-
parisons between specimens of different denominations are rather less satis-
factory than those provided by coins of like size.2
In general the obverses of Group I seem closest in style to the coins of
^ - AYZIA and & - $ but some show an affinity to later issues. Nos. 141
and 143 resemble the one thyrsos drachm of Plate 20 in profile, visor arrange-

ment and helmet ornament. To a lesser degree they bear comparison with
tetradrachms of that issue and the one immediately preceding (Nos. 134-137,
146-151 of the accordion plate). No. 144 is in the style of Nos. 139-142, perhaps
even closer to No. 154 of the same plate. There is also a similarity with Ob-
verses 202 and 220 of the eagle and aplustre strikings. The high relief and
compact heads of Nos. 188-139 are comparable in technique and in style as
well to Nos. 220, 224-225 of the drachm coinage of AHMH - lEPfl (Plate 23).
1 Still a third striking of grain-ear drachms is catalogued under the coinage of TIMAPXOY -
NIKAI~0 with which it is die-linked. All three categories of anomalous fractions are discussed in
"The Grain-Ear Drachms of Athens," where the evidence for their dating and the significance
of their distinctive aspects are dealt with in detail.
2 The accordion plate with its reductions will be more useful than the standard plates in
showing the stylistic relationships between drachm and tetradrachm obverses. This folded sheet
(Plate A) is to be found at the end of the volume of plates. In the commentary, the numbers
of the accordion plate are in italics to distinguish them from the catalogue entries.
73
Within Group II the heavy coarse heads of Nos. 156-157 and 157X can be
associated only with the debased workmanship of the AIOQA - AIOAO striking.
This is apparent rather in the generally gross effect than in any exact corre-
lation of details. Some of the other large heads (Nos. 145, 147, 154-155) bear
comparison with Nos. 175-177 of the Apollo issue. Nos. 148 and 152 in the
somewhat pinched features, visor design and helmet ornaments find perhaps
their closest parallel in Nos. 232 and 234 of KTHII - EYMA but they also suggest
the earlier Nos. 134-135 of ^ - AYZIA note particularly the treatment of
the hair. In the case of Nos. 146, 149-150, one can see some resemblance to
Nos. 196 and 212 of the eagle and aplustre issues. No. 149 in particular has
details of profile, visor, hair and ornament comparable with one or the other
of the tetradrachm dies. No. 151 seems to me rather like a drachm of the eagle
striking (No. 245 on Plate 25) in the lank hair, attenuated ornament, visor
arrangement and to some extent the profile. Group II then would seem to have
its closest stylistic parallels in the period from 175 to 170 while Group I be-
longs perhaps a few years earlier.
The absence of magistrates' names from all these grain-ear drachms would
indicate that they were distinct from the general run of the Athenian coinage
and issued for some special purpose. A clue to that purpose is provided by the
grain-ear symbol which appears on all reverses and which strongly suggests
that the drachms are to be associated with grain distributions to the people
of Athens. This connection between the coins and gifts of grain, as elaborated
in the Centennial article cited above, seems to me the most plausible expla-
nation of the abundance of this drachm coinage and its peculiar aspects.
- AYXIA FOREPART OF BRIDLED HORSE 177/6 B.C.

(Plate 18)
Tetradrachms
158.
159.
a.
EP
below
Chiha Coll.; The Hague (Sv. 38, 1), gr. 16.90;
Leningrad, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.77|
b.
EP
1. field
Vienna, gr. 16.79
c.
XfcAl
below
Glasgow (Hunt. 83; Sv. 38, 8), gr. 16.91f
d.
AP
below
Athens (Delos Hd. V, 7; Sv. 38, 9), gr. 16.85
e.
Vienna, gr. 16.20
a.
AN
1. field
Romanos Coll. (Sv. 38, 5, commerce Crete), gr.
17.00; Athens
b.
EP
1. field
Kambanis Coll.
74
c.
TIP
below
Glasgow (Hunt. 82; Sv. 38, 4), gr. 17.17/
d.
EP2
below
Athens (Delos Hd. B, 12), broken
160.
EP
1. field
161.
La.
EP
1. field
Berlin, gr. 16.63; Schlessinger (Hermitage 1)
185, gr. 16.70
Tl
below

rb.
Andreopoulos Coll.
|c.
AN
1. field
ANS, gr. 16.59f
|d.
AP
1. field
Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.47 /
162.
La.
Tl
below
*de Laval Coll. = Ratto, Feb. 1928, 446, gr. 16.73
b.
AP
below
Damascus
163.
E(?)
AN
below
Kambanis Coll.
164.
a.
Z(?)
AN
1. field
Berlin (Sv. 38, 6), gr. 16.63
b.
H(?)
ME
75
rc.
M(?)
EP
below
Petsalis Coll., symbol erased, gr. 16.68 \
jd.
ME
1. field
1 e-
Tl
below
Herakleion \
1 f-
EP
below
ANS, gr. 16.54 \
is-
AN
1. field
Berlin, gr. 16.84

jh.
Empedocles Coll.
1 *-
Berlin, gr. 16.25
AN
1. field
*Meletopoulos Coll. (Sv. 38, 7)
La.
M(?)
EP(?) below
London, gr. 16.71f; ANS-ETN, gr. 16.05
b.
M(?)
AP
below
ANS-ETN, gr. 16.36 /
c.
Tir
below
*ANS, gr. 15.79f (Plate 19)
Months: A, I", E, Z(?), H(?), 9, l(?), M(?)
Controls: AN, AP, EP, ME, Z<DAI, Tl(0
Obverses 163, 164, 167 and 169 have the peculiarity mentioned in con-
nection with Obverse 137 of the XAPI - HPA striking. The helmet of Athena is
rendered without the customary row of horse protomes above the visor.
On two reverses (Nos. 167b and c) the symbol has been erased and in at
least the second instance the erasure was from the coin rather than the die.
The reverse in question was used with Obverses 167 (symbol erased) and 169
(symbol present). Since the latter obverse survived into the thyrsos striking,
it would seem to have been the later of the two and the one more likely to have
taken over the reverse die. For this apparently pointless deletion of the symbol
I can offer no explanation.
This issue has a hybridization of the forms of the magistrates' names akin
to that of the earlier striking of TTOAY - Tl. Beule thought the monogram
and letters stood for three officials: ATT, AQ (AflPOQEOZ or AflZI9E0Z) and
AYZI. For the last, due to a failure to note the final A of the name, he offered
76
A - $ FILLETED THYRSOS 176/5 b.c.
(Plates 19-20)
Tetradrachms
169.
170.
171.
172.
173.
174.
175.
176.
177.
(A)
TIP
1. field
Paris (Sv. 37, 16), gr. 16.47f
a.
A(?)
KE
1. field
Vienna, gr. 16.80
b.
A(?)
EY

1. field
c.
EY
below
Feuardent, June 1924, 99
a.
EP
below
ANS, gr. 16.75 /
b.
KE
below
ANS-ETN, gr. 16.68f
c.
H(?)
KE
below
d.
ME
below
Glasgow (Hunt. 67; Sv.37,17), gr.16.84f
e.
ME
below
Santamaria (Signorelli) 472, gr. 16.60
a.
AN
below
Oxford, gr. 16.36f
b.
EP
below
Feuardent (Burel) 181
77
178.
M IQ below *Berry Coll., gr. 16.65|
M ME 1. field Leningrad (Sv. 37, 20), gr. 15.60
179.
La.
b.
c.
d.
ME 1. field *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.72f
KE below ANS.gr. 16.21f
ME below Athens, gr. 16.80f
EY below Berlin, gr. 16.67f
180.
(A)
ME below * Damascus
181.
(A-A)
EP below *Damascus Collector
182.
(A - A) a.
(A - A) b.
d.

c.
Drachm
Tir below *London (BMC 288), gr. 16.30f
EP below Hirsch (Weber) 1673 = Sv.87, 18, gr. 16.67
EY below Damascus Collector
? Oxford, piece missingf
183.
No lettering visible *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.20f
1 drachm
Months: A, A, Z, H, G, K, M1
Controls: AN, EP, EY, KE, ME, ISl, TIP
For the first time on the evidence here assembled, there is a transfer of a
die from one issue to another. Obverse 169, used with at least three reverses
^ Mi ~ ^YZIA, *s carried over into the thyrsos striking. The A on the amphora
of the Paris tetradrachm establishes the order of the contiguous issues.
1 Beute's reading of A from a coin in his collection cannot be verified.
* Kambanis, in one of his notebooks, suggests that KE is a diecutter's mistake for ME. This
would seem more plausible if the "error" were confined to only one or two reverses. As it is, it
occurs on five. Other control combinations appear with even less frequency: MO and OY twice
each in the one issue of AHMH - IEPQ. These might be interpreted as erroneous renderings of MC>
and EY but Tl(l~), which is inscribed on only six reverses, can scarcely be an engraver's mistake
for a more common combination.
78
Obverses 169, 177, 178 and 175 are variants of the standard type. The first
three have no protomes above the visor, the last has no Pegasus above the
disk of the helmet.
After an interval of six years monograms replace abbreviated names on the
coinage. Beule identifies the first official as AYZIAS, noting that all letters are
present. His rendering of the monogram, however, omits the slanting line at
the lower right, visible on all reverses, which surely indicates that K was part
of the name. AYKIZKOS, which occurs elsewhere on the coinage and of which
all components are present, seems a likely reading. AYZIKA[HX], AYIIKA[EIAHI]
and AYKOM[HAHZ] are other possibilities. is probably AIOKAH[I], in which
case the omission of the top horizontal on three reverses is a major error.
AIOOA - AIOAO APOLLO 175/4 B.C.
(Plates 20-21)
Tetradrachms
184.
a.
B/A(?)
below
Petsalis Coll. = Baltatzi Coll. (Sv. 41, 17) =
Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN, 1912, 1319),
gr. 15.48f
b.
16.80t
c.

ANS-ETN, countermarked for Tralles, gr.
a.
EY
below
Geneva, gr. 16.47
rb.
MO
below
r|c.
below
1 Id-
MO
below
Glasgow (Hunt. 89), gr. 16.45 /
He.
npo
below
Berlin, gr. 16.86
Ilf-
ll
II
1 La-
MO
below
ANS-ETN, gr. 16.76f; Berlin, gr. 16.20
L b.
79
187.
188.
189.
190.
191.
192.
193.
194.
195.
a.
EY
below
b.
a.
EM
below
b.
below
c.
ME
below
a.
MO
below
b.
EM
1. field
c.

ME/MO1 below
d.
ME/MO
below
EY
below
a.
MO
1. field
b.
EY
below
EY
below
MO
below
a.
ME
below
b.
ME
1. field
8o
below ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.18f
below *Berlin, gr. 16.00
Copenhagen {SNG 136), gr. 15.04 (PI. ?)f
below *Romanos Coll. (Sv. 41, 16), gr. 16.65
below *Commerce Beirut 1952
below Cahn 68, 1844, gr. 15.56
below *ANS, gr. 16.27f
below *Berlin, gr. 16.63
below Berlin, gr. 16.11
L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 14.85 (badly worn
and corroded)
below *Damascus
Months: A, B, I", E, Z2, H, 9, I, K, M
Controls: E, EM, EY, EO, M, ME, MO, nPO3
The Apollo figure takes two distinct forms. Thirteen reverses (Nos. 184-187)
show the god side view holding a bow under his left arm and extending his right
hand. On some dies the figure seems to be standing with the left leg straight
and the right forward and bent at the knee; on other reverses the representation
is rather that of a seated Apollo, resting on a straight support, probably a tree
stump, with only the bent right leg visible. A baseline indicates a statuary
prototype. The remaining reverses have a facing Apollo, standing free, with a
large bow in the left hand and the right extended.
On the available evidence the profile Apollo preceded the frontal one but
the demarcation between the two renderings is probably not as sharp as the

catalogue would indicate since a large number of dies have uncertain or in-
visible lettering on the amphorae.
1 The profile of this obverse has been crudely recut.
2 AI form of zeta is clear on No. 189a. The Z rendering is probable on No. 185d but not certain.
3 The controls of this issue are carelessly executed. E presumably stands for EM or EY, M
for ME. EM is, I believe, a shortened form of the control EMO, which appears in the KTHZ1 -
EYMA issue, while MO and EO are probably misunderstood versions of the same combination.
196.
197.
198.
199.
200.
a.
b.
c.
a.
b.
a.
b.
c.
MO
EM
MO
EM
EO
201.
EM
81
No. 184b was countermarked by the Lydian city of Tralles. The circular
stamp shows the forepart of a humped bull to the left, left leg drawn back,
right extended, head erect. To the left of the animal, TPA; above, AAI; below,
ZQ.1 The humped bull is a common type on the autonomous bronze of Tralles
and one of the symbols on the cistophoric strikings of that city (BMC, 12 and
59-68). Letters and monograms, identifying minting officials, appear on some
of this silver and bronze and it is reasonable to suppose that the Sfl of our
counterstamp was a local magistrate.
As Bellinger points out, countermarking of posthumous Alexander tetra-
drachms and autonomous issues of Side was a common practice at a number
of Anatolian mints, Tralles among them. The usual imprint of Tralles was a
bow in its case with the letters TPA ;2 I know of no other example of the bull
as a countermark of that city although the device would be a most suitable
one. It is noteworthy, too, that countermarking of New Style tetradrachms was
an exceedingly rare phenomenon. With the exception of No. 114a from the
second AMMfl - AlO issue, this is the only instance of which I have record.
There is nothing which enables one to date the countermark with precision.
Bellinger believes that it was applied between 189 and 126 B.C.; the tetra-
drachm gives 174 as a terminus post quern.
AIOOA is most likely the abbreviated form of AIOOANHZ or AIOOANTOI,
possibly the same man as the second magistrate of the later AQPOQE - AlOcD
striking. AIOAO is certainly Diodotos.
AHMH - lEPfl MACEDONIAN HELMET SURMOUNTED BY STAR 174/3 B.C.
(Plates 22-28)
Tetradrachms

202.
(No star) a. A MO/AN 1. field *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.67f; London (BMC
866; obv. of Sv. 41, 8), gr. 16.65f; The
Hague, letters uncertain. The Hague and
ANS coins show clear evidence of re-
cutting in the left field; the London coin
is not struck up.
1 This is also Newell's reading of the letters. Bellinger's TPAAAQN (Hesperia, Suppl. VIII,
p. 14) omits the I which follows immediately after the second lambda and takes the 2. for an N
placed on its side. Since the ethnic when inscribed in full is invariably TPAAAIANflN it would
seem that only the TPAAAI of the countermark has to do with the ethnic and that the in-
dicates a magistrate.
2 Cf. R. Mowat's study, "Trois contremarques indites sur des t6tradrachmes de SideV' in
Corolla Numismatica, pp. 201 f.
82
(No star) b.
Cfl
1. field
c.
Sfl
1. field
d.
9Y
below
e.
HP
1. field
203.
a.
HP
1. field
b.
c.
1. field
1. field

Cfl
MO/?
d.
CO
1. field
(No star) e.
C<D(?)
1. field
204.
below
205.
(No star) a.
IO
1. field
(No star) b.
206.
a.
MH
1. field
b.
n?)
EY
1. field
207.
(No star)
HP
1. field
208.
(No star) a.
CO
1. field
83
209.
a.
1. field
Milan (Sv. 41, 6), gr. 16.84
b.
EM
1. field
Commerce 1959, gr. 16.81f
c.
A/r
EY
1. field
Seyrig Coll.
d.
A/r
EM
1. field
London (BMC 368; rev. of Sv.41, 8), gr.
16.94f
e.
ME

below
Dewing Coll., gr. 16.59/; Leningrad,
control letters uncertain, gr. 15.58 /
r-
np
1. field
210.
211.
212.
213.
214.
215.
216.
(No star)
La.
np
1. field
Berlin (Sv. 41, 7), gr. 16.40; Commerce
1952
b.
AN
1. field
Leningrad, gr. 16.70 \
c.
AN
1. field
Romanos Coll.
d.
np
1. field
Berlin, gr. 16.89
e.
ANS, gr. 16.08/
a.
84
217.
217X.
218.
a.?
b.?
c.?
218X.
(No star)?
Drachms
? nP 1. field *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.78/; Bucharest, gr.
16.45
EM 1. field "Turin (Mus. Ant., Fabretti 3061), gr.
16.14
219.
(AH-IEPft)
220.
(No star)
(No helmet)
(No star)
221.
EN
EY
np
1. field *Paris, gr. 16.76f

below ANS-ETN, gr. 16.85f
below Venice (Sv. 41, 10)
Berlin, gr. 16.77
A below
a. A on amphora
b. A on amphora
c. A on amphora
a. A on amphora
(No helmet) b. A on amphora
c. f on amphora
222.
(No star)
B on amphora
*ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.22f; ANS (Attic
Hd.), gr. 4.08f; Berlin (Sv. 41, 11), gr. 4.27;
Athens (Sv. 41,12), letter uncertain, gr. 3.65
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.11f; ANS (Attic
Hd.), gr. 4.88f
*ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.18f; Petsalis Coll.,
letter uncertain, gr. 4.18
*ANS, gr. 4.18f; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.26f;
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 8.87f; Schlessinger
(Hermitage 2) 962, gr. 4.00
London, gr. 8.95
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.22 /; Berlin, gr.4.09;
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.05/; ANS (Attic
Hd.), gr. 4.30f; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.24 /;
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.06f Amphora letter
uncertain on all but first two
*ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.27f; ANS (Attic
Hd.), gr. 8.41f; Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr.
4.24f
85
223. I
(No star) L B on amphora *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 44; Sv. 41, 13), gr.
4.02f; Berlin (Sv. 41, 14), gr. 4.20
224.
(No helmet) r a. ? on amphora * ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.14/; Berlin, gr. 4.17
(No star) | rb. ? on amphora ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.20f
II
225. ||
(No star) | La. 9 on amphora *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.27/; ANS (Attic
I Hd.), letter uncertain, gr. 4.25f
(No helmet) Lb. 9 on amphora ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.26/; ANS (Attic
Hd.), gr. 4.19 /; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr.4.16f;
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.20/; ANS (Attic
Hd.), gr. 4.18 / Letter uncertain on last three
NO MAGISTRATES NO SYMBOL
Hemidrachms
226.
Athens, gr. 1.45f
227.
a. *Vienna (Sv. 33, 6), gr. 1.82
b. Saroglou Coll. (Sv. 33, 5), gr. 1.70
8 hemidrachms: 2 obverse, 3 reverse dies
Months: A, B, T, A, E, 9, A(?)( M(P)1

1 The identification of the amphora letters in this issue is rendered very difficult by a pe-
culiar framing device which the engravers frequently adopted. On many of the amphorae one
finds heavy banding lines at the shoulder and above the base between which the letter of the
month was inserted. This presents no great problem when the lines are extended across the entire
body of the vase and when the surface of the amphora is well preserved (cf. Nos. 204 and 206a),
but in many cases the lines are shortened (cf. Nos. 203a and 207) and when this happens the band
at the left on a coin in poor condition looks like an 1 or the beginning of some letter with an initial
vertical. Svoronos had noted this, for Sundwall says that he had been advised by the former that
the I of the IA reading in the Hunterian Catalogue (No. 88) belonged not to the date but to the
amphora. This eccentric technique on the part of the diecutters accounts for some of the readings
given in Beul6, Sundwall and Kambanis which are not otherwise attested. Thus No. 203a, the
Hermitage coin, was thought by Beuld to have A or A preceded by I, by Kambanis to have K on
the amphora. The latter read H on No. 205a; the former reported a piece with what seemed to be
MP on the amphora and another tetradrachm from his collection with a monogram in which one
86
Controls: A, AN, Al, EM, EN, EY, HP, GY, ME,
MH, MO, TIP, C(Z)<D, C(Z)Q2
The three coins of No. 202a show recutting in the left field, distinct on the
ANS and The Hague specimens, almost invisible on the British Museum ex-
ample which is weakly impressed. Under magnification the ANS coin reveals
clear remains of the profile Apollo figure under the AM of the inscription.
The conoid outline of head and hair appears at the top left of the delta and
the triangular tip of the bow projects from the right center of the same letter.
These features are visible in the illustration on Plate 22 as is the long line of
the body and leg extending down through the A and M. On the coin itself one
can make out the rounded curve of the buttock and the terminal left foot. The
advanced right foot is also clear and there is a broken line up from it which
may be the bent right leg although the erasure here is deeper than elsewhere.
What we have then is roughly fa. In the space below there is MO cut over AN
with evidence of what seems to be other lettering under and just above these
controls, but this section of the surface is so confused that nothing certain can
be deduced from it. There is no trace of recutting in the right field.
It would seem that this isolated die represents a mistake of some kind. A
new reverse may have been started toward the end of the magistracy of AIOOA
- AIOAO and put aside in its unfinished state when it was found to be super-
fluous. It is possible that the abandonment was related to the shift from a
profile to a frontal symbol, that a die with the earlier form had been partially
cut when the decision was taken to vary the rendering of the symbol and that
only in the following year was an attempt made to salvage it. Or it may be
that the engraver of the first AHMH - IEPS2 reverse, accustomed to cutting the

Apollo figure, placed it on the new coinage, subsequently rectifying his error by
deletion and reworking. Whatever the explanation, this recutting provides
valuable evidence of the contiguity of the Apollo and helmet strikings.
In Svoronos' publication (PI. 88, 1-6) three drachms and three hemidrachms
are grouped together at the very beginning of the New Style coinage, presum-
ably on the basis of the absence of magistrates' names and symbols from the
could distinguish N. All these seem to involve a confusion of letters and amphora bandings. The
coins at Berlin and Athens, listed by Sundwall as having M on the amphora, are almost certainly
the two drachms of No. 223 with a B between heavy amphora lines (Sv. 41,13 and 14). The only
letters of which I feel confident from my own observation are A, B, T, A, E and 0, with A and M
likely but not certain.
2 A probably stands for AN. NE is more likely an inversion of EN than a separate control.
The AM recorded for BMC 366 is due to the recutting of MO over AN, not easily recognizable
on a weakly struck coin. Sundwall's listing of 0E, after Svoronos, would seem to be a misreading
of 6Y.
87
reverses. Kambanis, however, in his notes registers the valid objection that
all of these coins cannot belong to a single issue since the drachms and one
hemidrachm have no circle of dots on the obverse while the two other hemi-
drachms have this added feature. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the
hemidrachms with dots show the owl standing on a club while the one without
dots has the bird on an amphora. Conceivably the addition of the dotted border
and the shift from amphora to club could have been later developments within
a single emission but the style of Nos. 5-6 on Svoronos' Plate 33 separates
them from Nos. 1-4.
The fractions without dots on the obverse (our Nos. 16-18) have been at-
tributed to the issue with two palms struck by N1 - I. The hemidrachms
with dots I should assign to the AHMH - lEPfl coinage, catalogued above as
Nos. 226 and 227. Svoronos' illustrations include both examples of No. 227;
No. 226 is not reproduced by him but is recorded in the JI AN for 1907
(p. 206, 202).
Throughout the New Style coinage the hemidrachm is a rare denomination.
It appears most commonly in years which produced a fairly heavy output of
drachms and it is confined with few exceptions to a relatively early stage of
the coinage, the period between 170 and 154 B.C. With TAAY- EXE and later
magistrates, the hemidrachms normally have the letters of the magistrates'
names and the pertinent symbol; they are fundamentally, save for the club
beneath the owl, replicas in miniature of the tetradrachms and drachms.
Since the use of magistrates' names and symbol would assuredly have re-
mained constant after the practice had once been adopted, it seems likely that
Nos. 226-227 antedate the magistracy of TAAY - EXE. It also seems likely that

they belong after the issue with two palms, to which the other fractions with
ethnic alone have been assigned, and that furthermore they should be asso-
ciated with an issue which produced a large drachm coinage.
Prior to TAAY - EXE there are only three heavy emissions of drachms: the
two grain-ear strikings and the coinage of AHMH - IEPQ. Our hemidrachms
could be a part of any one of these emissions but an attribution to AHMH -
lEPfl seems to me the most tenable. The grain-ear drachms apparently served
a special purpose, of which the symbol was the visible indication. Certainly the
restriction of space on the smaller fractions which might at first have deterred
the engravers from placing magistrates' names and symbol on the dies, would
not have prevented them from adding a symbol alone. The last of the grain-ear
strikings, under TIMAPXOY- NIKArO, does have the symbol on hemidrachms
as well as drachms, and it is clear that if the symbol were an integral feature
of the currency, as it undoubtedly was in this case, its use on all denominations
would be mandatory.
88
In style No. 226 resembles Nos. 220, 224 and 225 of the AHMH-IEPfi
drachms, being perhaps closest to No. 220 in the proportions of the head, the
width of the visor and the cast of the features. It is also very similar to No. 188,
a grain-ear drachm of this same general period. No. 227 is like No. 219 of
AHMH - lEPfl in the shape of the head and the details of the helmet, com-
parable to No. 221 in the small tight twists of hair.
The first magistrate, AHMH, is surely Demetrios. lEPfi may be Hieron or
Hieronymos. No clue to a precise identification of either man can be drawn
from the prosopographical record. A Hieronymos served as secretary in a decree
of 169/8 B.C. (PA 7565; IG IP 910); another Hieronymos and also a Hieron
were listed as donors of the middle of the second century (PA 7567 and 7531;
IG IP 2834). From a much later date we have a [AHMjHTPIOZ lEPflNYMOY
TIOTAMIOI, an ephebe of the late first century B.C. (IG IP 1963) and the asso-
ciation of names is of interest. It is certainly not impossible that the Demetrios -
Hieronymos family from Potamos was active in the second century before
Christ and indeed Kirchner (PA 3440) suggests a link between the above-
mentioned ephebe and a Timokrates son of Demetrios of Potamos whose
flcruit was in the third century B.C. (PA 13783).
A Macedonian connection of some kind for Demetrios is indicated by the
symbol. The same type of helmet with pendent cheek-pieces is a common
device on Macedonian regnal bronze of the third and second centuries. Most
significantly, a bronze issue of Philip V has a type identical with our symbol
even to the star surmounting the helmet (SNG, Copenhagen, 1242) and auton-
omous silver issues of Macedon struck between 185 and 168 B.C.1 show the
same helmet, often with a star beside it.

EAGLE 173/2 B.C.
(Plates 24-25)
Tetradrachms
228.
a.
AN below
Vienna, gr. 16.52; The Hague, gr. 16.90
b.
AN below
Cancio Coll. = Glendining, Mar. 1957, 163, gr.
16.61f
c.
EY below
London (BMC 300), gr. 16.70|
d.
EY below
Berlin, gr. 16.00
a.
*D(?) below
Milan, gr. 16.28
b.
T7P below
Piatt (Luneau) 514
1 H. Gaebler, Z/N, 1897, pp. 169ft. and Die antiken Miinzen Nord-Griechcnlands, III, 1,
PI. I, 1.
89
230.
231.
232.
233.
234.
235.
236.
ra.
EY
below
"Vienna, gr. 16.52; ANS-ETN, gr. 15.60f
jb.
IO
below
Venice
1c-
AN
below
Berlin, gr. 16.80; Athens, amphora letter un-
certain
La.
below

EY
Roberts Coll., gr. 16.48 \
b.
np
1. field
Ratto (Rogers) 342, gr. 16.60
c.
10
below
Zygman Coll., gr. 14.42 (Pl.)f; Berlin, gr. 15.17
(damaged)
d.
EY
below
e.
np
below
Commerce Beirut 1953; Berlin, amphora letter
f.
AN
1. field
AN
below
a.
EY
below
Glasgow (Hunt. 71), gr. 16.71f
rb.
AN
below
go
237.
238.
239.
240.
241.
242.
243.
244.
A(?)
AN
below
a.
ZO(?) below
Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.40 \
b.
TIP
below
Glymenopoulos Coll. (Sv. 86, 7), gr. 16.88
c.
EY
below
EY
below

Arethuse, Suppl. comm. 1, 831
Hirsch (Rhousopoulos) 2038 = Sv. 36, 11,
St. Petersburg (but see p. 89, note 2), gr. 16.36
a.
AN
below
Sophia, gr. 16.74
b.
ZO
below
a.
EY
below
Miinz. u. Med. List 154, 80
b.
AN
below
Paris, gr. 16.14f
c.
Zd>
below
Copenhagen {SNG 113), gr. 15.97f
a.
AN
below
Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.53 \
b.
Z4>
below
*ANS, gr. 16.43 \
c.
9i
Beule reads the first monogram as AHMHTPIOS, pointing out the similarity
between this rendering and that found on the bronzes of Demetrios II of Ma-
cedon. The second combination he interprets as AlONYpIOI]. Both identifi-
cations seem highly probable, but the names are so common that it would be
impossible to make any firm association between the mint magistrates and
Athenians known from epigraphical sources.
What does seem distinctly possible is that M and AHMH of the issue just
preceding refer to the same man. The helmet used as a symbol by AHMH finds
its closest parallel on the coinage of Philip V; the eagle of M, while not ex-
clusively Macedonian, is nevertheless a common type on the regnal issues of
Philip V and Perseus. The use of a symbol with strong Macedonian connotation
on two issues for which a Demetrios served as first magistrate suggests at least
that only one man is involved.
On most reverses the eagle surmounts the Y of the second monogram.
Nos. 230c, 281d, e, f and 236b, c, d present a variation in that the bird stands
free in the field over the monogram. Obverse 236 is without protomes and with-
out the Pegasus on the helmet.
Tetradrachms
247.
APLUSTRE 172/1 B.C.
(Plates 26-27)
(*-) A 20 below 'Glasgow (Hunt. 76; Sv. 36, 14), gr. 16.79f
248.
(#-) a. A TIP 1. field 'London (Sv. 36, 20, Oman), gr. 16.75 \
(As above) b.? AN below Munich (Sv. 36, 19), gr. 16.25

249.
(* - ffl) a. B FTP below 'Kambanis Coll.
(As above) b. B EY below Athens, gr. 16.02f
(As above) c. B AN1 below Athens (Delos Hd. V, 4), gr. 16.54f
250.
(#-) r(?) IO below 'Berlin (Sv. 36, 15), gr. 16.96
251.
(* - A) a. T AN below Jameson 2081 = Naville (Pozzi) 1595, gr. 16.84
(As above) b.? TTP below 'Paris, gr. 16.52|
(*-fl) c. A(?) AN 1. field 'Marseilles
1 Svoronos' reading of ZcD for the letters below the amphora is, I think, erroneous.
92
, 5 5
252.
253.1
!\
&.
1.
..*
0.
;.
(191)
( ) |
1>1

. = \ 3514 (5. 36, 21),
. 16.80;
(5. 36, 16), . 16.98
1952
*, . 16.77
, . 16.2|
* (0 301; 5. 36, 17), . 16.82!
254.
255.
(191)
(*)
256.
257.
(*)
258.
&. 1\
\>.
1.
*.
1.
5.
1.
1.
1\
&.
, : ,
93
259.
260.
261.
262.
263.
()
264.
265.
()
()
",, . 16.18|
( -) .?
( ) \>.?
( ) .?
(* -) .?
( &1>) 5.?
&.?
5.?
.?
&.?
).?
1. *5, . 16.62|
1>1\ 0&1 75, 823, . 16.87
? 1952
1>1\ &, . 16.70; ^, . 16.80

11\ 51 (& 2) 904, . 16.70
1. *3.35 -; , . 15.90|
1. , . 15.81
1>1\ , . 16.61
1. * ( . , 3), . 16.80
1>1\ *
11 *&, . 16.67
1\ * (&& .), . 16.56|
55 &&: 19 , 45
: , , , (?), , , , 1
: , , , 2
>5 & (. 253 & &,
256 264) (. 255 257).
& 6
; 1 &: , , , & .
, \, 3. ^ &.
%, . 251, & .
$ ^ , \ % 3. *
^. (, 1898, . 275)
% & [] & & -
1 ; 5 &5'
2 > . , , -
& . 2530- 5 .
94
\ , 5
^& . 3.
[] [] .
\ & .
3.1)3.. , 18 ,
, \11 .
266.
- 171/0 ..
( 28-29)
*5, . 16.75!
267. |
1-3.
&.?
1)1\ 5 ( .), 15.70!
1. *5, . 14.92 ()!
268.
5.
6.*

1>1\ 1952
&1\ .
1. * ( , 2080), . 16.58!;
(5. 42, 18), . 16.21
1. 1, . 16.76!
? (5. 42, 19), . 16.85
269.
1>1\ 01\ (. 90; . 42, 2), . 16.28 \
>1\ *)(1 (^ ., 5 8200; 8. 42, 4),
. 16.45|; ., . 15.77!
1>1\ (5. 41, 4, >.; 5. 42, 5, .), ". 16.51
1. & (. &., 7150; 5.42, 6), .
16.49!
1\ 1955
(5. 42, 5, .), . 16.65
, . 16.78!
1>1\ 5, . 16.27!; . ., . 15.30
? ]&
? 1>1\ *, . 16.30
1 53 35 .
, :
95
270.
271.
*.
5.
1. *5, . 16.55 \
1. * ( . , 165), . 16.55|
01\ (. 92), . 16.68 \; , -
&!\ &, . 16.61 \
272.
273.
274.
275.
1.
>.
0.

1\
1.
1.
1.
1>1\
11 .
1.
1\
*>
1>1\
- .
1.
96
277.
1.
\>.
0.
1.
(?)
1.
(?)
1. \

1.
1\
1.
1>1\
-].
1.
1.
1.
278.
1)6\
\>.
0.
, : -
97
- .
281.
282.
283.
;.
\3.
284.
285.
286.
5.
1. *; , &, . 16.42
1. & ( ., 5? 8202), &. 16.26|
&1\ , . 16.16
1>1^ * () 350, . 16.70; ^ (5
132), . 16.05/
*5 ( .), . 16.28|
(5. 42, 16); 1953
(& . II), . 16.57|

&, . 16.70|
*&5, . 16.53|
, . 16.15|
( 436), . 16.06 \
( . , 121), . 14.65 ()!
102 &: 21 >3, 77
: , , , , , , , , , 2
: , (), , (, ), ()3
&1\
1)1\
1.
1.
1.
^\. 11\
: . 2671);
268; 269, , ]; 270; 271; 281; 282; 283. -
\ 11
^.
3. (. 269, 274, 278, 279)
1 { 5% , .
2 .
. 55 \> : . 276, 27821 & 2693.
5 55 . . 2781, 3. )
5 , 15 \ 55. ,
1& . 015\ , . 269, 5
\ , \ 5 ' .
3 5\1115 . 5
3. 55 .
98
\ , 5
(. 272 286). 51 &^
\ 1& .
[] - [].
3, -, & &
& 3.1.
287.
;.
1.
).
1.
05 170/69 .
(5 80-81)
" 7, 109, . 16.49; ., \ 16.80|
( 352), . 16.65 \
288.
289.
290.
291.
5.

1.
1.
0.
1.
(1.
1>1\
1.
1.
\>.
1.
0.
1.
1.
1.
[>.
1.
0.
: ,
99
1.
292.
1.
\>.
1.
0.
1\
1.
293.

1.
294.
1)1\
295.
2%.
297.
298.
\>.
1.
1.
'"?
1.
1.
4>.
>
1.
^.
1.
1.
5.
Z4>
1. field
Commerce 1955
HP
1. field
ANS = Naville (Bement) 1121 = Sotheby (Guz-
man) 18, gr. 16.72f
10
1. field
Ball VI, 274, gr. 16.20
KT
1. field
Dewing Coll., gr. 16.28|
HP
1. field
1. field
Berlin, gr. 15.60
K(?)
1. field

An
Paris (de Luynes 2079; Sv. 40, 9), gr. 16.80t
K(?)
KT
1. field
An(?) 1. field
London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 15.97f
An
1. field
Miinz. u. Med. XIII, 1131 = Sv. 40, 11, Imhoot,
gr. 16.81 /
A(?)
HP
1. field
Paris, gr. 16.80t
HP
1. field
ANS-Gautier, gr. 16.20f; London (Salonika Hd.),
gr. 16.84f
HP
1. field
Leningrad (Sv. 40, 17), gr. 16.57
SO
1. field
Romanos Coll.
M(?)
ZO
1. field
London (BMC 858; Sv. 40, 12), gr. 16.68f
zo
1. field
Salonika Hd.
N(?)
zo
1. field
ioi
Drachms
307.
a. A
b.?
c.?
*Berry Coll., gr. 4.11f; Petsalis Coll., gr. 8.83;
Petsalis Coll., gr. 3.90f; Athens (Delos Hd. K$,8),
gr. 8.35famphora letter visible only on Berry
coin
The Hague; Ratto (Rogers) 354, gr. 8.48; ANS-
ETN, gr. 4.05|
Glasgow (Hunt. 86; Sv. 40, 21), gr. 4.06
308.
La. B
b.
c.
rd.
309.
310.
b.
Lc.
a.
b.
311.
a. r

Hemidrachms
312.
*ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.20f; ANS (Attic Hd.),
letter uncertain, gr. 4.19f; Commerce (Attic Hd.),
gr. 4.17f; Berlin, letter uncertain, gr. 4.14
Berlin, broken
Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.14f; Paris
1. field ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.18f
A 1. field Athens (Sv. 40, 19), prob. = Hirsch (Rhouso-
poulos) 2042, gr. 8.80; Athens (Sv. 40, 20), gr.
4.08; London, gr. 8.95. With H/A: *Commerce
(Attic Hd.), gr. 4.14f; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.10f
HP 1. field Naville (Woodward) 751, gr. 8.71; Schlessinger
(Hermitage 2) 960 = Sv. 40, 22, gr. 8.85
K 1. field Glymenopoulos Coll. (Sv. 40,18), gr. 8.50
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.15f; London (BMC 354),
gr. 4.14; Bartlett Coll. = Hesperia Art VI, 19
*ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.12f; Commerce (Attic
Hd.), gr. 4.25f; Budapest, letter uncertain, gr.
8.85 (pierced)f
A 1. field Feuardent (Ready) 861
An 1. field * Vienna, gr. 3.58
a. No lettering
b. No lettering
*ANS-ETN, gr. 2.07\; Athens (Delos Hd. KS, 10;
Sv. 40, 28), gr. 1.65 \
Paris; Athens (Sv. 40, 24), gr. 1.77f
102
Athens (Delos Hd. B, 41), gr. 1.80f; Paris
Months: A, B, I", A, E, Z, H, 9, 1, K, A, M(?), N
Controls: A, An, HP, KT, l<t>, Zfl1
This issue divides into two stylistic periods. During the early part of the
year the obverse dies (Nos. 287-298) show a general similarity although there
are individual differences in the rendering of the Athena head like those found
in preceding strikings. Nos. 288, 290 and 291 have the lateral ornament which
appears for the last time under TAAY - EXE. On Nos. 291, 296 and 298 the
horse protomes are missing, an omission which henceforth will recur only spo-
radically and then at a much later period. ,
With Nos. 299-306, the last dies cut in 170/69 B.C., a new and quite dis-
tinctive style is introduced. All obverses are clearly from the hand of the same
engraver: a heavy, rather coarse profile, neatly ordered locks of hair, large
Pegasi and a thick, ornately curvilinear ornament. There is no obvious re-
lationship between this style and anything before or after it.
Beule gives the magistrates as TAAY[KOI] and EXE[KPATHZ]. Head (HN,
p. 881) suggests EXE[AHMOZ] for the second official and regards it as possible
that this is the man mentioned by Polybius (XXI. 4^ 5Loeb) as an emissary
to Scipio in 191/0 B.C. Kirchner (ZfN, 1898, p. 75) further identifies the emis-
sary with EXEAHMOZ MNHIIQEOY KYAAGHNAIEYZ (PA 6168), who was a donor
in 188/2 B.C. and again in 172/1 (IG II2 2332 and 2331).

Glaukos is the most likely expansion of TAAY although there are other pos-
sibilities. Head (BMC xliii) and Kirchner cite a family connection between
Lysandros and Glaukos, who shared the mint magistracy of 159/8 B.C., and the
former suggests that the Glaukos of the present issue may have been the father
of the later Glaukos. It seems to me probable that the same Glaukos served
in 170/69 and again in 159/8.
1 The coin with AG cited by Sundwall and Svoronos is our No. 288d with the reading ATI
practically certain. Beul6 lists EP but notes that the combination looks more like KP, which
leads one to believe that KT is the correct version. In one of Kambanis' notebooks there is an
entry of EY for a Basel tetradrachm, but this is not found in a second listing of Swiss collections
which Kambanis had made and it seems advisable to omit the combination from the present
record.
313.
A 1. field
314.
LA 1. field
103
MIKI-9E00PA NIKE IN QUADRIGA 169/8 B.C.
(Plate 82)
Tetradrachms
315.
316.
317.
a.
An
below
Athens (Delos Hd. T, 202; Sv. 48, 15), am-
phora letter uncertain, gr. 16.67. With ME/An
below: Naville (Woodward) 756, gr. 16.64
b.
ME
below
London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 15.55 \
c.
MH
below
Berlin (Sv. 48, 10), gr. 16.69
d.
below

MH
e.
A(?)
An
below
Hess (Otto) 447, gr. 16.47
f.
ME
below
g-
AP
below
Dresse de Lebioles Coll., gr. 14.791!
h.
London, gr. 16.29 \
a.
AP
below
Vatican (Sv. 48, 8), gr. 16.65
b.
E(?)
AP
below
c.
2Q
below
*ANS-Gautier, gr. 16.76 \; Glasgow (Hunt. 93;
Sv. 48, 14), gr. 16.86 \
a.
ME
below
Romanos Coll.; Kambanis Coll. (Salonika Hd.)
104
319.
320.
321.
322.
323.
1a-
i/E(?)
MH
below
*London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.63f
jb.
e/H(?)
MH
below
ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.25f
1 c-
ISl
below
Athens (Delos Hd. T, 204), gr. 16.40f
1a-
S/E(?)
ME
below
London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.86f; Herakleion
|b.

(Sv. 43, 12), gr. 16.60
I/E
MH
below
Commerce (Sv. 43, 18), gr. 17.01
1 c-
ME
below
Judd Coll., gr.16.45f; Athens, amphora
Ld.
AP
below
Florange-Ciani (Allotte de la Fuye) 404, gr.
16.75
e.
e/H(?)
MH
below
r-
ME
below
|g-
AP
below
Herakleion (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.50f
|h.
AP
below
Berlin, gr. 16.25
1a-
e(?)
2Q
below
London (Salonika Hd.), gr. 15.93f; Schulman
105
324.
a. M ME below *Kambanis Coll.; London (BMC 471; Sv.43,
17), gr. 16.04t
b. M MH below *Copenhagen (SNG137), gr. 16.90f (Plate 33);
Athens (Delos Hd. KS, 13), gr. 14.92 (crystal-
lized)!
Drachms
325.
r a. B *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.21f; London, gr. 4.14
rb. T Istanbul, gr. 4.18f
j c.? Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.17f
326.
-a. T *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.22f; Paris; Romanos
Coll. (Sv. 43, 18), gr. 4.07; Glendining, Oct.
1957, 103 (Attic Hd.), gr. 3.76f
L b. A/B ANS-ETN, gr. 4.10f; London (BMC 472),
c. A Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.30f; Cambridge
(Leake Coll., SNG 3233), letter uncertain,1
gr. 4.13f
d. M Berlin (Sv. 43, 20), gr. 3.79
re.? Munich, gr. 3.76; Berlin, gr. 3.69
327.
La.? *Athens = Hirsch (Rhousopoulos) 2059 =

Sv. 43, 21, gr. 3.96f; Leningrad, gr. 3.78f;
Berlin, gr. 3.91
b.? Naples (Sv. 43, 19)
NO SYMBOL
Hemidrachms
328.
a. * Athens (Delos Hd. B, 138; Sv. 43, 22), gr. 1.60f; Gotha (Sv. 43, 24),
gr. 1.91; London (BMC 473), gr. 2.08; Petsalis Coll., gr. 1.79f; poss. He-
rakleion; Berlin, gr. 1.95
b. Athens (Delos Hd. KS, 14), gr. 1.60f; ANS-ETN, gr. 1.90f; Leningrad
(Sv. 43, 25), gr. 1.92f; Naville (BM dupl.) 2018, gr. 1.89; probably Naville
(Woodward) 757, gr. 2.08; Berlin, gr. 1.92
1 The Syllogc catalogue records K on the amphora but I can see no clear indication of this;
the Attic Hoard piece from the same pair of dies has an unmistakable A.
106 The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens
329.
a. * Athens, gr. 2.12f; Copenhagen (SNG 138; Sv. 48, 28), gr. 2.07f; Petsalis
Coll., gr. 1.80f; Boston MFA (Brett 1102), gr. 2.00
b. Paris
Months: B, V, A, E, Z, H, G(?), I, K(?), A, M
Controls: An, AP, ME, MH, ISi
Theophrastos is almost certainly the correct expansion of 0EO<t)PA. In all
probability the second magistrate of the present issue is also the third magis-
trate of 167/6 and the first official of the 9E0(DPA - ZflTAI striking a few
years later.
MIKI[fiN], as Head and Kirchner point out, is surely a member of the famous
family prominent throughout the Hellenistic period. Kirchner (PA 10186)
identifies this magistrate with MIKIQN (III) EYPYKAEIAOY (I) KHcDIZIEYZ, a
donor in 183/2 and victor in a chariot race after 191 B.C.
The inscription recording Panathenaic victories (IG IP 2314) presents cer-
tain problems. It consists of two catalogues (A and B) which Ferguson (Klio,
1908, pp. 346, 349-55), followed by Kirchner in the later IG, dates to 182/1
and 178/7 B.C. The name Mikion appears in both lists and Kirchner assumes
two individuals, grandfather (Mikion III) and grandson (Mikion IV). With
Ferguson's dating applied to Kirchner's identifications, the older man would
have been a victor in 178 and the younger a victor in 182. Kirchner, however,
notes in reference to Mikion III, whom he associates with the mint magistracy
of this issue, that he would in 183/2 have been nearly eighty years old. It does

not seem likely or even possible that a man of that age would have been com-
peting in a chariot race in 178 and holding a minting office nine years later.
Actually the assumption that we are dealing with two individuals in the
inscription cited is an argumentum ex silentio. In Catalogue A the name is fol-
lowed by necoth which led Kirchner to identify the victor of that listing as
Mikion IV; in Catalogue B there is no indication of the adjective after the
name, hence Kirchner's identification of the victor of that listing as Mikion III.
But the inscription is fragmentary at this point; there may once have been a
necote, the same man may have been the victor of both races.
In any case the mint magistrate of 169/8 B.C. must be Kirchner's Mikion IV
(PA 10187). His choice of symbol, Nike in quadriga, is clearly a reference to
his Panathenaic victory or victories. It is this same Mikion who serves again,
with his brother Eurykleides, in the mint magistracy of 156/5 B.C.
COMMENTARY ON THE EARLY PERIOD
Twenty-eight issues with the monograms or the abbreviated names of two
magistrates are included in the first period of the New Style series. If we assume
an uninterrupted coinage, and there is nothing to indicate a break in the se-
quence, this early group would extend over the years between 196/5 and
169/8 B.C.
The evidence of the Anthedon Hoard on which the date for the beginning
of the New Style money is based has been fully presented elsewhere.1 In brief
recapitulation, four New Style tetradrachm issues and four Eretrian tetra-
drachm issues, all in a fine state of preservation, were found in the hoard, to-
gether with one tetradrachm issue of Chalcis and octobols of the two Euboean
cities. The New Style coins are without question the earliest of the entire series;
they are clearly contemporary with the tetradrachm strikings of Eretria whose
spread-flan coinage could have started only after the proclamation of the free-
dom of the Greek cities by Flamininus in 196 B.C. Since it is unlikely that
Eretria would have delayed in striking the large silver denominations symbolic
of her newly-acquired autonomy, numismatists generally have associated the
first of these Eretrian issues with the period immediately following Flamininus'
decree. At Athens it is conceivable that the new coinage started a year earlier,
after Cynoscephalae had demonstrated that Philip's hold on Greece was broken
and that the friends and supporters of Rome had now no cause to fear Mace-
donian power. However, it seems to me more probable that it was the enthu-
siasm engendered by the Isthmian proclamation of June-July 196, with its
explicit definition of Roman policy toward Greece, which brought into being
both the spread-flan coins of Eretria and the New Style series of Athens. It is
1 M. Thompson, "The Beginning of the Athenian New Style Coinage," ANSMN V (1952),
PP- 25-33-

The Anthedon Hoard is fundamental in the establishment of a date for the beginning of the
New Style series. Another hoard, found near Corinth in 1938 and now being studied by Sydney
P. Noe, provides confirming evidence that the Old Style coinage of Athens did not stop in 229 B.C.
For our purposes this deposit has three significant features: it contains a tetradrachm of Se-
leucus III which dates the burial securely after 226/5 and probably after 220 B.C. if one makes a
reasonable time allowance for the amount of wear which the coin shows and the distance it had
to travel from Seleucia on the Tigris to Corinth; it has an abundance of Old Style tetradrachms
of Athens but no New Style coins; its finest pieces in degree of preservation are four Athenian
drachms with symbols, belonging to the latest Old Style period, whose condition indicates that
they were put into circulation only a short time before the hoard as a whole was buried.
unlikely that the short interval between the proclamation and the beginning
of the new Attic year would have allowed sufficient time for the reorganization
of the mint and the production of even a token emission; hence it is to 196/5 B.C.
that I should assign the first New Style issue.
This early coinage has been the most difficult to arrange. In only two in-
stances are individual issues firmly joined by the use of a common obverse die.
This is probably due in part to the fact that our record for the early strikings,
as provided by surviving specimens, is less complete than for the later periods;1
possibly, too, the practicality of carrying over an obverse die from one year to
the next was not at first realized by the mint officials. In any case we are forced
to rely rather heavily on style at the beginning of the coinage and it is at just
this period that the evidence of style is most elusive. During the Middle Period
and for much of the Late Period, one can establish the chronology with reason-
able certainty even in the absence of die links. Only one or two engravers seem
to have been engaged on the obverse dies of any one year, and each man's style
is distinctive and consistent. So one can trace over a span of five to ten years
the output of a single diecutter, steadily reproducing his own peculiar pattern.
His technique is dominant for a time and then it gradually dies out as a new
engraver comes in, first to work in association with the earlier diecutter and
finally to supersede him. This second man produces for some years until he in
his turn is replaced. Thus one has an interlinking sequence of sharply-contrasted
styles as a guide in the establishment of the chronological order. Unfortunately
the engravers of the Early Period were either more numerous or more prone
to experimentation than their successors. One cannot always distinguish with
precision the work of individual diecutters; diversities of style may indicate
different engravers or simply the varying techniques of a single man. There is

a great unevenness in craftmanshipsome dies are splendidly executed while
others are atrocious. It is only at the very end of the Early Period that any
real stability in the rendering of the Athena head is achieved.
The experimentation that characterizes the modelling of the obverse dies
is also apparent in the composition of the reverses. Here one must, albeit
reluctantly, abandon any thought of establishing an orderly and logical pro-
gression. As Bellinger points out, there is at the beginning no fixed rule as to
the use of a symbol. The second striking with a kerchnos is interpolated be-
tween issues which have no symbol. There is even inconsistency within a given
year: the fourth issue has seven reverse dies without symbol and three with a
cornucopiae. From then on, however, a symbol appears on all issues of this
first group.
1 The relationship of surviving coins to original output at different periods is discussed in
some detail on pages 709-714.
The Early Period: Commentary
109
Month dates and control combinations were introduced fairly early in the
coinage, and one would assume a reasonable sequence of no letters, then either
dates or control marks alone, and finally a combination of the two. The earliest
coins have no lettering and the latest have the combination but between the
two there is a transitional group of eight issues which reflect experimentation
in the setting up of a workable control system. Amphora letters alone seem
to have been used for a few issues, then abandoned for control combinations
alone, but one intermediate emission tries out both dates and control
markings.
Even a division of issues according to the form of the magistrates' names
monograms, hybrids like ^ - AYZIA and TTOAY - Tlffi, abbreviated names
cannot be maintained. The logical order is the one followed by Head, by Svo-
ronos and by Kambanis in the notebooks which give his tentative arrangement
of the series. Bellinger deviates by listing the nOAY-Tllg issue well within
the monogram group but otherwise he retains the traditional pattern.1 One
must conclude, however, on the available evidence that there was no rigid
formula for inscribing the names of the magistrates, at least until this Early
Period was almost at an end. Each issue must have required a separate decision
on the part of the monetary officials or the mint supervisor as to whether mono-
grams or abbreviated names would be used. An indication of this flexibility is
to be found in the replacement of M by OANI on reverses of the third New
Style issue. Proof of it is supplied by the die link which places ^ - AYZIA
immediately before the striking with two monograms and a thyrsos. As we shall
see when we come to the Late Period of the New Style series, there was no
clear-cut break between issues with three magistrates and those with two, so,

too, at the beginning of the coinage there was a time of transition when mono-
grams and abbreviated names were used interchangeably.
In the discussion that follows, criteria of style, especially as applied to the
obverses, are frequently basic in explaining the chronological arrangement. It
is not easy to pursue a stylistic pattern, the distinctive quality of an individual
engraver, through a number of plates. Furthermore, in the years which have
month letters the sequence on the regular plates is that of the amphora dates,
which means that the output of any one diecutter may be scattered throughout
the year and consequently difficult to envisage as a whole. In the first accordion
plate at the end of the volume, the tetradrachm obverses for the first twenty-
eight New Style issues are reproduced, with reduction so that the resulting
1 Head is alone in disregarding style completely and associating ^ -OANI with the other
two hybrids.
no
plate would not be too unwieldy.1 Within each annual issue the dies that ap-
parently come from the same hand have been grouped together, in rough
proximity to related dies from the years preceding and succeeding. This deter-
mination of stylistic affinity is, of course, a highly subjective matter, and the
reader may take exception to some of the suggested groupings. In making
them, I have considered all details of the type which vary in any degree from
year to year and from die to die. The helmet presents many such variables:
crest, visor, ornament on the bowl and the Pegasus representation. Treatment
of the hair is often significant. Finally there is the profile, which seems to me
perhaps the most important single criterion for identifying the work of different
diecutters. The helmet and hair represent little more than a frame for the
artist's concept of the goddess, and one would suppose that in repeating the
type the individual engraver would retain a certain fidelity to his original con-
ception, however much he might vary the decorative features of his compo-
sition. So, in loose analogy, the Madonnas of any of the great Renaissance
artists tend to be similar in facial contours and expression, diverse in costume
and background. The point cannot be labored. There must have been pupils
and copyists in die engraving as in painting. Even apart from conscious imi-
tation, the style of any one diecutter must over a period of time have been
influenced to some extent by the work of his colleagues. All these factors have
been weighed in the arrangement of the composite plate, whose pictorial record
will, it is hoped, serve to clarify the commentary on the introduction and dis-
appearance of individual obverse styles and their chronological relationship.
Eleven issues of the Early Period have no amphora dates and no control
markings. One would expect them to come at the beginning of the new coinage

and although, in view of the inconsistencies noted above, this cannot be taken
for granted, the evidence of style does confirm their position and help to es-
tablish their sequence.
1 The numbering of the obverses on Plate A does not correspond with that of the standard
plates but there is a concordance at the end of the volume of plates. An exact duplication
of numbers would, because of the diffusion of particular styles mentioned above, have created
difficulties for the reader in the location of individual dies and would have made reference to
groups of related obverses a most cumbersome procedure. It must be kept in mind, then, that
in this commentary on the Early Period, the discussion of tetradrachm obverses refers to the
numbers (in italic font) of the accordion plate, while the discussion of reverses and fractions
refers of necessity to the numbers of the catalogue and standard plates.
All obverses are reproduced with seven exceptions: Nos. 29X, 31X, 44X, 111X, 114X, 217X,
218X. These dies represent material received after the plates had been arranged and it has not
seemed worthwhile to shift the illustrations for their inclusion since they are so similar to other
dies of the same issues as to add nothing to the stylistic argument. Two additional new dies,
Nos. 66X and 101X, differing in style from the other obverses of their respective issues, have
been interpolated, the second as an X entry.
hi
Toward the chronological arrangement outlined in the catalogue the re-
verses make only a minor contribution. Their type as it appears in the issues
which must surely come first shows a compact sturdy owl, head small in pro-
portion to the body, wings tightly folded, feathers of the tail and shanks
delineated without exaggeration. Body plumage is indicated by heavy dots as
was the case on the late Old Style silver. The bird stands erect with legs straight
and close together on a small, well-proportioned amphora. An encircling wreath
of oUve has small berries and thin leaves, usually smooth but sometimes lightly
incised. On the one reverse of the first issue which shows the fastening at the
bottom (No. 8a) a simple knot is used; subsequent issues have pendent ties,
either crossed or looped.
Over the eleven issues without controls, this type varies little in represen-
tation. There are changes but few indications of a clear evolutionary pattern.
Individual reverses, particularly those of the Nike issue, enlarge the entire
type. On Nos. 81a and 85a, an ungainly owl rests on an amphora of greatly
increased size within a heavy wreath of clumsy, deeply incised leaves. Such
exaggeration is exceptional; later reverses restore the elements of the type to
more pleasing proportions. One notes that in general there is an increasing
tendency in the trophy, grain-ear and pilei issues to separate the legs of the
owl, extending the left one forward so that it clutches the handle rather than
the body of the amphora, and that the pants of the bird become overheavy and
shaggy in the same issues, but the only development which is quite consistent
and therefore significant is concerned with the treatment of the plumage. In
the beginning this is rendered, as mentioned before, by heavy dots clearly
differentiated and arranged in rows over the surface of the body and the upper

wing (cf. Nos. 5a, 7a, 11a and 15). On some of the club, rudder and Nike re-
verses the dots have lost their sharpness, becoming elongated and tending to
run together so that the effect is that of strokes (cf. Nos. 19a and 31a). On
practically all the reverses of the trophy, grain-ear and pilei issues the straight
strokes are brought together at the bottom to form a U-shaped or V-shaped
pattern, sometimes with an added vertical so that or v results. These dis-
tinctive designs are perhaps clearest on Nos. 87a, 46a, 51a, 54, 58b and 68.
Fortunately we are not dependent on the reverses alone. The obverses do
reveal certain stylistic developments which, when considered with the other
evidence, indicate the relative chronology.
Examples of four New Style issues were found in the Anthedon Hoard, all
in an excellent state of preservation indicative of contemporaneity. The earliest
of these and the first issue of the entire series is undoubtedly the one controlled
by the magistrates ft - A who used no symbol on their coinage. This is the
only issue which throughout has no circle of dots around the Athena head. All
112
three of its obverses are superbly executed, No. 1 with its charming youthful
goddess being perhaps the finest individual die in the whole New Style sequence.
Nos. 2 and 3 are almost certainly from the same hand; like the first obverse,
they have the tiny biga on the neckguard of the helmet. Whoever this first
engraver was, he was a master craftsman. One need only compare his work
with the Old Style heads of the late third century to appreciate the degree of
vitality and artistry that he brought to the new coinage.
The second issue has a kerchnos symbol in the field and a bakchos below
the amphora. There is a change of magistrates during the course of the year
and a change in the rendering of the obverses. No. 4, the first die, has no circle
of dots and is, moreover, almost identical in style with Nos. 2 and 3 of the pre-
ceding issue, but on the later obverse the diecutter has omitted the biga, which
is merely suggested by a sweeping horizontal line above the edge of the neck-
guard. Nos. 5-7 develop from No. 4 but on these as on all succeeding obverses,
dots encircle the Athena head.
Magistrates revert to a coinage without symbol except for the
first reverse which has a bakchos beneath the amphora, surely a carry-over
from the kerchnos and bakchos issue immediately precedent. The style of
No. 8 is markedly similar to that of No. 5 in all elements of the type; Nos. 6
and 9 are close.
The fourth issue found in the Anthedon Hoard, E - N with cornucopiae
or without symbol, shows several stylistic developments. Most distinctive of
these is the treatment of the ends of the double crest. On all the early obverses
and on No. 11 of the present striking, the crest drops naturally in lines roughly
paralleling the curve of helmet and neck. On Nos. 12-14 and on all but No. 19

of the club issue, the inner end crosses the outer and is carried back in a sharp
horizontal line. The ornament on the bowl of the helmet, which in the first three
issues is carefully rendered as a series of rather large volutes branching from a
predominantly vertical stem, becomes on most of the IE - N and club obverses
more elaborate and tortuous with the individual volutes tending to be smaller.
Note the treatment on Nos. 12, IS and 22. On the earliest obverses the hair is
cut in distinct and tightly curled locks. Nos. 6 and 8 have a looser rendering
which characterizes the obverses of the fourth and sixth issues, Nos. 6, 12 and
18 being particularly close in hair style. As rendered on Nos. 12 and 18 the visor
lines are larger and heavier than they were in the beginning. The presence of
the biga and driver on Nos. 12 and 18, and possibly on No. 11, unite these two
series with the first, and it seems to me quite certain that we have the output
of the same diecutter in Obverses 1-5, 8, 12-13 and 18. In all likelihood he cut
other obverses as well but the similarity of style is clearest through the dies
listed. For the rest, No. 14 resembles No. 10 in the treatment of the profile and
113
Nos. 19-22 are possibly later developments of the same style. Nos. 16-17 bear
some similarity to No. 11 but not to a striking degree.
No. 15 has been inserted between the E - N and club issues. Admittedly
it is hazardous to fix the position of an issue on the evidence of one die, but I
believe that this does represent the fifth of the New Style strikings. Its com-
bination of early and late elements indicates at least that it must come after
3-<DANI and before the rudder issue. The profile has a suggestion of Nos. 11
to 13 and Nos. 17-18 but is quite unlike later dies. In the relatively loose mod-
elling of the hair it is close again to obverses of both the E - N and club
strikings. So, too, the heavy visor lines are comparable with those of Nos. 12
and 18 and, of course, with those of later dies as well. The treatment of the ends
of the helmet crest and of the ornament ties it to the earlier Nos. 1-11 while the
Pegasus is late, being larger than any other representation before that of No. 25.
All elements of the type considered, No. 15 would seem best suited to its
present position and there is also an element of historical substantiation for its
location. As the fifth issue of the series its date would be 192/1 B.C. This is
precisely the year when Athens and the Athenian mint might be supposed to be
operating under difficulties due to Antiochus Ill's seizure of Chalcis and the
imminent threat of war between the Syrian forces and Rome. Antiochus' ships
were in command of the sea, interrupting the commerce of the Piraeus and
presumably interfering with regular deliveries of bullion from Laurium. The
unsettled conditions prior to Antiochus' forced withdrawal in the spring of
191 B.C. could explain a curtailment of the coinage. If indeed the mint was
unable to operate until after Thermopylae, the symbol of the two palms might
be interpreted as a flattering gesture toward Rome, victor over Philip and over

Antiochus; it is equally possible that nothing more significant was intended
than the commemoration of two personal triumphs of the magistrate NIKA...
With the rudder issue there are innovations in style, most of them carried
over into succeeding strikings. The base of the visor is, except on No. 23,
heavier than it has been heretoforeon No. 24 it is clearly composed of two
parallel lines. Pegasi are generally larger than on any of the earlier obverses,
save for that of No. 15. A modified upturn at the end of the helmet crest, such
as characterized the E - N and club issues, survives on Nos. 23 and 25; other
obverses show the ends brought down straight, the inner line on Nos. 24 and
26 shorter than the outer. The hair is rendered in tumbled masses, a treatment
which foreshadows the over-elaboration of the Nike obverses. On No. 26 the
attenuated lines and broken stem of the helmet ornament derive from No. 16.
No. 27 on the other hand introduces a new pattern, a terminal design resembling
a fleur-de-lis which appears again on No. 45 and becomes common at a later
period. Placement of this issue depends primarily on Dies 23-25. The first two
Ii4
are, it seems to me, in the tradition of Nos. 11, 15-17. No. 25, although de-
finitely cruder, carries in profile, crest and hair treatment some suggestion
of No. 18.
A distinctive element on many of the dies of this early section of the coinage
is the aegis serpent which appears on Nos. 1-5, 11-13, 22-23. Schwabacher in
his article on the Parthenos archetype (Opusc. Ath., pp. 107f.) calls attention
to this feature and uses it as a criterion for chronological arrangement.1 Cer-
tainly its presence on dies of Issues 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and not elsewhere2 is further
indication that the issues enumerated are roughly contemporaneous, but I think
it is unwise to go beyond that and maintain that Issues 3 and 5 which do not
have this element must come at the end of the sequence. Except for the very
first issue, there is no one of the five strikings which has the snake on all of its
dies. Like the biga representation, this seems to have been a recurrent but not
invariable addition to the standard type on dies of the first seven years of
the coinage.
All obverses of the Nike sequence are obviously from the same hand. They
owe something to No. 25 and possibly No. 26 of the rudder issuecompare, for
example, the profiles of Nos. 25 and 29. The whole treatment is heavy: large
features, over-size Pegasi, dominating visors with double baselines, tangled
masses of hair. Ends of the crest hang loose in parallel lines; on Nos. 29 and 31
the under end crosses the upper and depends. Two distinctive features are
present: a marked simplification of the ornament on the helmet and an un-
natural rendering of the tail of Pegasus. On all legible obverses, clearest on
Nos. 29 and 32, the winged horse has a lion's taillong, thin and swirledin-
stead of a straight thick appendage, but it is still Pegasus and not a griffin that

the artist is reproducing.
1 His suggested order is i) No symbol (ft - A) 2) Kerchnos 3) No symbol or cornucopiae
4) Rudder 5) No symbol (OANI). In a postscript written after the appearance of the Anthedon
Hoard study, Schwabacher limits his rearrangement to a placing of the OANI striking after that
with no symbol or cornucopiae. However, I do not believe that even this minor shift can be
maintained. The club emission has one die with a biga and one with an aegis serpent; the rudder
issue has one with the latter marking. Both are represented by a number of obverse dies indicating
a fairly extensive coinage and the absence of both from the Anthedon Hoard points to their
having been struck after the four issues which are found in the deposit. Since these two issues
with biga and snake elements are later than the OANI emission, which is in the hoard, there is
no reason to upset the clear stylistic pattern by moving the no symbol or cornucopiae striking
ahead of the OANI issue on the ground that the former has biga and snake representations while
the latter does not.
2 On a few dies of the grain-ear, pilei, cicada and serpents issues (as Nos. 51, 57, 70 and 78)
one finds a light line extending upward from the front of the necklace which may be a late sketchy
rendering of the aegis snake. In any event, it is an additional indication of the relationship of
these four issues.
"5
The last three issues of this early group without control marks are bound
together and their order determined by the appearance and evolution of an
unusual style which carries over into the issues with letters on the amphorae.
Nos. 34-44 of the trophy striking seem to me to bear so little fundamental
resemblance to earlier issues as to indicate that they are the work of a new die-
cutter (or diecutters). He has borrowed in some respects from the Nike issue:
the various renderings of the helmet crest are similar, the ornament on some
dies is simply delineated, the profile on others suggests a copying of an earlier
model (cf. No. 39 with No. 28). One die, No. 44, has the Pegasus with lion's tail.
In general, however, the technique is quite different. The heads are smaller and
less gross than the Nike ones, the elements of the helmet in better proportion,
the arrangement of the hair more natural. No. 45 marks the first appearance
of a style which becomes predominant in succeeding issues. Although reduced
in scale, this seems rather closely modelled on the Nike obverses, notably in the
cast of the features and in the treatment of the hair.
In the grain-ear issue the stylistic pattern is reversed. The dominant tech-
nique of the trophy striking survives in only one grain-ear die, No. 46 for
comparison with No. 44. The minor style of the earlier issue becomes the major
one of the later, No. 47 being very similar to No. 45 and Nos. 48-51 develop-
ments of the same basic rendering. Note the consistent treatment of the hair
on Nos. 28-33, 45 and 47-51; note, too, the wavy lines terminating the helmet
crest which appear on No. 45 and later on Nos. 47-51. Several variations are
present. The helmet ornament on Nos. 47-51 is brought out from the inner
corner of the neckguard and curved upward and out to end in small neat loops.
Drastic reduction of the horse protomes above the visor rim is visible on

Nos. 48, 50-51.
All obverses of the pilei issue are consistent in style and closely allied with
Nos. 47-51 of the grain-ear striking. Compare No. 60 with Nos. 50-51. The
only noteworthy development is in the rendering of the visor which on some
dies (Nos. 56, 59-60) opens out in triangular shape. With this issue the sequence
without amphora and control marks comes to an end.
The next eight issues represent a period of transition between the earliest
emissions without supplementary lettering and those with both amphora dates
and control combinations. Some strikings retain the convention of monograms
while others designate both magistrates by the initial three or four letters of
their names. In one instance there is a hybridization of letters and monograms.
Five issues at the beginning of this intermediate group are closely bound
together by two distinct obverse styles, one a survival and the other an inno-
vation. Nos. 6270 of the cicada striking are clearly related to the dies of the
pilei issue. The treatment of the hair in Nos. 62-65 is identical with that of
Nos. 52-60; Nos. 66, 68-70 show a simplification which carries over into Nos. 71
to 74 of the serpents issue. The fluttering ends of the crest are alike in both pilei
and cicada emissions; the rendering of Pegasi, visors and horse protomes very
similar; the helmet ornaments closely comparable, save for No. 63 with its
heavy tightly-curled volutes. The fleur-de-lis termination used on Nos. 27, 45
and 52 but not elsewhere appears again on four dies of the cicada striking
(Nos. 64, 68-70). In the slightly parted lips, No. 64 repeats the modelling of
Nos. 52-53 and 60 while the profiles of Nos. 6470 are strongly reminiscent of
Nos. 55 and 60. One die of the cicada striking (No. 61) marks the first appear-
ance of a new and unusual style.
The two styles of the cicada emission recur in the serpents issue. Nos. 77 and
78 are very close to Nos. 62-63, No. 79 to Nos. 66-67, No. 80 to No. 64 with
particular reference to the parted lips. Nos. 81-82 are exaggerated versions of
the same style. All these serpents obverses have the fleur-de-lis ornament which
was becoming popular in the preceding year, the elaborate hair of some of the
cicada dies and the same fluttering crest terminals. Nos. 75-76 form a transi-
tional stage between Nos. 77-78 and Nos. 71-74. The hair and helmet ornament
are in the earlier tradition; the heavy pendent necklace finds its nearest parallel
in Nos. 46-47 of the grain-ear and Nos. 54 and 57 of the pilei striking. In the
treatment of the ends of the crest, which now barely quiver, and in the ren-
dering of the profiles there is a strong suggestion of Nos. 71-74. These last dies
are the direct successors of No. 61 of the cicada emission. Note the close resem-
blance of Nos. 61 and 73-74. All five obverses are distinctive in the hard, grim
cast of the features and the curtailment of the helmet ornament (especially
noticeable in No. 74). The hair is comparable with that of Nos. 66, 68-70.
Pegasi are larger than on any of the immediately preceding issues and on

Nos. 71 and 74 there is the lion-tailed version which characterized the Nike
issue. Indeed the general heaviness of the types and the rough correspondence
of certain details, such as the lion-tailed horses and the attenuated ornaments,
suggest that the engraver of the Nike obverses may have returned after an
absence of three years to resume his work at the mint.
In any event, the style of the diesinker who produced Nos. 71-74 of the
serpents issue is dominant in the herm emission. With regard to all aspects of
the type, Nos. 83-88 are so similar to Nos. 71-74 as to be unmistakably the
output of the same engraver. No. 89, representing a survival of the second style
of the serpents issue, is closely comparable with Nos. 79-82 and even more
clearly related to the earlier No. 67. Through the AMMft - AIO (kerchnos) and
the nOAY - Tl strikings, the style of Nos. 83-88 is carried on in Nos. 90-91
and further in Nos. 98-101; the style of No. 89 persists in Nos. 93 and 103.
We can then, I think, trace these two stylistic patterns over a considerable
117
period of time. The earlier begins with the trophy striking (No. 45) and
carries through the next seven years with Nos. 47-60, 62-70, 77-82, 89, 93
and 103. The second style comes in after the first had been established for
several years, introduced on Die 61 of the cicada issue and repeated for
another four years in Nos. 71-74, 83-88, 90-91 and 98-101. Both styles die
out in the same year although both probably influenced later obverses. So
consistent is the progression that I believe one can safely regard the issues
from trophy through TTOAY-TI as a firm sequence. Conceivably AMMQ-
AIO and FTOAY - Tllg might be interchanged but the present arrangement seems
the more likely on the basis of style and, as will develop later, on other
grounds as well.
As for the miscellaneous dies which appear under AMMQ - AIO (kerchnos)
and nOAY - Tl(g|, No. 92, except for the helmet ornament, is quite close to
No. 91 and seems to have been the prototype for No. 102. Nos. 94-97 would
seem to have been executed by at least two new diecutters, unless the first is
the product of the man who worked on Nos. 34-44 and 46. There is a certain
similarity of treatment but one cannot feel confident about the comparison.
No. 104 has some affinity with No. 94 and No. 104X. is quite similar to Nos,
96-97, but Nos. 105-106 are not obviously related to any other dies.
The last three issues of the transitional group are less tightly linked in style
than the first five but they nevertheless do present several clearly-defined lines
of connection. Nos. 107-113 of the AMMQ-AIO (cornucopiae) striking have
little in common with preceding issues and would appear to be the work of a
new engraver. In the small size of his heads and the tight rendering of the hair
on most of his dies, he borrows from the diecutter of Nos. 98-101 (compare

Nos. 101 and 109), but his profiles are entirely different. Nos. 107-110 have a
distinct pursing of the lips which gives the features an unpleasantly disdainful
cast. No. 117 of AAEI-HAIO and Nos. 125-127 of XAPI - HPA were surely
done by the same man; compare, for example, No. 117 with No. 110 and on the
other hand with No. 125.
No. 114 is very like, particularly in profile, the preceding No. 102 and also
close to Nos. 120 and 129. These dies seem to me clearly the output of a single
engraver.
No. 115 is strikingly close to No. 94 of the earlier AMMQ- AIO emission
and something of the facial expression carries over into Nos. 121-122. The last
die of the cornucopiae issue, No. 116, has no obvious prototype but it is related
to Nos. 123-124 which develop into Nos. 130-133. Nos. 124 and 132 are similar
in profile, visor decoration, helmet ornament and treatment of the crest with
the inner end brought sharply back over the outer. Nos. 118-119 bear a resem-
blance to No. 128.
n8 The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens
With the AAEI - HAIO issue there is a tendency to broaden the flans and to
enlarge the Athena heads, a trend which is followed in Nos. 130-133 of XAPI -
HP A and in later issues. The last of the transitional strikings introduces an un-
usual arrangement of the helmet ornament, which again carries over into later
dies. Instead of starting from the base of the neckguard and spreading straight
or diagonally upward, the ornament (on Nos. 127-128) comes in from the back
of the helmet and expands upward and downward.
The reverses of the eight transitional issues are more revealing than those
of the earliest strikings since they now include amphora letters and control
combinations. Type variations, however, are still fairly negligible. In general
the reverses, like those of the preceding group, are neat with letters, monograms
and symbols small and well cut; this is perhaps truer of the first three issues
than of the last five. From the strikings of AAEI - HAIO and XAPI - HPA one
finds rather more examples of ungainly owls and clumsily rendered letters and
symbols than from the earlier transitional issues but there are individual dies
of nOAY - Tl and the two AMMQ - AIO emissions which are poorly executed.
Certain variations in the treatment of the amphora are discernible during
this period. From the very beginning through the issue with monograms and
herm, the diecutters reproduce a small well-rounded vase, its neck and handles
short in proportion to the body. After the herm striking, there is a tendency
to enlarge the amphora and to make the neck and handles dominant features
of the vase. This rendering is particularly noticeable in Nos. 94a and 97c of
AMMfl - AIO (kerchnos), in many of the AAEI - HAIO reverses and in No. 130b
of XAPI - HPA. No. 122a of the trident striking shows the greatest exaggera-
tionan over-sized amphora with heavy converging lines at the neck, large
handles far apart, body squared off at the shoulder and brought down sharply

to the foot in triangular shape. Similar representations become increasingly
common at a later period. One notices, too, in the issues after the herm that
the foot of the vase is broader and heavier than before (Nos. 97c, 109a, 122a,
128, 130b and 131c).
There are three issues of the transitional groupcicada, serpents and herm
which have amphora letters and no control combinations. Since they are so
closely bound, stylistically, with each other and with the last issue of the
preceding group (that with pilei symbol), it is clear that when controls were
first applied to the reverses, they took the form of month letters on the
amphorae.1
1 The tabulation on page 609 gives the month letters that we have for these three issues and
for the later TTOAY - Tl{0 striking. It would, however, be unwise to base any definite conclusions
on this listing inasmuch as our record of surviving reverses seems to be less complete for this
period than for any other and the gaps in the sequence of months are likely fortuitous.
119
Thus far the evolution of the reverses has been logical: eleven issues without
supplementary lettering of any kind, followed by three with month letters
alone. With the next five issues the pattern breaks down. Of the twenty-one
reverse dies of the AMMfl-AlO (kerchnos) striking, twelve have no visible
lettering, three have A on the amphora, one A below, four M below and one AP
below. The earliest dies of TTOAY - Tl have strange combinations of letters,
always in the field or below the amphora: BM, MT (or TM), Ar (or TA), Er (or TE),
BA. Then there is a die with AP A below the amphora, and following it twenty-
five dies on which we find both month letters (Z, H, 0, I, M) and control com-
binations (AP, EP, ME, C<D), the first invariably in the left field and the second
always on the amphora.
For AMMfi - AIO (cornucopiae), AAEI - HAIO and XAPI - HPA no dies with
certain month letters are recorded. Control combinations (for the tabulation
see page 614) appear throughout these issues but they have been moved from
the amphora to the field. On a few dies of the last striking the monogram A/,
cut on the amphora, apparently reflects the ephemeral appearance of a third
magistrate on the coinage.
What we seem to have on these reverses of the transitional group is a series
of false starts preliminary to the establishment of the dual system of month
letters and control combinations which one encounters on all issues after that
of XAPI - HPA. Experimentation first took the form of month letters. For some
reason this was not deemed satisfactory and was, I think, abandoned under
AMMfl-AlO (kerchnos) in favor of a fumbling attempt at control combina-
tions. It may be that for a time in that year there were no controls at all. As
noted above, twelve of the twenty-one reverses have no visible lettering and

although it is possible that the original markings have in all instances been
effaced by wear or corrosion, it seems more likely, in view of the large number
of dies involved and the good condition of some reverses which certainly bear
no traces of letters, that there were in fact a number of unmarked reverses in
this issue. If this is true, then the mint officials were reverting for an interval
to the practice of the first eleven issues and trying to get along without month
letters. Later they began to experiment with a new system of controls, of which
A, M and AP are the visible evidence. The first two, of course, may be month
letters but this seems unlikely when one studies the issue of T70AY - Tltfl
which I believe to be next in sequence.
At the beginning of that year there are eight reverses associated with Ob-
verse 102, six of them marked as follows: BM below the amphora, M left and
B below, BA below, M left and r below, A left and r below, E left and r below.
Now it is very difficult to interpret BM, BA, Mr, Er and Ar as control combina-
tionsnot only are they unduplicated elsewhere in the series but, unlike the
120
regular control combinations, two at least cannot be expanded into any word
that makes sense. One must conclude that one letter is a date and the other
the first letter of a control combination. Since the most common combinations
on later dies of TTOAY - TI are AP, EP and ME and nothing beginning with B
or r is known for this period, it seems evident that the month letters are B and
r, while A, E and M are the initial letters of the controls AP, EP and ME. By
analogy the A and M of AMMQ-AIO (kerchnos) can best be explained as
initial letters of the same control combinations, one of which (AP) is written
out on another die of that striking. In the issue of AMMQ - AIO (cornucopiae)
the control combination is still occasionally indicated by its initial letter. Three
reverses have E (presumably for EY), one has M (for MH) and two have TT (for
TTP). All other dies use two or even three letters, as do those of AAEI - HAIO and
XAPI - HPA.1
This interpolation of one issue with both dates and control combinations
within a group which otherwise uses only dates or control combinations is dis-
concerting. Logically TTOAY - Tl belongs after XAPI - HPA, at the beginning
of the issues with both month and control letters. To place it there would,
however, involve disregarding both the stylistic sequence of which the obverses
of this issue form an integral part and the parallelism between AMMfl - AIO
(kerchnos) and IIOAY - TIG0 in the use of identical single control letters during
what seems to be the earliest stage of the control combinations. Furthermore,
the placing of these combinations on the amphorae on later reverses of TTOAY -
Tl$ is an isolated phenomenon, most plausibly explained as yet another of the
trial-and-error methods attendant on the introduction of control combinations
on the coinage.

In recapitulation, then, we have the following picture for the transition be-
tween the first and last strikings of this Early Period. Month letters were tried
for three years, after which the mint officials attempted to go back to the old
practice of no controls that had characterized the first eleven issues. Later, with
the realization that some check was needed, came a clumsy introduction of a
new control system. Controls generally were tightened during the tenure of
TTOAY - Tl with the use of both dates and control combinations. Under
AMMQ - AIO (cornucopiae), AAEI - HAIO and XAPI - HPA, the dates were
again abandoned but an increasingly elaborate series of control combinations
came into being, AMMfl-AlO with one, two and three letter combinations
providing the connection between the two earlier and the two later issues.
All control combinations employed during this period are included in the
1 There are a few instances at a later date of the use of a single letter for a control combi-
nation. The AIOQA - AIO AO striking has six examples, AHMH - IEPJ2 one, the monograms
and eagle issue three and TAAY - EXE one.
121
listing on page 614. AP and ME appear first, under AMMK - AIO (kerchnos) and
nOAY - Tlta and later under XAPI - HPA. EY, MH and TTP carry through
AMMS2-AIO (cornucopiae), AAEI-HAIO and XAPI-HPA. EP, CO, HPA and
KT are isolated, the first two restricted to TTOAY - TICK and the last two to
XAPI - HPA. All four, however, appear again in later issues. Finally the peculiar
combination of ZQ and variants marks the contiguous strikings of AMMQ - AIO
(cornucopiae) and AAEI - HAIO.
Variant letter forms are found in this section of the coinage. Of greatest
interest are the different representations of zeta, the diversity being particularly
noteworthy in contrast to the orderly procedure which prevails in the three-
magistrate series. With the latter, I is used throughout the first twelve issues
and then Z is established, with one deviation, for the remainder of the coinage.
Prior to the three-magistrate sequence, there are eleven issues in which zeta
definitely appears as a date or as a part of a control combination. The renderings
are as follows:
Monograms and serpents Z
Monograms and herm S
nOAY - Tlffl Z S
AMMQ - AIO (cornucopiae) Z XI
AAEI - HAIO X I
Monograms and thyrsos X I
AIOOA-AIOAO Z I
Monograms and eagle S
KTHZI - EYMA S Z
TAAY - EXE I

MIKI-OEOOPA S I
According to the epigraphical record, I is the form in use until about
180 B.C. after which date both I and Z appear in inscriptions. On the coins, Z
comes in by 184/8 B.C. at the latest and for the next fifteen years no preference
seems to have been shown as among Z, I and the intermediate form X (not
known from inscriptions), all three occurring in at least one instance within
the course of a single year. After the three-magistrate series begins, however,
there is greater consistency in the coin dies than in the inscriptions.
Two issues of this earliest period, FTOAY -Tlffi and AHMH -lEPfl, use the
lunate sigma in place of the usual four-barred letter on some of their dies. This
form in inscriptions is occasionally found in the fourth century but more com-
monly after c. 200 B.C. Finally, the appearance of the cursive omega in the first
monogram of 196/5 and in both monograms of 191/0 is noteworthy in that in-
122
scriptions with this rendering are not recorded earlier than the beginning of
Augustus' principate.1
The last nine issues of the Early Period are set apart from those preceding
by their consistent use of month letters on the amphorae and control combi-
nations below or in the left field. Within this group two die links and a recutting
help in establishing the over-all arrangement.
At the very beginning a common obverse die unites the issues with horse
and thyrsos symbols.2 This is significant in itself but perhaps equally important
for the opportunity it gives of testing for the first time the validity of the
general stylistic arrangement. If the pattern of interlocking obverse styles re-
vealed in these die-joined issues parallels that outlined throughout the series
thus far, then the soundness of the stylistic sequence is substantially confirmed.
This is, I believe, the case.
Returning to the accordion plate, Nos. 134-137 and Nos. 146-151 are ex-
tremely similar, both groups clearly deriving from Nos. 125-127 of XAPI - HPA.
Note the somewhat dour expression, the arrangement of the hair in a few heavy
locks drawn back and down in almost identical fashion, the visors consisting
of two thick lines with horse protomes either omitted or faintly indicated, the
crest ends following the outline of helmet and neck, and the reappearance on
some dies (Nos. 135, 150-151) of the lateral ornament which had been intro-
duced on Nos. 127-128 of XAPI - HPA. Nos. 125 and 134, 126 and 148,127 and
150 seem to me particularly close in style.
Nos. 139-142 of JFq - AYZIA may be later developments of No. 129 but the
connection is less clear than is their association with No. 152 of the thyrsos
issue. Nos. 143-145 seem definitely related to Nos. 130-131 and to the later

Nos. 156-157 as well. The cast of the features is similar, the hair comparable
in Nos. 130-131,145,157 and the sharply turned crest terminal of Nos. 130-131
reflected in Nos. 145 and 156. For the rest, Nos. 153-155 and 158-159 of the
thyrsos striking bear no relation to preceding dies but are to be associated with
some of those which follow.
The two last dies show heavy Athena heads, relatively innocuous prototypes
of the horrors which appear in the ensuing coinage of AlOcDA - AIOAO. Among
the Apollo dies are some of the most degenerate obverses to be found anywhere
in the New Style series. Nos. 169-171, in the tradition of Nos. 139-140 and 152,
1 The dating of the various letter-forms derives from Kirchner's Imagines (2nd ed.) and
Larfeld's Handbuch der attischen Inschriften. For zeta see Larfeld p. 472; for sigma Larfeld
p. 464 and Kirchner p. 30, no. 123; for omega Larfeld pp. 481 and 484 and Kirchner p. 30, no. 123.
2 Although unpublished, this connection had been discovered by Kambanis. It is recorded
in his notes, but the order of issues is reversed. Kambanis had not noticed the A on the amphora
of the Paris coin and, therefore, placed the thyrsos striking before that with the horse symbol.
123
are pleasing enough although overlarge, but Nos. 160-168 are in large measure
clumsily fashioned and gross to the point of travesty. Nos. 174-177 seem to
derive from Nos. 158-159. The features are somewhat similar as is the bunched
hair, and the heavy circle of dots on some dies further relates the two groups.
Nos. 172-173 are to be connected with Nos. 153-155, the former closest to
No. 153 and the latter resembling No. 154 in profile and No. 155 in the slightly
parted hps.
Erasure of the Apollo symbol and the cutting of AHMH over it on No. 202a
of Plate 22 ties the emission of AHMH - lEPfl to that of AIO0>A - AIOAO. The
later striking is far better in style. Nos. 178-188 were probably produced by a
single engraver, whose work owes something to Nos. 169-172 but is decidedly
superior to the general standard of the Apollo dies. Nos. 189-194 reflect an
unusual style, peculiar to this issue and to one die of the eagle striking (No. 209).
The coarse dots, slight upturn of the crest terminals and the heavy treatment
of the heads are reminiscent of the workmanship of Nos. 174 and 177. An addi-
tional stylistic link between the helmet and Apollo issues is provided by a
drachm (No. 222 on Plate 23). This bears no similarity to any other die of
AHMH - lEPfl but it is close in style to No. 176 of AIO<DA - AIOAO. Note espe-
cially the stringy hair and the profile.
No. 209 of the eagle issue is unmistakably from the same hand as Nos. 189
to 194; subsequently there is no clear indication of the work of this engraver
unless Nos. 210-211 and later dies of related character are the result of a radical
change in his technique. The highly consistent style of Nos. 178-188 of AHMH -
IEPQ breaks down with the eagle emission into a diversity of styles. Nos. 198
to 207 divide into several groupings, as indicated on the plate, whose relation-

ship with each other and with the earlier Nos. 178-188 is tenuous although
there is a suggestion of profile resemblance in some cases (Nos. 182-183 and
203,178-180 and 202, 185-186 and 205-206). No. 207 is very similar to No. 172
of AIOOA - AIOAO. Nos. 195-197, 208 and 210-211 are not obviously asso-
ciated with anything immediately preceding but No. 197 does seem to be a
later example of activity on the part of the engraver of Nos. 125-127, 134-137
and 146151. Profiles and fleur-de-lis ornaments are the noteworthy aspects.
With the dies of the aplustre striking there are lines of direct succession
from the eagle issue. Compare Nos. 196 and 212 in profile, hair and fleur-de-lis
ornament. Nos. 198-200 are close to Nos. 217-219 and Nos. 201-202 still closer
to No. 220, the two last strikingly alike even to the details of the hair. Nos. 221
to 225 as a group bears a distinct resemblance to Nos. 205-207 (compare 223
with 207, 222 and 224 with 206). Nos. 226-227 are reminiscent of Nos. 154-155
and 173 in the delicacy of the profile and the slightly parted lips. Nos. 229-230
seem derivatives of Nos. 210-211, more with respect to the heaviness of the
124
type than to any close correspondence in details although the features of
No. 229 are not unlike those of No. 211. In the aplustre issue the lateral orna-
ment, missing for three years, returns to the helmet with No. 214.
Many of the obverses of KTHZI - EYMA are closely related to those of the
aplustre emission. Nos. 249-251 represent the last appearance of the heavy
Athena heads which have persisted through the preceding five years side by
side with the smaller and more refined renderings, No. 249 close to 230, 250 to
229 and 251 going back to 210-211. No. 245 is in the tradition of Nos. 226-227.
Compare No. 242 with Nos. 222 and 224-225, No. 239 with its prototypes 201
to 202 and 220. For the remainder, Nos. 243-244 can be associated with
Nos. 205-206 and 221-225; Nos. 240-241 may be derivatives of No. 242, and
Nos. 246-248 of No. 245. The significant dies of this issue, however, are Nos. 231
to 238. Of these, the first is very similar to No. 214 with reference to hair, crest
ends, ornament, visor and profile. Nos. 232-234 seem to be derived from
Nos. 215-216 particularly in the small size of the heads and in the visor arrange-
ment. Nos. 235-238 are, I believe, the work of the same diesinker. The style
of this engraver is of considerable import since it provides the strongest evi-
dence for placing the issues of KTHII - EYMA and TAAY - EXE in adjacent
years, and it might be well at this point to see if the extent of his activity can
be defined.
Taking the first twenty-eight strikings as a group, one notes several dis-
tinctive features of the obverse type which are peculiar to this section of the
coinage: the lateral ornament on the helmet, the omission of horse protomes
and Pegasi, and the open triangular form of the visor. This open visor is a
fairly late development. Early dies depict the helmet with one heavy or two

light lines over Athena's brow, the horse protomes affixed in a straight row to
this base. Such a rendering is predominant throughout the New Style period.
A variant, which appears first in the issue with pilei symbol and is not en-
countered after the striking of TAAY - EXE, shows the visor opened out in
triangular fashion with the top line slanting sharply upward and carrying above
it the series of protomes.
From the issue of AAEI - HAIO on, the triangular visor becomes increasingly
common. The lateral ornament of the helmet, which appears a year later under
XAPI - HPA and continues through TAAY - EXE, is almost always found on ob-
verses with this type of visor and the instances of the omission of protomes
and Pegasi are also generally associated with it. This concentration of stylistic
peculiarities within one group of dies cut during a ten year period suggests that
we may have the work of a single engraver.
Most of the dies in question are to be found in the left-hand section of the
accordion plate, starting with AAEI - HAIO and running through TAAY - EXE
125
but without representation in the issues of AlOcDA - AIOAO and AHMH - IEPQ.
The pertinent numbers are 117-120,125-128,134-138,146-151,197, 213-216,
231-238 and 252-261. Of these Nos. 117, 125-127, 134-137, 146-151 and 197
seem to me unmistakably the output of one diesinker. Note that the concen-
tration of his work comes in the issues with forepart of a horse and thyrsos
symbols, strikings which are proved contiguous by a die link. Apparently this
engraver was not with the mint during the years of AlOcDA - AIOAO and
AHMH - lEPfl and perhaps cut only one die for the succeeding eagle issue:
No. 197.
With Nos. 213-216, 231-238 and 252-261 of the next three strikings we
have another group of dies which clearly belong together although these ob-
verses present a more complex stylistic pattern than do those of the earlier
sequence. The peculiarities of technique in rendering the helmet serve to unite
the two groups, but the later heads differ from the earlier ones in facial structure
and expression to such an extent that one cannot feel certain of their common
origin. Either we have the work of two engravers, the second adopting the
mannerisms of his predecessor, or we have two distinct stages in the style of
a single artist.
This second sequence shows less consistency of style than the first. The en-
graver seems to be experimenting with his rendering of the Athena head so
that two versions appear in the aplustre and KTHZI - EYMA issues, the one
represented by Nos. 213-214 and 231, the other by Nos. 215-216 and 232-234.
Finally, however, there is a crystallization of style with Nos. 235-238 and this
carries over into Nos. 252-261 of TAAY - EXE.
These last dies are extremely close in style. Compare No. 235 with No. 255,

No. 236 with Nos. 257, 259 and 261, Nos. 237-238 with No. 260. Profiles are
almost identical, the bold masculine cast of Nos. 238 and 260 being particularly
striking. The hair in general receives less emphasis than on other dies of the
series. Note the arrangement in two thin horizontal lines on Nos. 234 and 236,
repeated on No. 255 and to a lesser degree on No. 259. The heavier locks of
No. 237 are comparable with those of Nos. 260-261. Both varieties of visor are
represented: the type with well-defined horse protomes above a single heavy
baseline on Nos. 236, 257 and 259; the triangular form on all other dies. On
Nos. 237-238 the horses' heads merge into a straight line above the two visor
bands and on Nos. 254-255 and 260 disappear entirely. Dies 235-238 have an
upright ornament with twisting tendrils and normally a fleur-de-lis terminal
as do Dies 254-259 and 261. The other three TAAY - EXE obverses have the
lateral ornament of Nos. 231, 233-234 in the series preceding.
The association of KTHII - EYMA and TAAY - EXE is of crucial importance,
particularly to the epigraphist, involving as it does contiguous intercalary
126
years. It is most unfortunate that a die link which would prove the connection
is missing, but it seems to me that the strong evidence of style cannot easily
be dismissed. In the chronological sequence thus far outlined there have been
instances of a distinctive style reappearing after an interval of several years in
an isolated die or two of a later issue. Die 197, for example, is separated by
three years from Nos. 134-135 of the ^ - AYIIA issue with which it has its
closest affiliation. But it is noteworthy that there is no interval between issues
when both have a substantial number of dies sharing a single distinctive style.
The stylistic homogeneity of Dies 134-137 and 146-151 of the horse and thyrsos
strikings attests the contiguity which the die link proves and the same is true
of later issues which are firmly joined by the transfer of obverse dies. Nos. 235
to 238 and 252-261 present the same phenomenon of a highly distinctive style,
found on a substantial number of the obverses of KTHZI - EYMA and TAAY -
EXE and nowhere else in the series. It would seem to me extremely difficult to
maintain that these emissions should be separated in time.1
Of the remaining dies of the TAAY - EXE striking, Nos. 262-263 are related
to earlier obverses. No. 262 closely resembles No. 242 and the preceding 221 to
225 while No. 263 has something of the facial expression of Nos. 220 and 239
with also a suggestion of Nos. 240 and 245 in the way in which the ornament
on the helmet is curved out and swept over toward the Pegasus representation.
Nos. 264-271 are unlike any other New Style obverses and must surely be the
work of a new diecutter, temporarily employed at the mint during the second
half of the year 170/69 B.C.
MIKI - GEOOPA is the last issue of the two-magistrate period, joined by an
obverse die to the three-magistrate striking of HPA - APIZTOO. Here one finds

a remarkable degree of stylistic coherence. Nos. 272-281 are indubitably the
work of a single engraver. That he was the same man who produced Nos. 262
and 263is possible; certainly he continued to turn out dies for the first issues of
the period which follows.
The nine issues at the end of the Early Period include more coins with ex-
cessively spread flans than any other section of the coinage. Heretofore, there
have been occasional examples of very large tetradrachms; in the first three
strikings of this group they are the rule rather than the exception. In the
emission of AIOOA-AIOAO there is one specimen which measures 39 milli-
meters, a record size for the New Style period. Below is a listing of average
dimensions based upon the measurements of all coins and casts from the nine
issues under discussion:
1 Bellinger (Hesperia, Suppl. VIII, 1949, p. 9) places KTHII - EYMA and TAAY - EXE in
consecutive years but does not comment on the juxtaposition of two N strikings.
127
35.18
34.52
35.30
83.85
34.40
33.56
32.53
32.23
31.17
30.51
Thyrsos
AIOOA-AIOAO
AHMH -IEPQ
Eagle
Aplustre
KTHZI - EYMA
TAAY - EXE
MIKI -0EOOPA
HPA-AP1ZTOO
The picture is consistent: the first three issues very spread, the next three
somewhat smaller, then a distinct curtailment with KTHZI - EYMA and TAAY -
EXE, preliminary to the further reduction of M1KI - 0EOOPA which in turn gives
way to the small flans of HPA - APIZTOcD and other early three-magistrate
issues. It is noteworthy that in flan size as in other respects KTHZI - EYMA and
TAAY - EXE belong together.

Reverse variations follow a pattern roughly parallel to that of flan dimen-
sions. Despite an increase in the size of the coins, the type, lettering and sym-
bols on the issues of ^ - AYZIA and A. - $ are comparable with those of the
AAEI HAIO and XAPI - HPA strikings immediately preceding. There are ex-
amples of clumsy heavy owls on exaggerated amphorae but for the most part
the representation is still relatively restrained. It should be noted, however,
that the monograms of the thyrsos striking are generally more prominent than
any earlier ones. With the issues of A1CXDA - AIOAO, AHMH-IEPQ and the
emissions with eagle and aplustre symbols, the enlargement of the type is pro-
nounced, a small bird on a modest amphora being rare. Nos. 187a, 213, 235b
and 262 have owls which are large and shaggy to the point of caricature and
such renderings are by no means exceptional. Individual reverses of these four
issues show letters and monograms exceeding in size anything else in the series.
Note Nos. 186b, 213, 243a and 258a. The second monogram of the aplustre
issue is the most complicated in the entire sequence and is rendered with the
greatest carelessness, there being six separate versions on the forty-five reverse
dies. Finally, with the reduction of flan in the issues of KTHZI - EYMA, TAAY -
EXE and MIKI - 0EOCDPA comes a reduction and refinement of the type and
lettering. There are still a few oversized owls in the KTHII - EYMA striking but
only a few. There are none of grotesque proportions in the next two emissions.
The lettering, too, is better on these three issues, especially neat in the case of
most KTHZI - EYMA dies.
128
One peculiar feature distinguishes the last four issues of this group. Through
the eagle striking, the wreath has been carefully rendered with thin natural-
looking leaves, generally neat in arrangement. Incision is sometimes present
but delicately done as in Nos. 159a, 179a and 238a. On a few dies of the aplustre
issue and on many more of KTHZI - EYMA and TAAY - EXE a new technique
appears. The leaves are disproportionately elongated and represented merely
by very heavy outline strokes enclosing an open area which is not raised above
the surface of the flan. The obvious advantage of such a rendering from the
point of view of the engraver readily explains its popularity. The new tech-
nique characterizes a large number of the dies of KTHII - EYMA and TAAY -
EXE, persists into the emission of MIKI - 0EOct>PA but with less exaggeration
and then vanishes with the coinage of HPA - APIZTOO as convenience yields
to artistry. Nos. 258d, 272a, 280a, 290a, 293, 294b, 321b and 322a among other
reverses illustrate this highly individual treatment.
The amphora letters and control combinations which appear on these nine
issues are not particularly revealing. The former show greater variety than those
of earlier issues but again there is a question as to whether any valid deduction
can be drawn from the absence of certain month letters in any given year in
view of the number of reverses on which the letters are invisible or uncertain.
Control combinations are extremely varied. All but Zfi of the preceding
period continue in use and ten new ones are employed, many of them peculiar
to this section of the coinage. The striking of AHMH - IEPQ alone has thirteen
different controls, the greatest number for any single New Style issue. In only
one instance, that of the eagle and aplustre emissions, is there a recurrence of
identical controls in contiguous issues. Otherwise, as the tabulation on page 614

shows, there seems no clear-cut pattern. EY, ME, TIP and IO have the highest
incidenceof these ME and Z<D continue to be used for the early issues of the
three-magistrate series, FTP reappears later and EY vanishes. AN, ATT, Al and
HP are of less frequent occurrence in this period, but the last three become
quite common at a later date. Other combinations (MO, 6Y, EMO, ENO, TIT and
KE)1 are rare at this time and not repeated afterwards. This erratic picture with
regard to the control combinations is in marked contrast to the consistency
which distinguishes the three-magistrate series.
Recutting of both amphora letters and control combinations occurs for the
first time in this section of the coinage. There is one probable instance in the
issue of ^-AYIIA and certain examples in the strikings of AIOOA - AlOAO,
AHMH - IEPQ, TAAY - EXE and M1K1 - 0ECKDPA.
1 NE, found on No. 216, is apparently a transposition of EN. M<t> and E<D would seem care-
less renderings of EMO. ENO and EMG> are surely expansions of EN and EM. It is possible that
EN<D, a strange combination, is merely a mistaken version of EMcD.
129
Considering now the twenty-eight issues of the Early Period as a whole,
the evidence for their chronological arrangement rests basically upon a suc-
cession of interlinking obverse styles which provides a consistent pattern from
beginning to end. At certain points the sequence is verified or supported by
evidence from die links, recutting, hoard data and reverse variations.
Use of the same obverse die places the ^ - AYZIA and thyrsos issues in
consecutive years; a like phenomenon fixes the position of MIKI -0EOOPA at
the end of the Early Period joined to HPA - APIZTO<D of the three-magistrate
series. The cutting of AHMH over the Apollo symbol of AlOOA - AIOAO makes
those strikings contiguous.
Three hoards, discussed in greater detail in the section on Hoards, establish
the chronological relationship of some issues within the general group. The
Anthedon Hoard unites the first four New Style strikings. The Attic Hoard
of drachms, which contained nine tetradrachms in a highly comparable state
of preservation, indicates that the emissions of AAEI-HAIO, AlOcDA -
AIOAO, AHMH-IEPfl, *- and KTHZ1 -EYMA are not far separated in
time. Finally, there is the Salonika Hoard of 19291 with about 800 New Style
tetradrachms, all coins of TAAY-EXE, MIKI - 9EOOPA, HPA - APIZTOcD,
MENEA-ETmTENO, TIMAPXOY - NIKAm and TTOAYXAPM - NIKOr. As Bel-
linger points out in his study, the presence of only six issues in so large a deposit
strongly suggests that they belong together. Four of the strikings are of the
three-magistrate period, one (HPA - APIITOO) connected by obverse dies with
the emission of MIKI - 0EOOPA. The other two-magistrate issue, that of TAAY -
EXE, should then immediately precede MIKI - 0EOOPA, which is exactly where
the stylistic sequence places it.

Evidence from reverse variations and style is somewhat tenuous but there
are general indications of chronology. The evolution of the owl's plumage over
the first eleven issues of the coinage helps to confirm the validity of the stylistic
evidence provided by the obverses. At a later period the peculiar technique
used in the rendering of the wreath unites KTHZ1 - EYMA with TAAY - EXE and
associates the two issues with the earlier aplustre emission and the later striking
of MIKI -GEOOPA.
In concluding this discussion of the Early Period, mention should be made
of three noteworthy consequences of the present arrangement of the issues. The
first concerns the intercalary years on the coinage and particularly the occur-
rence in successive strikings (171/0 and 170/69 B.C.) of N letters on the am-
phorae. There is among epigraphists a diversity of opinion as to the conjunction
of intercalary years. Dinsmoor states his position categorically in his intro-
1 S. P. Noe, A Bibliography of Greek Coin Hoards, NNM 78, No. 899.
duction to The Athenian Archon List in the Light of Recent Discoveries (pp. 13
to 14) when he proposes as a guiding rule the axiom that "the Athenians never
placed two intercalary (long) years in immediate juxtaposition." Meritt on the
other hand regards 415/4 and 414/3 B.C. as alike intercalary in his publication
of Athenian Financial Documents of the Fifth Century (p. 176) and Pritchett and
Neugebauer (The Calendars of Athens, p. 76) raise the possibility that both
176/5 and 175/4 were intercalary but suggest a suspension of judgment on the
character of the two years pending additional evidence.
Clearly the evidence of the coinage for contiguous intercalary years in 171/0
and 170/69 B.C. is of considerable importance and this evidence is accepted by
Meritt and incorporated in his recent study of the Athenian calendar.1 More
detailed reference to his correlation of numismatic and epigraphical data re-
garding intercalary years in the second century will be made in the section on
Amphora Letters at the end of this volume, but it seems pertinent to emphasize
here that the evidence for contiguous intercalary years is one of the significant
contributions of the early New Style issues.
A second consequence of the present study as it relates to the early coinage
is the elimination of the die link between the issues of KTHII - EYMA and
AHMH - lEPfl, published in the 1928 volume of Arethuse (pp. 182-133). Kam-
banis does not illustrate the connection of the two strikings but his references
to Svoronos' plates identify the tetradrachms upon which it is based: a Cam-
bridge coin on Plate 42, No. 4 and one of uncertain provenance on Plate 41,
No. 4.2 Attempts to associate these issues on the basis of obverse style proved
frustrating. There seemed little stylistic connection between the two emissions
save, of course, for the one mutual die. As between style and die link there is
certainly no ground for argument but nevertheless this did represent an irri-

tating anomaly in what was otherwise a consistent stylistic pattern. Then, in
going over the notes and folders compiled by Kambanis, I found a reference
to the possibility of an error on Svoronos' plates which would invalidate this
linking of the two issues, and subsequently the photographic record of the
Berlin coins provided decisive proof of the error which Kambanis had suspected.
The fourth coin on Svoronos' Plate 41, not identified as to source and with
no weight given, is reproduced in juxtaposition to a AHMH - lEPfl tetradrachm
from Berlin (Plate 41, 3). If one examines these two coins it is apparent that
the reverses are not only from the same die but are in fact the same coin. The
correspondence in flan placement is too great for one to suppose that different
1 B. D. Meritt, The Athenian Year, pp. 180-184.
a There is an element of slight confusion in Kambanis' equation of the AHMH - lEPft coin
on his Plate XXIII, 6 with Svoronos' Plate 41, 4. Actually Kambanis illustrates Svoronos'
Plate 41, 3.
strikings produced such identity. Svoronos' uncertainty as to the provenance
and weight of No. 4 together with the circumstance that there is a Beirut tetra-
drachm (No. 206a) from the same pair of dies as Plate 41, 3 makes it clear that
this obverse-reverse combination is correct while No. 4 represents an erroneous
duplication of the reverse of No. 8 coupled with an alien obverse.1 From the
Berlin record it can be established that the obverse in question belongs with
the reverse of Svoronos' Plate 42, No. 5 and is, therefore, a part of the KTHZl -
EYMA striking.2
Lastly, as has already been pointed out, the sequence of early emissions
disproves the theory of a clear-cut division between monogram issues and those
with abbreviated names. The names of the magistrates of the first fourteen
New Style strikings are inscribed in monogram on the coin dies. Thereafter the
practice is to substitute the initial letters of the official's name for a monogram
but within the abbreviated names series there are three instances of reversion
to monograms, and this inconsistency, although of minor importance, is none-
theless puzzling. Not that inconsistency is remarkable in this period. It occurs
in the use of symbols and in the fumbling attempts to introduce a precise
control system, but the former is an insignificant variation which recurs spo-
radically in other sections of the coinage and the latter presumably reflects an
uncertainty as to the relative merits of diverse control methods. The shifting
back and forth between names and monograms seems a rather different matter.
Once the practice of using abbreviated names had been established one would
expect it to continue since it clearly represented a gain for magistrate and en-
graver alike. Surely the greater prominence and intelligibility of letters as
opposed to a monogram would gratify the mint magistrate, while the relative
simplicity of rendering letters instead of composing and executing a monogram,

especially one of the complexity found at the end of this period, would find
favor with those concerned with the technical aspects of the coinage. Why then
the interpolation of three monogrammatic issues in the abbreviated names
series?
There is an explanation which does introduce an element of logic into this
erratic procedure, namely that monograms were used to avoid confusion be-
tween the issues of magistrates whose abbreviated names would have been
practically the same or exactly alike. Perhaps there had been some difficulty
involving the two strikings ofAMMQ-AIOat the beginning of the abbreviated
1 Another example of an error on this same plate is Svoronos' No. 8 from the British Museum.
The obverse is that of BMC 366 and the reverse of a different coin, BMC 368. Certainly with the
mass of material involved, it would be astonishing if a few such mistakes had not happened.
* The obverse of No. 5 on Plate 42 is coupled with a reverse not illustrated by Svoronos:
No. 26gf of the present catalogue.
132
names sequence and it was felt desirable that there be clear differentiation on
later occasions.
It must be borne in mind that the practice in writing the abbreviated names
during this period was to use the first three, four or five letters of the word,
ending always with a vowel. The first interpolated monogram issue is that of
the one name possibly to be interpreted as AYIIK... and the second
almost certainly as AIOKA... In accordance with established procedure the
abbreviations would be AYII -AlO. The second magistrate of the issue just
preceding was AYIIA and a AlO had held office for two strikings earlier in the
series.
Even clearer is the case of M - t>i. Here there can be no doubt but that the
first monogram stands for Demetrios and the second probably should be re-
solved as Dionysios. The abbreviated forms would be AHMH - AlO (or AIONY),
capable of being confused with AHMH of the issue just preceding and with the
AlO of earlier emissions. For the aplustre issue, the second monogram is quite
uncertain but the first definitely seems to start XAPI or XAIPI. If the former
is correct, use of letters would have involved a duplication of one element of
the XAPI - HPA combination.
It is, of course, quite conceivable that nothing more complex than personal
preference was responsible for the determination of the form of the individual
names.1 However, it is noteworthy that after AMM2 - AlO there is no dupli-
cation of abbreviated names and hence no ambiguity as to magistrates or issues
such as might have been the case if the thyrsos, eagle and aplustre strikings
had used letters instead of monograms.
1 It is hard to see what other explanation there could be for the three hybrids. The sub-

stitution of OANI for fa is seemingly pointless. TTOAY-TIJB and AYZIA, despite their
monogrammatic flourishes, are basically abbreviated names.
CATALOGUE OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD
HPA - APIZTO<D CLUB, LION'S SKIN, BOW IN CASE 168/7 B.C.
(Plates 83-84)
Tetradrachms
324.
(Club alone) nOAYX A *Paris, gr. 16.60f
330.
331.
ra.
nOAYX
Vienna = Egger XL (Prowe) 955, gr. 16.00;
Berlin, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.79
|b.
nOAYX
*ANS-ETN (Salonika Hd.), gr. 16.28f; Pet-
salis, gr. 16.40f
1 c-
MENEA
AN
*ANS-Gautier, gr. 16.76 \; Athens, gr. 16.81 \
|d.
MENEA
AN

Empedocles Coll.
1 e-
MENEA
HP
1 f-
AHMH
AN
Cahn 68, 1345, gr. 16.57
La.
nOAYX
Athens
b.
MENEA
HP
Mtinz. u. Med. List 154, 35, gr. 16.53; Athens
(Delos Hd. T, 134), gr. 16.65
c.
MENEA
AN
Ratto (Rogers) 356 = Sv. 45, 2, commerce,
gr. 16.70
d.
MENEA
TA
e.
MENEA
TA
Cambridge (Grose 5906), gr. 16.19f; Berlin,
gr. 16.25
f.
AHMH
134
\ , 5
333.
334.
-1>. /
. ?
* ., . 16.98; (5.45,1),
. 16.25; ' () 608 = &
XVI, 1222 = VI, 275, . 16.80
, . 16.88 \

( . $, 20), . 15.60|
(5. 45, 5), . 16.70 \
( . , 136), .16.70|;
, . 16.85
& (5. 45, 6), . 16.80;
., 33. &
. (&, .), . 16.40 \
, . 15.88 \
, . 16.27
) 1120
. 16.69
& 10, 259 = (-
= , . 1909, 2937,
335.
336.
(1.
{.
. [
). ?
* (& 49), . 16.14;
90, 239, 15.90
* (5. 45, 7), . 16.80|
*5- = () 1601, . 16.74 \
1954
, . 16.56|
, . 16.67|; . (
, : ,
135
337.
338.
339.
5.
0.
\>.
4>.

6.
1.
* (5 217; 5. 45, 8), . 16.74!
( .), . 16.51!
. (& .), . 16.80!
* ( 1103), . 17.01;
(& .), . 16.41!; 5 (
2088; 5. 45,9), . 16.80!; 1954,
. , . 1958, 89; . &
., . 15.63
( . , 98; 5. 45,10), . 15.75
*5-, . 16.07!
*&5 ( 2084; 5. 45,11), . 16.76!
& .; ( .),
. 16.87!
( .), . 16.47!
(5. 45, 12), . 16.65!
*5- ( .), . 16.67!;
. ., . 16.42
*5-, . 16.32!
136
342.
3..
0.
1>\)
343.
344.
&.
( ) .

( .
01>)
( .
() .
() 6.
( .
( . ?
1\>) (55. )
345.
346.
( .
>)
( 1>\) \).
() .
() .
\).
: 137
0.
(1
()
0.
))
, ( 837), . 2.03
, . 1.91
(5. 45, 20), . 1.78
& (5. 45, 21), . 1.99
84 : 12 , 56
42 : 5 , 21
8 : 1 , 6
: , , , -
, , , , , ,
, ,
: , , , , , , , , , , ,
: , , 1
6 - 3.

& , .
( .
3. ^ &3.
&& : , & .
3.11 338, !
. .2
\ '
& . 324 & .
\ \ ' 3 . -
, ,
1 & ,
' & . 5 &11
35 & . ^
. 336 (5 26 \ & ?) \
13; (. 33>) 3 1 ^6 -
, 33
2 ( 658-708) ^ 1
- -& .
\ 4 , \ \ &-
3 &
\ &
^ \ \
- 3.1
3. , 3.1. 1>
, , .
138 \ , -
15 , \
, .
-3.3. <1
. & \
\ ^- -
. 1>1\
, , -
. &1 ^
- - 3
, 1) 353. .
&5 53.1 -&3.
53.1)1 " 35 3 ^-
& 3. . 1 &11 ^&,
\ ^, 3.
& .
- 505 167/6 ..
(, 35)
347.
>.

348.
*&5 .
5-, . 16.21|
, . 16.17; , . 15.80 ()
(5. 49, 1), . 16.78; , &1
, . 16.86^
., . 16.68|
1954
. ( .), . 16.02|
84, 805, . 16.65
., . 16.68|; , . 16.45|
., . 16.75; (50 240),
, . 16.61|
& .
( 2105), . 16.70|
(5. 49, 8), . 17.08
;.
).
, :
139
).
349.
350.
351.
1.
1*>

<*
1-1).
0.
6.
{.
8-
140
\ - , 5
353.
*.
| 1>.
1-
354.
355.
1.
1.
<1.

|.
: ,
- .
&5, . 16.58 \
( 450; 5. 49, 18), . 16.67|
5 5
356.
()
\>. ?
357.
(-
1)
).

-. ?
. ?
. ?
- . ?
6-
*5 ( .), . 4.291"
, . 8.67
&5; . (5. 49, 4)
5-, . 3.791; ( .),
, . 4.11 \; 5&13 ., -
&, . 4.10 \
5 ( .), . 8.95|; ( .),
. 4.16; ( .), . 4.05|;
= \ 8520 (5. 49, 15), . 4.13; , .
1933, 120
( 446), . 4.03; , . 8.92
, 189 ( .), . 4.80|
. (5 1945), &. 8.87
*5 ( .), . 3.94 \; , . 3.59;
& .,
( . , 124; 5. 49, 14) . 8.80
( .) 2017, . 4.28
( . , 127; 5. 49, 16), . 8.55;
, . 4.00
, . 8.99
= () 1180, . 4.15;
(8. 49, 17), , . 8.90;
( 447), &, &. 8.76; &
., , . 8.76
5 ( .), . 4.07; , ;
& (5 241), &,.8.84|1.
\ /: (5 242), -
, . 8.56|
1 {5 1>1\ ( 5% & ) \1
6 &\5 5 3 .
142
\ 5. 5
358.
() .
() >. ?
*5 ( .), . 4.18|; { 449),
&, . 8.92; 1196 (. 49,
18) = (&^) 157, &,
\ 4.09; ( .), ,
. 4.07 \; , , .
8.91; , , . 4.01;
( 1290), &, . 4.19|
(5. 49, 19), &. 4.15
359.
5.
0.

(5. 49, 5), . 2.00|
(& , 56 3285), . 2.03|;
& (5 248; 5. 49, 20), &. 1.90;
. ., . 2.15
{ 452), . 2.01
1. ., . 1.85; (5. 49,21),
. 1.89; 5-, . 1.95|; , . 1.89
5-, . 1.87!
( . , 129; 5. 49, 22), . 1.90
101 3.: 9 , 63
40 &: 8 , 15 <
11 &: 1 , 6 (
^: , , , -
, , , , ,
, , ,
: , , , , , , , , , , ,
: , , , , , ,
& (3 659), 3. &
^ & &
3 1\ . 51, -, &
. &3 3. 1
. - 3.
& . -
- .
3. 1\
(.. II2 1835 2314) .
143
^. -. 3 ,
3 31 331 3 &
& & . \ 3
& - , \
&'
3 & 3.
- . 11 & -
& , & \11
31 & \ & ,
, .
- 5 166/5 .
( 86-37)
/5
360.
*5-, . 16.62^; &, .
16.05 (); XVI, 1228 = &11
VI, 279, . 16.90; , . 16.10 (1. ?)
\; 63. (5. 50, 1,
361.
5.

5-, . 16.41 \; , . 15.58
(); 71, 342, . 17.01
*(1 (. .), . 16.77|
., . 16.85 \
. (51 .), . 16.59 \;
(& .), . 15.78 (-
) \; , . 16.61 \
362.
;.
\3.
0.
* (5. 50, 2), . 16.80
71, 841, . 17.88 (- -
); :, . 16.41
& (56 246), . 16.88|
144
\ , - 5
363.
364.
365
4>.
0.

6-
() ).
() .
, :
145
368.
1>.
() .
6.

{ 508; 5. 50,10), .16.78|
, . 16.80; 13.6-0 ()
208, . 16.58
., . 16.59|; .
(5 1987), . 16.74|
( . , 229), . 16.55 \
., . 16.55 \
5-, . 16.68|
(5&11& .), . 16.91
.; 5, &13.
, . 16.51|
(&1&& .), . 16.81|
, . 16.82
369.
()1
( -
( 1>.
51)
146
c. Symbol r.
d. Symbol r.
e. Symbol r.
(TIMA-
NIK)
372.
(23, III)
r f. APXE
rg. APXE
(TIMA-
NIK)
373.
(IV)
(Star)
TIE below
nE below
? below
TIMAP - N1KA
London (BMC 294), gr. 8.62
ANS-ETN, gr. 8.86 (corroded) \; Copen-
hagen (SNG 128), gr. 8.72/
London; Wilkinson Coll. = Lockett Coll.
(SNG 1944) = Naville (Pozzi) 1596, gr.

3.97f; Baltatzi Coll. (Sv.84, 28), gr.4.12
ANCHOR
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.24 \; London,
Copenhagen {SNG 247), gr. 8.86I1
lin, gr. 8.68
Ber-
NO MAGISTRATES GRAIN-EAR
a. Symbol r.
MH below
b. Symbol 1.
c. Symbol 1.
ATI below
? below
London {BMC 293), gr. 4.03; Paris; Noe
Coll., gr. 3.76f; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr.
4.18 \; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.24f; ANS
(Attic Hd.), gr. 4.27f; Athens (Sv.84,27),
gr. 8.48; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 9; Sv. 34,
29), letters uncertain, gr. 8.85
Berlin, gr. 8.88; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 5;
Sv. 84, 81), gr. 8.75f
Berlin (Sv. 84, 80), gr. 8.88
TIMAP - NIKA ANCHOR
1 Ld-
APXE
L e.
APXE
f.
MENA
g-
MENA
h.
KAE
(PANO
Paris (Sv. 50, 18), gr. 4.14; Athens, gr.
8.75f; ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.26f; London
The Middle Period: Catalogue
147
Hemidrachms
374.
(24)
NO MAGISTRATES GRAIN-EAR
Symbol r. *Berlin (Sv. 34, 32), gr. 1.73
TIMAP - NIKA ANCHOR
375.
(V)
a. AQP
b. Iflll
(TIMA-NIK c. APX
No anchor)
* Athens (Delos Hd. B, 160; Sv. 50, 17),
gr. 1.87|; Berlin, gr. 1.90
Naville (Bement) 1131, gr. 2.01
Athens (Delos Hd. B, 159; Sv. 50, 16),
gr. 1.88f; Berlin, gr. 2.01
Magistrates: AQPOO, MNAZIK, AM<DI-
KPATI, ZflZirE, MENAN, AYIIA, APXEZ,
MENAN APOZ, KAEQN, ANTIOXOI,
OANOKAE
Months: A, B, T, A, E, Z, H, 0, I, K, A

Controls: ME, IO and An, MH, TIE on the
grain-ear drachms
This issue shows no overlapping of third magistrates unless MENANAPOZ (0)
is the same as MENAN (E). Coins were struck from alpha through lambda with a
relatively consistent distribution of obverse dies over that period. Two control
combinations, ME and I<D, appear throughout the year on the tetradrachm re-
verses.
The peculiar interest of the emission derives from the circumstance that
both regular and grain-ear drachms were issued under TIMAPXOY - N1KAI~0.
Use of the same obverse dies for the two types of fractional coinage proves their
contemporaneity; otherwise there are no points of similarity. The regular
drachms are identical with the tetradrachms of Timarchos and Nikagoras in
most respects. The grain-ear fractions have no magisterial names, no month
letters, a different symbol and different control combinations. Obviously they
represent a special currency unrelated to the normal pattern of small change
during the New Style period, the significance of which may, it seems to me,
best be explained in terms of grain distribution. It is quite likely that the Se-
leucid device adopted as the symbol of this issue is indicative of the source of
the grain.
148
nOAYXAPM - NIKOr WINGED CADUCEUS 165/4 B.C.
Tetradrachms
(Plate 38)
368.
376.
377.
378.
379.
AHMOS0E
B/A
A!
a.
AHMOZ0E
B/A
Al
b.
AHMOI0E
B/A
XD
rc.
AIANT!
XD
|d.
ME

(DIAOAO
AIANTI
XD
a.
(DIAOAO
ME
b.
AnOAAflNIA
ME
c.
ATTOAAflNIA
Al
d.
AIONYIIOY
Al
e.
AIONYIIOY
I(D
f.
GEMIETOKAH
Al
g-
GEMirrOKAH
Al
h.
EMIZTOKAH
Al
i.
EMIZTOKAH
149
380.
f.
OEMIZTOKAH
ME
g-
0EMIZTOKAH
ME
(XAP) h.
GEMIZTOKAH
ME
i.
0EMIZTOKAH
ME
GEMIZTOKAH
Al
k.
KAPAIXOY
2<t>

1.
KAPAIXOY
ME
m.
nPOTIM
ME
n.
nPOTIM
A!
ro.
nPOTIM
ME
1a-
KAPAIXOY
Al
4>.
nPOTIM
ME
c.
nPOTIM
4!
d.
nPOTIM
io
e.
nPOTIM
ME
f.
AQPO0E
Al
Uncertain1
London (Sv. 49, 28), gr. 16.88f; ANS =
Naville (Bement) 1128, gr. 16.67t; Is-
tanbul, gr. 16.77f
i5o
b. AION E
c. OEM?
(nOAY) d. npo?
*ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.20f; Hamburger
(von Kaufmann) 250, letter uncertain,
gr. 3.90; Copenhagen {SNG 245), letter
Athens (Delos Hd. A, 80; Sv. 49, 33),
gr. 4.00; Petsalis Coll., gr. 8.98t
Berlin (Sv. 49, 32), gr. 8.91
T10A-NI NO SYMBOL
Hemidrachms1
382.
a. An
(nOAY) b. 0E
London (BMC 495), gr. 1.91; L. Mele-
topoulos Coll., gr. 1.77; Romanos Coll.
(Sv. 49, 85), gr. 1.94
Athens (Delos Hd. B, 146), gr. 1.90|
Magistrates: OAN(OKAE), AHMOZOE,
AIANTI, (DIAOAO, AnOAAftNIA, AIO-
NYZIOY, GEMirrOKAH, KAPAIXOY,

nPOTIM, AQP09E
Months: A, B, T, A, E, Z, K, A, M (?)
Controls: Al, ME, ZO
Two obverse dies (Nos. 368 and 373 as illustrated on Plate 87) are carried
over from the preceding year, thus establishing the contiguity of the issues of
TIMAPXOY - NIKArO and nOAYXAPM - NIKOr.
In contrast to earlier three-magistrate strikings, this emission is light and
the distribution of coinage spotty. No reverses are recorded for months H, 0
and I. M is not certain but a Berlin tetradrachm (Sv. 49, 31) with A2P09E
seems to show a later stage of the obverse die than specimens with KAPAIXOY
and nPOTIM reverses, indicating that Dorotheos held office in M or N. In the
present catalogue OAN(OKAE) is known only from drachms dated A in the
Berlin and London Cabinets. Sundwall, however, lists two tetradrachms in-
scribed QANOKAE: from a publication by Engel (RN, 1885, p. 19 with A on the
amphora) and from the von Prokesch-Osten Collection. Neither piece can be
checked but there is no reason to doubt the readings, confirmed as they are
by the drachms.
1 The Athens hemidrachm which Svoronos includes with this issue (Plate 49, 36) belongs
with the coinage of Polemon and Alketes.
151
On the evidence available, QANOKAE struck briefly in A, AHMOZOE in A
and B, and AIANTI in B. Thereafter, a single third magistrate is associated with
each month. A heavy concentration of coinage occurs under Themistokles with
at least four obverse and sixteen reverse dies in operation during zeta. One of
the two tetradrachms dies used by Themistokles (No. 879) is remarkable for
its durability; some fifteen different reverses are combined with it over a
period of four months.
AQPOOE - AIOO FOREPART OF LION 164/3 B.C.
Tetradrachms
383.
384.
(AflP
AGE
O0E)
385.
386.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
b.
c.
AIOKAE
AIOKAE
ME

(Plate 89)
London (Sv. 46, 15), gr. 16.96 \; Athens,
gr. 16.75 \
*D
London, gr. 16.70f; Copenhagen (SNG
225), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.71f
Al
Andreopoulos Coll.
ME
Empedocles Coll. = Weber 8516, gr. 16.59
ME
Berlin, gr. 16.49; Athens, control letters
uncertain, gr. 16.59 \
A Al Zygman Coll. = Schlessinger (Hermitage 2)
981 = Sv. 46, 16, gr. 16.98 \
A Al ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.95f
A(?) Al Glasgow (Hunt. 106), gr. 16.88f
d.
Evelpidis Coll., gr. 16.70; Berlin, gr. 16.70
e.
AIOKAE
Al
Berry Coll., gr. 16.89 \
f.
AIOKAE
Al
Ciani, Dec. 1921, 59
g-
AIOKAE
ME
Berlin (Sv. 46, 17), gr. 16.91
a.
AIOKAE
388.
c.
AHMHOYAI
ZO
"Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3205), gr.
16.73|
d.
AHMHOYA!
Z4>
Berlin, gr. 15.71 (worn)
a.
AHMHOYAI
Paris (Sv. 46, 18), gr. 16.83t
b.
AHMHOYA
ME
Paris, gr. 16.34 (pierced) \
a.
AHMHOYA
zd>
b.

Romanos Coll. = Weber 3517, gr. 16.90
AHMHOYA
AI/?Z(D
c.
AHMHOYA
zo
d.
NIKOAQ
Al
Commerce 1956; Athens, amphora letter
,-e.
NIKOAQ
Al
Gotha, gr. 16.41
rU
NIKOAQ
ME
Commerce (Kessab Hd.)
Mg-
AIZXINHZ
ME
Florange-Ciani (Allotte de la Fuye) 407,
ll
II
gr. 16.50
II
1 L*.
NIKOAQ
Al
Paris (de Luynes 2113; Sv. 46, 19), gr.
17.00t
L b.
153
f. ANTIAOX
g. ANTIAOX
h. ANTIAOX
M ME
? Al
??
Paris, gr. 16.77 \
Berlin, gr. 16.72
Drachms
391.
(AflP) a.
(AQPO0E- b. AIOKAE
AIO(D)
(AGP) f-c. AHMOY
Afl - AIO
392.
a. AHMOY A
(AfiP) Lb. AHMOY?
393.
AHOY
394.
a. NIK

(AflPO b. All
Lion's
head)
c. AIO
d. XAP
Athens (DelosHd. B, 73; Sv. 46,25), gr. 4.08f
Berlin (Sv. 46, 26), gr. 4.22; London
{BMC 392), gr. 3.71; Berlin, gr. 8.67
Berlin, gr. 3.91
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.25f; Berlin (Sv.46,
27), gr. 4.21; Athens (Salamis Hd.), letter
*ANS, gr. 4.05f; Cambridge {SNG 8234),
gr. 8.78I1
Paris; Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 961,
gr. 4.00
Athens (Sv.46, 28), gr.4.00; Totten Coll.
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.27f; London, gr.
3.89; Paris; Commerce (Attic Hd.), gr.
4.14f; Vienna, letter uncertain, gr. 3.81;
Modena (Sv. 46, 29), letter uncertain, gr.
4.00; Berlin, letter uncertain, gr. 3.89
*Berry Coll., gr. 4.17f; Berlin, gr. 8.88;
Berlin, gr. 4.07; Glasgow (Hunt. 107), gr.
3.97; Commerce 1959, gr. 4.11; Athens
(Sv.46, 80), letter uncertain, gr. 4.17;
Paris, letter uncertain; Budapest = Hirsch
(Weber) 1718, letter uncertain, gr. 8.99f
Berlin (Sv. 46, 81), gr. 3.90; Paris; Com-
merce (Attic Hd.), letter uncertain, gr.
4.14f; L. Meletopoulos Coll., letter un-
certain, gr. 3.95; Petsalis Coll., letter un-
certain, gr. 8.35 \
1 The amphora letter is read as E in the Sylloge. This is possible but I think not entirely
certain.
(AQP) e. ANT M ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.17 \; Athens (Delos
Hd. B, 72; Sv. 46, 82), gr. 3.58
AS - Al NO SYMBOL
Hemidrachms
395.
b. Al
c.
Athens, gr. 1.75 \
*ANS-ETN, gr. 1.70f
XA Athens, gr. 1.751
Magistrates: AIOKAE, AHMHOYAI, NIKOAfi,
AIIXINHZ, AIONY, XAPMI, ANTIAOX
Months: A, B, Y, A, E, Z, H, 6, K, A, M2
Controls: Al, ME, Z<D3
Comparatively few tetradrachms are known for this issue but the output of
drachms is quite extensive. Although all months except I are represented,
coinage seems to have been concentrated at the beginning and the end of
the year.
The sequence of magistrates is highly irregular. All seven reverses for alplia
are uninscribed; apparently there was no third official functioning during the
first month of this emission. AHMHOYAI served for four consecutive months
(r-Z) while AIIXINHZ took over from NIKOAfl in H and continued in office during

9. In the form AHMHOYAI we have another attempt at precise identification
similar to that of NIKOI~NE three years earlier. The addition of the patronymic
OYAI(AAOY) must surely have been intended as a way of distinguishing this
Demetrius from another man of the same name.
Three control combinations are in use throughout the issue: A I, ME and Z<J>.
These are identical with those employed by nOAYXAPM - NIKOr.
1 This coin is illustrated by Svoronos (Plate 52,17) with the issue of AIONYZI - AIONYZI.
a Sundwall lists a Berlin coin with N on the amphora, our No. 389L The letter is poorly cut
but it is almost certainly M.
3 TIE and ZO appear in Sundwall. Kambanis' notebook queries both readings and it seems
to me likely that the combinations are in reality ME and 2ft>.
155
ANTIOXOZ-NIKOf ELEPHANT 168/2 B.C.
Tetradrachms
(Plate 40)
396.
397.
a.
ANTIAOX
ME
rb.
ANTIAOX
ZQ
1 c-
NIKQNH
ME
ANTIOXOZ
|d.
ABPQN
ME
1 e-
EIPHNA
1 f-

ME
EIPHNA
ME
ANTIOXOZ
La.
ANTIAOX
ZQ
b.
ANTIAOX
ZQ
c.
NIKQNH
ZQ
d.
NIKQNH
zo
ANTIOXOZ
e.
ABPQN
zo
f.
EIPHNA
ZQ
g-
EIPHNA
ZQ
h.
ZKYMNOZ
ZO
i.
ZKYMNOZ
ZQ
156
398.
399.
400.
npQTorE
ZQ
London (BMC828; Sv. 44,19),gr.16.17 \; Athens
(Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.67 \
a.
npTorE
Zfi
Seyrig Coll. (Kessab Hd.), gr. 16.84 \
b.
npnTorE
ME
Lockett Coll. (SNG 3537) from Halmyros Hd.,
gr. 16.48f
c.
ZAPAIH
ZO
Berlin, gr. 16.45
d.
ZO

MENAN
Seyrig CoU. (Kessab Hd.), gr. 16.85f
re-
MENAN
Z(D
Berlin (Sv. 44, 23), gr. 16.78
1f-
MENAN
ME
lg-
ArA9A
ZQ
London, gr. 16.47f
1a-
ZAPATTI
Zfl
Miinz. u.Med. List 154, 84, gr. 16.52 \; Paris,
gr. 16.86 \; Berlin (Sv. 44, 20), gr. 16.47; An-
dreopoulos Coll.
|b.
ZAPATU
ZO
1 c-
ZAPAni
Z(D
Berry CoU., gr. 16.20 \
d.
EYNOM
l(?)ZQ
Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 910 = Sv. 44, 21,
gr. 16.85
Le.
MENAN
157
b. ABP T ANS-ETN, gr. 8.90f; Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr.
8.95f; Berlin (Sv. 44, 8), gr. 4.10; Athens (Delos
Hd. B, 24; Sv. 44, 7), letter uncertain, gr. 8.95;
Berlin, letter uncertain, gr. 8.48
c. EIP A ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.20f
d. ZKY E *ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.10f; London, gr. 3.88;
Athens (Sv. 44, 12), gr. 8.87; Paris, letter un-
certain
e. EYM E Athens (Delos Hd. B, 26; Sv. 44, 17), gr. 8.57;
Copenhagen (SNG 214), letter uncertain, gr. 8.99f
ANTI - KA NO SYMBOL
Hemidrachms
403.
a. IK * Athens (Delos Hd. B, 81; Sv. 44, 14), gr. 1.80;
Leningrad (Sv. 44, 15), gr. 1.24; Baltatzi Coll.
(Sv. 44, 11), gr. 2.00; Berlin, gr. 1.95
b. EY London {BMC 825), gr. 1.88; Athens (Delos
Hd. B, 27; Sv. 44, 18), gr. 2.00; Philipsen Coll.
(Sv. 44, 18), gr. 2.04; Berlin, gr. 2.00
Magistrates: ANTIAOX, N1KQNH, ABPflN, EIPHNA,
IKYMNOI, EYMAXOI, TTPQTOrE, ZAPATTI,
EYNOM, MENAN, ArAGA, HrHMfl, APIZTO

Months: A, B, T, A, E, Z, H(?), 0, I, K, A
Controls: ME, 2<t>, ISl
Two second magistrates served with ANTIOXOI during 163/2 B.C.: NIKOr
for alpha and beta, KAPAIXOZ for the remainder of the year. Again we have what
seems to be a light coinage with no more than two tetradrachm obverses in
simultaneous operation during any one month. No reverses are known with
Halthough there very likely was coinage in that monthor a date later than A.
Both Skymnos and Eumachos were in office during E and their order is
established by Obverse 397. Die breaks in front of Athena's nose appear only
on coins with the reverses of Eumachos.1 Month I may also have been shared
but the amphora letter on the one die of Eunom... is not certain. The single
1 The A with EYMAXOZ recorded by Sundwall for a Photiades tetradrachm is an instance
of erroneous transcription. The catalogue describes the piece as having a A as a graffito on the
obverse.
158
reverse inscribed APIZTO has been placed at the end of entry No. 400 since the
amphora letter is illegible. Sundwall reads the date as A? but this is not pos-
sible for the obverse die in its association with APIZTO shows no trace of a die
flaw above the protomes which is visible on some coins with ZAPAT7I and on all
later ones. In all probability APIZTO served in H.
In the monogram H placed immediately after the name of NIKflN we have
still another instance of specific identification. This is presumably a combi-
nation of K and H and may be either a patronymic or a demotic.
As long ago as 1838 the first magistrate of this striking was identified as
Antiochos Epiphanes and the issue dated to 176 B.C. at which time Antiochos
was living in Athens before his accession to the Syrian throne. This theory of
Rathgeber1 was adopted by Beul6 who felt that the symbol was decisive con-
firmation of an association which might otherwise be considered dubious inas-
much as the name Antiochos was common enough in Attic prosopography.
From the time of Rathgeber and Beule the attribution of the elephant emission to
Antiochos IV in 176 B.C. has been one of the few fixed points in the New Style
chronology and has undoubtedly influenced the dating of the series as a whole.
Beule himself would have had difficulty in reconciling this late date with a be-
ginning of the coinage in 323 B.C. had he attempted to place the issues in order
but later numismatists who had abandoned Beul6's thesis that the series began
with the death of Alexander were able to work out a plausible arrangement.
The three-magistrate striking of Antiochos must have been preceded by the
twenty-eight issues with monograms and abbreviated names and probably by
some three-magistrate issues as well, which would push the beginnings of the
coinage back into the late third century. During that period 229 B.C. was an

eminently suitable date on historical grounds for a reorganization of the
Athenian mint.
When Alfred Bellinger proposed a lowering of this date to c. 180 B.C. he
recognized that Antiochos IV was thereby eliminated but, being reluctant to
abandon the Seleucid connection entirely, he suggested another Antiochos as
a candidate for the mint magistracy. The man who later was to rule as Anti-
ochos VII was in exile at the time, that is c. 148 B.C., and Bellinger thought
that the elephant issue might indicate a hitherto unsuspected connection be-
tween this prince and the city of Athens.
If, however, the New Style coinage begins c. 196 B.C. one must jettison both
Antiochos IV and Antiochos VII. The date of the present issue is 168/2 B.C.
which, to be sure, brings it within the short reign of Antiochos V but I doubt
that anyone would seriously maintain that the child king of Syria served as
mint magistrate of Athens. One could argue, of course, that fixing any striking
1 G. Rathgeber, Annali dell' Inst, di Corrisp., arch., 1838, pp. 32-36.
159
to a single year is a hazardous procedure and that the coinage might well have
started slightly earlier, say in 197 B.C., which would just barely bring the ele-
phant issue within the lifetime of Antiochos IV. One could further argue that
the mint magistracy was an honor bestowed in absentia on either Antiochos IV
or V and did not imply a personal connection with the mint. Undoubtedly this
was true in the later issue with the name of Mithradates but one must then
explain the omission of the regnal title. Mithradates is BASIAE MI0PAAATHI;
why should Antiochos be merely ANTIOXOS? The form would be permissible
in the case of a prince, lese majesty in the case of a king.
It seems to me that we must break away entirely from the attractive but
perhaps somewhat romantic theory of Rathgeber and consider whether one
really need go beyond the citizen rolls of Athens for the mint magistrate Anti-
ochos. A compilation of the officials whose names appear on the coinage (see
pages 547-584) shows a frequent recurrence of names, rare ones among them,
which strongly indicates that the same man served various terms with the mint,
often holding the third magistracy first and later the first or second post. All
three names of the annual magistrates of the elephant striking are to be found
on earlier issues. A NIKOr is third magistrate in 167/6 (MENEA - ETTirENO) and
second magistrate in 165/4 (FTOAYXAPM - NIKOr) as well as in 163/2 B.C. The
name is not uncommon but the sequence of posts within a period of a few years
is suggestive. Evidence is firmer in the case of KAPAIXOS whose name is rare;
almost certainly the third magistrate of 165/4 (nOAYXAPM - NIKOr) is the
second magistrate of 163/2 and quite likely the first magistrate of KAPA1X -
EPrOKAE about ten years later. An ANTIOXOZ is third magistrate in 166/5
(TIMAPXOY - NIKArO) and I believe that the same man is the first official of

the issue under discussion.
Who can say why Antiochos of Athens chose a Seleucid elephant for his
coinage? It may have been nothing more than a sportive reference to his name,
just as a commoner in this country, for example, whose name happened to be
Romanoff might conceivably select the double-headed eagle of the tsars as his
personal cachet.1 The choice could have been motivated by loftier considera-
1 It is interesting to note that von Prokesch-Osten in 1852 (Inedita, p. 263) had reached more
or less the same conclusion with respect to the name and symbol of this issue. He comments as
follows: "Ich erlaube mir zu diesen Miinzen nur die Bemerkung beizufiigen, dass mir der Name
Antiochus, Mithradates, Ariarathus u.s.w., die sich auf einigen finden, durchaus keinen Anhalts-
punct zu chronologischen Bestimmungen zu geben scheinen. Nichts ist naturlicher, als dass diese
Namen auch von Magistraten getragen wurden und dass diese selbst die Symbole der Konige
annahmen, deren Namen sie trugen."
Von Prokesch-Osten weakens his case by associating Mithradates whose title is given on the
coinage with Antiochos and Ariarathes who are not thus precisely identified, but otherwise his
point is, it seems to me, valid.
tions. This was the first issue of Athenian coinage after the death of Epiphanes.
In adopting a Seleucid device for his coins Antiochos may have been paying
tribute to the great friend and benefactor of Athens.
9ECKDPA - IflTAI WINGED FULMEN 162/1 B.C.
(Plate 41)
Tetradrachms
401.
406.
a.
HrHMfl
ME
Athens (Delos Hd. T, 162; Sv. 48, 4), gr. 16.45|
b.
HPAKflN
IO
*Yale Univ., gr. 16.67f
HPAKflN
I<D
*Paris, gr. 16.58f; London, gr. 15.07f
ra.
HPAKflN
Ifl
|b.

Athens
HPAKflN
Ifl
Budapest, gr. 16.85f
He.
HPAKflN
ME
Paris, gr. 15.68f
Hd.
OlAHM
Xt>
Berlin, gr. 16.47
||e.
II
(PIAHM
*D
Copenhagen {SNG 236; Sv. 48, 2), gr. 16.92f
II
||a.
HrHMfl
Ifl
Empedocles Coll.
||b.
HPAKflN
Ifl
Stamires Coll. = Jameson 1195 (Sv. 48,1) =
II
Sotheby (Delbeke) 156, gr. 16.92|
1 Lc-
HPAKflN
Ifl
L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.70
L d.
HPAKflN
161
408.
409.
a.
ZQKPA
ME
Cambridge {SNG 8211), gr. 16.65f
b.
nOAYKAH
Z(D
Leningrad (Sv. 48, 6), gr. 15.661
c.
ATTOAAQ
ia
Romanos Coll. (Sv. 48, 7, commerce), gr. 16.64
d.
AT70AAQ
ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.72f
e.
AAIN
la
a.
apift
IO

Vatican (Sv. 48, 8), gr. 16.80; Berlin, gr. 16.00
b.
AMOIK
ME
ANS = Naville (Bement) 1126, gr. 16.85f
c.
AMQIK
ME
Glasgow (Hunt. Ill), gr. 16.45 \
d.
AMOIK
ME
e.
NIKOK
ME
f.
NIKOK
zn
Stephens Coll.
g-
OAAAI
ZO
Metaxas Coll. (Sv. 48, 12), gr. 16.97; Vienna,
amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.56
h.
OAAA1
ME
Berlin, gr. 16.62
a.
AMOIK
162
? Athens (Sv. 48, 18), gr. 4.18
K Vienna (Sv. 48, 19), gr. 8.72
? Berlin, gr. 4.11
GE-Zfl
Athens (Sv. 48, 20), gr. 1.51f
1 hemidrachm
Magistrates: HITIMfl, HPAKflN, <DIAHM, EYKAHZ,
FIEIZflN, ZflKPA, nOAYKAH, ATlOAAfl, AAIN,
APIZT, AMOIK, NIKOK, (DAAAI
Months: A, B, T, A(?), E, Z, H, 9, l(?), K, A, M, N
Controls: ME, ZO(A), Zfl
The transfer of Obverse 401 from the issue of ANTIOXOZ - KAPAIXOZ to
that of 0EOOPA -ZflTAZ establishes the contiguity of the two strikings. It is
noteworthy that the same third magistrate, HTHMfl, served for the last month
of 163/2 and at the very beginning of 162/1 B.C. His service during the latter
year cannot be fixed by the amphora letters, which are indistinct on both
the Athens and Empedocles coins, but die flaws connected with Obverse
406 determine the sequence of magistrates. An imperfection in the clefl
of the chin is faint on No. 406a, small but clear on Nos. 406b-e and pro-
nounced on Nos. 406f-j; a break below the chin is invisible on No. 406a,
noticeable on all specimens struck from the reverse dies of HPAKflN, OIAHM
and EYKAHZ.
HPAKflN, as given by Svoronos, is the correct form of the name. Beule,

Sundwall and Kambanis record HPAKAflN, but the A is definitely omitted as in
the case of HPAKfl, third magistrate under HPA - APIZTOcD.
Although the amphora letter of No. 407c is uncertain, TTEIZflN is known to
have held office during delta on the evidence of a Halmyros Hoard coin listed by
Kambanis. No. 410b is our only proof that NIKOK served during A as well as M.
Except for this overlapping and the division of responsibility during A, the
correlation of third magistrates and months is regular. Two reverse dies in-
dubitably inscribed N indicate an intercalary year.
g. API
(0EOQ) h. AM
i. Nl
Hemidrachm
412.
AP
163
Tetradrachtns
413.
AlOrE - TTOZEI DIONYSOS 161 /0 B.C.
(Plate 42)
EZTI[AI]OZ A I(D Petsalis Coll. = Baltatzi Coll. (Sv. 46, 2) =
Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN, 1912, 1816), gr.
16.74f
414.
a.
EZTIAIOI A ME Milan (Sv.46, 1), gr. 16.68; Vienna, gr. 16.20
AHMH B ME Berlin, gr. 16.58; Berlin, gr. 16.72; Athens, gr.
16.90
415.
416.
a.
EZTIAIOI
ZO
Moscow
b.
AHMH
ZO
rc.
Al

AHMH
London (BMC 872), gr. 16.56 \
jd.
AHMH
Al
Paris, gr. 16.25f
1 e-
AHMH
ME
Paris, gr. 16.89f
1 f-
AIO
ME
Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 3204), gr. 16.86f;
|g-
AIO
ME
Berlin, gr. 15.92
jh.
AIO
ME
La.
AHMH
Al
Berlin, gr. 16.88
b.
AHMH
Al
Paris (de Luynes 2095; Sv. 46, 8), gr. 16.85|
c.
AHMH
164
418.
d.
AflPOQE
IO
e.
AQPO0E
ME
Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 927, gr. 17.50 (sic)
f.
AfiPOQE
Paris, gr. 16.42f
g-
QEOAOT
Al
Romanos Coll.; Zygman Coll., gr.16.81f;
Athens, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.45f
h.
GEOAOT

ME
i.
EPMOKPA
ME
Stathatou Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Berlin
(Sv. 46, 9), gr. 16.77; Johns Hopkins Univ.,
gr. 16.66
a.
AQPOQE
Al
Berlin (Sv. 46, 7), gr. 16.19
b.
QEOAOT
ict>
Berlin (Sv. 46, 8), gr. 16.44
c.
EPMOKPA
Al
*The Hague, gr. 16.50
Aior - noi THYRSOS
Drachms
419.
(Fillet-
ed thyrsos)
a.
Em
b.
AH
c.
Al
d.
KA
London, gr. 4.02; Petsalis Coll., gr. 8.78
Vienna, gr. 3.65; Athens (Delos Hd. A, 11;
165
3 hemidrachms: 1 obverse, 1 reverse die
Magistrates: EZTIAIOZ, AHMH, AIO, d>l-
Alfl, HrEMA, AQPO0E, 0EOAOT, EP-
MOKPA, KA(AAKDQN)
Months: A, B, T, E, Z, H, 0
Controls: Al, ME, I4>
The standing figure used as a symbol by AlOrE-nOIEl is described by
Beule as Dionysos, by Sundwall and Kambanis as Demeter and by Head in the
Historia Numorum as either Dionysos with thyrsos or Demeter with sceptre.
On the tetradrachms the long staff held in the raised left hand has a pronounced
bulbous termination indicative of the thyrsos; on the drachms, which have
only the staff as a symbol, the representation is certainly that of a thyrsos.
Some reverses (cf. Nos. 413 and 414a) clearly show a small kantharos in
the outstretched right hand. The rather elaborate corolla might be either
ivy or grain but the other attributes are sufficient to identify the figure as
Dionysos.
nOZEl is found on a number of reverses. On others only FFOIE is used and
on still others the final I is confused with the wreath or off flan so that the
original form of the inscription cannot be determined.
This again is a light coinage judged by surviving dies and specimens. It
seems to have been concentrated in the early months of the year with no
striking in A and nothing after 0. Two magistrates, OlAlft and HrEMA, served
in month E. There is no evidence for their order save that the one obverse

known to have been used by OIAIR is otherwise associated with months B and
r while one of HTEMA continues in operation during Z, H and 0.
In the present catalogue the magistrate KA is recorded only on the fractional
coinage. Beule, however, lists a Turin tetradrachm with KAAAIOflN.1 Al-
though this is not included among the entries of Svoronos and Kambanis,
there is no reason to reject the precise reading given by Beule. The amphora
letter on the Turin coin is described as "M ecrase"; until this somewhat dubious
reading can be verified it seems advisable to regard the exact month of Kal-
liphon's tenure as uncertain.
1 This coin is not among the holdings of either the Civic or the Archaeological Museum in
Turin. It may be in the collection of the Royal Library which is for the moment inaccessible or
it may, of course, have been in a private collection to which Beule had access.
AXAIOZ - HAI CORNUCOPIAE WITH GRAIN 160/59 B.C.
(Plate 48)
Tetradrachms
421.
422.
424.
a.
EYAHMOZ
AI
Berlin, gr. 16.53
b.
EYAHMOZ
ME
Athens (Delos Hd. B, 88), gr. 15.70f
c.
itttionikoz
ME
Athens (Delos Hd. I", 55; Sv. 45, 28), gr.
16.60
d.
KAEAPX
ME
e.

Paris, gr. 16.75f
KAEAPX
ME
Marseilles (Sv. 45, 24), gr. 16.80
f.
EYAH
ME
Athens (Delos Hd. AH), gr.16.03t; The
Hague, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.70
g-
EYAH
ME
Athens (Delos Hd. 1", 60), gr. 16.45f
h.
HPAKAEI
ME
Leipzig
a.
EYAHMOZ
ZO
London, gr. 15.68f; Berlin, gr. 16.71
b.
NIKANSP
G(?)
ME
Berlin, gr. 15.77
c.
EPMOKPA
ME
*ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr.16.47f; Berlin
(Sv. 45, 28), gr. 16.78; Athens (Delos Hd.
AH), gr. 16.56f
d.
EPMOKPA
ZO
167
426.
1 c'
KAEAPX
ME
|d.
KAEAPX
Al
EPMOKPA
Al
a.
HPAKAEI
ME
b.
rtY0OKAHZ
ME
c.
AnOAAOAQ
Al

rd.
ATTOAAOAfl
!e-
ATTOAAOA
ZO
1f-
ATTOAAOAQ
jg-
MHTPOAQ
ME
|h.
MHTPOAfl
1 *-
ZQZIBIOZ
ME
1 j-
ZflZIBIOZ
ME
jk.
ZQZIBIOZ
ME
1 l-
ZQZIBIOZ
ME
1 a-
nyeoKAHz
ME
b.
fTYGOKAHZ
i68 The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens
427.
| m.
IflSIBIOZ
SO
Halmyros Hd.
1 a-
TTY0OKAHI
20
Berlin (Sv. 45, 29), gr. 16.88
1 b-
nyeoKAHZ
Chiha Coll.
1 c-
AT70AAOAQ
Al
Athens (Delos Hd. AH), gr. 16.12 \
Ld.
AnOAAOA
Schlessinger (Hermitage 1) 186 = Hess 208,
e.

449, gr. 16.80
MHTPOAfl
ME
Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.71
f.
MHTPOAfl
ZO
Athens (Delos Hd. T, 59), gr. 16.55 \
g-
IflllBIOI
Al
ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.09 \
AXAI - HAI CORNUCOPIAE
Drachms
411.
(AX-HA) a. EY
b. inno
(AXA) c. EPM
Berlin, gr. 4.09; Athens (Sv. 45, 33), gr.4.10
Copenhagen (SNG 222), gr. 8.99f; Gotha,
gr. 3.91; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 37; Sv. 45,
34), gr. 3.85; Berlin, gr. 3.81
*ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.21f; Athens (Delos
Hd. B, 170; Sv. 45, 35), gr. 4.10
AX-HAI
Hemidrachms
428.
NIK * Athens, gr. 1.85t; Herakleion
Magistrates: EYAHMOI, NIKANflN, inTTONIKOI,
KAEAPX, EYAH, NIKANflP, EPMOKPA, HPA-
KAEI, FTYeOKAHZ, ATTOAAOAfl, MHTPOAfl,
IflllBIOZ
Months: V, A, E, Z, 9, I, K, A, M
Controls: Al, ME, 10
169
diecutter's error for NIKANflP. However, the magistrates are seemingly asso-
ciated with different months; neither amphora letter is clear but Berlin reads
r as likely with NIKANflN and 9 as the most probable date for NIKANS2P.
Two dies carry over from earlier issues into the emission of AXAIOZ - HAI.
Both links present certain problems. Obverse 418 was used for tetradrachms of
months Z, H and 0 under A10l"E-nOZEI. The same die was employed for
strikings of month 0 under AXAIOZ - HAI. On Plate 42 coins of the two years
are in juxtaposition and one can see on the AXAIOZ - HAI specimen a die break
at the top extending from the helmet crest through the border of dots which
does not appear on any of the AlOrE -ITOZEI pieces. It is fortunate that we
have this indication of the order for the amphora letters provide no decisive
evidence. The longevity of Obverse 418 is somewhat startling but the span of
months is not so extensive as it seems at first glance. Theta is the last month
during which coinage is recorded for A10I"E -nOZEl and the ensuing emission
of AXAIOZ - HAI is sparsely represented in the early months of the year. No
specimens are known to have been struck in A, B and H. This means that the
life of Obverse 418, if one assumes continuous use for all months of minting
operation, extended over seven or eight months. Certainly this is a long time
for a single die but such durability is not unique. During the magistracy of
HPA - APIZTOO, for example, Obverse 335 is known to have been employed
for at least seven months (E through A). And there is, of course, the possibility,
which is strengthened by the fact that our record shows coinage for only the
one month under AXAIOZ-HAI, that the die was not in continuous use. It
may have been put aside as still serviceable at the end of the one year and then
overlooked during the early months of the next. It is curious that the same

third magistrate, EPMOKPA, is associated with this die in the final month of
161/0 and again with its re-appearance in 160/59 B.C. One wonders if some
responsibility on the part of the third magistrate for custody of the dies may
be indicated.
The second link, illustrated on Plate 43, is in the fractional coinage. Ob-
verse 411, the one die used for drachms of 0EOOPA -ZflTAZ, is still in service
two years later under AXAIOZ - HAI. For the intervening drachms of AlOrE -
TTOZEI we have a different die, No. 419. It seems likely, however, that our
evidence is incomplete and that Obverse 411 was employed over all three years,
in association with Obverse 419 during 161/0 and alone for the earlier and later
issues. The fractional coinage of the three years is scanty: 36 coins, 2 obverse
and 16 reverse dies in all. Fifteen reverses are recorded in combination with a
single tetradrachm obverse (No. 379 of nOAYXAPM - NIKOI"); it would not be
surprising to find one obverse coupled with an even greater number of reverses
in the relatively light drachm coinage.
170
\ 5
- 159/8 ..
429.
\).
0.
430.
431.

432.
&. ?
1). ?
. ?
;.
>.
0.
6.
, : ,
171
433.
434.
435.
436.
*.
&
11).

| .
*.
\3.
0.
(1.
172
5 5
437.
438.
439.
5-, . 16.64|; ( . ,
177), . 16.40|
& .
;1.
\).
0.

()
\\>.
*.
\>.
, :
173
91 -: 11 &, 65
10 : 2 , 2
&: , , , , ,
, , , ,
: , , , , , , , 1, ,
: , ,
166 3 &1> ^.
\1 & & &
. & & -
3.1. ,
5\&11, 1\ , ( ),
&' & &11 \! &3.
&13..
441.
442.
1).
0.

|1.
*.
&.
158/7 ..
(, 45-46)
.; & () 860, .
16.45
, . 16.79
, . 16.52; .,
( .), &. 16.69
&, . 16.17 \
, . 16.61; & (&3. .),
. &,
. 16.53 \
&, . 16.24
> ( 5905), . 16.75|
, . 16.60|; & (& .),
. 16.69|; (& .), .
174
\ - 5
443.
444.
).
1.
1.
-&.
1>.
(1.

*>
6.
- .
*5-, . 16.48|; , . 16.41
( .), . 16.62|;
: ,
175
445.
| .
- 1>.
446.
- 1>.
6.

| .
{.
176
\ , 8
447.
448.
449.
\>.
0.

- .
).
5.
0.
6.
*&115 (5. 47, 6), . 16.90; &&
(& .), & ,
. 16.61 V
. . . 154, 86 = ,
. 1955, 850 = , . 1954, 553,
. 16.69; , . 16.88|;
, . 16.88; ,
&
, . 16.25
01 ( ., 5 8209), .
16.451
&, . 16.54 \; .; -
( .; , . 16.57
, : ,
177
450.
451.
| 1.
11-
|.

*.
).
0.
<*
6-
178
, -
452.
453.
454.
- . ??
1-1).
;.
5.
0.

8. ?
1). ??
. = () 1607 =
. 47, 14, , . 16.75|
*0 1953; , . 16.15;
(. 47, 12), ^, .
16.88
* (. 47, 15), . 16.60
*- = & () 865, &\
16.64|; , &\ -
&, . 16.00
&, . 16.47; ^ (5 281),
. 16.17|
( 898), . 16.17!
, . 16.60 \
, . 16.46; , . 16.53
( .), . 16.58 \
015\ (. 109), . 16.19 \; -
, . 16.14; ( ) 270,
. 16.60; 1957, &. 16.68 \
, . 16.86]; , &
, . 16.45 \; 5, -
&, . 16.22 \; ,
, . 16.25|
, . 16.59 \
, . 16.05
611., . 15.55 \; .,
^, . 16.45 \; -
3.5 .,
: ,
179
455.
456.
457.
458.
* (- .), &. 16.84
. ?
1>.
. ?
1>.
\3.
, . 16.28
*&8 ( 2094), . 16.90|; ,
, . 16.20; &,
31& , . 16.18|; &-

(&.), ,
. 16.59|
, . 16.70|
(5. 47, 17), . 16.93; ,
. 16.56
, . 16.52|
(5. 47, 18), . 16.30
1956
^ (5 232; 5. 47, 16), .
16.68; , &1&
, . 16.28 \; ,
& (& .), . 16.65|; ,
. 16.35
*0 (5 233), . 16.611; -
( .), .16.77; , .
16.59
& (56 234; 5. 47, 20), .
16.78-; &, . 1927, 1390,
, . 16.56; (
401), , . 16.51|
(^ .), . 16.78 \
*3. . (8. 47, 19, ), .
17.05
( .), &. 16.771; &,
&; , ..,
118, &
459.
-'
(. 47, 21), . 3.70
E *ANS-ETN, gr. 8.92f; Copenhagen (SNG
285), letter uncertain, gr. 8.47t; Athens
(Delos Hd. B, 77; Sv. 47, 22), letter un-
certain, gr. 8.85t; Berlin (Sv. 47, 23),
9 London {BMC 899), gr. 4.08
? *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 78; Sv. 47, 24), gr.
8.35|
Magistrates: KAAAIKPA, MOZXI, EYMH, AEINOK,
HAIOAfl, MHTPO, MHTPOAI, ANTirONO,
BOYAAP, TTYeONI, AEONTOME, TlAMcD!
Months: A, B, T, A, E, Z, H, 9, I, K, A, M
Controls: AI(O), HP(A), ME, TTP(G), 10(A)
This issue of Epigenes and Sosandros is the most extensive of the Middle
Period thus far on the dual evidence of surviving specimens and known dies.
With so much material available there seems good reason to believe that the
diagrammatic outline in the Statistical Survey section (p. 668) presents an
accurate picture of mint activity during the year 158/7 B.C. The heavy concen-
tration of coinage came in the first four months of the year, during which period
obverse dies (Nos. 441 to 446) were coupled with an astonishing number of
reverses, as many as sixteen in the case of No. 443, and were in use for only a
few months. Toward the end of the year the output was lighter. Two obverses
(Nos. 458-4) lasted for seven months and three reverses is the largest number
recorded for a single month.

Twelve names appear in what seems to be an exact correlation of third
magistrates and months. Of interest is the form MHTPOAI associated with H.
The Al, most likely an abbreviated demotic, serves to distinguish this Metro-
(doros) from an immediate predecessor of the same name.
As one would expect with so large an issue there are a number of instances
of misreadings in the earlier records. ZflZAPX, listed as a third magistrate by
Beule and Sundwall, does not exist. As the former suggested, this is an erro-
neous version of BOYAAP. Kambanis reads H with ANTITONO on a coin in his
possession; the piece is not available but on all specimens of Antigonos that I
have seen the letter when clear is invariably 0. Three examples of TIE as a
control combination are given by Sundwall and Kambanis. The first, a coin in
the Photiades Collection, cannot be verified or corrected. The second, an Athens
HAI
460.
a. ANTI
b. TTY90
181
coin (our No. 453h), is inscribed ME while the third in The Hague Cabinet (our
No. 4491) is definitely marked FTP. Tin, listed for one reverse in the present
catalogue, is surely a diesinker's error for UPQ and not a separate control com-
bination. Finally there is the series of strange dates and control letters given
by Beule under TTAMOI with reference to Combe's publication of the Hunter
Collection.1 This is a rather inexplicable error inasmuch as the entries listed
by Combe pertain to the much later issues of EENOKAHI - APMOEENOZ.
FTOAEMQN - AAKETHZ TRIPOD 157/6 B.C.
(Plates 47-48)
Tetradrachms
461.
462.
463.
464.
0EOAOTOI A QZ
9E0A0T0Z
3M
9E0A0T0Z
a.
9E0A0T0Z
ZO

b.
9E0A0T0Z
zo
c.
9E0A0T0Z
zo
rd.
9E0A0T0Z
zn
1e-
9E0A0T0Z
ME
1f-
TTATPQ
ZO
|g-
TTATPfl
ZO
|h.
nATPfi
ZO
1 *-
rTATPfl
ZO
1h
nATPn
ME
Kambanis Coll.; London (BMC 498), gr.
16.70f; Tubingen, control letters un-
certain, gr. 16.71
Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.68 \; Paris,
gr. 16.67f; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr.
16.65 \
Bauer Coll., gr. 16.88f
182
465.
466.
1 Hk-
FIATPQ
ia
III1
ttatpq
11 lm-
AHMH
zo
| | |n.
AHMH
ZO)
| | | 0.
AHMH
zo
1 1 La-
GEOAOTOZ
1 i b.

ZQ
GEOAOTOZ
ZQ
1 1 c-
GEOAOTOZ
ZQ
1 1 d-
GEOAOTOZ
ME
1 L e.
TTATPQ
ZQ
1 *
TTATPQ
ZQ
1 g-
TTATPQ
ZQ
1 h-
ttatpq
ZQ
1 *
ttatpq
ZQ
1 ri-
ttatpq
ZQ
1 lk-
ttatpq
ZQ
11L
AHMH
The Middle Period: Catalogue 183
(Rogers) 378, gr. 16.59 \; Istanbul (Za-
rova Hd.), gr. 16.66 \; Istanbul (Zarova
Hd.), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.64 \
467.
468.
d.
nATPQ
ME
Cambridge (Lewis Coll., Corpus Christi Col-
lege), gr. 16.72 \; Ratto (Rogers) 872, con-
trol letters uncertain, gr. 16.80
e.
nATPn
ME
Cambridge (Grose 5918), gr. 16.67f; Athens
(Sv. 50, 19), gr. 16.80; Empedocles Coll.
f.
nATPn
ME
London, gr. 16.65 \; Toronto (Ontario
Hd.), gr. 16.66 \
g-
nATPn

Z<D
Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.70 \
h.
AHMH
ME
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.52f; Istanbul
(Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.54 \
i.
AHMH
ME
Berlin, gr. 16.83
i-
AlONYZOAfl
ME
Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.94 \; To-
ronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.76\; Istanbul
(Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.77 \
k.
ATTOAAOAQ
ME
ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.85f;
a.
nATP
Zfi
rb.
AlONYZOAft
ZO
*Commerce 1955, gr. 16.86f
-a.
AlONYZOAfl
za>
-b.
1f-
AYKI
ZO
ANS, gr. 16.48 \; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.),
gr. 16.62 \; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.79 \;
Ratto (Rogers) 877, gr. 16.65; Commerce
1953
g-
TIMS
zo
London, gr. 16.49 \; Athens, gr. 16.60f;
London, amphora letter uncertain, gr.
16.45 \
jh.
TIMS
ZO
Berlin, gr. 16.46
APIZ
ZO
Romanos Coll.
1 3-

APIZ
Z<J>
Gotha, gr. 16.48; Berlin, gr. 16.40
|k.
EYAI
ZO
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.75 \; Istan-
bul, gr. 16.72 \; Istanbul, gr. 16.62 \; Ber-
lin, gr. 16.40; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.81 \;
Ratto (Rogers) 878, amphora letter un-
certain, gr. 16.65
La.
ATTOAAOAfl
ME
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.71 \; Paris,
amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.04f
b.
AYKI
ME
Copenhagen (SNG 258), gr. 15.55 (dam-
aged)!; Berlin (Sv. 50, 23), gr. 16.55;
Karlsruhe; Schlessinger (Hermitage 2)
953, gr. 16.70; Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN
1912, 1840), gr. 16.60
c.
AYKI
ZO
Glasgow (Hunt. 118), gr. 16.65 \; von
Reutersward Coll., gr. 16.65f
d.
TIMS
ME
Copenhagen (SNG 254), gr. 16.45f; Vienna,
e.
TIMQN
ME
185
471.
472.
1 a-
AYKI
za
|b.
TlMfl
in
1 c-
TIMG
Zfi
d.
APIZ
ZQ
1 e-
APIZ
20
1 f-
EYAI
is-

ME
EYAI
zn
ih.
ASJPO
ZG
1 *
AQPO
1Q
a. EYAI
Lb. AJPO
c. AQPO
Z(t>
K Z(D
K IO
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.74f; Vienna,
control letters uncertain, gr. 16.54; Istan-
bul, amphora and control letters uncertain,
gr. 16.77f
ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.78 \;
Paris, gr. 16.58 \; Berlin (Sv.50, 24), gr.
16.71; London, gr. 16.82 \; Istanbul (Za-
rova Hd.), gr. 16.80 \; Istanbul (Zarova
Hd.), gr. 16.73 \; Zygman Coll., gr. 16.67 \
Andreopoulos Coll.
Paris, gr.16.63f; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.),
control letters uncertain, gr. 16.74f
Copenhagen (SNG 255), gr. 17.03t
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.74f
Athens, gr.16.65f; Tubingen, amphora
letter uncertain
Kambanis Coll.; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.),
gr. 16.76 \; Istanbul, amphora letter un-
certain, gr. 16.61 \
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.63 \; To-
ronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.70 \; Paris, gr.
16.52 \; Copenhagen (SNG 256), gr. 15.95
(pierced)f; Ratto (Rogers) 879, gr. 16.85;
H. Schulman, Apr. 1951, 3029
i86
c. AY I? Berlin, gr. 4.02; Athens (Delos Hd. K$, 30),
gr. 8.90f; Copenhagen {SNG 257), letter
d- API G * Berry Coll., gr. 4.16f; Berlin, gr. 8.98
e. EY ?Zflf?)1 Athens (Delos Hd. B, 145; Sv. 50, 28), gr.
8.60f
nOAE - AAKE NO SYMBOL
Hemidrachms
474.
a. n[
b. AIO
Athens (Delos Hd. B, 144; Sv. 49, 86), gr.
1.57
*Athens (Sv.50, 29), gr.l.82t
Magistrates: 9E0A0T0Z, TTATPQ, AHMH,
AIONYZOAU, ATTOAAOAfl, AYKI, Tl-
MflN, APIZ, EYAI, AQPO
Months: A, B, I", A, E, Z, H, 9, I, K
Controls: ME, Z4>, Zfl
Although somewhat lighter than the issue immediately preceding, this emis-
sion of Polemon and Alketes can still be considered an extensive coinage. Only
the first ten months of the year are represented, with the greatest amount of

mint activity in A and B. There is precise correspondence of months and third
magistrates. As was the case under Epigenes and Sosandros, one finds an
amazing number of reverse dies coupled with a single obverse, the seventeen
listed under No. 465 being a record thus far.
The amphora and control letters in the present catalogue are identical with
those listed by Kambanis except for one instance of FIE which he had noted.
The coin in question, from the Mavrokordatou Collection, is among the entries
of our No. 470b and shares a reverse die with tetradrachms which Kambanis
himself records as having ME below the amphora. A number of the ZO readings
cited by Sundwall and Beule can be corrected to ZQ; it is almost certain that the
pieces which are no longer available for checking had the same Zft form.
Sundwall, following Macdonald (NC 1899, p. 306), gives N as the amphora
letter on a Paris coin. The piece is catalogued here under No. 471b. On the Paris
1 In publishing this drachm Svoronos gives ZO? below the amphora. There is clearly an
inscription there but from an examination of the coin I am inclined to think it is Zfi rather than Ift>-
187
tetradrachm the date is somewhat blurred but other specimens from the same
reverse die have an unmistakable H.
One obverse, No. 468, has been included in the catalogue with certain reser-
vations. The other obverses of this issue can be divided into two distinct
stylistic groups: one engraver represented by Nos. 461-463 and a second by
Nos. 464-467 with 469-472. It is difficult to believe that No. 468 is from the
hand of either diecutter; in fact the barbaric quality of its workmanship seems
quite alien to this period. Only three tetradrachms from this obverse are known
and there is an error involving the two Rogers coins. As illustrated in the Ratto
Catalogue the obverses of Nos. 874 and 375 are not only from the same die but
surely the same coin, before and after the cast was trimmed at the bottom.
Furthermore, the gap in dates between delta and kappa on the three reverses
is strange. On the other hand, however, Obverse 468 is linked by the transfer
of reverses to Obverses 467 and 469, and although its style is unlike that of any
other tetradrachm die it is comparable with that of the one drachm die, No. 478.
Until new evidence is forthcoming, I think that No. 468, despite its pecul-
iarities, must be considered an official die.
MIKIQN - EYPYKAEI DIOSCURI 156/5 B.C.
(Plates 48-49)
Tetradrachms
475.
a. APIZTO A Zfl
b. APIZTO A ZQ
476.
r APIZTO A Z(D

477. I
La. APIZTO ?Zd>
b. APIZTO A ME
Paris (de Luynes 2106), gr. 16.80f; Berlin, gr.
16.82; Paris, gr. 16.85f; Giesecke Coll., gr.
16.88; Toronto (Ontario Hd.), amphora and
Oxford, gr.16.73f; London (BMC 459), gr.
16.50f; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.65f; Istanbul (Za-
rova Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.51f
Naples (Mus. Naz., Fiorelli 7144), gr. 16.88 \
Munich, gr. 16.42; Berlin, gr. 16.47; Copen-
hagen (SNG 265), gr. 15.56t; Oxford, gr. 16.42;
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.58 \; Toronto
(Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.76 \; Toronto (Ontario
Hd.), gr. 16.64 \; Commerce (Sv. 55,16, Feuar-
dent), gr. 16.80. Amphora letter clear only on
Munich coin
i88
c.
d.
e.
478.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g-
479.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g-
480.
a.
b.
c.
d.
APIITO A ME Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.70 \; Istanbul

(Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.54 \; Herakleion (Cretan
Hd. II), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.43 \
APIITO ?ME Vienna, gr. 16.54; Istanbul, gr. 16.57f
APirrO ?ME Berlin, gr. 16.66
AIKAH
ME
Paris, gr. 16.78f; Gotha, amphora letter un-
certain, gr. 16.31
AIKAH
ME
London, gr. 16.64f
AIKAH
ME
Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.71; Istanbul (Zarova Hd ),
gr. 16.68f
AIKAH
ME
Vatican; Berlin, gr. 16.58
AIOKAHI
ME
ANS-ETN (HalmyrosHd.),gr. 16.55f; Istanbul
(Zarova Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr.
16.67f; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), amphora letter
AIOKAHI
ME
Copenhagen (SNG 267), gr. 16.36f; Paris, gr.
16.69f; Bauer Coll. = Ratto (Rogers) 402, gr.
16.77f
AIOKAHI
Ifl
Tubingen, gr. 16.30
APirro
i<D
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.52f; Berlin, gr.
AIOKAHZ
za
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.)( gr. 16.64f
g-
BOYKATTHZ
ME
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.57 \
h.
BOYKATTHZ
ZQ
Sophia, gr. 16.06; Romanos Coll.
i.
BOYKATTHZ
ME
Wulff Coll., gr. 16.72; London, gr. 15.10f
ri-
BOYKATTHZ
Zft
ANS-ETN, gr. 16.88f; Ratto (Rogers) 408, gr.
|k.

16.70
BOYKATTHZ
Zfl
Berlin, gr. 15.05
La.
BOYKATTHZ
za
Dewing Coll., gr. 16.62f; Commerce 1955
rb.
BOYKATTHZ
zo
Berlin, gr. 16.81
La.
BOYKATTHZ
ZcD
Karlsruhe; Athens = Sv. 55, 19, commerce,
gr. 16.05f
b.
BOYKATTHZ
ME
483.
ra.
ZQKPATHZ
ME
|b.
ZQKPATHZ
ME
1 c-
nAPA
1 d-
TTAPA
ZO
Tubingen, gr. 16.63; Berlin, gr. 16.24; Athens
(Sv. 55, 21), gr. 16.50f; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.),
gr. 16.70f; Cahn 68, 1847, amphora letter un-
certain, gr. 16.74
1 e-
T7APA
ZO
Turin (Mus. Ant., Fabretti 8064), gr. 16.70
1 f-
nAPA
ZO
Zygman Coll., gr. 16.77 \; Brunswick, gr.
16.40 \
1 g-
TTAPA
ZO
The Hague, gr. 16.40
L h.
EYAN
ZO

i.
EYAN
ZO
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.65f; Moscow;
London, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.09f
j-
EYAN
Zfl
Berlin, gr. 16.48; Istanbul, gr. 16.65f
k.
AHMO
ZO
Cambridge (Lewis Coll., Corpus Christi College),
gr. 16.78f
1.
AHMO
ZO
m.
AHMO
ZO
Commerce 1955
a.
ZftKPATHZ
Zfl
Berlin (Sv. 55, 20), gr. 16.54; Budapest, gr.
16.82f; Bauer Coll. = Ratto (Rogers) 405, am-
phora letter uncertain, gr. 16.76f
b.
ZQKPATHZ
ZQ
Oxford, gr. 16.27f; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr.
16.63f; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.77f
|a.
AHMO
ME
|b.
AHMO
ME
1 c-
AHMO
ZO
jd.
AHMO
zn
c.
AHMO
ME
1f
AHMO
ZO
|g-
AHMO
lh.
ropnn
ME
ropnn
ME
Li-
ropnn
'?
2SI
r*-

APEZTOZ
ME
l.
APEZTOZ
ME
a.
ropnn
ZO
b.
ropnn
Z<D
c.
ropnn
ZO
d.
APEZTOZ
ZO
0.
APEZTOZ
ZO
f.
192
490.
a. APEZTOZ
b. APEZTOZ
c. APEZTOZ
d. APEZTOZ
K Zfl
K in
K ZQ
? Z[
Vienna, gr. 15.85; Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.58
Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.64 \; Petsalis
Coll., gr. 16.57 \; Berlin, gr. 16.89
Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.64 \
Yale Univ., gr. 15.57 (pierced) \
MIKI - EYPYKAE
491.
Drachms
a. ZQKPA
b. EYAN
492.
(EYPY) a. TOP
(EYPY) b. APE
Vienna, gr. 8.96; Athens (Sv. 55, 26), gr. 4.17f

Naville (Pozzi) 1608, gr. 4.17; Berlin (Sv. 55,
27), letter uncertain, gr. 8.95
* AN S (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.17 \; Athens (Delos Hd. B,
138; Sv. 55, 28), gr. 4.12 \; ANS-ETN, gr. 4.05 \
Athens (Delos Hd. B, 134; Sv. 55, 29), gr. 3.70;
Athens, gr. 3.75f; Copenhagen {SNG 273), gr.
3.89f
MIKI - EYPYK NO SYMBOL
493.
Hemidrachms
a. EY
b. AP
Athensf; Athens (Delos Hd. KS.29), gr.l.62f;
Berlin, gr. 1.89
London (BMC 469; Sv. 55, 80), gr. 1.89
Magistrates: APIZTO, AZKAH, AIOKAHZ, BOYKATTHZ,
ZflKPATHZ, T7APA, EYAN, AHMO, rOPHTT, APEZTOZ
Months: A, B, I", A, E, Z, H, 0, I, K1
Controls: ME, ZO, Zfl2
1 Sundwall lists A but that month is not given in Kambanis' record and I have found no
evidence for it.
2 ZO is included with the other three controls by Bcul6 and Sundwall. Kambanis enters it
in his notebook but queries its accuracy on the ground that it is easily confused with Zfl. On a
number of coins in this and other issues the lower part of the omicron or omega is off flan. Often
a second specimen from the same die establishes the correct reading. Even when this is not the
case there is a difference in the rendering of the two letters which makes it possible to distinguish
between them on fragmentary evidence: the upper curve of the omicron is invariably small and
well rounded while that of the omega is large and spread.
193
The coinage of MIKIflN -EYPYKAEI is closely comparable with that of TTO-
AEMflN - AAKETHZ. In both years three silver denominations were issued, the
tetradrachms in quantity sufficient to have left a large number of surviving
dies and specimens. Striking in 157/6 and 156/5 alike was confined to the first
ten months of the year and the responsibility was evenly distributed among ten
third magistrates. Control combinationsME, ZO and ZQ are identical.
Eurykleides is usually abbreviated EYPYKAEI but frequently the termination
of the name is off flan or involved in the outline of the wreath. On a few dies
(Nos. 475a, 477d and 478e among them) the form EYPYKAE is definite.
AOPOAIZI - AFTOAHEI NIKE 155/4 B.C.
Tetradrachms
(Plate 50)
494.
495.
496.
496X.
497.
498.
499.
a.
b.
c.
d.
MHTPO A ZO *Athens (Sv. 51, 17), gr. 15.92f
MHTPO A ME *Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.55f

MHTPO A ME 'London {BMC 842), gr. 16.91f
AHMOZG B 10 *Berlin, gr. 16.34
a. AHM0Z9?
b. MEIAflN T
c. KAAA1 A
d. KAAAI
a. MEIAflN
b. KAAAIA
c.
d.
APIZTAP S
IIMI
MEIAQN
MElAftN
KAAAIA
HPAKAE
Al
Al
Al
ME
ZO
ME
ME
ZO
10
ZO
ME
16.60
Romanos Coll. (Sv. 51, 18), gr.
Paris, gr. 16.88 \
Berlin, gr. 16.47
Evelpidis Coll., gr. 16.80
London (BMC 348; Sv. 51, 20), gr. 16.48 \
*Empedocles Coll.
i94
e. ZIMI 6 Id>
500.
502.
a.
KAAAI
ME
b.
AEINO
ME
c.
EYMAPE!
ME
d.
EYMAPEI
ME
e.
HrEMA
ME
f.
HrEMA
ME
g-

BAKXI
ME
a.
APIZTAP
Al
b.
HPAKAEI
Al
c.
HPAKAE
Al
d.
AEINO
re.
EYMAPEI
Al
f-
HrEMA
Al
La.
EYMAPEI
Al
b.
HrEMA
10
c.
BAKXI
10
a.
195
505.
(ATTO)
f-a.
lb.
(AOPOAl-
ATTOAHE)
506.
(Ano)
ANS (Attic Hd.), gr. 4.18f; Athens (Delos
Hd. B, 34), gr. 8.40f
Dewing Coll., gr. 8.97f; ANS-ETN, gr. 8.52f;
ANS-ETN, gr. 4.22f; Athens (Delos Hd. B,
82; Sv. 51, 28), gr. 8.90f; Cahn 75,
ANS-ETN, gr. 8.42 (corroded)f
Berlin, gr. 8.74
Athens (Delos Hd. A-2, 8), gr. 8.79f
AOPO - AnO NO SYMBOL
Hemidrachms
507.
(A<DP) a. Athens (Sv. 51, 29) = Hirsch (Rhousopoulos)
2075, gr. 1.85f
b. 21 Hirsch (Weber) 1715 = Sv. 51, 80, gr. 2.07

Magistrates: MHTPO, AHMOIO, MEIAftN,
KAAAIA, APIZTAP, HPAKAEI, SMI,
AEINO, EYMAPEI, HrEMA, BAKX1
Months: A, B, T, A, Z, H, 0, I, K, A, M
Controls: Al, ME, 2<D2
After the heavy emissions of the three years preceding, the mint seems to
have substantially reduced its output under AOPOAIZI - AnOAHEI. Some
coinage is struck in each month except epsilon and there is an orderly asso-
ciation of months and third magistrates.
The month of Demosthenes' magistracy is not absolutely certain. Beule
reads B on the amphora for two coins with the name of AHM010: one in his
collection and one in Berlin. Kambanis records the Berlin piece as having an
1 Svoronos [J I AN 1911, p. 77, 8) reads [2?] E but I could see no trace of a third magis-
trate's name on the coin.
* Beule\ whose reading is repeated by Sundwall, gives ATT for a Turin coin. The combi-
nation, which is a rather unlikely one for this period, is otherwise unknown.
196
uncertain date but enters B for the Romanos specimen which is our No. 497a.
The Berlin coin seems to me to have B but I can read no certain letter on the
Romanos tetradrachm.
A proportionately large number of drachms has survived from this issue.
Strangely enough there was apparently no attempt to inscribe their reverses
with the abbreviated names of third magistrates. The only possible exception
is No. 505c on which there may once have been with A on the amphora,
but the condition of the coin makes any reading highly uncertain. In contrast
to the drachms, one hemidrachm reverse is inscribed II.
EYPYKAEI - APIAPA THREE GRACES 154/3 b.c
Tetradrachms
503.
a. AAEEAN
IQKPA
b. IflKPA
c. AIONY/
XflKPA
d. ITTTTO
(Plates 51-52)
ME ""Cambridge (Lewis Coll., Corpus Christi Col-
lege), gr. 16.59f
rb.
IflKPA
Al
1 rc-

Athens, gr. 15.60f
ZflKPA
ME
Berlin, gr. 15.80
II
AAEEAN
Al
Uncertain1; Modena (Sv. 58, 13)
1 La-
ZflKPA
ME
Empedocles Coll.
1 b-
AIONY
ME
1 c-
AIONY
Empedocles Coll.
1 d-
inno
ME
Athens (Delos Hd. AH), gr. 15.75f
1 e-
inno
ME
Berlin, gr. 16.25
IQ
r/B iq
? in
Vienna, gr. 16.55; Berry Coll. (Halmyros Hd.),
197
511.
512.
e. AIOKA/
inrro
513.
514.
515.
516.
517.
E ZQ Tubingen, gr. 16.26
AIONY
4!
*Arethuse, Suppl. comm. 1, 334 bis
L a.
AIONY/
r/?
Ai
ZS1KPA
b.
irmoNi
Al
Berlin (Sv. 53, 16), gr. 16.56

c.
AIOKA/
E/A
Al
Athens (Delos Hd. T, 122; Sv. 53, 17), gr.
innoN!
16.60f
d.
AIOKA
Al
e.
IATY
Al
Athens (Delos Hd. AH), gr. 16.18f; Istanbul
(Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.57f
a.
ZATY
Al
Berlin (Sv. 53, 18), gr. 16.55
b.
IATY
Al
ANS, gr. 16.27|
ZATY
Zfl
Athens, gr. 16.60f
a.
ZATY/
ME
Empedocles Coll.; London (BMC 412), am-
AIOKA
b.
HPAKAEI
e/H
ME
ig8 The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens
519.
521.
b.
HPAKAEI
e/H
ZQ
Moscow; Athens, gr. 16.45f; London (BMC
410), gr. 16.78f; Grabow XIV, 402 = Schles-
singer (Hermitage 2) 933, gr. 16.80. With OA-
NOKPI/HPAKAEI and 1/9/H: Athens (Delos
Hd. AH), gr.15.95f; Athens (Delos Hd. T,
130), gr. 16.80f
c.
HPAKAEI
1/0
zq
16.45f; Athens, gr. 15.95 \; Berlin, gr. 16.60
d.
OANOKPI
Al
e.
EENOKPA

ZQ
f.
EENOKPA
ZQ
Stack's (South) 614
a.
HPAKAEI
9(?)/H?
Brunswick, gr. 15.90f
b.
(DANOKPI/
Al
Paris (de Luynes 2085; Sv. 53, 21), gr. 16.90;
HPAKAEI
Empedocles Coll.
c.
EENOKPA
Al
Berlin (Sv. 53, 22), gr. 16.78; Gotha, amphora
and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.24
d.
EENOKPA
A/(?)K Al
ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.87f; Yale
Univ., gr. 16.89f
e.
APXin
Al
Athens (Delos Hd. T, 129; Sv. 53, 23), gr. 16.65
f.
KAAAI
Al
Athens (Delos Hd. AH), gr. 16.00f; Toronto
(Ontario Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr.
15.52f. With N/M: Athens (Delos Hd. T. 124),
gr. 16.55f
a.
199
522.
KAAAI N ME
Drachms
506.
r in b
523. I
U. Zfl B
b. XATY Z
Empedocles Coll.; ANS-ETN, gr. 16.55f;
Copenhagen (SNG 142), gr. 16.65f; London,
gr. 16.65f; Berlin, amphora letter uncertain,
gr. 16.72; Oxford, amphora letter uncertain,
gr. 16.45; Miinz. u. Med. List 154, 37, am-
London, gr. 4.06; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 93),
gr. 3.67t
3.65/; *ANS, letter uncertain, gr. 4.16f;
Berlin, letter uncertain, gr. 3.92
Berlin (Sv. 53, 27), gr. 3.08; Athens (Delos
Hd. B, 91; Sv. 53, 26), letter uncertain, gr.
3.90 \; Athens (Delos Hd. A-l, 10), letter un-
certain, gr. 8.88f

EYP - AP NO SYMBOL
Hemidrachm
507.
*Athens (Delos Hd. B, 94; Sv. 53, 28), gr. 1.36f
1 hemidrachm
Magistrates: AAEEAN, ISKPA, AIONY,
innONI, AIOKA, IATY, HPAKAEI, (DA-
NOKPI, EENOKPA, APXITT, KAAAI
Months: A, B, T, A, E, Z, H, 9, I, K, A, M, N
Controls: Al, ME, ZQ
Obverse dies of all three denominations (Nos. 503, 506 and 507 as illustrated
on Plates 51-52) are transferred from the striking of AOPOAIZI AFIOAHEi
to that of EYPYKAEI APIAPA, providing one of the most satisfactory instances
of die-joined issues in the New Style series.1
1 Kambanis indicates in his summary of the Zarova Hoard (BCH 1935, p. 117) the link
between the tetradrachms of the two emissions but he does not illustrate the common die. In his
200
With the coinage of Eurykleides and Ariarathes there is for the first time
extensive recutting of amphora dates and the names of third magistrates.
Numerous as the cited occurrences are, it is quite likely that there are omissions
in the present catalogue inasmuch as it is often difficult to detect a skillful re-
engraving of names, especially on a poorly-preserved reverse. Nos. 503b and
509c, for example, look as though they had been altered but it is impossible
to be certain.
The recutting of names has led to the recording of non-existent magistrates.
APXin KI(fi), given by Sundwall, is merely APXin/EENOKPA; ANAP, listed by
Beule after Sestini and repeated by Sundwall, is almost certainly an error.
Without seeing the coin one cannot trace the misreading but an alteration of
HPAKAEI to QANOKPI (such as on our No. 515e), if carelessly done, might well
produce something resembling ANAP. In any event the name must be regarded
with distinct suspicion.1
Under EYPYKAEI APIAPA the precise correspondence of third magistrates
and months, which had characterized the three preceding issues, breaks down.
The tenure of HPAKAEI extends over H, 0 and a part of I, the last month shared
with QANOKPI; EENOKPA is responsible for K and A; APXin and KAAAI both
serve during M while the latter continues to function during N. The appearance
of the thirteenth month on the coinage establishes 154/3 B.C. as an inter-
calary year.
KAPAIX - EPrOKAE PROW 158/2 B.C.
Tetradrachms
(Plates 53-54)
524.

a. TIMO A ME
TIMO A ME
Athens, gr. 16.75f; Berlin (Sv. 54, 17), gr.
16.76; Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.80
manuscript he cites the correspondence of the Berlin and Corpus Christi College obverses (our
Nos. 503b and 503a). This sequence invalidates the earlier association of AOPOA1ZI - ATTOAHEI
and AOPOAIZI - AICTE (Arethuse 1928, p. 134) which was based on an error in Svoronos' plates
(see note 1 on p. 194 with regard to Svoronos PI. 51, 24).
1 Kambanis' listing of magistrates, months and control combinations for this issue is iden-
tical with the present catalogue save for a citation of OAN OKPI with 0. The coin is our No. 517b
(Delos Hd. T, 130) on which Kambanis did not see the superimposed I. It might be mentioned
that although Kambanis gives a few instances of altered amphora letters in his notebook, he does
not, strangely enough, record a single example of the recutting of magistrates' names.
201
526.
a.
TIMO
b.
TIMO
a.
TIMO
Ico
b.
TIMO
in
c.
TIMO
01
a.
9EMI
ME
rb.
ME
1c-

MENA
MENA
r|a.
6EMI
ME
1 lb-
6EMI
in
1 1 c-
6EMI
1 Ld-
MENA
ME
1 e-
MENA
in
1 f-
MENA
L a.
6EMI
ME
b.
9EMI
ME
c.
0EMI
IO
d.
202
\ , 5
531.
. / *5, . 16.44!; (5. 54, 20), .
16.40|
. *0 (5. 54, 21), . 16.65; .,
. 16.79!
. (&& .), . 16.21!; *
( .), . 16.72|; 1951,
. 16.69
*5-, . 16.75|; .
, . 16.61
, . 15.61
(& .), . 16.53!;
.,
, . 16.58; , . 16.72
, . 16.58!; , &
, . 15.91 ()
-.

0.
0.
. ??
532.
" (&& .), . 16.78!
533.
534.
*>
|(1.
, : ,
203
535.
536.
III
| .

11 '
10
11 -
11 *
11 1.
>
- 0.
b.
AICXD
IO
ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.65f; Hess
208, 451 = Sv. 54, 25, commerce = Bourgey
(Chabenat) 122, gr. 17.00; Istanbul (Zarova
Hd.), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.54f
c.
AIOO
10
d.
AIOO
so
Commerce 1956; Budapest, gr. 16.43f
e.
OEIAI/
K/l
SQ
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.59f; Brussels,
AIOO
gr. 16.60 \
f.
io

OEIAI
Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.70; Istanbul (Zarova
Hd.), gr. 16.71f; London, control letters un-
certain, gr. 16.53f; Commerce 1955, am-
phora letter uncertain
g-
OEIAI
IO
Tubingen, gr. 16.58; Berlin, gr. 16.74
OEIAI
ME
Athens; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.65f;
Berlin, gr. 16.42
a.
OEIAI
in
Paris, gr. 16.54f; RoS Coll., gr. 16.70f
b.
OEIAI
ME
c.
AIONY
ME
Vienna, gr. 16.51
d.
AIONY
ME
Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.69f; Aberdeen, gr. 15.66
(very worn)f; Commerce 1955, gr. 16.61;
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), amphora letter un-
certain, gr. 16.73f. With AIOME/AIONY and
M/A: *Bauer Coll. = Ratto (Rogers) 896,
gr. 16.82|; Athens, gr. 16.60f; ANS-ETN =
Sv. 54, 28, commerce, gr. 16.80f; Glendining,
205
Drachms
542.
S.90t. With MENA/TIMO and T/A?: Paris;
Berlin
ANS-ETN, gr. S.92f
Magistrates: TIMO, 9EMI, MENA, EYAH, KAE,
AnOA, XAI, AIOO, OEIAI, AIONY, AIOME
Months: A, B, V, A, E, Z, H, 9, I, K, A, M
Controls: Al, ME, Z<D, Zfl
After two years of somewhat lighter coinage the output of the mint is in-
creased under Karaichos and Ergokles. Production is especially heavy during
the last five months of the year with frequent recutting of dates and names and
considerable shifting of reverse dies.
The symbol for this issuea prowis at the beginning rendered in peculiar
fashion (cf. Nos. 524b, 525a and 542a). On one reverse, No. 525a in its first
stage, the device is quite unrecognizable and the prow on this particular die
was subsequently remodelled. Thereafter the symbol is more skillfully engraved
with clearly defined poop and projecting ram.
Variations from the present catalogue are given in earlier records. Kambanis
reports KAEOMEN on two Berlin tetradrachms and this same form is entered by
Sundwall and Beule for some reverses. I have seen no examples of the longer
version of the name; the Berlin reading is simply KAE although there are traces

of what may be an underlying name below these letters. XAI, the only magis-
trate whose term runs over a single month, is coupled with I as well as H and 9
by Sundwall. Of the two coins he cites, the Beule specimen cannot be checked;
the other (our No. 534b from Athens) has a date which both Kambanis and I
read as H. Beule's TIE as a control is not to be found on any Berlin coin and
probably represents a poorly cut ME.
On No. 526a the cursive omega, used in a few monograms of the earliest
issues, reappears as part of the control combination.
AOPOAIZI - AlOrE DOUBLE CORNUCOPIAE WITH FILLET 152/1 B.C.
(Plates 55-56)
Tetradrachms
543.
a. ETTINI A Al Romanos Coll.; ANS-ETN, gr. 15.67 (chipped)f
a. TIMO A
b. KAE E
2o6 The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens
546.
b.
EniNI
AI
Berry Coll., gr. 16.62 \; Glasgow (Hunt. 98),
gr. 16.61 \. With EYMA/ET7INI and ?/A: Athens
(Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.28 \
c.
EYMA
AI
Athens (Delos Hd. T, 45; Sv. 51, 2), gr. 16.50 \
EYMA
r/B ai
Berlin, gr. 16.87
1e-
0PAZY
AI
ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.71f; Paris
(Sv. 51, 8), gr. 16.87f
1f-
OIAOE
AI
g-

Munich, gr. 16.00
OIAOE
AI
Athens (Delos Hd. T, 47; Sv. 51, 4), gr. 16.40;
Berlin, gr. 16.82
|h.
EAIE
10
Paris (de Luynes 2089), gr. 16.85 \
1 *
EAIE
A!
Athens, gr. 16.80f
1 i-
EAIE
ME
Berlin, gr. 16.48
1a<
EniNI
ZO
b.
EniNI
ZO
Athens (Delos Hd. T, 58), gr. 16.45f. With
EYMA/ETTINI and B/A: *Brussels, gr. 16.59;
1 c-
EniNI
ZO
Berlin, gr. 16.29
r|d.
207
547.
548.
549.
550.
b.
OIACE
ZO
Naples (Mus. Naz., Fiorelli 7142), gr. 16.50 \
c.
OIAOE
Z4>
Berlin, gr. 16.88
d.
EAE
BD
Athens (Delos Hd. T, 46; Sv. 51, 5), gr. 16.83f;
Johns Hopkins Univ., gr. 16.69
e.
EAE
Z4>
Berlin, gr. 15.88

f.
EAE
g-
A0H
Athens (Delos Hd. T, 48; Sv. 51, 7), gr. 16. 6Cf
Berlin, gr. 16.57
b.
A9H
Bt>
*ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.85f; Oxford,
gr. 16.41f; Leningrad (Sv. 51, 8), amphora
i.
ZfilTY
ANS-ETN, gr. 16.77f; Athens (Delos Hd. T, 49;
Sv. 51, 9), gr. 16.60f
a.
A0H
A!/
(?)ME
b.
A9H
Al
Budapest, gr. 16.52f; Budapest, gr. 15.98f
re
(DAI N 01
Al
Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Athens (Hal-
myros Hd.); Athens, gr. 16.35f
a.
ZQTTY
A!
208
1c'
ZflKPA
ME
*Romanos Coll. (Sv. 51, 11), gr. 16.77; ANS-
ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.75f; Berlin, gr.
16.15
Id.
AIO
ME
Paris, gr. 16.86f; Andreopoulos Coll.
1 e>
ZATY
ME
Christomanou Coll.
1f-
ZATY
ME
g-
ZATY

ME
Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.67 \; Athens, gr. 16.75 \
jh.
OAINOZ
ME
Athens, gr. 16.30t
1a<
IATY
ZO
*Winterthur = Ratto (Rogers) 883, gr. 16.49\;
Athens (Delos Hd. T, 51; Sv. 51,12), gr. 16.80f
|b.
IATY
ZO
1 c-
ZATY
ZO
Berlin, gr. 16.73
d.
ZATY
ZO
1 e-
OAINOZ
ZO
1 f-
OAINNOZ
ZO
Empedocles Coll.
La.
OAINOZ
Al
209
(AOPO- c.?!? Berlin (Sv. 51, 15), gr. 8.92
AIXI)
(A(PPAIZ) d. 1 K ME * Athens (Delos Hd. B, 86; Sv. 51,16), gr. 8.90f;
ANS-ETN, gr. 4.22|
Magistrates: EFTIN!, EYMA, QPAIY, 4>IAO= EAIE,
AGH, ZflTTY, IQKPA, AIO, SATY, OAINNOI
Months: A, B, T, A, E, Z, H, G, I, K, A, M
Controls: Al, ME, 2<t>
This is one of the most erratic issues thus far with respect to the overlapping
of the tenure of the third magistrates. Only at the very beginning of the year
and then from K through M is there exact correlation of magistrates and months.
EYMA is associated with B alone by Kambanis but on our No. 544e there is
ciearly a T cut over the B and one must assume that EYMA as well as QPAIY
served during the third month.
The bulk of the coinage seems to have come at the end of 152/1 B.C. with
six obverse dies used by (DAINNOZ. On the reverses both OAINOZ and OAINNOZ
appear; the recutting of No. 554b indicates that the latter is the correct form.
Beul6 records a drachm in Vienna with IA as third magistrate. The name
does not occur on the tetradrachms and the provenance of this particular coin
is puzzling inasmuch as it is not now in the Vienna Cabinet. Kambanis has no
record of IA as a magistrate and it is likely that the inscription given by Beule
represents a misreading.
No. 544 may include two obverse dies, the division coming between 544f

and g. There is a difference in the appearance of the mouth but all details of
hair and helmet correspond exactly and it seems almost incredible that an en-
graver could have produced such identity in separate dies. I think that actually
only one obverse is involved, the heavier profile of the later strikings being due
oither to a filling in of the die or to a slight recutting.
AIONYII - AIONYZI HELIOS IN QUADRIGA 151/0 B.C.
(Plates 57-59)
Tetradrachms
552.
r ANTIOA A Al *Lockett Coll. (SNG 1918) = Ratto (Rogers)
j 884 = Sotheby (Benson) 584, gr. 16.78f;
| Athens (Halmyros Hd.)
1 Svoronos reads the vertical stroke to the left of the amphora as a letter but the ANS coin
shows that it is only a part of the wreath. There was no third magistrate associated with this die.
210
\ ,
553.
. *&, . 16.68|
. ( 879), . 16.28
554.
556.
557.
1).
6.
- .
).
558.

559.
*, { 878), . 16.681- ( 56)
*5- ( .), &. 16.89|
(5. 52, 1), . 16.84. \1/:
1952
? ( . , 70), . 16.701
( 881), . 16.54|; &
(&& .), . 16.621-
( . ), . 16.40!
*01 (5 144), . 16.581
, . 16.171
&
*, . 16.64; , . 16.50|; ,
6. 15.24
, . 16.65; 5, . 16.82|
! & ( .), . 16.551
3(1.,5(3216),6.16.76|
{ 880), . 16.57 \; &
., . 16.56 \; &, . 16.471
( . , 78), ^. 16.651; -
.; .
., . 16.75
& .
5- ( .), . 16.701-;
., . 16.84!
, . 16.68
5 (& .), . 16.50!
, . 16.24!
(5. 52, 18), . 16.81 \; , \
16.40 \
, : ^
211
4>.
560.
561.
562.
563.
0.

11).
4>.
(?)
212 \ 5. 5
). ( .), .15.80|; ,
. 16.68
. ( ., 81; 5.52, 6), .
16.65|
. / /? ( .), . 16.66!
(?)
565.
566.
567.
\>.
0.
(5. 52, 5), . 16.50!
*, . 16.75|
, . 16.48
0.

3..
).
0.
, : ,
213
568.
569.
570.
571.
),
1-6.
0.
5.

*. 1 /
214
572.
573.
574.
575.
576.
577.
/'
1.
1.
3..

5.
\).
[-
^ (5 148), . 16.98!; ,
. 16.80|
( . , 92), . 16.80!
( 888), . 16.87!
, . 15.55 ( )!
^ ., . 16.60; .;
, , . 16.11
(\)
*5-, . 16.46|
, . 16.80!
*5 = 5<&' () 619, -. 16.57 \;
(& .), . 16.50 \;
( . , 98), . 16.55!; &>
. ( .)
.; ( .),
. 15.82!
, :
215
*>
! .
- .
578.

(- 15.
579.
( - 1>.
*5, . 16.88 \
*618 . (, 60)
() 887, . 15.80
( . , 96; 5. 52, 12), .
16.20|
5 ( .), . 16.04|
* ( . , 48; 5. 52, 14), .
3.75!
( . , 50; 5. 52, 15), .
8.97|
*, . 8.87
, . 8.29 (&)
175 &: 25 , 104
4 : 2 , 4 (
: , , , ,
, , , , ,
, ,
: , , , , , , , , , , ,
: , , ,
, 5. 552, 553 554,
- . \ \
515, . 554, \ > (, . 1928, ,
12 , 5; , 56); \
57.
- ,
1.
26
\ , 5
\1 15 5 & 56 -
- \ 5
577.
() .
() \).
580.
()
581.
582.
583.
).
-.

150/49 .
(.5 60-61)
* (5. 57, 2), . 16.65; (-
. , 10; 5. 57, 1), . 16.65|
* (& .)
( .), . 16.57|
( . , 11), . 16.42|. \
//: *
., . 16.71; 1955
* ( . , 14), . 16.65|; 5
( .), . 16.19|
., &. 16.62|
*5- = () 1599, .
16.75|; ( .), .15.96|;
, ^
. ( .). \
/ &/: * (
. , 18; 5. 57, 4), . 16.65|;5, .
16.88|
. . . ., . 16.78; ,
&
.; , . 15.65
/ (., 15; 5. 57,5), .16.64|
, . 16.72; ( 314), .
16.67|
*11 .; ( . )
. 15.18^; ( .), -
& ,
: ,
217
584.
(-.
<1.
? ( 812), . 15.94 (:)|;
& . ( .)
/ *06 1953
.; , . 16.72
( .), . 16.16|;
( 813), . 16.59|; , . 16.55
( . , 16), ^. 16.55|
/ / . (5. 57, 6), . 16.61. \*
/: 5 (
.), . 16.21|

*,. 16.57; , . 16.26; ,
. 16.22. /1: -
., 6. 16.62|; (& .),
. 16.59|; & (& .), .
16.56|; . (5. 57, 8)
5- ( .), . 16.74|
5- ( .), . 16.90|
, . 16.48. /
/: 5- ( .), .
16.48|; . = -
* ( ^) 408, . 16.48
() 411, . 16.75
( . ), . 16.08|
( . ), . 15.60;
( . , 18), -
, . 16.60
3., . 16.61
5- ( .), . 16.55|
, . 16.84
1-6.
//
).
585.
218
586.
587.
588.
\).
/?
0.

-.
- / /
(& .); (&
.), . 16.80|; ,
, . 16.48|; & (5
158), 3. , . 16.52|.
\/: (-
.), . 16.08|; , . 16.51
( . ), . 15.44; -
., . 16.56|
( . , 84; 5. 57, 10), .
16.52|; , . 16.671; , .
16.59
, . 16.35
5- ( .), . 16.76|.
\ / /
/: *, . 16.48|
5 ( .), . 16.51|
* ( . , 28), . 16.85|
( .)
( . , 22), . 16.75!
, :
219
589.
590.
591.
592.
-.
. /
1-1).
/ ( . , 21), &. 6.55|
/ / ( . , 88; 5. 57, 11), .
16.70|
(6) 412, \ 16.65
. /
&.
1- \>.

/[
<.
\).
-, . 16.68
( . ), . 15.74|;
( 815), 3.10
, . 16.17
, . 16.58; ., . 16.51.
/1: (
. , 85), . 16.75|
*5-, . 16.46; (
.), . 16.68|
( . , 24), &. 16.70|
( . ; 5. 57, 14), ^.
15.97; ( . , ,
1958, 1. , 1), . 16.90. \ -
/: ( .
), -. 16.15|; () 1117,
. 16.81
220
\ 5. 5
593.
).
0.
15.
594.
595.
(?)

( . ), . 15.36|
( .), . 16.65|
, . 16.25
( . , 27; 5. 57, 15), .
16.45|; 1955;
. \ /1: ( . , 80;
5. 57, 16), . 16.05|. \ /
& //:
( . , 32; 5. 57, 19), .
16.50|
-, . 1923, 19 = &
. (5. 57, 20) = & .
{II, 1912, 1304), . 16.36
*1 ( . , 16; 5. 57, 21), .
3.87|; . ., . 4.03
(5. 57, 22), . 4.02|
0,.\)& ( 5907; 5.57, 23), .
3.82|
136 : 15 (, 64
5 (: 2 , 4
^: , , , ,
, , , ,
, , ,
: , , , , , , , , , , ,
: , , , , ()
& 577 15 \ - (, 60).
1 \
- - .
3.
-, ^ 3.
<3& -. ^,
: , 221
\ 1) \ ,
3. 1 . \ , - ,
. 3
, ,
. . 585
; . 588 5905
, , .
' .
. .
1 .
, , ^.
'
\ ( )
& - .
; .
(. 577- 580) .
, 1.
( -
577); .
- \ 149/8 .
( 62-68)
596.

()
597.
(-
5.
0.
* (8. 54, 1), . 16.52
*1, . 16.97 \; 5- (
.), . 16.74 \; (53& .),
. 16.81 \; , . 16.62
., . 16.68; , . 16.63 \
*5- (^ .), . 16.75|;
( . , 157), . 16.50 \
. ., . 16.60
222
\ , -
.; , . 16.51^; -
, . 16.69
&, . 16.62; , . 16.27
598.
(-
(-
1>.
599.
600.
601.
8-

& () 892, . 16.75
( .), . 16.75|
5- (& .), . 16.44|;
5, . 16.821-; ( . ),
. 15.95|; , . 16.42|
*, . 16.48
( . , 149), . 16.65|; ,
. 16.52|;
/ ., . 16.69
- ( .), . 16.81|
, / /
*\ (5. 54, 2), . 16.55
, . 16.55 \; 01&\ (. 110),
, . 16.74|
).
- .
/?
0.
1.
- : ,
223
1).
602.
603.
0.
6-
1.

|1.
'-
( ?)
(?)
|1>.
| .
/?
(601?)
4>.
224
604.
605.
(No
trophy)
606.
607.
ra.
APIITO
TIE
jb.
APIITO
TIE
16.70|
1 c-
APIITO
ME
Commerce 1952
|d.
APIFTO

IO
Kambanis Coll.; Romanos Coll., amphora
letter uncertain
1 e-
apiito
Id)
London, gr. 16.65f
La.
APIITO
nE
b.
APIITO
nE
c.
apiito
ANS, gr. 16.56f
d.
APIITO
nE
e.
APIITO
nE
Berlin (Sv. 54, 11), gr. 16.42; Paris, am-
phora and control letters uncertain, gr.
16.64f. With AIONYII/APIITO and M/A:
Petsalis, gr. 16.26f
APIITO
nE
Berlin, gr. 16.54
Is-
AIONYII/
M/A
225
608. I
I a. AIONYII/ M/A Al
1 APirro
Lb. AIONY2I/??
API2TO
609.
AIONYII M 10
Drachms
610.
a. [AJTTOA?
b. GE E
*Athens (Delos Hd. T, 156), gr. 16.70f
Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.55; Berlin, gr. 16.48
Gotha (Sv. 54, 18), gr. 8.98; Copenhagen
(SNG 150; Sv. 54, 15), gr. 8.82f
Athens (Delos Hd. K, 27)1, gr. 8.60f;
* Athens (Delos Hd. A, 19; Sv. 54, 14),
Magistrates: OIAGNI, OIAQ, ATTOAAOOA,
MENOI, 6E0AQP, GEOrEN, AYIANI,
AHMHTPI, APIZTO, AIONYZI

Controls: Al, ME, TTE, 10, IQ
Variant control marks are recorded for this issue. The AN or AM reading
for the Photiades coin (No. 688 of Froehner's catalogue) is queried by Kambanis
in his notes and seems highly suspect. Another combination, 10, is given by
Kambanis for three entries in his listing of the Themistokles-Theopompos
coinage. On the two tetradrachms which can be checked, our Nos. 601b and e,
the letters are Zfl. In all probability the other coin bore the same marking but
the occurrence of ZO cannot be categorically rejected inasmuch as it is used as
a control combination at this period.
No. 605c is noteworthy for the omission of the trophy which customarily
stands on the prow. This exceptional representation, confined as it is to a single
die and one cut late in the year, would seem to be nothing more than an en-
graver's error.
As in the issue immediately preceding, there is on the earliest reverses a
difference in the rendering of the name of an annual magistrate. AMMflNIOI is
AMMflNI for a short time; GEOnOMTTOI is QEOnOM. When OlAfl of month B
1 Svoronos publishes the amphora letter as A or A; I think it is almost certainly E.
226
is cut over (DIAflNI of A, TTOZ is also added to the die for the usual OEOTTOM-
noz form.
The diagrammatic outline of this issue (p. 677) indicates with particular
clarity the erratic and puzzling allocation of responsibility among the third
magistrates which is so frequently encountered at this period. APIZTO serves
for three full months (I, K and A) using at least five obverse and twenty-seven re-
verse dies. In contrast, four magistrates share the duties of the three prior
months (Z through 0) with five obverses and sixteen reverses in operation. This
pronounced imbalance in the tenure and output of the individual magistrates
seems to me a highly significant feature of the coinage; its implications are
discussed at some length in the section on Magistrates.
ZQKPATHZ - AIONYZOASJ
Tetradrachms
611.
r ATTOAACKDA A 14)
612. |
L AFIOAAOOA A 10
613.
a. AflOAAOOA A ZQ
b. ATTOAAOOA A ZQ
c. ZQIAOZ B Zfl
d. ZQIAOZ B ZQ
614.

a. AnOAAOOA A ME
b. AFIOAAOCDA A ME
c. ATTOAAOOA??
rd. ZfllAOZ B ME
615. |
j a. ATTOAACKDA A ZO
1 A lead piece in Munich is an exact copy
APOLLO DELIOS 148/7 B.C.
(Plates 64-65)
*ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.86|;
Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.)
ANS-ETN, gr. 16.26f
Vienna, gr. 16.16; Leningrad (Sv. 56, 2),
gr. 16.60
Berlin, gr. 16.75
Oxford, gr. 16.72f; Athens (Delos Hd. AH),
gr.16.46f; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr.
16.59f; Berlin, gr. 16.85
Athens, gr. 15.90f
*Andreopoulos Coll.
Bauer Coll. = Ratto (Rogers) 408, gr.
16.72f
Halmyros Hd.
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.89|; Berlin,
gr. 16.77; Egger XL (Prowe) 965, gr. 16.84
London {BMC 496; Sv. 56, 1), gr. 16.71 f.1
this British Museum coin.
227
zniAOi
c. apiztoz
d. apiztoz
e. A9HNI
a. ZfilAOZ
b. ZftlAOZ
ZfllAOZ
MOYZAI
APirroi
With ZfllAOS/AnOAACKDA and B to r. of
A: Zygman Coll., gr. 16.67f
B Id) Athens (DelosHd. AH), gr.16.25t; Athens
(Delos Hd.AH; Sv.56, 4), gr.16.16f;
Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr.16.05f; London
(BMC 497), gr.16.56f; Romanos Coll.
A ZO Paris, gr. 16.52f; Berlin, gr. 16.74
A Zfl Athens (Delos Hd. T, 210), gr. 16.90f
E ZO London, gr. 16.71f
B 10 *Athens (Delos Hd. T, 207; Sv. 56, 8), gr.
16.75f; Romanos Coll.
B ZO *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.76f;
Paris, gr.16.57f; Athens (Delos Hd.AH),
gr. 16.28f; Vienna, amphora letter uncer-
tain, gr. 16.76; Gillespie Coll., amphora and
control letters uncertain, gr. 16.87

B ZO *Empedocles Coll.; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.84f;
Berlin, gr. 16.41
T ZO ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.21f
A ZO ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 409, gr.
16.75f; Copenhagen (SNG 274), gr. 16.47f;
Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr.15.84f; Athens
(Delos Hd. AH), gr. 16.00f
1 L*.
zniAOZ
ME
*Paris, gr. 16.72f
1 b-
APIZTOZ
&
ME
Athens (Sv. 56, 6), gr. 16.65; Brussels, am-
phora letter uncertain, gr. 16.67
hc
AGHNI
Z(D
Berlin, gr. 16.72
1 <*
AGHNI
ME
Berlin, gr. 16.65
1 e-
AT10AAQ
ME
Athens (Sv.56, 9), gr. 15.82\; Athens
(Delos Hd. AH), gr. 15.70 \
1 a-
MOYZAI
zn
16.70|
1 b-
APTEM
228
620.
c.
d.
X/E Zft
ATTOAAflNI/
A0HNI
AZKAAT7QN
AXAIOZ
la
Mrs. E. T. Newell Coll.; Athens (Delos
Hd. T, 212; Sv. 56, 8), gr. 16.55f; Christo-
manou Coll., control letters uncertain
f. APTEMflN K ZO Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.60f
L a. A9HNI
b. IlPflTO
c. nPflTOM
ZO Paris, gr. 16.49f; Munich, gr. 16.62; Ist-
anbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.34f

ZO *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.68|
IS Paris, gr. 16.22t
621.
a.
AnOAAQNI/
z/
IO
(?)A0HNI
(?)E
b.
ATTOAAfiNI
10
Berlin, gr. 16.55
c.
AZKAATTQN
10
Vienna, gr. 16.61; Paris, gr. 16.60|; Athens
(Delos Hd. T, 215), control letters uncer-
tain, gr. 15.45f; Athens, control letters
d.
AXAIOI
10
Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.58f; Berlin,
gr. 16.52; Andreopoulos Coll., amphora
and control letters uncertain
e.
AXAIOI
*Empedocles Coll.; Athens (Delos Hd. T,
218), amphora and control letters un-
certain, gr. 16.70f
f.
APTEM
2[
Leningrad (Sv. 56, 15), gr. 16.68
6-
APTEMflN
c.
AIKAAnOI
Id)
Berlin (Sv. 56, 12), gr. 16.74; Athens (De-
(sic)
los Hd. KS, 88), gr. 16.48 \; Athens (Hal-
myros Hd.)
d.
AXAIOI
2[
ANS-ETN, gr. 16.45f
e.
AXAIOI
IcD
f.
APTEMGN
10
Copenhagen {SNG 277), gr.16.23f; Pet-
salis Coll. (Piraeus Hd.), gr. 16.60f
g-
A9HN/APTE
IO

A/K
Athens (Delos Hd. T, 220), gr.16.75f;
Athens (Delos Hd. AH; Sv. 56, 11), gr.
16.80^; Berlin, gr. 16.73
rh.
EPMO
|a.
AXAIOI
1Q
16.60f
|b.
APTEMflN
1Q
16.88|
1 c-
AOHN/
A/
1Q
Athens, gr. 15.90f
(?)APTEM
(?)K
|d.
AOHNAI
in
16.70f; Athens (Delos Hd. T, 224), gr.
16.72f; Athens (Delos Hd. T, 225), gr.
16.60f; Berlin, gr. 16.49
Le.
EPMO
10
Athens, gr. 16.45f
f.
EPMOKPA
230
c.
AGHNAI
ME
Athens (Delos Hd. T, 226), gr. 16.50t
d.
EPMO
ME
Berry Coll., gr. 16.12|
e.
EPMO
ME
Berlin (Sv. 56, 16), gr. 16.44
ZflKPA - AIONY
Drachms
626.
(SftKPATH- a.
AIONYZO)
(AIONYX) b.
627.
628.
La.
b.
A9H

zni/Ano
APTE
A0H
EPM
B/A ME
K(?)?
E ME
k in
ME
10
Athens (Sv. 56, 21), gr. 4.05f
Athens (Delos Hd.B, 157; Sv.56, 25), gr.
8.98f
Athens (Delos Hd. B, 152), gr. 8.95f; Athens
(Delos Hd.B, 151; Sv.56, 22), gr.4.00f;
8.95f
Berlin, gr. 8.94
Copenhagen (SNG 278; Sv. 56, 24), gr.
8.94f
Magistrates: ATTOAACXDA, ZfilAOI, MOYIAI. API-
ZTOZ, A9HNI, AnOAAQNI, rfPflTOM, AZKAA-
ITON, AXAIOS, APTEMBN, A6HNAI, EPMOKPA
Controls: ME, 10, ZO, ISl
After two years of erratic association of third magistrates and months, the
issue of ZflKPATHI - AIONYIOAQ is, I believe, absolutely regular. The cata-
logue above shows an exact correlation between the twelve officials whose
names appear in third place and the twelve months during which coinage was
struck. If this outline is correct, it casts doubt upon a number of earlier readings
and it might be well to examine the discrepancies in some detail.
In his Hesperia article on the New Style, Bellinger selects the issue of So-
krates and Dionysodoros as an example of a far-reaching breakdown in the
systematic relationship of magistrates and months, and the instances which he
231
cites from the publications of Beule, Svoronos, Kambanis and Macdonald amply
support his contention. They are as follows:
r with ZftlAOZ. This coin, a Halmyros Hoard piece, is recorded by Kam-
banis as having r/B on the amphora, which would, of course, imply an extension
of Zoilos' tenure into a second month. The tetradrachm cannot be definitely
associated with any entry in the present catalogue but I believe it is another
example of No. 615a on which Zoilos is cut over Apollophanes and B over A. On
a poorly-preserved coin the amphora recutting might well suggest r/B, and
there is reason to suppose that the piece in question was not in good condition.
In the BCH for 1934 (p. 105) Kambanis reads the lettering below the amphora
as Al; in his notebook he again lists Al for this coin but comments that it is
probably a misreading.
E with ZQIAOI. This tetradrachm, a Prokesch coin in Berlin cited by Mac-
donald, is almost certainly one of the four entries under our No. 613c. A photo-
graph of the Berlin coin shows a somewhat obscure amphora letter but on the
Oxford coin illustrated on Plate 64 the date is clearly B.
A with A0HN. The Athens tetradrachm, published by Svoronos, is our
No. 623c. A0HN has been recut, probably over APTEM, and A over another
letter, probably K. It is the recutting which gives the impression of a A instead
of the A which is indubitably there.
H with A0HN1. Beule cites this from the Paris Cabinet. I have examined all
the Paris coins and the only piece with AGHNI is No. 620a. Five specimens from
this reverse die are on record. In the earlier stage of the die (No. 615e), as re-
presented by the London coin, the E is absolutely certain; in the later stage of
the die the letter has filled in and the Paris specimen moreover is in poor con-

dition but there is no indication on it of an H cut over the E.
T with AXAIOI. A Berlin coin published by Beule with ZO below the am-
phora. The piece is our No. 621d with I not V on the vase.
K with EPMO. Again this is a Berlin coin, illustrated by Svoronos on his
Plate 56, no. 16. His placement makes it clear that he read the letter as K but
it seems to me that it might well be a poorly-cut M. The date in any case is not
definite enough to justify an association of EPMO with the month K.
In this general connection, three other examples of misreading might be
mentioned briefly. Kambanis enters EPMH as a third magistrate of this issue
on the evidence of an Athens coin (Svoronos' Plate 56, 11); the piece is our
No. 622g with A0HN cut over APTE. ATI and MH are recorded as controls in
Kambanis' notebook, each as a single entry. The former is accompanied by
the notation that it is probably an error in reading; the latter refers to one
of the coins under No. 614d struck from a reverse die with ME below the
amphora.
232
The foregoing will serve to illustrate the difficulty of compiling an accurate
record of the New Style series of Athens. It is not an orderly coinage in its
surface aspects. Few of the issues of the three-magistrate period show an exact
correlation of magistrates and months. The tenure of a single official may ex-
tend over two or even three adjacent months and if the full extent of his service
is not realized the amphora letter on a poorly-preserved coin may be read er-
roneously in terms of the month with which the particular magistrate is
generally associated. On the other hand, as witness the present issue, it some-
times happens that a magistrate is credited with months for which he had no
responsibility, as direct outgrowth of the deplorable practice of recutting to
which the mint resorted with increasing frequency during this period. When
the overcutting of names is skillfully done, it leaves only faint and easily over-
looked traces of the underlying letters. If the same die carries a distinctly-
legible recutting of the amphora dates, the result is a mistaken association
of the later magistrate with two months instead of one. There is also the danger
inherent in recutting that the confused lettering produced by hasty and care-
less workmanship may give rise to non-existent officials such as the EPMH of
Kambanis' record. It is only with a large body of material, providing a number
of coins from the same die which sometimes reveal successive stages in the
recutting process, that one can hope for even reasonable accuracy in compiling
the data on the coinage.
629.
MHTPOAQPOZ - MIATIAAHI
Tetradrachms
r a. ANTIQANHZ A

b. ANTKDANHZ A
BUNCH OF GRAPES
Id)
ANTKDANHZ B1 ZO
a. ANTIOANHZ A ZO
b. ANTIOANHZ A ZO
147/6 B.C.
(Plates 66-67)
Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr.15.85j;
Athens (Delos HdT, 183), gr.16.80f
Athens (DelosHd. AH), gr. 15.20 (worn)
f; Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.);
Athens (Delos Hd.I", 182; Sv.55, 1),
gr. 16.62
Athens (Delos Hd.AH; Sv.55, 2), gr.
16.30f; Berry Coll., gr. 16.71t
Berlin, gr. 16.54; Giesecke Coll., gr.
16.62
Athens, gr. 16.50f
1 Kambanis read this as B/A; I cannot feel sure that there is a letter below the B.
EPMOrENHZ/
B/A UEI
ANTIOANHZ
zo
EPMOrENHI/
B/AZO
Berlin, gr. 16.54
ANTIOANHZ
ANTIOANHZ
ME
London, gr. 16.69f
ANTIOANHZ
ME
The Hague, gr. 16.55; Ratto (Rogers)
398, amphora letter uncertain, gr.
16.25; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), am-
EPMOrENHZ/
B/A nE/
Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr. 16.05f
ANTIOANHI
ZO
EPMOrENHZ
ME

TTYPPOZ
ME
ANTIOANHZ
ZO
Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 8222),
gr. 16.53f; Empedocles Coll.; Schles-
singer (Hermitage 2) 943, gr. 16.70
nYPPOZ
ZO
Berlin, gr. 16.10
ANTIOANHZ
nE
Zygman Coll., gr. 16.50|
ANTIOANHZ
nE
EPMOrENHZ/
B/A nE/
ANTIOANHZ
20
Berlin (Sv.55, 3), gr. 16.61; Romanos
Coll.; Halmyros Hd.
EPMOrENHZ
nE
Empedocles Coll.
EPMOfENHZ
ZO
Kambanis Coll.
MHTPOAflPOZ-
AHMOZOEN
TTYPPOZ
234
634.
(AHMOZ0E/
MIATIAAHZ)
635.
MIATIAAHZ)
636.
637.
1 L a.
TTYPPOI
zo
1 b-
TTYPPOZ
zo
1 c-
nYPPOZ
zo
1 d-
KAAAIO
zo
L a.
nYPPOZ
ME
b.

KAAAIO
ME
c.
KAAAIO
ME
d.
APXIAZ
ME
re.
APIZTOAH
ME
nYPPOZ
ZO
1a-
KAAAIO
ZO
jb.
KAAAIO
ZO
1 c-
APXIAZ
ZO
|d.
APIZTOAH
ZO
e. EYKAHZ
f. KAAAIZ
g. KAAAIZ
H ZO
H ZO
H ZO
Berlin, gr. 16.58
235
|a.
APXIAZ
nE
Andreopoulos Coll.
Lb.
APIZTOAH
ME
Berlin, gr. 15.36
c.
APIZTOAH
nE
Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr. 15.92
(worn)f; Berlin, gr. 16.54
d.
KAAAII
nE
Frankfurt am Main; Athens (Delos
Hd. T, 195), gr. 16.75f
639.
640.
641.
a.

642.
APXIAZ
Z<D
b.
APIZTOAH
ZO
rc.
EYKAHZ
ZO
|d.
EYKAHZ
nE
1 e-
KAAAIZ
ZO
1a-
APIZTOAH
ME
Lb.
EYKAHZ
ZO
c.
KAAAIZ
ME
d.
EYKPA
ME
e.
EYKPA
ME
f.
OEOOI
236
643.
1 c-
0EOOI
10
Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Yale
Univ. = Hamburger 98, 695, gr. 16.73f
|d.
GEOOI
nE
Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr. 16.35|
1 e-
4>IAO
zo
Petsalis, gr.16.29f; Athens (Delos
Hd.AH), amphora and control letters
1 f-
cDIAO
zo
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.67|
Lg-
ME

oiAono
Oxford, gr. 16.58
a.
EYKPA
nE
Gotha, gr. 16.62; Athens (Delos HdT,
197; Sv.55, 11), gr. 16.80f; Athens
(Delos Hd.AH), gr. 15.73f
b.
EYKPA
nE
c.
GEOOI
zo
Berlin, gr. 16.46
d.
OIAO
nE
Athens (Delos HdT, 200; Sv.55, 13),
gr. 16.70f; Athens (Delos Hd.AH),
gr. 15.85; Athensf
e.
ZMIKY
nE
Berlin
644.
a. ZMIKY9 M ME "London, gr. 16.88f
b. ZMIKY9 M ME Athens (Delos HdT, 201; Sv. 55, 14),
gr. 16.82f
Drachms
645.
MHTPOAJJ - MIATIAA
ANTIOAN
"Copenhagen (SNG 262), gr. 3.63f
646.
237
Magistrates: ANTIOANHZ, EPMOrENHZ, TTYPPOZ,
KAAAIQ, APXIAI, APIZTOAH, EYKAHZ, KAA-
AIZ, EYKPA, OEOcDI, (DIAOnO, ZMIKYO
Months: A, B, I", A, E, Z, H, 9, !, K, A, M
Controls: ME, TIE, 10, ZO
Irregularity is again apparent in this issue. Not only does one find the same
lack of correspondence between third magistrates and months which has char-
acterized so many of the preceding strikings but there is a change in second
magistrates at the beginning of month r. MIATIAAHZ is replaced by AHMOZ-
0EN (shortened to AHMOZ0E on a number of dies).
There are relatively few dubious readings in connection with the coinage of
Metrodoros and his colleagues. Beule's ATT and Zi controls can be corrected
from the coins. Kambanis reads T" with KAAAIO for our No. 633h; I am inclined
to think it is E/A but the preservation of the piece is too poor for any degree
of certainty.
AIOTIMOZ - MAfAZ NO SYMBOL 146/5 b.c
Tetradrachms
(Plates 68-69)
648.
649.
650.
651.
NIKOAHMOZ A ME *Commerce (Sv. 52, 18), gr. 16.70

NIKOAHMOZ A ME *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.73f;
Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr.15.58f;
NIKOAHMOZ A ZO *Oxford, gr. 16.47; Paris, gr.16.60f;
Commerce 1952
a. NIKOAHMOZ A T7E/Z4> *Berry Coll., gr. 16.70 \
b. NIKOAHMOZ A TIE Athens, gr. 16.10 \
652.
(AIO-
TIMOOZ)
NIKOAHMOZ A ZO *Romanos Coll.
238
653.
(AlO-
La.
NIKOAHMOZ
ZO
Athens (Delos HdT, 107), gr.16.70f;
TIMOOZ)
Berlin
b.
NIKOAHMOI
ZO
654.
c.
NIKOAHMOZ
zo
ANS (Anatoha Hd.), gr. 15.87f
XAPINAYTHZ/
B/A
zo/nE
Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.74; Commerce
655.
1955
a.

NIKOAHMOZ
XAPINAYTHZ
zo
Tubingen
b.
EXEZOENHZ
zo/?
Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.50; London (BMC
384), gr. 16.26f
rl
c.
EXEZGENHZ
TTE
Athens (Delos Hd. AH), gr. 16.20t; Zara
|j
Coll., control letters uncertain, gr.16.78f
d.
AIONYZIOZKE
ZO
Athens (Delos HdT, 109), gr. 16.80f;
656. | |
ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 15.90f
11r
a.
XAPINAYTHZ
zo
Athens (Sv. 52, 20), gr. 16.80
b.
XAPINAYTHZ
Z(D
1H
c.
239
g-
EXEZOENHZ
E/A
zo
Andreopoulos Coll.
b.
AIONYZIOZKE/
ME
Tubingen, gr. 16.77; Athens, gr. 16.70f
EXEZOENHZ
i.
AIONYZIOZKE
ME
Berlin, gr. 16.75
NIKON/
Z/E
nE
AIONYIIOZKE
k.
NIKflN/

ME
Paris, gr. 16.88f; Athens (Delos HdT,
AIONYZIOZKE
101; Sv. 52, 28), gr. 16.85f
1.
NlKflN/?
ME
Athens (Halmyros Hd.)
m.
KAAAIAAHZ/
O/H
ME
*Athens (Delos Hd. T, 97), gr. 16.70f
ATTOAAflNIAHZ
n.
KAAAIAAHZ
ME
Berlin, gr. 16.50
0.
AAMIOZ
ME
XAPINAYTHZ
A/r
ZO/ZO
London, gr. 16.09 (pierced) f
660.
a.
NIKQN/
AIONYZIOZKE
nE
Vienna, gr. 15.70 (pierced). With Z/E:
Oxford, gr. 16.81
b.
ATTOAAflNIAHZ
zo
*ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.45f
c.
240
662.
663.
664.
1f-
ooinoz
Z<D
Kricheldorf IV, 201, gr. 16.39
g-
HPAKAEOA
nE
1a-
ATTOAAQNIAHZ H
zo
Zygman Coll., gr. 16.64f
|b.
AnOAAQNIAHZ H
zo
Sicelianos Coll.
(poss. recut)
1 c-
AnOAARNIAHZ H
zo
Ld.

Berlin (Sv. 52, 24). gr. 15.85
AAMiOZ
zo/zo
Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr. 16.02t;
Paris, gr. 16.52f. With 60IN0Z/AA-
MIOZ and K/l: Athens (Delos Hd. KS,
24), gr. 15.87f
e.
AAMIOI
Athens (Delos Hd. AH), gr.l5.20 (worn)f
f.
001NOZ
zo
Kambanis Coll., gr. 16.20
g-
HPAKAEOA
zo
a.
90IN0Z/
K/l
nE
Athens (Delos Hd. 1", 105; Sv. 52, 28),
AAMIOZ
gr. 16.85f
b.
60IN0Z
nE
*Evelpidis Coll., gr. 16.20
c.
601 NOZ
zo
d.
HPAKAEOA
241
666.
a. AIONYZIOIKE?
b. 60IN0I K
Hemidrachms
667.
(AIO-MA) a. XAPI
rb. XAPI
668.
AIONY/XAPI
Petsalis Coll., gr. 8.80 \; London, gr.
3.27
Vienna, gr. 8.96; Athens (Delos Hd.A,
18; Sv. 52, 82), gr. 4.00f; Athens, gr.
3.88t; Petsalis Coll., gr. 8.97f; Copen-
hagen (SNG 259), gr. 8.84f; Berlin,
gr. 3.91
gr. 2.05f; Athens (Delos Hd. KS, 25),
gr. 1.50f
gr. 1.92f; Berlin, gr. 2.02
Sotheby (Delbeke) 159, gr. 1.98. With
601/AIONY/XAPI: *Athens, gr. 1.43f

Magistrates: NIKOAHMOZ, XAPINAYTHZ, EXEI9E-
NHZ, AIONYIIOIKE, NIKflN, AnOAAflNIAHS,
KAAAIAAHI, AAMIOI, 60IN0I, HPAKAEOA
Months: A, B, T, A, E, Z, H, 0, I, K, A
Controls: ME, FTE, 10, 2<D
The coinage of Diotimos and Magas has two distinctive features. It is the
first issue in the three-magistrate series without a symbol in the field and the
first striking since that of Eurykleides and Ariarathes, eight years earlier, with
the hemidrachm denomination.
Ten third magistrates are found on dies dated from A through A. Their
tenures of office as outlined in the Statistical Survey section show the irre-
gularity which is common in this period. In fact there may be even more varia-
tion than appears in the diagram. Dionysioske would seem to have served for
E as well as Z as indicated by No. 658j with NIKQN/AIONYIIOZKE and Z/E.
No. 660a may connect NIKflN with E; there is no trace of a Z over the E on the
Vienna coin but I rather think this may merely be an omission on the part of
the engraver which was corrected before the Oxford tetradrachm was struck.
242
Beule's association of EXEZOENHZ with Z can be disproved in the case of the
British Museum coin (our No. 655b and BMC 384 where the accurate reading
of A is given).
Controls for this issue are identical with those of the year preceding. Beule's
isolated ZQ is not recorded by Kambanis and is probably an error for ZO.
AIONYIIOIKE in its entirety can scarcely be regarded as a magistrate's
name. The KE added to Dionysios reminds one of the NE after NIKOr and the
Al after MHTPO on the earlier sinkings of MENEA - EnirENO and ETTirENH-
ZftZANAPOZ and suggests that we have here another instance of careful identi-
fication. Beule thinks the letters may represent a patronymic, an artist's
signature or a fourth magistrate; Sundwall believes they are the beginning of
a demotic. It seems to me that the demotic connection is the most plausible.
Tetradrachms
669.
r 001 A 10
670. |
| a. 001 A ZQ
lb. 001 A Zfl
671. |
(AAKIAA) | a. 001 A Zfl
|b. 001 A Ifl
jc. 01 A ZO
|d. AIO B?

|e. AIO B?
672. |
la. 001 A ME
b. 0OI A ME
c. AION B ME
TRIPTOLEMOS 145/4 B.C.
(Plates 70-71)
Berlin, gr. 16.68
London, gr. 16.31f
Athens (Oreos Hd.); Commerce 1957
(Abruzzi Hd.)
Athens, gr. 16.50f
Athens (Delos Hd.AH), badly corrodedf
Moscow; Athens, gr. 16.70f; Athens (Delos
Hd.AH), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.10*
Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr. 16.85f; Berlin,
gr. 15.96
Oxford, gr. 16.65; Cambridge (SNG 8218),
gr.16.80f; Glasgow (Hunt. 130), gr.16.56f;
Berry Coll., gr. 16.70f; Stack's (South) 616;
Romanos Coll. (Sv. 58, 1), gr. 16.58; Pet-
salis Coll., gr. 16.72f
Athensf; Berlin, gr. 16.18
243
|a-
eoi
Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 15.90f; Com-
merce 1955
Lb.
eoi
Halmyros Hd.; Winterthur Cast
c.
AION
10
Sophia, gr. 16.69
EYMAPEIAHZ - KAEOMEN
(KAEOMEN/ d. APII T ZO
AAKIAAM)
e. AHMO A 10
f.
AHM
20
g-
10
h.

AHM
MHTP
10
i.
TIMOK
10
*Empedocles Coll. = Baltatzi Coll. (Sv.58,8)
= Mavrokordatou Coll. {JIAN, 1912,
1322), gr. 16.90
Vienna, gr. 16.46; Copenhagen (SNG 155),
gr. 16.13 (pierced) f
Halmyros Hd.
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.78 \
Athens (Delos Hd.AH); Athens, gr. 16.55f
Parma (Sv. S3, 8)
674.
a. AION B ME *Berry Coll. (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.82f;
Stockholm, gr. 16.49; London, gr. 16.50f;
16.35; Athens, gr. 16.63f; Athens, gr.
16.65I1
b. AjON B? Athens, fragment
675.
(AAKIAA) a. AION B Zfi *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.)
b. AION B Zft Berlin, gr. 16.87
676.
APIZ T? *Ratto, Oct. 1934, 167, gr. 16.68
677.
a. APIZ T Zfi Oxford, gr. 16.10f
b. APIZ T ZO>/Zn Empedocles Coll.; Halmyros Hd.; ANS-
ETN, gr. 16.58f; ANS, gr. 16.42f
1 The Stockholm coin served as the prototype for the following cast copies: The Hague
(gr. 14.20), Copenhagen (SNG 154, gr. 14.45) and Tubingen (gr. 15.57). A tetradrachm in the
Cleveland Museum of Art, also cast, is an exact replica of the British Museum piece.
244
678.
679.
(KAEOME)
(KAEOME)
c.
AHMO
Cambridge (Grose 5911), gr. 16.57f; Berlin,
gr. 16.41
d.
ahm
ia
Athens (Delos Hd. AH)
e.
AIK
in
Karlsruhe, control letters uncertain, gr. 16.54
f.
ASK
in

Brussels, gr. 16.18
MHTP
in
*Romanos Coll.
h.
MHTP
Paris (de Luynes 2115), gr. 16.80f; Gotha,
gr. 16.24; Berlin, gr. 16.66
1a-
APII
ME
Romanos Coll.
b.
AHMO/
A/r
ME
Hamburger 98, 698 (Halmyros Hd.), gr.
APII
16.84; Berlin, gr. 16.77
1 c-
AHMO
ME
Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr.15.61f; Athens,
gr. 15.98; Berlin (Sv. 58, 4), gr. 16.75
|d.
AHMO
ME
Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Commerce
1 e-
AIK
ME
1 f-
AIK
ME
245
TIMOK/
MHTP
AEflN
AEflN
AEflN
TTYPPI/
(?)AEflN
nYPPI
0/H ME Meletopoulos Coll.
I ME * Vienna, gr. 16.67; ANS (Cretan Hd. II),
gr. 16.15 (broken) f; Bauer Coll. = Ratto
(Rogers) 890, gr.16.74f; Berlin, gr. 16.70
I ME Berlin (Sv. 58, 9), gr. 16.80
I ME/ Piraeus Hd., gr. 16.56. With TTYPPI/AEflN
(?)Z<t> and A/I: London, gr. 16.42f
A/K ME London, gr. 16.50f; Athens (Halmyros Hd.)
M ME ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.54f;
AEflN
AEflN
ZO Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr. 16.05f; Berlin,
gr. 16.45
ZO * Athens, gr. 16.60|
AEflN

(recut)
nYPPI
K Zfl
? ZO
Paris, gr. 16.06f
Vienna, gr. 16.42
nYPPI
K ZO
nYPPI
nYP
A ZO *Halmyros Hd.; Athens (Delos Hd. T, 116;
Sv. 53, 10), gr. 16.60t
M ZO *Berlin (Sv. 58, 11), gr. 16.72
EYMAP - AAKI
001
Zfl Athens (Delos Hd. B, 80; Sv. 53, 12), gr.
4.07f
1 drachm
Magistrates: GOI, AION, AP1Z, AHMO, AZK,
MHTP, TIMOK, AEflN, nYPPI
Controls: ME, ZO, Z0>, Zfl
246
For this issue there are numerous divergent readings in the earlier publi-
cations, some able to be corrected but others impossible to check. The name of
the third magistrate is often inscribed in very small letters which makes de-
cipherment difficult, and recutting is an added complication. Beule gives AION
with KAEOMEN from his collection and Kambanis has the same combination
with r on the amphora, after a Delos Hoard coin which I think is No. 115 of the
r Hoard. The piece was not accessible when I was in Athens but Svoronos
records the name as APIS. Sundwall lists APIZ with K after Beule; the latter,
however, says the letter is not clear. In Sundwall also there is a AEQN - A
combination after a Paris coin cited by Beule. This is No. 679g with K on the
amphora as read by both Kambanis and myself.
Two third magistrates of whom I can find no record appear in the listings.
The MENE of Beule from the Fox Collection would seem to be the last line of
KAEOMEN, the true third magistrate's name being perhaps illegible or minutely
inscribed and hence easily overlooked. Kambanis in his notebook records
TTPOTIM with 6. Three of the examples he cites (our Nos. 678g in therecut
form, 673i and 679f) can be checked and the correct reading is TIMOK, usually
over MHTP. Beule incidentally gives the magistrate on the same Parma coin
(No. 673i) as AEflN.
To the best of my belief only the nine third magistrates of the present
catalogue are to be associated with Eumareides and his colleagues. Individual
terms of office are generally irregular but the coinage as a whole is fairly evenly
distributed throughout the year.
One tetradrachm is included in the catalogue with some reservation. No. 676
differs considerably in style from the other dies of this issue and this period,

but without examining the coin itself I am unable to form a definite judgment
on its authenticity.
XAPINAYTHS - APIZTEAI DEMETER (?) WITH TORCHES 144/3 b.c.
(Plates 72-73)
Tetradrachms
686.
ra.
lb.
NIKA
NIKA
ME
ME
Berlin, gr. 16.81
*Athens (Delos Hd. T, 235), gr. 16.801.
With AlONYIOAfi/NlKA and B/A:
Paris, gr. 16.72f
687.
b.
a.
NIKA
NIKA
XD/IQ *Athens (Delos Hd. T, 233), gr. 16.751
I<D Romanos Coll.; Dewing Coll., control
letters uncertain, gr. 16.201
|c.
NIKA
10
Ud.
AIONYZOAG/
B/A
ZO/ME
Athens (Delos Hd. V, 238), gr. 16.68f
NIKA
e.
AlONYZOAfl/
B/A
Id)
NIKA
r*-
IAZAN/
A/r
10
Berlin, gr. 16.67
EYAHMOZ
1a-
NIKA

ZQ
Athens (Delos Hd. T, 234; Sv. 61, 15),
gr. 16.65f; ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr.
16.52f; Glendining, Oct. 1957, 102, gr.
16.49
|b.
NIKA
ZQ
The Hague; Hirsch (Weber) 1711, gr.
16.69
1 c-
NIKA
S[
Sophia, gr. 16.65
jd.
NIKA
1 e-
AlONYOZAfl
Zfl
*ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.67|;
(sic)
Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.65f; To-
ronto (Ontario Hd.), gr.16.71f; Hal-
myros Hd.; Herakleion (Cretan Hd. II),
1 f-
EYAHMOZ
ZQ
ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 16.23f. With
IAZAN/EYAHMOZ and A/r: Athens
(Delos Hd. T, 240; Sv. 61, 18), gr.
16.70f; Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr.
16.73f; Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr.
16.05f; Athens, gr. 16.60f. With HPA-
KAEI /I AZflN/EYAHMOZ and E/A/r:
248
690.
691.
1 L |b.
AlONYZOAfl/
B/A
ZO/ZJ2
Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.61f
NIKA
1 1c-
AIONYZOAG
20110
Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.58f; Pet-
j|
salis CoU., gr. 16.76f
1 |d.
EYAHMOI
ZO
*ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr.17.07f;
|j
1 e-
EYAHMOZ
ZO

j|
gr. 16.72f; Athens (Halmyros Hd.)
1 L*-
EYAHMOZ
Z<D
1 g-
IAZQN/
A/r
zn
ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.02|; Berlin,
EYAHMOZ
gr. 16.71
L h.
HPAKAEI/
E/A/r
in
Paris, gr. 16.79f; Vienna, gr. 16.53;
lAZfiN/
Athens, gr. 16.00f
EYAHMOI
i.
HPAKAEI/
E/A
ZO
IAZAN
gr. 16.57t
r i-
EniTI1
S/E
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.65t
r| k.
Enm
Z[
1 I a-
249
c.
AYKI/ H/S/E
AIO
AnOAAO/EniTI
pd.
AYKIZ H
Al
1 e-
EmrO (recut?) 1/9
AIO
1f-
Eniro 1
zo
ig-
En 1
Z<D
|h.
GEOEE A
ZO
KHOIZ/OEOEE M/(?)AAI
1a-
AnOAAO/ S/E
AIO
Enm

|b.
AnOAAOAfi/ S/E
AIO
Enm
1c-
AnOA z
za
Ld.
AIONYZ/AYKIZ 9/H
Al
e.
AIONYZ/AYKIZ 9/H
f.
AIONY 9
ZQ
g-
En 1
Al
h.
En 1
Zfl
phora and control letters uncertain, gr.
16.62f. With AnOAAOAfi/EniTI:
Athens, gr. 16.80f; Berlin, gr. 16.70
Berlin, gr. 16.61
Giamalakis Coll., gr. 16.45
ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr.16.59f; Ro-
manos Coll.
Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 8226;
Sv. 61, 25), gr. 16.68f. With KHcDIZO/
GEOEE and M/A and ZO/ZO: *Paris,
gr. 16.40f
Athens (Delos Hd. T, 249), gr. 16.25f;
Athens (Delos Hd. T, 248), amphora
letter uncertain, gr. 16.75t
Empedocles Coll. = Weber 8522 (Sv. 61,
20), gr. 16.91. With ZOA/AIO:
Bauer Coll. = Ratto (Rogers) 424, gr.
250
693.
694.
i. QEOE A ZQ
j. KHOI ?Z2
a. AnOAAOAfl/ S ZO
EniTI
b. AYKIZKO/ H/S ME
ArTOAAOAQ
a. AnOAAOAB/ S ZO
Enui
b. AYK1Z H ZO
L c. AIONY/
AnOA1
d. AIONY
e. En
g. GEOEE
h. KHOIZOA/
GEOEE
Q/H/Z Z
Q ZO
I ZO
f. eEOE/ETTI A/I ZO
A Al
M/A Z[

Athens, gr. 16.15f
Paris, gr. 16.60f; Commerce
Berlin, gr. 16.60
Commerce 1953, gr. 16.62; Commerce
1955
Athens (Delos Hd. T, 245), gr. 16.20f;
Athens (Delos Hd. T, 247), gr. 16.77|
Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr. 15.58t;
Athens, amphora letter uncertain, gr.
16.05f; Berlin, gr. 15.89
Paris, gr. 16.65f; London, amphora
letter uncertain, gr. 15.80|; Athens
(Delos Hd. T, 248), amphora letter un-
certain, gr. 16.60f
Ratto (Rogers) 426, gr. 16.65; *ANS-
ETN, amphora and control letters un-
certain, gr. 16.60f
Berlin, gr. 16.29
Commerce; Berlin, gr. 16.82
695.
a. En I ME
b. Em I ME
1 It seems likely that AYKIZ was also on
trace of the lettering remains.
Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr. 15.84 f;
Toronto (Ontario Hd.), control letters
uncertain, gr. 16.65f. With GEOE/En
and A/I: Herakleion (Cretan Hd. I)
Piatt (Luneau) 517; London (BMC
513), control letters uncertain, gr.
16.52f. With GEOE/Eni and A/I: Ox-
ford, gr. 16.83
die, below AIONY and over AnOA, but no
251
c. GEOE A ME Athens (Delos Hd. B, 167), brokenf
d. KHCDII M ME Berlin (Sv. 61, 26), gr. 16.76
XAPINAYTH - API2TEAI
Drachm
696.
? ZQ * Athens, gr. 3.69 (Pl.)f
1 drachm
Magistrates: NIKA, AlONYIOAfl, EYAHMOZ, IAIJ2N,
HPAKAEI, EniTI, ATTOAAOAG, AYKIIKO, AIONYI,
EnirO, GECEE, KHOIZOA
Months: A, B, T, A, E, Z, H, 9, I, A, M
Controls: AI(O), ME, 10, SO(A), ISl
Recutting of names and dates makes this a difficult issue to catalogue. As
many as three third magistrates and months appear on a single die and the
deletion of earlier inscriptions is often carelessly done so that the resulting
jumble of letters is confusing. This has led to the recording of a great many
erroneous readings. Most of those given by Beule are corrected by Sundwall
but the latter has a number of misreadings which should perhaps be cited:
AIONY2TT.A with H/9 (from Svoronos, JI AN, 1906, p. 267). In the JI AN
publication, however, the order of months is correctly given as 9/H and AIONY
is listed as over n. A. The tetradrachm in question is our No. 694c which has
AIONY/ATTOA.
9E0EE with K/A is not confirmed by the Svoronos reference {J I AN, 1906,
p. 260our No. 695c) which lists the date as A.

9EOEE with N from Beule. The latter, however, reads the month as a poorly-
formed A on tetradrachms in his own and the Paris collections. Our No. 692h
is the Paris coin. 9E0EE is cut over EFT and A over I. In changing the date a
diagonal stroke has been added to the original I which results in the form N.
What seems at first glance to be another vertical to the right is, I believe,
merely a surface flaw.
ANAPIZKOI as a third magistrate can be corrected from the evidence of the
Berlin coin cited by Beule' and Sundwall. The specimen is our No. 693b which
has AYKIXKO/AT70AAOAQ, a combination which looks not unlike ANAPIZKOZ.
Kambanis' listing of magistrates and months corresponds with the present
catalogue except that the amphora letter on No. 695d is given as N. In the
Tresor index the same date is recorded after the reading of Svoronos or Pick.
The letter is certainly not clear but from the illustration it looks to me far more
252
like an M than an N; I should hesitate to classify 144/3 B.C. as an intercalary
year on the evidence of this one piece.
The symbol on the coinage of Charinautes and Aristeas has been described
by some as Artemis and by others as Demeter.1 Considered in isolation, the
standing female figure with long robe and two torches might be either goddess.
There is, however, the circumstance that on the next two issues the symbol is
definitely Artemis and it seems a little doubtful that the same goddess would
have been selected for three successive strikings. Furthermore there is a re-
lationship between this symbol and that on the issue of ANAPEAZ - XAPI-
NAYTHZ, eight years later, which may provide a clue to the identity of the
figure. The second striking uses as its device a representation of two divinities:
one enthroned with full drapery and a sceptre, the other standing with long
robes and two torches. Recurrence of the name XAPINAYTHZ and the similarity
of the standing figures on the two emissions suggest that the man who served
as first magistrate in 144/8 B.C. is holding office again in 136/5 and that the
symbol which he chose for the earlier striking is repeated as a part of the later
device. The combination of seated and standing figures is usually described as
Dionysos and Demeter; it might, I think, equally well be Demeter and Kore
but there is no decisive evidence one way or the other. In any case whether the
seated deity be Dionysos or Demeter, the associated figure is more likely to be
Demeter or Kore than Artemis.
OANOKAHZ - AFTOAAnNIOZ ARTEMIS WITH TORCH
Tetradrachms
143/2 B.C.
(Plates 74-75)
698.

697.
TIMOKPATH A Zfl
a. TIMOKPATHI A 10
b. TIMOKPATHZ A ZO
c. TIMOKPATHI A ZO
*ANS, gr. 16.85t; Zygman Coll., gr.
16.00t
Berlin, gr. 15.91
Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); *Em-
pedocles Coll.; Moscow
Berlin, gr. 16.57
1 Still another identification is suggested by T. Panofka who makes a connection between
the name of the first magistrate and his chosen device {Annali dell' Inst, di Corrisp. arch., 1840,
pp. 201-203). Pointing out that Charinautes signifies "favorable to navigators", Panofka links
the torch-bearing goddess with Selene whose nocturnal illumination served to guide sailors. This
interpretation is certainly possible but it seems somewhat fanciful. One has the feeling that if a
definite association such as this had been intended the standing figure would have been clearly
identified as the moon goddess by means of a distinctive attribute.
253
TIMOKPATH A 10
TIMOKPATH??
TIMOKPATH A Zfl
BAKXIOI
AAE
Zfl
16.89f; Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros
Hd.). With APIZTOAHMOZ/TIMO-
KPATH and B/A: *ANS-ETN = Ratto
(Rogers) 420, gr. 16.76f; Athens (Delos
Hd.AH), amphora and control letters
uncertain, gr.16.88t. With ZflZTPA-
TOZ/APIZTOAHMOZ/TIMOKPATH and
T/B/A: Paris (de Luynes 2112), gr.
16.20f
Athens, gr. 16.50f
Athens (Sv. 61, 7), gr. 16.50f
TIMOKPATHZ A ME
APIZTOAHMOZ/ B/A ME
TIMOKPATHZ

APIZTOAHMOZ B ME
BAKXIOZ
BAKXIOZ
AAEEAN
ME
A ME
Z ME
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.54f; Em-
pedocles Coll.; Commerce 1955 (Halmy-
ros Hd.), gr. 16.47f; Berlin, gr. 16.45
Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 956 =
Sv. 61, 2, Romanos, gr. 16.70
London, gr. 16.61f; Athens, gr. 15.85f.
With ZflZTPATOZ/APIZTOAHMOZ and
T/B: *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr.
16.78|; Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr.
15.90f; Berlin (Sv. 61, 8), gr. 16.62
Copenhagen (SNG 160), gr.16.16f;
gr. 16.70f; London, gr. 16.25f; Athens,
amphora and control letters uncertain,
gr. 16.60f
Athens, badly crystallizedf
TIMOKPATH A ZO
TIMOKPATH??
Oxford, gr. 16.66; Athens (Delos Hd.
AH), brokenf. With APIZTOAHMOZ/
TIMOKPATH and B/A: Berlin, gr. 15.53
Vienna, gr. 16.85
254
I d-
rl e-
I I f-
I I fi-
ll- h.
rl I
III i-
| | | k.
703. | | |
III a-
I I I b.
704. | | |
IIL
705. | |
lL a.
L b.
ZflZTPATOZ/
r/B
zo
APIZTOAHMOZ
BAKXIOZ
zo
ZQ

QEOAfi
GEO
ZO
QEOAQPOZ/
H/Z
zo/zo
Romanos Coll.
AAEEAN
EIPHNAI/QEO-
G/H/Z ZO/ME
Copenhagen (SNG 161), gr. 16.39|
AQPOZ/AAEEAN
EIPH/GEO
G/H
Leipzig
EIPH
zo
Athens (Delos Hd. T, 281; Sv. 61, 8)
gr. 16.85f
OIAINOZ
zo
Commerce 1958; Athens (Delos Hd
AH), amphora and control letters un-
certain, gr. 15.25|
BAKXIOZ
AAEEAN
ZO *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.82f;
Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Commerce
1957 (Abruzzi Hd.); Berlin, gr. 16.70
ZO Berlin (Sv. 61, 5), gr. 16.24. With GEO-
AQPOZ/AAEEAN and H/Z: *ANS-
ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 422, gr. 16.81t;
gr. 16.82f
AAEEAN
ME *London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.2S|;
c.
(DIAINOZ
ZQ
Vienna, gr. 16.48; Berry Coll., gr.
16.65f
d.
(CIA!
ZQ
Athens, gr. 15.80f
e.
ZTPA
A/K
ZQ
London {BMC 508; Sv. 61, 10), gr.
(prob. recut)
16.71f; Vienna, control letters un-
certain, gr. 16.85
r f-
ZTPA
zo
London {BMC 509), gr. 16.45f; ANS
(Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 16.22f
rl s-

ZTPATIOZ
Commerce 1982; Istanbul (ZarovaHd.),
! 1 h-
IAT
Zfl
ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr.16.67f;
!i
Athens, gr. 16.27f; Petsahs Coll., gr.
16.63. With OIAO0/ZAT and M/A:
j|
1 1 r1-
OlAOOEOZ/
M/A
ZQ/?
Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr. 16.75f;
ZTPATIOZ
| | | a.
IEPJ1N
ME
Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr. 16.05f. With
111
OlAINOZ/IEPflN and 1/0: *Athens,
11I
(Delos Hd.B, 163; Sv.61, 9), gr.16.48f;
111
Glasgow (Hunt. 186), gr. 16.48f; Athens
111
(Delos Hd.AH), gr. 15.82f; Athens
111
1 1 b-
AZKAAFIflN
ME
Commerce 1952, gr. 16.77
| | | c.
256
e.
f.
(Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.61f; Athens (Delos
Hd.AH), amphora letter uncertain, gr.
15.48f
2TPA M/A ZO Berlin (Sv. 61, 18), gr. 16.72
OIAO0EOZ M ZO MarseiUes; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 165;
Sv. 61, 12), gr. 16.45
708.
ZTPA
zo
b. OIAO0/( ?)ZTPA M/A ZO
Athens (Delos Hd. B, 164), gr. 15.98f;
KambanisColl. (HalmyrosHd.); Stack's
(South) 612. With M/A: Athens (Delos
Hd.AH), gr.15.74f; Athens, gr.l6.22|
Berlin, control letters uncertain, gr.
15.82 (pierced)
709.
OIAO0EOZ/ M/(?)AME/ZO *ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 423 =
ZTPATIOZ Naville XIII, 759, gr.16.60f; Buda-
pest, gr. 16.50f

OANOKAHZ - ATTOAAflNI
Drachm
685.
IEP/(?)GEO ? *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 162; Sv. 61, 14),
gr. 8.85f
1 drachm
Magistrates: TIMOKPATHZ, APIZTOAHMOZ, ZftZTPATOZ.
BAKXIOZ, AAEEAN, 9E0AQP0Z, EIPHNAI, IEPAN, Ol-
AINOZ, AZKAATTQN, ZAT, ZTPATIOZ, OIAO0EOI
Months: A, B. T, A, Z, H, 0, I, K, A, M
Controls: ME, ZO, Z(D, Zfl
A drachm die, No. 685, links the coinage of Phanokles and Apollonios with
that of Eumareides and Kleomenes. For reasons that are outlined in the com-
mentary following this section of the coinage, I do not believe that the two
issues are contiguous. Rather this seems to be a case parallel to that of No. 411,
also a drachm die, which was apparently in service over a period of three years.
257
In this instance, however, there may have been no fractional coinage under
Charinautes and Aristeas whose term of office immediately precedes that of
Phanokles and Apollonios since the only drachm on record is a plated specimen
which may or may not have been an official issue.
Of the thirteen third magistrates known for the year 143/2 B.C., IEPQN and
ZAT are each represented by a single tetradrachm reverse. The former is not in
SundwaU's record but Kambanis lists his name. Ostensibly his tenure followed
that of EIPHNAI since the name of the next magistrate, QIAINOZ, is found cut
over lEPflN but not over EIPHNAI. ZAT on the other hand seems to have served
briefly in association with ZTPATIOZ during lambda. The latter's term extends
into M but (JMAO0EOZ, his successor, is inscribed over A reverses of both ZAT
and ZTPATIOZ.
I have found no evidence for coinage during month E. Beule gives this date
with BAKXIOZ from a coin in his collection and Sundwall and Kambanis repeat
the entry but all BAKXIOZ pieces that I have seen have delta on the amphora.
EYBOYAIAHZ - ArA0OKAH
Tetradrachms
710.
711.
712.
713.
<DIAO
oiAoe
EOAfi/
OIAO0

|-a. 0EOAQ/
<DIAO0
EOAQ
zo
ARTEMIS WITH FAWN 142/1 B.C.
(Plates 76-77)
"London {BMC 404; Sv. 59, 17), gr. 16.36f;
Athens (Delos Hd.AH), amphora and control
letters uncertain, gr. 16.08f
AYZin
A ZQ *Giesecke Coll. (Sv. 59, 16), gr. 16.76
A ZQ * Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr. 16.52f; Istanbul
(Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.70 /; Berlin, gr. 16.02
A Zfl *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.78f; Ratto
(Rogers) 416, amphora and control letters un-
certain, gr. 16.65; Berlin, gr. 16.47
A Zfl *London {BMC 403), gr. 15.91f; The Hague,
gr. 16.05; Karlsruhe, gr. 16.54
ZfllAOZ - EYANAPOZ BEE
T Zft L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.40; Kambanis
Coll. (Halmyros Hd.). With MENNGN/AYZin
and A/H ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.25f
MENNQN A ZQ Leningrad (Sv. 60, 18), gr. 16.38; Lockett
Coll. (SNG 1922) = Ratto (Rogers) 418, gr.
16.63f; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), amphora letter
EYBOYAIAHI - AfAOOKAH ARTEMIS
OEOAQ A ME *Paris (de Luynes 2102), gr. 16.57f (Plate 75).
With AYIin/GEOAfl and B/A: Leningrad
(Sv. 59, 20), gr. 16.70
AYZITT/ B/A ME(?)/ *L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.50
9E0AG/ ZQ
OIAO0
ZfllAOZ - EYANAPOZ BEE
AYZIMEN T ME Athens (Sv. 60, 17), gr. 16.60t
AEINIAZ A ME ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.54t
EYBOYAIAHI - ArABOKAH ARTEMIS
CDIAO0 A 10 * ANS-ETN = Sotheby, Dec. 1924, 127, gr.
16.60f; Copenhagen (SNG 162), gr. 16.78f;
Kricheldorf V, 80 = Schlessinger (Hermit-
age 2) 932, gr. 16.70. With eEOA/cDIAOG:
*Romanos Coll. (Sv. 59, 18), gr. 16.82; Athens
(Delos Hd. =e)|. With AYII/9E0A/(DIA0e
and B/A: *Paris (Sv. 59, 19), gr. 16.83f
0EOA A 10 Berry Coll., gr. 16.64f
AYII/9E0A B/A ZO/ME *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.67f; Copen-

hagen {SNG 163), gr. 16.59f; Athens (Sv. 59,
21), gr. 17.00
ZniAOZ - EYANAPOZ BEE
AYZin T ZO * ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.53|; Paris.
gr. 16.21f
259
e.
MENNO (sic
)A
SO
f.
AEINIAS
SO
g-
AEINIAZ
20
h.
AIKAHni/?
Z/E
SO
i.
nOAYKPA/
H/Z
SO
AIKAHni
ZfllAOS
SO

a.
AYZin
SQ
b.
AYiin(?)
c.
ANTIIGE
SO
d.
AIKAHI (sic
)S
so
e.
AIKAHn
so
716.
a. ANTISGE Z/E ME
b. ASKAHTTI Z ME
c. ZfllAOS ME
d. GEOEEN/ 0 ME
ZfllAOS
717.
a. ANTISGE Z SQ
b. GEOEEN/? I/Q Sfl
c. SflKPA A Sfl
Berlin, gr. 15.90; Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr.
16.78f
ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.60f; Kambanis
Coll. (BCH, 1982, PI. I, 2)
16.80; Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Athens
Berlin, gr. 16.58
ANS-ETN, gr. 16.42f; Athens (Delos Hd.
AH), gr. 16.10f. With ZBIAOS/TTOAYKPA/
ASKAHTTI and G/H/Z: *Copenhagen (SNG
164), gr. 16.89f; Berlin (Sv. 60, 23), gr. 16.58;
London, gr.16.71f; Athens (Delos Hd.AH),
gr. 16.15f
26o
718.
719.
720.
721.
d.
AAMIOI
e.
KPI
a.
6E0EEN/
Z<D
ZQ1AOZ
b.
ZflKPA
ZO
a.
9E0EEN
ME
b.
ZQKPAT
ME
c.

KPITQN/
M/?
ME
(?)ZKPAT
a.
ZQKPAT
ME
b.
ZflKPAT
ME
a.
ZQKPAT
ZO
b.
KPITQN/
M/?
ZO
ZQKPAT
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.65f. With KPI-
TQN/AAMIOZ and M/A: Halmyros Hd.1
ANS-ETN, gr. 16.44f
Copenhagen (SNG 165), gr. 16.30|
* Athens (Delos Hd. T, 183; Sv. 60, 26), gr.
16.70f; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 15.95; Ber-
lin, gr. 16.09
*Romanos Coll. (Sv.60, 24), gr. 16.77; Vatican
Empedocles Coll.; Athens, gr. 16.80f; Gie-
secke Coll., amphora and control letters un-
certain, gr. 16.56
Berlin (Sv. 60, 25), gr. 15.89
Athensf
Vienna, gr. 16.50. With ZO/ZO: *Empedocles
Coll.; Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr. 15.90*;
Copenhagen (SNG 166; Sv. 60, 27), gr. 16.34!;
Berlin, gr. 16.88
261
ZCJIAOX - EYANAP BEE
(EYAN) c. AY T?
d. ANTI??
(EYANA) e. 9E 9 ME
*Athens (Delos Hd. B, 95; Sv. 60, 28), gr. 4.07f
Athens (Delos Hd.A-2, 9), gr. 8.76t
*ANS, gr. 8.98f (Plate 79); Athens (Delos
Hd. B, 97), amphora and control letters un-
certain, gr. 8.75f; Athens (Sv. 60, 29), am-
phora and control letters uncertain, gr. 3.70f
Magistrates: <D!A09, 9E0AQ, AYZITT, AYZIMEN,
MENNflN, AEINIAZ, ANTIZ0E, AIKAHni, T70AY-
KPA, ZftlAOZ, 9EOEEN, ZQKPAT, AAMIOZ, KPITON
Controls: ME, ZO, ZQ, Zfl
In the BCH for 1932 (pp. 39-46) Kambanis establishes the replacement of
first and second magistrates during the course of this emission. EYBOYAIAHZ
and ArA90KAH function for two months (A and B) and are then succeeded by
ZQIAOZ and EYANAPOZ who serve out the remainder of the year. Coincident
with the shift of officials is a change in symbols: a bee with a spear of grain
in its mouth supersedes the archaic Artemis with fawn of the earlier magistrates.
At least three obverse dies (Nos. 710-712) are used by Euboulides and Aga-
thokles alone; four others (Nos. 713, 709, 714 and 722) are transferred from

one pair of magistrates to the other.
This striking is firmly linked to the one immediately preceding by Ob-
verse 709 which is in operation briefly at the end of 143/2 under (DANOKAHZ -
ATIOAAQNIOZ and then persists through the first four months of 142/1 B.C.
under both EYBOYAIAHZ -ArA9GKAH and ZfllAOZ - EYANAPOZ. The con-
nection between the two issues is illustrated on Plate 75.
Fourteen third magistrates share the minting responsibility and the dia-
grammatic survey of their terms of office provides one of the most complex
patterns in the series thus far. Only three months of the year (B, K and M) are
associated with a single name. Five officialsAYZIT7, AEINIAZ, ANTIZ9E,1
AZKAHni and 9E0EEN serve for a part of two adjoining months; ZQKPAT is
in office for three. The sequence within each month is established by recuttings
in every case but that of AAMIGZ. A reverses of both ZflKPAT and AAMIOZ are
1 There is no reverse recorded for ANTIZ9E with E alone on the amphora but No. 716a has
Z/E. Since the name shows no evidence of recutting, this die indicates a two months' tenure for
ANTIZ9E.
262
re-inscribed by KPITflN in M, and there is no way of knowing whether AAMIOI
succeeded Z flKPAT or served with him for a brief period at the end of lambda.
AYZIMEN and AAMIOI are known from a single reverse each. The first name
is listed by Sundwall and Kambanis, the second is new to the record but there
can be no doubt of the reading on the Istanbul coin. Beule and Sundwall give
magistrates, amphora letters and control combinations which do not appear
in the present catalogue. Kambanis in his notebook lists TIMOKPA (H) as a
magistrate and FIE and ATT as controls. However, in the BCH publication, which
can scarcely antedate the notebook record since Kambanis speaks of having
examined the coins in various museum collections, most of the dubious readings
of Beule are corrected1 and Kambanis' own exceptional notebook entries are
missing. The summary of magistrates, dates and control combinations as it
appears in the Bulletin (p. 42) corresponds with the catalogue above.2
AAMflN - ZflZIKPATHZ QUIVER AND BOW 141/0 B.C.
(Plates 78-79)
Tetradrachms
Athens (Delos Hd. AH), gr.16.24f;
Athens (Delos Hd.AH; Sv. 59, 1), gr.
15.80f
*Paris (Sv. 59, 2), gr.16.89f; Athens
(Delos Hd.AH), gr.16.02f; Athens,
gr. 15.80; Stuttgart, gr. 16.57
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.63f;
Paris, brokenf

Vienna, gr. 16.60
ANS-ETN (Hahnyros Hd.), gr. 16.63f
1 Kambanis' interpretation of Beule's KAEOMEN as a misreading of OEOEEN is substan-
tiated by Seyrig's record of the Hermitage coins. One tetradrachm has -EO/-EN with an un-
certain amphora letter and the Z<t> control that Beule gives. Apparently the latter was restoring
a plausible if erroneous name on the basis of a poorly-preserved inscription. The amphora letter
which Beule lists as B and Kambanis thinks might be H is more likely I/O.
2 The only exception is AYZIMEM, Kambanis' entry, instead of AYZIMEN. The inscription
does seem to have a terminal M but it is probably a carelessly engraved N confused with the end
of the owl's wing that gives this impression. The AYZirTTT, ANTIZOEN and ZfllAOI of the listing
on page 42 are almost certainly errors in transcription similar toOEOAAand AENNIAZ of page 45.
719.
(Horizontal
quiver alone)
KPI
A ME
r b. KPITflN A ME
c. KPITflN
d. KPITflN
B ME
r ME
723.
(Horizontal
quiver alone)
ra. KPI A TIE
263
b. KPITftN B An Athens (Delos Hd. T, 62; Sv. 59, 3),
gr. 16.65; Athens (Delos Hd.AH)f.
With T/B: Berlin, gr. 16.66; Toronto
(Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.70 /
721.
(Horizontal
quiver alone)
1 Diagonal
724.
(Horizontal
(ZfiZI-
KPITHZ)
725.
1 1 a-
KPI
10
1 lb-
KPI
1 1 c-
KPI
in

L|d.
KPITflN
ME
1 e-
KPITflN
10
1 f-
KPITflN
20
rig-
NIKONO
UE
1 |h.
NIKONO
ZO
1 1 i-
IAZGN
20
1 1 J-
APIZTON/
z/?
201
||
GEOAflP
1 lk-
KAEIAAMO
UE
1 La-
KPI
TTE
1 b.
KPI
nE
1 c-
264
726.
727.
b. NIKONO/ A/? ME
KPITON
c. NIKONO A ME
La. NIKONO/
KPITflN1
L b. NIKONO
c.
d.
e.
f.
A/r/B fie
A/r nE
GEOAflP
apiiton/
GEOAQP/
NIKONO
EnirEN
KAEIAAMO/
EnirEN
KAEIAAMO
a. NIKONO/
KPITflN
b. NIKONO/

KPITQN
c. GEOAQP/
NIKONO
d. IAZQN
z/? nE
H/Z/?
E/A
Halmyros Hd.; Berlin, gr. 15.59
*Chiha Coll.; Andreopoulos Coll.
Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); To-
ronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 16.55f
Berlin, gr. 16.84. With QEOAflP/NI-
KONO and E/A/r: "Uncertain*. With
APIZTflN/QEOAflP/ NIKONO and Z/E/
A/r: * Athens (Delos Hd. AH), gr.15.45f.
With Em rEN/APIZTON/OEOAflP/NI-
KONO and H/Z/E/A/r: 'Athens (Delos
Hd. T, 66; Sv. 59, 9), gr. 16.80t
Berlin, gr. 16.84
Berlin, gr. 16.66
9 nE Budapest, gr. 16.51f
1/9 nE/ME London (BMC 357), gr. 16.84f
I nE ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.12f;
ANS (Anatolia Hd.), crystallized!
A/ An/IO Athens (Delos Hd. 1", 64; Sv. 59, 5),
r(?)/ gr.16.70f; *Univ. Pa. Mus.; Vienna,
B gr. 16.52; Berlin, gr. 16.28. Amphora
and control letters clear only on first
A/? An/? Cambridge (SNG 3225), gr. 16.25f;Na-
ville (Woodward) 752, gr. 16.72; Com-
merce 1982 (Halmyros Hd.)
E/A An/ME *ANS-ETN, gr.16.76f; Athens (Delos
Hd.AH), gr. 16.20f; Commerce 1932
(Halmyros Hd.); Athens (Delos Hd. T,
65; Sv. 59, 6), control letters uncertain,
gr. 16.60f
E An *Paris (Sv. 59, 7), gr. 16.48f
1 The ZflllKPITHZ of the early stage of the die has been changed to IQIIKPATHZ with
the recutting of the amphora letter and the name of the third magistrate.
2 Kambanis' cast is labelled Tubingen but the coin is not in the collection there. There is
no certainty that this reverse was coupled with Obverse 726 but it seems likely in view of the
three other stages of the reverse associated with that die.
265
9E0AGP
f. ETTirEN
728.
g. KAEIAAMO!
IAIAN
b. GEOAflP
c. EnifEN
Ld. EnirEN 0
e. EnirEN e
f. KAEIAAMO I
AFT London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.67f.
With APirTGN/eEOAflP: Commerce
1952
An Athens (Delos Hd.AH; Sv. 59, 10), gr.
16.40f; Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr.
16.20f; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.55
An Commerce 1955f. With K/l: Athens,
gr. 16.50f; Berlin, gr. 16.63
ME Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr.16.08f;
GEOAflP/lAIflN: 'Kambanis (Halmy-
ros Hd.); London (BMC 855), gr.16.76t;

Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.75f; Evel-
pidis Coll. (Oreos Hd.), gr. 16.67
ME Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.55f
ME Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr. 16.20f. With
KAEIAAMO/EnirEN and l/G(?)/H and
ME: Vienna, gr. 16.52; Athens, gr.
15.75f; London, gr. 16.42f; Sophia, gr.
16.20; Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr. 15.90f;
An Paris, gr. 15.78 (Pl.)f
ME The Hague, gr. 16.05; Athensf
ME Berlin (Sv. 59, 11), gr. 16.81
729.
a.
AnOAAfiNI
ME
Winterthur, gr. 16.46/; Paris, gr.
16.40f; Berhn (Sv. 59, 12), gr. 16.18
b.
AnOAAfiNI
ME
Berlin (Sv.59,18), gr. 16.18 (Plate 80)
c.
TIMflN
ME
KambanisColl. (Halmyros Hd.);Athens
(Sv. 59,14), gr. 15.50f; BerUn
d.
TIMflN
10
Paris, gr. 16.22f
a.
AnOAAJiNI
An
(Plate 80); Athens (Delos Hd.AH),
266
731.
(ZfiZI-
KPITHZ)
732.
a. AnOAAfiNI M
b. TIMfiN M
TIMfiN
TIMC2N
TIMfiN
TIE Glasgow (Hunt. 102), gr. 16.15f
TIE *L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.70; Lon-
don, gr. 16.44 /
FTE Athens, gr. 15.90f
ZO *Copenhagen (SNG 167), gr. 16.52f; Del
Marte Coll. (Oreos Hd.), gr. 16.68f
ZO Empedocles Coll.
Drachms
722.
NIK/KPI (?)
733.
a. NIK
b. KAEI
A1

gr. 4.14 \; Paris; Athens, gr. 8.90 \
734.
KAEI A2 ? *London (BMC 858), gr. 8.60
Magistrates: KPITQN, NIKONO, IAZAN,
OEOAflP, APIZTQN, ETTirEN, KAEI-
AAMO, AnOAAfiNI, TIMflN
Controls: An, ME, nE, ZO, Zfl
Three obverse dies of the ZfllAOZ - EYANAPOZ issue continue in use under
AAMQN - ZQZIKPATHZ: Nos. 719 (see Plate 78 and BCH, 1932, PI. I, 3 and 4),
721 (Plate 77) and 722 (Plate 79). Of these, Nos. 719 and 722 are discarded
fairly early in the year but No. 721 survives at least into month Z.
1 It is hard to be sure of the exact amphora reading. The A is definite on the Athens coin
illustrated but it looks as though there were something under it. This does not seem to be the K
that one would expect but rather an Mperhaps that letter was cut in error and a correction
made before the die was used. On the Paris piece the A has a distinct cross bar but this is merely
part of a flaw which extends horizontally across the body of the amphora.
2 The BMC reading is KAEIA. I wonder if it is not TIM over another name, probably KAEIA.
267
Responsibility for the coinage of 141/0 B.C. is distributed among nine third
magistrates whose tenures reflect the pattern of irregularity which seems to be
normal for this period. On two occasions a single official controls the output
of two full months and part of a third; in other cases a single month is associated
with two third magistrates.1 Recutting of names and amphora letters reaches
its apogee in this issue with four magistrates and five months inscribed on the
same die. Illustration of the various stages of this reverse is to be found on
Plate 78. No. 721g has NIKONO and r with no evidence of an underlying name
or date. On No. 726b (1) 6EOAJ3P is over NIKONO and E is over A and r (the
A/T with NIKONO appears on a Berlin piece not on the plate, the first entry
under No. 726b). No. 726b (2) carries the alteration of the die a step further:
APIZTflN over the two earlier magistrates and Z over E, A and T; finally in
No. 726b (3) we have EnirEN/APIZTflN/OEOAfiP/NIKONO and H/Z/E/A/r. For-
tunately, recutting to this extent is exceptional.
A certain variation in the rendering of the symbol is noteworthy. Some
early reverses with KPI instead of KPITflN and A on the amphora have only a
quiver in the right field, either on its side or in a diagonal position. Later re-
verses invariably show the sheath upright with the outline of a bow behind it.
EYMHAOZ-KAAAIOflN TYCHE 140/89 B.C.
729.
730.
731.
Tetradrachms
a. AAEE
b. AAEE

AAEE
a. AAEE
ME
ME
An
10
b. AAEE B 10
(Plates 80-81)
Kambanis Coll.
Yale Univ., gr. 16.53f
Berry Coll., gr. 16.60f; Berlin, gr. 16.24; Athens
(Delos Hd. B, 81; Sv. 60, 1), gr. 16.10f; Vatican
Halmyros Hd.; * Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr.
16.10f (Plate 79). With B/A: Athens (Delos
Hd. KS, 88), gr. 15.45f
Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr. 15.65f; Berlin, gr.
16.78
1 MIKO with H, read by von Prokesch-Osten on one of his coins (Inedita, p. 262) and
changed to MIKIO and A (?) by Beule, is most likely NIKONO/KPITflN with A as our No.727a.
A single drachm reverse provides the only evidence in the present catalogue for the asso-
ciation of KAEIAAMO with month lambda. Kambanis in his notebook lists a tetradrachm in the
Berlin Collection with KAEIAAMO, A and ATTO but the piece is No. 727g with, I think, only K/l.
The O of the control is a berry on the wreath.
AAEE
r/B
ZO
Athens, gr. 16.35f
AAEE
ZO
Commerce 1955f
AAEE
An
Berlin, gr. 15.51 (corroded)
AAEE
B/A
10
"Athens (Delos Hd. T, 118; Sv. 60, 2), gr. 16.65j;
Berlin, gr. 16.62
AAEE
ZO
*Romanos Coll. (Plate 79)
AAEE
An
ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.54f; Athens,
gr. 16.35f
An

AAEE
Athens (Sv. 60, 8), gr. 16.50f
AAEE
ZO
*ANS, gr.16.46f; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr.
16.52f; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.51f
AAEE
r/B
ZO
Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.76f; Vienna, gr. 16.30
AIOKA/
A/r
ZO
Paris, gr.16.49t; Athens (Delos Hd. AH), gr.
AAEE
15.40f
AIOKA
ZO
HPA
ZO
Athens (Salamis Hd.), gr. 16.50f; Berlin, gr.
16.35. With Z/E: ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.),
gr. 16.55f
AIOKA
An
Berlin, gr. 16.44
AIOKA
An
*Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr. 15.96f; Athens
(Sv. 60, 4), gr. 16.45|; Athens
AIOKA
An
Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr.15.80f; Berlin, gr.
16.27
269
Paris, gr.16.35f; Athens (Halmyros Hd.);
Washington Univ.
Athens (Sv.60, 7), gr. 16.60; Berlin, gr. 16.58
Dresse de Lebioles Coll. = Helbing, Nov. 1928,
3983, gr.16.51f; Athens (Delos Hd.AH; Sv.
60, 6), gr. 15.65f; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.45f
Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr. 15.45f; Paris, gr.
15.60f; Athensf
Zurich; Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr. 16.35f;
Athens (Delos Hd. B, 87), gr. 15.60f; Romanos
Coll.; Copenhagen (SNG 169), gr. 16.41f
Romanos Coll.
Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Athens (Delos Hd. B,
88; Sv.60, 10), gr. 15.05 (worn). With A/K:
Athens (Delos Hd. T, 121), gr. 16.65f. With
G/H: * Athens (Delos Hd. B, 86; Sv. 60, 8), gr.
16.85f; Moscow
*ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.65f; Athens
ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.39f; L. Meleto-
poulos Coll., gr. 16.40; Athens, gr. 15.70f

Leningrad (Sv.60, 12), gr. 16.60; Kambanis
Coll. (Arethuse, 1928, PI. XXII, 8)
*ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.58f; Athens
(Halmyros Hd.); Berlin, gr. 16.51
*Athens (Delos Hd.AH; Sv.60, 9), gr. 16.15f;
Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Athens (Delos
Hd.AH), amphora and control letters uncertain,
gr. 15.82f
1 Almost certainly an I was first cut over the and then the two diagonals added to form
a K for the coinage of the third month. It is likely that other K reverses were originally inscribed
with an iota and later altered. Such recutting is well-nigh impossible to detect if the engraving
i i done with skill.
e.
HPA
ME
HPA
ME
1a-
AIOKA
zq
|b.
AlOKA
10 or Q
1c-
HPA
ZO
|d.
HPA
ZO or fl
1e-
HPA
ZO
1f-
HPA
ZO
270
743.
744.
745.
HPA
SO
1 b-
HPA
SO
1 c-
HPA
ZO/
(?)ME
1 a-
HPA
A/K
ZO or ft
1 b-
HPA
ZOorft
1 a-
HPA
An
b.

A/K
HPA
ZO or ft
L c.
HPA
ME
d.
HPA
An
746.
747.
748.
a. HPA
b. HPA
Drachms
a. AAE
b. HPA
Hemidrachms
HP
Aberdeen, gr. 16.21f; Berlin, gr. 16.62
Glasgow (Hunt. 181), Pl.f
Halmyros Hd.
10
ZO
Athens, gr. 16.60f
ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.74f (Plate82)
Berry Coll. = Hamburger 98, 694, gr. 16.72f;
Kambanis Coll. (BCH, 1982, PI. I, 7); Lockett
Coll. {SNG 1920) = Ratto (Rogers) 417, am-
Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); ANS-ETN
(Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.52f; London (Halmyros
271
No less than four tetradrachm obverses join this issue with that of AAMQN -
IflllKPATHI: Nos. 729 (Plate 80 and BCH, 1932, PI. I, 5 and 6), 780 (Plate 80
and Arethuse, 1928, PI. XXII, 9-11), 731 (Plate 79) and 732 (Plate 79). All
are short-lived. No. 729 is in use for five months, longer than any of the others;
No. 730 is known for only M of 141/0 and A of 140/39 B.C.
The coinage of Eumelos and Kalliphon is noteworthy in two respects. Its
denominations include the hemidrachm, which seems not to have been struck
during the five years between this emission and the earlier one of Diotimos and
Magas, and it is under the control of only three third magistrates, the smallest
number known for any issue thus far. AAEE serves for alpha, beta and gamma;
AIOKA for delta and a part of epsilon; HPA for the remainder of the year. The
MA recorded by Beule after Sestini is probably a misreading of HPA.1
HPAKAEIAHI - EYKAHI(I) WINGED TYCHE WITH AMPHORA
745.
749.
Telradrachms
a. AIO
b. AIKAH
c. AIONYIO
a. AIOK
b. AIKAH
c. AIONYZO
750.
ra. AIKAH
189/8 B.C.

(Plate 82)
A ATI "Commerce 1958 (Halmyros Hd.)
B An Athens (Delos Hd. AH; Sv. 64, 4), gr. lG.OOf;
Berlin, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.53;
Kambanis Coll. {BCH, 1986, PI. VII, 8)
r An Athens (Delos Hd. AH; BCH, 1986, PI.
VII, 4), gr. 16.02|
A ME "Berlin, gr. 16.59
T/(?)B ME London(BMC414),gr.l6.39t;Paris,gr.l6.60t
T ME Athens (DelosHd.T, 144;Sv.64, 5),gr. 16.65;
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), control letters un-
certain, gr. 16.53f
B 10 Beule Coll.,2 gr. 15.68. With AIONYIO/
1 The only other discrepancy between the present catalogue and the earlier publications of
Beule and Sundwall is the MH control combination listed by the former from a Berlin specimen
and by the latter after Bunbury. The Berlin coin has ME and the Bunbury piece almost certainly
had the same lettering. Ifl is given by Beule, Sundwall and Kambanis. I have seen no tetra-
drachm on which the omega is absolutely clear but it may well have been used on a few reverses
of this issue.
* This and a few other casts in the lot assembled by Kambanis are labelled Beule. There is
no indication as to where Kambanis got them; in his notebook he speaks of Beule's collection
as having gone to the Hermitage.
272
751.
b.
c.
L b.
AIONYIO
AIONYIO
AIONYIO/
AIKAH
AIONYIO
c. AIONYIO
d. APIITQN
AIKAH and T/B: * Athens (Delos Hd.AH),
gr. 16.45f; Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr. 15.78|
T 10 ANS-ETN, gr.16.68f; Vienna, gr. 16.13;
Berlin
T 10 Athens
T/B 10 Athens
T 10 *Dewing Coll. = Piatt, May 1921, 82, gr.
15.80f; Paris, gr. 16.45f; Meletopoulos Coll.;
Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr. 16.20f; Athens
(Delos Hd. T, 145), gr. 16.50f
T 10 ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.90f. With
APIITQN/AIONYIO and A/T: Beule Coll.,
gr. 16.21
E 10 Vienna (Sv. 64, 8), gr. 16.45

752.
a. AIONYIO T 10 *Commerce; Kambanis Coll.
b. APIITQN A 10 Athens (Delos Hd.AH; BCH, 1986, PI.VII,
8), gr. 15.83f; London, gr. 16.50f
753.
a.
APIITQN
10
Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr. 15.20t
b.
APIITQN
An
r-
APIITQN
An
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.61f; Copen-
hagen (SNG 172), gr. 16.58I1
|d.
APIITQN(?)
Athens (Delos Hd. AH)f
1e-
nEIGOAA
An
Athens (Delos Hd.AH; Sv. 64, 18), brokenf
1f-
AiorE
An
Istanbul, gr. 16.72|
|g-
AHMOIG/
K/i/e
An
ANS, gr.16.66f; Copenhagen (SNG 174;
AiorE/
Sv.64, 18), gr.16.45f. With A/K/l/0: Kam-
273
755.
756.
757.
a.
MOZXIGN
An
b.
MOZXIflN
10
c.
MOZXIflN(?)
10
d.
nEIGOAA
ME
e.
AiorE
10
a.
nEIGOAA
ME
b.

EYBOYAOZ
ME
c.
AiorE
ME
d.
AHMOZQ
ME
a.
EYBOYAOZ/
e/z
20/
APIZTQN1
b.
AiorE
10
c.
AHMOZG
10
d.
AHMOZQ
ZO
ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.69f. With
ZQ/An: Athens (DelosHd. T, 147), gr.16.65f;
16.45f
Moscow
Athens, gr. 15.14f
Cahn 24 (Fx.Pr.) 539, gr. 16.80
Cambridge (Grose 5913; Sv. 64, 22), gr. 16.76f
Empedocles Coll.; Commerce 1956. With
EYBOYAOZ/nElGOAA and G/H: * Athens
(Sv. 64, 15), gr. 15.00f
Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr.15.35f. With AH-
274
* Athens (Delos Hd. B, 107; Sv. 64, 29), gr.
2.05; Berlin (Sv. 64, 28), gr. 2.04
Magistrates: AIOK, AIKAH, AIONYZO, API-
ZTQN,1 MOZXIflN, TTEI0OAA, EYBOY-
AOI, AlOrE, AHM0Z9
Months: A, B, T, A, E, Z, H, 9, I, K, A M
Controls: ATT, ME, ZO2
In the Bulletin de correspondance hellenique for 1936 (pp. 101-115), Kam-
banis proves that the coinage of Herakleid.es and Eukles must be spread over
two years. The evidence he presents for two distinct sequences of third magis-
trates is extensive and entirely convincing. Additional material in the present
catalogue closes the one gap in Kambanis' series of interlocking dies for the
first issue of Herakleides-Eukles: Obverses 753-4 join the reverses of APIZTflN
with those of his successors in the third magistracy. As the record now stands,
nine third magistrates control the coinage of 139/8 B.C. with all twelve months
of the year represented.3
1 The APIZTAI of Beul6 and Sundwall must, as Kambanis points out, be an erroneous
reading of APIZTflN.
2 Zfl is given by Kambanis for a few coins of this issue but his entries with Zfl share in
some cases a reverse die with pieces which he lists as having ZO. Among the tetradrachms of
No. 751b, for example, Zfl is recorded for the Meletopoulos coin and ZO for the two Athens
pieces. It is often difficult to distinguish between the two combinations but I do not believe that

any reverse of the first Herakleides-Eukles emission was marked with Zfl.
3 The tabulation of names and months in Kambanis' BCH article (p. 114) requires a few
minor corrections:
AZKAH - A: The die which Kambanis cites is our No. 745b. I can see no trace of an under-
lying A on the Athens tetradrachm which is the only one of the three coins with a clear amphora
letter. Kambanis' own specimen shows up poorly in reproduction and the Berlin piece has an
illegible month marking. AZKAH may have served for part of alpha but this cannot be proved
from the present catalogue entries.
AlONYZOr - I": On the reverses of the second emission of Herakleides and Eukles the name
is definitely AlONYZOr. On the dies of the first issue it is simply AIONYZO; no coin that I
have seen has the terminal gamma.
APIZTflN - [~: I think this must be a mistake in transcription. The combination is not
given in Kambanis' notebook and there is no reference to a specific coin with APIZTflN and f in
HPAK - EY
Hemidrachms
748.
T7EI
275
The tetradrachm link between Eumelos-Kalliphon and the first issue of
Herakleides-Eukles is published by Kambanis in two BCH articles (1982, PI. I,
7 and 8; 1936, PI. VII, 1 and 2see also Plate 82). In addition, the two emis-
sions are joined by the transfer of one drachm die (No. 747, Plate 81) and
one hemidrachm die (No. 748, Plate 81).
In the right field of the Herakleides-Eukles reverses there is an elaborate
and somewhat puzzling symbol. A draped female figure with wings stands be-
fore an amphora on a low base. Her left hand holds a cornucopiae while her
right is extended over the mouth of the amphora. This symbol has been vari-
ously described: Nike sacrificing with a patera, winged Tyche dropping a vote
into an amphora, Nike crowning an amphora, and Nike holding a cornucopiae
and dropping a voting pebble into a vase on a base.
Uncertainty regarding the object in the right hand is inevitable in view of
the small scale of the drawing and there is, furthermore, a lack of consistency
in the representation. In some cases the woman seems to be holding ears of
grain, as Nos. 751b and 753c (Plate 82) and, even more clearly, No. 783b
(Plate 86). On other dies she has a rounded object which I think must be a
patera (Nos. 756a and 757b of Plate 82).
No. 745a provides the clue to the identification of the symbol. This first
reverse of the issue is unique in showing a figure without wings, comparable in
every respect to the Tyche symbol of Eumelos and Kalliphon, except that here
the goddess stands before a crudely rendered amphora. It seems evident that
Herakleides-Eukles borrowed the Tyche of their predecessors' coinage, giving
her, however, a specific application. She is the goddess of fortune associated
with victory in the games and as such she has the wings of Nike. By some en-

gravers she is conceived as pouring a libation into the prize vase; by others as
merely holding the grain ears which, like the patera and the cornucopiae, are
an attribute of Tyche.
0EOAOTOS - KAEOQANHZ NO SYMBOL 188/7 B.C.
(Plates 83-84)
Tetradrachms
759.
a. AHMOI A 10 *Berry Coll., gr.16.57f; Paris, gr.16.70f;
the BCH publication. Ariston does, however, serve for part of Z as well as for A and E on the
evidence of a Zarova Hoard tetradrachm from Istanbul (No. 753c).
MOZXI: The name on all reverses is MOZXIQN. Kambanis' earlier publication [BCH,
1932, p. 54) gives the correct reading.
276
760.
761.
762.
763.
b.
AHMOZ
ZO
Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr. 15.65f; Ist-
anbul (Zarova Hd.), amphora and con-
a.
AHMOZ
ME
Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Berlin
(Sv. 65, 1), gr. 16.68
b.
AHMOZ
ME
Copenhagen (SNG 279), gr. 16.78f.
With B/A: ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.),
gr. 16.66f; Commerce 1956
r c-
ME

AHMOZ
Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.72f; Ber-
lin, gr. 16.60
1 *
AHMOZ
An
ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.61t;
Naples (Mus. Naz., FioreUi 7147), gr.
16.64f; Munich, control letters un-
certain, gr. 16.16
1 b-
AHMOZ
An
B/A: Athens (Delos Hd. EG), gr.15.65f
1 c-
AHMOZ
An
Romanos Coll. (Sv. 65, 2), gr. 16.73;
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.30f. With
ZflTAZ/AHMOZ: London, gr. 16.28f;
Berlin, gr. 16.66
1 d-
ZflTAZ
An
London (BMC 421), gr. 16.10|; Pet-
1 e-
ZQTAZ
An
1 a-
AHMOZ
zn
277
1i
1 b.
AHMOI
10
i1
1 c-
AHMOI
10
Commerce 1952. With IfiTAI/AHMOI:
;;
*Sicelianos Coll.
(GEO- | |
\j
IflTAI/
2[
Piraeus Hd.
AflTOI) 1 |
AHMOI
||
1 1e-
IS2TAI
10

!i
]j
Athens (Delos Hd. B, 112), gr. 15.90|;
764. | |
Berlin, gr. 16.52
|j
L|a.
IQTAI/
ME
Tubingen; Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr.
!I
AHMOI
15.65|; Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr.
||
15.25f
|b.
IQTAI
ME
*Berlin, gr. 16.47
;1
1c-
IQTAI
ME
Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.48f; Ist-
ii
jj
r|d.
IQTAI
ME
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.73f; ANS
!1
278
e. AQPOGE A An *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.76|;
London (BMC 422), gr. 15.44f; Athens
(Halmyros Hd.)
f. nAATQN A? Commerce 19521
767.
a.
ZQTAZ
IQ
* Halmyros Hd.
b.
ZQTAZ
ZQ
Berlin, gr. 16.57; Kambanis Coll.
c.
ZQTAZ
in
Halmyros Hd.
d.
AQP09E
zq
Commerce 1953, gr. 16.65; Berlin, con-
e.

nAATQN
zq
Istanbul, gr. 16.57f
f.
nAATQN
An
768.
a.
ZQTAZ
ME
*Bauer Coll. = Ratto (Rogers) 435, gr
16.79f; Athens, gr. 16.60f
b.
AQPOGE
ME
Athens, gr. 16.72f
c.
nAATQN
ME
Baker Coll.
d.
EniMAXOZ
ME
Athens, gr. 16.25f
e.
EniMAXOZ
ME
a.
EniMAXOZ
An
Paris, gr. 15.93f
279
d. nOTTAl 9 ZO Athensf; Berlin, (Sv. 65, 9), gr. 16.71;
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), amphora letter
uncertain, gr. 16.67f; prob. Athens
(Carystus Hd. II; BCH, 1958, PI.
XLIX, 8), gr. 15.95
e. TTOTTAI 0 10 Athens, gr. 16.65f. With l/G: Dewing
Coll., gr. 16.48 /
f. nOTTAl I 10 *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr.16.37f;
g. AIONY M ZO Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr.15.40f;
Athens (Sv. 65, 18), gr. 16.50f
772.
773.
774.
a.
AYiinn
An
rb.
MOYIAr
An
|a.
AYiinn/
z/

Zfl
(?)EniMAXOZ
(?)E
|b.
AYiinn
Zfl
1c-
MOYZAr
Zfl
|d.
nonAi
Zfl
1 e<
AIONY
Zfl
(prob. recut)
1 f-
AIONY
Zfl
La.
nonAi/
H/Z
An
MOYZAr
b.
nonAi
An
c.
nonAi
An
Athens (Delos Hd. V, 160; Sv. 65, 6),
gr. 16.70f; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr.
16.62f
Copenhagen {SNG 280; Sv. 65, 7), gr.
16.65f; L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.45
*ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 486, gr.
280
775.
Drachms
758.
AIONY/
A/Z
An/?
MOYIAP
| a.
nonAi
ME
Gotha, gr. 16.58; Petsalis Coll., gr.
16.55f
|b.
nonAi
An
1 c-
AIONY
ME
Athens (DelosHd.AH), gr. 15.50f. With
A/K: Berlin (Sv. 65, 12), gr. 16.45

Ld.
AIONY/
A/Z
An/?
Tubingen, gr. 16.61
MOYIAr
a.
AH MO
8.68f; probably Berlin (Sv. 65, 17),
gr. 8.95
b.
n]AA
*Athens (Delos Hd. B, 118; Sv. 65, 16),
gr. 4.27
c.
EniM
Copenhagen (SNG 283), gr. 3.67f; Ber-
lin (Sv. 65, 18), gr. 8.48
d.
EniM
London, gr. 3.86
a.
no
Paris (Sv. 65, 15), gr. 4.10; Rosenberg
72, 481, gr. 4.15
b.
Vienna, gr. 8.86
776.
281
This issue has been variously placed in relation to the sequence of closely
linked emissions, twelve in number, which begins with the coinage of XAPI-
NAYTHZ - APIZTEAZ and ends with that of AflZIGEOZ - XAPIAI. Svoronos in-
cludes it in his fourth group, comprising the last six issues of the sequence just
mentioned, but the alphabetical arrangement within his group provides no
indication as to just where Svoronos would have located this one striking. Kam-
banis on the other hand associates it with the beginning of the sequence. In his
notebooks and in his summaries of the Zarova and Halmyros Hoards (BCH,
1934, p. 132; 1935, pp. 106 and 117) he lists the issue of Theodotos and Kleo-
phanes either directly before that of Charinautes-Aristeas or with the issue of
Karaich-Ergokle intervening. In his Hesperia study (Suppl. VIII, 1949, p. 10)
Bellinger appends the emission at the very end of the sequence, after the coinage
of Dositheos-Charias, but suggests the possibility of its coming between the
issues of Hikesios-Asklepiades and Timostratos-Poses.
The more one studies the tetradrachm dies of Theodotos-Kleophanes the
more apparent it becomes that their closest stylistic affinity is with the
middle issues of the sequence. However, the emissions that form this sequence
are die linked with two exceptions: there is no connection between the two
issues of Herakleides-Eukles and there is none between Hikesios-Asklepiades
and Timostratos-Poses. On the basis of style alone the former location had
seemed to me preferable; subsequently the discovery of a drachm die
transferred from the first year of Herakleides-Eukles to the coinage of
Theodotos-Kleophanes (No. 758, Plate 84) confirmed the soundness of the
stylistic criterion.
Nine third magistrates are associated with what is a fairly extensive coinage,

heavily concentrated at the beginning of 138/7 B.C. Forty-two of the seventy-
one surviving reverses belong to the first four months of the year and of these
thirty-one are inscribed with the names of Demos and Sotas. For the most part
the succession of third magistrates, when two or more are associated with the
same month, can be determined by their relationship with months preceding
or following. This is not true of Dorotheos and Plato whose reverses are con-
fined to delta but Obverse 766 in its later stage shows a die break above the
top of the helmet which is more pronounced in 766f with Plato than it is in
766e with Dorotheos. Lysipp has been placed before Mousag on the evidence
of recutting provided by Nos. 773a and 774a.
The association of Epimachos with month zeta is known only from a single
drachm reverse. Kambanis records one coin from the Halmyros Hoard with
Epimachos and delta and another piece from the same find with Diony and iota,
neither coin being now available for checking. The latter combination is en-
tirely possible although I have seen no example of it; the former seems to me
less likely if only because there are already three third magistrates associated
with delta.
HPAKAEIAHZ - EYKAHZ (II) WINGED TYCHE WITH AMPHORA 187/6 b.c.
(Plates 85-87)
Telradrachms
777.
779.
ra.
TIMAP
ME
Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.45; Vienna, gr. 15.58;
Athensf
lb-
TIMAP
ZO
*Berry Coll., gr. 16.56/; Beule Coll., gr. 16.43
la.
TIMAP
An
London (Halmyros Hd.), gr.16.77f; Athens
(Delos Hd. B, 104; Sv. 64,1), gr. 16.60f. With
AlONYZOr/TIMAP and B/A: *Oxford, gr.
16.22

|b.
AIONYZOI"
An
London, gr. 16.34f; Herakleion (Cretan Hd. I);
Athens (Carystus Hd. II; BCH, 1958, PI.
XLIX, 2), amphora letter uncertain, gr.
16.82
1 c-
AIONYZOr
An
Kambanis Coll.; Beule Coll., gr. 16.03
|a.
TIMAP
Zfl
*L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.50
b.
TIMAP
An
Berlin, gr. 16.57
1 c-
AlONYIOr
Zfi
ANS-ETN, gr. 16.74f; Berlin, gr. 16.12; Ber-
lin, gr. 15.58
|d.
AlONYIOr
ZQ
Copenhagen {SNG 170), gr. 15.92 (pierced)f;
Athens (Delos Hd.AH), brokenf
1e-
AIONYZOI"
10
Yale Univ., gr. 16.65f
1 *
XAPMIA
283
781.
AIONYZOr B
10
782.
783.
784.
785.
786.
lb.
AlONYIOr
10
|c.
AlONYIOr
10
Ld.
AlONYIOr
ME
a.
AlONYIOr
An
b.
An
c.

XAPMIA
XAPMIA
An
d.
XAPMIA
An
e.
XAPMIA
An
a.
XAPMIA/
r/B
ME
AlONYIOr
rb.
XAPMIA
ME
|a.
XAPMIA
An
|b.
XAPMIA
10
|c.
XAPMIA
10
La.
XAPMIA
284
789.
b.
XAPMIA
c.
ZQZIKP
zo
ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 432, gr. 16.40f
d.
ZSZIKP
zo
Beule CoU., gr. 16.50
re.
ZJ2ZIKP
zo
1a-
XAPMIA
ME
Athensf; Commerce 1956

jb.
ZQZIKP
ME
London (BMC 416), gr. 16.62f; Berlin, gr. 16.28
1 c-
ZQZIKP
ME
1a-
ZQZIKP/
S/E
ATT/ZO
Oxford (Sv. 64,11, Athens), gr. 16.51; Athens,
(?)XAPMIA
gr. 16.40f; Beule CoU., gr. 16.01
|b.
zqzikp
An
Berlin, gr. 16.59
1 c-
ZQZIKP
An
Paris, gr. 16.57f; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 105),
gr. 15.30f; Turin (Mus. Ant., Fabretti 3063),
gr. 16.59
|d.
ZQZIKP
An
Berlin, gr. 16.59; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr.
16.60f
| a.
ZQZIKP
Z'
Berlin, gr. 15.99
|b.
zqzikp
la
285
792.
|La.
ZftZlKP
ZOA
1 b.
ZilZIKP
ZOA
Tubingen
793.
L a.
zazikp
ZOA
Evelpidis Coll., gr. 15.90
b.
BAKXI
An
* Vienna (Sv. 64, 16), gr. 16.52; Beule Coll.

c.
BAKXI
An
rd.
BAKXI
zn
Evelpidis Coll., gr. 16.24; Athens, gr. 16.30f
794.
1a-
BAKXI
ME
Beule Coll.
r|b.
BAKXI
A/K
ME
Forbat Coll., gr. 18.651
1 1 c-
AIOK
ME
London (Sv. 64, 24), gr.16.38f; ANS-ETN
j!
(Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.62f
795.
L|a.
BAKXI
ME
|b.
BAKXI
IOA
Athens, gr. 16.60f. With A/K: Athens, gr.
manos Coll., control letters uncertain. With
AIOK/BAKXI and M/A: *ANS-ETN (Halmyros
Hd.), gr. 16.77f
AIOK N Z *Commerce 1953 (Plate 88)
798.
L AIOK/BAKXI M/A? *Giesecke Coll.
Drachms
799.
Al
Athens (DelosHd. B, 106; Sv. 64, 27), gr.4.25|
La.
Al
Berlin (Sv. 64, 26), gr. 4.26
b.
Al

c.
zjo
Athens, gr. 8.57f (Plate 89); Athens, gr.3.48f
d.
ANS-ETN, gr. 8.75f; Athens, broken
Magistrates: TIMAP1, AlONYZOr, XAPM1A
ZflZIKP, BAKXI, AIOK
Months: A, B, I", A, E, Z, H, 9, I, K, A, M, N
Controls: An, ME, ZO(A), ZQ
For their second issue of coinage Herakleides and Eukles repeat the symbol
of their first emission. This is the only instance in the New Style series of a
pair of annual magistrates serving a second term without varying the device
on the coins. The symbol in question with its general agonistic connotation
could, of course, be associated with any of the great Athenian festivals and
hence would be as appropriate for one year as for another. Still it seems strange
that there is no attempt to distinguish between the two issues, even to the
extent of adopting a different symbol for the new emission.
The coinage of the second Herakleides-Eukles striking is far more abundant
than that of the first: more than twice as many obverse dies and surviving
specimens are known for 187/6 B.C. as for 139/8. On the other hand fewer third
magistrates control the later coinage, six as against nine.
At least three reverses of the present issue have N on the amphora. On the
evidence of the coinage, 187/6 B.C. is an intercalary year.
1 Kambanis records the name as TIMA but on all dies one can see a P to the left of the
amphora base. Sundwall gives the correct form, TIMAP.
287
ANAPEAI - XAPINAYTHZ DIONYSOS AND DEMETER (?) 186/5 B.C.
(Plates 88-89)
Tetradrachms
795.
a. KPIT A 10 London (BMC 819), gr. 16.56f; Tubingen,
gr. 15.99
b. KPIT B/A ZO Athens, gr. 15.56f
797.
802.
ra.
b.
798.
801.
KPIT
KPIT
KPIT
KPIT
B/A
b. AMYNOMA V
1 a-
KPIT
B/A
An

L b.
KPIT
B/A
An
c.
AMYNOMA
An
d.
AMYNOMA
An
e.
AMYNOM
TTE
f.
AMYNOM
An
g-
AMYNOM
An
h.
AHMHTP
An
AHMHTP
An
nE Athens, gr. 15.20t
nE Berlin; Romanos Coll.; ANS-ETN = Ratto
(Rogers) 427, gr. 16.45f. With B/A: Athens
(Delos Hd. K$, 85), gr. 14.92|; Tubingen, gr.
16.24; Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.);
Vienna, amphora letter somewhat uncertain
but probably B/A, gr. 16.88
An Copenhagen {SNG 177; Sv. 62, 1), gr. 16.62f;
*Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) Plate 87
ME/nE *Halmyros Hd.; Paris, gr. 16.80f; Berlin (Sv.
62, 2), gr. 16.78; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr.
16.71f
288
803.
804.
805.
a.
AMYNOMA
ZO
*ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.14f; Berry Coll.,
gr. 16.70f; Berlin (Sv. 62, 3), gr. 16.85; Na-
ville (BM dupl.) 2012, gr. 16.85
b.
AMYNOM
zo
Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Vienna, gr.
16.46; Berlin (Sv. 62, 4), gr. 16.49; Mass. Hist.
Soc, gr. 16.82; Athens (Delos Hd. ir, 23), gr.
14.74|; Fecht Coll. (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.60|
c.
AMYNOM
Athens, gr. 14.20f
d.
AMYNOMA
zo

Berlin (Sv. 62, 5), gr. 16.64
a.
AMYNOMA
ME
Toronto (Ontario Hd.), gr. 15.42 /
b.
AMYNOM
ME
c.
AMYNOM
ME
ANS-ETN, gr. 15.69f; Mavrokordatou Coll.
(J I AN, 1912,1305), gr. 16.28; Berlin, gr. 16.84
d.
AMYNOM
ME
Berlin, gr. 16.95
e.
AMYNOM
ME
Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.55f
a.
AMYNOMA
nE
Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.51f
b.
AMYNOM
FTE
Petsalis Coll., gr.16.64f; Berlin (Halmyros
Hd.), gr. 15.72
c.
AMYNOM
289
809.
a. AHMHTP A TTE/ME *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.)
b. AHMHTP M nE Berlin (Sv. 62, 10), gr. 16.24
Drachms
800.
r KPI A ? *Romanos Coll. (Sv. 62, 11), gr. 3.66
810. I
La. KPI A rjE Copenhagen (SNG 179), gr. 8.71f
b. KPI B * Athens (Delos Hd. ir, 24), gr. 3.74f; Athens
(Sv. 62, 12), gr. 8.87f
c. KPI ?? Vienna, gr. 4.18
d. AMY Z? Athens (Delos Hd. B, 22; Sv. 62, 13), gr. S.55f
811.
a. A]H I ? * Athens (Delos Hd. A, 6; Sv. 62, 14), gr. 4.10f
b.? I ? Vienna = Egger XL (Prowe) 970, gr. 3.86;
Munich, letter uncertain, gr. 4.09 (Plate 90);
ANS-ETN, letter uncertain, gr. 3.67t; Berlin,
gr. 8.95
c. AH ?? Munich, gr. 8.59
d.? I 10 Berlin, gr. 8.65; Berlin, gr. 8.84
Magistrates: KP1T, AMYNOMA, AHMHTP
Months: A, B, T, A, E, Z, H, I, K, A, M

Controls: An, ME, nE, SO1
Four obverse dies are transferred from the second issue of Herakleides-
Eukles to that of Andreas-Charinautes: Nos. 795 (Plate 88; also BCH, 1982,
PI. II, 1-2 and BCH, 1936, PI. IX, 6-8), 797 (Plate 88), 798 (Plate 87) and
800 (Plate 89). The two strikings are thus firmly linked by one drachm and
three tetradrachm dies.
The coinage of 186/5 B.C. is concentrated in the first six months of the year.
No reverses with 0 are recorded and I is represented only by three (or possibly
four) drachm dies.
1 Beule, Sundwall and Kambanis cite a few examples of the control combination I have
seen no reverse on which omega appears and am inclined to doubt that Zfl was employed for
this issue.
2Q0 The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens
With the second emission of Herakleides-Eukles one notes a reduction in
the number of third magistrates, and the trend is carried still further in the
issue of Andreas-Charinautes. Just three names appear on the dies: KPIT for
A and B.AMYNOMAforT through Z and AHMHTP for the remainder of the year.
Precise identification of the symbol used on the coins seems impossible. It
may be a seated Dionysos associated with a standing Demeter or a seated
Demeter and standing Kore. As indicated above (p. 252) there is a connection
with the earlier coinage of Charinautes-Aristeas but the significance of the
standing female figure portrayed on both issues remains elusive.
IKEZIOZ - AZKAHTTIAAHZ WREATH 185/4 b.c.
(Plate 90)
Tetradrachms
812.
809.
814.
a.
XPYZ
Berry Coll. (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.52f; Athens
b.
XPYZ
Istanbul, gr. 16.48t- With TEIZ/XPYZ, amphora
fC.

letter uncertain, An below: Berlin, gr. 16.61
TEIZ
nE
Berlin, gr. 16.54
XPYZ
ME
ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.75f. With TEIZ/
XPYZ and B/A: Empedocles Coll.; The Hague
(Sv. 68, 15), gr. 16.65; Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr.
15.65f; Hamburger (Berlin dupl.) 291, gr. 16.72
1a*
XPYZ
nE
Athens (Delos Hd. =0), gr. 16.15f; Berlin, gr. 15.87
b.
XPYZ
Berlin, gr. 15.82 (Plate 89)
La
TEIZ
r/B
nE
Athens (Sv. 68, 16), gr. 16.18f; Athens (Halmyros
Hd.); Berlin, gr. 15.88
d.
TEIZ
nE
ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.48t; Berlin
(Sv. 68, 17), gr. 16.55; London, gr.16.44f; Pet-
a.
XPYZ
zo
Athens (Sv. 63, 14), gr. 16.28f
b.
XPYZ
d.
TEIZ
10
e.
TEII
10
f.
TE1Z
zo
g-
0EO
10
815.
TEIZ E ME
816.
r GEO Z ME
817. |
La. GEO Z ME
b. 6E0 H ME
pc. GEO K nE
|d. GEO M ME
818. |

|a.
GECKD
ite
|b.
GEO
nE
Lc.
GEO
nE
r<i.
GEO
An
|e.
GEO
nE
|a.
GEO
An
Lb.
GEO
An
a.
GEO
Q/H
zo
b.
GEO
zo
c.
GEO
zo
292
821.
An
Paris, gr. 15.80I1
Drachms
811.
TEI
Athens (Delos Hd.A, 21; Sv. 63, 23), gr. 4.00f;
Berlin, gr. 3.94
822.
Athens (Delos Hd.A, 22; Sv. 63, 24), gr. 4.12f;
Athens.gr. 8.84f; Petsalis Coll., gr. 8.71f; Munich;
prob. Berlin, gr. 3.05 (very worn)
Magistrates: XPYS, TEII, 9E0W
Months: A, B, T, A, E, Z, H, 6, I, K, M
Controls: An, ME, TIE, I03
Obverses 809 and 811 link the coinage of Hikesios-Asklepiades with that
of Andreas-Charinautes. The tetradrachm connection is illustrated on Plate 89
(and by Kambanis, Arethuse, 1928, PI. XXIII, 9-10 and BCH, 1982, PI. 11,3-4);
the hitherto unpublished identity of drachm dies can be seen on Plate 90.

The two emissions are closely comparable in several respects. Both are
moderate strikings, employing identical control combinations and a limited
number of third magistrates, three in each case. Coinage is known for only
eleven months of the two years: in 186/5 B.C. there is no output during 9, in
185/4 none during A.
TIMOrTPATOI-TTOIHZ DIONYSOS WITH MASK 134/3 b.c.
(Plates 91-9-2)
Tetradrachms
823.
1 As a result of faulty striking the amphora and the third magistrate's name have not been
impressed on this reverse.
2 Kambanis in his notebook gives AH (with M and 20) for a Halmyros Hoard coin. I have
no record of the piece but it seems unlikely that the magistrate's name has been correctly read.
The forms TEIZI and GEOAfl which Kambanis gives (BCH, 1932, p. 56) are not substantiated
by any reverses that I have seen and No. 818a shows a clear 0EO<D as the beginning of the mag-
istrate's name.
3 The MH listed by Beule for a tetradrachm in his collection is surely ME.
a.
AION
ME ANS-ETN (HalmyrosHd.),gr. 16.651;
Athens, gr. 15.54f
293
824.
825.
b.
EPMA
ME
r a-
AION
IO
|rb.
AION
ZO
1 1 c-
EPMA
10
1 |d.
AAX/
E/A
10
(?)MHT
1 La-
AION
10
1 b-

AION
nE
1 c-
AION
nE
L d.
AION
e.
EPMA
nE
f.
MHT
nE
Vienna, gr. 16.44; Berlin (Sv. 65, 20),
gr. 16.51; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr.
16.58f
*Paris, gr. 16.28f; Athens (ZarovaHd.),
gr.16.68f; Athens (Delos Hd.AH),
London {BMC 505), gr. 16.48f; Ist-
anbul, gr. 16.66f
Athens, gr. 16.75f; Berlin, gr. 16.69;
Rethymnon; Hamburger (Berlindupl.)
292, gr. 16.53; Romanos Coll., am-
phora and control letters uncertain
*Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.)
*Berry Coll., gr. 16.71f; Athens (Sala-
mis Hd.), gr. 16.15f
Tubingen (Sv. 65, 19), gr. 16.88;
Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 955, gr.
16.70
294
827.
828.
829.
(TIMO-
ZTPATHZ)2
830.
1 1 La-
AAX/MHT
E/A
An
1 1 b-
AAXHZ
An
Ih c
AAXH/MHT Z/E/A
ME
1 1 a-
AAX/MHT
E/A
ME
1 L b.
AAXH/MHT Z/E/A
ME
1 c-
ME
1 d.
AAM
ME
L a.

AEY
AAX/MHT
Z/E/A
nE
rb.
AEYE/AAX
c.
AEY
nE
rl d.
AAM
nE
1 1 e-
AflPO
nE
1 1 f-
AQPO
nE
1 1 g-
APIZ
nE
1 1 h-
APII
nE
1 1 r1-
ATTOA
nE
295
L |b. AflPO/AAM 1/0 IO/TFE Ratto (Rogers) 437, gr. 16.30
r|c. APIZ/ASPO K/l 10 *Kambanis CoU. (Halmyros Hd.);
i London {BMC 507), gr. 16.52t; Ber-
I lin, gr. 16.02
|d. APIZ A SO Athens (Sv. 65, 26), gr. 15.95f
Le. AnOA M ? Athens (Halmyros Hd.)
831.
(TIMO-
ZTPATHZ)
832.
833.
834.
APIZ
a. APIZ
ATI *Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.55
ME
Commerce 1932 (Halmyros Hd.)
rb. AnOA/APIZ M/A/K ME *Petsalis CoU., gr. 16.60f; Athens
I (Sv. 65, 27), gr. 16.15; Athens (Delos
I Hd.AH), gr. 15.50f
L AnOA/APIZ M/A/K ME *Kambanis CoU. (BCH, 1932, PI. 11, 5)
AnOA/ N/K/l ZO *Empedocles Coll.
APIZ/AQPO

835.
Drachms
836.
AnOA N An *Paris, gr. 16.42t; BerUn (Sv. 65, 29),
gr. 16.58
AEY/ H/Z? * Athens (Delos Hd. A, 33), gr. 3.95f;
AAX(?) Athens, gr. 3.85; Athens (Sv. 65, 31),
gr.8.45; Copenhagen (SNG 182), gr.
3.98f
837.
(no)
API
* Athens (Delos Hd. KS, 42), gr. 8.58f
838.
A]np M ? *Berlin (Sv. 65, 30), gr. 8.90; Berlin,
gr. 8.89
2g6
TIMO-nO
Hemidrachm
839.
AP * Athens (Delos Hd. ir, 32), gr. 1.65f
1 hemidrachm
Magistrates: AION, EPMA, MHT, AAXHI,
AEYE, AAM, AflPO, APIZ, AITOA
Months: B, T, A, E, Z, H, 9, I, K, A, M, N
Controls: An, ME, FIE, 20
Under Timostratos-Poses the hemidrachm denomination, missing for sev-
eral years, makes its reappearance and there is a substantial increase in the
number of third magistrates. Nine men regulate the monthly strikings with,
in six instances, a strict correlation of name and month. No coinage is known
for alpha but two reverses with nu indicate the intercalary character of
the year.
Earlier publications list officials not included in the present catalogue.
Beule reads NAY as the third magistrate on a coin in his collection and on one
in the British Museum. The latter is our No. 825f with AAX/MHT. Sundwall
queries the NAY on the Beule specimen and says the inscription looks like KNY;
almost certainly it is another case of AAX/MHT. The British Museum piece (our
No. 830c) which Beule describes as having All (the BMC reading is EK ?) is
practically illegible but another specimen from the same reverse die makes it
clear that the magisterial legend is APII/AfiPO. Engravers of this issue were

exceedingly inept in their recutting of names; often it is only a comparison of
several coins from the same reverse die, and from the die in various stages, that
enables one to decipher the successive inscriptions.
AMOIKPATHS - EniZTPATOI EARS OF GRAIN 133/2 b.c.
(Plates 93-94)
Tetradrachms
833.
a. KAEOMA A ME *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Athens
(Delos Hd.EG), gr.15.45t- With API-
ZTOK/KAEOMA and B/A: Halmyros
Hd.; Istanbul, gr. 15.78f
b. APIZTOK T ME Athens (Sv. 62, 17), gr. 15.80t
297
834.
835.
840.
841.
842.
843.
KAEOMA
a.
KAEOMA
An
b.
APIZTOK/
KAEOMA1
KAEOMA
a.
zo
b.

APIZTOK
HPOAO/
10
APIZTOK
c.
EYAI
10
a.
APIITOK
nE
b.
HPOAO/
rjE
APIZTOK
rc-
EYAI
jd.
EYAI
nE
1e-
EYAI
10
1f-
EYAI
H/Z
g-
EYAI
UE
|h.
EYAI
298
844.
845.
a.
HPOAO
An/?
Vienna, gr. 16.40
b.
EYAI
An
a.
EYAI
H/Z
ME
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.55/;
Athensf
rb.
EYAI
K/l
ME
1 a-
EYAI
An

H1
Brussels (Sv. 62, 23), gr. 16.01
b.
EYAI
An
ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.58|;
Athens, gr. 15.58f; London, amphora
and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.25f
he.
EYAI
ME
Copenhagen {SNG 188; Sv. 62, 22), gr.
16.44f; ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr.
16.70f
|d.
EYAI
An
Athens, gr. 16.35f
1 e-
APIZT
Paris, gr. 15.82f; Giesecke Coll., gr. 16.43
EYAI
1a-
EYAI
nE
|b.
APIZT
nE
1 c-
850.
851.
Drachms
837.
La. APIZT/EYAI A/K/l ME Berlin, gr. 16.36
b. APIZT A ME *Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr. 15.30f
c. APIZT M ME *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.) Plate
95; Berlin (Sv. 62, 25), gr. 16.52
a. APIZT M/A An * Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.62f; Kam-
banis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.)
b. APIZT M An Berlin {BCH, 1982, PI. II, 7), gr. 16.32
AMOIKPA - EniZT
KAE A * Athens (Delos Hd. A, 5; Sv. 62, 27), gr.
8.95f
852. I
L KAE A "-Copenhagen {SNG 184), gr. 3.69t
853.
API T ? *Athens (Delos Hd. B, 18; Sv. 62, 26),
gr. 8.70f; Gotha, gr. 8.82
Magistrates: KAEOMA, APIZTOK, HPOAO,
EYAI, APIZT
Months: A, B, T, A, E, Z, H, 9, I, K, A. M
Controls: An, ME, TTE, ZO

Three tetradrachm dies and one drachm die prove the issues of Timostratos-
Poses and Amphikrates-Epistratos to be contiguous. The transferred obverses
are Nos. 833 (Plate 93 and BCH, 1932, PI. II, 5-6), 834 (Plate 93), 835
(Plate 92 and Arethuse, 1928, PI. XXIII, 7-8) and 837 (Plate 94).
The names of third magistrates for this issue are carelessly inscribed, in-
dividual letters are sometimes excessively small (cf. No. 851a with the Z and T
of APIZT barely visible to the left and just above the base of the amphora), and
there is a certain amount of recutting to add to the difficulties of decipherment.
It is in no way surprising that various strange readings have crept into the
published record.
300
Beule's listing of magistrates does not correspond in a single respect with
that of the present catalogue. Sundwall amends to some extent but retains
many of Beule's names and amphora markings. Svoronos' plate is misleading
in one instance: the second coin in his sequence has the magistrate APIZT with
a date which Svoronos sees as A but which is in reality A as is proved by other
coins from this die and by the fact that the same obverse is used with an M
reverse (No. 849b). Even Kambanis, in his notebook, has a number of variant
readings, again taken over for the most part from Beule.
Making a lengthy and detailed correction of the earlier records seems to me
not worth the space and effort it would involve. Coins that can be checked
have been re-examined and the readings of the present catalogue confirmed,
often on the basis of additional specimens from the same die with clearer or
more complete lettering. It is my belief that the five third magistrates listed
above are the only ones who served during the year 133/2 B.C.
Brief mention should, however, be made of two entries, one in Kambanis
and the other in Sundwall. In publishing the link between this issue and that
of Timostratos-Poses (BCH, 1932, p. 57) Kambanis supplies the form KAEONI
for the magistrate of month alpha. I can see no basis for the nu but one die
(No. 833a on Plate 93) does give the impression of a final iota in the name.
This would seem to be merely the result of careless workmanship since Nos. 835a
and 840 show a clear and unmistakable terminal alpha.1 Sundwall reports
N/M from an Athenian tetradrachm cited by Svoronos; the coin is apparently
No. 851a with M/A. There is no evidence from the reverse dies of this issue for
an intercalary year.
AfiZI9E0I - XAPIAI TYCHE 182/1 B.C.

(Plates 95-97)
Tetradrachms
847.
850.
a.
AION
nE
*Berlin, gr. 16.40; Hamburger 98, 692
(Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.45
b.
AION
nE
Commerce 1958
c.
AION
Lockett Coll. {SNG 1940), gr. 16.65f;
Berlin, gr. 16.00
AION
ME
1 Among the other names listed by Kambanis on page 58 of the BCH article one finds the
variant forms HPOAfl and EYAH. Both are errors, perhaps of transcription, as is clear from the
reproductions on Plates 93-94 (see No. 844a for HPOAO and No. 845a for EYAI).
301
851.
AION A An *Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Berlin (Sv.
68, 1), gr. 16.57
AION A An * ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.59|
(Plate 94)
854.
AION
ME *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.62f
855.
857.
S58.
a.
AION
zo
Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr. 15.82f; Com-
merce 1955
b.
AION
zo
Vienna, gr. 16.47
c.
AION

zo
Berlin, gr. 16.68
d.
NIK/AION
zo
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.50 /
a.
AION
nE
ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.181
b.
AION
I7E
Berlin, gr. 15.66
a.
AION
ME
*Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.)
b.
AION
ME
Vatican; Commerce 1955
c.
AION
ME
Munich (Sv. 63, 2), gr. 16.68. With
NIK/AION: Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr.
16.75|
d.
NIK/AION
ME
Athens; Frankfurt am Main
e.
NIK/AION
NIK/AION
ME
*Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.). With
An/ME: Romanos Coll. (Sv. 63, 3), gr.
16.45
NIK/AION
10
Berry Coll. (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.50f
N1K/(?)AI0N
NIK
10
*Berlin, gr. 15.60
NIK
10
ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 16.25f
An

NIK
Istanbul (ZarovaHd.), gr. 16.59f; Athens
(Delos Hd. =9)t
NIK
UE
Athens (Delos Hd. IA)|
NIK
TIE
AIO
An
AION/NIK
A/r
ME
ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.63|;
Athens (Sv. 68, 4), gr. 15.80f
AIO
An
Tubingen, gr. 16.69; Athens (Delos
Hd.AH), gr. 15.65; Athens
AIO
Z/E/A
* Romanos Coll.
ZOA
An
Empedocles Coll.
IOA
nE
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.66f;
Athens, gr. 16.20f
ZOA
An
AIO
ZO
Athens (Delos Hd. EG), gr. 16.20f
A!Q
ME
London, gr. 16.22f; Athens = Sv. 63, 5,
Feuardent, gr. 15.95f
AION
z/
(?)E
AIO
ME
Andreopoulos Coll.; ANS-ETN = Ratto
(Rogers) 429, gr. 16.12f; Giesecke Coll.
(Sv. 68, 6), gr. 16.70
ZOA
ME
Berlin (Sv. 68, 7), gr. 15.98; Knobloch
CoU., gr. 15.92
IOA

e/H
TIE/?
ZOA
ZO
Commerce 1955, gr. 15.65; ANS-ETN
(Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.69|
Z]OA
ME
Berlin, gr. 16.44
ZOA
ZO
Athens (Sv. 63, 8), gr. 16.55f
XAIP/?
K/l/O
ZO
Berlin, gr. 16.61
XAIP
ZO
ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 15.80f; ANS
(Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.25f
CA
nE
Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Berlin (Sv. 68,
9), gr. 16.58
nE
Harvard Univ., gr. 16.76; Glasgow
(Hunt. 129), Pl.f. With XA|P/? and K/l:
Gotha, gr. 16.28
CA
An
Berlin, gr. 15.45
CA
ME
304
873.
874.
La.
XAIP/CA
K/l
An
b.
ZOA
An
ANS (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.67f
a.
XAIP
An
Lee (de Zogheb) 272, gr. 16.49
b.
XAIP
An
London (BMC 893), gr. 16.48t
c.
IQA1

An
Berlin, gr. 14.99
ZQA
ME
ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 15.60 /
a.
XAIP
10
Berlin, gr. 16.25
b.
IfiA
10
Milan (Sv. 68, 10), gr. 16.50
c.
ZflA
10
ANS-ETN = Arethuse, Suppl. comm.I,
883 = Piatt (Luneau) 516, gr. 16.45f
d.
ZOA
10
e.
IOA
10
Berlin, gr. 16.11
AQZI6E - XAP
B Copenhagen (SNG 187), gr. S.68f
B Athens (Delos Hd. A, 17; Sv. 63, 18),
gr. 4.00f; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 75),
gr. 3.82f; Athens (Delos Hd. B, 171),
gr. 8.80f; Athens, broken; Gotha, gr.
3.55; Petsalis Coll., gr. 8.71
7 drachms: 2 obverse, 1 reverse die
Magistrates: AION, NIK, IOA, TA(?), XAIP
Months: A, B, T, A, E, Z, H, 0, I, K, A, M*
305
Again we find three tetradrachm dies linking successive issues. Amphi-
krates-Epistratos and Dositheos-Charias share Obverses 847, 850 and 851 as
illustrated on Plates 94-95 and, in the case of No. 851, also in the BCH for
1932 (PI. II, 7-8).
Beule regards this striking as one of the last of the New Style series and
remarks that its decadence makes it impossible to regret that the Athenians
stopped coining silver: "Le style de ces tetradrachmes est affreux et les lettres
sont gravees d'une facon si grossiere que je n'ai pu le plus sou vent les distin-
guer." The issue does not belong at the end of the series and in fact its dies
are less debased than Beule implies but he is quite justified in his complaint
that the names of the third magistrates are often practically illegible. In this
respect the emission is the worst of the entire sequence.
As is the case with the coinage of Amphikrates and Epistratos, the careless
technique and poor quality of the overcutting have led to a number of peculiar
readings which need not be commented upon in detail. Beule's record includes
MHKI, API, ZAM and ZQZI. Some of these names are retained by Sundwall and
Kambanis; some are amended or queried. Whenever possible the coins have
been carefully checked and I doubt that any one of the four readings is correct.1
On the other hand I have some reservations about my own readings in two
instances. Tetradrachms of the month E are inscribed with what seems to be
AIO. This is the name that one would expect since the same man is in office
during A and Z, and Kambanis gives the AIO reading as certain. The lettering
is not clear on any die but it may be that the illegibility derives from recutting.
NIK is quite possibly under AIO with A and I~ under the E of the amphora. The
magistrate whose name appears on a few reverses of month I is here recorded

as TA. On Nos. 870a and 871a, the gamma and lambda seem reasonably clear.
There are, to be sure, traces of a horizontal line across from the bottom of the
gamma and of another letter to the right of the lambda (a small lambda ?), but
these can be explained as remains of an earlier inscription. It is probable that
ZOA of months H and 9 was in office for a part of I and that during that month
his dies were altered by the engraving of TA over the ZOA.
A noteworthy feature of the coinage of Dositheos-Charias is the irregularity
in tenure of the third magistrates. During this Middle Period an individual
magistrate, more often than not, serves over a period of several months but the
1 The ease with which different readings can be derived from the same coin is exemplified
by Beule's API (I) entries. A tetradrachm in the Berlin Cabinet has API according to Beule and
ZAM (?) according to Kambanis while von Prokesch reads EAI on a similar piece in his collection
and Beule notes that another specimen of the same month seems to have TP. Kambanis further
records TA for an I striking at Athens which is actually from the same reverse die as the Berlin
tetradrachm with his ZAM (?) reading.
3o6
months are without exception consecutive. With the present issue, we have two
magistrates returning to office after an interval. AION controls the coinage of
months A and B, is then replaced by NIK who carries on for a part of B and for
r, after which AION comes back for A, E and Z. Similarly IOA of H and 6
yields to TA and XAIP for I and K but resumes his office for A and M. During
the last two months, however, he seems to have collaborated with XAIP since
both names appear on dies of A and M. There is, of course, the possibility that
different men are involved but it would seem to be stretching coincidence to
assume a dual identity of names within the course of a single year.
With the coinage of Dositheos and Charias we come to the end of the long,
closely-linked sequence which begins with the issue of Phanokles and Apollonios
and extends down through an intervening ten strikings. This seems to be a suit-
able place for the division between Middle and Late Periods. In a sense the
demarcation is arbitrary since there is no abrupt break between the three-
magistrate issues which have just been discussed and those which immediately
follow. Many of the latter, however, have close associations, numismatically
and historically, with the late two-magistrate emissions and it will be useful
to relate the group as a whole within the general framework of the final period

of the coinage.
COMMENTARY ON THE MIDDLE PERIOD
This section of the coinage comprises thirty-seven issues, extending from
1C8/7 through 132/1 B.C. Unlike the series of the Early Period, the present
sequence is supported by a substantial number of die links. Twenty-five of the
thirty-seven issues are brought into relationship by means of thirty-nine trans-
ferred obverse dies, leaving only twelve issues for which there is no proof of
contiguity. Moreover, the stylistic evidence for this period is stronger than it
is for the period preceding in that there are only a restricted number of obverse
styles, each showing a high degree of coherence within a single issue and a
clearly discernible evolutionary pattern over a series of issues. Some help in
chronological arrangement is to be derived from hoards, control combinations,
die positions and symbol placement.
The Middle Period coinage divides roughly into three groups. Of these, the
earliest is composed of the following twelve issues with tetradrachm and drachm
die links indicated by brackets:
r MIKI-GEOOPA
td) |
Ll. HPA -APIZTOQ
2. MENEA -EnirENO
tm r3. TIMAPXOY - NIKArO
d(1) L4. TIOAYXAPM - NIKOr
5. AflPOQE - AlOO
r6. ANTIOXOI - NIKOr and KAPAIXOZ
U. GEOOPA - ZflTAZ
r8. AiOrE -TTOZE1
L9. AXAIOZ-HAI
10. AYZAN - TAAYKOI

11. EnirENH -ZftZANAPOZ
12. FIOAEMQN - AAKETHZ
Hera-Aristoph is firmly established as the initial striking of the three-
magistrate period by the die link connecting it with the issue of Miki-Theophra
of the two-magistrate series. Its obverses are absolutely consistent in style with
those of Miki-Theophra and also with those of Mened-Epigeno. Note on
Plates 32-35 the striking similarity in the shape of the heads, the profiles, the
small neat visors and helmet ornaments, the gently curved crest terminals.
3o8
The issue which has been placed next, that of Timarchou-Nikago, con-
tinues the obverse style of Hera-Aristoph and Mened-Epigeno. This is espe-
cially true of its first dies; later in the year a somewhat different representation
of Athena begins to emerge. A long, rather narrow head set on a thin neck
(Nos. 866-367) presents a distinct contrast to the broad head and thick neck of
earlier obverses such as No. 362. The same dolichocephalic type appears on the
coinage of Polycharm-Nikog (as, for example, No. 376) and succeeding issues.
In the Salonika Hoard, already cited in the commentary on the Early
Period, the 300 component tetradrachms belong exclusively to two two-magis-
trate issues (Glau-Eche and Miki-Theophra) and to four three-magistrate
issues (Hera-Aristoph, Mened-Epigeno, Timarchou-Nikago and Polycharm-
Nikog). In view of the small number of emissions represented in so large a
hoard, it is difficult to believe that they are separated in time. Of the four
three-magistrate issues, that of Hera-Aristoph is joined by die identity to the
two-magistrate series while those of Timarchou-Nikago and Polycharm-Nikog
are contiguous on the evidence of transferred dies. This means that the un-
related striking of Mened-Epigeno should come either between Hera-Aristoph
and Timarchou-Nikago or after Polycharm-Nikog. The strong stylistic af-
finity between its obverses and those of Hera-Aristoph makes it certain that
the earlier placement is correct.
The location of Dorothe-Dioph is primarily determined by stylistic con-
siderations. Its obverses find their closest parallels in the emissions of Poly-
charm-Nikog and Antiochos-Nikog (cf. Nos. 376 and 384; Nos. 388-9 and
396-7). In all three issues there is a tendency toward larger volutes in the
helmet ornament and a straightening of the crest terminals so that they hang

away from the neck in an almost vertical line. There is, furthermore, a distinc-
tive feature of the ornament which should be noted. Isolated earlier dies
(Nos. 350 of Mened-Epigeno and 367 of Timarchou-Nikago) render this de-
corative design with a sharp twist at its central point and a sweeping pro-
longation to the right. The same treatment appears on a number of the obverses
of Polycharm-Nikog (Nos. 376, 378 and 380) and is characteristic of most of
the dies of Dorothe-Dioph and Antiochos-Nikog.
In addition to the stylistic criteria, there are other factors which strengthen
the case for the contiguity of Dorothe-Dioph and Antiochos-Nikog. For this
Middle Period as a whole, there are five instances of die-joined issues with the
same third magistrate serving at the end of one year and the beginning of the
next (p. 592). The third magistrate of month M in the emission of Dorothe-
Dioph is ANTIAOX, a rather uncommon name in Attic prosopography. The
third magistrate of month A in the emission of Antiochos-Nikog is ANTIAOX.
It would seem almost certain that this is the same man and that his connection
The Middle Period: Commentary
309
with the two issues is another indication that they belong together. Finally
there are two minor considerations that couple the strikings under present
discussion. Ten of the twelve issues of this first group have the symbol in the
left field; Dorothe-Dioph and Antiochos-Nikog have it in the right field. The
only three-magistrate emissions of the Kessab Hoard (p. 475) are those of
Dorothe-Dioph and Antiochos, with one and five coins respectively. Too few
specimens of any issue are included for valid comparisons on the basis of rel-
ative wear. The tetradrachms of Antiochos are the finest in the deposit and
the one piece of Dorothe-Dioph is almost equally well preserved but its con-
dition is not markedly superior to that of a coin of Miki-Theophra. However,
we do again have a combining of the two issues, this time in a hoard which has
no later emissions.
Theophra-Sotas shares an obverse die with Antiochos-Karaichos. Trans-
ferred dies link the subsequent issues of Dioge-Posei and Achaios-Heli with
each other and with the Theophra-Sotas striking. There can, I believe, be no
question of the sequence of these issues.
At the end of Group I in the Middle Period we have three emissions which
reveal no die connections. Their relative order, nevertheless, seems to me fairly
certain. In the sequence thus far discussed, the obverses form a remarkably
consistent stylistic pattern. After the transition noted for the issue of Ti-
marchou-Nikago from a brachycephalic to a dolichocephalic head, the latter
is the standard representation. Only minor and gradual variations are dis-
cernible in the die-linked issues from Antiochos-Nikog through Achaios-Heli.
The emission of Lysan-Glaukos begins in the same stylistic tradition. Its
earlier obverses are very close to those of Achaios-Heli (cf. Nos. 429-432 with

the dies of Plate 43Nos. 422 and 431 are almost identical); later dies show
a hardening of the features which becomes more pronounced in the obverses of
Epigene-Sosandros and leads finally to the disagreeable pinched faces of
Polemon-Alketes. In the two last strikings there is an attempt to introduce
a new obverse style. This proves abortive in the case of Epigene-Sosandros;
Nos. 450-1 have no real counterparts elsewhere in the coinage. Nos. 461-3 of
Polemon-Alketes, however, are prototypes of a style which is characteristic
of the emissions of Group II. This issue then, with some of its obverses re-
flecting the final stages of the old tradition and others pointing toward a new
stylistic pattern, must surely be the last of Group I.
The Naxos Hoard (p. 477) is the only deposit which bears directly on this
section of the coinage. Of the first ten strikings of the three-magistrate period,
all but three (Timarchou-Nikago, Antiochos-Nikog and Achaios-Heli) are
contained in the hoard. According to Mme. Varoucha's arrangement by relative
wear, which closely parallels the chronological sequence outlined above, the
3io
latest issues are those of Lysan-Glaukos and Dioge-Posei. Since some earlier
strikings are missing, no emphasis can be laid upon the absence of the issues
of Epigene-Sosandros and Polemon-Alketes, but it is at least worth mention-
ing that they do not appear in the Naxos find whereas the issue of Lysan-
Glaukos, which definitely seems to precede them on the evidence of style, is
represented.
The division between Groups I and II is basically one of obverse style.
There is a distinct break between the technique of the early issues and the
stylistic trends which distinguish the emissions of the second group. There is
also a separation along epigraphical lines. Throughout the first twelve issues
of the Middle Period the letter zeta is invariably rendered as I. Thereafter it is
consistently Z or X except in the case of dies of Karaich-Ergokle on which the
diagonal stroke is set in from the ends of the horizontals to form the strange
hybridization X encountered on some issues of the Early Period (p. 121). Finally,
it may be noted that the transition between Groups I and II is marked by a
shift in the position of the symbol. Save for the issues of Dorothe-Dioph and
Antiochos-Nikog, all strikings of Group I have the device in the left field; all
subsequent issues show it to the right of the owl.
Up to this point the chronological arrangement has not differed greatly
from that outlined by Kambanis in his notebook.1 With the second group of
issues belonging to the Middle Period, there are substantial variations from
Kambanis' order which will need to be discussed in some detail. The issues of
this section are the following:
1. MIKIflN - EYPYKAEI
t(1)r 2. AOPOAIZl - ATTOAHEI

Mi) L 3. EYPYKAEI - APIAPA
4. KAPAIX - EPI"OKAE
5. AOPOAIZI -AlOrE
6. AIONYZI -AIONYZI
7. AMMflNIOZ _ KAAAIAI
8. 9EMIZT0 -GEOriOMnOZ
9. ZQKPATHZ - AIONYZOAQ
1 The chief divergence is in the order indicated for Antiochos-Nikog, Theophra-Sotas,
Dioge-Posei and Achaios-Heli; there is also a transposition of Epigene-Sosandros and Polemon-
Alketes. From the data left by Kambanis one gets the impression that the sequence of issues in
his notebook, which is almost identical with the arrangement of his cast trays, represents the
latest stage of Kambanis' thinking regarding chronology. Somewhat different arrangements ap-
pear in the summaries of the Zarova and Halmyros Hoards (BCH, 1934, p. 132 and BCH, 1935,
pp. 106 and 117) but there Kambanis has specified that he is not attempting a final order.
t(3>L
t(l) [
din
10. MHTPOAfiPOI - MIATIAAHI and AHMOIGEN
11. AlOTIMOZ-MArAZ
r12. EYMAPEIAHZ-AAKIAAM and KAEOMEN
13. XAPINAYTHI - APIZTEAZ
L14. OANOKAHI - AnOAAflNIOZ
In the preceding pages, mention was made of the appearance in the issue of
Polemon-Alketes of a new obverse style, exemplified by three dies (Nos. 461-3
for comparison with the other obverses of Plate 47). This we shall call Style A.
It is characterized by fluttering crest terminals, sprawling helmet ornament
with large volutes, loose hair in heavy untidy masses and a profile of quite
distinctive cast. Clearly we have in the three dies of Polemon-Alketes the hand
of a new diecutter.
The issue which is closest in style to that of Polemon-Alketes is the emis-
sion of Mikion-Euryklei, all of its obverses being in the tradition of Style A.
Note the similarity of individual dies: Nos.462 and 482, Nos.463 and 487-9.
Style A continues with practically no modification in Obverses 494 and
496X of the Aphrodisi-Apolexi issue but other dies show a development in the
arrangement of the hair which will prevail henceforth. The unkempt tresses of
the first stage of Style A give place to three heavy locks falling straight, as in
Nos. 499 and 502. With this issue we also encounter the first examples of
Style B, as illustrated by Obverses 495-6, 497-8 and 503. Heads are larger,
profiles rather weak, crest ends generally less fluttering, hair in two rows, and
helmet ornament more complicated with an occasional tendency toward a
simple sweeping curve from which the volutes all branch to the right (cf.
No. 503).

On stylistic grounds there seems to be ample justification for inserting the
issue of Mikion-Euryklei between the strikings of Polemon-Alketes and
Aphrodisi-Apolexi. Confirmation of the placement comes from the Attic
Hoard. This deposit (Plates 162-171) contains ten issues of the early Middle
Period: Hera-Aristoph, Mened-Epigeno, Timarchou-Nikago, Polycharm-
Nikog, Dorothe-Dioph, Antiochos-Karaichos, Theophra-Sotas, Achaios-
Heli, Mikion-Euryklei and Aphrodisi-Apolexi. Of these the drachms of
Mikion-Euryklei and Aphrodisi-Apolexi are in mint condition and clearly the
latest of the hoard. The association of Mikion-Euryklei with so many of the
early issues of the Middle Period and its definite link with Aphrodisi-Apolexi
on evidence of wear support the stylistic argument for its relative position in
the sequence under discussion.1
1 Kambanis places itj much later, after the issue of Metrodoros-Demosthen with which he
evidently thought it should be connected. His association of the two strikings stems, I believe,
312
The striking of Euryldei-Ariara is firmly bound to that of Aphrodisi-
Apolexi by transferred dies of all three denominations. Its obverses show a
continuation of Styles A and B, together with yet a third style which is best
illustrated by No. 516. Style C shows a delicately modelled profile, simple crest
terminals close to the line of the neck, hair neatly arranged and a small re-
strained helmet ornament.
With the emission of Karaich-Ergokle we have another issue which Kam-
banis places late in the sequence, immediately before the striking of Chari-
nautes-Aristeas. The reason for his arrangement is not apparent and it seems
to me that the prow issue belongs much earlier, finding its closest stylistic
parallels in this section of the coinage. Its obverses are exclusively of Style B
and individual dies closely resemble examples of the preceding strikings: cf.
No. 535 of Karaich-Ergokle with No. 503 of Aphrodisi-Apolexi and Euryklei-
Ariara; No. 524 of Karaich with No. 497 of Aphrodisi. The fact that Style B
in its present development is associated only with these three issues (subse-
quently it dies out to reappear only after a considerable interval and then in
a different form) seems to me to indicate that the coinage of Karaich-Ergokle
must be contemporary with the issues of Aphrodisi-Apolexi and Euryklei-
Ariara. Possibly it belongs at the beginning of this sequence but I feel that its
obverses represent a later rather than an introductory stage of Style B and
that its present position is preferable.
Styles A and C return to the coinage with the issues of Aphrodisi-Dioge
and Dionysi-Dionysi. There is relatively little change in the first but the third
style, which is used exclusively for the subsequent emission of Ammonios-
Kallias, shows a discernible evolution over the course of the three issues, a

trend toward an older and somewhat coarser Athena head (cf., for example,
Nos. 551, 557 and 589). The strikings are die-linked as indicated in the listing
of issues.
The tetradrachm die transferred from the issue of Dionysi-Dionysi to that
of Ammonios-Kallias refutes two links which Kambanis implies in his manu-
script and in his summaries of the Zarova and Halmyros Hoards. These involve
the issues of Themisto-Theopompos, Ammonios-Kallias and Eumareides-
Alkidam, which are bracketed in that order in the BCH articles of 1934 (p. 132)
and 1935 (pp. 106 and 117). Nowhere is there any published reference to evi-
dence for these associations but among Kambanis' papers there is a sheet on
from a pair of casts in his tray, labelled Romanos. The obverse is our Die 640, used for tetra-
drachms of Metrodoros-Demosthen; the reverse belongs to Mikion-Euryklei. This would, of
course, establish a die link between the two issues. However, an examination of the Romanos
Collection revealed that two separate coins are involved. The obverse cast belongs to our No. fyof.
the reverse to No. 480I1 with a totally different obverse.
3i3
which are pasted photographs of four coins together with notes indicating an
identity of obverse dies. According to this data Kambanis thought Obverse 608
of Themisto-Theopompos the same as Obverse 584 of Ammonios-Kallias and
Obverse 592 of the latter issue identical with Obverse 675 of Eumareides-
Alkidam. In both instances the dies are indeed close but they are not identical
as will be evident from the plates of the present publication, and it is quite
likely that Kambanis, before he presented the evidence for the two links in
print, would have realized that his associations were erroneous.
In general the heads of Style C as represented in the coinage of Themisto-
Theopompos are more delicate than those of Ammonios-Kallias, suggesting an
earlier date. Since die links unite the emission of Ammonios-Kallias and its
two predecessors, the only alternative position for Themisto-Theopompos
would be before Aphrodisi-Dioge. Careful examination of the evolution of
Style C does not seem to support such an arrangement. That particular style
appears first with Obverse 516 of Euryklei-Ariara and its distinctive charac-
teristics carry over into the markedly similar Obverses 543, 544 and 550-551 of
Aphrodisi-Dioge. Although the heads of Themisto-Theopompos are equally
compact and well modelled, there is a noticeable difference, particularly in
facial expression, between them and the heads of Euryklei-Ariara and Aphro-
disi-Dioge; they definitely do not fit between those two issues. On the other
hand they are highly comparable in individual instances with heads of Dionysi-
Dionysi and Ammonios-Kallias. Compare, for example, No. 606 with No. 571,
No. 596 with No. 582, Nos. 608-9 with Nos. 581 and 583.
The issues of Sokrates-Dionysodo and Metrodoros-Miltiades certainly be-
long together. Both have obverses of Styles A and C and particular dies are

very close, as No. 612 for comparison with Nos. 639 and 641, Nos. 611 and 616
for comparison with Nos. 630 and 633. The two strikings have been placed in
this order because the Sokrates heads of Style A are generally smaller and more
like those of earlier issues whereas those of Metrodoros are rather larger and
more akin to the representations of Eumareides-Alkidam. Individual dies
substantiate this sequence: No. 624 of Sokrates being similar to No. 608 of
Themisto while No. 637 of Metrodoros is very like No. 664 of Diotimos-Magas.
Four issues which must be considered together complete Group II of this
Middle Period. With Diotimos-Magas there is a reappearance of Style B. Note
especially Nos. 652, 655 and 657 which are in the direct tradition of the Style B
obverses of Euryklei-Ariara and Karaich-Ergokle. Side by side with these
dies one finds a variant of Style B, characterized by a hard profile line and by
a peculiar rendering of the helmet ornament. Nos. 649, 650-1 and 654 represent
this variant type and on No. 649 (as contrasted with No. 652) one can see
clearly the way in which the ornament is now separated into two parallel,
314
almost vertical lines terminating in heavy branching volutes (). Other dies
of Diotimos-Magas belong to Style C.
Only one die of Eumareides-Alkidam (No. 682) shows a similar treatment
of the helmet ornament but in the issue following, that of Charinautes-Aristeas,
practically all obverses are further developments of the variant Style B type.
Among them one notes a particularly striking form of the helmet ornament
with a widely forked division of the volutes at the top (No. 690), a rendering
which is repeated with even greater exaggeration on a die of Phanokles-
Apollonios (No. 705).
The issue of Phanokles-Apollonios is fixed as the last of the four under
present discussion by a die link with the emission of Euboulides-Agathokle at
the beginning of Group III. Immediately preceding comes the coinage of
Charinautes-Aristeas as indicated by the close similarity of variant Style B
obverses in the two issues and the tendency in both toward experimentation
with elaborate versions of the helmet ornament.1
On the evidence of variant Style B, Diotimos-Magas should come just be-
fore Charinautes-Aristeas since it includes more examples of that style than
does Eumareides-Alkidam, but there are considerations against such an ar-
rangement. The reappearance of Style B in its original form occurs in the
coinage of Diotimos which has three obverses highly comparable with those of
the earlier issues of Euryklei-Ariara and Karaich-Ergokle. The obverses of
Style C of Diotimos are in the direct tradition of Sokrates-Dionysodo and
Metrodoros-Miltiades (No. 661 with No. 633, No. 664 with No. 637) while those
of Eumareides are much closer to the style of Phanokles-Apollonios (compare
Nos. 674-5 and 678 with Nos. 698 and 701-4). Finally and conclusively, there

is a drachm link between the issues of Eumareides-Alkidam and Phanokles-
Apollonios which establishes their proximity.
This fractional die would seem to span three years. Bringing Eumareides-
Alkidam and Phanokles-Apollonios into direct sequence would involve a dis-
placement of the issue of Charinautes-Aristeas which has extremely close
stylistic connections with that of Phanokles-Apollonios. Moreover, we already
have proof from the linked issues of Theophra-Sotas, Dioge-Posei and
Achaios-Heli that a drachm die could be used over more than two years.2
The die link between Eumareides-Alkidam and Phanokles-Apollonios does
1 Bellinger, Kambanis and Svoronos are in agreement on the association of these issues.
Kambanis even brackets them in two BCH listings (1934, p. 132 and 1935, p. 106) but he gives
no proof of the implied identity of dies.
2 Actually in the present instance it is possible that there was no drachm coinage for the
intervening issue of Charinautes-Aristeas since our one example is a plated specimen which may
or may not have been an official issue.
3i5
not prove contiguity but it does indicate strongly that the former issue comes
after rather than before Diotimos-Magas. While a drachm die could, and did,
carry over three years, it is difficult to credit a survival through four emissions.
In the absence of die links for seven of the fourteen issues of this present
group, no one would maintain that its order is absolutely fixed but I do believe
that the arrangement is fairly certain and that any adjustments necessitated
by future discoveries will be minor ones.
The last eleven issues of the Middle Period provide a firm sequence, each
emission linked to at least one other and six of the eleven anchored at both
ends.1 The strikings are as follows:
r OANOKAHZ - ATTOAAQNIOZ
t (i) j
t(2)r 1. EYBOYAIAHZ - ArAGOKAH and ZS2IAOZ - EYANAPOZ
*t 2. AAMflN -ZflZIKPATHZ
t(1)P 3. EYMHAOZ-KAAAIOflN
d(l)
mdL 4. HPAKAEIAHZ - EYKAHZ (I)
d(1)L 5. 0EOAOTOZ-KAEOQANHZ
r 6. HPAKAEIAHZ - EYKAHZ (II)
t(3)[ V'
d,l)L 7. ANAPEAZ -XAPINAYTHZ
t (i) r
d(1)L 8. IKEZIOZ - AZKAHTTIAAHZ
tmr 9. TIMOZTPATOZ-nOZHZ
d<1> rlO. AMOIKPATHZ - ET7IZTPATOZ

41. AflZIQEOZ -XAPIAZ
There is little that need detain us in this section of the coinage since the
chronological arrangement is fully established by the die links. It might be
pointed out, however, that the stylistic evolution of these contiguous issues
1 All these connections with the exception of the link between Phanokles-Apollonios and
Euboulides-Agathokle and the one between Herakleides-Eukles (I) and Theodotos-Kleophanes
are published by Kambanis in Arethuse and in various BCH articles. In several instances, how-
ever, his listings show erroneous couplings. Andreas-Charinautes, Hikesios-Asklepiades and
Timostratos-Poses are bracketed in that order in Arethuse (p. 12) but on page 14 of the same
publication the sequence is given as Andreas-Charinautes, Timostratos-Poses and Amphikrates-
Epistratos. Later in the BCH for 1934 (p. 132) and 1935 (pp. 106 and 117) Kambanis lists Timos-
tratos-Poses, Hikesios-Asklepiades, Andreas-Charinautes. As Bellinger (Hesperia, Suppl.VIII,
p. 19) points out, these are mistakes, for the Arethuse and BCH (1932) plates show clearly the die
identities between Andreas-Charinautes and Hikesios-Asklepiades and between Timostratos-
Poses and Amphikrates-Epistratos. Of the connection between Hikesios-Asklepiades and Timos-
tratos-Poses, Kambanis writes that it is certain but that he has been unable to find the proof of it.
3i6
follows a pattern identical with that observed in the earlier issues and thus
affords confirmation of the validity of style as a criterion for arrangement when
die links are lacking. It was, in fact, style alone that originally determined the
placement of the Theodotos-Kleophanes emission; subsequently the dis-
covery of a transferred drachm die proved its insertion between the two He-
rakleides-Eukles strikings to be correct.
Variant Style B survives in one die of Euboulides-Agathokle (No. 714);
Style A in a number of obverses of that same year. With Damon-Sosikrates
there is a single die which should perhaps be considered in the tradition of
Style B. Otherwise all obverses are a development of Style C of the earlier
issues. For the most part the rendering is not unpleasing through the coinage
of Theodotos-Kleophanes. With the second year of Herakleides-Eukles it
begins to deteriorate and becomes progressively worse with succeeding issues.
By the emission of Dositheos-Charias the heavy, rather coarse heads sur-
rounded by exaggerated dots have lost every vestige of charm.
Two hoards are to be associated with the terminal years of the Middle
Period. There is not much information to be derived from the Salamis Hoard
(pp. 518f.) even if its composition is complete. It includes four tetradrachms
of this third group, the latest a piece of Timostratos-Poses. All are worn,
almost as much so as the very early strikings, and this fact combined with the
scanty representation of all issues makes it impossible to derive any help as
to chronological arrangement from the state of preservation of individual
specimens. The second deposit is Delos Hoard r, which Svoronos publishes in
the JI AN for 1906 (pp. 260-267). In this large hoard all issues of the Middle
Period are represented, save for the coinages of Polycharm-Nikog, Mikion-

Euryklei and Karaich-Ergokle,1 down through the second year of Herakleides-
Eukles. The tetradrachms in the best state of preservation are those of Hera-
kleides-Eukles and Theodotos-Kleophanes, all are fine and some are in mint
condition. This strongly substantiates the position of Theodotos-Kleophanes
if further evidence were needed.
There is a striking difference between the earliest and latest reverses of the
Middle Period. On the dies of Hera-Aristoph a well-proportioned owl with
small head and eyes and with carefully delineated V-shaped feathers sits on a
modest amphora, the whole surrounded by a wreath with long slender leaves
and small berries. In the coinage of Dositheos-Charias a scrawny bird with
large head and protruding eyes and with feathers indicated by heavy blobs is
1 The absence of coins from the two large strikings of Mikion-Euryklei and Karaich-
Ergokle is surprising. Possibly it can be interpreted as another indication of propinquity to the
issues of Epigene-Sosandros and Polemon-Alketes, two other extensive emissions which are
represented in the hoard by only one coin each.
3i7
rendered on a disproportionately large and elongated vase within a sketchily
outlined wreath of shapeless leaves and heavy berries. This degeneration of the
basic type is a gradual process. Its evolution is in complete accord with the
overall chronology and serves to confirm the more precise evidence of obverse
style in placing individual issues within broad groups. It does not help in
establishing an absolute chronology.
In this respect the inscriptions are of somewhat greater assistance. Starting
again with Hera-Aristoph we find letters that are small, rather thin and neatly
cut, adequately spaced and in good relative proportion. A similarity of execu-
tion characterizes the ensuing six strikings. With the coinage of Dioge-Posei
through that of Polemon-Alketes the letters become thicker and heavier,
occasionally out-sized, and there is a tendency to run them together with a
consequent loss in legibility. From Mikion-Euryklei through Aphrodisi-
Dioge, there is a further deterioration in the direction of careless cutting,
crowding together of letters, poor alignment and poor relative proportions.
Note how the reverses of Mikion-Euryklei, Aphrodisi-Apolexi and Karaich-
Ergokle exemplify this technique. With Dionysi-Dionysi one sees a distinct
improvement in the size and execution of individual letters. This continues to
be true of the dies of Ammonios-Kallias, Themisto-Theopompos, Sokrates-
Dionysodo and Metrodoros-Miltiades (cf. Nos. 582a, 606e, 620b and 629c).
The crowding of the flans in these issues is due not to careless workmanship but
to the growing trend toward less abbreviation in magistrates' names.
Some of the reverses of Diotimos-Magas are neat and well cut; others show
a thickening and running together of the letters which leads into the style of
the next issues. The dies of Eumareides-Alkidam, Charinautes-Aristeas,

Phanokles-Apollonios and Euboulides-Agathokle are highly comparable. On
the whole the letters are still restrained and legible, if at times excessively
crowded, but there are individual dies which are very poorly cut (note Nos. 669,
677e, 688a and 699a). From Damon-Sosikrates on an increasing carelessness
prevails, culminating in the appallingly clumsy reverses of Timostratos-Poses,
Amphikrates-Epistratos and Dositheos-Charias.
These varying inscriptional trends help in the association of individual
issues but they cannot do much more than this. For example, the marked sim-
ilarity of reverse dies in the strikings of Ammonios-Kallias, Themisto-Theo-
pompos, Sokrates-Dionysodo and Metrodoros-Miltiades, as noted above,
indicates a contemporaneity of the four issues. The differences in reverse
technique, however, are too slight to be of any use in determining whether
Sokrates-Dionysodo, for instance, belongs before or after Metrodoros-Miltiades.
During the Middle Period of the coinage the inscriptions as they pertain
to the annual magistrates tend to become increasingly elaborate. There is,
3i8
however, no distinct break between issues with abbreviated names and those
in which the names are inscribed in full. From the beginning through the
striking of Sokrates-Dionysodo the practice is to abbreviate at least one name,
more commonly both, but there are exceptions: Antiochos and Karaichos,
Polemon and Alketes, Ammonios and Kallias. From Metrodoros-Miltiades on,
the two names are written in full except for Demosthen, who replaced Miltiades
as the colleague of Metrodoros, both second magistrates of the Eumareides
striking, and Agathokle of 142/1 B.C. With regard to third magistrates the
situation is the reverse. The longer, less abbreviated versions occur in the early
and middle stages of the period; the shortest names are to be found in the last
three issues, due no doubt to the clumsy lettering which left little room on the
flans for anything but the names of the annual officials.
Die positions are predominantly regular (If) but there are deviations in
almost every issue. From Hera-Aristoph through Mikion-Euryklei all emis-
sions, except those of Theophra-Sotas and Dioge-Posei, show a high pro-
portion of dies with a slight orientation to the left f \. Beginning with Aphro-
disi-Apolexi and continuing through Eumareides-Alkidam, there are still
some dies in all issues with the same relationship but far fewer than in the
preceding group. Four strikings (Euryklei-Ariara, Karaich-Ergokle, The-
misto-Theopompos and Metrodoros-Miltiades) have a single die each with
deviation to the right t / The emissions of Charinautes-Aristeas, Phanokles-
Apollonios, Eumelos-Kalliphon, Herakleides-Eukles (I) and Timostratos-
Poses are consistently ft; all others of the late sequence show an occasional t /
orientation while four dies belonging to Zoilos-Euandros and Damon-
Sosikrates repeat the f \ relationship of the earlier issues. These divergencies

are, of course, minor and the evidence for them is incomplete but the pattern
that emerges is interesting in that it divides the coinage into three groups in
line with the chronological arrangement: an initial period of extensive variation
t \, a second period with considerably less variation in the same direction,
followed by a third period with occasional t / orientation.
Control combinations in the Middle Period are more consistent and more
restricted than was the case with the issues of the Early Period (see page 614
for the listing). The first three strikings are exceptional. Their controls include
combinations, such as AN and MH, which survive from the preceding coinage
and which do not appear elsewhere in the Middle Period; combinations, such
as AIT and TIE, which occur only on later issues of this period; and a single
combinationrAwhich is confined to the reverses of Hera-Aristoph and
Mened-Epigeno. The recurrence on these three issues of rare and distinctive
combinations underlines their separation from the other issues of the Middle
Period and their chronological unity.
319
The emissions from Polycharm-Nikog through Dionysi-Dionysi are re-
markably uniform in their use of exactly four control combinations: Al, ME,
I<t>, ZQ. All issues but three are limited to three combinationsalways ME,
almost always Z<t>, and either Al or Zft for the third. Euryklei-Ariara has Al,
ME, Zfi; Karaich-Ergokle and Dionysi-Dionysi employ all four combinations;
Epigene-Sosandros is exceptional in using five and substituting HP and
TTP for ZQ.
Four control combinations is standard practice from Ammonios-Kallias
through the end of the Middle Period, the only deviations being five issues
with five controls and one with three. Seven different combinations are to be
found: AFT, Al, ME, FIE, 10, ZO, ZQ. Of these, ME is invariable, as it has been
from the issue of Mened-Epigeno, and ZO is missing from only one striking.
Z<D drops out with Eumelos-Kalliphon and An comes in a year earlier to persist
from Damon-Sosikrates through Dositheos-Charias. Al is abandoned with the
emission of Charinautes-Aristeas.
Another noteworthy feature of the Middle Period of the coinage is the ex-
tent to which recutting is practiced. The earliest issues resemble those of the
preceding period in having an occasional re-engraving of a date or a control
combination. Only in two or three instances is there an alteration of the name
of the third magistrate. Systematic recutting of names begins in the issue of
Euryklei-Ariara but for a time it is not employed on an extensive scale. Later
it becomes almost routine procedure for keeping reverse dies in operation. Gen-
erally only two names are involved, one cut over the other. Then with the
coinage of Charinautes-Aristeas and subsequent issues one finds numerous
examples of three names and three amphora letters. The reverse belonging to

Damon-Sosikrates with four names and five dates is fortunately unique.
CATALOGUE OF THE LATE PERIOD
AHMHTPIOI - ArAGinnOS CAPS OF DIOSCURI 131/0 B.C.
(Pxates 98-102)
Telradrachms
879.
880.
881.
882.
883.
884.
885.
An
nE
Athens, gr. 16.40f
01
nE
01
10
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.47f; Berlin (Sv.
58, 22), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.84
01
An
ra.
An
An

London (Sv. 58, 1), gr. 16.21f
Paris, gr. 16.26f; ANS-ETN, amphora and
|b.
OA1
An
Halmyros Hd.
1 c-
ATT
An
|d.
An
An
Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr. 15.60f; Berlin (Sv.
58,5), gr. 16.81; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.57;
La.
An
ANS-ETN, gr. 16.34f
b.
nA
Berlin, gr. 16.18; Athens (Delos Hd.AH), gr.
15.50f; Commerce 1953, amphora and control
c.
An
Halmyros Hd.
d.
An
The Late Period: Catalogue
321
01
ME
01
nE
An
nE
1 a-
01
ME
1 b-
01
01
An
1 a-
An
nE
1 b-
zo
1 c-
An
10
1 a-
An
zo
1 b-
An
zo
! c-
An
zo
1 a-
01
zo/
1 b-
01
zo
1 a-
An
MH
1 b-
MH
1 c-
MH
MH

Aii
Berlin, gr. 16.29; Athens (Delos Hd. ir),brokenf;
895.
896.
897.
898.
An
MH
Athens (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.52f; Berlin, gr. 15.96
An
An
ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.27f; Athens,
magistrate and amphora letter uncertain, gr.
16.65f
L a.
An
An
b.
An
An
c.
An
An

Athens (Sv. 58, 10), gr.16.40f; Athens (Delos
Hd.AH), gr. 15.42 (corroded)f; Berlin, gr. 16.43
d.
[A]TT
An
Athens (Delos Hd. KS, 36), gr. 15.45f
a.
Halmyros Hd.
b.
An
nE
c.
TIE
rd.
An
nE
Tubingen, gr. 16.26; Oxford, amphora letter un-
899.
900.
901.
902.
903.
certain, gr. 15.94
a. _ T/(?)B MH Athens, gr. 16.25f
rb. AFT A MH Paris (Sv. 58,6), gr. 16.55f; Leningrad.gr. 15.69?
c. E MH Commerce 1955 (Halmyros Hd.)
d. An 1/0/H MH/An ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.74f; Wash-
ington Univ.
a. An A 10 Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.)
Lb. An E/A IO/MH Halmyros Hd.; Hamburger 98, 691, gr. 16.63
l-c. E MH London {BMC 363), gr. 15.48|
323
906.
907.
908.
L a.
An
nE
Munich, gr. 16.57; Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros
Hd.); Lockett Coll. (SNG 1915), gr. 16.67f;
Berlin, gr. 16.22
b.
MH
Commerce 1955
c.
An
Z/E
nE
ANS-ETN, gr. 16.47t
r d-
An
An
1 e-
An
nE

Berlin, gr. 15.45
Berne, gr. 16.26
1 a-
01
nE
Berlin (Sv. 58, 11), gr. 16.41; Athens (Delos
Hd. IT), control letters uncertain!
1 b-
01
nE
Lockett Coll. (SNG 1916) = Naville (Pozzi) 1602,
gr.16.46f. With OAY/OI: Athens, gr.16.00f
1 c-
OAY
TTE(?)
1 d-
OAY
nE
1 e-
nE/An
London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.61f; ANS (Ana-
tolia Hd.), amphora and control letters uncertain,
gr. 15.78|
1 f-
nE
324
909.
910.
911.
912.
913.
914.
915.
916.
917.
i ra-
An
FTE
Uncertain1
1 lb-
An
nE
Paris, gr. 16.22f; Berlin (Sv. 58. 18), gr. 16.17;
j|
1 1c-
nE
1 ld-
An
nE

Halmyros Hd.
1 La-
An
nE
Bauer Coll.
\- b.
An
An
Cancio Coll.
1 c-
An/MH
London, gr. 15.76 (pierced)f
An
An
London {BMC 865), gr. 16.84t
a.
AN2
Z/E
MH
Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); ANS-ETN,
gr. 15.47f
b.
An
MH
Vienna, gr. 16.18
c.
An
MH
Berlin, gr. 16.42
d.
325
920.
922.
b.
An
MH
Athens (Carystus Hd. II; BCH, 1958, Pl.XLIX,
4), gr. 16.65
c.
An
MH
Commerce 1982
a.
An
10
*Copenhagen {SNG 188; Sv. 58, 14), gr. 16.56f;
b.
10
c.
ZO

An
Berlin (Sv. 58, 17), gr. 16.27; Commerce 1955
a.
An
An
ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 15.54f; Leningrad, gr.
16.38f
b.
An
Athens (Delos Hd. B, 43), gr. 15.05 (corroded)f
c.
An
e/H
An
ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.68|; Lenin-
grad
a.
MH
b.
MH
a.
An
FTE
Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Athens (Hal-
myros Hd.)
b.
An
nE
Commerce 1932
c.
326
923.
924.
925.
926.
927.
928.
a.
01
MH
Petsalis CoU. (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.75; Berlin,
gr. 15.29
b.
<DI
MH
ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.10t
a.
An
An
Berlin, gr. 15.91
b.
An

An
Athens (Sv. 58, 19), gr. 16.00f; ANS (Anatolia
Hd.), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.56f
c.
An
An
Milan (Sv. 58, 21), gr. 16.50
d.
An
TIE
Empedocles Coll.
a.
An
A/K
MH
*Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Kress 90, 236,
b.
An
MH
c.
An
MH
d.
An
MH
Oxford, gr. 16.18; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr.
rachms
16.64|; Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.)
Berlin (Sv. 58, 23), gr. 3.97
327
What emerges in the diagrammatical survey of this issue is an unparalleled
change in the system governing the tenure of third magistrates. The abbre-
viated names of three individuals appear on reverse dies but the principle of
rotation has been completely abandoned. ATT is in office throughout the year.
<t>l works with him in A, B, I", E, I and K; OAY serves with ATT and 01 in B and E
and with An in H. Seventeen reverses (of months r, E, Z, H, I and K) are anony-
mous in that there are no letters indicating a third magistrate.
This is all most extraordinary. Not only is there the basic problem of two
or three third magistrates holding office simultaneously during at least seven
months of the year but, and this is perhaps even more puzzling, there seems to
be no real correlation between the size of the coinage in a given month and
the number of third magistrates controlling it. In B and E the relationship of
output and magistrates is reasonable. There are ten obverse dies in operation
during the second month of the year and these are shared by ATT, 01 and OA;
the fourteen obverses of E (the heaviest month of striking) are associated with
ATT, Ol, OAY and anonymous reverses. In Z, however, ATT functions alone, yet
in this month there are twelve obverse dies in operation: eleven used with re-
verses inscribed An and one with a single anonymous reverse. Then toward the
end of the year when the coinage is lighter one finds the nine obverses of I and
the four of K combined with An, Ol and anonymous reverses.
Kambanis expresses in print (BCH, 1932, p. 52) and in unpublished notes
two dies. Beule records three examples of Zfl as a control combination and Sundwall repeats
Beule's citations. One piece cannot be checked; the other two are Paris specimens (our Nos.goya
and 915). No. 907a is definitely inscribed 20, and although the Paris example of No. 915 is not
clearly legible in the exergue, it is from the same reverse die as a Frankfurt coin on which the ZO

is unmistakable. OAI as a magistrate's name, recorded by Beule for a Berlin coin, is a recutting:
OAY/OI. The KAEAS entry of Svoronos [JIAN, 1906, p. 269) is less easily explicible. I have ex-
amined the coins in the Athens cabinet and there is no tetradrachm of the Demetrios-Agathippos
issue which has KAEAZ as a third magistrate. The record would certainly seem to be an error
but I cannot imagine how it originated.
In the BCH for 1934 (p. 106) Kambanis gives a number of readings from the coins of the
Halmyros Hoard which are not to be found in the present catalogue: Ol with Z; OAY with A/T";
OAY with Z; with 0; with M; with N. The last is a crucial entry since, if correct, it would
establish 131 /o as an intercalary year. Fortunately we have a check on this record in the notebook
which contains Kambanis' detailed listing of all coins known to him. This notebook compilation
is of later date than the published article. Both 01 with Z and OAY with A/r from the Halmyros
Hoard appear in the notebook (the latter with "a verifier" after it) but both have been crossed
through indicating that Kambanis on rechecking had found the readings erroneous or dubious.
In the notebook there is no record of with M or with N and we can, I believe, feel confident
that re-examination had established the incorrectness of those readings. OAY with Z and with
0 are in the notebook as well as in the article and probably represent two reverse dies which I
do not have.
328
his conviction that the coinage of Demetrios-Agathippos extended over more
than one year and he seems, judging by his arrangement of the material, to have
been considered a division according to the four categories of reverses: those
with AFT, those with 01, those with OAY and those without third magistrate.
One cannot tell whether or not he was thinking in terms of four annual issues.
It was apparently the amount of silver struck under Demetrios and Aga-
thippos and the erratic pattern of third magistrate control which led Kambanis
to believe that the coinage must be spread over several years. He had not at-
tempted to arrange it by obverse and reverse dies. When one does that, it
becomes clear that the four reverse categories are contemporary. There are at
least three reverse dies (Nos. 905b, 906b and 907b) on which OAY is cut over
01. The other reverses associated with these same obverse dies are divided be-
tween 01, OAY and anonymous. Ol and ATT share Obverses 921 and 922; ATT and
OA Obverse 888. Uninscribed reverses are scattered throughout the year,
sharing obverses with ATT, with OI and with OAY, sometimes with both Ol and
OAY. Furthermore in this association of the reverses of different magistrates
with a single obverse it is noteworthy that the reverses are generally from the
middle months of the calendar. There is no instance of, for example, the same
obverse used with an ATT reverse of M and a Ol reverse of A, which would in-
dicate a carry-over of the die from one year to another and hence separate
annual issues. Unless one adopts the unlikely hypothesis that an identical
pattern of third magistrate control characterized successive strikings of Deme-
trios-Agathippos, one must assign their coinage to a single year.
Although the abandonment of the principle of rotation of third magistrates
reaches its culmination in the present issue, there have been a few earlier in-

dications of a trend in that direction. In 143/2 B.C. under Phanokles and Apol-
lonios two third magistrates, SAT and UP ATI 01 seem to have served together
in month lambda and in the year following ZftKPAT and AAMIOZ were appar-
ently in office at the same time. With the coinage of Dositheos and Charias,
immediately preceding that of Demetrios-Agathippos, we have evidence of a
more violent departure from the system of orderly rotation of third magistrates.
AION starts the year, appearing on reverses of A and B.NIK either succeeds him
in B or serves with him for that month and alone for Y. Then AION returns for
A, E and Z. ZOA takes over in H and 6, yielding to TA in I. XAIP appears on re-
verses of K, A and M but SOA returns to office and is also inscribed on reverses
of A and M. So for at least the last two months of the year there would seem to
have been two third magistrates in charge. This is not yet the all-out chaos of
Demetrios-Agathippos but it definitely foreshadows it.
The year 131/0 witnessed a truly tremendous output of coinage. Forty-
seven obverse dies are known, the largest number for any issue in the series.
329
This is, however, a period of extensive emissions. The issue of Niketes-Dio-
nysios in 130/29 required thirty-three obverse dies, that of Aristion-Philon in
the next year used thirty, and five years later the issue of Xenokles-
Harmoxenos with dolphin and trident symbol employed forty-two. High as the
number of obverse and reverse dies is in the present record, it is almost certain
that many more reverses at least were originally cut for Demetrios and Aga-
thippos. There are numerous examples of an obverse-reverse combination re-
presented by a single coin, many obverses are recorded with a single reverse,
and there are three instances of extensive gaps in the sequence of amphora
letters. Obverses 884, 885 and 894 seem to have lasted for nine months each.
This is surprising durability for an obverse die in a large emission1 and it is
all the more puzzling in that we have no amphora letter between A and I asso-
ciated with Obverse 884, none between A and H with Obverse 885 and none
between B and K with Obverse 894. Either the three dies were put aside for
some reason and brought back into use after a considerable interval2 or there
are a great many reverse dies missing from the record for these three obverses
alone.
NIKHTHZ - AIONYZIOZ GORGON-HEAD 130/29 b.c
(Plates 103-105)
Tetradrachms
929.
r AHMO A 10 *Evelpidis Coll.
930. I
L AHMO A ZO *ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.75 /

931. I
La. AHMO A ZO "Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.80f
rb. AHMO A FIE *Munich, gr. 16.12
1 There are, however, other instances of extreme longevity in individual dies. Obverse 899
of this same issue lasts for seven or eight months, from Y (or possibly B) through I. An obverse of
an earlier issue, No. 802, is in use from B through A which would mean ten months if we could be
sure that coinage continued without interruption throughout the year. The present record shows
no reverses for 0 and only a drachm emission for I so it is possible that tetradrachm coinage was
suspended during those two months.
2 This may well have been the case. There is no significant difference in condition between
the earliest and latest stages of all three obverse dies such as one would expect for a long period
of striking.
330
932.
1a-
AHMO
MH
|b.
AHMO
B/A
MH
r|c
AHMO
MH
1 1a-
AHMO
TIE
1 Lb-
AHMO
B/A
nE
1 c-
AHMO
10

1 d-
AHMO
r/B
nE/?
1 e-
AHMO
nE
1 f-
APOMO
An
1 a-
AHMO
An
1 b.
AHMO
B/A
An
1 c-
APOMO
An
1 d-
APOMO
An
1 a-
AHMO
10
1 b.
AHMO
zo
1 c-
APOMO
10
1 d.
APOMO
33i
936. I
939.
940.
941.
a.
AHMO
B/A
10
Athens (Delos Hd. A, 26), gr. 15.98f
b.
AHMO
MH
London (BMC 480), gr.16.70f; ANS
(Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 16.17f
c.
APOMO
MH
Lockett Coll. (SNG 1984) = Schlessinger
(Hermitage 2) 946, gr. 16.80t
a.
MENE
MH

London, gr. 16.68f. With KAEI/MENE and
E/r: Athens (Halmyros Hd.)1
b.
TAAY
MH
Oxford, gr. 16.12f; Athens, gr. 16.80f;
Athens, gr. 16.45f
c.
TAAY
MH
d.
KAEI/rAAY
E/A
MH/?
Berlin, gr. 16.52
e.
KAEI
MH
a.
TAAY
An
Commerce 1955; Berlin, gr. 15.97
b.
TAAY
An
Athens (Sv. 66, 7), gr. 16.80f
a.
TAAY
nE
Halmyros Hd., gr. 16.45
b.
TAAY
nE
KAEI
An
Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.66f; Ist-
anbul, amphora and control letters un-
certain, gr. 16.56f; Andreopoulos Coll.,
amphora and control letters uncertain
KAEI
*ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.55|
0PA
An
Berlin, gr. 16.42
6PA
An
Berlin, gr. 16.10
KAEI
nE
Brussels (de Hirsch 1292), gr. 16.58|
KAEI

Tubingen (Sv. 66, 8), gr. 16.40
QPA
nE
Athens (Carystus Hd. II; BCH, 1958, PI.
XLIX, 5), gr. 16.77. With H/Z: Istanbul,
gr. 16.86f
6PA
zo
GPA
10
Athens (Sv. 66, 10), gr. 16.45f
GPA
Vienna, gr. 16.64
QPA
Berlin, gr. 16.41
9PA
An
Athens (Sv. 66, 11), gr. 16.45
EEN
All
Hess, Mar. 1985, 359 = Cahn 75, 327, gr.
16.63; Athens (Halmyros Hd.), control
letters uncertain
GPA
MH/(?)An
ANS-ETN, gr. 15.62f
EE/GPA
H/Z
MH
Weber 8524, gr. 16.59
QPA
The Late Period: Catalogue 333
950.
953.
d.
EE
MH
Munich, gr. 16.421; Schlessinger (Hermi-
tage 2) 944, gr. 16.50; Feuardent (Burel) 188
a.
GPA
MH
b.
EENO
MH
Berlin, gr. 15.85
c.
EMBI
MH
Empedocles Coll.; Athens, gr. 16.02f
a.
6PA
H/Z(?)

Minister Landesmus., gr. 15.76
b.
EEN
TIE
Commerce 1955, gr. 16.87f; Berlin, am-
c.
EENO
An
Berlin, gr. 16.69
d.
EMBI
An
Bauer Coll. = Naville (Woodward) 758,
gr.16.57t; ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr.15.74f
e.
EMBI
An
a.
EEN/(?)6PA H
TIE
Athens, gr. 16.00|
b.
EEN
ne
Munich, gr. 15.80 (PL); Schlessinger (Her-
mitage 2) 945, gr. 16.40
c.
EEN
tie
Romanos Coll.; ANS-ETN (Halmyros
Hd.), control letters uncertain, gr. 16.69f
a.
EENO
956.
957.
958.
959.
960.
a.
EMBI
10
ANS-ETN, gr. 16.40f; Vatican
b.
EMB1
ZO
Athens (Delos Hd. ir)|; Berlin, gr. 15.50
c.
EMBI
10
*Athens (Halmyros Hd.)
a.
EMBI
10
b.
EMBI
MH

Berlin (Sv. 66, 18), gr. 16.88
ra.
EMBI
MH
jb.
EMBI
|a.
EMBI
10
Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Petsalis
Coll.
lb-
EMBI
ZO
Commerce (Sv. 66, 19, Feuardent), gr. 15.84
la.
EMBI
MH/nE
London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.711; Em-
pedocles Coll. = Sv. 66, 20-21 (same coin),
Asteriades Coll., control letters uncertain
|b.
EMBI
FTE
Athens, gr. 16.80f
1 c-
EMBI
riE
Kambanis Coll. (BCH, 1984, PI. I, 5)
d.
EMBI
335
less drastically abbreviated and more carefully inscribed. The contrast be-
tween long and short terms of office remains puzzling, but there is at least no
definite indication of overlapping or broken tenures. Throughout the year the
eight third magistrates seem to have served in orderly succession.
Earlier publications provide readings not found in the present catalogue.
The magistrate Kl recorded for a British Museum coin (our No. 940b) is in
reality KAI, an erroneous rendering of KAEI. This name is associated with A on
the evidence of another tetradrachm but in all probability the amphora letter
represents a recutting (as our No. 989d) with an indistinct E superimposed on
the A. =EN is listed with 0 and ATT for a Copenhagen piece and with G and ME
for a Paris specimen. The former is No. 953a with EMBI and 0/H; the latter is
almost certainly No. 958b with an illegible third name and AFT /TIE, a recutting
which at first glance gives the impression of ME. Svoronos publishes GPA with
E (JIAN, 1900, p. 170) but there is no coin with this combination in the Athens
Collection. Zfi is cited for tetradrachms in the Lambros Collection and in
Berlin; Z<D is given for a Berlin piece. The Lambros coins cannot be checked
but on the only Berlin tetradrachm which definitely has a Z in the control
the combination is ZO.
Bellinger speaks of the appearance of N as an amphora letter in this issue.
I have been unable to find any published record of such a coin or coins but an
ancient imitation of Niketes-Dionysios with N on the amphora (Plate 158)
was in the Halmyros Hoard and this piece was copied by modern counterfeiters
before the remnants of the find were confiscated by the Athens authorities.
There is, to the best of my knowledge, no example of the intercalary letter on
a tetradrachm from the Athenian mint.

APIZTIflN - OlAflN
PEGASUS
129/8 B.C.
(Plates 106-108)
Tetradrachms
959.
APOMO
10
Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); ANS-ETN
(Halmyros Hd.)( gr. 16.50f; Berry Coll.
(Halmyros Hd.), control letters uncertain,
gr. 16.74f
960.
b.
a.
c.
APOMO
APOMO
APOMO
TTE
TIE
fte
Berlin {BCH, 1934, PI. I, 6), gr. 15.64
ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.08t
London, gr. 15.98|
APOMO
MH
*Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Lockett Col
{SNG 1913), gr. 16.36f; Berlin, gr. 15.97
APOMO
MH
ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.56f (Plate
105); London (BMC 830; Sv.68, 2), gr.16.38f
GEO
Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.52f; Cahn 60, 576, gr. 16.30
6EO
MH
9E0
MH
Tubingen, gr. 16.38; London (BMC 332), gr.
16.45f; Athens (Sv. 68, 4), gr. 16.20f; Copen-
hagen (SNG 198), amphora letter uncertain,
gr. 16.42f
APOMO
ZO

*Copenhagen (SNG 197; Sv. 68, 1), gr. 16.61f
APOMO
10
Ratto, Oct. 1934,168 = Cahn 75, 329, gr. 16.5U
GEO
E/A
ZO
Bourgey, Dec. 1932, 177
APOMO
An
Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Knobloch
Coll., amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.65
APOMO
An
Athens (Sv. 68, 3), gr. 16.05f
GEO
An
Zara Coll., gr. 16.41t
GEO
An
ANS-ETN, gr. 15.95f; Vienna, gr. 16.30
GEO
An
GEO
nE
Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Naville
(Woodward) 748, amphora and control letters
GEO
MH
GEO
MH
b.
HHAI
MH
c.
HrEAZ
Q/H
MH
HrEAZ
nE
a.
HrEAZ
An
HHAZ
An
La.
HHAZ
An/
b.
HrEAZ
zo
c.
HHAZ
zo
HrEAZ
Q/H
nE

337
969.
970.
971.2
972.
973.
974.
975.
b.
GEO
ZO
c.
GEO
ZO
a.
GEO
I7E
b.
GEO
a.
GEO
338
976.
977.
978.
979.
980.
981.
a.
HrEAI
e/H
nE
*Munich (Sv. 68, 7), gr. 15.42
b.
Hri
i/e
nE
ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.),gr. 16.50t; Athens
(Delos Hd. ir; Sv. 68, 9), gr.16.98t- With
K/l/9: Piraeus Hd., gr. 16.86
c.
HrEAI
lrd.

Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.46|; Commerce (Halmy-
HrEAI
nE/An L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.15
ros Hd.)
-|
e.
HrEAZ
K/l
nE
f.
HriAi
nE
Commerce 1955, gr. 16.85f
rl
g-
HrEAI
nE
a.
HrEAI
An
Commerce 1955. With K/l/9: Dewing Coll.,
jj
gr. 16.44f; Berlin, gr. 15.99
j|
Lb.
HrEAI
An
c.
HrEAI
K/l
339
982.
983.
984.
985.
986.
987.
988.
989.
a.
HHAZ
An
b.
HrEAZ
An
Berlin, gr. 16.48
HriAX
10
ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.51f; ANS-
ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.52f
a.
10

HHAZ
Athens (Sv. 68, 11), gr. 16.40f; London (Hal-
myros Hd.), gr. 16.74f
b.
HrEAI
zo
c.
HriAi
A/K
10
Leningrad
a.
HHAZ
MH
Berlin, gr. 15.66; Florange-Ciani, Oct. 1923,
20 = Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN, 1912,
1808), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 15.97
b.
Hri[
HrEAI
M/A
TIE
Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Petsalis
Coll., gr. 15.05f
a.
HHAI
MH
Coin Galleries Mail Bid, Mar. 1956, 1582
b.
HH[
MH
Athens (Halmyros Hd.); Berlin, gr. 16.11
a.
340
Both strikings use the same four control combinations. There are fewer
third magistrates for Aristion-Philon than for Niketes-Dionysios, three as
contrasted with eight. Actually HHAZ and HTEAZ may be separate officials but
the fact that the two forms, which are identical in sound and almost identical
in spelling, alternate on reverses of the second half of the year suggests diver-
gent renderings by diecutters to whom the magistrate's name had been trans-
mitted orally. One cannot know which is the correct version but HHAZ is a far
more common name in Attic prosopography than HTEAZ.
AP0T70Z - MNAZArO
Tetradrachms
990.
991.
992.
993.
994.
995.
WINGED AGON 128/7 B.C.
(Plates 109-111)
a.
An
Berlin (Sv. 67, 1), gr. 16.66; Berlin, gr. 16.41
b.
AnOA
An

c.
AnOA
TIE
a.
ATTOA
nE/An *Athens, gr. 16.25f; Berlin, gr. 16.23
b.
AT70A
fie
Romanos Coll.; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.63*
c.
AnOA
nE
""London, gr. 16.00 \
AnOA
10
La.
AnOA
10
Berlin, gr. 16.32
b.
AT70A
zo
Commerce 1953; ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd).
gr. 16.56f
rc.
AnOA
34i
996. I
997.
998.
1000.
La.
ATTOA
b.
AnOA
B/
c.
AnOA
r d.
AnOA
1 e-
AnOA
1 a-
AnOA
1 b.
AnOA

1 c-
AnOA
1 d.
AnOA
1r
i1
AnOA
1!
11
1 La-
AnOA
1 b.
AnOA
1 c-
AnOA
L a.
AnOA
b.
AnOA
c.
AnOA
d.
AnOA
r e-
<DIAI
If*-
llg-
ll
(PIAI
11
(DIAI(?)
342
1002.
1003.
1004.
1005.
1006.
1007.
1008.
1009.
1 1 a-
AnOA
An
I lb.
AnOA
An
1 1 c-
AnOA
An
1 1 a-
AnOA
1 Lb.
OIAI
zo
1 a-

AFIOA
TTE
|rb.
II
(PIAI
nE
II
1 La-
OIAI
nE
1 b.
OIAI
1 ra-
OIAI
10
1 |b-
OIAI
10
1 1 a-
OIAI
An
|b.
OIAI
An
1 1 c-
OIAI
An
1 La-
OIAI
343
1010.
1011.
NIKO/ H 10 London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.70f; Berlin, gr.
(?)(DIAI 16.34
NIKO/ l/(?)0 10 *Athens (Delos Hd.A-2, 6), gr. 15.53f; Florange-
AHME Ciani (de la Fuye) 411, gr. 16.03
APMOEE A 20 London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.57f; Commerce
1932 (Halmyros Hd.)
a. AHME 9 An *Berry Coll., gr. 16.82f; Bauer Coll. = Naville
(Woodward) 750, gr. 16.53f; Berlin, gr. 15.94
b. AHMH I Afl(?) ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.71f; London
(sic) (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.61f
c. APMOEE K An Copenhagen {SNG 201; Sv. 67, 14), gr. 16.45f;
ANS (Anatolia Hd.), amphora letter uncertain,
gr. 16.02f
1012.
a. AHME I nE
b. NIKO/ I nE/?
AHME
c. APMOEE M nE
Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.51f; Berlin, gr. 15.29
Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Vienna, gr.
16.32; Berlin (Sv. 67, 13), gr. 16.24
Cahn 84, 306, gr. 16.74
1013.

NIKO/ I
AHME
*ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.1 If
1014.
a. APMOEE M An *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.50f
b. APMOEE M An Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.51t
Drachms
1015.
a. ?
b. ?
Magistrates: AnOA, OIAI, NIKO, AHME, AP-
MOEE
Controls: An, AH, MH, nE, 20
? *Berlin (Sv. 67, 15), gr. 8.67
? Munich, gr. 8.68
344
Kambanis' listing of third magistrates, dates and control combinations is
identical with that of the present catalogue except that he has no record of K
and A on the amphorae. A few divergent readings appear in Beule and Sund-
wall. The TTPA cited by the former as a third magistrate with reference to an
Athens University coin is puzzling since it is not easy to suggest an explanation
of the misreading. On the other hand the A coupled with ATTOA is almost cer-
tainly a poorly-preserved A. N1KOI is given by both Beule and Sundwall as the
form of the magistrate's name but this would seem to involve dies on which
NIKO has been cut over AHME. On our No. 1013, for example, the E of the
underlying AHME is clearly visible to the right of the O of NIKO and could be
taken for a terminal Z.
The rotation of magistrates is orderly save for the broken tenure of NIKO
who served in H and again in I. The magistracy of AHME (0 and I) seems to have
intervened between the two terms of NIKO or possibly the two men held office
simultaneously in month iota. There are several reverses with NIKO/AHME and
I alone on the amphora; there is one die (No. 1010b) with NIKO/AHME and I
apparently over O but one cannot tell whether it was NIKO and I cut over AHME
and 0 or whether the I was superimposed on the 0 during AHME's magistracy
and NIKO added to the die at a later period.
EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOI COILED SERPENT 127/6 B.C.
(Plates 112-113)
Tetradrachms
1014.
1016.
1017.
An

a.
Berlin (Sv. 76, 16), gr. 16.37
b.
An
c.
Athens (Delos Hd. IA), gr. 13.75 (very corroded)!
a.
An
Istanbul (ZarovaHd.), gr. 16.70f; Istanbul, gr. 16.41f;ANS
(Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.51f; Paris (Sv. 76, 17), gr. 16.50f
b.
An
Glasgow (Hunt. 166), gr.16.21f; *Petsalis Coll., control
c.
a.
rre
Paris, gr. 16.12f
b.
nE
London, gr. 16.45f; Athens (Sv. 76, 18), gr. 16.70f
c.
nE
Glasgow (Hunt. 167; Sv. 76, 21), gr. 16.69|; London {BMC
483), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.80f
d.
z.
nE
Athens, gr. 16.14f
345
1013.
1022.
1023.
a.
AH
Athens (Delos Hd. ir)t
b.
AH
Leningrad, gr. 16.26f; Herakleion (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.68f
a.
10
Athens, gr. 16.20f
b.
10
Athens, gr. 15.55f; Leningrad, gr. 16.26f; ANS (Anatolia
Hd.), gr. 15.67f
nE
Athens (Halmyros Hd.); ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.631;
Berlin, gr. 16.29
a.
AH

Berry Coll. (Piraeus Hd.), gr. 16.82f; Amsterdam (Boisse-
vain 58), gr. 16.81; Istanbul (Zarova Hd.), gr. 16.94t
b.
AH
Athens (Delos Hd. II")t
rc.
AH
ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr.16.30f; Cambridge (Leake Coll.,
SNG 8280; Sv. 76, 19), gr. 15.87f
la-
An
Athens, gr. 16.75f
Lb.
E/A
Munich, gr. 16.21
a.
?Q
Athens (Sv. 76, 20), gr. 16.40f
b.
ZO
a.
AH
Romanos Coll.
b.
AH
ZO
346
1027.
1028.
1029.
1030.
1031.
1031X.
1a-
AN
Athens (Sv. 76, 28), gr. 16.80f; Tubingen, amphora
uncertain
|b.
TIE
London, gr. 15.93t; ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 15.66f
1 c-
nE
|d.
1a-

zo
ANS-ETN, gr. 16.86f
Lb.
10
Paris, gr. 15.90t
a.
AN
*ANS (Anatoha Hd.), gr. 16.42f
b.
AN
AH
*ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.15|
nE/AH
Commerce, gr. 16.15
10
Berlin, gr. 16.29
Months: A, B, T, A, E, Z, 0, I, K, A, M
Controls: AN, An, AH, nE, ZO1
Two obverse dies (Nos. 1013 and 1014) were transferred from the issue of
APOnOZ - MNAZArO to that of EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOZ with serpent
symbol. Since the latter striking is controlled by only two magistrates, it marks
the first interruption in the series of three-magistrate issues. What happens,
however, is an interruption and not a break; succeeding emissions revert to the
practice of placing three names on the coinage.
This seems to have been a small striking in contrast to the large issues of
the five years preceding. Only in r is there any extensive output of coinage.
No reverses with H are known although this may be simply a gap in our
evidence rather than an indication of a cessation of minting during that month.
In this connection it is noteworthy that two recent hoards (Cretan II and
Anatolia) provide our only record of dies with K and M on the amphorae.
1 Beule- lists Al and Zfi. Neither of these control combinations is among Kambanis' entries
and it is highly probable that they are misreadings of AH and ZO.
347
NIKOrENHI-
Teiradrachms
1032.
1033.
1034.
1035.
1036.
1037.
(Symbol
erased)
1038.
1039.
1040.
1041.
(Symbol I
1)
a.
b.
a.
b.
c.
1042.
(Symbol
trued)
1043.

(Symbol
erased)
a.
b.
c.
d.
An
An
An
An
An
An
An
An
An
An
An
An
KAAAIMAXOZ HERMES or NO SYMBOL 126/5 B.C.
(Plates 114-115)
HERMES
A ?d) *Paris (Sv. 69, 9), gr. 16.55f
A AH *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.52f
B ZO *Sophia, gr. 16.31
T/B/A AM/AH *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.72t
?? * Athens (Sv. 69, 10), gr. 16.22
? nE * Vienna (Sv. 69, 19), gr. 15.98
T 10 *Istanbul, gr. 15.84f
T ZO L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.20
T EP *Berlin Cast Coll.
A/r TIE *Dresden (Sv. 69, 11)
A/r AN/IIE *Athens, gr. 15.10f
E AN *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.52f
? AN Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.51f
E/A? *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.81f
E/(?)A EP *Empedocles Coll.
E/(?)A EP Berlin (Sv. 69, 12), gr. 16.29
E(?) EP *Romanos Coll.
Z EP Berlin (Sv. 69, 13), gr. 16.29
348
1044.
1045. |
1046.
1047.
b.
c.
d.
e.
a.
1048.
b.
c.
b.
L c.
NO SYMBOL
NIKHTHS
La. NIKHTHS
KAAAIGEOS
KAAAI6E0S
KAAAIGEOS
KAAAI9E0I
NIKHTHI
KAAAIGEOS
KAAAIGEOS
KAAAI9E0I

ANAPEAS
ANAPEAS
ANAPEAS
SO *Athens (Halmyros Hd.)
I SO *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.74f;
Leningrad (Sv. 69, 14), gr. 15.58; London
(Halmyros Hd.), gr.17.08f; Athens, gr.
16.00f; Petsalis Coll., gr.16.56f; ANS-
ETN (Halmyros Hd.), amphora letter un-
certain, gr. 16.75f
A/K ST London, gr. 16.62f
A/(?)K SO *Paris, gr. 16.60f; Berlin (Sv. 69, 16), gr.
16.55
SO Commerce (Abruzzi Hd.)
SO *Halmyros Hd.
I ST *Halmyros Hd.
K/?1 ST *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.)
K Al *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.71f;
London (Sv. 69, 15), gr. 16.62f; Berry
CoU., gr. 16.59f
A Al ANA Conv. Cat., Aug. 1951, 501 A
M Al *Paris, gr. 16.80f; Schlessinger (Hermit-
age 2) 947 = Sv. 69, 17 (obv.) and 69, 18
(rev.)2, gr. 16.70
LLa. KAAAI9E0S A/K/? ST
Paris, gr. 16.82f; Ratto (Rogers) 445, gr.
15.30 (very worn)
ST London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.76f
Al Berlin
1 One would expect K/l but there is no trace of an underlying NIKHTHS and the amphora
lettering looks like K/A. Possibly the A was cut in error and then corrected.
2 This error involves more than a transposition of reverses; the difference in size and shape
makes it impossible to associate the reverse of Svoronos 69,17 and the obverse of 69, 18. Actually
the obverse of No. 18 belongs to another issue, that of NIKHTHS - AIONYSIOS (our No. 957
and cf. Svoronos 66,18).
349
Drachm
1049.
KAAAIGEOZ? ZO *Copenhagen {SNG 205; Sv. 69,20), gr.8.85t
1 drachm
Magistrates: An, NIKHTHZ, KAAAIGEOZ,
ANAPEAZ
Months: A, B, T, A, E, Z, I, K, A, M
Controls: AN, AH, Al, EP, TTE, 10, ZT, Z4>
The present emission is curious in several respects. For the first months of the
year (A into r) the reverse dies carry only the names of the two annual magis-
trates. During r the letters ATT, indicating a third magistrate, appear on the
dies and the same abbreviated form occurs on reverses of A, E and Z. There
seems to have been no coinage in H and 0. From I through M the name of the
third magistrate is inscribed in full: NIKHTHZ (1), KAAAIGEOZ (K and A) and
ANAPEAE (M).1
The treatment of the symbol is as unorthodox as that of the third magis-
trate. On reverses of months A through Z there is in the right field a standing
figure of Hermes holding a caduceus.2 After the break in the coinage during
H and Q the symbol is omitted; dies of I through M have only the names of the
three magistrates. The suppression of the symbol is comprehensible in con-
junction with the expansion of the name of the third magistrate which occurred
at the same time. For some reason it was decided in the latter months of the
year to render the name in full instead of in abbreviation and the need for
more space for the inscription might well have led to the omission of the symbol.

It is not, however, easy to understand why the symbol was deleted from at
least four dies or coins of the early months of the coinage. On Nos. 1037, 1041a,
1 Beule has some divergent readings. The Dresden coin which he cites as having ATT with A
is our No. 1040 on which the amphora letter is indubitably A. ANAPEAZ with A and Zd> is con-
ceivably a typographical error, the name printed one line too high in the listing. One of the two
tetradrachms mentioned is a Paris coin but there is no specimen in the cabinet there with AN-
APEAZ and A. The magistrate APIAPAQHZ from a von Prokesch piece (Inedita, p. 263) is an
erroneous reading. The coin is now in Berlin (our No. 1048c) and although the reverse is poorly
preserved and the lettering barely legible the name is definitely ANAPEAZ.
* Beute's description of the figure as Stephanephoros with a wreath is not confirmed by the
coins. On all reverses the standing figure is clearly holding a caduceus and must be identified as
Hermes.
350
1042 and 1043a the figure of Hermes has been erased.1 This seems a senseless
mutilation on the part of either the mint or an individual. Were the symbol a
controversial one, such as the Roma of a somewhat later issue, it might be
supposed that political considerations prompted its removal but Hermes could
scarcely be regarded as an object of controversy. Or, assuming that all deletions
occurred at the mint, if these erasures were found on dies immediately pre-
ceding those without symbol, one might suggest that they represented a tran-
sitional stage in the shift from symbol to no symbol but the deletions appear
on reverses of A and E and are not consistent for those two months. One other
reverse of A has the symbol, two of E have it and the one known reverse of Z
carries the Hermes device. It seems to me that there is no really plausible
explanation of this strange phenomenon.
AHMEAI - EPMOKAHI HEADDRESS OF ISIS
Tetradrachms
1050.
KAEIAA
1051.
1052.
ra. KAEIAA
b. KAEIAA
KAEIAA
125/4 B.C.
(Plates 116-117)
A AH *Paris, gr. 16.68f; ANS-ETN, gr. 16.72|;
ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.08|; Kam-

banis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Romanos
Coll.; Yale Univ. (Halmyros Hd.) =
Hamburger 98, 689, gr. 16.55|
A Al *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.)
A Al ""Leningrad; Athens (Carystus Hd. II;
BCH, 1958, PI. XLIX, 8)
ZT *Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.); Lon-
don (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.74f; ANS-
ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 17.51 (sic)t-
With XAPIAI/KAEIAA and B/A: Berlin,
gr. 16.71
1 Since there is no second specimen of any one of these four numbers, it is difficult to say
definitely whether the deletion was made on the die or on the coin. However, the same die was
used for No. 1040 (with symbol) and 1041a (with symbol erased). On the latter piece there is a
raised surface below the ATT which suggests mutilation of the die rather than the coin.
Incidentally the Vienna piece which Beule describes as having the graffito of a bird in the
right field is our No. 1037 > the markings left by the erasure of the symbol do bear some resem-
blance to the outlines of a bird.
351
1053.
1054.
1055.
1056.
lb.
KAHIAA1
rr
1c-
nAElZTIA!/?3
T/B/A ZT
La.
KAEIAA
An/Ai
b.
KAEIAA
TTEP
c.
XAPIAZ
nEP
r*
nAEizriAZ/

r/B
XAPIAZ
XAPIAZ
An
La.
XAPIAZ
AH
b.
TTAEIZTIAZ
AH
c.
nAEIZTIAZ
An
d.
AnOAAftNIOZ
AH
e.
ZQZIKPA
AH
f.
ZflZIKPA
AH
a.
AnOAAflNIOZ
nE
Copenhagen (SNG 206), gr.16.50t;
Herakleion (Cretan Hd. I); Vienna, gr.
14.812
Paris, gr. 15.60f
Lockett Coll. (SNG 1914) = Schlessinger
(Hermitage 2) 926=Sv.68,13, gr. 16.78f
* Athens, gr. 16.85f
Commerce 1951, gr. 16.65. With nAEI-
ZTIAZ/XAPIAZ and r/B: Kambanis
352
1057.
1058.
1059.
1060.
1061.
1 b.
ZftZIKPA
TTEP
ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.). gr. 16.79f;
Berlin, gr. 16.87
1 a-
AnOAAQNIOZ
An
Brussels (de Hirsch 1298), gr. 16.35f
1 rb-
ZQZIKPA
Bl
London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.54f;
1 1 c-
ZQZIKPA

Bl
Leningrad (Sv. 68, 17), gr. 16.85
Irl d.
ZQZIKPA
Ano
*The Hague (Sv. 69, 20), gr. 16.55;
ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.89+
111r
ZQZIKPA
An
*Petsalis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.), gr.
MM
16.40f; Athens, gr. 16.00|
MM
MM
M 1 La-
ZQZIKPA
An
*Copenhagen {SNG 207), gr. 15.60f;
111
| | L b.
ZQZIKPA
Berlin, gr. 15.98
H a-
ZQZIKPA
AH
Gotha (Sv. 68, 19), gr. 11.971
L b.
ZQZIKPA
Ano
London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.71t;
Commerce 1982 (Halmyros Hd.)
c.
aigte
353
1062.
1063.
1064.
1065.
1066.
AlOfE
AlOfE
b. AYIIM/
KAEIAA1
Lc. AYIIMAX
rd. AYIIMAX
a. AYIIM/EYTTEI
b. AYIIMAX
c. AYIIMAX
AYIIMAX
AYIIMAX
G AH *Berlin (Sv. 68, 23), gr. 16.87
9 q3n *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.44f;
Empedocles Coll.
K TTEP *Stack's (South) 618 from Piraeus Hd.;
London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.74f;
London {BMC 860; Sv. 68,26), gr. 16.21;
Cahn 75, 880, gr. 16.75. Amphora letter
uncertain on last two

A/I TTEP Athens (Halmyros Hd.); ANS (Ana-
or K tolia Hd.), gr. 16.41f
N TTEP Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.)
K/j AH Kambanis Coll. (Halmyros Hd.)
A An *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.71f
N An *Kambanis Coll.; Berry Coll., gr. 16.59f
N AH *ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr.16.71f;
Florange-Ciani, Oct. 1928, 28
N nEP *London (Halmyros Hd.), gr.16.43f;
Glymenopoulos Coll. (Sv. 68, 27), gr.
16.20; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.22; Kam-
banis Coll. (BCH, 1984, PI. I, 1)
Magistrates: KAEIAA, XAPIAI, nAEIITlAI,
AnOAAflNIOI, IQIIKPA, AlOrE, EYnEI,
AYIIMAX
Months: A, B, T, E, Z, H, 0, 1, K, A, N
Controls: An(O), BI(A), AH, Al, nE(P), IT
1 I am almost certain that AYIIM is cut over KAEIAA; the underlying name is quite legible
on the ANS coin. Probably an old die was found to be still serviceable and brought back into
operation. The erasure of the A on the amphora has been done very successfully; no trace of it
remains under the K.
-1
354
This is a normal three-magistrate issue. Tenures of the third magistrates
show the customary variation in length but the rotation is one of orderly suc-
cession. Coinage is known for all months except A and M and a number of dies
with N on the amphora establish the year as intercalary.
Names of the third magistrates are inscribed in full or with a minimum of
abbreviation. Earlier publications give a longer or shorter version for some of
the names but these are minor variations and the plates will confirm the present
readings. The only strange form is the ATIOAAQNIIIM of the British Museum
Catalogue and the tetradrachm in question is an imitation, not a product of the
Athenian mint (Plate 158).
Kambanis in the BCH for 1934 (p. 120) and in his notebook combines
rTAEim with B, EYTTEI with G and AYIIMAX with M. In the first two instances
(our Nos. 1053c and 1060d) the amphora letter as well as the magistrate's name
has been recut and the overlying r and I have not been detected; the example
of AYIIMAX with M from the Petsalis Collection is from the same reverse die as
several other coins which Kambanis records as having N on the amphora. The
A with AYIIMA of Beule is, at least in the case of the Paris piece, a misreading
of 1/8. Control combinations in Beule and Kambanis correspond with those in
the present catalogue except that Kambanis records BIA. The correct form is
BIA as Beule recognized.
EENOKAHI - APMOEENOI DOLPHIN AND TRIDENT 124/3 B.C.
(Plates 118-121)
Tetradrachms
1066.
a. A TTEP Kambanis Coll. (BCH, 1934, PI. I, 2)

b. A TTEP Athens, gr. 16.87f
c. T/B/A TTEP *Vienna, gr. 16.22; Commerce 1932 (Halmyros Hd.)
1067.
1068.
ATT * Leningrad, gr. 16.14f
r A ATI *Istanbul, gr. 16.92f
1069. j
LA An *Winterthur, gr. 15.98f
1070.
An *Berlin (Sv. 77, 1), gr. 16.20
355
nEP *ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 454, gr. 14.81f; Paris, gr.
16.05f; Leningrad, gr. 16.00f
nEP Dewing Coll. = Hess (Vogel) 278, gr. 15.28f
An Leningrad, gr. 16.78f. With T/B: *Cahn 75, 381, gr. 16.68;
Berlin, gr. 16.24
AP London (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.48f. With T/B/A: Com-
merce 1953
AP "Oxford, gr. 16.58
AP Halmyros Hd.
nEP *Dewing Coll., gr. 16.31f
? London, gr. 15.35 (pierced)f
? *Munich (Sv. 77, 2), gr. 15.80 (PI.)
AP Athens (Sv. 77, 8), gr. 16.35f
nP Leningrad, gr. 16.20f
FIEP *Athens, gr. 16.40f
TTP Glasgow (Hunt. 168), gr. 16.93f; Istanbul, control letters
uncertain, gr. 16.67f; Athens (Delos Hd. =0), amphora
nP ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 16.04f
AP Leningrad, gr. 15.77f
? L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.30
AP/nEP Leningrad, gr. 16.37|
AP *Munich, gr. 16.60
nEP Leningrad, gr. 15.63f; *Amer. Univ. Beirut; ANS (Ana-
tolia Hd.), gr. 15.88f. Amphora letter uncertain on last two

nEP *Munich (Sv. 77, 4), gr. 16.62; Berlin, gr. 16.82
nEP Leningrad, gr. 16.12f; Commerce (Sv. 77, 5, Feuardent),
gr. 16.48; ANS-ETN, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.45t
35^
1078.
1079.
1080.
1081.
1082.
i a-
T7EP
Berry Coll. (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.91f; Oxford, amphora
and control letters uncertain, gr. 15.611
1 b-
TTEP
Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.88f; London {BMC 488), amphora
1 c-
AP
1 d-
T7EP
Andreopoulos Coll.
1 e-

TTEP
Hess, Mar. 1985, 858, gr. 16.80
L a.
E/P
AP(?)
Dewing Coll., gr. 16.55f
AP
Berlin (Sv. 77, 6), gr. 16.20
rl
An
1 1a-
An
Athens, gr. 16.10f
1 lb-
An
Ratto (Rogers) 458, gr. 16.70; Athens (Delos Hd.EG),
amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 15.90|
L|a.
An
b.
AU
Leningrad, gr. 15.74f; Feuardent (Durufte) 416, am-
phora and control letters uncertain
1*
AI
Romanos Coll.
Lb.
An
Riechmann XXX, 579, gr. 16.82
357
1089.
1090.
1091.
1093.
1094.
c.
AP
Halmyros Hd.
d.
AP
ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.),gr. 16.78f; Athens (Sv.77, 9),
gr. 16.60f; London (BMC 486), amphora letter uncertain,
gr. 15.79t
e.
Tubingen, gr. 15.78
a.
AP
L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.25; *London (BMC 485),
rb.
np

Athens, gr. 16.63f
Al
Leningrad,gr. 16.52f; Athens (Delos Hd. ir, 81), gr. 15.82f
a.
TTEP
Glasgow (Hunt. 170), gr. 16.52f; Berhn, gr. 15.51
b.
TTEP
Leningrad (Sv.77, 7), gr. 16.47; L. Meletopoulos Coll.,
gr. 15.80
c.
AP
Berlin, gr. 16.46
Ld.
np
e.
nEP
Athens (Delos Hd.EG), gr. 14.20t; ANS (Anatolia Hd.),
gr. 15.42f
a.
nEP
London (BMC 487; Sv. 77, 8), gr. 16.86f
b.
nEP
Sophia, gr. 16.36; Basel, gr. 16.51f; Leningrad, gr.15.74f
c.
nEP
Athens (Carystus Hd. II; BCH, 1958, PI. XLIX, 9), gr.
16.70
a.
A TTEP *Glasgow (Hunt. 171), gr. 16.55f
A TTEP Berlin (Sv. 77, 11), gr. 16.89
A TTP *Berlin, gr. 16.40
A T7EP Leningrad, gr. 16.06f
A nP Riechmann XXX, 580, gr. 16.41; Athens (Delos Hd. A,
28), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 15.80f
A AI Leningrad, gr.15.67f; * Athens (Delos Hd. A, 27), am-
phora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.05f
A AI Paris, gr. 16.36f
? nP *Glasgow (Hunt. 172), gr. 16.80f
A AF1 *Berlin, gr. 16.11
A AP *Berlin, gr. 16.51; Lund Univ., amphora and control letters
uncertain, gr. 16.37 /
M/A AP *Paris (de Luynes 2117), gr. 16.10f
M nP Athens, gr. 16.05f; *Petsalis Coll., amphora letter un-
certain, gr. 16.38f
M An * Piraeus Hd.; Berlin, gr. 16.65
M nEP Leningrad (Sv. 77, 12), gr. 16.08; *Petsalis Coll., amphora
? An * Edinburgh
? AP Copenhagen (SNG 208), gr. 15.07f; *The Hague, control

359
*Boston MFA (Brett 1104), gr. 4.11
Vienna, gr. 3.76; Athens (Sv. 77, 14), gr. 4.18
Athens (Delos Hd. A, 29), gr. 4.10f; ANS-ETN, gr. 3.37f;
Berlin, gr. 8.96
Athens (Delos Hd. A-l; Sv. 77, 18), gr. 4.09f
Months: A, B, V, A, E, Z, H, 0, I, K, A, M
Controls: An, AP, Al, T7EP, FTP
Two obverse dies are carried over from the preceding issue of Demeas-
Hermokles: Nos. 1064 and 1066 (Plates 117 and 118; BCH, 1934, PI. I, 1-2).
The two magistrates of the present striking are undoubtedly the same men
who served three years earlier, using then a coiled serpent symbol. On both
coinages the names of Xenokles and Harmoxenos stand alone; there is no
record of third magistrates on the dies.
This is the second largest single issue of the New Style series on the evidence
of the forty-two obverse dies in use during the year. Striking occurred in all
twelve months with the heaviest output in E and 6 and the lightest in H and I.
Controls ATI, Al, TTEP were employed on issues immediately preceding that
of Xenokles-Harmoxenos while AP and FTP are new for this section of the
coinage.1
EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOI ROMA 123/2 b.c
(Plates 122-123)
Tetradrachms
1110.

a. A An Athens (Carystus Hd. II; BCH, 1958, PI. XLIX, 10),
gr. 15.55; Vienna, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.13
b. A(?) FTE ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 15.95f
c.? ZTE * ANS-ETN, gr. 15.01f
1 In the BCH for 1934 (p. 121) Kambanis lists EP and 7.0 as controls for this emission. The
first, however, is not included in the later tabulation of his notebook and the second has a notation
that it requires verification.
Drachms
1106.
r?
1107. j
L?
1108.
1109.
360
1111.
1112.
1113.
1114.
1115.
1116.
1117.
1118.
*Paris, gr. 15.82 (pierced)f; Kricheldorf VII, 68 = Cahn65,
160 = Cahn 60, 577, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.30
a.
AA
Berlin (Sv. 76, 2), gr. 16.12; Berry Coll. (Piraeus Hd.),
gr. 16.82f
b.
AA
Petsalis Coll. (Piraeus Hd.), gr. 16.88
,-c.
AA
L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 16.48; Athens, gr. 16.28f;

|a.
An
Brussels (de Hirsch 1294; Sv. 76, 8), gr. 16.73t
Lb.
AA
Petsalis Coll.1
c.
AA/?
ANS-ETN, gr. 16.27|
a.
r/B
np
Chiha Coll.
b.
Al
c.
Al
Empedocles Coll.
d.
AP
e.
AP
Berlin (Sv. 76, 7), gr. 15.50
f.
a.
UP
361
STE/TIP "Dresden (Sv. 76, 9)
ZTE Berlin (Sv. 76, 11), gr. 15.67
AA(?) *Leningrad = Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 949, gr. 16.58I1
Al *Romanos Coll. = Sv. 76, 10, commerce, gr. 16.82
AI/AP *ANS-ETN, gr. 15.41f
ITE/AA *Berlin (Sv. 76, 12), gr. 15.94
* Athens (Delos Hd. A-l, 11; Sv. 76, 18), gr. 4.05f3
Athens (Delos Hd. A-l, 12; Sv. 76, 15), gr. 8.95f
*ANS, gr. 4.05f; Berlin (Sv. 76, 14), gr. 4.80; Lee (de
Zogheb) 281, gr. 3.88
Months: A, B. T, A, E, Z, H
Controls: An, AP, AA, Al, FTP, HE
Again we find Xenokles and Harmoxenos serving as annual mint magis-
trates, this time using for their symbol a representation of Roma seated.
Although there is no transfer of obverse dies to establish the contiguity of the
two Xenokles-Harmoxenos issues, it seems almost certain, for reasons given
in the commentary on the Late Period, that this striking with Roma comes
immediately after that with dolphin and trident symbol. As was the case with
the preceding emissions of these two officials, there is no indication that third
magistrates were connected with the coinage.
The output in 128/2 B.C. was apparently moderate. Only fourteen obverse dies
are known and the month dates on the amphorae are limited to A, B, r, A, E,
1 The coin was returned to the Hermitage and is currently in the collection there.

* The ending of the first magistrate's name has been repeated in error.
* Weights entered for Nos. 1124a and b are those of the hoard publication (JIAN, 1911,
p. 76, 11-12); in Les monnaies d'Athines different weights are given for the same coins.
1119. I I
I La. E
L b. Z/E
1120.
Z/E
1121.
(APMOEE- Z
KAHI)1
1122.
1123.
H/Z
Drachms
1124.
a. B
b. A
c. E
362
Z and H. All control combinations are carried over from the issues of 125/4 and
124/3 except for AA which is new.1
Two abnormalities connected with the present striking are noteworthy. On
Reverses 1117b and 1118b the representation of Roma is partially effaced. It is
impossible to tell from photographs whether this is due to deliberate mutilation
or to imperfect striking but in the case of No. 1118b I am inclined to think we
have an erasure from die or coin such as we encountered in the issue of Niko-
genes- Kallimachos.
Among the coins commonly included in this emission are four (three tetra-
drachms and a drachm) which differ markedly in fabric and obverse style from
the other specimens of Xenokles-Harmoxenos (Roma). Furthermore, the
seated figure in the right field which elsewhere is represented as facing is on
these four coins shown side view. These pieces are, I believe, to be regarded as
non-Athenian and they are discussed and illustrated in the section on imitations
(pages 461-463 and Plate 159).
KOINTOI-KAEAZ
Tetradrachms
1122.
1123.
1125.
1126.
1127.
ZflZTPA
A EP
ROMA AND NIKE 122/1 B.C.

Berlin (Sv. 69, 1), gr. 16.49
(Plate 124)
ZflZTPA A AH *Giesecke Coll. (Sv. 69, 2), gr. 16.85
ZQZTPA A nP *Berlin, gr. 16.64
T1AEIZTIAZ B AA *Athens (Delos Hd. EG), gr. 15.66f
a. T1AEIZTIAZ B AH
b. TTAEIZTIAZ B AH
c. AIONYZI T AH
d. AIONYII r AH
Paris, gr. 16.05f; Berlin (Sv. 69, 3), gr. 16.58
1 TIE and Z<t> are given by Beule and ZO is listed by Kambanis. Of the two coins with the
first combination, Beule says that one (our No. 1119a from Dresden) has ZTE or ZTE below the
amphora. Since neither combination is known to him he concludes that ITE was intended. It is
likely that the other piece recorded as having TIE is in reality marked ZT or ZTE, and possibly
the same is true of the one said to have Z<D. The ZO of Kambanis refers to a Paris coin (No. Iin)
on which I can see no clear lettering below the amphora.
363
1128.
a. AIONYZI r nP * London, gr. 15.78f; Herakleion (Cretan Hd. II),
gr. 16.57f; Berlin, gr. 15.72
b. AIONYZI T AIO *ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.83f; London {BMC
434), gr. 16.00f; Berlin, gr. 16.82; ANS-ETN,
amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.48f
Athens (Sv. 69, 5), gr. 16.60
Evelpidis Coll.
Berlin (Sv. 69, 6), gr. 16.20
Athens (Sv. 69, 7), gr. 4.00f
Magistrates: ZQZTPA, TTAEIZTIAZ, AIO-
NYZI, (DIAQTAAH
Months: A, B, T, A
Controls: AP, AA, AH, AIO, EP, TIP
The present issue shares Obverses 1122 and 1123 with the emission of Xe-
nokles-Harmoxenos (Roma) as illustrated on Plates 123 and 124. Other
factors serve to relate the two strikings. Both show a moderate output of
coinage as indicated by surviving dies and both are of limited duration. Four of
the six control combinations of Kointos and Kleas are found on tetradrachms

of Xenokles and Harmoxenos.1 Furthermore, the symbols on the two issues
are closely connected. The Roma of 123/2 B.C. re-appears in identical represen-
tation on the coinage of 122/1 but the later striking has also a standing Nike
crowning the seated goddess.
With the issue of Kointos-Kleas there is again a reversion to the three-
magistrate pattern which had been abandoned during the two years preceding.
1 AP, AA, AI, FTP. Beuld reads ATT on a coin in his collection but I have seen no instance of
this marking.
c. (DIAflTAAH A TIP
d. OlAflTAAH A TIP
e. (DIAQTAAH A T7P
f.? A AP
1129.
a. OlAflTAAH/ A/r AH
AIONYZI
b. (DIAQTAAH A AH
Drachms
1130.
a. nAEIZTI B
b. OlAflTAAH?
364
Four third magistrates are recorded and it is noteworthy that an exact cor-
relation between officials and months is established for the first time since the
emission of Sokrates and Dionysodo in 148/7 B.C.
ATlEAAIKflN - rOPHAZ
Tetradrachms
GRIFFIN 121/0 B.C.
1131.
a. AlOrE
b. AlOrE
c. AlOfE
a. AlOrE
b. AlOfE
AIO
AH
B?
AIO
AA
APirroNOYi r aa
a.
AiorE
b.

AA
AiorE
AP
c.
AiorE
d.
APISTONOYZ
Eni
e. APIITONOYZ ? En
a. APIZTO T AP
b. APIZTONOYZ f AP
(Plates 125-126)
Athens, gr. 16.60
Berlin (Sv. 67, 16), gr. 16.64; Schlessinger
(Hermitage 2) 912, gr. 16.50
*Empedocles Coll.
Commerce (Sv. 67,17, Feuardent), gr. 16.58
*ANS-ETN, gr. 16.50t; Schlessinger (Her-
mitage 2) 918, gr. 17.50; Stack's (South)
610
Ratto (Rogers) 442, gr. 15.70; Berlin, gr.
15.69; ANS, gr.16.50f; ANS (Abruzzi
Hd.), gr. 16.11f; ANS-ETN, amphora and
Berlin (Sv. 67, 18), gr. 15.66
*Piraeus Hd.; Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.56f
Paris, gr. 16.68f
Empedocles Coll. = Baltatzi Coll. (Sv. 67
20) = Mavrokordatou Coll. (J I AN, 1912
1307), gr. 16.48; Vienna, gr. 16.02; London
gr.16.24f; Cambridge (Grose 5910), gr
15.75; Paris, gr. 16.52f; Dresden; Copen-
hagen {SNG 203), gr.16.67f; Oxford, am
phora letter uncertain, gr.15.55f; Berlin
gr. 16.72; Berlin, gr. 16.09
Berlin, gr. 16.59
Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 914, gr. 16.10;
Berlin, gr. 16.32
365
1135.
1136.
1137.
1138.
1 1 1 ha-
AIONYIIOI/
A/T AA
Naville (Pozzi) 1600, gr. 16.75
INI
APIITONOYI
| | | j b.
AEINIAI
A AA
Berlin, gr. 15.88
11
AIONYIIOI/
a/ Ano
Berlin (Sv. 67, 21), gr. 16.69
111
APIZTONOYI/
r/?
111
AiorE
1 1 Lb-
AIONYIIOI/

A/T AA
APIITONOYI
L| a.
AIONYIIOI/
A/ AH/
Tubingen, gr. 16.88
APIITONOYI/
T/A AIO
AiorE
L b.
AEINIAI/
A/ AH/AA *Berlin, gr. 15.09; London, gr. 15.99f
APIITONOYI/
T/A
AIOTE
c.
AEINIAI
a Ano
ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 448, gr.
16.01f; Gotha, amphora and control letters
a.
AEINIAI
A ETTI/
*ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 16.44f
Ano
AEINIAI
H AA
Athens (Delos Hd. EG), gr. 15.67f; Athens
(Sv. 67, 23), gr. 16.50I1
1c-
AEINIAI
H En
Berlin, gr. 15.81
jd.
AEINIAI
? AA
Uncertain2
1139.
a. AEINIAI H AH "Harvard Univ., gr. 16.42; Berlin, gr. 15.86;
Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 915, gr. 15.50;
AEINIAI H AA Commerce 1957 (Abruzzi Hd.)
IIMQN I En| London (BMC 826; Sv. 67, 24), gr. 16.67f
HPAKAE/? K AA Ball 39 (Fx.Pr.) 408 = Schlessinger (Her-
mitage 2) 917, gr. 16.80
HPAKAE/? K AP * AN S (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 16.51 f
APrEIOI A AA London (BMC 327; Sv. 67, 25), gr. 16.411;
Lockett Coll. (SNG 1910) = Naville (Be-
ment) 1118, gr.16.35f; Egger XLVI
(Prowe) 488, gr. 16.56; L. Meletopoulos
Coll., amphora and control letters un-
certain, gr. 16.15; Berlin, gr. 16.96
APrEIOI A ATTO/? *Romanos Coll.; ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), am-
XAPEI M AA *ANS = Schlessinger (Hermitage 2) 918, gr.
16.49|; ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr.16.22f;
Toronto (Ontario Hd.), amphora letter un-
certain, gr. 16.04f; London {BMC 328),
control letters uncertain, gr. 16.06f; Lon-
don, amphora and control letters un-
certain, gr. 16.98f
APrEIOI A AH *Berlin, gr. 15.84; ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), am-
XAPEI ?AA *Berlin, gr. 16.80
APrEi
AA

Lockett Coll. {SNG 1911), gr. 16.41f;
Egger XLVI (Prowe) 490 = Sotheby
(Cumberland Clark) 192, control letters un-
certain, gr. 16.76
APrEIOI
Eni
ANS-ETN, gr. 16.l5f
APrEIOI
ETTI
Ball 39 (Fx.Pr.) 402 = Schlessinger (Her-
mitage 2) 916, gr. 16.60
XAPEI
AT70
Commerce 1958; Copenhagen (SNG 204),
gr. 16.39f; Berlin (Sv. 67, 26), gr. 16.50;
Berlin, gr. 16.85; Athens, amphora letter
XAPEIIIOI
ETTI
Empedocles Coll. = Florange-Ciani (Al-
lotte de la Fuye) 410, gr. 16.35; Paris, gr.
15.20f; Berlin, gr. 16.85; London, gr. 16.31 f
367
Drachms
* Athens (Sv. 67, 27), gr. 4.17f; Athens, gr.
4.08f; *Vienna, gr. 8.95 (Plate 124); Ro-
manos Coll.; Athens, gr. 8.97f; London,
gr. 8.66
Magistrates: AICTE, APIZTONOYZ, AIONY-
ZIOZ, AEINIAZ, ZIMflN, HPAKAE, AP-
TEIOI, XAPEIZIOZ
Months: A, B, T, A, H, I, K, A, M
Controls: AFTO, AP, AA, AH, AIO, ETTI
Contiguity of the issues of KOINTOZ - KAEAZ and ATTEAAIKflN - rOPHAZ
is indicated by the transfer of a drachm obverse (No. 1130) as illustrated on
Plate 124. The present striking is the last of the three-magistrate emissions
and apparently one of the last sizable issues put out by the Athenian mint.
From now on the names of only two magistrates appear on the coinage and
annual output shows an irregular decline, terminating in the token emissions
of the early first century B.C.
Eight third magistrates serve for nine months of the year in what seems to
be an orderly succession, with the possible exception of AIONYZIOZ and AEINIAZ
in delta. Both names are found cut over AP1ZTONOYZ of gamma but re-engraving
is practiced extensively under Apellikon and Gorgias and it may be that
No. 1187b with AEINIAZ/APIZTONOYZ/AIOrE also has AIONYZIOZ on the die.1
There are a few readings in earlier publications or records which differ from

the listing above. AN is given by Beule and Zfl by Kambanis; ZIMflN with H
and with A appears in Sundwall, The two last cannot be checked but the other
two entries seem to refer alike to No. 1140c (the Berlin coin) with a somewhat
obscure AA. The complicated recutting of reverse dies during the present emis-
sion often makes it difficult to determine the exact lettering and it seems
probable that some if not all of the variant readings are due to the confusion
caused by re-engraving. The AIOZIO of Beule's Hunterian coin is definitely
AIONYZIOZ, cut over APIZTONOYZ (No. 1136b on Plate 125). Similarly the
E with AEINIAZ which Beule records for a Berlin tetradrachm and the E/A which
1 It is likely that the record of recut amphora letters is similarly incomplete. Although there
is no trace of B on Reverses 1137a and b, one assumes that the two dies were in fact altered
during the second month of the year.
1130.
ZIMflN ?
368
Kambanis gives for the same coin and for another example in London refer to
our No. 1137b. I am quite certain that the month letters are A/f/A.
BAZIAE MI0PAAATH2 - APIZTIflN STAR BETWEEN CRESCENTS c. 121 b.c.
(Plate 127)
1143.
1144. |
Tetradrachms
1145.
| a. B
Lb. S/A
a. S/A
b.?
Drachms
AA *London, gr. 15.98|
Eni *London {BMC 458; Sv. 71, 5), gr. 16.28f
Ern/AA Athens (Sv. 71, 6), gr. 16.25; Leningrad = Schles-
singer (Hermitage 2) 958, gr. 16-Olf1
EFJ! *Glasgow (Hunt. 154; Sv. 71, 7), gr. 16.44f
? ANS, gr. 15.87f
1146.
Leningrad = Hirsch (Imhoof) 2876, gr. 4.09|; Athens,
gr. 4.10f; ANS-ETN, gr. 3.55f; Berlin (Sv. 71, 10).
gr. 4.07; Athens (Sv. 71, 11), gr. 4.002

Months: A, B, Z
Controls: AA, ETTI
This is a limited coinage. Only a few specimens and dies are known and
emission was apparently restricted to months A, B, and Z. Kambanis in his
notebook lists A and E as amphora letters, the first for our No. 1145a and the
second for No. 1144b. In both cases I am quite sure that the reading is S/A and
Macdonald in publishing the Glasgow piece gives S as the date. It is possible
that B was inscribed over A before S was added but if so there is no clear trace
of the intermediate letter on either die.
1 The coin was returned to the Hermitage and is still in the collection there. In the Schles-
singer catalogue there is the notation "Echtheit fraglich" but I can see nothing wrong with the
piece. Its weight is good and it shares dies with an Athens tetradrachm of indubitable authen-
ticity. Furthermore, according to the dealer's records, Regling was interested in acquiring it, which
would argue for its genuineness.
1 This is almost certainly the same drachm as Svoronos No. 12 (Engel).
MNAZEAI - NEZTQP KERCHNOS 120/19 B.C.
(Plate 128)
Tetradrachms
1147.
1148.
1149.
1150.
1151.
1152.
1153.
1154.1
1155.
1156.
EP
Empedocles Coll. = Naville (Pozzi) 1610, gr. 16.59
EP
XTE
Berlin (Sv. 75, 2), gr. 16.46
ZTE
Winterthur, gr. 16.85 /
a.
EP

b.
EP
Oxford, gr. 16.75
a.
A/r(?)
EP
The Hague (Sv. 75, 8)
b.
EP
London (BMC 475; Sv. 75, 4), gr. 16.75f; Commerce
1956
EP
ANS, gr. 15.71f
a.
g(?)
EP
b.
EP
c.
EP
Paris, gr. 17.18t
d.
Leningrad (Sv. 75, 8), gr. 16.88
a.
EP
b.
EP
370
Drachm
1157.
? *Vienna, gr. 8.78
1 drachm
Months: A, T, A, Z, 0, K, A, M1
Controls: EP, ZTE
KAECKDANHZ - Eni9ETHI BAITULOS WITH FILLET 119/8 B.C.
(Plate 129)
Tetradrachms
1158.
1159.
1160.
1161.
A Alp Athens (Delos Hd. EG), gr. 15.38f
E Al *Berlin (Sv. 78, 8), gr. 16.51; Romanos Coll. (Sv. 73,4),
gr. 16.87
a. 0 AIO ANS, gr. 16.22t; Athens (Delos Hd.=0), gr. 16.40}
b. K 1X1 *Munich (Sv. 78, 5), gr. 16.26; London {BMC 431),
Athens, gr. 15.85f
Oxford, gr. I5.79f
Gotha, gr. 15.82 (pierced)

Berlin, gr. 16.77
London {BMC 432), gr. 16.50 \2
London, gr. 16.68t
Athens (Delos Hd. =0), gr. 16.55f
Athens (Delos Hd. A, 28; Sv. 78, 8), gr. 16.80; Naples
(Santangelo Coll., Fiorelli 10787), control letters un-
certain, gr. 16.86t
1 Beul6 gives E for coins at The Hague and Copenhagen; the marking on the first piece
seems to me more likely A/r while the second tetradrachm has 0 (?) according to the Sylloge
publication.
2 The weights of BMC 432 and 433 are transposed in Head's publication.
1162.
1163.
c.
a.
HI
b.
!?!
c.
iii
d.
HI
a.
in
b.
N(?)
a.
Al
b.
A!
c.
37i
1164.
N III *London {BMC 438), gr. 15.85f; Glasgow (Hunt. 146;
Sv. 73, 7), gr. 16.74f
Months: A, E, 0, K, N
Controls: AI(O), III
Like the two preceding issues, this is a small emission. Coinage is known
for only five scattered months with a heavy concentration in the last two, K
and N. M is recorded as the amphora date on tetradrachms in London and
Glasgow (our No. 1164) but the letter of the Hunterian piece is almost certainly
N and that of the British Museum coin from the same reverse die more likely N
than M.1 I doubt that there was any output of silver during mu. The presence
of nu on three to five reverses attests the intercalary nature of the year.
Controls are limited to Al and III, the latter new to the coinage. The EY and
ICl of Beule for two London specimens (Nos. 1160b and 1162a) are both mis-
readings for III; in the British Museum Catalogue the lettering is correctly given.
MENTQP - MOZXIGN
Tetradrachms
HARMODIOS AND ARISTOGEITON
1165.
1166.
1167.
118/7 B.C.
(Plate 130)
a.
EP

b.
EP
Vienna, gr. 17.07; London (Sv. 74, 21), amphora and
a.
r/B
An
Glasgow (Hunt. 150; Sv. 74, 10), gr. 16.79f. With
A/r/B: Berlin (Sv. 74, 11), gr. 16.262
b.
Berlin (Sv. 74, 20), gr. 16.84
ra.
111
Copenhagen (SNG 288; Sv. 74, 18), gr. 16.61f
|b.
ANS-ETN (1984/5 Hd.), gr. 17.48f
|c.
Frankfurt am Main
Id-
Athens (Delos Hd. =0), gr. 16.80t
1 On some dies N may be cut over K but it is impossible to be sure.
* The amphora lettering on the Berlin piece differs from that on the Glasgow coin. It looks
as though another date, most likely A, had been cut over the T/B of the earlier stage of the die.
There may be intervening letters.
4*
372
1168.
1169.
1170.
1171.
1172.
IZI
a.
Ai
b.
Al
a.
An
b.
M/A
An
c.
An
a.
b.
EP
c.
EP
M/A
Al

EP
Glasgow (Hunt. 152; Sv. 74, 14), gr. 16.89|
Paris (Sv. 74, 19), gr. 16.79f
Berlin, gr. 17.80; Budapest, amphora letter uncertain,
gr. 16.51 (pierced)f
Romanos Coll.
London (Sv. 74, 16), gr. 16.45f
Herakleion (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.76f; London {BMC
455; Sv. 74, 15), gr. 16.97f
Cambridge (Grose 5917; Sv. 74, 17), gr. 16.12f
Amsterdam (Boissevain 52), gr. 17.17; Herakleion
(Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.86f; Glasgow (Hunt. 153;
Sv. 74, 18), gr. 16.60f
Months: B, T, 9, K, A, M
Controls: An, Al, EP, IZI
Again we have a limited coinage issued during only six months of the year.
Beule gives A, A, E and H as amphora letters but two of the dates, A and E on
coins in the British and Hunterian Museums, are incorrect and the other two
are probably also misreadings. Controls Al and IZI carry over from the preceding
issue and are supplemented by An and EP. The Zfl of Beule is not otherwise
attested and must be regarded as suspect.
APXITIMOZ - AHMHTPI ISIS 117/6 B.C.
(Plate 131)
Tetradrachms
1173.
a. A AIO Glasgow (Hunt. 141; Sv. 70, 15), gr. 16.76f
b. E Al London {BMC 839; Sv. 70, 18), gr. 16.78t
1174.
A EP Naples (Mus. Naz., Fiorelli 7140; Sv. 70, 16), gr. 16.60;
373
London, gr. 16.74f
Berlin, gr. 16.66; ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 449,
gr.16.07f; Commerce (Sv. 70, 17, Hirsch), gr. 16.27
Athens, gr. 15.58f; ANS (Cretan Hd. II), gr. 16.47f;
Berlin, gr. 16.17
ANS = Baltatzi Coll. (Sv. 70, 19) = Mavrokordatou
Coll. (JIAN, 1912, 1810), gr. 17.08|
Vienna, gr. 15.95; Romanos Coll.
Berlin, gr. 16.47; Athens (Delos Hd.EG), gr. 16.88f
Months: A, A, E, Z, 0, I
Controls: AI(O), EP, 1ZI
Obverse 1169 is transferred from Mentor -Moschion to Architimos-Demetri
(as illustrated on Plate 131). Since the die is used in the last months of both
emissions, the amphora letters are useless in establishing the order of the two
issues but there is a small vertical die break, close to the outer edge of the
neckguard, which is visible on Nos. 1169a, b and c (on c there seems to be
additional deterioration in this area) of Architimos and absent from Nos. 1169a
and b of Mentor. Furthermore, the die as used with reverses of Architimos
seems to have been recut slightly in the region of the upper bowl of the helmet.
These technical indications confirm the evidence of style. The emission of

Mentor-Moschion belongs to a long sequence of stylistically homogeneous
issues. That of Architimos-Demetri introduces a totally different and highly
distinctive style; it would, therefore, seem to be the later striking.
There is no evidence for the use of Obverse 1169 during the early months
of 117/6 B.C. The die may have been brought back into service only during the
concluding months of emission to finish out the year's coinage. Even if its
span of active life did cover the full nine months of recorded output, this
1175.
1176.
a.
b.
EP
E/A(?) 121
1177.
1178.
b.
c.
EP
EP
Ill
1169.
a.
b.
c.
Al
Al
Al
374
durability would not be remarkable for what seems to have been in both years
a light coinage.
Control combinations are the same as those for Mentor-Moschion except
that I have no record of ATT. Kambanis in his notebook does give that reading,
taken from a sales catalogue, but he queries it. The AH, EY and 10 of Beule
are in all probability misreadings of Al, EP and 121.
AYIANAPOI - OINOOIAOI
Tetradrachms
1179.
1180.
1181.
1182.
1183.
1184.
1185.
1186.
b. B
b.
c.
a.
b.
c.
B/A
A/K

A/K
Drachms
EP
EP
EP
1II/EP
Al
Al
EP
Al
Al
Al
POPPY-HEAD AND GRAIN-EARS 116/5 B.C.
(Plate 182)
Glasgow (Hunt. 147), gr. 17.28f. With B/A and 111/
EP: Romanos Coll.
London (BMC 443; Sv. 73, 18), gr. 16.76f; Berlin,
control letters uncertain, gr. 16.88; Leningrad (Sv.73,
24), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.08
Paris, gr. 16.02f
Athens (Sv. 73, 19), gr. 16.20
Berlin (Sv. 73, 20), gr. 16.93
London (Sv. 73, 21), gr. 16.88f; Amsterdam (Boisse-
vain 51), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.90
Berlin, gr. 16.81
Athens (Delos Hd. =9)\
Paris (Sv. 73, 22), gr. 16.28f
Athens (Delos Hd. IT", 30), gr. 3.28f
Athens, gr. S.SOj
375
Months: A, B, E, K, A, M1
Controls: Al, EP, IZI
AMOIAZ - OINOOIAOZ DEMETER 115/4 B.C.
Tetradrachms
(Plate 188)
1187.
1188.
1189.
La.
b.
1190.
1191.
1192.
1192X.
1193.
1194.
ra.
lb.
| a.
Lb.
a.
b.
r/A

H/E
Al Glasgow (Hunt. 189; Sv. 70, 6), gr. 16.97f
IZI *London (BMC 817; Sv. 70, 5), gr. 17.61f
An 'Athens (Delos Hd. =0), gr. 14.62f
An Athens (Delos Hd.EG), gr.16.25f; Athens (Delos
Hd. EG), gr. 15.02f
An *Vienna, gr. 16.42
Zfl/(?)IZI *Glasgow (Hunt. 140; Sv. 70, 7), gr. 16.22f
IZI
zn/?
EP
Romanos Coll.
Paris (Sv. 70, 8), gr. 16.88f
ANS-ETN, gr. 15.37f
*Athens (Delos Hd. EG), gr. 15.90f
Leningrad, gr. 18.82f3
Berlin, gr. 16.85
Athens (Delos Hd. A, 2; Sv. 70, 9), gr. 16.40
1 The amphora letter on No. 1183c is read by Beul6 as H and by Kambanis as K. It is cer-
tainly far from clear but I think the marking is probably M, perhaps cut over A or even A/K.
* From a photographic reproduction the Leningrad coin seems to have been trimmed which
could account for its light weight. It may be a cast reproduction of a genuine piece.
376
1195.
Athens (Delos Hd. A, 8), gr. 16.88f
Months: A, T, A, E, H
Controls: An, Al, EP, 121, Xfl
EYMHAOZ - 6E0EENIAHZ ARES(?) 114/3 B.C.
Tetradrachms
(Plate 134)
1196.
1197.
1198.
1199.
1200.
1201.
1202.
1203.
1204.
a.
b.
a.
b.

Drachm
* Paris (Sv. 72, 21), gr. 16.74|
*Romanos Coll. = Naville (BM dupl.) 2013, gr. 15.74
En *London (BMC 406; Sv. 72, 19), gr. 16.80f
Ell *Glasgow (Hunt. 148; Sv. 72, 20), gr. 16.73f
EP *Turin (Mus. Ant., Fabretti 8062), gr. 16.75
? Berlin, gr. 16.75
IZ1 *Glasgow (Hunt. 144; Sv. 72, 22), gr. 16.85|
An 'Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 8227), gr. 16.66f
EF! *Paris, gr. 16.82f
? *Herakleion (Cretan Hd. I)
*Copenhagen (SNG 211; Sv. 72, 28), gr. 8.81f
1 drachm
Months: A, K
Controls: An, En, EP, III1
1 The EP reading, found only on a tetradrachm in Turin, is fairly certain. Both letters are
partially involved with the wreath but the first is almost surely E and the upper part of the
second has a loop which must be part of a P.
377
Nos. 1196a and b show several peculiarities: the style of the obverse head
is somewhat strange, the owl of 1196a is unusually small, the name of the first
magistrate is abbreviated (EYMHA on 1196a and EYMHAO on 1196b), neither
reverse has control letters and No. 1196b omits the E of the ethnic. It is pos-
sible that the two coins are imitations rather than regular issues of the Athenian
mint but I am inclined to consider them the work of an inexperienced diecutter.
Tetradrachms
1205.
NEITHP - MNAIEAI STAG 113/2 B.C.
(Plates 135-186)
1206.
1207.
1208.
1209.
1210.
1211.
1212.
A Al *Athens (Delos Hd. =9), gr. 15.68t
A EP *London {BMC 476; Sv. 75,14), gr. 17.20f; Moscow =
Schlessinger (Hermitage I) 187 = Hess 208, 453, gr.
16.40
A Zfl *Copenhagen (SNG 210), gr. 17.111
a. A ? *Paris, gr. 16.71f
b. E/A IZI/SQ Glasgow (Hunt. 158; Sv. 75, 17), gr. 16.97f
c. Z' IZI/ZQ Glasgow (Hunt. 160), gr. 16.45f

a. A An *Oxford, gr. 16.54. With E/A1: *Cambridge (Leake
Coll., SNG 8228; Sv. 75, 16), gr. 16.99f
b. Z EP *Romanos Coll.
B An * Athens (Delos Hd. EG), gr. 16.45f; Athensf
B IJ *Glasgow (Hunt. 157; Sv. 75, 15), gr. 16.77f
a. E in London .{BMC 477), gr. 17.10f; Leningrad, gr. 17.63|
b. Z IJ 'London {BMC 478; Sv. 75, 19), gr. 16.72f
c. 0 in Athens (Delos Hd. EG), gr. 15.60t; Commerce 1953
1 In the Sylloge publication the amphora letter is described as E/A but I can see no indi-
cation of anything but the underlying A and the superimposed E.
1213.
1214.
1215.
1216.
1217.
1218.
1219.
1220.
1221.
a.
EP
b.
EP
Marseille (Sv. 75, 18), gr. 16.90
a.
EP
Empedocles Coll.
b.
An
*ANS, gr. 16.12 /
rc.

Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.06 /
Vienna, gr. 16.39
a.
EP/?
Glasgow (Hunt. 162), gr. 16.48 /
b.
IZ
Tubingen
a.
An
Uncertain (probably commerce)
b.
An
Glasgow (Hunt. 161; Sv. 75, 20), gr. 16.69t
c.
AI
a.
An
Athens (Delos Hd. A, 24), gr. 16.05f; Berlin, am-
b.
An
a.
379
PI. XVIII, 3-4). There can, I believe, be little doubt of the contiguity of the
emissions but unfortunately the proof presented by Kambanis is invalid in
that the same obverse die is combined with still a third reverse, one of Demeas-
Hermokles. The three coins belong among the imitations of the New Style
coinage and are discussed in that section of the present corpus (pp. 460f.).
In number of obverse dies and surviving specimens the coinage of Nestor-
Mnaseas is the most extensive striking since that of Apellikon-Gorgias and
the last large issue of the New Style series. Nine months of the year are rec-
orded on the amphorae and at least five reverses have the intercalary N.1
1223.
1224.
IQTAAHZ - eEMIZTOKAHZ BAKCHOS 112/1 B.C.
(Plate 187)
Tetradrachms
1222.
Milan
Athens (Delos Hd. A, 81; Sv. 77, 19), gr. 16.90
Naples (Mus. Naz., Fiorelli 7148; Sv. 77, 20), gr. 16.58f
London {BMC 499; Sv. 77, 21), gr. 17.01f
Berlin (Sv. 77, 22), gr. 16.95
Athens (Delos Hd.=6)f; Athens (Delos Hd. EG),
Athens (Delos Hd. E9), gr. 16.80f
Glasgow (Hunt. 173), gr.16.72f; Leningrad, gr.

16.81f2
Cambridge (Grose 5920; Sv. 77, 18), gr. 16.87f; ANS-
ETN, gr. 15.73t
Athens (Delos Hd. E0), gr. 15.20f
1 M is recorded by both Bevl6 and Kambanis but in all cases the letter is either A or N. I
do not believe that there was any output of coinage during mu.
Similarly the Z<D of Beul and the Hunterian and British Museum publications proves upon
inspection of the coins to be either Zfl or III/Zfl.
1 There are at least three exact replicas of the Leningrad tetradrachm: one in Vienna
(14.28 gr.), one in Gotha (15.22 gr.) and one in the Romanos Collection (weight unknown).
1225.
1226.
a.
b.
B/A
Al
a.
B(?)
Al
b.
Al
c.
Al
d.
A!
a.
Horl
IQ
b.
a.
ZQ
b.
38o
1226X.
d.?? Athens (Delos Hd. EG), gr. 15.55f; Athens (Delos
Hd. EG)f; Athens (Delos Hd. =9)|
e.?? Athens (Delos Hd. EG), gr. 15.40t
? Al *Berlin, gr. 16.05 (pierced)
Months: A, B, E, Z, H, l(?)
Controls: Al. Zfl1
AEYKIOZ - ANTIKPATHZ
Tetradrachms
1227.
DEMETER AND ARTEMIS
111/0 B.C.
(Plate 137)
A Al Commerce 1955, gr.16.97f; Leningrad (Sv. 73, 15),
? Al "London {BMC 487; Sv. 73, 14), gr. 16.84|
Months: A
Controls: Al
T1ANTAKAHZ - AHMHTPIOZ HERAKLES 110/09 b.c.
(Plate 137)
Tetradrachms
Hirsch (Rhousopoulos) 2068 = Sv. 77, 16, gr. 16.56*
Berlin Cast Coll. (Kohler, Sitzungsber. d. Berl. Akad.,

1896, PL XI, 10), gr. 17.05
2 tetradrachms: 2 obverse, 1 reverse die
Months: H
Controls: Al
1 Kambanis in his notebook records C(0 for our No. 1224b but the Al reading of the British
Museum Catalogue is correct. ATTO is given by Kambanis for both examples of No. 1226a; both
seem to me to have ZQ. The ME of Beule is highly unlikely.
* Found on Crete in 1896 according to the Hirsch Catalogue. No. 1229, published by Kohler
in 1896, is also said to have come from Crete. The probability is that they are from a hoard,
possibly Cretan Hoard I with its extensive representation of late issues.
* There may be a clumsy 0 cut over the H on this coin or the marking may be only a flaw
or a die-break.
1228.
r H Al
1229. j
L H3 Al
38i
The two specimens of this issue are published briefly by Svoronos (Riv.
Num., 1908, p. 315)1 who identifies the standing figure in the right field as
Herakles uuctttis with reference to similar representations on a hydria and
on a cinerary urn where the scenes depicted are connected with the Eleusinian
Mysteries (JIAN, 1901, Pis. IE and 1Z). The Herakles of the coinage, lion's
skin cloak draped over his arm, carries a bakchos and holds in the other hand
a young pig suspended in air by a rear leg.
eECKDPATTOZ - GEMIZTO LOOPED FILLET 109/8 b.c.
(Plate 188)
Tetradrachm
1230.
?? *Herakleion (Cretan Hd. I; Sv. 72, 26), gr. 15.90
1 tetradrachm
Months:?
Controls:?
AIOOANTOI - AIZXINHZ SPHINX 108/7 B.C.
(Plate 188)
Tetradrachtns
1231.
a. A 2SI *Berry Coll., gr. 15.68f; Glasgow (Hunt. 142; Sv. 72,
10), amphora and control letters uncertain, gr. 16.50f
b. M IQ *ANS, gr. 15.58f
c. M Ifl *Athens (Sv. 72, 9), gr. 16.65t; London {BMC 887;
Sv. 72, 8), gr. 16.20fa

Months: A, M
Controls: Ift
1 There is some uncertainty as to the whereabouts of the first piece. In the Rivista article
Svoronos says it is in Athens as a 1906 accession of the Numismatic Museum (JIAN, 1906, p. 327,
no. 62) but in the later Monnaies d'Athenes the coin is listed as being in the possession of Dr. Hirsch.
It was not among the tetradrachms I saw in Athens in 1955 but a small number of coins which
had been on exhibit before the war could not be examined and the PantaklesDemetrios piece
may be with this lot.
Svoronos gives the weight of the Hirsch specimen as 16.27 >r- (16 26 in the Rivista citation)
while the Rhousopoulos Catalogue has 16.56.
1 Doublestriking accounts for the misreading of the amphora letter as H on the British
Museum piece.
382
AHMEAZ - KAAAIKPATIAHS ISIS1 107/6 B.C.
(Plate 138)
Tetradrachms
1232.
1233.
E ZQ *Oxford (Sv. 71, 18), gr. 16.25
a. S(?) 2Q *Herakleion (Cretan Hd. I; Sv. 71, 14), gr. 15.70. With
H/(?)S: Paris, gr. 16.84f
b.?? *Berlin, gr. 15.58
c.? Zfl Berlin, gr. 15.27
Months: E, Z(?), H2
Controls: Sft
A tetradrachm of this issue was restruck by Aesillas, quaestor of Macedonia
between 98 and 88 B.C. This crucially important overstriking, now in the
Berlin Cabinet, was published by Regling {J I AN, 1908, pp. 241 f.) and is illus-
trated on Plate 138 (also Svoronos, Plate 71, 15). Regling observes that the
date of the Athenian issue must be shortly before the end of Aesillas' term of
office since the bulk of coinage in circulation at any given time consists of the
output of the last decade. There are, however, a great many imponderables
involved in the distribution and life-span of coinage; it seems to me that the
time differential between the emission of the tetradrachm of Demeas-Kalli-
kratides and its re-emission as a Macedonian coin of Aesillas is in no way
excessive.3
AAKETHI - EYAriQN HELMET 106/5 B.C.

(Plate 138)
Tetradrachms
1234.
a. 0/Z IQ *ANS-ETN = Ratto (Rogers) 448, gr. 16.45f; Gotha
(Sv. 70, 3), amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.30
1 Dow ("The Egyptian Cults in Athens," pp. 266 f.) queries the identification of the figure
as Isis but I think the distinctive headdress, clearly visible on No. 1233a, makes the association
certain.
2 Beule gives 0 for the date on a tetradrachm in the von Prokesch Collection. The coin
cannot be checked but it should be noted in support of Beul6's reading that the Paris piece which
has H over an earlier date may also have a superimposed 0.
8 The New Style tetradrachm overstamped by Aesillas was struck from the same reverse
die as No. 1233c. The obverse of this Berlin coin is very poorly preserved but the die seems to
be No. 1233.
383
rb.? ZQ Paris (Sv. 70, 2), gr. 16.87f
1235. I
L?? *Athens (Sv. 70, 1) = Hirsch (Rhousopoulos) 2084, gr.
16.65
Months: Z, 61
Controls: ZQ
AIONYZIOZ - MNAZArOPAZ DIONYSOS 105/4 B.C.
(Plate 188)
Tetradrachm
1236.
A Zft "-London (Sv. 72, 5), gr. 16.28ta
1 tetradrachm
Months: A
Controls: ZQ
EFmTENHZ - EENftN APOLLO LYKEIOS 104/8 B.C.
(Plate 189)
Tetradrachms
1237.
1238.
1239.
a.
ZQ

London {BMC 402; Sv. 72, 12), gr. 16.69f; Lenin-
grad, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 16.58f
rb.
ZQ
La.
ZQ
Venice (Sv. 72, 18)
b.
ZQ
Paris (Sv. 72,14), gr. 16.47f; Herakleion (Cretan Hd. I)
c.
ZQ
Berlin, gr. 15.61
a.
A/K
ZQ
Empedocles Coll.
b.
ZQ
Romanos Coll.
1 Beule records E as the amphora letter on the Gotha coin; the date seems to me quite
illegible.
* There are four exact replicas of the British Museum coin: Berlin (Sv. 72, 6, gr. 15.93),
Smyrna (Sv. 72, 7, gr. 14.50), Herakleion and ANS (gr. 15.35). The ANS coin is a cast and it is
evident that the other three pieces are also casts of the London tetradrachm. According to the
present record there is only one genuine example of the coinage of Dionysios-Mnasagoras.
384
1240.
a. A/K? *ANS, gr. 16.90f
b.?? Leningrad, gr. 15.75f
Months: B, E, K, A
Controls: Zft
MENEAHMOZ - TIMOKPATHZ DEMETER 103/2 B.C.
(Plate 139)
Tetradrachms
1241.
1242.
1243.
1244.
a.
ZU)
*ANS-ETN, gr.16.56f
b.
ZO)
Herakleion (Cretan Hd. I; Sv. 74, 6), gr. 15.50
rc.
ZO)

London (BMC 453; Sv. 74, 2), gr. 16.82f
Berlin (Sv. 74, 8), gr. 16.25; Paris, gr. 16.52|
a.
Commerce (Sv. 74, 5, Hirsch), gr. 16.50
b.
e/A
ZO)
* Athens (Sv. 74, 1), gr. 16.40t; Leningrad (Sv.
amphora letter uncertain
ZO)
""London (BMC 454; Sv. 74, 4), gr. 16.57|
Months: A, I", A, 01
Controls: Z6)
Obverses 1248 and 1244 are, I believe, from different dies. They are very
similar nevertheless and one may be a recutting of the other.
With this issue the cursive omega which will recur in the later strikings of
Menneas-Herodes, Diokles-Leonides and Diokles-Diodoros makes an ap-
pearance in the control combination Z63.2
1 In the BMC the amphora letter of No. 1244 is given as M but I think this is far from
certain.
* The ZO and ZO given in earlier publications are misreadings of this unfamiliar form.
385
MENNEAI - HP03AHZ HEKATE 102/1 B.C.
(Plate 189)
Tetradrachm
1245.
S AA * Athens (Sv. 74, 8; JIAN, 1906, p. 299), gr. 15.32
1 tetradrachm
Months: Z
Controls: AA
AIONYIIOZ - AHMOITPATOZ WINGED CADUCEUS 101 /0 B.C.
(Plate 139)
Tetradrachm
1246.
?? *Noe Coll. = Petsalis Coll. {BCH, 1938, PI. XVIII, 1),
gr. 16.25f
AIONYCICC - AHMCCTPATCC
Drachms
1247.
a.?? *Berlin (Sv. 72, 1), gr. 4.14
b.? T7P(?) Commerce (Sv. 72, 2)1
1 tetradrachm
Months:?
Controls: rfP(?)
Kambanis in the BCH article says that there are traces of A or A on the
amphora of the tetradrachm. One drachm (our No. 1247a) has uncertain let-

tering on and below the amphora according to Sundwall (ZfN, 1908, p. 273);
the other as published by Svoronos (JIAN, 1904, p. 62) is described as having
A? on the amphora and FTP below. From the illustration in Les monnaies
d'Athenes, the control combination looks more like ATT, but one cannot be sure
of the reading.
It is noteworthy that there is a variation in letter forms within this one
issue. On the drachms the sigmas are square as they are in the striking of Demo-
chares-Pammenes which follows. On the tetradrachm all four letters have been
recut with a four-barred sigma superimposed on the square variety.
1 The gold 8av6xr| of Svoronos' Plate 72, 3 was, I think, made with a drachm having re-
verse die 1247b.
386
AHMOXAPHC-TTAMMENHC CICADA 100/99 B.C.
(Plate 189)
Drachm
1248.
?? *Berlin (Sv. 71, 16; Z/N, 1908, pp. 273f.), gr. 4.09
1 drachm
Months:?
Controls:?
This is the one New Style issue for which only fractional silver is known.
As noted before, square sigmas terminate the magistrates' names.
AIOKAHI-AEC0NIAHI ASKLEPIOS 99/8 B.C.
(Plate 140)
Tetradrachms
1249.
a. A/r TTEP(?) *Berlin (Sv. 71, 20), gr. 16.78
b. A/r T7EP(?) *Miinz. u.Med. XIII, 1188-= Schlessinger (Hermitage2)
928, gr. 15.79f; Giesecke Coll. (Sv. 71, 19), gr. 16.54
AIOKAHC
HP *Gotha (Sv. 71, 22), gr. 8.20
HP Athens (Sv. 71, 21), gr. 4.08
Months: T, A
Controls: HP, FIEP(?)
Considerable variation in amphora and control letters is recorded. Beule

has M as the date on the Gotha drachm but the amphora letter seems to me
absolutely illegible. Sundwall lists A and ME for a Rhousopoulos tetradrachm
(from the Hirsch Catalogue but not illustrated) and A for a Berlin piece. Kam-
banis gives A/r with HP for our No. 1249b and M with HP for No. 1249a. I can
only say that both reverse dies seem to me to be inscribed A/r on the amphora.
As for the control combinations, the lettering on the tetradrachms is indistinct
but it looks more like T7EP (or TIP) than HP. However, both drachms are appar-
Drachms
1250.
a.?
b.?
387
ently marked HP and it is possible that the minute letters under the amphora
on the tetradrachms are intended as the same combination.
Variation in letter forms is again found in this issue. The cursive omega
replaces the normal uncial version in the name of the second magistrate. Also
on both drachm reverses a lunate sigma is used as the terminal of Diokles and
perhaps of Leonides as wellthe final letter of the second name is not clear
on either die.
(DIAOKPATHZ - HPflAHI
Tetradrachms
DIONYSOS 98/7 B.C.
1251.
a.
HPA
b.
HPA
c.
HPA
Drachm
1252.
HPA
(Plate 140)
Berlin (Sv. 78, 1), gr. 16.80; London (BMC 510;

Sv. 78, 2), gr. 16.98f; The Hague (Sv. 78, 8)
ANS-ETN, gr. 16.48t
Copenhagen (SNG 290), gr. 16.80t; Romanos Coll.
(Sv. 78, 4), gr. 16.70
Berlin (Sv. 78, 5), gr. 4.07
1 drachm
Months: A
Controls: HPA
KAAAIMAXOI - ETTIKPATHI TRIPTOLEMOS 97/6 B.C.
Tetradrachms
(Plate 140)
1253.
1254.
A HPA *London (BMC 428; Sv. 78, 1), gr. 16.89f
?? *Berlin (Sv. 78, 2), gr. 15.91 (very worn)
Months: A
Controls: HPA
388
APXITIMOI - TTAMMENHI
Tetradrachms
FILLETED THYRSOS
1255.
1256.
1257.
1258.
OI/AI
b.
Z/?
01
c.
01
A/!
Al
|b.
Lc.
01

96/5 B.C.
(Plate 140)
*Berlin (Sv. 70,21), gr. 16.51; Brussels (de Hirsch 1296),
gr. 17.29|; Berlin Cast (private coll.)1
Commerce (Sv. 70, 28, Hirsch), gr. 16.85
Herakleion (Cretan Hd. I)
Paris (Sv. 70, 24), gr.16.25f; London (BMC 841),
gr. 16.72f; Lockett Coll. (SNG 1989) = Ratto (Rogers)
450, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 17.00f
*Herakleion (Cretan Hd. I); Leningrad (Sv. 70, 22),
gr. 17.01; Vatican, amphora letter uncertain
ANS-ETN, gr. 15.84f
Romanos Coll.
*Tiibingen, gr. 16.92
Months: A, Z, j, A
Controls: Al, Ol
AIOKAHI TO AEY - MHAEIOI
Tetradrachms
HYGIEIA 95/4 B.C.
1259.
(AEYTE)
1260.
1261.
(Plate 141)
B I *Paris (Sv. 71, 25), gr. 16.70f
a. Z Ift *Romanos Coll.
b. S Ifl Leningrad (Sv. 71, 27), gr. 16.88
? Ifl *London (BMC 875; Sv. 71, 26), gr. 16.89f
1 The Berlin cast has two heavy vertical strokes cut over the initial control letter as though
in obliteration.
2 In Svoronos' illustration the amphora letter looks like A but Seyrig saw A on the coin and
a cast of it confirms his reading. On both the Leningrad and Herakleion specimens there is a
vertical line to the right of the A which may indicate that the date was originally I.
Drachms
1262.
AIOKAHI TO - MHAEIOZ
? in 'Copenhagen (SNG 287; Sv. 71, 29), gr. 4.01f; Berlin
(Sv. 71, 28), gr. 3.87
Months: B, Z
Controls: IQ
AnEAAIKflN-APIITOTEAHZ DEMETER 94/3 b.c.
(Plate 141)
Tetradrachms
1263.
a.
Al
Berlin (Sv. 70, 10), gr. 16.89. With B/A: Oxford (Sv.
70, 11), gr. 17.05
b.
A(?)
A!
Herakleion (Cretan Hd. I; Sv. 70, 12), gr. 15.80
c.
Al
Oxford, gr. 17.19
Al

d.
ANS-ETN, gr. 16.77f; Vatican, control letters un-
certain
e.
Petsalis Coll.
Months: A, B, A(?), K
Controls: Al
HPAKAflN1- HPAKAEIAH2 HEAD OF EAGLE 98/2 B.C.
(Plate 141)
Tetradrachms
1264.
a. B Al *Oxford, gr. 16.82f
b. A/? HPA/AI *London {BMC 417; Sv. 72, 24), gr. 16.61f
Months: B, A
Controls: Al, HPA
1 HPAKAGN is the reading of Beule and Kambanis. Sundwall and Head give HPAKAEflN.
The area where the E would be if it were part of the name is off flan on the Oxford coin and cor-
roded on the London piece. I could see no indication of an E on the latter and Mr. Jenkins con-
firms this from his examination of the coin.
39
OIAOKPATHI - KAAAKDRN NIKE 92/1 B.C.
(Plate 141)
Tetradrachms
1265.
1266.
1267.
a. Z/E M *ANS, gr. 16.83f; London (BMC 511; Sv. 78, 6), gr.
16.65f
b.? in Wilkinson Coll. = Lockett Coll. (SNG 1941) = Na-
ville (Bement) 1129, gr. IG.SSf1
a.? Ift 'Copenhagen (SNG 291; Sv. 78, 7), gr. 16.42f; Hera-
kleion (Cretan Hd. I; Sv. 78, 8), gr. 16.20; Paris,
gr. 16.48f. Control letters uncertain on last two
b.? in "The Hague (Sv. 78, 9)
? *Romanos Coll.
Months: E, Z
Controls: in
TPYOHN - nOAYXAPMOI HEKATE 91/0 B.C.
(Plate 142)
Tetradrackm
1268.
?? 'Munich (Sv. 77, 17), gr. 16.89
1 tetradrachm
Months:?

Controls:?
TO TPI AIOKAHI - AIOACOPOI DIONYSOS 90/89 B.C.
(Plate 142)
Tetradrachms
1269.
r K/? HPA 'Leningrad (Sv. 71, 32), gr. 17.60
1270. j
La. K/? HPA *London (BMC 376; Sv. 71, 81), gr. 16.94|
b.? HPA *Paris (Sv. 71, 80), gr. 16.87f
1 A coin in Leningrad (14 92 gr.) from the same pair of dies would seem to be a cast.
Months: K1
Controls: HPA
Note the use of the cursive omega in the name of Diodoros.
AIOKAHZ MEAI - MHAEIOZ ATHENA PARTHENOS 89/8 B.C.
(Plate 142)
Tetradrachms
1271.
? HP *Paris (Sv. 71, 24), gr.16.87f; London (BMC 877;
Sv. 71, 28), gr. 16.56t
2 tetradrachms: 1 obverse, 1 reverse die
Months:?
Controls: HP
ATTOAHEIZ - AYZANAPOZ ARTEMIS 88/7 b.c.
(Plate 142)
Tetradrachms
1272.
a.? HP *London (BMC 329; Sv. 70, 18), gr. 16.59f
b.? HP *Paris (Sv. 70, 14), gr. 16.78f
2 tetradrachms 1 obverse, 2 reverse dies
Months:?
Controls: HP2
1 Kambanis enters the three coins of the present catalogue with the notation that the dates
of all are uncertain. Beule gives A for a coin in his collection and the BMC describes its piece as
having 0 (?). Our No. 1269, which is probably the Beule tetradrachm, has K on the amphora
according to Seyrig's record of the coins he examined in the Hermitage and this reading seems

to me to be confirmed by the illustration on Plate 142. The letter, however, looks as though it
might have been recut, possibly over 0.
* Beute gives ME for the Paris coin but the combination is really HP as Kambanis also
recognized.
COMMENTARY ON THE LATE PERIOD
Like earlier sections of the New Style coinage, the late sequence divides into
several parts: first, a fairly homogeneous series of fifteen issues, ending with the
coinage of Mentor-Moschion, and then a succession of issues falling into a
number of diverse stylistic groupings which begins with Architimos-Demetri
in 117/6 B.C. and terminates with the Sullan siege of Athens.
The tightly-linked chain of issues put out in the last decade of the Middle
Period concludes with the emission of Dositheos-Charias in 132/1 B.C. This,
then, is the starting point for the issues of the Late Period. At the other end
the die link between the strikings of Mentor-Moschion and Architimos-De-
metri establishes the former as the final emission of the fifteen issues under
present discussion. Additional die links provide a basic framework for the
arrangement of the coinage between 131/0 and 117/6 B.C.:
r AMQIKPATHZ - ETTIFTPATOI
t<3) L AflZIOEOZ -XAPIAI
l. ahmhtpioz - ArAGinnoz
r 2. NIKHTHZ - AIONYZIOZ
t (3)
L 3. APIZTIflN -QIAGN
t(2) r 4. APOT70Z - MNAZArO
L 5. EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOZ (serpent)
6. NIKOrENHZ -KAAAIMAXOZ
t(2)
r 7. AHMEAZ - EPMOKAHZ
t (2)
L 8. EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOZ (dolphin)
r 9. EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOZ (Roma)

LlO. KOINTOZ -KAEAZ
d<1) Lll. ATTEAAIKGN - TOPriAZ
12. BAZIAE M10PAAATHZ - APIZTIQN
18. MNAZEAZ - NEZTflP
14. KAEOOANHZ - EniGETHZ
t(1) r15. MENTflP - MOZXIQN
L APXITIMOZ-AHMHTPI
Since five issues are not related to any other striking by transferred dies and
since, of the ten which are, only the issue of Kointos-Kleas is firmly joined at
both beginning and end, one must rely upon style, supplemented by hoard and
The Late Period: Commentary
393
other evidence, for the determination of the exact chronological sequence. A
folding plate (Plate B), similar to that prepared for the issues of the Early
Period, is to be found at the end of the volume of plates and this will, I think,
be useful in enabling the reader to evaluate the stylistic arguments presented
below.1 On this accordion plate all obverses are included but in reduction
and arranged to illustrate the carry-over and development of particular styl-
istic patterns.
The obverse dies of Dositheos-Charias are characterized by heaviness and
careless execution. Heads are generally large and individual representations
show excessively thick eyelids, lips and nostrils (Nos. 1 and 24) and exagger-
atedly sharp profiles (Nos. 3-4). In later issues the Athena head is often ugly
and sometimes grotesque but it rarely achieves a comparable heaviness of
features. Decorative details of the helmet reflect hasty and incompetent work-
manship: protomes are small and ill-defined, the ornament consists of a thick
central stem diagonally slanted with tight volutes that are sometimes little
more than strokes or blobs (Nos. 16, 23, 25), the rear legs of the Pegasus are
often rendered by a single heavy line (Nos. 6, 11, 23, 28). In contrast, the ar-
rangement of the hair is usually neat with a two-tier design of three tiny locks
above and three larger and looser locks below. A noteworthy aspect of many
dies is the circle of very heavy dots surrounding the head (Nos. 1, 3-4, 12-14,
1819, 24). This style which is represented in practically all obverses of Do-
sitheos-Charias will be for convenience referred to hereafter as Style A.
The issue of Demetrios-Agathippos seems to me to come immediately after
that of Dositheos-Charias as the first emission of the Late Period. Eight of its
obverses (Nos. 30-37) are examples of Style A in all its distinctive treatment of

protomes, ornament, Pegasus and hair. The thickness of the eyelids persists
but otherwise the features are normally less gross. On a few dies, such as
Nos. 33-34, one finds the only recurrence prior to 117/6 of the heavy circle of
dots noted in connection with the heads of Dositheos-Charias. The other ob-
verses of Demetrios-Agathippos (Nos. 38-76) represent an entirely different
stylistic tradition which we may designate as Style B. In general the tendency
is toward larger protomes, a delineation with thinner strokes of both rear legs
of the winged horse and a small ornament of more delicate outline with clearly
indicated volutes. The ear-flap which had been prominent and clearly outlined
on most of the dies of Style A becomes either a solid disc, as on Nos. 38-44, or
is rather sketchily rendered, as on Nos. 48-51, 56-57, 69-70. The hair breaks
1 The conventions of the earlier accordion plate are again observed. Numbering does not
correspond with the catalogue entries but a concordance is provided at the end of the volume of
plates. In the stylistic discussion of the commentary, numbers which refer to the obverses of
Plate B are in italics.
394
away from the two-tier arrangement and is massed in long loose locks (cf.
Nos. 56 and 75 for extreme versions of this treatment). In profile represen-
tation, Style B divides into two categories: B-l represented by Nos. 3847
with a set and somewhat grim cast to the features and B-2 (Nos. 54-76) with
the firmness intensified in a hardness of lips and jaw that gives the faces a
highly disagreeable expression. Nos. 48-53 seem to me transitional between
the two varieties of Style B. Only in the issue of Niketes-Dionysios is there a
continuation of the two sub-divisions of Style B which are associated with the
majority of the dies of Demetrios-Agathippos.
In the coinage of Niketes and Dionysios the emphasis shifts as Style A in
all its characteristic aspects of hair, ornament, ear-flap and Pegasusbecomes
dominant again (Nos. 77-102). There is, however, a greater refinement of the
profile, at least in Nos. 80 through 93. Nos. 77-79 seem to me to relate most
closely to Nos. 30-33 of the preceding emission, Nos. 80-102 to Nos. 36-37.
Some of the Niketes obverses are also comparable with those of Dositheos-
Charias (No. 94 with No. 21, for example). Nevertheless it is Style B and not
Style A which establishes the connection of the Demetrios-Agathippos and
Niketes-Dionysios emissions. Style B-l, represented by Nos. 38-47 of the
former issue, survives in No. 103 of Niketes (and No. 104 may be considered
a debasement of the same tradition) and then disappears from the coinage. Note
the high degree of similarity in Nos. 47 and 103. Similarly Style B-2, pre-
dominant in the obverses of Demetrios-Agathippos, survives in two Niketes
dies, Nos. 105-106 for comparison especially with Nos. 70-76. This style in its
truly distinctive form then disappears from the coinage but a modification of it
(Style B-3) develops in Nos. 107-109 of Niketes and carries over into the

coinage of Aristion-Philon.
As has already been noted, the strikings of Niketes-Dionysios and Aristion-
Philon are contiguous on the evidence of three transferred dies. Even without
this proof, one would surely associate the two issues on the basis of style.
Nos. 110-127 represent the continuation of Style A; Nos. 128-139 that of
Style B-3 which emerged first in the Niketes emission in Nos. 107-109. With
regard to these B-3 obverses of Aristion-Philon, two trends are apparent: an
increasingly neat arrangement of the hair and an exaggeration of the nose.
As Bellinger points out (Hesperia, Suppl. VIII, p. 23), the issue of Aropos-
Mnasago is twice bracketed with that of Aristion-Philon by Kambanis (BCH,
1935, pp. 106, 118). In the absence of any established die connection it must be
assumed that the association is on the basis of style and this criterion does
indeed fully support Kambanis' arrangment. Nos. 152-164 are in the B-3 tra-
dition of Nos. 128-139 of Aristion. Note the prominent nose which dominates
the profile and the neat arrangement of the hair. On a number of dies the latter
395
has a two-tier rendering reminiscent of Style A except that the upper tier
tends to be heavier than the lower (Nos. 155 and 160 for contrast with Nos. 142
and 143). Individual B-3 obverses of the two issues are closely comparable:
Nos. 133 and 158, 139 and 161. Style A persists in the Aropos striking in
Nos. 140-144. The first may be associated with Nos. 110-112, No. 141 with
Nos. 113-114, Nos. 142-143 with Nos. 115-117 and No. 144 with No. 118. Fi-
nally, in the remaining obverses of Aropos (Nos. 145-151) we have what seems
to be a fused style with elements of A and B. The thin neat ornament with its
vertical position, the rendering of the Pegasus, ear-flap and hair are similar to
B-8 dies; the profile and facial expression are closer to the A dies. Most of the
dies of later issues develop out of this intermediate style, which we may des-
ignate as Style C.
Two tetradrachm dies prove the contiguity of the coinages of Aropos and
Xenokles with serpent symbol. For the rest, Obverses 165-166 are survivals of
Style A while Nos. 178-183 seem to be in the tradition of Style B-8 with less
exaggeration of the features. Style C is represented by Nos. 167-171.
With Nos. 184-186 of Nikogenes-Kallimachos Style A disappears from the
coinage. Nos. 187-190 are abnormal obverses which do not fit clearly into any
of the established stylistic patterns although the two last resemble some of the
Style C dies of Xenokles. Four other obverses of Nikogenes (Nos. 197-200)
seem to derive, particularly in facial expression, from No. 183 of Xenokles.
Nos. 191-196 represent the continuation of Style C, the first three comparable
to Nos. 172-174 and Nos. 194-195 close to No. 177. Actually at this point the
earlier distinction between Style B-3 and Style C becomes blurred. Nos. 191 to
200 are very much alike and their basic relationship is to Style C.

In the issue of Demeas-Hermokles, Nos. 212-217 seem to me to relate
closely to Nos. 197-200 of Nikogenes (compare No. 199 with No. 212, Nos. 198
and 200 with No. 215). Remaining dies are similar in treatment. Style C is now
crystallizing in the form which will characterize the next eight strikings: heads
generally larger, heavier and more mature in appearance; helmet details small
and neatly executed; hair arranged in two rows of rather heavy locks.
Two dies establish the contiguity of the emissions of Demeas-Hermokles
and Xenokles-Harmoxenos with dolphin and trident symbol. The numerous
obverses of the latter issue show slight stylistic variations but all belong to
Style C.
In the fixing of the sequence thus far, the evidence of die links has, of
course, been basic. Issues only partially or not at all related to other strikings
have been brought into chronological arrangement with the help of various
clearly-defined stylistic trends: Style A which characterizes all obverses of the
last issue of the Middle Period and continues through six issues of the Late
396
Period, Styles B-l and B-2 which appear only in the coinages of Demetrios-
Agathippos and Niketes-Dionysios, Style B-3 which develops in the latter
issue and persists through that of Xenokles with serpent, Style C coming in
with Aropos and gradually fusing with Style B-3 in the issues of Nikogenes,
Demeas and Xenokles with dolphin symbol.
The next seven issues show no comparable pattern of appearing and dis-
appearing styles. All obverses are of Style C with only slight variations in the
rendering to suggest the order of emission. Taking the group as a whole, the
issues of Xenokles with Roma symbol, Kointos and Apellikon form a die-linked
sequence and the striking of Mentor-Moschion is fixed by a transferred die as
the last striking of the present group. It remains to see how the three linked
and the three unlinked issues relate to the coinage of Xenokles with dolphin
at one end and to that of Mentor-Moschion at the other.
Heretofore, when the same pair of magistrates has served twice in the
annual minting office there has been an interval of one year between their first
and second terms.1 In the case of Xenokles-Harmoxenos their initial tenure
as magistrates was in 127/6; three years later they served again. Precedent
would indicate a gap between the Xenokles issue with dolphin symbol and that
with Roma, but in this instance I believe that precedent was abandoned and
that the Roma coinage, carrying with it that of Kointos and of Apellikon,
comes immediately after the Xenokles issue with dolphin. Individual dies show
so little variation in details of the helmet and the arrangement of the hair that
for purposes of comparison the facial contours and expression are the most
significant aspects. In these respects there is a certain unity of concept which
runs through Nos. 218-230, 260-262 and 281-283; through Nos. 231-248,

263-269, 274-276 and 284-291; and perhaps even more clearly through Nos.
249-259, 270-273, 277-280 and 292. For the relationship between the two
Xenokles strikings, compare Nos. 223 and 260, 236 and 264, 242 and 267,248
and 269, 258-259 and 272-273.
The next three issues seem to me to fit with definite stylistic parallelism
between Apellikon-Gorgias and Mentor-Moschion. No. 293 bears some re-
semblance to Nos. 281-282 but is far closer to No. 283; No. 294 relates to
Nos. 296-297, the correspondence between Nos. 294 and 296 being striking.
Although No. 295 is partially off flan, it suggests No. 276 in facial expression.
In the distinctive downward turn of the lower line of the visor it is to be asso-
ciated with No. 285 and in the heavy diagonal strokes of the protomes with
Nos. 276, 284-287 and a number of later dies. Nos. 302-303, of which
Nos. 304-305 are variants, may be compared with Nos. 277-280 and to a lesser
degree with Nos. 288-291. Of the remaining Mnaseas dies, Nos. 298-299 seem
1 AMMQ - AIO in 182/1 and 180/79; HPAKAE1AHZ - EYKAHZ in 139/8 and 137/6.
397
to derive from Nos. 284-285 and Nos. 300-301 from Nos. 286-287. The heavy
features of these last obverses characterize Nos. 311-312 of Kleophanes and
Nos. 318-319 of Mentor. Finally Nos. 306 and 313 are almost identical while
Nos. 309-310 and Nos. 316-317 are also highly comparable and at the same
time suggestive of No. 297. It is noteworthy that Style C in all its distinctive
aspects vanishes from the coinage with the issue of Mentor and Moschion. In
fact one die of that issue, No. 320, already foreshadows a new style in the ar-
rangement of the hair which is released from its two tight rows and falls in
loose locks as on the dies which follow.
In view of the clear stylistic break between the first fifteen issues of the
Late Period and the remaining issues of the coinage, it would seem logical to
interrupt the discussion of obverse styles at this point and see what other
evidence there is for the chronological arrangement of the coinage between
131/0 and 117/6 B.C.
As has proved to be true for other sections of the New Style series, the re-
verses indicate certain general stylistic trends but they are far less helpful than
the obverses in suggesting a definite position for any one issue. The only ex-
ception for this period concerns the Demetrios-Agathippos striking. Plates 95
to 97 illustrate the reverse style which characterizes the last issues of the Middle
Period: large owls with oversize heads and eyes, their plumage rendered in thick
uneven strokes, sitting on excessively elongate amphorae and surrounded by
lettering which is large and coarse. The impression given by these cluttered
reverses is one of clumsy heaviness. Only on some dies of Demetrios-Aga-
thippos does one find a comparable technique (cf. Nos. 883a and 887 among
others). Other dies of Demetrios, such as Nos. 917a and 923a, present a sharp

contrast. The owls are much smaller and less heavy in appearance, amphorae
are also smaller though still elongate, and the lettering is more neatly and
hence more legibly inscribed. This is the reverse style of the issues of Niketes-
Dionysios through Xenokles-Harmoxenos with serpent symbol. In the
Nikogenes-Kallimachos striking the amphora begins to get larger while
the letters on dies of the end of the year become smaller and more con-
gested. There is little change apparent in the emissions of Demeas-Hermokles
and Xenokles-Harmoxenos with dolphin, but in the issue of the latter magis-
trates with Roma symbol a larger owl becomes increasingly common, one, how-
ever, of noticeably better style than the large birds of Dositheos-Charias and
Demetrios-Agathippos. Plumage is carefully cut and there is less exaggeration
of head and eyes. No real change is discernible in amphora and inscription. The
six issues which follow Xenokles with Roma show substantially the same kind
of reverses. In connection with this matter of reverse style note how close the
dies of Mithradates-Aristion are to those of Kointos-Kleas and Apellikon-
Gorgias: the same neat owls with tidy plumage on large amphorae and around
the type the names of the magistrates inscribed in small, precisely-cut letters.
Control combinations seem to me to give definite support to the arrange-
ment of the first fifteen issues of the Late Period. The pattern that they present
is as follows:
Issues of
136-132
ME ZO
nE An
Demetrios
ME ZO
nE An
MH
Niketes
10
nE An
MH
Aristion
10
nE An
MH
Aropos
ZO
nE An
MH AH
Xenok. (serp.)

ZO
nE An
AH
AN
Nikogenes
ZO
nE
AH
AN
Al
EP ZT Z(D
Demeas
nE An
AH
Al
ZT
Bl
Xenok. (doiph.)
nE An
Al
ap np
Xenok. {Roma)
An
Al
ZT
ap np AA
Kointos
AH
Al
EP
ap np AA
ApelUkon
An
AH
Al
AP AA Em
Mithradates
AA Eni
Mnaseas
EP ZT
Kleophanes
Al
HI
399
TTP and AA. The first two tie in with the Xenokles and dolphin issue immediately
preceding while the last ties in with the Mithradates striking. ETTI likewise con-
nects the Apellikon and Mithradates emissions. Both AA and ETTI are extremely
rare; the former occurs elsewhere only on the Menneas-Herodes issue of
102/1 B.C. while the latter in an abbreviated ETT form occurs only on the
Eumelos-Theoxenides coinage of 114/8 B.C. At no time do the two controls
appear together except on the issues of Apellikon and Mithradates. Al, EP and
IZI (another rare control peculiar to this period) are found on the last two issues
of our present group and they carry over to the issues immediately following.
Hoards provide additional evidence for the sequence, at least through the
issue of Xenokles-Harmoxenos with Roma. The relevant section of the chart
on pages 534f. is concerned with the listing from Dositheos-Charias through
Xenokles with Roma. Delos Hoard KS includes the coinage of Dositheos which
we know to be the last issue of the Middle Period and a single issue of the Late
Period, that of Demetrios-Agathippos. The next hoards, Delos B and Delos
AH, have the coinage of Dositheos, of Demetrios and of Niketes-Dionysios. At
this point both deposits stop and the composition of these three hoards cer-
tainly indicates that the order of Dositheos, Demetrios and Niketes is correct.
Aristion-Philon is linked with Niketes and Aropos-Mnasago with Xenokles-
Harmoxenos of the serpent symbol. All three of these issues appear in the
Zarova Hoard together with the coinage of Dositheos, Demetrios and Niketes;
thus their place in the sequence would seem assured. The Halmyros Hoard
carries the order three steps further, including as it does all the issues which
have appeared in earlier hoards plus the strikings of Nikogenes-Kallimachos,
Demeas-Hermokles and Xenokles-Harmoxenos with dolphin and trident.

Finally in Carystus Hoard II the representation runs, with two gaps, from
Dositheos through Xenokles with Roma and the two Xenokles issues found in
the deposit provide not only the most numerous but also the best-preserved
coins.
The chronological arrangement of the Late Period issues thus far would
seem to rest upon a secure foundation combining the evidence of die-links,
hoards, control combinations and style. This arrangement includes one highly
controversial issue which cannot be passed over without further comment.
Clearly it will be necessary to dwell at greater length on the reasons for re-
dating the coinage of Mithradates-Aristion, heretofore assigned by all author-
ities to the year immediately before the fall of Athens in 86 B.C. Since, however,
this drastic revision in chronology derives not only from comparison with the
coinage of c. 121 B.C. but also from comparison with the coinage just before
Sulla, let us for the moment leave this "hot" issue and go on to the order of
the remaining emissions of the Late Period.
No attempt has hitherto been made to establish a precise sequence for the
thirty issues which bring to an end the New Style coinage. Svoronos' listing is
strictly alphabetical and gives no indication of any conclusions he may have
reached on relationships within the group. Kambanis divides the issues into
two sections, one struck before the conquest of Athens and the other after it,
but both sequences are alphabetically ordered. In Bellinger's study, Kambanis'
division is followed and the issues after Sulla are alphabetical but the earlier
emissions are grouped, with the arrangement determined by the number of
control combinations appearing on the reverse dies.
It must be admitted at the start that the problem of exact chronology is
complex and to a degree insoluble. The issues are for the most part small and
the restricted number of obverse and reverse dies provides no broad basis for
stylistic comparisons such as we have had in earlier issues. Furthermore, within
this section of the coinage there is a change in the over-all stylistic pattern,
particularly as it relates to the obverses. Instead of a series of overlapping
styles whose relationship with each other helps considerably in determining the
order of emission, we have a number of disparate styles, each more or less con-
fined to a limited number of issues. In only a few instances is there clear indication
of a connection between these diverse styles. Even after the groups of issues
have been arranged in their probable chronological order, there remains the
problem of sequence within each group. A certain group of say six issues may
show on all dies a homogeneity of obverse style so striking that one feels certain
the six issues are contemporary but there is often no clue as to the exact order
of the emissions. I doubt that it will ever be possible to establish such order in
all cases. Under the circumstances it would perhaps have been better to make
the dates of the issues between 111/0 and 88/7 B.C. more tentative than they

appear in the catalogue. Since, however, the margin of error involves only a
few years at most and since all instances of uncertainty will be noted in the
commentary that follows, I decided to continue giving each issue a definite date
as an indication of what seems to me the most likely sequence of striking.
Formidable as the difficulties are, it must not be assumed that for the period
after 117 B.C. we are adrift upon a completely uncharted sea. There is evidence
other than style which at certain fixed points helps greatly in the arrangement.
First, we have the die link between the coinage of Mentor -Moschion and that
of Architimos-Demetri, establishing the position of a group of issues which
share the highly individual obverse style of the Architimos dies and giving us
a point of departure in exploring the relationship of our various stylistic groups.
Luckily we have the overstrike mentioned in connection with the coinage of
Demeas-Kallikratides which makes it certain that not only this one striking
but five other issues of almost identical style must come before Sulla. Four
401
emissions inscribed Diokles, Diokles for the second time, Diokles for the third
time and Diokles of Melite must be arranged so that the three strikings of the
same Diokles are in the order specifically indicated by the coins. The coinage
of Diokles of Melite may, of course, have been interpolated into the sequence
of the other Diokles but it is more likely that it came after the first Diokles had
finished his three terms, for otherwise there would have been an element of
ambiguity as to which Diokles was serving as mint magistrate for the second
and for the third time. Additional help is given by hoards, by the recurrence of
control combinations, by the appearance on a few issues of abnormal letter
forms and by the political situation in Athens during the early years of the
first century before Christ.
With this lengthy preamble out of the way, let us consider the coinage itself.
Section X of Plate B brings together the obverses of four fairly sizable issues
whose obverse dies for the most part share a distinctive style peculiar to these
four emissions. One die of the first issue, No. 327, is carried over from the
coinage of Mentor-Moschion; the other six of the same year illustrate an en-
tirely different technique. The Athena heads are much larger than those of
preceding emissions and the ornament on the helmet has become greatly
exaggerated. Three long twisting stems start from the edge of the neckguard
to cover the whole of the helmet bowl with their elaborate curves and prominent
volutes. Nothing like this occurs elsewhere on the late issues. Nos. 329-330 of
Lysandros-Oinophilos are close to Nos. 322-324 of Architimos-Demetri.
Nos. 331-332 carry a suggestion of Nos. 325-326 and No. 328 of No. 321. The
last die of Lysandros, No. 333, is markedly better in style than any other of
these four issues. The heads of Amphias-Oinophilos and Eumelos-Theoxenides

are rather smaller than those of the two preceding issues and there is one small
variation in the rendering of the sprawling ornament. On almost all dies (most
clearly observable on Nos. 336-337, 346 and 348) the stem starts from a point
above the outer edge of the neckguard. No. 341 of Amphias is very like Nos. 331
and 332 of Lysandros and No. 334 resembles No. 328 while Nos. 342-343 are
almost identical with No. 349 of Eumelos and No. 338 is markedly similar to
No. 346. Two other dies of Eumelos (Nos. 350-351) are in the tradition of the
dies of Mentor-Moschion and earlier emissions (note the small ornament of
No. 351 and the profile representation of both dies). This style will carry over
into succeeding issues.
Another obverse peculiarity which links the issues of 117/6-114/8 and the
Nestor-Mnaseas striking of 113/2 is the heavy circle of dots on some dies
(notably Nos. 321, 324, 329-330,339,347 and 357). These five emissions are the
only ones of the Late Period, except for the issue of Demetrios-Agathippos in
131/0, in which one encounters this prominent encirclement of the Athena head.
402
The control combinations which appear on these four issues bring them into
close relationship with earlier and later strikings:
Kleophanes (119/8)
A!
III
Mentor (118/7)
An
Al
EP
III
Architimos (117/6)
Al
EP
IZI
Lysandros (116/5)
Al
EP
III
Amphias (115/4)
An
Al
EP
III
Eumelos (114/8)
An

En ep
IZI
Nestor (113/2)
An
Al
EP
IZI
The combination IZI appears only on the seven issues above; before 119/8
it is unknown and after 118/2 it disappears. EP which has been found on three
scattered earlier emissions (those of 126/5,122/1 and 120/19) is used consistently
for all but one of the issues above and then disappears.
On the evidence of obverse style and of recurring distinctive control com-
binations the four issues under present discussion are clearly contemporary.
Their internal sequence is fixed with a high degree of certainty by the die link
at the beginning, by the appearance of a different style on two dies of Eumelos
which brings that issue into relationship with later strikings and finally by the
close stylistic connection between individual dies which seems to establish the
relative position of the Lysandros and Amphias emissions.
Unfortunately the die link between the coinages of Eumelos-Theoxenides
and Nestor -Mnaseas published by Kambanis cannot be used as proof of con-
tiguity since it involves imitative issues (see pp. 460f.). Nevertheless I am sure
that the two strikings do in fact belong together. The strongest indication of
this is to be found in the fact that the letter combinations of Nestor-Mnaseas
parallel those of the group of issues immediately preceding. It is particularly
significant that the two distinctive controlsEP and IZImake their final ap-
pearance in the Nestor emission.
Nos. 357-368 of Nestor are reminiscent of Nos. 345-349 and earlier examples
of the same stylistic group notably in the size of the heads, the general cast of
the features and the occasional use of a border of heavy dotsbut there are
noticeable differences in the rendering of the type. Protomes and ear-flaps are
larger, the body of the Pegasus instead of resting on the earpiece is brought
back from the flap and joined to the rear legs in a sharply angular line (cf.
Nos. 358, 363-364 among other dies), a long loose curl is prominent on the
cheek of the goddess, finally the ornament is a pattern of thin and predomi-
nantly vertical strokes. This distinctive style is reflected in four dies of Sotades-
Themistokles (Nos. 370-373). All details are treated in identical fashion and
even individual profiles are similar, Nos. 365 and 372 for example.
403
For the rest, Nos. 354-356 of Nestor seem to represent a variant style with
many of the aspects of Nos. 357-368 and some slight suggestion, particularly
in No. 354, of Nos. 350-351. Nos. 352-353 mark a refinement of this style. In
the succeeding issue of Sotades-Themistokles, No. 369 is to be related to
Nos. 354-356 while No. 374, despite its oversize head, is in the Style C tradition
of Nos. 350-351 and earlier dies.
The high degree of stylistic unity found in Nos. 357-368 and Nos. 370-373
indicates the contemporaneity of the strikings of Nestor and Sotades. Further
evidence that they are contiguous is provided by a Delos Hoard (=9 on p. 518
of the Hoards section). This deposit includes a scattered representation of issues
from 152/1 through 121/0 and then examples of the coinages of Kleophanes,
Mentor, Architimos, Lysandros, Amphias, Nestor and Sotades. It is noteworthy
that all issues between 119/8 and 112/1 appear, with the single exception of the
Eumelos striking, and that the best-preserved and most numerous coins are
those of Nestor (6) and Sotades (9).
Thus far we have been dealing with issues of fair size. Enough dies have been
known to make stylistic comparisons of some value and significant evidence
from control combinations and hoards has supported the stylistic argument. It
seems to me that through 112/1 we have a soundly based sequence of emissions.
From this point on there is greater uncertainty. The two small issues of Leukios-
Antikrates and Pantakles-Demetrios have been placed in 111/0 and 110/09 B.C.
The small, well-proportioned heads of Nos. 375-377 are similar in expression
and in details of hair and helmet ornament. No. 375 moreover is very close to
No. 353 of Nestor-Mnaseas, the two profiles being almost identical, and it is diffi-
cult to believe that they can be separated by any considerable amount of time.

The next six issues have obverse dies which are homogeneous in style to such
a degree that I think they must be considered as a group. Variations in tech-
nique suggest the internal arrangement. Nos. 378 and 379 are extremely close
in all respects and surely belong together. On both dies the heavy eye is ren-
dered without a pupil, giving the face a lifeless expression. The same treatment
of the eye appears on No. 380 while on Nos. 381-384 and 388 there is clear
indication of the pupil. Nos. 378-382 are rather heavier in facial contours than
Nos. 383-384 and 388. The last die is established at the end of the sequence by
the fact that a totally different style makes its first appearance in the same year.
The obverses of these six issues, particularly the earliest dies, are unmistakably
associated with Nos. 350-351 of Eumelos-Theoxenides. Note the very high
degree of correspondence between Nos. 350 and 378. The ultimate inspiration
for this entire group is the standard Style C coinage of the years before 117/6.
Heads and ornaments are larger in scale but the treatment of the hair and the
helmet details are comparable.
404
In arranging the issues between Sotades-Themistokles and Epigenes -
Xenon, the striking resemblances between Nos. 353 and 375 on the one hand
and between Nos. 350 and 378 on the other must be taken into account as
suggestive of a degree of contemporaneity. In the present order there is a one
year gap between the first pair of dies and a four year interval between the
second pair. An alternate placement of the Theophrastos-Themisto coinage
immediately after Sotades-Themistokles would bring Nos. 350 and 378 closer
by two years but it would separate Nos. 353 and 375 by at least eight years
instead of two. Hence the sequence of emissions as it now stands seems the
more likely.
Letter combinations found on the issues between 112/1 and 105/4 are helpful
but their evidence is not conclusive. On the Sotades dies we find Al and IfJ.
The former combination occurs on the coinages of Leukios and Pantakles. Then
the Al control seems to have been abandoned temporarily and the second com-
bination of Sotades, IQ, used for the issues of Diophantos, Demeas, Alketesand
Dionysios as well as for the two strikings which follow.1 Both Al and ZQ recur
at a later period: Al on the issues of 96/5, 94/8 and 93/2 and Zfl on those of 95/4
and 92/1 but all of these emissions are of a peculiar and distinctive style which
cannot be related to the coinage under present discussion.
For the issue of 104/3 B.C., that of Epigenes-Xenon, we have a single ob-
verse (No. 388) stylistically related to the dies of the preceding five years. The
other obverses of Epigenes are atrocious, quite the most hideous heads to come
from the Athenian mint in the whole of the New Style period. Apparently this
diecutter was speedily retired for only four dies executed in his miserable tech-
nique are known (Nos. 385-387, 392). Fortunately they span two issues and

provide a connection between the coinage of Epigenes-Xenon and that of
Menedemos-Timokrates. The continued use of the Zfi control for both issues
also helps to bring them into relationship with the earlier issues of 109/8-105/4
so that this part of the sequence of the Late Period seems to be fixed with a
fair degree of certainty.
With the next four issues we have extremely small emissions. One tetra-
drachm of Menneas-Herodes is known, one tetradrachm and two drachms of
Dionysios-Demostratos, a single drachm of Demochares-Pammenes, three
tetradrachms and two drachms of Diokles-Leonides. Their position in the
sequence rests upon obverse style and a recurrence of abnormal letter forms.
Nos. 389-391 of Menedemos-Timokrates are quite different in style from
the obverse dies of the six issues preceding but they derive from two earlier
stylistic patterns represented by Nos. 357-368 and 370-373 and by Nos. 352-353
and 375-377. Facial expressions are not notably similar but details of technique
1 On the single known coin of Theophrastos-Themisto the control combination is off flan.
405
are highly comparable: the rather sketchy helmet ornaments, heavy protomes,
angular Pegasi, stringy hair below the neckguard and the loose lock over the
cheek. Either this is the diecutter of 113/2-112/1 in a later stage of his develop-
ment or an engraver faithfully copying the earlier coinage. The three tetra-
drachm dies of Menneas, Dionysios and Diokles are close to those of Menedemos
in the treatment of hair and helmet details; even in facial contours and ex-
pression there is a distinct resemblance between Nos. 390-391 and 393 and to a
lesser degree between Nos. 389 and 394-395. The three drachms (Nos. 1247a
of Dionysios, 1248 of Demochares and 1250a of Diokles reproduced on Plates
139-140) are also stylistically close.
Letter forms support the present sequence. The control combination on the
coinage of Menedenos-Timokrates isZCO and this represents the first appearance
of the cursive omega in the Late Period. The name of the second magistrate of
102/1 is similarly written with a cursive omega as is the name of the second
magistrate of 99/8 B.C. On the drachms of 101/0 and 100/99 we find a square
sigma while the drachms of 99/8 have a lunate form, both being variants of the
normal four-barred sigma used for all other issues of the Late Period. These
aberrant letter forms taken in conjunction with the stylistic similarities of the
five issues between 103/2 and 99/8 seem to me to indicate the hand of a single
engraver and to provide good reason for considering the coinages contemporary.
In the seven issues which follow we have again a group of emissions whose
distinctive style sets them apart from the other strikings of the Late Period.
Nos. 396-410 surely derive from the earlier Nos. 378-384 and 388 and not from
the dies of the intervening five years. Note on Nos. 396-410 the reappearance
of the characteristic details of the earlier group of obverses: very small ear-

flaps and protomes, open visors, a curvilinear rather than an angular rendering
of the winged horse and a rounded rather than angular inner line of the neck-
guard, a tight straight lock of hair over the cheek and a tendency to return to
the two-tier arrangement of the tresses on the neck. There are, however, two
unusual features which distinguish Nos. 396-410 from Nos. 378-384 and 388.
On almost all dies of the later group a tripartite earring (^) replaces the simple
single drop and the outer section of the helmet ornament is rendered in a series
of wavy lines which fold into each other {\). Both of these stylistic peculiarities
are most clearly visible on No. 407 but they are common to practically all ob-
verse dies of the group and provide strong evidence for the association of the
issues.
The internal sequence of the seven emissions is far from certain and the
order of the present catalogue as it relates to this section of the coinage must
be regarded as tentative. It seems to me that No. 396 and also No. 398, insofar
as one can discern the details of that battered obverse, are perhaps closer in the
406
proportions of the head and in facial expression to Nos. 378-384 and 388 than
are any of the other dies of the tripartite earring group. Nos. 397, 401 and 405
are very similar in style while the heavier heads of Nos. 400, 403-404, 406-407
seem to belong together. No. 408 of the Philokrates-Kalliphon emission is the
only obverse die of this group which has no trace of the interfolding arrange-
ment of the helmet ornament and in this respect it seems to provide a connec-
tion with the single obverse die of Tryphon-Polycharmos, which shows a
tripartite earring but a more natural rendering of the ornament.
The issue of Tryphon-Polycharmos is brought into relationship with the
strikings of 98/7-92/1 B.C. primarily by the distinctive treatment of the earring
but also by a similarity in the rendering of the Pegasus and protomes. The
arrangement of the ornament, however, is entirely different and in this regard
it is close to the earlier Nos. 378-384 and 388. It may be indeed that it belongs
at the beginning rather than the end of the tripartite earring sequence but I
am inclined to feel that it fits better in its present position as a link between
that group of dies and those of the last three emissions. While the earring,
Pegasus and protomes tie it to the 98/7-92/1 sequence, the loose lock of hair on
the cheek, the larger ear-flap and particularly the profile connect it with
Nos. 412-415. Nos. 411, 413 and 415 seem to me very similar in their regular
features and stern expressions.
Whoever cut the obverse die for the Tryphon-Polycharmos issue, the en-
graver of the four dies which terminate the coinage was surely the same man
who produced the earlier Nos. 389-391 and 393-395. Facial expressions are
different and the helmet ornament of the later dies is somewhat more elaborate
but otherwise the characteristic aspects of the earlier obverses recur on Nos. 412

to 415: heavy protomes and ear-flaps, angular Pegasi, stringy locks of hair.
Most significant of all, the cursive form of omega is used in writing Diodoros,
the only magistrate of these last three issues with that letter in his name.
The appearance of the cursive omega on the coinage of 103/2-99/8 and its
reappearance in the 90/89-88/7 period would seem to imply the chronological
proximity of these two stylistically related groups of dies. This is proved im-
possible by the three Diokles issues mentioned earlier. In the present listing,
the first Diokles striking comes in 99/8, the third in 90/89. Both have the cur-
sive omega. The second Diokles emission, however, must come between the two
others on the direct evidence of the inscription on the coins and this second
striking is an integral component of the tripartite earring group, hence that
entire series of issues must be placed between the first and the third Diokles
strikings.
Control combinations and hoards which have proved useful in supporting
the sequence at earlier stages are less helpful in respect to the coinage between
407
102/1 and 88/7 B.C. Two depositsCretan Hoard I and the Hierapytna Hoard
(discussed on pages 515-517 of the Hoards section) contain issues of this period
but the incompleteness of our data, the small number of coins involved and the
corroded condition of individual pieces make it difficult to draw any clear con-
clusions as to the sequence of issues. The dominant control combination for the
last fifteen years of the coinage is HP or HPA. It is introduced in 99/8 with the
coinage of Diokles-Leonides and is used for the next two years. An interval
of three years follows, filled by Al, <D1 and Ifl, before HPA reappears, this time
in association with Al. Another intervening year with Ifl and then HPA and HP
for the last three emissions. The pattern is definitely erratic but a more con-
sistent scheme of control combinations for the 102/1-88/7 period could be
achieved only at the expense of the weightier considerations involved in the
present arrangement of issues.
In summary, what we seem to have in the latest stage of the New Style
series are two distinct stylistic traditions, quite probably the output of only
two engravers although this cannot be established with certainty. The one
derives basically from Style C of the period before 117/6 and is represented by
Nos. 350-351, 374, 378-384, 388, 396-410. Characteristic features common to
most dies are small protomes set above a visor composed of two parallel lines,
an inconspicuous earguard surmounted by a Pegasus of curving contours, a
rounding-off of the inner edge of the neckguard, an almond-shaped eye of sleepy
expression, a tight curl over the cheek and a neat arrangement of the hair below
the helmet. Significant variations in the treatment of ornament and earring
occur within this group of dies. The second tradition is composed initially of
two somewhat diverse patterns, represented on the one hand by Nos. 357-368,

370373 and on the other by the smaller and better-executed heads of Nos. 352,
353, 375-377. In Nos. 389-391, 393-395, 412-415 the two patterns seem to
fuse. Practically all dies of the second tradition have very heavy protomes set,
after 112/1, on a single visor line, a large squared earguard on which a design
of dots is often visible, a sharply angular termination of the inner edge of the
neckguard, a Pegasus set well back on the helmet bowl and with rear legs at
right angles to the body, a triangular eye with clearly denned pupil, a somewhat
amorphous ornament of thin strokes, a large loose curl over the cheek and a
similarly loose arrangement of the hair on the neck.
It is noteworthy that reverses as well as obverses divide along roughly the
same lines, at least from 111/0 B.C. on. The reverses which accompany obverses
of the first tradition, from Theophrastos-Themisto through Epigenes-Xenon
and later from Philokrates-Herodes through Tryphon-Polycharmos, have
heavy bold inscriptions and on most dies the legs of the owl are rendered by
rows of thick dots. By contrast the other reverses, those of the second obverse
408
style, have much smaller and thinner letters and the legs of the owl are more
naturally outlined. These two reverse styles are markedly different but there
is not enough development within either one to indicate an exact chronological
sequence.
It looks as though two engravers were employed by the mint in irregular
rotation to produce obverse and reverse dies for the limited issues of the last
decades of the Late Period. Variations within the two general stylistic patterns
suggest an interval of time between groups of dies turned out by one or the
other engraver and the three Diokles issues provide specific evidence for an
alternation of styles. While there is uncertainty with regard to the sequence
within particular groups, the order of the groups themselves seems to be fairly
certain.
Substantiation for the chronology after 104/8 B.C. comes from the political
situation at Athens during that period. Between 106/5 and 102/11 an oligarchic
revolution at Athens placed the pro-Roman party in control of the city and the
dominance of this faction lasted until the spring of 88 when Athenion, the envoy
of Mithradates, came to power. A number of the mint magistrates of Athens
were men known to have been leaders in this pro-Roman movement: Medeios of
Piraeus, Diodoros of Halai, Epigenes and Xenon of Melite and Kalliphon. Others
can be associated with archons who served either during the period of oligarchic
control or in the years after Sulla-Herakleides, Menedemos, Pammenesand
it is almost certain that these officials were sympathetic to the Roman cause.
Finally, it is likely that in most if not all cases the colleagues of pro-Roman
magistrates were of the same political persuasion. At a time when feeling ran
high between the oligarchic and democratic factions one would suppose that

a man's friends and close associates were largely drawn from the circle of those
who shared his political views. Diokles of Melite was related by marriage to
Medeios of Piraeus and was surely pro-Roman. The other Diokles who served
three times as mint magistrate, once with Medeios and once with Diodoros of
Halai, both Roman sympathizers, would in all probability have belonged to the
same faction. This may also be true of the Philokrates who was Kalliphon's
colleague and of the Herodes who served with Philokrates. The family of Kal-
limachos and Epikrates of Leukonoe was prominent in civic affairs during the
period of oligarchic control and hence may be presumed to have been pro-Roman.
1 In "The Oligarchic Revolution at Athens of the Year 103/2 B.C." (Klio, 1904, pp. 1-17)
Ferguson gives a precise date for this movement but in the later Hellenistic Athens (p. 427, note 4)
he assigns it more broadly to the period between 106/5 and 102/1.
The names of a number of known Roman sympathizers are to be found in Ferguson's two
works. Dates of the archons mentioned in the discussion are those of Meritt (The Athenian Year,
P- 238).
409
It is of considerable interest to note not only that the mint magistracies of
these men fall without exception in the period between 104/3 and 88/7 B.C. but
that the minting office for those sixteen years is virtually monopolized by them.
There is no evidence for the political affiliations of the officials of 101/0 and
91/0 and those of 94/3 are definitely pro-Mithradatic; otherwise the coinage is
controlled exclusively by magistrates whose Roman leanings are attested or
whose sympathies may plausibly be assumed to lie with Rome. In 91/0, 90/89
and 89/8, Medeios of Piraeus held the archonship for three successive terms. The
four mint magistrates of the two later years were indubitably pro-Roman and
it is further noteworthy that in 89/8 Medeios held both the archonship and the
second minting office. Prior to 104/3 there had been individual magistrates with
strong attachments to either Rome or Pontus but the instances are limited.1
There is nothing like the all-out representation of pro-Romans which one finds
after 104/3 and this seems to me a weighty argument for the validity of the
general chronological arrangement which places the issues associated with
these men in the period of oligarchic control.
The present chronology of the late emissions of the New Style series is at
sharp variance with established tradition in three significant respects: in the
erratic sequence of three-magistrate and two-magistrate strikings between
128/7 and 120/19 B.C., in the termination of the coinage in 88/7 B.C., and in the
dating of the Mithradates-Aristion issue.
Concerning the first, there can be no controversy. Die finks prove that the
three two-magistrate emissions of Xenokles and Harmoxenos were preceded
and followed by three-magistrate issues. On the precise evidence of transferred
dies, the serpent striking comes after the coinage of Aropos and Mnasagoras,

the dolphin and trident striking after Demeas and Kallimachos and the Roma
striking before that of Kointos and Kleas. There is no way in which the three
issues of Xenokles-Harmoxenos can be brought together as successive emissions
at the beginning of the two-magistrate period. We must accept the fact that they
were interpolated at irregular intervals within the three-magistrate sequence
before the pattern of two-magistrate strikings was firmly established in 120/19 B.C.
In 1888 Barclay V. Head, publishing the British Museum Catalogue of Attic
coins, brought the New Style series proper to an end in 87 B.C. This date was
challenged on various grounds. Kirchner2 identified a number of mint magis-
1 As examples' of the former, one may cite Xenokles of 127/6, 124/3 and 123/2 on the
evidence of the Roma symbol used for the last striking, also Kointos of 122/1 and Leukios of
111/0 on the basis of their Roman names and, in the case of Kointos, of the Roma symbol em-
ployed. Aristion of 129/8 and Apellikon of 121/0 on the other hand were partisans of Pontus.
1 "Zur Datirung der athenischen Silbermunzen der beiden letzten vorchristlichen Jahr-
hunderte," in Z/N, 1898, pp. 74-105.
trates with men prominent in the middle of the first century B.C., while Sund-
wall1 and others pointed to the use of late letter formsthe cursive omega and
the square sigmaas evidence for the assignment of certain issues to the time
of Augustus and the years shortly before his reign. Some modification of this
late dating was proposed by Kambanis (BCH, 1938, pp. 60-84) who thought
nineteen issues were struck after the conquest of Athens by Sulla and that the
coinage terminated about the middle of the first century. To support his view
he emphasized the poor style of these late emissions, their sparsity which would
be a natural reflection of a time of economic difficulty, and their absence from
the Delos hoards. Bellinger accepted Kambanis' classification of the post-Sullan
issues but suggested the possibility that they extended well over the nineteen
years in question.
Let us see how strong these arguments are. The prosopographical evidence
provided by the New Style issues is indubitably of great importance for their
chronological arrangement but it is also an extremely dangerous tool when used
without reference to other factors. Some of the gravest errors in dating indi-
vidual strikings, such as the wide separation of issues subsequently proved to
be die-joined, have resulted from the employment of recurrent names as a
fundamental criterion for an association of emissions. It stands to reason that
two men named Diogenes are not necessarily the same Diogenes. If independent
evidence exists for connecting the issues thus inscribed, then it probably is the
same man; otherwise one Diogenes may be the father or grandfather of the
other or an entirely different individual.
Many of the mint magistrates of the late emissions can be associated with
officials of the mid and late first century. To take only a few of Kirchner's
examples, the Medeios and Diokles of the coinage may be the sons of the Me-

deios of the oligarchic movement and his brother-in-law, Diokles of Melite;
Diodoros and Kalliphon may be the mid century archons. They may equally
well be the prominent pro-Romans of the pre-Sullan period: the Medeios of the
revolution and his brother-in-law, the Diodoros of Halai who served in various
civic posts and the Kalliphon who pleaded with Sulla for his fellow-citizens. Is
it not in fact highly likely that these men who played such a dominant role in
the fortunes of Athens at the end of the second and the beginning of the first
century were the holders of the mint magistracies? In one instance only is there
clear justification for the identification of a mint magistrate with an Athenian
whose floruit definitely postdated Sulla. This concerns the Diokles who used
Asklepios and Hygieia symbols on his issues and who would seem to be identical
1 Untersuchungen iiber die attischen Miinzen des neueren Stiles (Ofversigt afFinska Vetenskaps-
SocietetensForhandlingar,'L,igoy-igo8, No.i)pp.22f.; "Ober eine neueattischeSerieAiovuoios-
AT|p6aTpccTos," Z/N, 1908, pp. 273f.
411
with the priest of Asklepios and Hygieia of 51/0 B.C.1 However, we know that
priesthoods often ran in families, being held by members of different genera-
tions; it is highly probable that the father or grandfather of the Diokles of 51/0
served in the same priestly office.
The argument from letter forms proves upon inspection to be no more con-
clusive than the prosopographical one. It is perfectly true that both the cursive
omega and the square sigma are late in inscriptions. Kirchner in publishing a
stone of 145/6 a.d. (Imagines, 2nd ed., p. 32, 136) speaks of the C form, which
up to now has only occasionally appeared, as becoming more common. An in-
scription of 36/7 a.d. (p. 30, 128) has both uncial and cursive omegas. Kirchner
regards it as the work of two hands, commenting that the round letter occa-
sionally appears earlier as in an inscription from the first year of the principate
of Augustus. But this is the evidence of the inscriptions. On the coinage the
cursive omega is used in a monogram of the very first issue of the entire New
Style series and again in both monograms of the year 191/0. It makes a brief
appearance in the control combinations of KAPAIX -EPrOKAE, an issue dated
to 153/2 B.C. There is nothing surprising about its presence on the coinage of
103/2-99/8 and 90/89. As for the square sigma, it does not occur on the coinage
before 101/0 and then its use is confined to the drachm reverses of two con-
tiguous issues. On the striking which follows, the drachms show a lunate sigma
and it may well be that in these fractional coins we have merely the attempt of
a particular engraver to fit long legends into a restricted area by the use of
simpler letter forms. That this was not approved mint practice is indicated by
the fact that on one tetradrachm die connected with the drachm strikings
(No. 1246) four-barred sigmas have been cut over square ones. While the testi-

mony of the sigma is ambiguous, that of the omega provides clear warning of the
danger of trying to date the coinage by reference to the appearance of distinc-
tive letter forms on the inscriptions.
With regard to the arguments based on the style and sparsity of individual
issues, they are somewhat weakened by an element of inconsistency. Some of
the strikings which Kambanis places after Sulla are undeniably of extremely
poor style but not one of them has dies as debased as those of Epigenes-Xenon
and Menedemos-Timokrates (Nos. 385-387 and 392 on Plate B), two emis-
sions which are assigned to the period before 86 B.C. Obverses of Theophrastos-
Themisto and Alketes-Euagion are very close in style and in no sense tech-
nically inferior to the dies of Demeas-Kallikratides and Diophantos-Aischines
(Nos. 378-383 on Plate B); there seems no reason to put the first two after
and the last two before the siege of Athens. On the other hand the heads of the
1 This identification was made at an early date by Ulrich Kohler in "Numismatische Bei-
trage," Z/N, 1885, pp. 106-110.
412
final four issues of the present catalogue (Nos. 411-415) are well designed and
carefully modelled; from a stylistic point of view they belong before and not
after Sulla. Similarly, one finds no clear-cut division between the two chrono-
logical groups with respect to the size of emissions. Prior to 111/0 B.C. all
strikings are sizable. For succeeding emissions, separated in accordance
with Kambanis' dating, the number of known obverse dies for tetradrachms
is as follows: (pre-Sullan) three issues with 4, one with 2 and two with 1;
(post-Sullan) two with 3, four with 2 and eleven with 1.
Finally we have the hoard material from Delos and Crete. Kambanis' basic
point with regard to the Delos coins is that the large deposits found there must
date from the period before the capture and looting of the island by the forces
of Mithradates since the impoverished condition of the settlement after 88 B.C.
would make it impossible to suppose that substantial amounts of money were
available for hoarding. The Hierapytna Hoard is the only Cretan deposit that
Kambanis discusses and although he treats its evidence with caution, he seems
to feel that the late issues contained in it also antedate Sulla since all are in-
cluded in his list of emissions before 86 B.C.
The actual situation is rather more complicated than the foregoing would
indicate. Concerning Delos, the period of its great prosperity and commercial
importance undoubtedly came to an end with the destructive attack of Ar-
chelaus but the island was not an uninhabited wasteland after that date.
Ferguson1 cites the interest that Sulla took in Delos and the help he provided
toward its restoration. In 84 B.C. the colony was given back to Athens and it
was not until 46 B.C. when the trade of the eastern Mediterranean was diverted
to the new Roman settlement at Corinth that Delos was literally abandoned.

Prior to that date the island was populated, it had a local government and
presumably it required currency. As Kambanis says, one would certainly ex-
pect to find the large Delos hoards composed exclusively of Athenian coinage
struck before 88 B.C.; at the same time one might also expect to find in the
small hoards, of which a number have been published (pp. 519-521 of the section
on Hoards), and among the stray finds some representation of post-Sullan
money if silver was still being struck at Athens during that period. But the
record of the Delos material as a wholelarge hoards, small hoards and chance
finds is absolutely consistent and somewhat puzzling. While there is a limited
amount of Mithradatic and Sullan silver, there is nothing from the regular
Athenian mint after 112/1 B.C. The only two-magistrate issues, apart from those
of Xenokles and Harmoxenos (which are an integral part of the three-magis-
trate series), recorded as unearthed on Delos are the strikings of Kleophanes-
Epithetes, Mentor-Moschion, Architimos-Demetri, Lysandros-Oinophilos,
1 Hellenistic Athens, pp. 452-454.
4i3
Amphias-Oinophilos, Nestor-Mnaseas and Sotades-Themistokles. These
issues belong immediately after the three-magistrate sequence and cover the
years 119/8 through 112/1. Whatever this means, it clearly can have nothing
to do with Archelaus and the devastation of the island. The argument that the
Athenian coinage went on after Sulla gains nothing from the evidence of the
Delos coins.
Even less conclusive is the evidence of the Hierapytna Hoard. In the first
place it is a late deposit containing a large number of Roman denarii of mid
first century date and buried according to Raven between 44 and 42 B.C.1 It
seems to have included fifty to fifty-five New Style coins, many of them un-
identified as to issue, of which at least twelve belong to the late two-magistrate
period with five issues later in date than those found on Delos. There is no
precise evaluation of the condition of the coins: Raven was told that none of
the two-magistrate pieces was at all badly worn and Kambanis describes the
ones he saw as well-preserved and some very fresh. In view of the composition
of the hoard and its burial date, the Athenian issues could have been struck at
any timebefore or after Sullaand it is in fact a little difficult to see why
Kambanis thought they should be included in his pre-Sullan listing. It would
seem more logical to consider the five issues not found on Delos as post-Sullan,
but the hoard itself proves nothing one way or the other.
Fortunately there is another Cretan hoard which is far more informative
and helpful. This was apparently not known to Kambanis but it is briefly re-
ported by Svoronos.2 The coins, now in the Herakleion Museum, are repro-
duced on Plate 202. Together with four worn pieces of the three-magistrate
period, it contains eight issues of the two-magistrate series: Eumelos-Theo-

xenides, Theophrastos-Themisto, Demeas-Kallikratides, Epigenes-Xenon,
Menedemos-Timokrates, Architimos-Pammenes, Apellikon-Aristoteles and
Philokrates-Kalliphon. Corrosion has affected the surfaces of most coins and
only one issue is represented by more than an isolated specimen so that state
of preservation is no safe guide to the exact sequence of emissions but it seems
to me quite certain that the last seven coins on Plate 202 had seen little cir-
culation before the interment of this small hoard and that they are therefore
to be considered roughly contemporary strikings. Now this is of crucial im-
portance in that one of the coins is a tetradrachm of Demeas-Kallikratides. It
is a piece of rare good fortune that we have in the Berlin Cabinet an example
of a coin of this issue overstruck by the Macedonian quaestor Aesillas, pro-
1 E. J. P. Raven, "The Hierapytna Hoard of Greek and Roman Coins," NC, 1938,
pp. 133-158.
* All available information on the deposit is summarized on pages 515 f. of the Hoards
section. It is there designated as Cretan Hoard I.
414
viding us with an incontrovertibly fixed point in the late New Style series. The
coinage of Demeas-Kallikratides must come before 92-88 B.C., some years
before to allow the coin in question to have reached Macedonia and circulated
there prior to being called in and restamped by Aesillas. The strong presump-
tion is that the other issues of this Cretan hoard also date before 92-88 and that
in it we have our only certain hoard record of the late pre-Sullan coinage.
The significance of this deposit goes beyond the limited number of issues it
contains. As indicated in the preceding pages, the latest of the New Style
emissions fall into a number of stylistically tight groups. While these groups
may be spaced in time, it is difficult to believe that their component issues can
be separated one from another by any broad interval, hence certain issues of the
Cretan hoard will inevitably bring with them into the pre-Sullan sequence
other strikings of highly comparable style. Let us see with reference to Plate B
how this works out in regard to the issues after 112/1 B.C.
In the coinage between 109/8 and 103/2 we have the first of these distinctive
stylistic groupings, the first six emissions having dies which are markedly sim-
ilar and the last an additional lot of three dies which must be related to a single
obverse of Menedemos-Timokrates. Four of the seven issues are found in the
Cretan hoard; the three other strikings (Diophantos-Aischines, Alketes-
Euagion and Dionysios-Mnasagoras) are so much a part of the group that they
must, I believe, be considered contemporary. The coinage between 98/7 and
92/1 gives us a second grouping with unusual stylistic features, such as the
treatment of ornament and earring. Of its constituents, three emissions are in
the Cretan hoard; the other four issues would again seem to be of the same
period.

The evidence for the remaining ten issues is less decisive except in one in-
stance. The coinage of Pantakles-Demetrios may have been represented in our
Cretan hoard but there is no proof.1 In the coinage of Diokles-Leonides and To
Tri Diokles-Medeios we have earlier and later emissions related to Diokles To
Deu-Medios, an issue closely connected with the other strikings of the second
stylistic group. Diokles-Leonides must then be pre-Sullan and it seems likely
that the third issue of this Diokles and the emission of Diokles of Melite are also
of the same general period since there would be little point in the careful identi-
fication of the two magistrates if any considerable span of time had elapsed
between the first two and the last two strikings. For Leukios-Antikrates,
Menneas-Herodes, Dionysios-Demostratos, Demochares-Pammenes, Try-
phon-Polycharmos and Apolexis-Lysandros there is no association with the
issues of the Cretan hoard except on grounds of style and this is perhaps a
somewhat weaker argument here than in the case of the two large stylistic
1 See p. 380, note 2.
415
groups discussed above. It follows then that of the twenty-four issues which
come after 112/1 and which are assuredly the last strikings of the New Style
series, we have fifteen which are almost certainly pre-Sullan, three others which
may with some degree of probability be assigned to the same period and six for
which there is no evidence if the stylistic relationship is rejected as inconclusive.
This brings us to the point of over-all chronology. Assuming that every
year between 196/5 and 88/7 B.C. saw some output of coinage, there is an exact
correlation between the number of regular issues of the Athenian mint and the
time available for their production.1 To place any of these issues after Sulla,
one must posit a break in the coinage prior to 88/7 and for this there is abso-
lutely no evidence. There are on the other hand weighty arguments, both
numismatic and historical, for associating the end of the autonomous silver of
Athens with the capture of the city by Sulla and assuming that its basic mone-
tary needs after that date were met by the Roman denarii and the Athenian
Imperial bronze.2
1 There would be 109 years in all and the same number of issues if one accepts the premise
(pp. 423 f.) that the Mithradates-Aristion coinage was a supplementary emission put out side
by side with the silver of another issue and if one also accepts the identification (pp. 464-467) of
the Kointos-Charmostra pieces as imitations rather than products of the Athenian mint.
This correlation of years and issues may seem too tight in view of the possibility of new issues
turning up in hoards. There is, however, an element of flexibility at the end of the sequence in
that the minting activity of an entire year may not have been limited to a single small emission.
We have a number of instances of coinage apparently issued in only one month and it is not im-
possible that at a later date in the same year another pair of magistrates put out a second small
striking. This does not at the moment seem to me likely but if new issues do appear the possi-

bility will have to be considered as an alternative to the assignment of silver coinage to the years
after Sulla.
* In the 1931-1949 excavations of the Athenian Agora twelve Roman denarii of pre-
Augustan date were found, ranging from c. 80 B.C. to the time of Antony (M. Thompson, The
Athenian Agora, Volume II: Coins, p. 9). This is a far more impressive representation than the
numbers indicate when one considers the striking dearth of silver from the Agora. The vast output
of the Athenian mint for the hundred odd years of the New Style period is reflected in exactly
one tetradrachm and two drachms; the Imperial coinage from Augustus to Vespasian is repre-
sented by six denarii. Against this background, the twelve denarii of pre-Imperial date would
seem to indicate an extensive circulation of these coins in Athens and it is surely significant that
their earliest appearance dates from the period just after Sulla.
Josephine Harwood in a preliminary study of the Athenian bronze currency which followed
that of the New Style (J. P. Shear, "Athenian Imperial Coinage," Hesperia, 1936, pp. 285-332)
assigns its earliest issues to the reign of Augustus. This date is tied in with a terminal date of
c. 30 B.C. for the New Style since, as Mrs. Harwood points out, the two varieties of Athenian
bronze are frequently found together in deposits and strata of the Agora and it is unlikely that
any long period of time intervened between the end of one sequence and the beginning of the
other. Hence if the New Style stopped with Sulla, it seems probable that the "Imperial" coins
began to be struck shortly thereafter.
416
The termination of the New Style silver shortly before Sulla's siege of
Athens is of considerable importance for the chronology of the Mithradates-
Aristion issue. Placing this striking in 87/6 B.C. means that as the last of the
New Style emissions it should logically tie in with the coinage of the early
years of the first century. Its complete failure to do so raises a strong presump-
tion that the traditional dating is in error.
In earlier pages of this commentary on the Late Period some stress has been
laid on the very close relationship between the dies of the Mithradatic coinage
and those of issues belonging to the final years of the 130-120 period. This
stylistic evidence is summarized on Plate 127. There the three tetradrachm
obverses of Mithradates are associated with the dies of other strikings which
provide the closest parallels in the rendering of the Athena head. Compare
Obverse 1143 with 1128 (A) of Kointos-Kleas, Obverse 1144 with 1156 (B) of
Mnaseas-Nestor and Obverse 1145 with 1135 (C) of Apelhkon-Gorgias. A
single drachm obverse of Mithradates has survived and this is strikingly similar
in style to one of Xenokles-Harmoxenos with dolphin and trident symbol
(D = No. 1107). Again a single obverse of the Mithradatic gold is known,1
highly comparable with a tetradrachm die of Kointos (E representing a re-
duction of No. 1127) and with drachm obverses of Xenokles-Harmoxenos with
Roma symbol (F = No. 1124) and of Kointos and Apellikon (G = No. 1130
common to both issues). Not only are the individual dies close in profile repre-
sentation but all show the same distinctive treatment of details such as the
small and neatly-executed helmet ornament and the arrangement of the hair
in two rows of heavy locks in front of a single prominent curl. This particular
obverse style in its fully developed state is characteristic of the coinages of

Demeas-Hermokles through Mentor-Moschion, 125/4-118/7 B.C. After that
date, as will be seen from Plate B, there is not one die which provides a clear
parallel with those of the earlier period. No. 351 is perhaps closest, at least in
the treatment of the ornament, and Nos. 350, 374 and 378-379 are surely deriv-
ative, but all these obverses give the impression of being the work of a new
engraver copying the technique of the man who produced the earlier dies. The
obverses of Mithradates-Aristion on the other hand are an integral part of the
125/4-118/7 stylistic sequence. Seeing them alone, without reference to the
issue, one would unhesitatingly assign them to that period.
They bear no resemblance to the dies that terminate the coinage. This is so
obvious from the illustrations on Plate B as to require no comment on the
differences in execution and in basic concept. It may, however, be noted that
the evidence of the reverses is consonant with that of the obverses. The owl of
the Mithradates issue is a rather large plump bird with relatively small head
1 The first gold coin of Plate 127 is in the British Museum, the second is in Paris.
417
and eyes and carefully delineated plumage. Below the owl is a long thin am-
phora with a tapering neck rendered by a series of converging lines. Letters of
the inscription are of moderate size, well cut and well spaced. Note the simi-
larity in all respects to the reverses of Apellikon-Gorgias and other contem-
porary issues. Note also the different rendering of the type on Plates 134
following. The owl is normally scrawnier with head and eyes disproportionately
large and plumage sketchily rendered. On most dies an amphora with straight
unmarked neck replaces the earlier vase with its tapering lines. Lettering is
alternately over-heavy and over-thin.
Stylistically the obverses and reverses of the Mithradatic issue belong with
the coinage of 125/4-118/7 B.C. On the evidence of hoards and of die transfers,
this represents a body of material which cannot be removed en masse from its
present position in the chronological sequence. Following it come issues which
either must antedate Sulla, on the evidence of the large Delos hoards and of the
Aesillas overstriking, or are almost certainly prior to 86 B.C., on the evidence
of Cretan Hoard I. With these issues the Mithradates striking has nothing in
common. In order to retain the 87/6 dating for its emission, one has no choice
but to assume that the engraver of 125/4-118/7 was recalled by the mint after
an absence of thirty or more years and that for the duration of this single issue
he succeeded in producing obverses and reverses almost identical with those he
had turned out over a quarter of a century earlier. This seems to me a counsel
of desperation.
On stylistic grounds alone the case is strong but there is more evidence than
this. As has already been noted, the known reverses of Mithradates-Aristion
are marked with two extremely rare control marks: AA and ETT1. Each makes

an isolated appearance in later issues, ETT in 114/3 and AA in 102/1, but the only
strikings in which they are used together are those of Apellikon and Mithradates
while AA is also represented on the coinages of Kointos and of Xenokles with
Roma symbol.
The hoard evidence is somewhat ambiguous. The only deposit which con-
tains the New Style silver of Mithradates is the Dipylon find.1 This covers a
long period of time and is apparently a savings hoard so that proportionate
representation and relative condition cannot be regarded as wholly reliable
criteria for the dating of individual issues. Almost all emissions between 131/0
and 121/0 are included; there is no New Style silver of later date. Kambanis
classifies the majority of these coins as very well preserved. With the other New
Style pieces were four coins of Mithradates-Aristion, also described by Kam-
banis as in very good condition. The record of relative wear suggests that the
1 See pp. 507-509 of the section on Hoards for the record and discussion of this deposit.
4i8
Mithradates-Aristion specimens are roughly contemporary with the coins of
131/0-121/0 and the fact that this issue and that of Apellikon are the most
extensively represented of these late strikings suggests that they are the final
emissions of the hoard but in view of the character of the accumulation the
evidence is by no means decisive. A complicating factor is the presence in the
same deposit of four tetradrachms of Mithradates Eupator which means that
there is a gap of some thirty-two years between the last of the New Style
strikings and the Pontic pieces. However, the Dipylon Hoard is not unique in
this respect. The Piraeus Hoard shows absolutely the same composition: New
Style issues to 121/0 and then two Pontic tetradrachms of c. 88 b. c. The Abruzzi
Hoard ends as far as the New Style goes in 121/0 but it also contains coins of
the Sullan period. In the Anatolia and Cretan II Hoards the New Style material
stops in 120/19 and 117/6 respectively but in the second deposit certainly and
in the first possibly there is post-Sullan coinage. Delos A with its New Style
strikings runs to 112/1 and then there is nothing except for two Sullan pieces.
Only in Cretan Hoard I and the Hierapytna Hoard is there a representation of
New Style issues postdating 112/1 B.C. The picture is at least consistent in its
inconsistency. Whatever interpretation is to be placed on this strange gap in
practically all hoards, it is clear that one cannot argue from the composition of
a single deposit that the Pontic and Athenian coins of Mithradates belong to-
gether and that the latter must therefore date c. 87/6.
Then we have the contribution of the bronze coinage. In the section on
Hoards1 discussion of a limited number of bronze finds is included, primarily
because of their significance for the dating of the Mithradates coinage; the basic
points may be summarized here. Although any final arrangement of the bronze

must await the collection and careful study of a great deal of material, some
indication of a general chronological framework is provided by eight hoards,
published and unpublished deposits. It seems clear from the high degree of
uniformity of their contents that the early issues of New Style bronze are those
with the types of Zeus head/Athena Promachos and Athena head in Corinthian
helmet/Zeus holding or hurling a thunderbolt, while the later issues are stamped
with an Athena Parthenos head/Owl on amphora or else with miscellaneous
types such as Gorgon's head/Athena advancing, Athena Parthenos head/Sphinx
and so forth. Six of the hoards contain only examples of the earlier types; two
only examples of the later. In these deposits there is no overlapping of the two
general categories of bronze.
Again on the evidence of the aforementioned hoards, the issues with pilei,
bakchos and thyrsos symbols are among the latest of the fulminating Zeus
1 Pages 525-531.
419
strikings. A specimen of each is reproduced at the bottom of Plate 127.1
Attempting to associate any one with a specific silver issue is in some measure
hazardous but it seems to me likely that the pilei symbol is an abbreviated
reference to the standing Dioscuri symbol of the tetradrachms of Mikion-
Euryklei struck in 156/5 B.C. Of the two hoards containing late bronze, only
one has been reported in detail. In it are examples of the sphinx issue which is
probably to be associated with the tetradrachms of Diophantos-Aischines in
108/7, of the cicada issue paralleling the drachm emission of Demochares-
Pammenes in 100/99 and of the Athena with owl reverse which I suggest may
be connected with the Athena symbol on the money of Diokles Meli-Medeios
assigned to 89/8 B.C. A single coin of each of these bronze emissions appears on
Plate 127. It must be stressed that the above connections between silver and
bronze are tentative but we do know that the first three coins at the bottom of
the plate are early and the last three late. With the bronze coinage of Mithra-
dates we are on safer ground in that the attribution rests upon the distinctive
Pontic symbol of star and crescents and upon a marked stylistic similarity in
the Athena heads found on the gold, silver and bronze. The issue has never, to
the best of my knowledge, been found in a hoard context so that its position in
the bronze sequence depends upon other factorstypes, technique and metallic
composition. Its types are identical with those of the earlier strikings, com-
pletely different from those of the later. Its heads are somewhat heavier and
presumably later than the renderings on the early bronze but their workman-
ship is far superior to that of the late emissions.
If the evidence of types and technique points to an association of the Mith-
radatic bronze with the earlier rather than the later issues of the Athenian mint,

the evidence of metallic composition is even more decisive. A listing of all
available analyses of New Style bronze coins, some already published and some
new, is given on pages 639f. Of the early strikings we have analyses for one
specimen of the Zeus holding fulmen coinage and for two of the fulminating
Zeus with pilei symbol. Of the later emissions we have the results of tests on
four examples of the sphinx coins, one of the cicada, one of Athena with owl,
three of Mithradates, and finally two of the issue with Gorgon's head obverse
and Athena reverse. Other analyses have been made but the issues above are
those which can with greatest safety be assigned to particular strikings of silver
on the grounds of the recurrence of distinctive symbols. The results of the ana-
lyses as given below are in terms of an average when more than one coin was
tested and the listing is in what seems to me to have been the order of emission.
1 All bronzes at the bottom of Plate 127 are in the ANS Collection except for the ful-
minating Zeus pieces with thyrsos and bakchos symbols which belong to Mme. Evelpidis.
-7*
420
Zeus holding fulmen
Zeus with pilei
Gorgon-head
Mithradates
Sphinx
Cicada
Athena and owl
Cu
88.74
88.86
75.13
78.42
74.99
75.73
73.60
Sn
11.10
9.36
8.25
7.96
6.59
6.02
6.89
Pb
.22
15.31
12.33
17.49
17.72
18.68

1.03
Ratio Pb to Sn
0.019
0.11
1.86
1.55
2.65
2.94
2.71
Clearly an exact chronological sequence cannot be established on the basis
of these chemical analyses. Too few coins have been tested and even if we had
more data it would be too much to expect an entirely consistent variation in
the composition of the alloy used for the bronze coinage. However, it is to be
noted that in cases where tests were run on up to four coins of a single issue,
the resulting figures were close enough to justify the assumption that the sta-
tistics above give a reasonably accurate picture of the composition of individual
strikings. Furthermore, it is evident that the proportions of tin and lead, par-
ticularly the latter, provide a clue to the general chronological order in that
the earlier coinage has practically no lead while the later is heavily adulterated.
The numismatic and chemical evidence as it concerns the chronology of the
issues under present discussion is in almost complete accord. The Mithradatic
issue fits into the sequence well after the two early strikings but well before the
bronze of the 108-89 period. In composition it is most closely related to the
issue with Gorgon's head obverse and Athena reverse, an emission to be asso-
ciated with the silver of Niketes-Dionysios bearing the same Gorgon's head as
a symbol and assigned to the year 130/29 B.C.
Finally the basic character of the Mithradatic coinage is of some signifi-
cance. As we know it, the emission of gold and silver was extremely limited. All
specimens of the gold come from the same pair of dies;1 three obverse and
four reverse dies are recorded for the tetradrachms,2 a single pair of dies for
the drachms. Striking apparently took place in only three months of the year:
A, B and Z. Along with this light output of gold and silver goes a very heavy
1 Seven pieces have been traced: the four illustrated by Svoronos (PI. 71,1-4) supplemented
by Jameson 2496, Naville (XVI) 1226, and a specimen of uncertain provenance appearing on
Plate CIII of Rostovtzeff (Social and Econ. Hist., II).
* To be sure only a few tetradrachms have survived so that the argument for a small issue
from the number of known dies is not conclusive, but the apparent restriction of the coinage to
three months of the year and the cutting of Z over A (or perhaps Z over B over A) on two of the
421
bronze emission.1 Now if this is a war coinage representing Mithradates' con-
tribution to the Athenian struggle against Sulla, then it is singularly inadequate
and strangely unbalanced. In the emergency of 87/6 B.C. one would expect
Aristion and his followers to have concerned themselves primarily with issuing
gold and silver for military needs and not with providing small change for the
local citizenry. The financial demands of the resistance to Sulla could not have
been met in any significant degree by this token output of gold and silver. It
seems far more likely that we have in the Mithradates-Aristion coinage a spe-
cific record of a Pontic gift made at an earlier period and converted by an
Athens at peace into a small commemorative striking of gold and silver and a
large emission of bronze for local use.2
Is it possible to determine the date of the gift and of the coinage? As we
have already seen, the style of the Mithradatic coins and the recurrence of dis-
tinctive control marks, together with the less precise evidence of the Dipylon
Hoard, suggest that the period in question is between 124/3 and 120/19 B.C.
1 These coins were found in quantity in the excavations of the Athenian Agora, a reliable
indication of the original size of the issue.
* It has always been supposed, by analogy with other periods of Athenian history, that the
appearance of gold coins indicated a financial crisis at Athens such as would undoubtedly have
been brought on by the siege of 87/6. However, there are noteworthy differences between the
Mithradatic gold and that of 407/6 and 295/4. Both earlier issues were fairly large strikings. The
four surviving staters of the 407/6 emission were struck from two obverse and three reverse dies
and we have epigraphical evidence for the existence of an additional two anvil dies and nineteen
punch dies. It is difficult to make die comparisons from Svoronos' illustrations of seventeen
staters of the Lachares issue but I believe that at least six obverse and eleven reverse dies are

represented on his Plate 21. In both 407/6 and 295/4 fractional gold was coined: five smaller
denominations in the first year and two in the second. These early issues then, in their size and
their admixture of unit and fractional currency, are typical emergency or war issues. The Mith-
radates-Aristion striking is markedly different. Only staters are known and all existing speci-
mens come from a single pair of dies.
The fact that on two occasions Athens resorted to a gold coinage as an emergency measure
does not prove that her third issue of gold was also struck in a time of crisis. In view of its small
size and restricted character we are justified in doubting that it was intended to make any serious
contribution to the fiscal needs of the city. It seems far more probable that it merely commem-
orated a gift or subsidy from Pontus, perhaps in the form of gold bullion, which was used in part
for the issuance of a limited number of gold coins. As the earlier gold had carried devices
indicating the source of the metal, namely the gold treasures of the Acropolis, so this issue
testified to its origin, bearing as it did the name and symbol of the Pontic king who had provided
the raw material for the coinage.
The gold coinage of Athens is discussed by Kohler ("Ober die attische Goldpragung," ZfN,
1898, pp. 5-16). Newell later treats the Lachares emission {The Coinages of Demetrius Poliorcetes,
pp. 133-134) and a recent article by Robinson ("Some Problems in the Later Fifth Century
Coinage of Athens," ANSMN IX, i960, pp. 1-15) deals at some length with the issue of 407/6.
422
Within those five years there was a crisis in Pontus.1 About 121/0 B.C. Mithra-
dates V was assassinated and his queen Laodice, who may have been implicated
in her husband's death, came to power as regent for two minor sons, Mithra-
dates Eupator and Mithradates Chrestos. For some years Laodice was the
actual ruler of the country, Eupator having fled the court and gone into hiding.
Since the boy was eleven years old at the time of his father's death and shortly
afterwards an exile from his future kingdom, it is clear that he can have had no
connection with a subsidy to Athens.2 Laodice might have conceived the idea
of a gift as a means of winning Athenian favor at a period when her position
must have been somewhat precarious, but one doubts that under the circum-
stances a contribution would have been made in the name of her absent son.
Probability then points strongly to a gift from Mithradates V in the years
immediately preceding his assassination. Relationships between Athens and
Pontus had long been friendly and subsidies had helped to cement these ties.3
Sometime before 171 B.C. Pharnaces had contributed annual sums of money
to the Athenian treasury. Ferguson says that his son and grandson were also
phil-Athenians, noting, however, that in the case of Mithradates V this is sup-
position since there happens to be no extant evidence. We do know that Mithra-
dates V had donated generously to the enlargement or endowment of the Delian
gymnasium and it seems highly likely that he was kindly disposed toward
Athens as well. There is certainly nothing improbable in the theory that he
followed his father's example and provided a subsidy for the city. In fact he
may have assisted Athens on more than one occasion. For an issue of coinage
dating from 129/8 B.C. the symbol selected by the first magistrate Aristion is
the distinctive Pontic device of a drinking Pegasus. Almost certainly this

Aristion is the man whose name is coupled with that of Mithradates on the
later issue of gold and silver and the appearance of his name and a Pontic
symbol on a striking of slightly earlier date is suggestive. Furthermore, the
issue immediately preceding that of Aristion with Pegasus has a symbol which
although less peculiarly Pontic still may be associated with that dynasty,
1 The basic study of Pontic history in the late second and early first centuries is still Rei-
nach's Mithridate Eupator published in 1890. More recent discussion of the period is to be found
in Ferguson's Hellenistic Athens, Rostovtzeff's Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic
World and Magie's Roman Rule in Asia Minor. All make full citation of the ancient sources,
notably Appian, Strabo, Plutarch, Justin and Memnon.
s The romantic story of Eupator's flight and his life in the mountains is possibly exag-
gerated or fictitious but it may be assumed, as Magie points out (p. 1092), that the boy had no
part in ruling the kingdom during the first years after his father's death.
'Ferguson (Hellenistic Athens, pp.437-438) summarizes the record of Pontic benefactions
to Athens and Delos and Rostovtzeff (Social and Econ. Hist., pp. 833-834) similarly stresses the
cordiality of relations between Athens and Delos and Mithradates V and VI.
423
namely the head of the Gorgon slain by Perseus the legendary ancestor of the
Pontic kings. At just about this time there is a change in the metallic compo-
sition of the New Style silver which suggests a supplementary supply of bullion
imported from abroad.1 Is it not possible that in her need for more metal
Athens turned to the friendly kingdom to the north and that it was through the
good offices of Mithradates V that the silver was made available. One may even
suppose that Aristion was in some way instrumental in securing the king's co-
operation. The earlier New Style issues would commemorate in their choice of
symbols the assistance given by Mithradates V, the last issue with both the
royal name and symbol would commemorate an outright gift.2
In the catalogue the coinage of Mithradates-Aristion has been dated about
121 B.C. and considered as a supplementary emission rather than a unit in the
1 See pp. 634-637.
* The fact that the symbols on the coins of Aristion-Philon and Mithradates-Aristion are
found on the issues of Mithradates VI would seem to be evidence for an association of the Athenian
coinage with that king rather than with Mithradates V. However, the star and crescent device
is a dynastic and not a personal badge. It appears on tetradrachms of Mithradates III, Phar-
naces and Mithradates IV and signifies the claim of the whole Mithradatic house to Persian
origin. Its connotation is a Pontic king, not Mithradates VI in particular. The Gorgon's head and
drinking Pegasus in their connection with Pontus have reference to the legend that Perseus was the
ancestor of the Persians and hence of their Pontic descendants. Perseus holding the Gorgon's
head is the reverse type on the silver of Mithradates IV; the drinking Pegasus occurs on the
coinage of Eupator's son Ariarathes IX. Neither is exclusively the device of Mithradates VI.
One of the puzzling circumstances in the numismatic history of Pontus is the fact that there
is no record of money struck during the long reign of Mithradates V whom Rostovtzeff describes

as "certainly the wealthiest and the most powerful king in Asia Minor in the last decades of the
second century B.C." Since there is no coinage we do not know what aspects of the Perseus-
Persian tradition he would have chosen to emphasize had he issued money. It is not impossible
that he would have used the same drinking Pegasus type of his son and grandson but this is mere
conjecture. What is certain is that the device of star and crescent was symbolic of the Pontic
king and not of an individual ruler, as appropriate for Mithradates V as for Mithradates VI or
for any other member of the Mithradatic house. It is more than likely that the Perseus legend in
all its manifestations had the same kind of dynastic connotation in the popular mind.
In connection with the star and crescent symbol, there is also this to be noted. The symbol
on the Athenian coinage is not identical with that on the Pontic: the latter has a single crescent
under the star while the former encloses the star between crescents above and below. This is to
be sure a small deviation but a rather strange one if the New Style issue was put out in 87/6 B.C.
AMhat period the tetradrachms of Mithradates VI were presumably familiar to everyone in the
city. Emissions of 90-88 b. c. are found in Athenian hoards and it seems almost certain that
these coins, probably in large supply, had been brought from Asia by Archelaus and Aristion.
If the engraver of the Mithradates-Aristion dies was working in 87/6, why did he not make an
accurate copy of the device of Mithradates VI? If on the other hand he was working c. 121 B.C.
with no model available, his misconception of the exact rendering of the Pontic symbol is under-
standable.
424
series of New Style strikings. It seems to me unlikely that in this very limited
issue we have the record of a whole year of mint activity. Certainly the only
presumably annual strikings of similarly restricted size date from a much later
period. Rather it seems probable that the Mithradatic pieces were produced
concomitantly with the coins of a regular New Style issue, some in the first two
months of the year and an additional supply in the sixth month marking per-
haps the receipt of a second installment of the subsidy. The coinage of Kointos-
Kleas in 122/1 is the smallest issue in the entire three-magistrate sequence and
somewhat puzzling in this regard since it follows a number of large issues and
immediately precedes the fairly substantial striking of Apellikon-Gorgias. Its
curtailed size may be due to the circumstance that in the same year the mint
was also employed in putting out the gold, silver and bronze of the Mithra-
dates-Aristion coinage. In every respect 122/1 would be an eminently appro-
priate date for the latter striking but the precise time of its appearance can
probably never be established with certainty. However that may be, the exact
year in which the coinage was struck is of minor significance in comparison
with the importance of this numismatic testimony to a hitherto unknown con-

nection between Mithradates V and Athens.
SULLAN ISSUES 86-84 b.c.
(Plates 143-149)
I. Obv. Athena head type.
Rev. Owl on amphora type. No ethnic, tfl fB in field to left and right.
A on the amphora.
Tetradrachms
1273.
a. *Munich, gr. 16.16; Hirsch XIX, 400, gr. 16.80; Winterthur Cast (Osman),
gr. 16.70
(rfl) b. Leningrad, gr. 16.24f
c. Ratto (Rogers) 455, gr. 16.85
d. *Basel, amphora letter obscure, gr. 16.84f
e. *Zurich
1274.
1275.
1276.
1277.
1278.
1279.
1280.
1281.
*Gans Mail Bid 15, 62
Florange-Ciani (Allotte de la Fujte) 408, gr. 16.60
Glendining, Apr. 1955, 411B = Hamburger (Berlin dupl.) 294, gr. 15.67
a. *Princeton Univ., gr. 16.561
b. Romanos Coll. (Sv. 78, 11), gr. 16.22
a. *Naples (Mus. Naz., FioreUi 7188), gr. 16.45f

b. Commerce 1957 (Abruzzi Hd.)
a. *Budapest, gr. 16.80f; Oxford, gr. 16.79f
b. Cambridge (Grose 5922), gr. 16.82t
*The Hague
1 The coin is apparently restruck but the undertype is illegible.
1282.
London (BMC 519), gr. 16.76
1283.
*ANS-ETN = Sotheby (Benson) 585, gr. 16.65f
1284.
1285.
a. *Frankfurt am Main
b. *Bauer Coll. = Locker Lampson 215, gr. 16.72f
1286.
a. *ANS = Weber 8525, gr. 16.33f
b. Winterthur Cast, gr. 16.89
1287.
Berlin (Sv. 78, 12), gr. 16.18; Feuardent, Dec. 1921, 106
1288.
Basel, gr. 16.51f
1289.
Paris (de Luynes 2118), gr. 16.85
1290.
r Brussels (de Hirsch 1295; JI AN, 1915, p. 61, fig. 8), gr. 16.79f
1291. |
L Commerce 1954, gr. 16.80
1292.
a. Paris, gr. 16.05f; Andreopoulos Coll.
b. London, gr. 16.25

c. London
d. Berlin, gr. 16.18f
1293.
a. Bartlett Coll. (Abruzzi Hd.); Frankfurter Miinzhandl. 99, 50, gr. 16.55;
Hirmer Coll., gr. 16.78
b. Amsterdam (Boissevain 55), amphora letter obscure, gr. 16.92
c. Dewing Coll., gr. 16.68 \
pd. Coin Galleries Mail Bid, Mar. 1956,1581 = Naville (Woodward) 761, gr. 15.94
1294. j
La. Commerce 1954, gr. 16.51; Naples (Santangelo Coll., Fiorelli 10782), gr.
16.47f
Sullan Issues 427
1295.
1296.
1297.
1298.
1299.
1300.
1301.
1302.
1303.
1304.
1305.
1306.
1307.
b. de Nanteuil 927, gr. 16.80f; Naville (Woodward) 762, gr. 16.64
c. Ciani (de Grandprey) 189, gr. 16.30
a. *Naples (Santangelo Coll., Fiorelli 10784), gr. 16.72f
b. Feuardent, June 1913, 221
Commerce 1958
Gotha, gr. 16.36
Vienna, gr. 16.56
Naples (Santangelo Coll., Fiorelli 10785), gr. 16.19f
a. *ANS-ETN, gr. 14.25I1
b. Turin (Mus. Civ.)
Hirsch (Rhousopoulos) 2076, gr. 16.41
a. ANS-ETN, gr. 16.25f

b. Naples (Santangelo Coll., Fiorelli 10783), gr. 16.19|; Leningrad, gr. 16.51f;
Berlin, gr. 16.S
a. London [BMC 521), gr. 16.15
b. Winterthur Cast (Imhoof), gr. 16.56
Hamburger (von Kaufmann) 251, gr. 16.45
a. Berlin, gr. 16.78f ..
b. Evelpidis Coll., gr. 16.52
ANS, gr. 16.75f2
1 A cast reproduction of a genuine coin.
* This coin served as the prototype for a lead piece in the ANS collection.
1308.
*Gotha, gr. 16.17; Naples (Santangelo Coll., Fiorelli 10781; Sv. 78, 18), gr.
16.61f
1309.
Berry Coll., gr. 16.74 /
1310.
Lockett Coll. {SNG 1948) = Naville (Pozzi) 1618, gr. 16.05t
1311.
London {BMC 520; Sv. 78, 14), gr. 16.58
1312.
Leningrad, amphora letter obscure, gr. 16.01f
II. Similar to Issue I but without the amphora letter.
Tetradrachms
1313.
Leningrad, gr. 15.81 (pierced) f
1314.
a. Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 8281; JIAN, 1915, p. 61, fig. 4), gr. 16.04/
b. London {BMC 516), gr. 16.71
1315.
a. Hamburger 98, 699, gr. 16.84
b. Copenhagen {SNG 292), gr. 15.75
1316.
Lockett Coll. {SNG 1942), gr. 16.17f
1317.
a. Commerce 1957 (Abruzzi Hd.)
1318.

b. The Hague1
a. ANS, gr. 16.57f; Kricheldorf IV, 202 (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 16.50
b. Commerce 1954, gr. 16.48; ANS, gr. 16.72f; Hamburger 98, 698, gr. 16.55
1319.
Stockholm, gr. 16.45f
1 Although the tetradrachm is poorly preserved, making die comparisons difficult, it is
almost certainly struck from the same obverse die as No. 1317a.
Sullan Issues 429
1320.
1321.
1322.
1323.
1324.
1325.
1326.
1327.
1328.
Bauer Coll., gr. 16.58f
a. *London (BMC 518; Sv. 78, 16), gr. 16.54; Naville XVII, 477, gr. 16.61
b. Paris, gr. 16.31f
c. *Yale Univ., gr. 16.87f
d. Morgenthau 405, 800
a. *The Hague
b. Florange-Ciani, Feb. 1928, 48
a. *Glasgow (Hunt. 174), gr. 16.80f
b. *Glendining, Oct. 1957, 104, gr. 16.14f
c. London (BMC 517; Sv. 78, 15), gr. 16.60
Mrs. E. T. Newell Coll.
a. Cancio Coll., gr. 16.37f
b. ANS, gr. 15.65f
c. ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 15.92f
d. ANS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 16.27f
r e. ÂNS (Abruzzi Hd.), gr. 15.43f

rf. Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 8282), gr. 16.24 (pierced)f
La. Ball VI, 281, gr. 16.60
b. Ratto, Apr. 1927, 1898, gr. 16.15
L a. Vienna, gr. 16.56
b. Ratto 4 (Fx. Pr.) 1086, gr. 16.14
1329.
Drachms
1330.
Cahn 24 (Fx. Pr.) 548 = Egger XL (Prowe) 976, gr. 4.06
1331.
Paris; London, gr. 8.66 /
1332.
a. *Commerce 1958 prob. = Ball VI, 282 = Ball 39 (Fx.Pr.) 404, gr. 4.10
rb. *Athens
1333. I
|- "Vienna, gr. 8.89
1334. j
| a. *Berlin, gr. 3.95t
Lb. JI AN, 1915, p. 61, fig. 51
1335.
1336.
1337.
1338.
1339.
1340.
a. *ANS, gr. 8.82f
b. Naples (Mus. Naz., Fiorelli 7139), gr. 3.65t
Athens (Sv. 78, 18), gr. 4.02
ANS, gr. 3.30f
a. *London (BMC 522; Sv. 78, 17), gr. 3.95
b. Gotha, gr. 3.50
c. Copenhagen [SNG 293), gr. S.94f

Tubingen
III. Similar to Issue II but with trophies of Sulla in place of the monograms in
field left and right.
Tetradrachms
1341.
Athens (Sv. 78, 22), gr. 14.91
1342.
Berlin (Sv. 78, 20; JIAN, 1915, p. 67, fig. 7), gr. 17.24
1 No provenance is given for the coin illustrated by Svoronos and I have been unable to
trace it. Its obverse die seems to be No. 1334 and it shares a reverse die with Nos. 1332b and 1333.
Sullan Issues
43i
1343.
Paris (Sv. 78, 21), gr. 16.82f
1344.
London (Sv. 78, 28; JI AN, 1915, p. 67, fig. 8), gr. 17.07f
1345.
Empedocles Coll. = Weber 8526 (Sv. 78, 24), gr. 16.71
The three issues of the preceding pages might fittingly be described as
pseudo-Athenian. Basically their types are those of the New Style sequence but
the style of the obverse heads is quite unlike anything produced by the Athenian
mint and the reverses bear neither the ethnic nor the diversified marks of
identification normally found on the late Athenian silver. On the first two
issues the monograms tfl and W occupy the field left and right, supplemented
on some coins by the letter A on the amphora; on the third issue two trophies
replace the monograms. Clearly these are not official Athenian issues. At the
same time they are too large to be classified as unofficial in the sense of being
merely another of the imitative currencies emanating from some outlying mint
or clandestine workshop. Since they are found in hoards in conjunction with
late issues of the New Style series, the two coinages would seem to have been
not only roughly contemporary but also equally acceptable within a common
circulation area. If the issues under present discussion cannot be regarded as
the work of the autonomous civic mint, they do at least appear to have some
connection with Athens and the New Style silver.
Beule regarded the strikings with monograms and trophies as units of the
New Style series, assigning them to the opening years of the sequence and ex-

plaining the absence of ethnic as a result of the mint's having called in a cele-
brated artist rather than a professional engraver to produce the initial dies for
the new coinage. In the association of the issues and their attribution to Athens,
Head {BMC, Attica, lv-lvi) agreed with Beul6 but proposed a much later date,
the years just after Sulla's capture of the city, for their emission. Actually the
Sullan connection with the trophies coinage, based upon the correspondence of
devices on Sulla's gold and on the "New Style" silver, had been earlier estab-
lished by von Sallet (ZfN, 1885, pp. 881-384. See Plate 1491).
Von Sallet's identification was generally accepted but the chronological
link between the issues with trophies and with monograms, as outlined by
Beul6 and Head, was questioned. Head himself had second thoughts about the
1 The gold piece (C) reproduced for comparison with the tetradrachms is a British Museum
coin.
432
mint and date of the tfl - ffl coins; in the second edition of the Historia Nu-
morum he suggested that they were struck by the Athenian cleruchs on Delos
about the middle of the second century. In an article on the money of the slave
revolt {JIAN, 1915 but published 1922, pp. 60-70), Svoronos put forth an
ingenious theory explaining the coinage as the product of the rebellious slaves
who c. 104-102 B.C. seized Sunium and the mines of Laurium (Poseidonius,
quoted by Athenaeus, VI, 272, e-f). The two monograms Svoronos deciphered
asAAYPIA M[E]TAAAA. Finally the trophies emission, too, was separated from the
Athenian mint and in measure re-dated. Daux (RN, 1935, pp. 1-9), followed
by Raven (NC, 1938, pp. 155-158), identified the coins with the Peloponnesian
money which Plutarch (Lucullus II.2) ascribed to Sulla's mint master and which
would presumably have been issued before and not after the fall of Athens.
Of these theories, the one associating the trophies coinage with Sulla is
entirely convincing. Leaving for the moment the question as to whether the
coins were struck in Athens after Chaeronea and Orchomenus, as von Sallet
believed, or in the Peloponnese in 87 B.C., as Raven maintained, one can safely
assume that this was a Sullan issue and therefore to be dated shortly before or
after the siege of Athens. With respect to the monograms issue we are on less
firm ground. The arguments for assigning it to a non-Athenian mint, either on
Delos or in the Sunium-Laurium area, would be stronger if there were any
evidence for a functioning workshop at either place during the second century.
Head's cleruchy hypothesis is based on Svoronos' attribution of certain bronze
issues to Delos and other cleruchies, but the coins in question were almost cer-
tainly struck at Athens itself.1 There is no valid reason for supposing that an
island mint supplied even small change for the cleruchy's use; it is impossible

to believe that Delos issued the truly tremendous tfl - ffl coinage. Nor is Su-
nium a more likely place of origin. The supposition that a mint was located
there in the sanctuary of the hero Stephanephoros has been discredited and it
is generally thought that the coinage of Athens was produced not in some out-
lying district but in the city proper.2 If then one assigns the ffl - ftl coins to
1 For the reattribution of some issues to Athens see M. Thompson, "Some Athenian 'Cle-
ruchy' Money," Hesperia, 1941, pp. 199-236. Of the bronzes assigned by Svoronos to a Delos
mint, nearly one thousand examples had been found prior to 1948 in the excavations of the
Athenian Agora. That small coins struck for local use would have travelled in such quantity
from the island to Athens seems to me quite incredible; these bronzes, all of them inscribed AGE,
must have been struck in Athens.
* L. Robert {fctudes de numismatique grecque, pp. 105-135) establishes beyond question that the
expressions Spax^cti aTE<pavr|q>6poi and OTeq>ccvTi<p6pou Spooned used in inscriptions are merely
descriptive of the coinage and have no reference to a shrine of Stephanephoros in Athens, Sunium
or anywhere else. For the probable location of the Athenian mint, see H. A. Thompson, Hesperia,
1954. PP- 45-48 and 1955, p. 59.
Sullan Issues
433
the revolting slaves, one must at the same time assume a makeshift workshop
set up for the issuance of this coinage. Again the extensive size of the striking
makes this a highly unlikely premise. Even less persuasive is the interpretation
of the monograms as "mines of Laurium". If this rather peculiar message is
indeed the one which the coinage is attempting to convey, its formulation would
seem to be incredibly clumsy; the monograms certainly appear to read PAM
(or MAP) -TAM (or MAT). I do not believe that there is any valid ground for
assigning the coins to either Delos or Sunium or in fact any valid ground for
separating them in time or place from the trophies tetradrachms with which
they are ostensibly related.
At first glance the two emissions can scarcely be said to be close in style
but the stylistic argument must be applied with caution to this coinage. In the
present catalogue the tfl - ffi pieces have been divided into two groups: the
first composed exclusively of tetradrachms bearing the letter A on the amphora
and the second of tetradrachms and drachms without the date on the vase.
The division is not primarily one of month date, however, but one of style.
Even the most cursory inspection of Plates 143-146 as compared with
Plates 147-148 shows the marked difference in the rendering of the Athena
head; the two groups of obverses have absolutely nothing in common. Yet the
reverse types are identical and it would be difficult to maintain that Issues I
and II were struck at different mints or widely separated in time. The Athena
heads of the trophies striking bear no resemblance to those of Issue I of the
monograms series. They are on the other hand closer to the obverses of Issue II
than the obverses of Issues I and II are to each other. Note in particular the
arrangement of the hair and the treatment of the helmet ornament. Moreover,

within the trophies striking there is evident a diversity of obverse rendering
similar to that of the Ifl - ffi coinage. No. 1345 is notably heavier and clumsier
than Nos. 1342-1344 and far removed from the delicate head of No. 1341.
Even the reverses differ: the owls of Nos. 1341-1343 are immeasurably superior
to the grotesque birds of Nos. 1344-1345. Since sharp stylistic variations are
found within as well as between issues, they would surely seem to indicate
merely different engravers and not different mints and it follows that the ab-
sence of clear stylistic rapprochement cannot be used as an argument for
separating these strikings.
A Sullan connection is well-nigh certain in the case of the trophies issue; it
can be postulated with a high degree of probability in the case of the mono-
grams issue. There is, first of all, the evidence of the Abruzzi Hoard.1 This is
a most significant deposit in several respects. To the best of my knowledge, it
is the only hoard found in Italy in which New Style coins are included. Asso-
1 Pp. 504-506.
a8
434
dated with thirty examples of this coinage is a miscellany of non-Athenian
material: single tetradrachms of Cappadocia and Bithynia of second century
date, two Byzantium Lysimachi of the late second or early first, four tetra-
drachms of Mithradates VI of the year 90/89, nine tetradrachms of the (fl - ffi
issue, and some two hundred Roman denarii described as being "of the time
of Sulla." Concerning the denarii there is no precise record of moneyers or con-
dition. Of the other foreign coins, the Byzantium, Mithradates and ffl-ffi tetra-
drachms are in excellent to FDC state, suggesting relative contemporaneity.
The composition of the hoard and its Italian provenance seem to me ex-
plicable only in terms of Sulla's Greek campaigns. Presumably this was money
taken home by one of Sulla's veterans. All of the coins may have been acquired
legitimately in which case Sulla paid his troops not only in coins specifically
provided for that purpose but also in whatever other currency the fortunes of
war put at his disposal. The soldier may have augmented his pay with the
proceeds of looting. In either case the very substantial representation of Pfl m
tetradrachms in the Abruzzi accumulation indicates that this coinage was in
abundant supply about the time of Sulla's occupation of Athens. Since the
issue, except for two drachms found in Delos Hoard A, is otherwise unreported
in a hoard context, the probability is that the ffl - fH coins constituted a mili-
tary rather than a civilian emission and that they were struck by Sulla to meet
the demands of his payroll.1
Additional indication of a Sullan connection may be deduced from the
monograms which appear on the coinage. E. S. G. Robinson, in publishing two
tfl-ffl coins of the Lockett Collection (SNG 1942-1943), notes that TAMIOY is a
possible interpretation of the form in the right field. More recently in conver-

sation he has suggested that the first monogram is to be read as MAPKOY,
the Marcus in question being the brother of Lucullus.2 This is a most per-
suasive theory and one which, it seems to me, fits admirably all the circum-
stances, historical and numismatic.
We know that Sulla needed a great deal of money for his war against Mithra-
dates. Plutarch (Sulla XII.3-4) speaks of his requisitioning for that purpose
the sacred treasures of Epidaurus, Olympia and Delphi and in a later passage
(XII.9) decrying the Roman general's lavish expenditures upon his men, he
1 The Santangelo Collection of the Naples Museum may bear witness to another hoard
amassed under circumstances similar to those of the Abruzzi deposit. Among the Santangelo
Greek coins are eight tetradrachms of the New Style period: three of the regular series and five
of the tfl - W issue. Since it is highly likely that most of the coins of the Collection were secured
in Italy, the large number of tfl - ffi pieces is suggestive.
4 All letters of the two words, in either the nominative or genitive form, are to be found in
the monograms.
Sullan Issues
435
writes: "that he might corrupt and win over those whom others commanded,
so that in making traitors of the rest, and profligates of his own soldiers, he had
need of much money and especially for this siege." From the same author
(Lucullus II.2) we have also a record of the man responsible for replenishing
Sulla's war chest:
Bi" ekeivou yap EKOTrn to ttAeiotov ev TTEAoTrovvr|CTCp "rrspl t6v Mi6piSornKdv tt6Aehov, Kal
AoukoOXXeiov cnr' ekeivou TrpoariyopEuOri, Kal BieteAeoev ett! ttAeiotov, utt6 tgov cn-pomco-
tiko5v xp1"v û T<p ttoAeuco AanP&vov dôipf)v TaxEiav.
This last text is related by Daux to a Delphic inscription of the late first
century B.C. which tells of the freeing of three slaves, by sale to the god for the
sum of 105 ttAotti AeukoXAeio. Maintaining that the price involved must have
been reckoned in either aurei or tetradrachms, scarcely in denarii or drachms,
and that the adjective platy is certainly to be understood as the colloquial
designation of a large coin, Daux identifies the spread-flan tetradrachms with
two trophies as the coinage struck under Sulla's orders by Lucullus in the Pelo-
ponnese and notes that the fact that this money was still in common use some
sixty years after the Mithradatic War confirms Plutarch's account of its pro-
longed circulation.
Now this is surely sound with respect to the interpretation of the "Lucullan"
money of Plutarch as Greek tetradrachms. It is far less certain that the coins of
the Delphic inscription are specifically the tetradrachms with two trophies. The
fundamental question, of course, is whether this striking was anywhere near
large enough to have supplied Sulla's military needs and to have continued to
serve as a standard medium of exchange for a long period after the war ended.
Only five examples are known. Since there is no duplication of obverse or re-

verse dies, the original issue was undoubtedly much more extensive than our
record of surviving specimens indicates but even with all allowance made for
this discrepancy it would not seem to have been a really large emission such as
one would expect under the circumstances.
There are other problems as well. The passage in Plutarch is generally taken
to mean that Lucius Lucullus struck the coins in question in the Peloponnese
during the Mithradatic War. As Raven quite rightly says, this would then date
the coinage to 87 B.C.1 since it was as early as the winter of 87/6 that Sulla
dispatched Lucullus to the East to try to raise a fleet and there is no record of
his having returned to Greece until after the defeat of Mithradates. But what
1 This early date would, of course, rule out an interpretation of the trophies as referring to
Sulla's victories at Chaeronea and Orchomenus which occurred a year or more later. Raven,
realizing this, suggests that the trophies may have been no more than Sulla's personal device,
unrelated to any particular victory, or that they may commemorate triumphs earlier than those
of the Greek campaign.
436
was Lucullus doing striking money in the Peloponnese in 87 B.C.? Putting to-
gether what information we have on Sulla's route to Athens,1 we find him
landing on the coast of Epirus in the spring of 87, making his way down through
central Greece to Boeotia and ultimately to Attica where he encountered the
first real resistance of the campaign. Failing to take Athens and Piraeus, he
established headquarters at Eleusis and Megara and laid siege to the city and
harbor. The only mention of Lucullus prior to that time places him in Boeotia
dissuading Bruttius Sura from engaging Archelaus' forces before Sulla's arrival.
There seems to have been no campaigning in the Peloponnese. Why then set
up a war mint in a region remote from the main theatre of conflict and appar-
ently ungarrisoned by Roman troops?
Actually it is by no means certain that Plutarch meant the coins were struck
in the Peloponnese. In the Loeb edition of Lucullus tv TTeXottowt'ictcp is related
to t6 ttXeiotov rather than to ^kottti and the translation of the pertinent sentence
reads: "Most of the money used in Peloponnesus during the Mithradatic war
was coined by him, and was called Lucullean after him." This, it seems to me,
is what Plutarch intended to convey: most of the money circulating in the Pelo-
ponnese at the time of the Mithradatic war was struck by Lucullus. He might
better have said circulating in Greece, for we can be sure, on the evidence of
the Delphic inscription, that the coins were widely distributed, but the essential
fact is that the passage does not necessarily imply that the site of the mint was
in the Peloponnese.
Plutarch's account says nothing about the time of minting. A large war issue
may, of course, have been put out in 87 B.C. but if one considers the general
situation apart from the connection of Lucullus with the coinage, it seems more

likely that it occurred after rather than before the fall of Athens. Sulla appar-
ently left Italy with his war coffers practically empty. Appian (Mith. V.30) re-
cords that he disembarked in Greece and "straightway called for money, re-
inforcements and provisions from Aetolia and Thessaly." Presumably the
supplies were forthcoming as city after city, including Thebes, sent its deputa-
tion to proclaim allegiance to the Roman cause. The great sanctuaries of Greece
were ordered to forward their treasures to Sulla for "safekeeping" and coinage
as well as votive offerings in precious metal must have been among these
treasures. Whether such voluntary and involuntary contributions were suffi-
cient to meet Sulla's needs between the spring of 87 and the spring of 86 can
only be a matter of conjecture. It seems to me that they probably were, that
Sulla was under no serious financial pressure during the first year of his cam-
1 Appian (Mith. V.30) gives some details and Mommsen's summary in The History of Rome
(Book IV, Chap. VIII) is a succinct account of the various stages of the war between Mithradates
and Sulla. Plutarch (Sulla XI.4-5) makes reference to Bruttius Sura and Lucullus.
Sullan Issues
437
paign. Not only was there ready money in generous supply for his soldiers but
by way of a bonus there was the promise of rich plunder once Athens and
Piraeus were taken.
After the first of March in 86 B.C. the situation was different. Sulla was
master of the city and its port; he had undoubtedly augmented his war chest
from the spoils of the sacked metropolis. But the war was far from ended.
Ahead of him lay the destruction of Mithradates' forces and the defeat of the
king himself. There was no choice but to move north into Boeotia and seek an
engagement with the enemy but in so doing Sulla was returning to a region
upon which he had already levied tribute in his march south the year before.
Requisitioning would bring some yield but scarcely enough for a protracted
campaign. At this stage it would have been foolhardy for Sulla to have ad-
vanced against Mithradates* generals without first having made provision for
his financial needs. In a completely subdued Athens he had at his disposal a
mint capable of producing a bulk coinage. The raw materials were at hand in
the sacred offerings from the shrines of Greece supplemented by the proceeds
of local confiscation. Surely it was in Athens in 86 B.C. that the "Lucullan"
coinage was struck. With this coinage Lucius Lucullus could have had no con-
nection since he had left Greece months before.
Plutarch tells us (Lucullus 1.6) that Lucius had a younger brother Marcus to
whom he was devoted, citing in evidence the following story: "Although,
namely, he was older than his brother, he was unwilling to hold office alone,
but waited until his brother was of the proper age, and thus gained the favour
of the people to such an extent that, although in absence from the city, he was
elected aedile along with his brother."1 This same Marcus Lucullus was one

of Sulla's commanders during the Mithradatic campaign (Sulla XXVI1.7),
presumably he was with Sulla when Athens was captured. From Plutarch again
(Lucullus XXXVII. 1) we know that he served as quaestor under Sulla. The
time and place of his service is not recorded2 but in all probability it was in
1 Broughton (The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, II, p. 83) puts their aedileship in
79 B.C. Lucius' election in absentia would have occurred while he was on his way back from Asia
where he remained for some years after the submission of Mithradates to Sulla.
2 Plutarch simply speaks of the prosecution of Marcus Lucullus c. 66 B.C. for his acts as
quaestor under Sulla. (Incidentally he was acquitted.) Broughton (op.cit., p. 65) gives a tentative
date of 83 B.C. for the quaestorship but there seems no reason why it could not have been held
a few years earlier.
Although of no relevance for the period in question, it is interesting to note a piece of evi-
dence cited by Broughton (p. 646) which establishes a connection between Marcus Lucullus and
Athens at a later date. This is a columnar monument from the Agora (published in Hesp.,
1954, pp. 253 f.) honoring M. Terentius Varro Lucullus as proconsul, presumably during his
service in Macedonia in 72-71 B.C.
438
Athens in the years after the fall of the city, for to whom is it more likely that
Sulla would have entrusted the responsibility for a large issue of coinage than
to the brother of his absent mint manager. As Robinson suggests, this is the
man whose name and office appear on the tfl - fB emission. The coinage was
indeed struck by Lucullus, but by Marcus and not by Lucius.
It seems to me quite certain that the "Lucullan" currency of Plutarch and
the Delphic inscription was this tfl-fH issue with its tremendous output
of tetradrachms, smaller quantity of drachms and token representation of
bronze.1 In its size, far surpassing even the heaviest of the New Style strikings,
it qualifies as a war coinage to a degree true of no other issue of Greek silver
of the period. The date and place of its emission seem to me equally certain.
Only a large, well-equipped mint could have produced this vast amount of
money; that the mint was Athens is clearly suggested by the coinage itself. In
imitating the familiar Athenian tetradrachms, Sulla undoubtedly had in mind
the advantages of a currency which would be recognized and readily accepted
in the area of his coming campaign. There may also have been an element of
vindictiveness involved which would not have been out of character. This was
essentially Athenian money but the ethnic of the once proud city was sup-
pressed and the names of her monetary magistrates replaced by the name and
title of a Roman official. The workmanship is inexpert. If the engravers had
had previous experience in die-cutting, it had not been acquired in the pre-
Sullan mint of Athens. The dies are far removed in style from anything in the
New Style series and there is furthermore, in the retention of the amphora
letter on some reverses, a misunderstanding of the purpose of the marking. It
is highly unlikely that all coins with A on the vase were issued in a single month.

1 One hundred and twelve tetradrachms and seventeen drachms of the ffl - ffl issue are
listed in the catalogue. For this striking, however, the number of surviving pieces is no real re-
flection of original output. Far more significant are the totals of known dies: 57 obverse and
92 reverse for the tetradrachms and 11 obverse and 14 reverse for the drachms. In the vast
majority of cases each obverse-reverse combination is represented by a single coin and, in further
indication of the incompleteness of the present data, almost every new coin which has turned up
since the catalogue was first formulated has provided new dies. There can be no question but that
this was an extremely large emission.
A few bronzes with the two monograms are known (A and B on Plate 149 are British Museum
coins, the former BMC 534 and also Svoronos 78, 19 but erroneously described as AR in the
Tresor). These pieces can obviously have had no connection with Sulla's war effort. Rather they
point to a need for local small change and thus provide another link between Athens and the
monograms coinage. The sack of the city must have created a serious shortage of money which
would have had to be remedied if Athens were to resume any kind of normal economic life. It was
to Sulla's interest to keep the city alive if only as a functioning base for his attack on Mithradates'
armies and it was surely with this in view that he authorized a small issue of bronze for the use
of the community at the time the HI - ffi silver was struck.
Sullan Issues
439
The date seems rather to have been copied in the beginning from a New Style
prototype and later abandoned as an unnecessary adjunct.
That the tfl - fB striking began as soon as feasible after the fall of Athens
seems probable. How long it lasted is problematical. The division between
Issues I and II is not necessarily an annual one; the two emissions may repre-
sent a continuous operation of less than or more than a single year. All we can
assume is that sometime between 86 and 84 B.C. Marcus Lucullus, on Sulla's
authority, struck the tfl - ffl coins. Subsequently the trophies issue was put
out, perhaps by Marcus, perhaps by someone else. It would seem to have coin-
cided with Sulla's visit to Athens in 84/8 on his way back to Rome after the
capitulation of Mithradates. On that occasion the islands of Lemnos, Imbros,
Skyros and Delos were restored to Athens and the city, in return for this gen-
erous gesture, instituted a new festival, the Sylleia, in honor of Sulla.1 At the
same time a small striking of coins took place, serving the twofold purpose of
providing some money for the trip back to Italy and of paying flattering tribute
to the conqueror whose great victories at Chaeronea and Orchomenus were re-
called on the coinage. After this emission the mint of Athens struck no more
silver.
1 John Day, An Economic History of Athens under Roman Domination, p. 128. For a dis-
cussion of the Sylleia and the possibility of a later date for their inauguration, see A. E. Rau-

bitschek, "Sylleia" in Studies in Roman Economic and Social History, pp. 49-57.
IMITATIONS
(Plates 150-159)
1346. Rev. Q-N
*ANS (from Athens), gr. 15.72 (Pl.)f; Athens (Delos Hd. T, 1; Sv. 88, 21),
gr. 17.70 (Pl.)f
No. 1346 derives from the Athenian issue of 193/2 B.C. with E - N and
either no symbol or cornucopiae in the field (Plate 2). The reverse and details
of the obverse, such as hair, helmet crest and ornament, are skilfully copied
from the prototype but the form of the visor and the coarse features of the
goddess are in sharp contrast to the normal style of this early New Style
coinage.1
1347. Rev. W - and trophy
*The Hague (Sv. 118, 17)
1348. Rev. Same type
*Gotha, gr. 14.28
The trophy issue of 188/7 b.c. (Plates 5-6) served as the model for Nos. 1347
and 1348. As in the case of the preceding imitation, the reverses are indistinguish-
able from official dies. The obverse of No. 1347 is distinctly barbaric; that of
No. 1348 bears some resemblance to obverse dies of later issues, such as No. 298
of TAAY-EXE.
1349. Rev. E-tfl
*Petsalis Coll., gr. 16.01
No. 1349 is copied from the New Style issue of 185/4 (Plate 9). The obverse
is a somewhat clumsy imitation of an official die (cf. Nos. 71-72). On the re-
verse, the type and first monogram are carefully and accurately executed but
the second monogram is blundered and the cicada symbol has been omitted.
Crossed lines on the amphora may have been intended as a letter.

1350. Rev. TTO and cicada
*Berry Coll. (from Anatolia), gr. 16.99f
1 There is a Leningrad coin which may also be an imitation of the E - N issue. Its obverse
is so poorly preserved that I cannot decide whether it belongs with the Athenian coinage or
is a copy.
Imitations
441
This is a most interesting coin in its combination of Old and New Style
prototypes. The obverse is clearly taken from a tetradrachm of the late third
century. Comparison with the Old Style coinage characterized by symbols on
the reverse (as illustrated by Svoronos on Plate 23, nos. 20-24) points up the
close resemblance between original and copy: note the exaggerated ornament
sprawling loosely toward the front of the helmet, the double lines of the visor
terminating in a tightly coiled volute, the pointed olive leaves above the visor,
the stiff short locks of hair, even the profile and expression of the goddess.
The reverse is a hybrid. Its symbol, a cicada placed above the initial letter
of the ethnic, suggests the 6 - Itl issue of 185/4 B.C.1 while the TTO is perhaps
to be associated with the later coinage of TTOAY -Tltfi.
An Anatolian provenance is certain but there is no reliable information as
to the exact find-spot of the coin. It would seem to have been struck at a mint
with experienced diecutters available for the style and workmanship are
excellent.
1351. Rev. 1*1 - M and serpents
ANS-ETN (from Alexandria), gr. 14.81f
The tetradrachm above, No. 1351, imitates the r*l-4i with serpents emis-
sion of 184/3 B.C. (Plate 10). There is no amphora letter visible and the second
monogram is blundered as fa but otherwise the copying is exact.
In style the coin is obviously barbaric. Newell purchased it in Alexandria
and labelled it "Arabian Imitation". His judgment as to its provenance is
probably correct but it is difficult to associate the piece with any known series
of Arabian imitations of Athenian coins. The base silver tetradrachms with Old
Style types, tentatively assigned to Northern Arabia {BMC, Arabia etc.,

pp. lxxxvf. and PI. XI, 24^26) are so degenerate that one can scarcely believe
the New Style imitation under present discussion emanated from the same
region. Southern Arabia produced imitations of both Old and New Style coins
but the extensive Sabaean and Himyarite issues modelled on Athenian cur-
rency are characterized from the beginning by Sabaean letters and signs, of
which there is no trace on our imitation. Furthermore, as John Walker has
shown in two recent articles,2 the occurrence of the name of the ruler Sahar
Halal in Lihyanite script on coins of both Old and New Style type proves a
1 The emission of AYIAN - TAAYKOZ (159/8 b.c.) also uses the cicada symbol but the
insect of the imitation is more closely comparable with that of the monograms issue. Further-
more, it would seem reasonable to suppose that the inspiration for the abnormal combination of
name and symbol derived from issues fairly close in time.
* "A Mysterious South Arabian Coin-Legend," NC, 1948, pp. 39-42; "The Lihyanite In-
scription on South Arabian Coins," Rivista degli Studi Orientali, XXXIV, 1959, pp. 77-81.
442
direct transition from one class of imitations to the other. Our imitation cannot
have been a precursor of the Himyarite "New Style" coins. If its origin is
Arabian, it must come from some other section of the peninsula; certainly there
is a distinct possibility that its provenance lies elsewhere.
1352. Rev. AAEI - HA and trident
Copied from the New Style issue of 179/8 B.C. (Plate 15) but with AAEI - HA
instead of AAEI - HAIO and without the control combination normal for the
period.
1353. Rev. ZEPIANZKYPEAE in left field. Trident and Nike in right field. K on am-
phora; below
*ANS (from Athens), gr. 13.79f
This coin is an invention. The inscription in the left field is meaningless,
symbols of two non-contiguous Athenian issues (AAEI - HAIO of 179/8 and
KTHII-EYMA of 171/0 B.C.)1 are combined, the obverse bears no stylistic
resemblance to the official dies of either emission.
1354. Rev. KHZI - EYMA and Nike. FlPO below
Gotha, gr. 16.86
No. 1354 is a fairly careful copy of the New Style coinage of 171/0 (Plates 28
and 29). The first magistrate's name is, I believe, blundered but the coin is too
worn for certainty. Below the amphora, the customary FTPO control combina-
tion is rendered as FIPcp.
1355. Rev. TAAY - EXE and bust of Helios. Kl in lower 1.
Romanos Coll. (Sv. 118, 18)
The imitation derives from the issue of 170/69 (Plates 30-31). Magistrates'

names and symbol are accurately transcribed but the over-size Kl in the lower
left field is a misunderstanding of the KT control combination. The obverse is
stylistically alien to the normal Athenian type of the period.
1356. Rev. TAAY - EKE and bust of Helios. II in lower 1.
Basel (Sv. 113, 19), gr. 16.51/
Another, and less successful, copy of the Athenian coinage of 170/69.
Double-striking obscures the reverse to some extent but the blundered EKE and
the clumsily executed symbol are clear. 21 in the lower left field is probably
1 Possibly the Nike is borrowed from the monogram coinage of 189/8 b.c.
Imitations
443
derived from the control combination ZO. The obverse is non-Athenian in style
and technique.
1357. Rev. MIKI - 6E and caps of the Dioscuri
London, gr. 18.77
1358. Rev. MIKI - 0E and bust of Helios
Athens (Delos Hd. T, 205; Sv. 43, 7), gr. 15.87
No. 1358 from a Delos hoard of 1905 was published by Svoronos as a regular
issue of the Athenian mint and the same coin was later cited by Bellinger
(Hesp., Suppl. VIII, p. 15) as proof of the sequence of the emissions of TAAY -
EXE with Helios bust and MIKI -0EOOPA with Nike and quadriga (Plates 30
to 32). The style of both obverse and reverse is, however, quite different from
that of the official dies of the two Athenian strikings and this suggests that the
abnormal combination of names and symbol is to be interpreted not as an
accidental carrying-over of a symbol from one year to the next at the mint of
Athens but as another instance of hybridization at a non-Athenian workshop.
The case for a "barbaric" origin for No. 1358 is greatly strengthened by a
coin in the British Museum, No. 1357. This piece has the same magistrates as
No. 1358, MIKI - GE, with the caps of the Dioscuri symbol belonging to the New
Style issue of 186/5 B.C. That both coins were struck outside Athens is certain.
It is possible that they are from the same workshop but on the whole this seems
unlikely in view of the great stylistic difference in the obverse heads.
1359. Rev. AIOrE - TTOZ - Afll and Dionysos
London, gr. 14.54f
A clumsy copy of the issue of 161/0 B.C. (Plate 42). The AQI is evidently
an erroneous rendering of AGP(OGE), a third magistrate for the Athenian

emission.
1360. Rev. MAAKI L; EnirCMH - CnYANApOZ r. Eagle on fulmen. Al below
Oxford, gr. 16.10 (Pl.)\*
1361. Rev. KAIIKPA 1.; ETTEINMD - ZQ = AAqOZ r. Eagle on fulmen. Zl below
Paris, gr. 15.85 \; Glasgow (Hunt. 176), gr. 15.45 \
1362. Rev. MOZXI 1.; ETHrENH - ZflZANAPOZ r. Eagle on fulmen. MH below
Vienna, gr. 11.88
1363. Rev. IKIQN - EY. AKA - ENNI and Dioscuri. ?below
Budapest, gr. 18.97 \
Nos. 1360-1363 are very similar in obverse style and seem to me the prod-
ucts of a single workshop. Coinage of ETTirENH -ZQZANAPOZ in 158/7 B.C.
(Plates 45-46) served as the prototype for the first three coins, that of Ml-
K1QN - EYPYKAEI in 156/5 (Plates 48-49) for the last. On the whole the ob-
444
verses have been more successfully imitated than the reverses. The heads of
Athena are coarse and heavy but they do bear a superficial likeness to the
originals. No. 1362 is an accurate replica of an official reverse except that MH
as a control combination is not known for this section of the coinage. On the
reverses of Nos. 1860-1 and 1363 there is considerable blundering in the in-
scriptions.
1364. Rev. THNEHIAIEY 1.; KAIA r. Prow
*Athens (from a Russian collectionRiv. Num., XXI, 1908, p. 317;
Sv. 118, 20), gr. 15.72 (PI.)
Svoronos in the Rivista article classifies the coin as a barbaric imitation and
suggests a Danubian origin. Certainly the debased style and senseless jumble
of letters point to a workshop on the periphery of the Greek world. The proto-
type seems to be a tetradrachm of KAPAIX - EPrOKAE (Plates 53-54) but it is
only the prow symbol that enables one to make the connection. With some
effort of the imagination KAIA can be derived from PAIX, which appears in the
right field on the Athenian coins; the inscription to the left is sheer fantasy.1
1365. Rev. O AEMOZ and Perseus (?)
a. *ANS-ETN (from Istanbul), gr. 16.40f; Paris (Carystus Hd. I; Sv. 78, 27),
gr. 16.20f
b. *Munich (Carystus Hd. I; Sv. 78, 26; JIAN, 1915, p. 69, fig. 9) = Hirsch
XXXII, 494 = Hirsch (Weber) 1719, gr. 16.10; Istanbul (from Samsun),
gr. 16.59f
c. *London (from Kambanis), gr. 16.00f; Berlin (Carystus Hd. I; Sv. 78, 25),
gr. 16.24
The most recent treatment of the coinage exemplified by No. 1865 is that

of J. H. Jongkees {Mnemosyne, XIII, 1947, pp. 145-160). There the author
carefully reviews earlier publications and summarizes the various theories re-
garding this abnormal issue. What emerges from the discussion of the past
seventy-five years is an almost universal agreement on a late date for the coins
and a fairly even division of opinion as to an Athenian or non-Athenian origin.
Proponents of the mint of Athens would attribute the issue to the state imme-
diately after the slave revolt of c. 104 B.C., to the democratic faction after the
overthrow of the oligarchy in 88 B.C., or to the civic authorities responsible for
the resumption of coinage in the years immediately following Sulla's capture
of the city. Those favoring a provenance outside Athens would ascribe the
1 A plated piece in the Kestner Museum at Hannover (10.87 gr) seems to belong to the
same category of imitations as No. 1364. The coin is practically illegible but the head looks
extremely barbaric and there is a meaningless inscription in the left field which may readTlHZIHN.
Imitations
445
issue to the cleruchs on Delos or to the Athenian Emigres of pro-Roman per-
suasion who fled the city before the siege and placed themselves under
Sulla's protection. Kambanis indicates his feeling that the coins are not civic
strikings but advances no hypothesis as to their date or the circumstances
of emission.
Jongkees believes that the coins are non-Athenian. Pointing to the bar-
barous style, the absence of month and control letters on the reverses, and the
very low weight of the four specimens known to him,1 he argues that the
series must be separated from the regular tetradrachms of Athens and that the
abnormality of the reverse type indicates that the coins were put out during a
period of disturbances. The nature of the disturbances is suggested by the in-
scription: "the fact that the coins are emphatically stated to have been issued
by the people of Athens, points to a situation where the people were opposed to
a dominant power which could be regarded as not representing the Athenian
people." This situation Jongkees believes to be the tyranny of Aristion in
87/6 B.C. and he follows Wilamowitz in attributing the coins to fugitives from
Athens who had taken refuge in Sulla's camp. The Harmodios symbol2 would
be an eminently suitable selection under the circumstances.
Before indulging in further speculation as to the raison d'etre of this atypical
issue, let us review briefly the facts as they pertain to the coinage itself. We
have now on record six specimens: three coming from the Carystus Hoard of
1883, one discovered at Laurium,3 one put on the market in Istanbul4 and one
unearthed at or near Samsun. The evidence of provenance is contradictory
but it is to be noted that the ANS and Istanbul specimens invalidate Svoronos'
statement that these coins are invariably found in Laurium and southern

Euboea.
The Carystus hoard which produced three of the six tetradrachms is a late
1 The danger of this kind of argument from a limited amount of material is illustrated by
the fact that the two new specimens in the present catalogue are not of extraordinarily low
weight: 16.40 for the ANS piece and 16.59 fr tne one a* Istanbul.
* Kohler's original identification of the naked figure with sword and scabbard as Harmodios
(ZfN, 1885, p. 106) has been generally accepted although often with reservations. Svoronos, how-
ever, describes the youth as Theseus (JIAN, 1915, p. 70), arguing that a representation of only
one of the Tyrannicides would be unlikely, and Pick suggests a personification of the Demos
(Les tnonnaies d'Athenes, p. VIII, s.v. Harmodius et AristogiUm). Jongkees believes that the figure
is a copy of the Harmodios of Antenor, of which no replicas exist, a derivation which would explain
the differences in stance and attributes between the symbol on the coinage and the well-known
statue by Kritios.
* As reported by Svoronos in the JIAN article cited above (p. 69). The London specimen
purchased from Kambanis is probably the Laurium coin.
* An Anatolian provenance for this piece cannot be taken for granted but it seems more
likely than not.
446
deposit (see pp. 502f.). All O AEMOI pieces are in excellent condition.1 This
and their substantial representation in the find indicate that they are among
the latest of the hoard issues.
One obverse and three reverse dies were used for the six known coins, a cir-
cumstance suggestive of a small emission. Several unusual features in con-
nection with these dies are immediately apparent. The obverse with its heavy
"barbaric" style is markedly different from anything produced by Athenian
engravers but it probably represents a clumsy copy of a mid-second century
coin of Athens (cf. Plates 40-45 with special references to the hair, the atten-
uated ornament and even the general impression of the profile). There is, how-
ever, one stylistic idiosyncrasy which is not derivative, namely the termination
of the visor line in an elaborate volute. This peculiar treatment is found on the
last of the Old Style tetradrachms of Athens (Svoronos, PI. 23, 20-24); it is
never found on dies of the New Style period. Outside Athens in the first century
B.C. it is characteristic of some but not all of the Athenian imitations struck on
Crete (e.g. Gortyna as BMC, Crete, PI. XI, 6) and of the coinage of certain
Euxine mints under Mithradates VI (Amisus, Amastris and Comana among
others; cf. BMC, Pontus, Pis. Ill, 8 and V, 5).
On the reverse dies the type is a carefully delineated owl of pleasing pro-
portions perched on a small bulbous amphora. Nothing could be less like the
representation on late Athenian tetradrachms where the owl is a scrawny un-
gainly bird with over-sized head and staring eyes on an unnaturally elongated
vase. It was the excellent workmanship of the reverses of the O AEMOZ coins
which led Head to date them in the first half of the second century B.C. and his
judgment is quite correct. They find their closest parallels among the Athenian

owls of 165-160 B.C. Only in the omission of month and control letters do the
O AEMOZ reverses differ from the official dies of the period.
One other item of factual information is available. An analysis of the ANS
tetradrachm (p. 637) shows a composition of practically pure silver. Of all the
New Style coins tested only one specimen has a gold content comparably low
and none has so little copper; all tetradrachms of the late second and early first
centuries have a substantially higher proportion of both metals.
What we have then from the evidence of the coins themselves is a small issue
of late date but of early derivation with an ambiguous record of provenance.
The silver is non-Athenian, insofar as a single analysis can establish this point,
and the style of both obverse and reverse dies as well as the absence of magis-
trates' names and of month and control letters are irreconcilable with the
1 As Jongkees says, the reverses are all in an excellent state of preservation as is the Paris
obverse. The worn appearance of the other two obverses would seem to be due rather to the con-
dition of the die than to prolonged circulation of the coins.
Imitations
447
regular Athenian coinage of the late period. Svoronos' theory of inexperienced
workmen brought into the mint after the slave revolt would perhaps explain
some of these anomalies but not all and it seems to me that the weight of
present evidence is strongly in favor of an origin outside Athens.
At the same time it is true, as Svoronos and Jongkees insist, that the in-
scription gives the issue an official character which must be taken into con-
sideration1 and Wilamowitz's hypothesis of Athenian fugitives purporting to
be the real representatives of the people does plausibly explain the puzzling
amalgam of Athenian and non-Athenian elements in the coinage. Need we
assume, however, that the refugees were partisans of Rome? Is it not possible,
and perhaps even more likely, that they were members of the pro-Mithradatic
faction who sought safety with friends and relatives in Amisus when Athens
was threatened by the investing armies of Sulla (Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens,
p. 448 citing Plutarch, Lucullus, XIX). As Ferguson points out, Plutarch's ex-
planation of the flight as an attempt to escape the tyranny of the Pontic agent
Aristion is illogical in that the fugitives migrated to the capital of Pontus.
Rather they must be supposed to have feared the hardships and possibly the
outcome of the siege. Once the city had fallen they might justifiably have con-
sidered themselves the real representatives of the Athenian people, and cer-
tainly Athens, sacked and at the mercy of Sulla, was more truly a captive state
than she ever was under the dictatorship of Aristion. It is entirely conceivable
that Mithradates permitted or even fostered a limited emission of Athenian
type coins at a Euxine mint under his control. One need not read into this any
sentiment or sympathy for the exiles. Basically it would have been a shrewd
political gesture on the king's part, a refusal to acknowledge the status quo in

Athens and an affirmation of his confidence that his armies would eventually
defeat Sulla and restore the city to his friends and followers.
There is nothing in the circumstances of the O AEMOI coinage which specifi-
cally implies a pro-Roman background. There are several factors which suggest
a Mithradatic connection. First, the barbaric style of the obverse would seem
more likely the work of an engraver in a distant part of the Hellenistic world
rather than of a Roman diecutter and one distinctive characteristic of the ob-
verse head, namely the peculiar rendering of the visor volute, has a counterpart
in Pontic tradition. The diversity of find-spots, too, can be explained on the
assumption that the issue was struck in the Euxine region. Samsun where one
coin was discovered is the ancient Amisus, a royal residence of the Pontic kings
and the city to which the pro-Mithradatic Athenians fled; the coin which came
on the Istanbul market is in all likelihood also of Anatolian provenance. The
1 Unless, of course, the legend is merely the invention of a distant atelier and thus without
political significance in an Athenian context.
448
presence of the other four coins in Euboea and Attica is not unnatural if one
recalls the events of 86-85 B.C. After the fall of Athens Sulla's armies moved
into Boeotia and for a year or more this district was the scene of bitter fighting
between the Roman and Mithradatic forces. On one occasion ten thousand
Pontic soldiers were obliged to flee to Chalcis and it was at Chalcis that Dory-
laus anchored with reinforcements for Archelaus (Plutarch, Sulla, XIX-XX).
The O AEMOI coins of Carystus and Laurium could have been put into circu-
lation by or captured from Mithradates' men.1
Finally there is the symbol on the coins, variously interpreted as Harmo-
dios, Theseus or the personified Demos. In the absence of distinctive attributes
any definitive identification is impossible but it seems to me that a fourth can-
didate, Perseus, is worth considering. Granting the basic premise of a Pontic
origin for the coinage, it is apparent that no more suitable symbol could have
been selected than a representation of the hero so closely associated both with
Athens and with the Pontic kings who claimed him as an ancestor. Even the
legend lent itself to the political context of 86 B.C. so that one might see in the
armed warrior Mithradates, the modern Perseus, prepared to slay the monster
Sulla on behalf of Athena and the Athenian people.
Admittedly there are difficulties in this conjectural identification: the ab-
sence of the Gorgon's head, the very different representation of Perseus on
Pontic bronzes of Mithradatic date, the arming of the hero with a sword rather
than a harpa which was Perseus' customary weapon in post-Archaic times. One
can only point out that limitations of space might account for the elimination
of details by an inexperienced artisan and that the sword may merely reflect
the earlier version of the Perseus story.2 Certainly the association cannot be

pressed. The figure on the coins is no more obviously Perseus than it is ob-
1 After this study had gone to press the writer was advised of a new hoard with two
O AEMOZ coins said to have been found atChesme, a mainland site opposite Chios. The pieces
are now in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts and it is through the courtesy of Dr. Cornelius C. Ver-
meule that I am able to make brief mention of them here.
In addition to the O AEMOZ specimens the deposit contains fourteen New Style tetradrachms
ranging from 170/69 to 124/3 B.C., a Nicomedes tetradrachm of 132 B.C., four cistophori of Per-
gamum dating from 94-55 B.C., one posthumous Lysimachus of the late second or early first
century from the mint of Byzantium, one Mithradates tetradrachm of 89/8, and fourteen Chios
drachms. Best preserved of the large coins are some of the cistophori, the Byzantine Lysimachus,
the Mithradates tetradrachm of 89/8 and the two O AEMOZ pieces. The Euxine issuesand
perhaps the cistophori as well since Mithradates had established headquarters at Pergamum in
88 B.C.were surely brought into the Chios region by the Mithradatic armies during the cam-
paigning for Asia. It seems highly likely that the O AEMOZ coins of Chesme, like those of Carystus,
are also to be connected with the presence of Pontic soldiers in the area.
Cf. the pre-Classical representations in Daremberg-Saglio (s.v. Perseus) which prominently
feature both sword and scabbard.
Imitations
449
viously Harmodios or Theseus or the personified Demos. All that can be said
is that it is a warrior and implicitly a champion of the people against tyranny.
Any of the suggested identifications would be consonant with this symbolism.
1366. Rev. MIKI - 0ECXDPA Nike and quadriga. AIT below
Herakleion (Cretan Hd. II)
In an issue characterized by a highly homogeneous style as regards both
obverse and reverse dies (Plate 82), this coin is an anomaly. The obverse head,
except for the facial expression, is a reasonably close approximation of an
official die; the reverse with its squatty owl and clumsy crowding of letters and
symbol is less successful. Awkwardness of technique might be written off as the
result of inexperience on the part of a new diecutter were it not for the further
consideration that this coin constitutes our only record of either obverse or re-
verse die. Normally the dies of the MIKI - 0EOOPA striking are known from a
substantial number of specimens. I believe that No. 1366 should be regarded as an
imitation, probably of Cretan origin in view of its presence in a Cretan hoard.
1367. Rev. HPA - API - OlAfl Club, lion's skin and bow in case. E on amphora
Berlin, gr. 15.87
This coin is classified as an imitation for much the same reason as No. 1366
above. The expression of the goddess is perceptibly different from the normal
and consistent rendering on Athenian coins, the somewhat disagreeable look
due in part to the strange downward stroke of the eyelid. The treatment of the
reverse type is indistinguishable from that of official dies but the second magis-
trate's name is given as API instead of AP1ZTOO. In weight the piece is abnor-
mally light, particularly in view of its fair state of preservation.1
1368.

a. Rev. TIMAPXOY - NIKATO - ANTIOXOZ Anchor and star. ME below
London, gr. 14.25 (PI.); Berlin, gr. 14.37
b. Rev. AflPOOE - AIOO - NIKOAfl Forepart of lion. ME below
Berlin, gr. 18.40
c. Rev. ANTIOXOZ-NIKOr-ANTIAOX Elephant. A on amphora; ME below
Berlin, gr. 16.12
d. Rev. ANTIOXOZ - NIKOr - NIKflNH Elephant. B on amphora; ZQ below
London, gr. 14.85
There can be no doubt that the five coins of No. 1368 are ancient forgeries.
One is definitely plated and the very low weights of three others suggest a
1 Georges Le Rider, after having studied the coins in the Berlin Collection, writes that
Nos. 1367, 1379 and 1383 are clearly of low grade silver. He feels that all three pieces may be
plated although there is no visible indication of this.
450
copper core. The obverse is probably taken from an official die of the TIMAP-
XOY - NIKAI"0 issue while the four reverses are accurate copies of dies from
three different issues. This coupling of a single obverse with a number of re-
verses derived from diverse and often non-contiguous issues is a recurring
phenomenon among imitations of the New Style coinage.
1369.
a. Rev. nOAYXAPM - NIKOr - 0EMISTOKAH Winged caduceus
Glasgow (Hunt. 120)
b. Rev. ANTIOXOZ- KAPA1XOI - EYMAXOI Elephant. E on amphora; ME below
Cambridge (Grose 5908), gr. 15.80 (Pl.)f
Another instance of the reverses of non-contiguous issues coupled with a
single obverse. Both coins are plated.
1370. Rev. AAP09E - AIOI - AIOKAE Forepart of lion
*ANS, gr. 14.48 (PI.) \
1371. Rev. AQPO0E - AIO - NIKOAfl Forepart of lion. H on amphora
Paris, gr. 15.55 (PI.)
There is a certain similarity of technique about these plated coins which
suggests that the dies were cut by the same workman. Neither is a notably
successful copy of the prototype.
1372. Rev. 0EO<DPA - SflTA - OIAHM Fulmen. B on amphora; IS below
London {BMC 426), gr. 15.72 (PI. ?)f
1373. Rev. AlOrE - FIOIE - HrEMA Dionysos. SO below
Glasgow (Hunt. 104) PI.
1374. Rev. AXAIOZ - HA1 - KAEAPA Cornucopiae with grain. E on amphora; ME below

The strangeness of the obverse style and the blundered inscription (AXAIOZ
for AXAIOZ and KAEAPA for KAEAPX) indicate an imitation.
1375.
a. Rev. AYZAN - TAAYKOZ - NIKANQP Cicada. A on amphora; ME below
Florange-Ciani (Gallet) 22 = Feuardent (Collignon) 255, gr. 14.G0
b. Rev. EnirENH - IflZANAPOI - EYMH Eagle on fulmen. 10 below
Athens, gr. 14.42 (PI.)
Both obverse and reverse dies are highly unsuccessful copies of the Athenian
coinage of 159/8 and 158/7 B.C. The Athens Museum coin is definitely plated and
the weight of the other specimen implies a copper core. No. 1875 is almost cer-
Imitations
45i
tainJy by the diecutter who produced the earlier No. 1371. Note the close
resemblance of the obverse heads and the peculiar exaggerated sweep of the
tail feathers on all three reverses.
1376. Rev. AYZAN - TAAYKOZ - A0HNOBI Cicada. I on amphora; ZO below
*Vinchon, May 1959, 507 = Feuardent, May 1914, 229 = Hirsch (Rhous-
opoulos) 2056, gr. 15.26; Sophia, gr. 14.90; Miinster Univ., gr. 18.60
This coin is a close imitation of official dies but 10 as a control combination
is not found on Athenian issues of the period. Surely all three pieces are plated.
1377. Rev. EThTENH - IQZANAPOI - EYMH Eagle on fulmen. T on amphora; ME
below
*Ratto (Rogers) 863, gr. 14.60
Another specimen which is almost certainly plated. The reverse is a better
copy than the obverse of an official tetradrachm.
1378. Rev. EThTENH - SflXANAPOZ - KAAA/KPA Eagle on fulmen. A on amphora;
Al below
Berlin, gr. 15.15
The fierce expression of the goddess is reminiscent of No. 1372 and the two
imitations may be from the same hand. On the reverse of No. 1378 the owl is
clumsily rendered and the AI below the amphora is a mistake for Al. Probably
a plated coin.
1379. Rev. ETTirENH - SQZANAPOS - ANTirONO Eagle on fulmen. TIP below
Berlin, gr. 16.26
The dies may be official but the pronounced heaviness of the profile and the
thick ridges of the neck, as compared with the other dies of this issue, seem to
me indicative of an imitation.1 More examples of the Epigenes-Sosandros

coinage have survived than of any other single striking and almost all obverse
dies are extremely well represented. It is true that there is one instance of a
pair of dies known from only one coin (No. 455) but this is quite abnormal and
the tetradrachm in question fits unmistakably into the stylistic pattern of the
emission.
1380.
a. Rev. AXAIOS - HAI - ITTTTONIKOZ Cornucopiae with grain. A on amphora
Munich, gr. 15.21
b. Rev. T10AEMQN - AAKETHZ - EYAI Tripod. I on amphora; 20 below
Paris, gr. 14.36 /; Vienna, gr. 18.71; ANS, gr. 18.10 (PI.) /
1 See note on page 449 for the poor quality of the silver.
452
r c. Rev. MIKIflN - EYPYKAE - APEZTOZ Dioscuri. K on amphora; 10 below
| *London {BMC 467), gr. 18.54 (PI.)
I d. Rev. MIKIflN - EYPYKAE - APEZTOZ Dioscuri
I Athens, gr. 16.10 (PI.)
| e. Rev. AOPOAIZI - ATTOAHEI - MHTPO Nike. A on amphora; Id) below
I *Vienna, gr. 18.24 (PI.)
| f. Rev. AOPOAIZI - AFIOAHEI - MHTPO Nike. ?on amphora; Z4> below
| *Berlin, gr. 14.85 (PI.)
| g. Rev. KAPAIX - EPrOKAE - EYAH Prow. A on amphora; ZO below
| *Petsahs Coll., gr. 13.55 (PI.) /
j A single obverse is combined with seven reverses representing five different
j issues. Six of the nine coins show evidence of plating and the other three are
I correspondingly light in weight. All reverses are accurately copied. The obverse
I derives from a die of TTOAEMfiN - AAKETHZ (cf. No. 463), MIKIfiN - EYPYKAEI
I (cf. Nos. 484, 487) or AOPOAIZI - ATTOAHEI (cf. No. 494). Its prototype is de-
| finitely not to be found in the issues of AXAIOZ - HAI and KAPAIX - EPrOKAE.
This suggests that the sequence of reverses bears no relation to the chrono-
logical sequence of emissions and a measure of confirmation is provided by a
I die break (straight up from the terminals of the helmet crest) which seems least
I noticeable on 1880e and most pronounced on the ANS specimen of 1380b and
ion 1380c. Furthermore the reverse of 1380c is found coupled with a different
obverse (No. 1381) and this, taken in conjunction with the evidence of the die
j break, indicates that it was the last reverse cut for Obverse 1380.
L1381. Rev. MIKI AN - EYPYKAE - APEZTOZ Dioscuri. ?on amphora; Z0> below
*de Laval Coll., gr. 14.58 (PI.)
1382.

As mentioned above, a common reverse die links this striking with No. 1380.
a. Rev. En.TEN. -ZQZA.APO. - MOZXI Eagle on fulmen. ME below
*Petsalis Coll., gr. 18.59 (Pl.)f
b. Rev. ETTirENH - ZflZAAPOZ - ANTTON Eagle on fulmen. H on amphora; ME
below
Paris, gr. 12.48 (PI.)
c. Rev. ETTirENH - ZQZAAPOZ - ANTirONO Eagle on fulmen. 9 on amphora;
ME below
Christomanou Coll.
d. Rev. TlOAMftN - AAKTHZ - APIZ Tripod. ME below
Commerce 1954, gr. 18.45 (PL); The Hague
e. Rev. MIKlflN - EYPYKAE - ZflKPATHZ Dioscuri. E on amphora; ZO below
Johns Hopkins Univ., gr. 14.78; Berlin, gr. 15.87
Imitations
453
f. Rev. KAPAIX - EPTOKAE - ATTOAE Prow. A on amphora; ZQ below
ANS = Sotheby, Dec. 1924, 126, gr. 13.89 (Pl.)f
g. Rev. KAPAIX - EPrOKAE - EYAH Prow. A on amphora; 10 below
Paris, gr. 14.65 (PI.) I London, amphora and control letters uncertain,
fragment (PI.)
Seven reverse dies, representing four different issues, are coupled with a
single obverse. Of the ten coins known, six are definitely plated and one other
with a recorded weight is so light as to be suspect.
The reverses of No. 1382 show a high degree of carelessness in copying.
Letters are frequently omitted, either because they were not seen by the copyist
(often on genuine dies letters are superimposed on the owl or the wreath and
might easily pass unnoticed by a careless workman) or because they did not fit
comfortably into the available space. ATTOAE is not known for the issue of
KAPAIX - EPI"OKAE; ATTOA occurs but with Z not A on the amphora. As in the
case of No. 1380, the sequence of reverse dies is not in accord with the chrono-
logical order of emissions. On the London specimen of 1382g and on 1382a
there is a well-defined die break above the tail of Pegasus which is not found
on the other coins. These then are the two latest reverses.
In style the obverse head is so close to No. 1380 as to suggest that one die
was copied from the other.
1383. Rev. ETTirENH - ZQZAAPOZ - T7AMOI Eagle on fulmen. M on amphora; ZO
below
Berlin, gr. 15.33
The light weight, the blundering of the reverse inscription and the obverse
style all point to an imitation.1 In the Epigenes - Sosandros issue there is no

die remotely comparable with the obverse of No. 1383. The latter seems to be-
long with this group of copies derived for the most part from dies of later issues.
1384.
a. Rev. ETTirENH -ZflZANAPOZ - MOZXI Eagle on fulmen. B on amphora; MH
below
Sophia, gr. 16.00
b. Rev. TTOAEMflN - AAKETHZ - TTATPfl Tripod. B on amphora; 10 below
Paris, gr. 16.25f
c. Rev. TTOAEMflN - AAKETHZ - TTATPfl Tripod. B on amphora; ZO below
Athens, gr. 16.15
d. Rev. MIKIflN - EYPYKAE - ZflKPATHZ Dioscuri. ZO below
1 See note on page 449 for the poor quality of the silver.
454
I Four reverses of three separate issues are combined with a single obverse.
I One coin is surely plated. The obverse is probably derived from a die of Mikion-
lEuryklei (cf. No. 478). MH is not known as a control combination for the
striking of Epigenes-Sosandros but the Sophia coin is worn and the reading is
doubtful. A transferred reverse links Nos. 1384 and 1385.
|1385.
L a. Rev. nOAEMfiN - AAKETHZ - FI Tripod. ZO below
Vienna, gr. 18.46
b. Rev. TTOAEMQN - AAKETHI - fTATPQ Tripod. B on amphora; ZO below
ANS, gr. 18.65 (Pl.)f; London (BMC 489), gr. 14.57 (Pl.)f; ANS-ETN,
gr. 16.70 (Pl.)f
c. Rev. TTOAEMflN - AAKETHZ - TTATPfl Tripod. B on amphora; ZO below
Tubingen, gr. 14.85; Winterthur, gr. 12.84 (PL) /; Gotha, gr. 14.88 (PL);
Gotha (PL)
Both obverse and reverse dies of this group of plated coins are fairly ac-
curate copies of official dies of the Polemon-Alketes issue. A die break ex-
tending up from the end of the tail of Pegasus, found on the second ANS
specimen of No. 1385b and on all examples of No. 1385c, establishes the order
of the reverse dies within this striking and also indicates that the reverse shared
with the preceding entry was transferred from Obverse 1384 to Obverse 1885.
1386. Rev. nOAMQN - AAKETHI - T7ATP Tripod. B on amphora; Zfl below
Berlin, gr. 15.56
Weight, style and blundered legend place this coin in the imitation category.
The obverse is somewhat similar to early dies of MIKIflN - EYPYKAEI (cf.
Nos. 475-478).

r1387. Rev. MIKISJN - EYPYKAE - rOPriTT Dioscuri. ?on amphora; Z<D below
| *L. Meletopoulos Coll., gr. 15.90
I The obverse is likely copied from a tetradrachm of Polemon-Alketes which
j suggests that at least one reverse of that issue was cut for Obverse 1387. Since
I the Mikion reverse of the present record is also coupled with what seems to be
I the early stage of Obverse 1388, it would follow that it was the last reverse die
j employed with Obverse 1387.
|1388.
| a. Rev. ETlirENH - ZflZAAPOZ - EYMH Eagle on fulmen. V on amphora; ME below
| *London (BMC 896), gr. 16.40f
L b. Rev. MIKIBN - EYPYKAE - rOPriTT Dioscuri. I on amphora; Z4> below
Berlin (Sv. 55, 24), gr. 15.82
Imitations
455
In style the obverse die is almost identical with Obverse 1380 and very
similar to Obverse 1882. On 1388a the die break up from the outer crest ter-
minal seems more pronounced than on 1388b, thus the Mikion reverse likely
preceded that of Epigenes.
1389. Rev. FTOAEMflN - AAKETHZ - 0EOATOI Tripod. A on amphora; EM below
London, gr. 14.97 (Pl.)t
No. 462 of Polemon-Alketes was, I believe, the prototype for the dies of
No. 1389. Note the similarity of the two obverses as to ornament, hair, crest
ends and Pegasus. On the reverse, the retrograde 3M of No. 462 has been mis-
understood and corrected to EM.
1390.
a. Rev. nOAMflN - AAKTHZ - APIZ Tripod. ME below
Bucharest, gr. 11.90 (PI.)
r b. Rev. KAPAIX - EPrOKAE - OEIAI Prow. K on amphora; ME below
Again we have an obverse die very close in style to others of this group
|(Nos. 1380, 1382 and 1388). If the stroke directly in front of the Pegasus is a
| die break, 1390b represents the later stage of the obverse die. TheKaraich re-
! verse is also recorded in combination with Obverse 1391.
11391. Rev. KAPAIX - EPRDKAE - <DEIAI Prow. K on amphora; ME below
Zygman Coll. = Sv. 54, 26, Feuardent, gr. 16.25 (Pl.)f
This obverse is probably derived from a coin of Karaich-Ergokle (cf. No. 536
for a similarity in the rendering of the head). The reverse is carried over from
No. 1390b.

1392.
a. Rev. TTOAEMflN - AAKETHZ - APIZ Tripod. 0 on amphora; ZQ below
Petsalis Coll., gr. 13.43 (PI.) /
b. Rev. MlKlflN - EYPYKAEI - EYAN Dioscuri. H on amphora; Id) below
*Lee (de Zogheb) 264 = Glymenopoulos Coll. (Sv. 55, 22), gr. 16.90
r c. Rev. AOPOAIZI - AlOrE - ZftTTY Cornucopiae. 0 on amphora; ME below
Mavrokordatou Coll. (JIAN, 1912, 1311), gr. 16.00
d. Rev. AIONYZI - AIONYZI - APIZ Helios in quadriga. B on amphora; Z<t> below
London, gr. 16.39 /
11393.
a. Rev. FTOAEMflN - AAKETHZ - APIZ Tripod. 0 on amphora; Zfl below
Empedocles Coll. = Weber 3521, gr. 15.03
456
L| b. Rev. MIKIflN - EYPYKAEI - EYAN Dioscuri. H on amphora; ZO below
| I * Glasgow (Hunt. 115) PI.
| | c. Rev. MIKIflN - EYPYKAEI - ["OPriTT Dioscuri. I on amphora; ME below
| | *Petsalis Coll., gr. 15.65 (PI.)
| L d. Rev. AOPOAIZI - AlOrE - ZJ2TTY Cornucopiae. ?on amphora; ME below
| *Paris, gr. 14.86 (PI.)
Transfer of two reverse dies establishes a link between Nos. 1392 and 1393.
There is no clue to the order of reverses for No. 1392 but for No. 1393 a die break
between the crest and protomes of the helmet, visible on a and c but not on b
I and d, indicates that the transferred reverses were used first with Obverse 1392
I and later with Obverse 1393 in its early stage. Four of the eight coins of these
| two entries are plated; it is likely that the other pieces also have a copper core.
The obverse of No. 1392 seems to derive from the issue of Dionysi-Dionysi
j (cf. Nos. 556 and 559) while that of No. 1393 is very similar to dies of Mikion -
| Euryklei. Compare it with No. 488, for example, as regards hair, overlapping
I crest ends and facial expression.
L 1394. Rev. MIKIflN - EYPYKAEI - EYAN Dioscuri. ?on amphora; ZO below
Berlin, gr. 14.64 (PI.)
1395. Rev. MIKIflN - EYPYKAI - TOPDn Dioscuri. I on amphora; ZO below
*Berry Coll., gr. 16.28 (Pl.)f
The close similarity between Obverses 1393 and 1395 points to a common
prototype (cf. No. 488 of Mikion-Euryklei) unless, of course, the copyist used
his own work as the model for a second obverse die.
1396. Rev. MIKIflN - EYPYKAE -ZflKPATZ Dioscuri. E on amphora; ZO below
Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 8228), gr. 15.75 (PL)f

Clearly this is another obverse from the same hand as Nos. 1880, 1382,
1388 and 1390. Note the blundered form of the third magistrate's name.
1397. Rev. MIKIflN - EYPYKAE - AIOKAHZ Dioscuri. C on amphora; ME below
von Reutersward Coll., gr. 16.83f
This obverse is markedly different from any in the Mikion-Euryklei issue
and seems to me to belong among the imitations.
1398. Rev. MIKIflN - EYPYKAE - APEZTOZ Dioscuri. ?on amphora; ZO below
de Laval Coll., gr. 15.67 (Pl.)f
1399. Rev. KAPAIX - EPrOKAE - ATTOA Prow. ?on amphora; Zfl below
Munich, gr. 16.05 (PI.)
Imitations
457
There is perhaps a certain similarity between Obverses 1398 and 1399 al-
though the battered condition of the latter makes it impossible to compare
details. Neither die can be said to be an accurate or even a close copy of an
official obverse.
1400. Rev. KAPAIX - EPTOKAHI - XAI Prow. 0 on amphora; 2Q below
*Romanos Coll.
1401. Rev. KAPAIX - EPrOKAE - AlOcD Prow. I on amphora; ME below
Paris, amphora letter uncertain, gr. 14.28 (PL); Berlin, gr. 14.76 (PI.)1
The obverse of No. 1400 is close in style to Nos. 1380 and 1390. That of
No. 1401 is generally similar in treatment. On the first reverse the second mag-
istrate's name appears as EPI"OKAHZ instead of EPrOKAE.
1402. Rev. KAPAIX - EPTOKAE - GENII Prow. ?on amphora; ME below
*ANS, gr. 14.58 (Pl.)f; Empedocles Coll.
In the heaviness of the profile, this obverse seems to me closer to dies of
Aphrodisi-Apolexi and Euryklei-Ariara (such as Nos. 496, 511-12) than to
those of Karaich-Ergokle.
1403. Rev. KAPAIX - EPTOKAE - XAI Prow. Q on amphora; Ifl below
Raymond, Oct. 1945, 8
It is difficult to find a prototype for this coin. Not only is the head totally
unlike any representation in the Karaich-Ergokle series but it also seems to
have no real parallel in any other issue. Extreme attenuation of the helmet
ornament and the excessively thick ridges of the neck point to an imitation
produced by an inept diecutter.
1404. Rev. AMMSJWOS - KAAAIAI - AYIAN Torches. B on amphora; IO below
Istanbul (from Samsun), gr. 16.98 /

The obverse die is a fairly close copy of a tetradrachm of Ammonios-Kallias
(cf., for example, No. 582 on Plate 60) except for the rendering of the hair.
With the reverse the copyist was less successful. The little owl with its sharply
defined plumage and the thin, heavily-dotted letters are markedly different in
technique from the work of the official diecutters.
1405. Rev. ZOKPATHE - AlONIZOAfl - SfllAO Apollo. E on amphora; MH below
ANS-ETN (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.45f; Berlin, gr. 16.88
1 Another plated coin in Berlin (12.25 gr.) is from the same reverse die. Its obverse is com-
pletely obliterated.
458
This imitation seems to derive from No. 617a. Note that the Y of Dionysodo
looks like an I on the Athenian die and the control letters which are somewhat
carelessly cut might be taken for MH, a combination not recorded for this
period. The blundering of the inscription, the E on the amphora (probably a
worn B on the original coin was thought to be an E) and the abnormal com-
position of the silver (p. 687) all indicate an imitation struck outside Athens.
1406.
a. Rev. MHTPOAflPOZ - AHMOZ0E - APIZTOAH Grapes. Z on amphora; =0
below
London (BMC 456), gr. 15.95 (PI. ?)f
b. Rev. ZJilAOZ - EYANAPOZ - AYZITTTT Bee. T on amphora; ME below
Vienna, gr. 16.88
The obverse is probably copied from a die of the Zoilos-Euandros issue.
Both reverses are accurate reproductions except for the minor deviations of =0
for 10 and AYZITTTl for AYZin. Since the Metrodoros and Zoilos coinages cannot
be contiguous, Nos. 1406a and b represent another example of spurious die
linkage such as has been noted with earlier imitations.
1407. Rev. AAMflN - ZflZIKPATHZ - KPITQN Quiver. B on amphora; An below
I believe that this is an imitation. The copying is unusually accurate but the
obverse is sufficiently different from official dies of Damon- Sosikrates as to
raise doubt that it was cut at the Athens mint. For this period of the coinage
an obverse-reverse combination represented by a single coin is somewhat sus-
picious and the composition of the silver used for No. 1407 (see p. 637) is ab-
normal.

1408. Rev. AAMEN - ZflZKPATHZ - KPITflN Quiver. B on amphora; An below
When the final lot of coins from the Halmyros Hoard was confiscated by
the Athens authorities, a number of crude modern counterfeits were found
mingled with the genuine tetradrachms. This is one of the forgeries (p. 494 in
the Hoards section). The prototype cannot be traced but it, like No. 1418 below,
was undoubtedly an ancient imitation of the Athenian coinage as is evident
from a comparison of obverse and reverse with normal dies of the Damon -
Sosikrates issue (Plates 78-79). Note in particular the large volute which
terminates the visor fine and the peculiar form of the first magistrate's name.
1409. Rev. AlAAIflN to left; AO to right. Tyche. A on amphora
(Dr.) Berry Coll., gr. 4.07f
Imitations
459
It is difficult to make out the reading in the left field, apparently a clumsy
attempt to copy KAAAIOiJN. At the upper right the line of the wreath seems to
cross directly above the AO which would indicate an omission of A G E. This is
the only instance of a failure to include the Athenian ethnic on imitations of the
New Style coinage.
1410. Rev. EYMHAOZ - KAAAIQQN - AAEE Tyche. ?on amphora; ME below
London {BMC 407), gr. 15.91 /
The coin may be plated. In any event, the obverse with its weak profile and
abnormal rendering of the helmet ornament cannot be reconciled with the
official dies of Eumelos-Kalliphon (Plates 80-81).
1411.
a. Rev. EYMHAOZ - KAAAIOQN - HPA Tyche. 9 on amphora; Zl below
Athens, gr. 16.22
b. Rev. EYMHAOZ - KAAAIOQN - HPA Tyche. 0 on amphora; Zfl below
c. Rev. EYMHAOZ - KAAAKDIJN - HPA Tyche. 0 on amphora; ?below
Rollin & Feuardent, May 1908, 296
pd. Rev. 0EOAOTOZ- KA.O<DANTTZ - ZflTAZ No symbol. B on amphora; ME
1 below
| *ANS-ETN, gr. 16.70t
1412. L Rev. 0EOAOTOZ - KA.OOANFTZ - ZflTAZ No symbol. Bon amphora; ?below
Ratto (Rogers) 484 = Naville (Bement) 1125 = Hirsch (Rhousopoulos)
2052, gr. 16.89
1413. Rev. 0EOAOTOZ - KAEOOANHZ - ZQTAZ No symbol. B on amphora; ME

below
*ANS, gr. 16.98 /
1414. Rev. 0EOAOTOZ - KAEOOANHZ - ZQTAZ No symbol. B on amphora; ME
below
These seven coins surely belong together. The four obverse dies are so sim-
ilar in style as to suggest that one was copied from another. It is hard to believe,
however, that a tetradrachm of either Eumelos-Kalliphon or Theodotos-
Kleophanes served as the original model. No. 1414 is the only obverse which
bears any resemblance to an official die of either striking and it shares with
Nos. 1411-13 the strange rendering of the hair by zigzag lines which occurs at
Athens only in the issue of Polemon-Alketes. The reverses fall into two pat-
terns, again excepting No. 1414: on Nos. 1411a-c a thin little owl with legs far
460
apart and on Nos. 141 Id and 1413 a plumper bird with similar stance. Neither
type is akin to the owls of Plates 80-81, 83-84.
The apparent die linking of non-contiguous issues, the incongruities of style
and the somewhat abnormal composition of the silver of Nos. 1411d and 1413
(p. 637) are indicative of an unofficial issue.
1415. Rev. HPA...AHZ-EYKAHZ-AP Tyche and amphora. M on amphora; ME
below
Athens
1416. Rev. HPAK.. .AHZ- EYKAHZ- . .E... Tyche and amphora. B on amphora;
NE below
Evelpidis Coll., gr. 16.10 (PI.)
1417. Rev. HPAKAE. AHZ - EYKAHZ - AIKAH Tyche and amphora. T on amphora;
ME below
Athens (Sv. 64, 6), gr. 16.10f
No. 1415 is the copper core of a plated coin and No. 1416 is also a plated
specimen. All three imitations of the Herakleides-Eukles coinage are of poor
style and clumsy technique but otherwise they have little in common. No one
of them bears even a superficial resemblance to the obverse dies of the Athens
mint (cf. Plates 82, 85-87). Note, however, that the treatment of the hair on
No. 1415 and to some extent on No. 1416 is comparable with that of Nos. 1411
to 1414.
NE is an error for ME. The name of the third magistrate on No. 1415 is in-
complete; on No. 1416 it is little more than a random arrangement of dots.
1418. Rev. NIKPTHI- AIONYZIOZ-TA Gorgon's head. N on amphora; An below
Berry Coll. (Halmyros Hd.), gr. 16.72f

This coin from the Halmyros Hoard served as the model for a group of
modern counterfeits (see page 494 of the Hoards section). It is definitely an
ancient imitation of the New Style coinage. The obverse is probably copied
from a tetradrachm of Niketes-Dionysios but the copyist has not reproduced
the prototype with any real skill. On the reverse the first magistrate's name is
blundered and I"A replaces TAAY as third magistrate. The latter is associated
with A on the official coinage while the imitation has N on the amphora, a date
otherwise unrecorded on the dies of Niketes and Dionysios. In composition the
silver used for No. 1418 is distinctly non-Athenian (see pp. 637f.).
1419.
a. Rev. AHMEAZ - EPMOKANZ - ATTOAAnNI ZIM Headdress of Isis. K on the
amphora; AH below
London (BMC 361; Sv. 68, 25), gr. 15.65f
Imitations
461
b. Rev. EYMHAOZ - GECEENIAHE Ares (?). A on the amphora; Al below
Cambridge (Grose 5914), gr. 16.64f
c. Rev. NETTQP - MNAZEAI Stag. K on amphora; ZJ below
ANS-ETN, gr. 16.45f
In 1938 Kambanis published Nos. 1419b and c in proof of the contiguity of
the issues of Eumelos-Theoxenides and Nestor-Mnaseas (BCH, 1988, pp.74f.,
PI. XVIII, 8-4). Unfortunatelysince I believe the two strikings are indeed
contiguousthe existence of No. 1419a destroys the validity of Kambanis'
die link.
What we have in fact is another example of too many reverses sharing a
single obverse and in consequence the three coins must be classified as ancient
imitations of the Athenian series. The obverse bears no resemblance to dies of
Demeas-Hermokles or Nestor-Mnaseas (Plates 116-117, 185-136) but is a
good copy of a die of Eumelos-Theoxenides (compare it with Nos. 1197-1198,
1201-1202 on Plate 184). This then is apparently its first stage, followed by
No. 1419a and finally by 1419c. For the last striking the die has been recut in
the area of the helmet crest and the hair.
The reverse type of No. 1419b also successfully reproduces a die of Eumelos-
Theoxenides, being perhaps most similar to No. 1196a. E instead of I terminates
the second magistrate's name and Al is otherwise unknown for this issue but it
does occur as a control combination on emissions immediately preceding and
may have appeared on Eumelos-Theoxenides dies of which no record survives.
In cutting the reverse of Demeas-Hermokles, the engraver shows a high degree
of carelessness. His tightly bound wreath, for example, is quite different from
that of the official dies and the inscription seems to reflect a peculiar combining

of two names: ATTOAAflNIOI of month E and AYIIMAX of months I through N.
The K on the amphora would be correct for Lysimachos but wrong for Apol-
lonios.1 Except for the unduly small owl, the third reverse (No. 1419c) is an
accurate copy of a die of Nestor-Mnaseas.
The ANS coin has been analyzed (p. 637). Its metallic composition is en-
tirely consistent with that of official tetradrachms of the period.
1420. Rev. EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOZ Seated figure. A on amphora; AP below
*ANS (Anatolia Hd.), gr. 15.96f; Kricheldorf V, 79, gr. 16.57
1 The ZIM is explained by Sundwall as a patronymic, Apollonios son of Simon (Untersuch.
XLIX, p. 62), but it is to be noted that no official die carries this reading. Perhaps the copying
was done from two models, without any regard for the resulting inaccuracy. On several reverses
of Demeas-Hermokles the form of the third magistrate's name is given as AYZIM and the ar-
rangement of the last three letters (e.g. No. 1063b) parallels that of the imitation.
462
1421. Rev. EENOKAHZ - APMCEENOZ Seated figure. A on amphora; ATTO below
"Cambridge (Leake Coll., SNG 8229; Sv. 76, 1), gr. 15.79|
1422. Rev. EENOKANI - APMOEENOI Seated figure
(Dr.) *Athens = Sv. 76, 27, Hirsch, gr. SÔf1
Previous publications have included Nos. 1421 and 1422 with the regular
emissions of the Athenian mint.2 On Plate 76 of Les monnaies d'Athenes, Svo-
ronos illustrates both specimens but the tetradrachm is classified with the
seated Roma coinage of Xenokles and Harmoxenos while the drachm is segre-
gated at the bottom of the plate as a separate issue of the two magistrates. In
two earlier articles {JIAN, 1906, p. 827 and Riv. Num., 1908, p. 315) the
symbol on the drachm is described first as unpublished and later as a seated
goddess on a throne; it is clear that Svoronos considered the unit and the
fraction as belonging to different strikings of the New Style coinage. Kambanis
{BCH, 1938, p. 78) makes the same distinction when he speaks of the unique
drachm with a seated woman on a throne as the sole surviving example of a
fourth emission of Xenokles and Harmoxenos. This division seems to me un-
justifiable. The three coins illustrated on Plate 159 have a marked similarity
of obverse style and, to my eye at least, the symbol on all three reverses is the
same: a seated figure seen from the side with a spear or sceptre in the raised
right hand and a sword-like object held diagonally or straight out from the
body in the lowered left hand. Even the way in which the hair is drawn back
in a bun is identical on Nos. 1421 and 1422. It is the line of the spear and the
upraised arm, less clearly defined on the drachm than on the tetradrachms due
to the limitations of space, that suggests a throne and probably explains Svo-
ronos' differentiation of symbols.

All three coins are, I believe, imitations. The obverse style, notably in the
sprawling ornament on the helmet, the single line of the visor and the straight,
thin locks of hair, has nothing in common with the highly consistent rendering
of the Athena head on dies of Xenokles-Harmoxenos (Plates 122-128) and of
adjoining issues. On the reverse of the official dies the symbol is a seated figure
of Roma, facing front, with a sword transversely across her lap and a spear or
sceptre supported by her raised right hand. On either side of the goddess is a
shield resting on its rim. In turning the symbol sideways, the copyist may
1 There is an element of confusion in the record. The coin listed by Svoronos in the publi-
cations of 1906 and 1908 as an Athens accession (from Hirsch XIII, 2067) is the same drachm
illustrated on Plate 76 of Les monnaies d'Athenes and there ascribed to Dr. Hirsch. The piece is
in the Athens Cabinet.
* No. 1420, a recently discovered coin from the Anatolia Hoard of 1955, is linked to Nos. 1421
and 1422 by style and by the unusual rendering of the symbol.
Imitations
463
simply have considered a profile representation easier to handle than a facing
one; on the other hand he may have misunderstood the symbolism. To an out-
sider the seated figure might well have had an Aetolian rather than a Roman
connotation. There is certainly a striking resemblance between the type of the
Aetolian League tetradrachms (see A, the reverse of an ANS coin, on Plate 159)
and the little symbol on the imitations: the profile representation to the right,
the cushion-like shields on which the figure sits, the upraised hand with its
spear and the projecting sword with prominent rounded hilt. Even the grace-
less dumpiness of the seated symbol carries some suggestion of the sturdy
Aetolia. Although the Aetolian League coins were struck at an earlier date,
there is no reason to suppose that they had disappeared from circulation by the
end of the second century. Consciously or unconsciously the engraver of the
imitations may have been influenced by a familiar type when he set to work
to reproduce the coinage of Xenokles and Harmoxenos.
Analysis of No. 1420 (p. 687) shows a metallic composition which varies to
some extent from that of other coins of the period but the difference is not
great enough to be of real significance. On the drachm there seems to be a slight
blundering of the inscription (A for A in the ethnic: N for H in the first magis-
trate's name) but one cannot be sure of the reading.
1423. Rev. BAZJAE M10PAAATNI - APilTIQN Star and crescents. B on the am-
phora; ET7I below
*Ratto (Rogers) 451, broken
1424. Rev. .. Zl AEYZ MI0PAAA.. HZ - .. IC.. fiN Star and crescents
(Dr.) *Istanbul, gr. 8.17j
The coarse style of the obverse heads on both tetradrachm and drachm (as

compared with the dies of Plate 127) indicates that the coins are imitations. A
slight blundering of the legend occurs on No. 1428. Greater deviation is found
on No. 1424 with BAIIAEYI in place of BAZIAE and a fragmentary rendering of
Aristion divided between left and right fields. In the case of the drachm, the
light weight and abnormal die axis are further evidence of a non-Athenian
origin.
1425. Rev. MNAZEAZ - NEZTOP Kerchnos
Berlin, gr. 15.01
1426. Rev. Same type
Berlin, gr. 14.19
No. 1426 is the copper core of a plated tetradrachm; No. 1425 to judge by
its weight is also a plated piece. Both obverses are clumsily executed and bear
little resemblance to official dies of the Mnaseas-Nestor issue. The two re-
464
verses show a similarity in the rendering of owl and lettering which may in-
dicate the work of a single man.
1427. Rev. KOINTOI - XAPMOIT Grain-ears. A on amphora; ATT below
*ANS-ETN, gr. 16.19f; Berlin (Sv. 73, 10), gr. 16.68; Berlin {Sitzungsber.
d. Berl. Akad., 1896, PI. XI, 11; Sv. 78, 9), gr. 16.281
1428.
a. Rev. KOINTOI-XAPMOITPA Grain-ears. ?on amphora; ATT below
*Mykonos
b. Rev. Same but control combination illegible
Berlin, gr. 15.52
Nos. 1427-1428 will undoubtedly seem the most controversial of the imita-
tion entries, involving as they do the subtraction of an entire issue from the
mint of Athens. So radical a proposal is not to be advanced lightly and it will
be necessary to examine in some detail the considerations behind it.
Five coins and one lead forgery or test piece are known, comprising two
obverse and four reverse dies, which would indicate a small emission. The ANS
specimen was purchased from an American dealer while the three Berlin tetra-
drachms came from private collections with no indication of original prove-
nance. No. 1428a was, according to Kambanis, found on Rheneia, the island
near Delos. This last is then the only coin with an attested find-spot. No hoard
evidence is available to provide a clue as to the date of the coinage or the area
in which it circulated. The symbol, two grain-ears, is so common as to be of no
help in fixing the place of minting. One of the magistrates is clearly of Roman
origin, the second name is unknown at Athens but the same is true of other
mint magistrates. Analysis of the ANS tetradrachm (p. 637) gives a composition

low in copper for the latest New Style period but comparable in both copper
and gold to single coins of 178/7, 124/3 and 120/19 B.C.
The factual information outlined above provides no firm evidence for a non-
Athenian origin; the disturbing aspect of the coins lies rather in their style.
Before any comparisons can be made on such grounds, one must determine
where the issue belongs if it is a component part of the New Style series. In this
respect there has been universal agreement among numismatists that it is one
of the late two-magistrate emissions. The only other place where it could come
is in the period just before 169 B.C. with the issues bearing the abbreviated
names of two magistrates. But the small, neatly-executed flans, the size of the
issue, and the rendering of the Athena head make it well-nigh inconceivable
that the Kointos-Charmostra coins are related to the early two-magistrate
1 There is a lead piece in the ANS Collection, an ancient forgery or test piece, from the same
obverse die and an unrecorded reverse. It seems to have XAPOM2T and possibly A and ATI.
Imitations
465
series. They do, on the other hand, seem at first glance to fit well into the late
period. After 112/1 B.C. the issues of the Athenian mint are often little more
than token strikings, the flans are rather small and the obverse dies show a
considerable degree of variation in style. If the Kointos tetradrachms are
Athenian they must surely form a part of this late coinage.
It is only when one compares them carefully with the final Athenian issues
that one begins to sense that they are not really at home there either. This is
perhaps more obvious with respect to the reverses than to the obverses.
Anyone handling a considerable number of coins of a single series inevitably
acquires a feeling for stylistic differences as they relate to chronology and this
is particularly true in a sequence such as that of the New Style where there is a
clearly discernible pattern of development in the rendering of the types. The
obverses to be sure illustrate the variant interpretations of different diecutters
but these individual styles, as they appear and disappear and as they relate
one to the other, form a definite chronological sequence. With the reverses
there is even greater consistency in the rendering of the type, at least in the
period between 169 and 86 B.C. The owls and amphorae of Mikion-Theophra
are vastly different from those of Menedemos-Timokrates, for example, but
the evolutionary process is gradual, orderly and without deviation as one can
see from the plates. The bird becomes increasingly oversize and ill-proportioned
with exaggerated head and eyes; the vase becomes increasingly prominent and
elongate. Every reverse of the late Athenian series reflects the latest stage in
the development of the owl-on-amphora type, many of the results being so
grotesque as to be veritable caricatures. When the two reverses of Kointos and
Charmostra are compared with those of Plates 131-142, the difference in con-

ception is immediately apparent. The Kointos reverses are stylistically of a
much earlier period; if one were dating them by type alone, one would unhesi-
tatingly assign them to the years between 169 and 159 B.C. On Plates 32-44
one finds dies with the same kind of owl on the same kind of amphora: Nos. 324a,
367b, 376b, 396c and 413 among others.
It is less easy to define the basic difference between the Kointos-Charmostra
obverses and those of the late issues of Plates 131-142. At this period, specifi-
cally from 117 B.C. on, the Athenian engravers produced dies which fall into a
number of stylistically disparate groupings and it would seem as though an-
other diverse issue could be inserted into the sequence without difficulty. There
is, however, a quality about the obverses of Nos. 1427-1428 which is not found
in any of the late dies of Athens and which can perhaps best be described as
neatness. The general impression is not entirely pleasing, due chiefly to the
staring eyes and set profile, but the execution shows a delicacy in treatment of
details which is utterly at variance with the late Athenian technique. At Athens
466
the Athena heads are, with few exceptions, large and frequently repulsive in
their coarseness; the protomes and visor lines are heavy; the helmet ornaments
are loose and sprawling; the crest terminals are rendered with thick lines. Note,
in contrast, the small well-proportioned heads of the Kointos dies, the compact
neatness of the protomes and visor, the tidy and symmetrical disposition of the
ornament and the thin crest terminals. Again one is reminded of a much earlier
stage of the Athenian coinage.
In view of the cited anomalies of both obverse and reverse style, one can
keep the Kointos coinage at Athens only by positing a diecutter working at the
Athenian mint for a single year in the late second or early first century who
broke sharply with current tradition and turned out a limited number of ob-
verse and reverse dies strikingly dissimilar to the work of his contemporaries
but highly analogous to the work of Athenian engravers of the second quarter
of the second century.
The alternative is an imitative coinage and this seems to me by far the more
plausible explanation. I should venture to go even further and identify the
Kointos obverses as derivations of the tetradrachms of Timarchos and Nika-
goras whose monetary magistracy fell in 166/5 B.C. With some slight allowance
for the inevitable variation between model and copy, Obverses 1427-1428 are
very close to Obverses 361, 362, 363 and 868 (Plates 86-37): the proportions
and size of the heads, the loose tresses of hair falling softly back, the thinness
of the crest terminals and the angle at which they meet, the compactness of
protomes and visor, the pattern of the helmet ornament (less elaborately ren-
dered on the imitations but identical in general arrangement), the short parallel
locks of hair in front of the ear. Even the profile of No. 1427 is notably similar

to Nos. 363 and 368. In only one respect do the dies differ sharply and that is
in the substitution on Nos. 1427-1428 of a volute termination of the visor for
the squared ear flap of the Athenian obverses. As has been mentioned before
in connection with No. 1365, this volute design is not found on the coinage of
the New Style series but is a characteristic of certain Pontic and Cretan ren-
derings of the Athena Parthenos head. Its presence on Nos. 1427-1428 makes
it all the more probable that they represent the output of a foreign mint.
Almost all of the imitations recorded on Plates 150-159 are relatively
faithful copies in types, inscriptions and symbols of the New Style coins which
served as their models. Deviations do occur, most notably in the association of
magistrates and symbols, but even in such instances one can still determine the
Athenian issue or issues from which the imitation was derived. There are only
four exceptions: Nos. 1353 and 1864 where the inscriptions are senseless and
apparently the result of a misunderstanding of the meaning of the lettering on
the prototypes, No. 1865 with its unusual O AEMOZ legend, and finally the
Imitations
467
coinage under present discussion. In the last case the departure from common
practice is extensive. Obverse and reverse types are copied with fidelity from
an Athenian coin or coins of 166 B.C. or thereabouts and the Athenian ethnic is
retained, but there the imitating stops. Magistrates' names cannot be related to
any Athenian issue of the period and one assumes that theKointos andCharmostra
of the imitations are local officials although they may, of course, be merely the
product of the engraver's imagination. The diecutter knew the coinage he was
copying and added to his dies the standard elements of symbol, month letter
and control combination but again the selection was original and not derivative.1
This improvising seems remarkable because it is unusual but actually one
wonders why it was so unusual. Most of the copies recorded in the catalogue
are ancient forgeries, plated coins designed to pass as genuine tetradrachms.
Many of them may have been struck and put into circulation in Athens itself
and it was obviously desirable that these be as similar as possible to the official
output of the Athenian mint. In the case of the foreign imitations there would
have been no real necessity for faithful copying. They were designed, one sup-
poses, to circulate in more distant regions, familiar with the traditional types
of Athens but certainly not in a position to judge the validity of subsidiary
details. A coin which resembled an Athenian tetradrachm in general appearance
and carried the ethnic of Athens would pass as legal tender no matter what
names, symbols or letters were inscribed on it. It is, of course, easier to copy
than to create and this undoubtedly accounts for the fact that the foreign
imitations are by and large slavish replicas of their prototypes.
In the coinage of Kointos-Charmostra we seem to have an exceptional in-
stance of originality and it would be interesting to know where the dies were

cut. The excellence of the technique suggests a mint within the Greek world
proper or at least one thoroughly conversant with its traditions but beyond
that I can hazard no guess. Earlier publications of the issue associate Kointos
with Metellus. If the coinage is imitative, it was probably struck sometime in
the mid-second century B.C. and the connection would, chronologically speaking,
be possible. There is, however, no reason to postulate a prominent Roman as
the Kointos of the coins. Surely many men of Roman origin, active in civic
affairs at this period throughout the Greek-speaking world, bore the same name.
Until we have some clue as to where the tetradrachms originated, it is pointless
to speculate on the magistrates responsible for their emission.
1 This is, of course, not true of the date which may have appeared on the model. The control
combination ATT is known for a slightly earlier and for a later period. A single ear of grain was
used as the symbol on a monogram issue of 187/6 B.C. and two ears bound together was the device
of the Amphikrates-Epistratos coinage of 133/2. Neither Athenian symbol resembles that of the
Kointos tetradrachms.
468
MODERN FORGERIES
(Plate 159)
1429. Rev. N-A
Christodoulos obverse and reverse dies (JIAN, 1927, PI. J, 816)
1430. Rev. Not reproduced
Christodoulos obverse die (JIAN, PI. J, 317)
1431. Rev. M1KI-6EPA
(Hemidr.) *Christodoulos reverse die (JIAN, PI. J, 818)
1432. Rev. EFIirENH -IftlANAPOI- AEINOK Eagle on fulmen. A on amphora;
TTPfl below
*Egger XL (Prowe) 958, gr. 16.76f
1433. Rev. KNflllflN Labyrinth
London, gr. 15.16
The production in modern times of dies for New Style counterfeits is happily
uncommon. A few examples are on record, notably Nos. 1429-1431 representing
the work of the well-known Christodoulos. It seems to me that No. 1432 is also
a tetradrachm of comparatively recent date.
No. 1483, once in the Seager Collection and now in the British Museum
among its forgeries, is from the hand of an able and ingenious counterfeiter.
Basically the coin is a perfectly genuine Athenian tetradrachm of the Pfl fB
issue struck from Obverse 1306 (Plate 146). Its reverse has been painstakingly
altered, first by the elimination of the monograms and then by the cutting
away of the field in the area of the ethnic and symbol to produce the Cnossus
inscription and device. Resulting unevenness of the surface is visible in photo-
graphic reproduction (Henri Seyrig noted it immediately) and unmistakable

when one sees the coin itself. In view of the amount of labor involved, partic-
ularly in the cutting out of the labyrinth, the forger's patience, misspent as it
was, deserves a measure of recognition. Since the transformation of a common
Athenian tetradrachm into a rare Cnossus piece would have been profitless in
antiquity, No. 1433 must be considered a modern forgery.1
The broad classification "Imitations" in the present catalogue covers three
general categories of coins: those of distinctly barbaric or non-Athenian st}rle
1 In his article on the money of the slave revolt Svoronos publishes a coin from the Saroglou
Collection which he describes as having the ffl - ffil monograms and a labyrinth symbol in the
lower right field. The piece is illustrated (JIAN, 1915, p. 61, fig. 6) but the poor reproduction of
a badly-preserved coin reveals only the monograms and some additional markings resembling the
outlines of a square. I have been unable to trace the specimen itself; if it does indeed have a
labyrinth symbol, it seems likely that we have in it another example of alteration similar to that
of No. 1433. In fact it is possible that the Saroglou coin represents a trial piece by the same forger.
Imitations
469
(Nos. 1346-1865), those bearing a more or less close resemblance to the official
output of the Athens mint (Nos. 1366-1428), and modern forgeries (Nos. 1429
to 1483). Actually, of course, the subject of imitations is far more complex than
this summary division would indicate and the problems involved are often
irresolvable.
In the field of ancient imitations there are honest and dishonest copies. A
mint at some distance from Athens may put out coins modelled on the Athenian
issues because such a coinage will be commercially acceptable to a degree not
true of other money. Frequently the impetus for this imitative coinage is the
stopping or curtailment of the supply of genuine Athenian coins moving into
that area.1 If the imitations are of good silver and full weight, no real fraud
has been perpetrated; the coins are essentially what they purport to be even
though the indication of origin which they sometimes give is misleading. On
the other hand, coins copying the Athenian tetradrachms and fractions may be
put out by a mint or more commonly, one imagines, by an individual with intent
to deceive and to realize a profit from that deception. Such coins are normally
plated, but since it is not always possible to detect this plating from surface
appearance or weight, these spurious pieces often enough passed unchallenged
in both ancient and modern times.
The division of ancient imitations as presented here is not one of honest and
dishonest copies. Only analysis of all specimens would enable one to make this
fundamental distinction. It is rather one of geography. By and large, the coins
of Plates 150-151 would seem to have originated in workshops outside Athens
and the Greek mainland. The meaningless or badly blundered inscriptions on
some dies, the strange combining of symbols and the barbaric style which dis-

tinguish many of the specimens cannot easily be reconciled with Greek work-
manship.2 Nos. 1846, 1360 and 1364 are plated; Nos. 1848, 1851, 1858, 1857,
1359, 1362-1363 are of suspiciously low weight and No. 1861 is so similar in
style to No. 1860 as to be also suspect. These coins are probably the output of
private forgers. Concerning the others, with the exception of No. 1365 of which
one example has been analyzed and is not plated, there is no conclusive evidence
1 E. S. G. Robinson (ANSMN IX, i960, p. 8) connects the beginning of the direct imi-
tation of Old Style tetradrachms in the Levant with the greatly reduced output of new money
in Athens after the Syracuse disaster. At a later date, after the New Style tetradrachms had
ceased to be struck, imitative coinages sprang up in Arabia and on Crete. Unlike the earlier
imitations, the Himyarite and Cretan coins, while making use of the Athenian type or types, do
not purport to have been issued by Athens.
* The element of acceptance is also pertinent. One might argue that a particularly inept
forger in Athens could have turned out work as bad as some of the coins which are reproduced,
but could these tetradrachms have been put into circulation in a community familiar with the
genuine coinage?
470
one way or the other. Some at least may well represent "official" issues from
small provincial ateliers.
Evidence for specific provenance is limited. No. 1350 was acquired in Ana-
tolia, No. 1352 is in the Bucharest Museum, No. 1363 in the Budapest Museum,
No. 1364 came from a Russian collection, No. 1365 has Pontic associations.
No. 1351 was acquired in Alexandria and was thought by Newell to be of
Arabian origin. One example of No. 1346 and No. 1358 were found in Delos
Hoard r, suggesting a place of minting closer than the Euxine or the Middle
East. Crete, a known source of Athenian imitations at a later date, may have
put these pieces into circulation. It is noteworthy that only Athenian issues of
early date served as the prototypes for these barbaric imitations. Nos. 1346 to
1358 reproduce strikings of 193/2-169/8 B.C.; Nos. 1359-1364 the slightly later
emissions of 161/0,158/7,156/5 and 158/2. Hoards and chance finds in Syria and
Lebanon provide clear indication that the New Style coins ceased to move in
quantity into that area during the 60s of the second century.1 It seems likely
that some of our imitations represent licit and illicit attempts to compensate
in that region for a curtailed supply of Athenian money.
The coins of Plates 152-159 are of a different character. Of the 119 speci-
mens catalogued, 89 are either definitely or very probably plated.2 All entries
between Nos. 1367 and 1403 (with the sole exception of No. 1374) belong in
this category. Their workmanship is generally good, many of the dies are very
close indeed to the genuine ones of particular issues, and the conventions of the
official coinage are for the most part carefully observed. Only weights and
certain stylistic deviations indicate counterfeiting. Since the dies are in no in-
stance those used by the Athenian mint, the coins are the output of private

forgers. That most of them operated in the vicinity of Athens itself is a likely
supposition in view of their excellent craftsmanship and their accurate under-
standing of the formula of the New Style coinage.
The astonishing aspect of this body of material is its size. At certain periods
the counterfeiting is on a scale comparable to that of a small mint. Four re-
verse dies are associated with Obverses 1368, 1384, 1392-1393; seven each with
Obverses 1380 and 1382. As one obverse die wore out, another was cut and
usable reverses were carried over from the old obverse to the new. Note the
transfer of two reverses from Obverse 1392 to Obverse 1393 and the further
1 See p. 544.
2 The copper cores axe visible in the case of many of these pieces. Others are suspect be-
cause of very low weight or because of their association with plated coins. A tetradrachm of
adequate weight and no surface indication of plating if struck from a die used for plated speci-
mens almost certainly has the same composition. Even if the dies are not identical, the style of
an uncertain piece may be so close to that of a plated tetradrachm as to indicate the same engraver.
Imitations
47i
shift of one of them to Obverse 1394. These reverses in their connection with a
single obverse die provide conclusive proof that this counterfeiting is the result
of private and not civic enterprise. No attempt is made to reproduce consist-
ently the dies of a particular New Style emission. Three different issues are
linked with Obverses 1368, 1384 and 1393, four with Obverses 1382 and 1392
and as many as five with Obverse 1380.
It is impossible to tell how many forgers produced this impressive amount
of material or exactly when they worked. The two obverses and six reverses of
Nos. 1368-1369 are similar enough in technique to have been the work of a
single engraver; the three obverses and four reverses of Nos. 1370-1371 and
1375 are, I believe, almost certainly from the same hand. These counterfeiters
took the coinages of 166/5-158/7 for models and presumably operated toward
the end of the 50s of the second century. At a slightly later date another coun-
terfeiter, working alone or with assistance, opened what might be described as
a clandestine mint. Obverses 1880,1882,1388,1890,1396 and 1400 are so close
in style that they can scarcely be anything but the output of the same engraver.
Nos. 1881,1387 and 1391 are connected with them by die linking and Nos. 1397
and 1401 are of somewhat related style. Obverses 1884, 1892-1393 are com-
parable in their general technique, in the issues imitated, and particularly in
the combining of a number of diverse reverses; with these last are to be con-
nected Nos. 1385 and 1394 on the evidence of die links and No. 1395 on that
of style. In all probability the seventeen obverses and forty-two reverses of the
entries under discussion came from a single workshop, imitating coins of the
160/59-151/0 period and hence functioning in the early 40s of the century.
Nothing like this outburst of spurious tetradrachms is recorded for a later

period. The few plated pieces known (Nos. 1406 probably, 1410 possibly, 1415
and 1416 definitely, 1424 possibly and 1425-1426 definitely) seem to represent
isolated examples of individual counterfeiters working on a small scale. Some
pieces were probably produced in the Athens area; othersNos. 1415-1416
and 1424are more likely the handiwork of foreigners.
Of the remaining coins in this second category of imitations, Nos. 1405 (one
example), 1407, 1411d, 1418, 1418, 1419c, 1420 and 1427 (one example) have
been analyzed and are not plated. Presumably other coins closely associated
with these specimens are similarly unadulterated. That most of them were civic
strikings seems likely but there is scant evidence as to the location of the
ateliers. No. 1404 was found at or near Samsun and may well have been issued
in that region. Its obverse bears some similarity to that of No. 1412, a coin
which is obviously connected with Nos. 1411 and 1413-1414, and it is possible
that all these specimens originated in the Black Sea area. No. 1420 was in the
Anatolia Hoard (pp. 509-511 of the section on Hoards), suggesting that its place
472
of emission was also Asia Minor. Another hoard, that of Halmyros in southern
Thessaly (pp. 491-500), contained Nos. 1408, 1418 and one example of No. 1405.
In this case a nearby origin is somewhat unlikely; the coins probably reached
the district through commercial channels. They may have been struck any-
where, in Asia Minor again or possibly on Crete. Stylistically Nos. 1408 and
1409 are so similar as to point to a common production center. No. 1419 is one
of the most puzzling of the imitative entries. Its combining of three diverse
reverses is reminiscent of the plated issues put out by private counterfeiters at
an earlier date, but the one coin analyzed is of silver throughout. Either this
is the output of a civic workshop showing greater imagination than usual or
of a private forger content with a vastly smaller margin of profit. In any case
there is no clue as to the location of the enterprise.
In addition to the limited number of modern counterfeits reproduced on
Plate 159, there are numerous examples of coins produced not by striking but
by casting. These recent forgeries have been noted throughout the catalogue
in connection with the genuine tetradrachms from which they are derived.1
1 Such cast pieces are usually regarded as the work of modern counterfeiters but note the
possibility raised by Milne ("The Coinage of Aradus in the Hellenistic Period," pp. 2of.) that

the ancients also knew how to plate silver on base-metal casts from silver types.
HOARDS
In this section I have tried to bring together whatever information is avail-
able on the large number of hoards containing New Style silver of Athens.
There are at least forty-eight such deposits, varying greatly in size, importance
and documentation. Of these, twenty-four are presented in some detail in the
pages that follow. The others are cited but their contribution to a study of the
coinage is slight, due in some cases to the paucity of Athenian material and in
others to the inadequacy of the existing record. Hoard coins which could be
identified and included in the present corpus are designated by their catalogue
numbers, either in connection with the listing of issues or on the plates if the
deposit is illustrated.
References throughout to Noe and to Roussel pertain to A Bibliography of
Greek Coin Hoards (2nd ed.), NNM 78 and to Delos colonie athenienne, p. 48,
n. 4. Publications dealing with individual hoards are recorded under the
heading of each deposit.
M. Thompson, "The Beginning of the Athenian New Style Coinage," ANSMN V, 1952,
pp.25-83
In this, the earliest of hoards containing New Style silver, tetradrachms of
Athens are associated with tetradrachms and octobols of Chalcis and Eretria.
At least twenty-five coins were in the original find:
ANTHEDON HOARD (Noe 53)
Athens
2 ft-A
2 A>-M
1. 2
5a
196/5
194/3
193/2

195/4
5 * - OANI
1 E-N
9a, 10b and c
12b
Chalcis
4 tetradrachms
1 octobol
Eretria
6 tetradrachms
4 octobols
474
The hoard is discussed and illustrated as fully as possible in the article in
Museum Notes. One can, I believe, safely assume from the evidence presented
there that the four Athenian issues are the first of the New Style coinage, that
they are to be dated between 196/5 and 193/2 B.C., and that the coins were laid
away c. 192/1 B.C.
TELL AHMAR (TIL-BARSIB)
(Plate 160)
Not in Noe. Published by F. Thureau-Dangin and M. Dunand, Til-Barsib, pp. 81 f. Cited
by M. Rostovtzeff in Anatolian Studies Presented to William Hepburn Buckler, p. 298 and
by A. R. Bellinger, A J A, 1988, pp. 818f.
A pot hoard of seventy tetradrachms was found two meters below the level
of the surface of the tell. The excavation report summarizes its contents as
follows:
28 Antiochus VII
4 Demetrius II (2nd reign)
18 Antiochus VIII
8 Antiochus IX
10 Athens New Style (Head's 229-187 period)
2 doubtful
Five New Style tetradrachms in the National Syrian Museum at Damascus,
labelled "Tell Ahmar", are from this hoard. Although the other five New Style
pieces cannot be located, the general dating given in Til-Barsib makes it clear
that they also belong to the early series with monograms or abbreviated names.
The five Damascus specimens, reproduced on Plate 160, are:
1 Monograms and trophy 188/7

1 Monograms and cicada 185/4
2 AHMH - lEPfl 174/8
1 Monograms and eagle 178/2
All show considerable wear but the material is too scanty for any valid eval-
uation of relative condition.
The chief interest of this deposit for our purpose is its similarity to another
Syrian hoard, that of Kessab. Both finds contain New Style coins of compara-
tively early date in association with late Seleucid issues. In the present hoard
the gap between the last New Style coin of which we have record and the ear-
liest Seleucid is thirty-five years while the hoard as a whole must have been
buried early in the first century B.C., about eighty years after the latest New
Style striking. The Tell Ahmar and Kessab deposits, in conjunction with other
evidence (see page 544), indicate strongly that well before the middle of the
Hoards
475
second century B.C. Athenian tetradrachms had ceased to move eastward in
quantity.
SALONIKA HOARD (Noe 899)
Unpublished
This large hoard of some 800 tetradrachms was uncovered in 1929 or there-
abouts and rapidly dispersed. Eighty-one of the coins in the present catalogue
are identifiably from this find: sixty in the British Museum and the remainder
in the American Numismatic Society and private collections.
Only six New Style issues are represented in the hoard:
TAAY-EXE 290b; 291c,e; 292d; 294a; 296a,f; 170/69
802a,d; 808c
MIKI - 9E0<DPA 815b; 816b; 817a,c,d; 318b; 819a; 169/8
320a,e,f; 821a,b; 822a; 828c,d
HPA - APinOO 830b; 881f; 882a,d; 883g; 835g,i; 168/7
887b,c; 838a; 389d,e,i
MENEA - EFTirENO 348b,g,k,l; 849c; 850a,b,d,e,f; 167/6
851a,c,g; 858a,e,f,g,i,j,m; 854a,c,
e,f; 855a,b,d
TIMAPXOY - NIKArO 861b,d(2); 862e,f; 368b,f; 864a(2), 166/5
c; 867b; 368e,g
FIOAYXAPM - NIKOr 376c; 878e; 879d 165/4
In view of the large number of coins and the small number of issues, it
seems evident that the emissions are roughly contemporary. Relative wear
strongly confirms this assumption. The coins recorded above are all well pre-
served, those of the first three strikings somewhat more worn than those of the

last, many of which are FDC.
KESSAB HOARD
Unpublished (PLATE 161)
About 1952 a large hoard was discovered at Kessab, south of Seleucia Pieria.
Dispersal was rapid and in consequence the record of contents is incomplete.
Henri Seyrig, who most kindly made his information available to me, saw the
following pieces:
12 tetradrachms of Seleucia Pieria
216 tetradrachms of the late Seleucid kings, ranging from Demetrius I
through Antiochus IX, the latest dated specimen an emission of
118/2 b.c.
40 tetradrachms of Athens
476
Only nine of the New Style coins, most of them in the Seyrig Collection,
could be entered in the present catalogue and reproduced on Plate 161, but
Seyrig's detailed listing of the other thirty-one pieces makes it possible to re-
constitute this section of the hoard.
1 E-N
198/2
2 Monograms and trophy
188/7
2 Monograms and grain-ear
187/6
1 Monograms and pilei
186/5
2 Monograms and serpents
184/8
1 Monograms and herm
188/2
2TTOAY-Tlffi
181/0
2 AMMft - AIO (cornucopiae)
180/79
1 AAEI - HAIO
179/8
8 XAPI - HPA
178/7
3 HAfi - AYZIA

177/6
2 Monograms and thyrsos
176/5
4 AIOOA - AIOAO
175/4
2 AHMH - lEPfl
174/3
2 Monograms and eagle
178/2
1 Monograms and aplustre
172/1
1 KTHII - EYMA
171/0
1 TAAY - EXE
170/69
1 MIKI - GEOCDPA
169/8
1 AflPOGE - AIOO
164/8
5 ANTIOXOI- NIKOr and KAPAIXOI
168/2
The New Style tetradrachms include a single coin of 193/2 followed by an
almost unbroken sequence of issues from 188/7 through 168/2, and even the
few gaps in that twenty-five year period may be more apparent than real. In
1952 and 1958 a considerable number of New Style coins came on the market
in the hands of several Beirut dealers. For the most part the issues were the
same as those known to have been in the Kessab Hoard and in a number of
cases the amphora and control letters of the dealers' coins were identical with
those provided by Seyrig's listing. In addition to the duplicated issues the
Beirut tetradrachms included examples of the AMMSJ - AIO (kerchnos) striking
of 182/1, of HPA - APIXTCKD of 168/7 and of TTOAYXAPM - NIKOr of 165/4, the
two last coins in the same splendid state of preservation as the ABPO0E - AIOO
and ANTIOXOZ specimens from the Kessab Hoard. It seems to me highly
probable that some at least of the Beirut coins came originally from Kessab
but there is no way of establishing the connection.
Hoards
477
No emission later than that of Antiochos can possibly be associated with
the hoard; the last New Style pieces are the fine to FDC tetradrachms of 163/2
which surely had not been long from the mint before they were withdrawn
from circulation. The Kessab Hoard, like the find at Tell Ahmar, is noteworthy
for its combination of comparatively early Athenian coins and late Seleucid
issues. In both deposits it may be that the Athenian pieces represent a separate
hoard merged at a later date with Seleucid material. On the other hand, it
may be that the Kessab Hoard is a continuing accumulation with the Seleucid
tetradrachms of Demetrius picking up exactly where the New Style issues
stop, but in that case it is difficult to understand the absence of the coinage
of the earlier Seleucid kings who made extensive use of the nearby mint of
Antioch1 and whose silver would presumably have been more common in the
Kessab region than that of Athens.
NAXOS HOARD (Noe 788)
G. P. Oikonomos, Praktika de I'Acadimie d'Athines, III, 1928, pp. 25-88
L. Robert, Etudes de numismatique grecque, 1951, pp. 161 f.
According to Oikonomos the hoard contained seventy silver and two bronze
coins: thirty-one New Style pieces, eighteen drachms of Naxos, twenty-one
trihemiobols of Rhodes and two bronzes, probably of Andros. It is said by
Kambanis to have been found in 1926. A more detailed publication was planned
by Oikonomos and is now being carried to completion by Mme. Irene Varoucha,
who has most generously given me a brief listing of the component New Style
issues arranged in order of condition from most to least worn.
Monograms issues
AHMH - lEPfi (dr.)

WAfl - AYIIA (tetr.)
KTHI1 - EYMA (tetr.)
TAAY - EXE (tetr. and dr.)
HPA - APIZTOO (dr.)
MIK1-GEOOPA (tetr.)
MENEA - EnirENO (dr.)
AflPOeE-AlOO (dr.)
TTOAYXAPM - NIKOr (dr.)
GEOOPA - ZflTAI (dr.)
AYIAN - TAAYKOI (dr.)
AlOfE-nOZEl (dr.)
174/8
177/6
171/0
170/69
168/7
169/8
167/6
164/8
165/4
162/1
159/8
161/0
1 E. T. Newell, The Seleucid Mint of Antioch, Pis. II-IV.
478
The arrangement by wear as determined by Mme. Varoucha corresponds
fairly well with the chronological sequence outlined in the present catalogue.
Oikonomos' belief that the hoard was buried in the middle of the second
century is supported by the New Style material, the latest issue being that
of Lysan-Glaukos in 159/8 B.C.
M. Thompson, "The Grain-Ear Drachms of Athens," ANSCent., pp. 651-671
Early in 1955 a large hoard of 178 drachms and nine tetradrachms, said to
have been discovered in Attica, came on the market and was acquired by the
American Numismatic Society. With the exception of a few duplicates, all
coins are in New York.
The anomalous drachms with grain-ear symbol, which form the bulk of the
hoard, and some regular strikings of contemporary date are discussed and
partially illustrated in the publication cited above. On Plates 162-171 the
find is reproduced in its entirety. Its component issues are as follows:
ATTIC HOARD
(Plates 162-171)
1 dr.
1 tetr.
No monograms, no symbol
AAE1 - HAIO
192/1
179/8
100 dr.
Grain-ear symbol
Monograms and thyrsos

Monograms and thyrsos
c. 180-170
176/5
2 tetr.
1 dr.
2 tetr.
1 tetr.
25 dr.
2 tetr.
1 tetr.
11 dr.
5 dr.
8 dr.
9 dr.
6 dr.
1 dr.
5 dr.
2 dr.
1 dr.
1 dr.
1 dr.
1 dr.
AIOOA - AIOAO
AHMH - lEPfl
AHMH - IEPG
Monograms and aplustre
KTHZI - EYMA
TAAY - EXE
MIKI - 9E0QPA
hpa - APirroo
MENEA - ETTirENO
TIMAPXOY - NIKATO
nOAYXAPM - NIKOr
AflPOQE-AlOO
ANTIOXOZ - KAPAIXOI
QEOOPA - IQTAZ
AXAIOZ - HAI
MIKIflN - EYPYKAEI
A<DPOAIII - AFIOAHEI
175/4
174/8
172/1
171/0
Hoards
479
One hundred and forty-six coins, about three-fourths of the hoard, belong
to the decade between 180 and 170 B.C. Drachms of the next eight years are
present in relatively small quantity and after that there are only isolated
examples of the fractional silver of 160/59, 156/5 and 155/4. Since the really
large issues of drachms at Athens are those with grain-ear symbol and the
fractions of AHMH - lEPfl and TAAY - EXE, it is not surprising that 136 of the
178 small coins in the hoard should be from those emissions. What is extra-
ordinary is that the few tetradrachms of the deposit also belong exclusively
to the same ten-year period. All show signs of wear and it is evident that they
had circulated for some time before being put away. If, as seems likely, this
is a currency hoard, one must assume that even as late as 155 B.C. the tetra-
drachms of 180-170 were common in the Attic market, more common appar-
ently than those of the succeeding fifteen years.
All coins of the 192/1-171/0 strikings show considerable wear, the one early
drachm being very worn and the others in worn to fair condition. Issues of
TAAY-EXE and MIKI -GEOOPA are better; those of HPA - APIITOO through
AOPOAIZ1 - ATTOAHEI are good to extremely fine. The drachms of 0EOOPA -
IflTAI, AXAIOZ-HAI, MIKK2N - EYPYKAEI and AOPOAIZI - ATTOAHEI seem to
me definitely the latest of the hoard coins but in each case we have only a
single example. One can at least say that these four fractions are quite com-
parable in condition and this is of significance for the chronological arrangement,
especially as regards the emission of MIKIflN - EYPYKAEI. No one of these pieces
can have been in circulation for any considerable time and the burial date of the
hoard, if it is a currency deposit, should be close to 155/4 B.C.
DELOS HOARD I" (Noe 806, 8; Roussel 3c)

J. N. Svoronos, JIAN, 1906, pp. 260-267
The 249 tetradrachms of this deposit are fully described in Svoronos' article
on the three Delos hoards of 1905. Most of the coins are included in the present
catalogue with reference to the numbers of Svoronos' listing. Component issues
in chronological sequence are as follows:
1 Monograms and grain-ear 51b 187/6
1 AMMfl-AlO (kerchnos) 97a 182/1
2TTOAY-TII8 105; 110c 181/0
1 AAEI-HAIO 127c 179/8
1 WAfl-AYZIA 158d 177/6
1 AIOOA-AIOAO 175/4
2 Monograms and aplustre 249c; 263c 172/1
480
4 KTHZ1 - EYMA
271a; 272h; 276b
171/0
1 TAAY-EXE
298a
170/69
8 MIKI - GEOOPA
315a; 819c; 828h
169/8
8 HPA - APIZTOO
881b; 333e; 386b
168/7
4 MENEA - ETTirENO
849a; 850f; 3581; 354e
167/6
3 TIMAPXOY - NIKATO
868a; 868b
166/5
2 AflPOGE - AIOCD
889g
164/3
2 ANTIOXOZ - NIKOr
897c; 400g
168/2
KAPAIXOZ
401a
162/1

1 GEOOPA-ZflTAZ
3 AiorE-nozEi
416d,f
161/0
6 AXAIOZ-HAI
421c,g; 425g; 426g,h; 427f
160/59
11 AYZAN - TAAYKOZ
481i; 482b,g; 488c; 484b,e; 485f; 486c;
159/8
488a
1 EnirENH - ZQZANAPOZ
449f
158/7
1 nOAEMQN - AAKETHZ
469a
157/6
7 AOPOAIZI - ATOAHZI
497d; 499c,e; 500d,e; 508a
155/4
9 EYPYKAEI - APIAPA
512c; 515c; 517b,c; 518e,f
154/3
10 AOPOAIZl - AIOrE
543c,g; 544b,j; 546d,g,i; 548f; 551a; 554b
152/1
27 AIONYZI - AIONYZI
554d; 557f; 559a,d,f,h; 560b; 562; 564c;
151/0
566a; 567e; 569c; 570c,f; 571a,c,d,h,j;
578b; 576b; 577e
26 AMMflNIOZ - KAAAIAZ
577a; 581b,d; 582b,e; 588f; 584g; 585a,e;
150/49
586b,d,h; 588b,c,d; 590a,c(2); 598a(2),b
io eEMizTO-eEonoMnoz
597c; 598e; 600d,g,h; 602a; 604b; 606d;
149/8
608b
20 ZflKPATHZ - AIONYZOAQ
615d; 616a; 618a; 619a,c,e; 621c,e,g;
Hoards
7 HPAKAEIAHI - EYKAHZ 781a(4)
1 Barbaric imitation with Q - N 1846
1 Barbaric imitation with 1858
MIKI - 9E and Helios head
187/6
This large hoard includes the emissions of a fifty-year period between 187/6
and 137/6 B.C. From 172/1 to 152/1 there are only three gaps in the sequence:
the minor issue of FTOAYXAPM - NIKOr in 165/4 and the two large issues of
MIKIQN - EYPYKAEI and KAPAIX - EPrOKAE in 156/5 and 158/2. Two other
extensive coinages of contemporary date, those of ETTirENH -ZflZANAPOI and
nOAEMflN - AAKETHZ, are very scantily represented.
All strikings from 152/1 on are in the hoard. The tetradrachms of Theo-
dotos-Kleophanes and Herakleides-Eukles are the best preserved of any in
the deposit and further indication that the series ends with the second issue
of Herakleides is provided by the four coins of month B from the same pair
of dies. In all probability the hoard was buried c. 137 B.C.
DELOS HOARD KS (Noe 308; Roussel 4)
J. N. Svoronos, JIAN, 1907, pp. 192f.
The thirty-nine New Style coins in this hoard, of which twenty-five can be
identified in the present catalogue, are fully published by Svoronos. The listing
below simply arranges the issues in chronological order:
2 dr.
Grain-ear symbol
180-170
1 dr.
AHMH - lEPfl
8 dr.

174/8
TAAY-EXE
307a
170/69
1 hemidr.
TAAY - EXE
812a
1 tetr.
MIKI - 9E00PA
324b
169/8
1 hemidr.
MIKI - 6EOOPA
328b
2 tetr.
HPA - API2TOO
383c; 836a
168/7
8 dr.
HPA-APIXTOO
1 hemidr.
MENEA - EnirENO
167/6
1 tetr.
T1MAPXOY - NIKArO
362e
166/5
1 tetr.
FTOAYXAPM - NIKOr
379j
165/4
1 dr.
AfiPOGE - AIOO
164/8
1 hemidr.
AfiPOQE - AIO0>
1 tetr.
ANTIOXOZ-KAPA1XOI
897g
168/2
1 dr.
TTOAEMflN - AAKETHI
482
2 tetr.
AMMQNIOZ - KAAAIAZ
591a
150/49
1 dr.
GEMirro - eEonoMnoi
610b
149/8
1 tetr.
ZQKPATHZ - AlONYZOAfl
622c
148/7
1 tetr.
AIOTIMOZ - MArAZ
662d
146/5
1 hemidr.
AIOTIMOZ-MArAZ
667a
1 tetr.
EYMHAOZ - KAAAIOflN
781a
140/89
1 tetr.
138/7
1 tetr.

762b
HPAKAEIAHZ - EYKAHZ
790b
137/6
1 tetr.
ANAPEAZ - XAPINAYTHI
797b
186/5
1 tetr.
IKEZIOZ - AZKAHTTIAAHZ
816
185/4
1 tetr.
TIMOZTPATOZ - TTOZHZ
828b
134/8
1 dr.
TIMOZTPATOZ - nOZHZ
837
1 tetr.
AflZIGEOZ - XAP1AZ
132/1
1 tetr.
AHMHTPIOZ - ArAQinnoz
897d
131/0
Delos Hoard K S also contained a cistophorus of Pergamum which Svoronos
describes as in good condition. Sydney P. Noe, who is now engaged in a study
of the cistophoric coinage, tells me that this piece is roughly contemporary
with the latest of the New Style coins.
The individual hoard pieces are badly corroded as is evident from the
weights in Svoronos' publication and furthermore the slight representation of
coinage for all issues makes it impossible to base any firm conclusions on
relative wear. All specimens have circulated; the one tetradrachm of Demetrios-
Agathippos seems to be the least worn.
DELOS HOARD B (Noe 306, 2; Roussel 3b)
Fifty-two tetradrachms, ninety-eight drachms and twenty-three hemi-
drachms were found in this excavation hoard of 1905. Full details are given in
Svoronos' publication.
1 dr.
Hoards
483
1 dr. TAAY - EXE
1 hemidr. TAAY - EXE
8 dr. MIKI - OEOOPA
6 hemidr. MIKI - GEOOPA
1 tetr. HPA - APIZTOO
8 dr. HPA - APIZTOO
2 hemidr. HPA - APIZTOd)
5 dr. MENEA - EnirENO
1 hemidr. MENEA - EnirENO
1 tetr. TIMAPXOY - NIKATO
4 dr. TIMAPXOY - NIKArO
2 hemidr. Tl MAPXOY - NIKATO
1 tetr. nOAYXAPM - NIKOr
2 dr. nOAYXAPM - NIKOr
1 hemidr. nOAYXAPM - NIKOr
1 tetr. AflPOOE - AIOO
18 dr. AflPOOE - AIOO
4 dr. ANTIOXOZ - KAPAIXOZ
4 hemidr. ANTIOX OZ - KAPAIXOZ
4 dr. GEOOPA - ZflTAZ
3 dr. AlOrE - nOZEl
2 tetr. AXAIOZ - HAI
2 dr. AXAIOZ - HAI
1 dr. AYZAN - TAAYKOZ
2 dr. ETTirENH - ZflZANAPOZ

1 dr. nOAEMflN - AAKETHZ
1 hemidr. TTOAEMflN - AAKETHZ
2 dr. MIKIflN - EYPYKAEI
8 dr. AOPOAIZI - AnOAHEl
8 dr. EYPYKAEI - APIAPA
1 hemidr. EYPYKAEI - APIAPA
1 dr. KAPAIX - EPrOKAE
2 dr. AOPOAiZI - AlOrE
6 tetr. AIONYZI - AIONYZI
2 dr. AIONYZI - AIONYZI
1 tetr. AMMflNIOZ - KAAAIAZ
2 dr. AMMflNIOZ - KAAAIAZ
3 tetr. OEMIZTO - OEOTTOMnOZ
3 tetr. ZflKPATHZ - AlONYZOAfl
5 dr. ZflKPATHZ - AlONYZOAfl
2 tetr. MHTPOAftPOZ - AHM0Z9EN
1 dr. MHTPOAflPOZ - AHMOZ0EN
1 tetr. AIOTIMOZ - MAfAZ
318
828a
889a
345d
846b
857c,e
859f
371b; 872a,b
375a,c
868
378b
882b
890a
891a; 894e
402b,e
408a,b
411c,f
419c,d
421b; 426c
411b,c
440b
459b; 460b
473e
474a
492a,b
44
1 dr.
AIOTIMOZ-MAI"AZ
665a
2 hemidr.
AIOTIMOZ - MArAI
667a,b
1 dr.
EYMAPEIAHI - AAKIAAM
685
145/4
8 tetr.
689i; 692h; 695c
144/3
5 tetr.
OANOKAHZ - ATTOAAflNIOZ
699a; 706a; 707f; 708a
143/2
1 dr.
OANOKAHZ - AnOAAQNIOZ
685
1 dr.
EYBOYAlAHI - ArAGOKA H
722a
142/1

1 tetr.
ZSIAOI - EYANAPOZ
714j
142/1
2 dr.
ZQIAOZ - EYANAPOI
722c,e
1 dr.
AAMflN - ZftZIKPATHZ
783b
141/0
6 tetr.
EYMHAOZ - KAAAIOflN
730; 740a,e,g; 741a
140/89
8 dr.
EYMHAOZ - KAAAKDQN
747a(2),b
1 hemidr.
EYMHAOI - KAAAIOfiN
748
1 hemidr.
HPAKAEIAHI - EYKAHZ
748
139/8
2 tetr.
0EOAOTOI - KAEOOANHZ
763e; 765d
188/7
1 dr.
0EOAOTOZ - KAEOQANHZ
758b
2 tetr.
HPAKAEIAHZ - EYKAHZ
778a; 788c
137/6
1 dr.
HPAKAEIAHZ - EYKAHZ
799
5 dr.
810d
186/5
Hoards
485
1 TAAY-EXE 298a 170/69
1 MIKI - 0EO<DPA 822c 169/8
1 T1MAPXOY - NIKArO 862g 166/5
3 AXAIOZ-HAI 421f; 422c; 427c 160/59
3 AYIAN - TAAYKOZ 429c; 435e; 436a 159/8
4 EYPYKAEI - APIAPA 509d; 512e; 517b; 518f 154/3
5 AOPOAIZI - AlOfE 544g; 550b,f; 551b,e 152/1
12 AiONYZI - AIONYZI 554f; 563b,d; 564b; 566b(2); 567b; 568a; 151/0
570g; 574a; 575b; 577a
17 AMMflNIOZ - KAAAIAZ 582a; 583a(2),e; 584f,g; 585b,c,d; 586h; 150/49
588b(2); 589b; 590b(2),c; 592b
8 0EMIZTO-GEOnOMTTOZ 598c; 601a,d,l; 603h; 605b; 606e; 608a 149/8
10 ZflKPATHZ- AlONYZOAfl 613c; 615b(3); 616b,e(2); 617e; 622g; 625a 148/7
12 MHTPOAflPOZ - MIATIAAHZ 629a,b,c; 681c; 633f; 637d; 688c; 641a; 147/6
AHM0Z9EN 642d,e; 648a,d
10 AIOTIMOZ - MArAZ 649; 655c; 658a; 661b,g; 662d,e,g; 664b,c 146/5
9 EYMAPEIAHZ-AAKIAAM 671b,c,d; 673h; 677d; 678c,e; 679i; 681a 145/4
KAEOMEN
11 XAPINAYTHZ - APIZTEAZ 687c; 688f; 689d,k; 691b,c; 692f,h; 694d,e; 144/8
695a
20 OANOKAHZ- AnOAA2NIOZ 700a; 701c,e; 702a,c,e,k; 705a,i; 706a(3); 148/2
707b,d(3); 708a(8),b
10 EYBOYAIAHZ- ArA60KAH and 710; 712; 714i(2),j; 715b,c; 716b; 719b; 142/1
ZfllAOZ - EYANAPOZ 721b
19 AAMflN-ZnZIKPATHZ 719a(2),b(2); 728b; 721h,j; 726b; 727c, 141/0

f(2); 728a(2),c(8); 729c; 730a(2)
14 EYMHAOZ - KAAAIOflN 731a,b; 786c; 738a,b,d; 740c,d,e; 741c; 140/39
742b(2); 744a; 745c
11 HPAKAEIAHZ - EYKAHZ 745b,c; 750a(2); 751b; 752b; 758a,b,d,e; 139/8
756b
23 GEOAOTOZ-KAEOOANHZ1 759b; 761b,c,e; 762a; 768b,e; 764a(2); 138/7
765b; 766d; 768e; 770b(2),c; 771b,g;
778b,c(2); 775c
13 HPAKAEIAHZ - EYKAHZ 779d; 780a; 781a; 784a; 785a; 786a; 787c; 187/6
790b; 791c; 792a; 795a,d; 797a
6 IKEZIOZ-AZKAHTTIAAHZ 812a; 818; 814d; 816(2); 820a 185/4
4 TIMOZTPATOZ - nOZHZ 824a; 825e; 828b; 882b 184/8
4 AMOIKPATHZ - ETTIZTPATOZ 841a,b; 842b; 850b 133/2
Agathokles and Zoilos-Euandros separately and did not divide the two years of Herakleides-
Eukles. There is no way of tracing the error, if there is one, but I do not believe that it is of any
real importance.
1 Two badly corroded coins whose obverse dies cannot be identified are included in the
summary but not in the catalogue.
486
4 AQII9E0Z - XAPIAI 855a; 857d; 863a; 866a 132/1
12 AHMHTPIOI- ArAGinnOI 883d; 884b; 892a,c; 894c; 897a,c; 898b,c; 131/0
912d; 920a; 921i
1 NIKHTHZ-AIONYIIOZ 961a 130/29
This is one of the largest of the Delos hoards. Representation of the earlier
three-magistrate series is somewhat surprising in that the large issues of
Epigene-Sosandros, Polemon-Alketes, Mikion-Euryklei and Karaich-Er-
gokle are missing. From the striking of Aphrodisi-Dioge (152/1) through that
of Niketes-Dionysios all emissions are present with the exception of Andreas-
Charinautes (186/5). There is, however, a decline in the number of coins per
issue after the second year of Herakleides-Eukles and the absence of coinage
from the Andreas-Charinautes striking would not seem to be particularly
significant. What is more puzzling is the single coin of Niketes-Dionysios
which terminates the hoard. Twelve coins of Demetrios-Agathippos appear in
the deposit and then only one of the issue immediately following. One would
assume that the hoard was buried early in 130/29 before many tetradrachms
of Niketes had reached Delos were it not that the amphora letter on the coin
in question is M.
It is tempting to connect the interment of both Delos B and AH with the
serious insurrection of slaves that occurred on Delos at about this time. The
date of the servile revolt cannot be determined with precision.1 In a recent
work, Siegfried Lauffer assigns it to 133 B.C. Ferguson believes that it probably
started in the early summer of 180 B.C. but adds a note of caution to the effect
that "the trouble in Delos must be dated by local evidence alone." The numis-
matic evidence suggests that it took place a year later than Ferguson supposes

and that it was the reason for the simultaneous burial of the two large Delos
hoards whose issues stop abruptly with H and M coins of Niketes-Dionysios.
The AH Hoard suffered considerable damage, probably from fire as well as
from the action of the soil, and it is difficult to estimate the relative wear of
its issues. Most of the coins from the last eight strikings are reproduced on
Plates 172-175. From the illustrations it is apparent that the coins of De-
metrios and the single specimen of Niketes are the least worn and the latest
tetradrachms of what seems to have been a currency hoard.
1 It was roughly contemporary with the insurrections which broke out in Sicily, Italy,
Attica and Asia Minor in the period between 136 and 130 B.C. The uprising on Delos is dealt
with most fully by Ferguson {Klio, 1907, p. 238 and Hellenistic Athens, pp. 3791.). That at
Laurium is treated extensively by Lauffer (Die Bergwerkssklaven von Laureion. II: GeseUschaft-
liche Verhallnisse, Aufstande, pp. 995-1000). Two other recent studies of slavery in the ancient
world, Westermann's The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity and Vogt's Struktur der
antiken Sklavenkriege, add nothing new to the chronological outlines of Ferguson and Lauffer.
Hoards
487
ZAROVA HOARD (Noe 1184)
J. Scholz, Monatsblatt, No. 282, Nov. 1902, pp. 857-359
M. L. Kambanis, BCH, 1984, pp. 181-185; BCH, 1985, pp. 108-120
In 1898 a large hoard of tetradrachms, said to have contained over a
thousand pieces, was uncovered at Zarova in Macedonia. A small section of the
find, some one hundred coins which came into the hands of Egger Bros, in
Vienna, was summarized by Scholz in the Monatsblatt of 1902. Another section,
consisting of 228 coins in the possession of M. Asteriades, secretary at the
Greek Consulate in Salonika, was recorded by Svoronos in the JIAN of 1908.
Subsequently Kambanis combined, in his two BCH publications, the data
for the Vienna and Asteriades lots and also information given him by Regling
on 218 additional hoard pieces which had gone to Istanbul.1 Nothing is known
of the disposition of the remainder of the deposit. If it did originally include
over a thousand tetradrachms, nearly half of its contents has disappeared
without record.
The issues represented in the Zarova Hoard as we know it are arranged
below in chronological sequence. Plus signs in the last column indicate that
one or more examples of that particular striking were included in the Vienna
lot concerning which Scholz gave no details other than a listing of emissions.2
1 Two hundred and thirty-eight coins which can definitely be associated with the Zarova
Hoard are included in the present corpus and listed below by catalogue numbers. Of the forty-
five entries connected with the Asteriades lot, No. 932b is in the Empedocles Collection, recorded
in Kambanis' notebook as having come from the Zarova find; the other Asteriades coins are in
the Athens Cabinet.

According to Kambanis, Regling saw 218 tetradrachms in Istanbul. Actually the listing in
the BCH for 1935 totals 217 pieces but this is apparently due to the omission of one example of
the Eumelos-Kalliphon striking, of which there are two specimens labelled "Zarova" in the
Istanbul trays. My record, made in Istanbul in 1955, totals 193 coins. The additional twenty-five
items in Regling's list can be identified with tetradrachms in the Istanbul Cabinet but the tickets
with those coins give no indication of a Zarova provenance. The discrepancy is of no great im-
portance since it involves only additional examples of issues already recorded for the hoard (six
more for Epigene-Sosandros, seven more for Polemon-Alketes, six more for Mikion-Euryklei,
one more for Euryklei-Ariara, four more for Karaich-Ergokle and one more for Theodotos-
Kleophanes) but it should be noted that the analysis of the Istanbul section of the hoard is based
on the 1955 record.
With reference to discrepancies it might also be mentioned in passing that the statistics
given for the Asteriades coins in the BCH for 1934 are in several instances incorrect. However,
the summary in the BCH article of the following year is in accord with Svoronos' JIAN publi-
cation.
* He did remark that the coins from the issues of Polemon-Alketes and Karaich-Ergokle
were very numerous.
488
TIMAPXOY-NIKArO
TTOAYXAPM - NIKOr
AlOrE - TTOZEI
AXAIOZ-HAI
AYZAN - TAAYKOZ
EnifENH - ZQZANAPOZ
Asteriades Istanbul Total
166/5 2 864c 2
165/4 +
161/0 1 416h 1
160/59 1 428d 1 +
159/8 4 1 481e 5+
158/7 50 446i,j; 450d; 28 441d,f,i(2); 442d,e; 78+
458f; 454d; 448e,h; 445b,c,g;
455; 457e;
458b
nOAEMflN - AAKETHZ 157/6 88 462; 469d
MIKIflN - EYPYKAEI
AOPOAIZI - AnOAHEl
EYPYKAEI - APIAPA
KAPAIX - EPrOKAE
AOPOAIZI - AlOrE
AIONYZI - AIONYZI
AMMflNIOZ - KAAAIAZ
6EMIZT0-

eEonoMnoz
ZflKPATHZ -
AIONYZOAQ
MHTPOAflPOZ-
MIATIAAHZ and
AHMOZOEN
AlOTIMOZ-MArAZ
EYMAPEIAHZ - AAK-
IAAM and KAEOMEN
156/5 88 483c
155/4 1 498d
154/3 1
158/2 19 580d(2);
582; 535m
152/1 4 544h; 548c
151/0 1
150/49 8 589d
149/8 4 598b; 601g
148/7
147/6
146/5
145/4
2 678g
446e,j(2); 447a;
448b; 449f,j,k(n;
450h;451a;454e,g,h;
456b; 457b,c
22 462; 464j,n; 465n,q; 55+
466c(2),h(2),j;469a>f,k;
470a,k; 471a, b(2),d,f,
h,i
81 475b; 476; 477b,c(2); 64+
478c,e(2); 479a,d;
480c,d,f,g;483d,g(2);
484a,d,i; 485b(2),c,e;
486a; 487a,k,l; 488c,
d.g
2 512e;515e 8
18 526c; 528a,f; 531d; 87+
588a; 585f(2),j,l;
Hoards
489
Asteriades Istanbul Total
XAPINAYTHZ-
144/8
688h; 689j; 692a,b,c
8+
APirTEAX
OANOKAHZ-
143/2
699b; 701a; 705b(2),
9+
ATTOAAflNIOZ
g,h; 707d
EYBOYAIAHZ-
142/1
714e
712; 718d; 717d
6+
ArAGOKAH and
ZfllAOZ - EYANAPOZ
141/0

AAMflN - ZflZIKPATHZ
728a,b
719c
9+
EYMHAOZ-KAAAI<DiN
140/89
736a(2)
3+
HPAKAEIAHZ-
189/8
749c; 758c; 788d
6+
EYKAHZ1
187/6
GEOAOTOZ-
138/7
760c; 764c
15
759a,b; 761c; 762a;
22
KAEOOANHZ
764c,d; 765c,i; 767f;
769b; 770b; 771d;
772a; 773d,f
ANAPEAZ-
136/5
802e,h; 804e;
801a
8+
XAPINAYTHZ
805a; 808d
IKEZIOZ -
185/4
490
if we accept Kointos-Kleas, there is a gap of four emissions, all extensive and
one (Xenokles-Harmoxenos with dolphin and trident) among the largest of
all strikings on record, before we come to the minor issue of Kointos-Kleas.
The absence of any tetradrachms from those intervening years is strange in-
deed. Furthermore, in Scholz's summary, which unfortunately is by BMC
serial numbers rather than by magistrates' names, there is one obvious error:
Series 50 is listed twice, once after 49 and once after 59. In the latter case it is
undoubtedly a mistake for 60, the issue of Dositheos-Charias. It seems to me
distinctly possible that Series 66, that of Kointos-Kleas, involves another
error but one which cannot be so easily corrected. The issue just preceding,
Series 65 in the BMC, is that of Hikesios-Asklepiades found in both the
Athens and Istanbul lots but missing from the Vienna section of the hoard.
One wonders if the 66 of Scholz's listing should not have been 65.
The Zarova deposit gives indication of being a currency hoard. Its size
suggests that it represents not the accumulated savings of an individual but
rather the funds of an official or an organization, which would tend to be a
cross-section of money in use at the time.1 Moreover, the comparative con-
dition of the hoard coins in Athens and Istanbul points to their having been
withdrawn from current circulation.
In 1955 I had the opportunity of examining both lots, here treated as a unit
since their component issues show the same pattern of relative wear. Consider-
able differences in preservation were immediately apparent as outlined in the
four broad categories below:
Most worn: Timarchou - Nikago, Dioge - Posei, Achaios - Heli, Lysan - Glaukos, Epi-
gene - Sosandros, Polemon - Alketes, Mikion - Euryklei, Aphrodisi - Apolexi, Euryklei -

Ariara, Karaich - Ergokle, Dionysi - Dionysi, Themisto - Theopompos
Less worn: Aphrodisi - Dioge,2 Ammonios - Kallias, Sokrates - Dionysodo, Metrodoros -
Miltiades, Diotimos - Magas, Eumareides - Alkidam
Still less worn: Charinautes - Aristeas, Phanokles - Apollonios, Euboulides - Agathokle
and Zoilos - Euandros, Damon - Sosikrates, Eumelos - Kalliphon, Herakleides - Eukles,
Theodotos - Kleophanes, Andreas - Charinautes, Hikesios - Asklepiades, Timostrates -
Poses, Amphikrates - Epistratos
Best preserved: Dositheos - Charias, Demetrios - Agathippos, Niketes - Dionysios, Ari-
stion - Philon, Aropos - Mnasago, Xenokles - Harmoxenos
1 It is true that one would expect a preponderance of coinage from late issues in a currency
hoard but it must be remembered that we are concerned here not with the Athens area but with
an outlying district. The appearance of so many tetradrachms of 158-152 B.C. may simply reflect
large-scale movement of Athenian coins to the north during those years and their continued use
over a long period. Later strikings may have travelled to Macedonia in smaller quantity.
2 The two Athens coins are comparable to the other pieces in this second category; of the
two at Istanbul, one is in better and one in poorer condition.
Hoards
491
Regling's memorandum on the Istanbul coins (see BCH, 1935, pp. 109-115)
includes an evaluation of wear for every tetradrachm in his listing.1 For the
most part his observations correspond closely with the divisions above; where
divergencies exist they are generally the result of the additional material from
Athens. In summary of the section of the coinage which is of greatest concern,
it is to be noted that Regling considered the best-preserved pieces to be those
of Andreas-Charinautes, Amphikrates-Epistratos, Demetrios-Agathippos
(almost all I but only one example of the first issue was in the Istanbul lot),
Timostratos-Poses (I and TBC), Niketes-Dionysios, Aropos-Mnasago, and
Xenokles-Harmoxenos (all TBC).
Kambanis in his general discussion of the Zarova Hoard remarks on the
absence of the issues of Nikogenes-Kallimachos, Demeas-Hermokles and
Apellikon-Gorgias, all strikings which, according to his sharp division between
three-magistrate and two-magistrate issues, would necessarily come ahead of
the Xenokles-Harmoxenos coinage represented in the find. The only explana-
tion he offers is that those emissions, coming shortly before the burial date of
the hoard, had not had time to reach districts distant from Athens.
Actually no explanation is necessary. The Zarova Hoard is a completely
consistent body of material which confirms in most gratifying fashion the new
chronological arrangement established by die links and stylistic criteria. The
issues of Nikogenes-Kallimachos, Demeas-Hermokles, Apellikon-Gorgias
and, I believe, Kointos-Kleas as well are not included in the deposit because
they are later than its interment. The strikings which are found in it comprise
all issues without exception from 161/0 to 127/6. In that last year the sequence
is abruptly broken with coins of months B and r, suggesting that the treasure

was put away in the same year or very soon thereafter.
HALMYROS HOARD (Noe 478)
M. L. Kambanis, BCH, 1984, pp. 101-128; BCH, 1985, pp. 101-107, 118-120
The Halmyros Hoard is one of the largest, if not the largest, of all known
finds of New Style tetradrachms. It has been extremely difficult to reconstitute
it due to the variety of names under which it has made its way into public and
private collections, the number of dealers who marketed its contents, and the
span of years over which its dispersion took place.
Kambanis in the BCH for 1934 gives the reported circumstances of its dis-
covery. In 1929, according to the accounts he had heard, two shepherds noticed
in the flood-eroded bank of a stream two vases at some distance from each
1 Classified as usi, II, I/II, I and TBC for Iris bien conserve.
492
other. One, of bronze, contained gold jewelry and bars; the other, of terra-cotta,
held 969 Athenian New Style tetradrachms. It was not until February of 1931
that Kambanis learned of the hoard and endeavored to establish its exact
find-spot. This he finally concluded to have been Halmyros, a village not far
from the ancient Larissa Cremaste.1
The 969 tetradrachms of the hoard are divided by Kambanis into three lots:
1) 239 pieces sold to jewelers at Lamia, chiefly worn specimens of which many
were melted down and some passed unnoticed into commercial channels
2) 640 pieces sold to two dealers 3) 90 pieces sold at Chalcis. By good fortune
Kambanis was able to examine and record 730 of the hoard coins, presumably
those of Lots 2 and 3, and his detailed report on them is given in the BCH for
1934. Subsequently an additional lot of the Halmyros tetradrachms was con-
fiscated at Lamia and these coins, under the designation "Lamia Hoard," were
deposited in the Athens Museum where Kambanis had an opportunity of
studying them. In the BCH for 1935 he describes the Athens section of the find
and also outlines the composition of the hoard as he was able to determine it
from the 828 coins he had seen.2
Kambanis' information on the hoard can be supplemented to some extent.
In 1931 a group of 357 tetradrachms was offered to the British Museum by a
Greek dealer. This was said to be about half of a hoard found near Levadia, "in
the same place as and possibly in conjunction with the find of Hellenistic
jewelry." The coins brought to London were examined by Dr. E. S. G. Robin-
son who took detailed notes on the individual pieces and on relative condition
of the issues. Twenty tetradrachms were purchased for the British Museum.
This section of the Halmyros Hoard, the 337 coins seen but not purchased by

Robinson plus the equivalent amount in the hands of an associate of the Greek
dealer, would seem to be Kambanis' Lot 2. It is fairly certain that most, if not
all, of the coins that returned from London in 1931 were subsequently seen
and catalogued by Kambanis; a number of unusual varieties appear in both
his and Robinson's listings.
1 At first Kambanis associated the find with Levadia. Many of his casts are labelled "Levadia
Hoard" but this is often corrected to Halmyros on the casts themselves or in his notebook.
* It is impossible to reconcile completely Kambanis' figures as given in the two BCH publi-
cations. In his earlier article the recapitulation by issues on pages 113-114 is often at variance
with the record on pages 103-113. To take only a few examples, the two coins of Theophra-Sotas
described in his listing are not included in the summary; only ten coins of Zoilos-Euandros
appear in the recapitulation while fifteen are described. In the second article the recapitulation
on page 106 includes the 730 tetradrachms published in 1934, the 78 Athens coins and 20 other
pieces known to Kambanis by rubbings. The totals by issue differ widely in the summaries of
1934 and 1935; of the two, the later and more comprehensive record, which tallies fairly well with
the detailed listing of coins, would seem to be the more accurate.
Hoards
493
The acquisitions of Edward T. Newell from the same hoard present a far
more complex picture. In the ANS trays there are 189 tetradrachms which
can with reasonable assurance be associated with the Halmyros find. A small
number, twenty-one coins, are definitely labelled "Halmyros" on Newell's
tickets but these represent late accessions, all dating from 1987 and 1938 at
which time the circumstances of the hoard were well known. The other tetra-
drachms were obtained between the years 1929 and 1933 and their tickets
carry a variety of identifications:
January 1929 34 coins from an American dealer
August 1930 17 coins from the same dealer
July 1981, January
87 coins from the same dealer
20 coins from a Greek dealer but
not the one of the British
Museum negotiations
and April 1932
June 1932
October 1983
March 1933
"Euboea Hoard"
"Euboea Hoard"
"Hoard of 1930"
"Chalcis Find"

"Hoard"
''Chalcis-Euboea
Hoard"
There can, I believe, be no doubt but that the Hoard of 1930, the Chalcis
Find and the Chalcis-Euboea Hoard are all in reality Halmyros. Individual
specimens of Newell's accessions from the Hoard of 1930 and the Chalcis Find
are represented among Kambanis' casts and those casts are labelled either
Levadia or Halmyros. Furthermore, a number of Newell's coins show a dis-
tinctive blue-green encrustation. This is present on tetradrachms associated by
their tickets with the Halmyros Hoard, the Hoard of 1930 and the Chalcis-
Euboea Hoard. As for the other three lotsthe six Hoard coins of October 1938
and the fifty-one pieces of Euboea Hoard 1929 and 1930there is no way of
firmly establishing their Halmyros origin. They fit into the hoard series in con-
dition and in surface appearance; they come from the same dealer who supplied
Newell with most of his Halmyros acquisitions; their reported provenance is
similar to that of other pieces which are definitely Halmyros. It is difficult to
believe that a substantial number of hoard coins in commerce at the time the
Halmyros Hoard was being dispersed and said to have come from the same
general region as that find could belong to a separate deposit, hence I am in-
clined to ascribe without qualification all 189 of the ANS coins to the Hal-
myros Hoard.
Of these coins, Kambanis had seen and catalogued some, if not all, of the
Hoard of 1980 and Chalcis Find lots. He had probably seen most of the twenty-
six coins secured by Newell in 1933. He could not have recorded the earlier lots
of 1929 and 1980 which were on the market before he knew about the hoard.
494
The Athens section of the Halmyros Hoard, as I saw it in 1955, consists of
sixty-seven genuine tetradrachms and thirty-four forgeries.1 These latter are
crude modern reproductions of ancient coins in the hoard, and, as Kambanis
points out, they were clearly intended to supplement the stock of authentic
tetradrachms held by an unscrupulous vendor. In the BCH for 1935, Kambanis
gives a list of the issues which had been copied; it is now possible in most cases
to connect these forgeries with the original coins. The counterfeits are dis-
tributed as follows:
2 of IflKPATHI - AIONYIOAQ
4 of EYMAPEIAHI - AAKIAAM
4 of AAMQN - IflllKPATHI
4 of AflllGEOI - XAPIAI
4 of NIKHTHI - AIONYTIOI
5 of NIKHTHI - AlONYIIOI
5 of AHMEAI - EPMOKAHI
1 of AHMEAZ - EPMOKAHI
1 of EENOKAHI - APMOEENOI
with dolphin
4 of EENOKAHI - APMOEENOI
with dolphin
(from No. 622a in the Berry Collection)
(from an imitation of the Athenian series, present
whereabouts unknown. One of the modern counter-
feits, No. 1408, is reproduced on Plate 157)

(from No. 859b in the Berry Collection)
(from No. 1418, an imitation of the Athenian series in
the Berry Collection)
(from No. 1058 in the Petsalis Collection)
(obverse and reverse dies of No. 1064 but
whereabouts of exact prototype unknown)
It is interesting to note that the forger included two imitations of the
Athenian series among the coins he selected for reproduction. The Niketes-
Dionysios piece in the Berry Collection is in FDC condition and must be con-
temporary with the latest of the regular issues represented in the hoard. The
Damon-Sosikrates imitation has disappeared but it would seem, to judge from
the modern counterfeits of it, to have been more worn and therefore an earlier
striking from a non-Athenian mint.
The present catalogue contains 443 entries which can definitely be attributed
to the Halmyros Hoard, over half of the total of 828 coins which Kambanis
reported having seen. The discrepancy is probably not as great as it appears
1 My record of the Athens coins does not correspond exactly with Kambanis' listing (BCH,
1935, pp. 102-105). Among the genuine pieces, I saw one coin of Sokrates-Dionysodo (K2), two
of Timostratos-Poses (K3) and five of Dositheos-Charias (K4). These discrepancies account for
the difference in our totals.
Kambanis itemizes thirty-two forgeries in his summary but mentions thirty-four in his text.
The latter figure is correct. Five counterfeits of the Xenokles-Harmoxenos issue with dolphin
are in the Athens trays.
Hoards
495
for many of the missing coins are undoubtedly in the catalogue as specimens
of unrecorded provenance in private collections. On page 106 of the BCH for
1935 Kambanis summarizes the coins he had examined. To his totals can be
added the twenty pieces purchased by the British Museum in 1931, fifty-two
Newell coins which Kambanis had almost certainly not seen,1 and the three
imitations at the end of the listing below. The distribution of these 903 tetra-
drachms by issues is as follows :2
N-
BM
Total
1. TAAY - EXE
170/69
2. hpa - APirrocD
168/7
839g(N)
3. MENEA - ETTirENO
167/6

4. T1MAPXOY - NIKArO
166/5
864e(N)
5. nOAYXAPM - NIKOr
165/4
6. AflPOGE - AIOO
164/8
884b(N); 885b(N)
7. ANTIOXOZ - NIKOr
168/2
396a(N); 899b
KAPAIXOI
8. 0EOOPA - IftTAI
162/1
406d(N); 408d(N)
9. AiorE - noiEi
161/0
417i
10. AXAIOZ - HAI
160/59
18. AIONYZI - AlONYII
151/0
28
33
552(A); 554b(N); 557i(N);
566a(N); 569f (N); 570b(N);
573b; 576a(N)
19. AMMBNIOZ - KAAAIAZ
150/49 80
31
580(A); 582b,d; 583b;
584b(N),c(N),d(N),i(N); 585c
(A),g(N); 586c(A); 587(A);
588a(N),b(A); 592a(N)
20. 6EMIZT0 - eEOrTOMTTOZ
149/8
16
597a(N),c(N); 598c(N),g(N);
602a(N); 603d(N),f; 604d(N);
605a(N); 606e(N)
21. ZQKPATHZ - AlONYZOAfl
148/7
88

80
611(2-N1); 614c; 616b(N);
618b(N); 620b(N); 621j(N);
622a,c(A)
22. MHTPOAQPOZ - MIATIAAHZ
147/6
21
24
629b; 683c(2-Nl),h; 685a(N),
AHM0I9EN
b(N); 687c(N),f(N); 642c
23. AIOTIMOZ - MArAI
146/5
10
12
649(N); 658b; 656c(N); 658c,
d(N),l(A); 661a(N); 663c
24. EYMAPEIAHZ - AAKIAAM
145/4
28
28
671e(A); 673b,f; 674a; 675a;
KAEOMEN
677b,e(N); 678b,d; 679a(N),
b; 680e(A),f(N); 684a
25. XAPiNAYTHZ - APIZTEAZ
144/8
21
21
688e(2-Nl),i(A); 689a(A),
d(N),e(A); 690g(N)
26. (DANOKAHI - ATTOAAflNlOZ
148/2
22
24
698b; 700a; 701a,c(N),f(N);
Hoards
497
36. AAZI9E0Z - XAPIAZ
38. NIKHTHZ- AIONYZIOZ
39. APIZTIflN - OIAQN
129/8 60
N-
BM
Total
32. ANAPEAZ-XAPINAYTHZ 186/5 18 - 18
33. IKEZIOZ - AZKAHT71AAHZ 185/4 15 - 15
34. TIMOZTPATOZ - TTOZHZ 184/3 18 - 18
35. AMOIKPATHZ - EniZTPATOZ 133/2 22 - 22
182/1 44 - 44
37. AH MHTPIOZ - ArAGinnOZ 181/0 63 1 64
180/29 48 1 49
61
d(N); 765d(N); 766a(A),b
(2-Nl),e(Al-Nl); 767a,c; 771f
(N); 774a(A),c(N)
797b; 798; 801a,b(N); 802a,
e(N); 803b(2); 804b(N); 805b;
808a; 809a
812a; 818(N); 809c(A),d(N);
814b; 817d(8-Al); 818c(N),
e(N); 820a(A)

823a(N); 825a,f(N); 826b(N);
827a(N); 828b(2-Nl),c; 829i
(A); 880c,e(A); 832a
888a(2); 841c(A); 842a,d(N)
848c(A); 846b(N),c(N); 847
848a(A); 849a(A); 850c; 851a
847a; 850(A); 851a(A),b(N)
854(N); 856a(N); 857a; 858c
(N); 859a,b; 860a; 862(N)
864(A2); 867f (N); 868(N)
870a(A); 873a,b(N)
880; 888b; 884c; 889a; 891c
894b(N); 896(N); 898a; 899c
d(N); 900a,b; 901(A); 904a
905d,e(L); 906c; 907b,e
908a(A); 909c,d(A); 912a
913(N); 914; 916a(N); 919c
(N); 920b; 921a(2-Al),c,g(N)
922a,b; 923a; 925a,c(N),d
982a,c; 933a(A); 934a(N)
c(N); 985b; 987a(A),e(A)
988a(N); 939a; 940b(N); 941c
(N); 944d(A); 951c(N); 955b
956c(A); 957a; 958a; 959a
960a(L); 961b
959(3-Nl); 961a,b(N),d(N)
964a; 965; 966; 967c(N); 968b
(A),c(A); 970a(N),c(N); 975a
(N); 976b(N),c,e(N); 977b(N);
979e(A); 981b,c(N),e; 988
(N2); 984a(L),b; 985b(N);
986; 987b(A); 988b
498
40. APOnOI - MNAZArO
128/7 55 4 59
41. EENOKAHZ - APMCEENOZ
(serpent)
42. NIKOrENHI - KAAAIMAXOZ
43. AHMEAZ - EPMOKAHI
127/6
1-
126/5 21 2 28
125/4 47 6 53
44. =EN OKAHZ - APM OEEN OZ
(dolphin)
Imitations
124/8 18
19
990c(N); 992; 998b(N); 995a
(A); 996a,b,c(N),d,e(A); 998
(N); 1000d(A); 1005a(N);
1007b(N),c(L); 1009c(N),d(A);
1010a(L),c(2-Ll); 1011b (Ll-
Nl); 1012b; 1014a(N)
1019(A)
1088(N); 1035(N); 1041b(N);
1042(N); 1044(A); 1045a(N2-
Ll),e; 1046a,b; 1047a(N);

1048a(N),b(L)
1050(2); 1051a; 1052a(3-Ll.
Nl); 1053c; 1054; 1055b(N).
e(N),f(L); 1056a(2),b(N);
1057b(Ll-Al),d(N); 1058;
1060b(2-Ll),c(N),d(N); 1061d
(A); 1068a(N),b(Ll-Nl),c(A),
d; 1064a,b(N); 1065(N);
1066(L)
1066c; 1072a(L),c; 1078a;
1087a(A),c,d(N)
1405; 1408; 1418
An arrangement of the issues according to relative condition is published
by Kambanis on pages 118-114 of the BCH for 1934. His four categories,
ranging from most to least worn, may be summarized as follows:
Lot A: Issues 1 through 11 of the listing above1
Lot B: Issues 14 through 24
Lot C: Issues 25 through 36
Lot D: Issues 37 through 44 with the last striking, that of Xenokles -
Harmoxenos with dolphin, said to be the best preserved
Kambanis' sequence by wear is in complete accord with the chronological
sequence of emissions as determined in the present study assuming that the
order of issues within his categories is not intended to reflect comparative
condition. Such an assumption seems valid in that the arrangement of his
1 Not all issues were represented in this earlier group of 730 tetradrachms examined by
Kambanis. He has no record of Issues 4,12,13 and 41; furthermore, he omits from his recapitu-
lation the two coins of Theophra-Sotas which he had seen. Allowance must be made for similar
gaps in the material examined by Robinson and by the author.
Hoards
499
summary is clearly a carry-over from the preceding record of individual coins
and that record, as Kambanis notes, follows the order of Svoronos* plates.
My record of the coins in the Athens Museum and in the ANS Collection
corresponds almost exactly with Kambanis' evaluation. Both lots of material
may be divided into three broad classifications:
Most wear: Issues 1 through 25
Less wear: Issues 26 through 35
Best preserved: Issues 36 through 39 (comparable in condition) followed by
Issues 40 through 44 (also comparable in condition)
With regard to the Athens pieces, I had starred the Xenokles-Harmoxenos
emission (No. 44) as definitely the best preserved but had noted that there was
no great difference in wear within this last grouping.
Robinson's analysis of the coins he had seen is more elaborate in its divisions
and some liberties have been taken in merging his classifications of the earlier
strikings to bring them in line with the other records:
Group 1 (worn, worn to good): Issues 1 through 24 (except for Issues 14 and 20
which are rated better but on the evidence of one and of two coins)
Group 2 (good, good to fine, fine, fine to very fine): Issues 25 through 35 (except
for six coins of Zoilos - Euandros which are rated very fine) and Issue 37
Group 8 (very fine): Issues 36 (in part), 38 and 39
Group 4 (fine to FDC): Issues 36 (in part) and 40
Group 5 (very fine to FDC): Issues 42 and 44
Group 6 (FDC): Issue 43
The three independent evaluations give substantially the same picture: the
latest coins are undoubtedly those of Nikogenes-Kallimachos, Demeas-Her-

mokles and Xenokles-Harmoxenos with dolphin. These are the same strikings
which the evidence of die links and style places at the end of the series of issues
represented in the Halmyros Hoard.
As Kambanis points out, the Zarova and Halmyros finds are highly com-
parable in contents and in date; their correspondence, however, is not as
absolute as he indicates. Both deposits include an unbroken sequence of issues
from the early years of the three-magistrate period but the Zarova series stops
in 127/6 with the striking of Xenokles-Harmoxenos using the serpent symbol.
The Halmyros Hoard contains the three issues which immediately follow the
serpent emission, hence its burial date would be about 124/8 B.C. Kointos-
Kleas and Apellikon-Gorgias, upon whose absence Kambanis comments, are
5oo
missing from the Halmyros Hoard for the same reason that they are not found
in the Zarova Hoard: their emission is subsequent to the interment of the
hoard.1
CARYSTUS HOARD II
1. Varoucha, BCH, 1958, pp. 651 f. and PI. XLIX
Forty-one tetradrachms, the major part of a hoard discovered at Carystus,
were acquired by the Athens Museum in 1957. The coins are listed by Mme.
Varoucha and partially classified by wear. Ten pieces are illustrated.
TIMAPXOY-NIKArO
166/5
worn
AMMflNIOZ - KAAAIAZ
150/49
worn, good
590b
IflKPATHZ - AlONYIOAfl
148/7
worn, good
0EOAOTOZ - KAE04>ANHI
138/7
worn, good

(prob. 771d)
HPAKAEIAKE - EYKAHI
137/6
worn,
778b
IKEIIOZ - AIKAHTHAAHZ
135/4
good
AQI10EOI - XAPIAI
132/1
good
ahmhtpioi - ArAeinnoz
131/0
very good,
917b
NIKHTHZ - AIONYZIOZ
130/29
942c
APIZTIQN - (DIAflN
129/8
970c
APOnOI-MNAIArO
128/7
good (2), very good
999a
AHMEAI - EPMOKAHZ
125/4
very good
1051b
10
124/8
all good or very good
Hoards
5oi
This deposit is of great importance. Nearly half of the coins in it are of the
two Xenokles strikings, one with dolphin symbol and the other with seated
Roma. Evidence of proportionate representation and of relative wear estab-
lishes these as the latest emissions in the hoard and condition further indicates
that the Roma striking follows that of the dolphin.
Interesting parallels with the large hoard from Halmyros are to be found.
The late issues (Dositheos-Charias through Aropos-Mnasago and Demeas-
Hermokles) which are heavily represented in the Halmyros Hoard are also
present in the Carystus one; the strikings of Xenokles with serpent and Niko-
genes-Kallimachos which are less abundant at Halmyros are lacking at
Carystus. The composition of the two hoards is highly comparable down to
124/3, the date of the Xenokles with dolphin emission. In the Carystus Hoard
one additional issue, that of Xenokles with Roma, appears in quantity and its
presence strongly substantiates the chronological sequence which places the
two strikings in contiguous years.
This unpublished hoard is in the Royal Ontario Museum at Toronto. No
record exists of the date and circumstances of accession and nothing is known
of the provenance of the coins. All forty-eight tetradrachms of the find are
reproduced on the plates with the numbers of the catalogue entries. The com-
position of the hoard is as follows:
ONTARIO HOARD
(Plates 176-179)

Monograms and cicada
185/4
160/59
157/6
156/5
154/8
158/2
151/0
150/49
148/7
147/6
146/5
144/8
148/2
141/0
187/6
186/5
121/0
AXAIOZ - HAI
nOAEMJlN - AAKETHZ
MIKIflN - EYPYKAEI
EYPYKAEI - APIAPA
KAPAIX - EPrOKAE
AIONYZI - AIONYZI
AMMflNIOZ-KAAAIAZ
IflKPATHI - AlONYSOAfi
MHTPOAflPOI - AMHOI0EN
AIOTIMOZ - MArAZ
XAPINAYTHI - APIZTEAI
502
It is highly unlikely that the forty-eight coins in Toronto constitute a
complete hoard. Certainly one finds it hard to believe that in either a savings
or a currency deposit there would be the fourteen-year gap between Andreas-
Charinautes at the end of a long and fairly close chronological sequence and
Apellikon-Gorgias. The single tetradrachm of Apellikon may, of course, be an
intrusion but one must then explain the degree of wear shown by the coins of
Herakleides-Eukles and Andreas-Charinautes which would close the deposit.
The Ontario lot seems rather to be a section of a larger hoard. In the ab-
sence of information as to its provenance and the date of its acquisition,
speculation is perhaps useless. Carystus Hoard I, which was dispersed at the
end of the last century, covers a similar period of time from monogram emis-
sions through Apellikon-Gorgias but many of the issues at Toronto are not
mentioned in the fragmentary accounts of the Carystus find. All that one can
do for the time being is to place the material on record in the hope that addi-
tional information may some day be available.
A. N. Meletopoulos, Parnassos, 1883, pp. 774-776
U. Kohler, ZfN, 1885, pp. 108-106
From the two publications it is possible to reconstitute the hoard in general
terms: some seventy New Style tetradrachms with monograms and names of
magistrates, twenty to thirty Carystus drachms with magistrates' names, two
or three Athenian drachms, three tetradrachms with A9E O AEMOZ. Of indi-
vidual New Style issues the following are known to have been in the find, but
there is no record of the number of coins of any one striking:
CARYSTUS HOARD I (Noe 212)
Monograms and pilei
179/8
178/7
178/2
172/1
171/0
152/1
149/8
146/5
148/2
142/1

186/5
140/39
AAEI - HAIO
XAPI - HPA
Monograms and eagle
Monograms and aplustre
KTHZI - EYMA
AOPOAIZI - AlOrE
GEMIZTO - GEOnOMnOI
AlOTIMOZ-MArAZ
(DANOKAHZ - ATTOAA}NIOZ
ZfllAOI - EYANAPOZ
EYMHAOZ-KAAAKDflN
HPAKAEIAHZ - EYKAHZ
139/8 or 187/6
Hoards
503
IKEZIOZ - AZKAHniAAHI
ahmhtpioi - ArAeinnoz
NIKHTHZ - AIONYZIOZ
APIZTIflN - OIAQN
EENOKAHZ - APMCEENOZ (serpent)
EENOKAHZ - APMCEENOZ (dolphin)
EENOKAHZ - APMCEENOZ (Roma)
AFIEAAIKflN - TOPriAZ
138/7
135/4
131/0
130/29
129/8
127/6
124/3
123/2
121/0
Kohler states specifically that the issues of Kointos-Kleas and Mithra-
dates-Aristion are not included and remarks that all coins of the three series
of Xenokles-Harmoxenos are in good condition. Since the hoard was dispersed
long ago, there is little prospect of obtaining any more information on it and
the fragmentary nature of the present record makes it almost valueless as
evidence. The most interesting feature of the deposit is the appearance in it of
three examples of the rare O AEMOZ emission.

W. Schwabacher, "A Find from the Piraeus," NC, 1939, pp. 162-166
Schwabacher's account gives a listing of the coins, arranged in order of
wear, but illustrates none of the Athenian pieces and only one of the Mithra-
datic tetradrachms. Through the courtesy of G. K. Jenkins I have been able
to reproduce the contents of the hoard from the casts on deposit at the British
Museum.1 Component issues are:
PIRAEUS HOARD (Noe 818)
(Plate 180)
1 EfTirENH - ZflZANAPOZ 158/7
1 ZQKPATHZ - AIONYZOAQ 148/7
1 EYMAPEIAHZ - KAEOMEN 145/4
1 9E0A0T0Z - KAEOOANHZ 138/7
1 APIZTIflN - (DIAflN 129/8
1 EENOKAHZ - APMCEENOZ (serpent) 127/6
1 AHMEAZ-EPMOKAHZ 125/4
1 EENOKAHZ-APMCEENOZ (dolphin) 124/3
2 EENOKAHZ - APMCEENOZ (Roma) 123/2
2 ATTEAAIKflN - rOPflAZ 121 /0
1 In Schwabacher's publication a coin of AHMH - lEPfl is reported to have been included
in the hoard. The casts of the British Museum provide no record of this tetradrachm.
54
In addition to the New Style coins there are two tetradrachms of Mithradates
Eupator,both with the era date A but with different month dates: A and A.1
A considerable period of time separates the earliest and latest coins of the
hoard and there is a corresponding variation in their condition. The first four
issues are well worn; those from Aristion-Philon on are better preserved. Coins
of the Xenokles-Harmoxenos emissions with dolphin and Roma and those of
Apellikon-Gorgias show the least wear of the Athenian sequence,2 and the
inclusion of two specimens each of the Xenokles (Roma) and Apellikon strikings
is additional indication that they are the latest of the tetradrachms of Athens.
The two Mithradatic pieces are, as Schwabacher points out, in mint condition,
distinctly better preserved than any of the Athenian coins.
ABRUZZI HOARD
(Plates 181-184)
An unpublished deposit discovered in the Abruzzi in 1954 or somewhat
earlier. Its original composition, like that of so many other hoards, cannot be
accurately ascertained due to rapid dispersal through several dealers. One report
stated that two finds had been made in this region during 1954 but this seems
most unlikely in view of significant duplication in the records of the two lots
of coins. Rather one imagines that the deposit was divided and that a sub-
stantial part of it reached different commercial channels. The balance was
1 The gold and silver of Mithradates VI falls into three general categories (Waddington,
Recueil, pp. 12-19): issues without dates, issues with years of the Bithynian-Pontic era and
issues with years A - A of another era. Some of these last bear a monogram which is identical
with that of Pergamum on the cistophoric coinage and it has been thought that the coins were
struck at that mint between 88 and 85 B.C. while Mithradates used the city as his headquarters.

It is noteworthy that both the Piraeus and Dipylon Hoards contain tetradrachms of this
last type, all of the first year (A) and all with month dates. Schwabacher in the Chronicle article
cited above divides the A-A era coinage into two emissions (year A with month dates and years
A - A without month dates) and suggests that the former may have been put out at Athens and
the latter at Pergamum. It is distinctly possible, however, that the presence or absence of month
dates is not an indication of separate mints but simply reflects an initial adoption of the Pontic
system of dating by months and a subsequent abandonment of the practice by one and the
same workshop. That any of the coins were struck at Athens seems to me doubtful. When Mithra-
dates dispatched Archelaus and Aristion to Greece in the autumn of 88 B.C. it is highly likely
that he provided them with funds to strengthen the pro-Mithradatic faction in Athens and to
build up the resources of the city against the inevitable clash with Rome. Some of this money,
including the tetradrachms of the Piraeus and Dipylon Hoards, may well have come from the
mint of Pergamum.
a The present evaluation of wear does not tally with that given by Schwabacher but it is,
I think, borne out by the illustrations on Plate 180.
Hoards
505
confiscated by the authorities. Twenty-eight Athenian tetradrachms were
secured by the American Numismatic Society from a dealer who said that he
had also had from the same hoard about two hundred Roman Republican
denarii of the time of Sulla. These Roman coins cannot be traced or more
precisely identified. A second section of the hoard came into the hands of an-
other dealer who most kindly made available rubbings of his material. There
is no definite information concerning the expropriated pieces.
All of the ANS coins and most of those in the hands of the second dealer
are reproduced on Plates 181-184.1 The hoard contains the following:
Athens:
AOPOAIZI - AlOrE
152/1
145/4
144/8
143/2
EYMHAOZ - KAAAIOflN
140/39

9E0A0T0Z- KAEOOANHZ
138/7
HPAKAEIAHZ-EYKAHZ
187/6
AMOIKPATHZ - ETTIZTPATOZ
188/2
ABZIGEOZ-XAPIAZ
182/1
131/0
NIKHTHZ - AIONYZIOZ
130/29
APOflOZ - MNAZArO
128/7
NIKOrENHZ - KAAAIMAXOZ
126/5
EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOZ (dolphin)
124/8
EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOZ (Roma)
128/2
KOINTOZ-KAEAZ
122/1
ArTEAAIKflN - TOPriAZ
121/0
m-m
c. 86/5
Others:
1 Ariarathes V of Cappadocia (B in exergue) 168-180 A on Plate 184
1 Nicomedes III of Bithynia (dated HP) 105/4 B
2 Byzantium issues with Lysimachus types late 2nd- C-D
506
There is considerable variation in condition among the hoard coins. Of the
Athenian issues, those from Aphrodisi-Dioge through Demetrios-Agathippos
show the greatest wear. The strikings of Niketes-Dionysios and Aropos-
Mnasago are fair to good, those of Nikogenes-Kallimachos and Xenokles-
Harmoxenos are fine, those of Kointos-Kleas and Apellikon-Gorgias are very
fine to FDC. Comparable with these last in their excellent state of preservation
are the tetradrachms with tfl - fR and the non-Athenian issues of Mithradates
and Byzantium.
Of all the hoards containing New Style silver, the Abruzzi find is perhaps
the most significant. It is, I believe, the first deposit of New Style coins to be
uncovered in Italy and the presence in it of so many of the tetradrachms
without ethnic associated with dated issues from outside Athens enables us to
draw from it several important conclusions. The quantity and condition of the
coins without ethnic clearly indicate that they are among the latest pieces in
the hoard. Their association with Republican denarii, of which some at least
may be assumed to date c. 86 B.C., and their extensive representation in a
hoard found in Italy are most reasonably explained in connection with Sulla's
Mithradatic campaign. It would seem to me that we have in the Abruzzi Hoard
the wealth brought back by a veteran of the Greek war who settled down in
the Abruzzi and prudently conserved the emolument or spoils of his military
service.
The composition of the hoard is revealing. Tetradrachms of Mithradates,
dated 90/89 B.C., and the other contemporary or earlier money of neighboring
regions with which the Pontic king had close connections must surely bear
witness to financial aid from Mithradates to Athens. It seems highly likely that

Aristion and Archelaus when they were sent to Greece in 88 B.C. took with
them substantial help for the threatened city and that it was coinage such as
this, and not the scanty New Style gold and silver hitherto attributed to
86 B.C., which represented Mithradates' contribution to Athens' struggle
against Rome.
One can only surmise the circumstances of the accumulation of the hoard.
The tetradrachms without ethnic are, I believe, Sullan issues struck at Athens
for military needs. Denarii of Roman origin were probably imported for the
same purpose. Furthermore, the capitulation and sack of Athens must have
brought into Roman hands large quantities of New Style coinage as well as
other money circulating in the city. Our soldier may have been paid in part in
such currency or he may have helped himself to what he could find in the
stricken community. The excellent state of preservation of the New Style
silver of 122/1 and 121/0 suggests that the regular Athenian issues formed a
small hoard which the soldier had come upon and pocketed.
Hoards
507
DIPYLON HOARD (Noe 95)
S. A. Kumanudes, Athenaion, 1874, p. 691
R. Weil, Arch. Zeit., 1876, pp. 163-166
A. von Sallet, ZfN, 1877, pp. 227 f.
R. Weil, AM, 1881, pp. 824-837
According to the references cited, this hoard was discovered in 1875. Full
details of its contents are given by Weil in his earlier article and there is also
in the files of the American Numismatic Society a detailed memorandum on
the component issues prepared by Kambanis in 1986. The two records do not
tally exactly and a further complication is introduced by von Sallet's brief
report in the Zeitschrift where he says that Weil's listing includes all the speci-
mens in the Athens Museum but that there were other coins in the hoard as he
(von Sallet) knows for certain.
The summary which follows is based on Weil's compilation with notation
of divergent information in Kambanis' report
1 tetr. AMMfl - AIO (cornucopiae) 180/79
1 tetr. Monograms and eagle 178/2
4 tetr. Monograms and aplustre 172/1
ltetr. KTHXI-EYMA 171/0
ldr. TAAY-EXE 170/69
ltetr. MIKI - 0EOOPA 169/8
1 dr. MIKI - 0EOOPA
1 dr. HPA - APirrOO 168/7
2 dr. MENEA - EnirENO 167/6
1 tetr. TIMAPXOY - NIKArO 166/5

1 dr. TIMAPXOY - NIKATO
1 dr. AflPOGE - AIO<D 164/3
ltetr. AXAIOZ-HAI 160/59
ldr. AOPOAIII - ATTOAHEI 155/4
4 tetr. EYPYKAEI - APIAPA 154/8
ltetr. AIONYZI - AIONYII 151/0
1 dr. ZflKPATHZ - AlONYIOAfl 148/7
ltetr. XAPINAYTHZ-APIZTEAZ 144/8
1 It seems most unlikely that there were two drachms of the thyrsos issue in the hoard.
Although it has not been possible to identify individual catalogue entries as Dipylon pieces, the
coins are in the Athens Museum and there is no thyrsos drachm in the trays. The only example
I know of this fractional emission is the coin of the Attic Hoard.
(K. has 2 tetr.)
(K. has 1 tetr. with monograms
and aplustre, 8 tetr. with mono-
grams and trophy, 1 tetr. and 2 dr.
with monograms and thyrsos)1
(K. has 1 tetr.)
5o8
1 tetr. OANOKAHZ-ATTOAAflNIOZ 143/2
1 dr. AAMflN - ZfiZIKPATHZ 141/0
ldr. EYMHAOZ-KAAAKMiN 140/39
1 tetr. HPAKAEIAHZ - EYKAHZ 189/8 or 137/6
1 dr. HPAKAEIAHZ - EYKAHZ
ltetr. TIMOZTPATOZ-nOZHZ 134/3
1 tetr. AS1ZI0EOZ-XAPIAZ 132/1
1 tetr. AHMHTPIOZ - ArAeiTTTTOZ 181 /0 (K. recordWeil has none)
ltetr. NIKHTHZ-AIONYZIOZ 130/29
8 tetr. APIZTIfiN - OlAflN 129/8
2 tetr. APOTOZ - MNAZArO 128/7
ltetr. AHMEAZ - EPMOKAHZ 125/4
2 tetr. EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOI 124/8
(dolphin)
ldr. KOINTOZ-KAEAZ 122/1
2 tetr. AnEAAlKfiN - rOPHAZ 121/0 (K. has 1 tetr.)
4 dr. ATTEAAIKflN - TOPriAZ (K. has 8 dr.)
1 tetr. BAZIAE MI9PAAATHZ - c. 121
APIZTIflN
8 dr. BAZIAE MI6PAAATHZ -
APIZTIfiN
2 dr. Illegible (K. not)
In addition to the thirty-two tetradrachms and twenty-two drachms of the
New Style series, as recorded by Weil, the hoard contained four tetradrachms
of Mithradates Eupator: all with A for the year and B, r and A for the months.

Weil notes that the coins of Ammo-Dio and Glau-Eche are very worn and
that the latest pieces, "durch ihre theilweise fast stempelfrische Erhaltung,"
belong to the issues of Euryklei-Ariara, Aristion-Philon, Apellikon-Gorgias
and Mithradates-Aristion. Kambanis' memorandum on the hoard gives his
estimates of relative wear in four categories: very good, good, mediocre and
very mediocre. Ammo-Dio, Ktesi-Euma and Damon-Sosikrates are de-
scribed as very mediocre; all the rest as good except for the following which
are classified as very good: Demetrios-Agathippos, Niketes-Dionysios,
Aristion-Philon (2 of 8), Aropos-Mnasago (1 of 2), Demeas-Hermokles,
Kointos-Kleas, Apellikon-Gorgias and Mithradates-Aristion.
Having Kambanis' record of condition throws some light on what has long
been a puzzling feature in Weil's publication, namely his inclusion of the
relatively early emission of Euryklei-Ariara among the best-preserved issues.
If one accepts Kambanis' evaluations, according to which coins as early as
Miki-Theophra and as late as Xenokles-Harmoxenos are alike in good con-
dition, it becomes clear that the Dipylon treasure is a savings hoard accu-
Hoards
509
mulated over a long period of time and not a currency hoard representing
pieces withdrawn at one time from circulation. In a deposit of this kind
"stempelfrisch" is not necessarily indicative of a late dating.
Similarly the interval between the latest New Style coinage, struck about
120 B.C. and the Mithradatic tetradrachms, associated with the crisis of
87/6 B.C. (see pp. 504,506), need not be over-emphasized. The owner of the
treasure may have been unable for personal reasons to put aside silver after 120.
Perhaps his additions after that date consisted of earlier tetradrachms still in
circulation.1 From the evidence of surviving specimens and number of obverse
and reverse dies, it seems clear that the coinage of Apellikon-Gorgias was one
of the last really large issues of New Style silver. The extensive emissions of the
preceding decade must have formed the bulk of the city's coinage for a con-
siderable time, perhaps even down to the time of Sulla. What new money was
issued may well have been earmarked for export. Only in the period immedi-
ately preceding Sulla's arrival was there a substantial supplement to the civic
currency in the form of the Mithradatic tetradrachms, of which a few found
their way into the Dipylon Hoard shortly before it was interred during the
siege of Athens.
Sixty-seven New Style tetradrachms found in Anatolia in 1955 or early 1956
were acquired by the American Numismatic Society. There is some reason to
believe that the coins were unearthed in the neighborhood of Kayseri (anc.
Caesarea) in central Turkey. Five or more pieces had been sold before the
hoard was offered in the United States and of these no record exists. The com-
position of the lot in New York is as follows:
1 It is to be noted that there are late coins (1 of Aristion-Philon, 1 of Aropos-Mnasago,

2 of Xenokles-Harmoxenos) which Kambanis describes as good rather than very good. There
are a number of late issues which Weil omits from his "fast stempelfrisch" category and his com-
ment on those he does include indicates that not every coin of each issue is in almost mint con-
dition. Tetradrachms struck between 130 and 120 B.C. could have been added to the Dipylon
Hoard after some years of circulation.
ANATOLIA HOARD
(Plates 185-190)
1 AXAIOZ-HAi
1 AcDPOAIZI - ATTOAHEI
3 AIONYZI - AIONYI1
8 AMMfiNIOZ-KAAAlAI
1 9EM15TO - GEOnOMnOZ
2 MHTPOAfiPOZ - AHM0I6EN
160/59
155/4
151/0
150/49
149/8
147/6
5io
3 AI0TIM0Z - MArAZ
146/5
5 XAPINAYTHZ-APIZTEAZ
144/3
1 ZfilAOI - EYANAPOZ
142/1
1 AAMflN - ZflZIKPATHZ1
141/0
5 HPAKAEIAHZ-EYKAHZ2
137/6
2 ANAPEAZ-XAPINAYTHZ
186/5
4 AflZIOEOZ - XAPIAZ
132/1
6 ahmhtpioz - ArAeinnoz
131/0
2 NIKHTHZ - AIONYZIOZ
180/29
8 APIZTIflN - OlAflN
129/8
2 APOTTOZ - MNAZArO
128/7
11 EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOZ (serpent)
127/6
8 AHMEAZ - EPMOKAHZ

125/4
2 EENOKAHZ-APMOEENOZ (dolphin)
124/8
2 EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOZ (Roma)
123/2
1 KOINTOZ - KAEAZ
122/1
1 ATTEAAlKflN - rOPHAZ
121/0
1 MNAZEAZ - NEZTflP
120/19
1 Imitation EEN OKAHZ - APM OEEN OZ (Roma) pl. 159, 1420
After the Athenian coins had been purchased, the dealer informed us that
his contact abroad had forwarded twenty Cappadocian drachms said to have
been found with the New Style tetradrachms. These coins were bought by the
Society and are illustrated on Plate 190. They include:
7 Ariarathes IV (A-G)3 220-168 B.C.
1 Ariarathes V (H) 163-130
8 Ariarathes VII (I-K) 111-99
8 Ariarathes IX (L-S) 99-87
1 Ariobarzanes I (T) 95-62
It is far from certain that the two lots belong together. Early reports on
the find of tetradrachms made no mention of other material. Furthermore, the
variation in wear of the Athenian coins suggests a currency deposit while that
of the drachms would seem explicable only if they were put aside at different
times. For example, the condition of the one fraction of Ariobarzanes is more
worn than that of Ariarathes V, struck almost a century earlier. One would
1 No. 726g of the catalogue but not reproduced on the plate due to its badly corroded
condition.
2 Four of the coins are illustrated, the fifth is very poorly preserved. Its dies are illegible
and it may, therefore, belong to either Year I or Year II.
3 These drachms of Ariarathes IV include none of the issues recently reattributed to Aria-
rathes V by B. Simonetta ("Sull' attribuzione delle dramme di Ariarathes IV e di AriarathesV,"
Riv. Num., igs&, pp. n-20).
Hoards
5ii
expect, too, to find in a currency hoard rather less representation for Aria-
rathes IV and at least some coins of Ariarathes VI. It is possible that two
separate hoards were brought together in ancient or modern times. The matter
is of little importance for our study of the New Style material, which can be
treated as a unit.
Of the Athenian coins, the early strikings through Herakleides-Eukles
show considerable wear while succeeding issues are better preserved. The
chronological arrangement of the coinage of this period seems amply confirmed
by the evidence of relative condition: the three coins struck under Kointos-
Kleas, Apellikon-Gorgias and Mnaseas-Nestor are the finest of the group and
those of Demeas-Hermokles and the three Xenokles-Harmoxenos strikings
only a little more worn.
All emissions between 182/1 and 120/19 are represented except for Niko-
genes-Kallimachos and the light coinage of Mithradates-Aristion. The heavy
proportion of Xenokles with serpent symbol, not an unduly large issue, must
be the result of special circumstances. Accumulation of the Athenian coins
seems to have come to an end soon after 119 B.C.
CRETAN HOARD II
(Plates 191-196)
In 1942 during the German occupation of Crete a pot containing nearly one
hundred tetradrachms was uncovered near Chersonesus. Twenty-three coins
were deposited in the Herakleion Museum; the remainder passed into trade
and of these the American Numismatic Society secured seventy pieces. Roughly
two-thirds of the find consists of New Style tetradrachms, sixty-three in all:
1 Monograms and herm

183/2
1 AMMfi - AIO (cornucopiae)
180/79
176/5
2 AIOOA - AIOAO
175/4
2 AHMH - lEPfl
174/3
1 Monograms and aplustre
172/1
2 KTHZI - EYMA
171/0
1 TAAY-EXE
170/69
2 MIKI - GEOOPA
169/8
1 HPA-APIZTOO
168/7
1 MENEA - ETTirENO
167/6
1 9ECXDPA - IflTAI
162/1
4 AXAIOI-HAI
160/59
2 AYZAN - TAAYKOZ
159/8
1 MIKIflN - EYPYKAEI
156/5
512
1 ZflKPATHZ-AIONYZOAfl 148/7
3 AlOTIMOZ-MArAZ 146/5
1 EYMAPEIAHZ - KAEOMEN 145/4
2 XAPINAYTHZ - APIZTEAZ 144/3
1 (DANOKAHZ - AFIOAAQNIOZ 148/2
1 ZQIAOZ-EYANAPOZ 142/1
1 AAMflN - ZQZIKPATHZ 141/0
1 EYMHAOZ - KAAAIOQN 140/39
1 GEOAOTOZ-KAEOQANHZ 188/7
1 HPAKAEIAHZ - EYKAHZ 187/6
1 ANAPEAZ-XAPINAYTHZ 136/5
2 AMOIKPATHZ - EFTIZTPATOZ 133/2
2 AQZI9E0Z - XAPIAZ 182/1
2 AHMHTPIOZ - ArAOirTTTOZ 181 /0
4 N1KHTHZ-AIONYZIOZ 130/29
1 APIZTIfiN - OIAQN 129/8
2 APOnOZ - MNAZArO 128/7
5 EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOZ (serpent) 127/6
2 EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOZ (dolphin) 124/8
1 KOINTOZ - KAEAZ 122/1
1 MNAZEAZ - NEZTQP 120/19
2 MENTflP - MOZXlflN 118/7
1 APXIT1MOZ - AHMHTPI 117/6
1 imitation of MIKI - 0EOOPA
Issues of Cretan and other mints make up the balance of the hoard. Among

the coins are three dated pieces: two of Nicomedes IV, years 92/1 (A on
Plate 196) and 90/89, and one of Mithradates Eupator, year 76/5 B.C.
The Chersonesus Hoard will be published by Georges Le Rider, who has
most generously made his information on various sections of the find available
to me, and in view of his forthcoming work only the New Style material will be
discussed here. These sixty-three coins of Athens cover about as many years
of minting activity, from 188/2 to 117/6 B.C., and the condition of most bears
witness to a long period of circulation. All issues through Andreas-Charinautes
are distinctly worn. From Amphikrates-Epistratos on, the tetradrachms are
definitely better preserved and the degree of wear seems to correlate closely
with the chronological sequence of emission, at least for strikings represented
by several coins. Le Rider describes the coin of Kointos-Kleas and one of
Mentor-Moschion as the freshest of the Herakleion lot but says that even
these are not very fine. From the plates one can see that their condition is
inferior to that of the single Architimos-Demetri piece which is clearly the
best-preserved New Style coin in the hoard as a whole.
Hoards
5i3
The three dated coins, of which the two ANS specimens are illustrated on
Plate 196, are extremely fine, particularly the Mithradates striking. However,
the difference in condition between these non-Athenian issues and the latest
of the New Style coins is not great enough to justify the assumption that all
were withdrawn from circulation at the same time. By 75 B.C. the Architimos
piece would have been in use for forty-two years and the relatively good
Xenokles-Harmoxenos coins for fifty or more. Such longevity cannot be re-
conciled with their state of preservation. One must, I think, assume that the
New Style tetradrachms were put aside at an earlier date.
There is another factor which suggests that special circumstances were
involved in the composition of this Cretan hoard. While it is true that the
Athenian coinage is beginning to decline in quantity by 117/6, there are
five issues of some size immediately following that of Architimos-Demetri,
of which three appear in Cretan Hoard I and in the Hierapytna Hoard. The
absence of all five issues from the Chersonesus Hoard raises the possibility
that there was an uneven distribution of Athenian money throughout Crete
during the last decades of the New Style period.
DELOS HOARD EG (Noe 816? Roussel 7)
(Plates 197-200)
According to the tickets in the Athens trays, the fifty-two tetradrachms
fisted below comprise a hoard found on Delos during the excavations of
1911-1912.
1 AOPOAIZI - AlOrE
152/1
548b
145/4
679d

1 EYMAPEIAHI - KAEOMEN
1 EYBOYAIAHZ - ArAGOKAH
142/1
714a
1 GEOAOTOZ - KAEOOANHZ
188/7
761b
2 HPAKAEIAHZ - EYKAHI
187/6
782d; second obverse die
illegible
1 ANAPEAZ - XAPINAYTHZ
186/5
802h
2 IKEZIOZ-AZKAHniAAHZ
185/4
809a; 817b
2 AMOIKPATHZ-ETTIZTPATOZ
138/2
833a; 848d
8 AflZIQEOZ - XAPIAZ
182/1
857g; 861a; 867a
2 ahmhtpioz - ArAQinnoz
181/0
903a; 908b
1 AHMEAZ-EPMOKAHZ
125/4
1061d
5 EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOZ (dolphin)
124/8
1075b; 1081b; 1085;
1090e; 1094b
1 EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOZ (Roma)
128/2
1114f
1 The date of discovery is 1911-1912 and not 1910 as given in Noe.
1 KOINTOZ - KAEAZ
122/1
1126
1 ATTEAAIKflN - rOPHAZ
121/0
1188b
8 KAEOOANHZ - EniGETHZ
119/8
1158; 1160a;1163b
2 MENTfiP - MOZXIflN
118/7
1167d;1168
2 APXIT1MOZ - AHMHTPI
117/6
1175a;1169b
1 AYZANAPOZ-OINOOIAOZ
116/5
1188a
4 AMOIAZ - OINOcDIAOZ
115/4
1188b; 1189a(2); 1192a
6 NEZTflP - MNAZEAZ
118/2
1205; 1210; 1212c;
1216; 1220a; 1221c
9 ZftTAAHZ - GEMIZTOKAHZ

112/1
1222b; 1224d(2); 1225a;
1226b,d(8),e
As can readily be seen from the plates, the issues through Demetrios-
Agathippos show the greatest wear. Coins of Xenokles, Kointos, Apellikon,
Kleophanes and Mentor are in good condition; those of Architimos, Amphias,
Nestor and Sotades are the best-preserved tetradrachms in the hoard. Over
one-third of the find consists of the emissions of Amphias-Oinophilos, Nestor -
Mnaseas and Sotades-Themistokles (with a number of coins from the same
pair of dies) and this, taken in conjunction with their excellent state of preser-
vation, indicates that they are the latest of the hoard issues. Clearly they had
not circulated for many years before the deposit was interred.
DELOS HOARD A (Noe 806, 1; Roussel 8a)
(Plates 200-201)
J. N. Svoronos, JI AN, 1906, pp. 254 f.
According to Svoronos' publication the hoard consists of thirteen tetra-
drachms and twenty-two drachms from the following issues:
1 dr.
HPA - APIZTOO
168/7
1 dr.
TIMAPXOY-NlKArO
166/5
1 dr.
nOAYXAPM - NIKOr
165/4
881c
2 dr.
AflP06E - AIOO
164/8
1 dr.
ANTIOXOZ - NIKOr
168/2
402a
1 dr.
0EOCDPA - ZQTAZ
162/1
1 dr.
AIOrE - TTOZEI
161/0
419b
1 tetr.
AMMQNIOZ - KAAAIAZ
Hoards
5i5
2 dr.
183/2
887
1 tetr.
AiZI6E0Z - XAPIAZ
132/1
857f
1 dr.
AQZIGEOZ - XAPIAS
878
2 tetr.
NIKHTHZ - AIONYZIOZ
130/29
984b;936a
1 tetr.
APOTTOI - MNAIArO
128/7
995b
1 tetr.
AHMEAI - EPMOKAHZ
125/4
1060d
2 tetr.
EENOKAHZ-APMOEENOZ (dolphin)

124/3
1097a,b
1 dr.
EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOZ (dolphin)
1108
1 tetr.
KAEOCPANHZ - ETH9ETHZ
119/8
1163c
2 tetr.
AMOIAZ - OINOOIAOZ
115/4
1193; 1195
1 tetr.
NEZTftP - MNAZEAZ
118/2
1219a
1 tetr.
ZflTAAHZ - 0EMIZTOKAHZ
112/1
1223
2 dr.
86/5
This would seem to be a currency hoard. Nearly half of the fractions and
all but one of the tetradrachms belong to the period 136-111 B.C., with the two
Sullan drachms representing later additions.
The over-all chronological sequence is confirmed by evidence of relative
wear. Early strikings through the drachms of Diotimos are very worn (note the
tetradrachm of Ammonios illustrated on Plate 200). Succeeding issues through
Niketes also show a fair degree of wear. The coins of Aropos, Demeas, Xenokles
and Kleophanes are in good condition. Those of Amphias and Nestor are very
fine while the one tetradrachm of Sotades is FDC.
CRETAN HOARD I (Noe 282)
(Plate 202)
J. N. Svoronos, Riv. Num., 1908, p. 816
Svoronos' brief statement on the hoard, upon which the information in
Noe's Bibliography is based, is corrected by E. J. P. Raven in a letter of 1988.
He had taken notes on the New Style coins in the Herakleion Museum and
according to his record the hoard consists of only thirteen coins. In giving the
total of twenty tetradrachms, Svoronos had apparently combined this hoard
group with seven other New Style pieces, possibly a second hoard according
to Raven.
5i6
1 AHMEAZ - EPMOKAHZ 125/4
1 EYMHAOZ-0EOEENIAHZ 114/8
1 GEOQPAZTOZ - 0EMIZTO 109/8
1 AHMEAZ-KAAAIKPATIAHZ 107/6
1 EnirENHI-EENQN 104/8
1 MENEAHMOZ-TIMOKPATHZ 103/2
2 APXITIMOI-nAMMENHZ 96/5
1 AITEAAIKflN - APIZTOTEAHZ 94/3
1 OIAOKPATHZ - KAAAIOflN 92/1
1052b
1203
1280
1288a
1238b
1241b
1268b
1266a
1255c; 1257a
Corrosion has impaired the surfaces of all coins, making it difficult to
determine relative wear with any degree of precision. The first three issues
listed above are distinctly worn; the last eight strikings are much fresher.
There is, however, not a great deal of difference in preservation among these
later coins, certainly not enough to indicate an exact chronological sequence.
The hoard is of importance in providing the only specimen of the issue of
Theophrastos-Themisto and also highly significant in its association of late

issues, helping to establish the terminal date for the New Style coinage (see
pages 413-415). It is worth noting that only in this hoard and in another Cretan
deposit, that of Hierapytna, do Athenian strikings of the first century make
their appearance.
E. J. P. Raven, "The Hierapytna Hoard of Greek and Roman Coins," NC, 1938, pp. 133-158
M. L. Kambanis, BCH, 1988, pp.75f.
This hoard, part of which appeared on the market early in 1934, contained
between fifty and fifty-five New Style coins. Raven lists twenty-seven tetra-
drachms and one drachm belonging to seventeen or more issues; Kambanis
adds four issues to those given by Raven but does not specify the number
of coins.
HIERAPYTNA HOARD (Noe 433)
8 Monograms issues (illegible)
Dr.
1 KTHZI-EYMA
2 0EMIZTO - QEOnOMTIOI
1 MHTPOAQPOZ - AHMOZ0EN
2 HPAKAEIAHZ-EYKAHZ
139/8 or
171/0
149/8
147/6
647
8 0EOAOTOZ - KAEOQANHZ
4 IKEZIOZ - AZKAHT1IAAHZ
1 APIZTIflN - OlAflN
187/6
188/7
135/4
129/8
Hoards
5i7
2 AHMEAI - EPMOKAHI
125/4
127/6 or later
(issue not specified)
MNAZEAZ - NEZTCiP
1 KAEOOANHZ-ETTieETHI
1 MENTflP - MOZXlfJN
1 EYMHAOZ - 9ECEENIAHZ
1 NEZTflP - MNAZEAZ
2 AICKDANTOZ- AIZXINHZ
1 EnirENHZ-EENflN
1 MENEAHMOZ-TIMOKPATHZ
APXITIMOZ - nAMMENHZ
1 ATTEAAIKflN - APIZTOTEAHZ
120/19
119/8
118/7
116/5
114/8
118/2
108/7
104/8
108/2
94/3

96/5
There is no way of knowing how many other issues were included in the find
or even how many coins of any one of the recorded emissions. Raven says that
most of the remaining specimens of Athens are reported to have belonged to
the late two-magistrate series but that no details are available.
A few of the earlier pieces are classified as to condition in Raven's article:
the Monograms issues and the coins of Themisto-Theopompos as worn; those
of Metrodoros-Demosthen, Heraldeides-Eukles, Hikesios-Asklepiades and
Aristion-Philon as fair to worn; those of Demeas-Hermokles as good to fair.
Of the two-magistrate issues he says, "we are told that none of this series were
at all badly worn,"1 and this is confirmed by Kambanis who describes the
ones he saw as well preserved, some very fresh.
Mixed with the New Style coinage was: autonomous silver of six Cretan
cities, including a few of the strikings modelled on Athenian types; a large
number of cistophori, of which two at least date from the middle of the first
century; and some two hundred Roman Republican denarii ranging from the
mid second century to the mid first. Raven believes that the hoard was interred
between 44 and 42 B.C.
oreos hoard. Discovered prior to 1950 and quickly dispersed. Said to
have included several hundred tetradrachms of which only eighteen can be
traced: fourteen in the Athens Museum (as published in the BCH, 1950, p. 292
1 Raven speaks of seven of the late issues as being in a private collection in Athens. Of these,
the coins of Kleophanes-Epithetes and Eumelos-Theoxenides are the best preserved. This evalu-
ation is at variance with the order of emission but only single coins were available for comparison.
OTHER HOARDS
5i8
and 1955, p. 210) and four in private collections. Not all of these are in the
present catalogue. The issues on record are:
EYPYKAEI - APIAPA
154/3
AIONYII - AIONYZI
151/0
563b
AMMflNIOZ-KAAAIAZ
150/49
MHTPOAflPOZ - MIATIAAHZ
147/6
145/4
670b
148/2
AAMfiN - ZflZIKPATHZ
141/0

728a
HPAKAEIAHI - EYKAHZ
189/8 or
187/6
AMCDIKPATHZ - ET7IZTPATOZ
188/2
849a
AGZI0EOZ - XAPIAZ
182/1
872
131/0
921h
NIKHTHZ-AIONYZIOZ
130/29
For what this exceedingly scanty evidence is worth, the hoard seems to
parallel the two Delos finds, B and AH, in ending with the issue of Niketes-
Dionysios.
salamis hoard (Noe 890). Discovered in 1936 on the island of Salamis, the
find includes at least twenty-nine tetradrachms and seven drachms:
1 AAEI-HAIO
179/8
122a
2 XAPI - HPA
178/7
134a; 135a
Dr.
4 Grain-ear symbol
180-170
140e; 142c; 149g; 152a
176/5
177d
1 AIOOA-AIOAO
175/4
184c
2 Monograms and eagle
173/2
Hoards
5i9
1 EYMAPEIAHZ - AAKIAAM
2 XAPINAYTHZ-APIZTEAZ
1 EYMHAOZ - KAAAIOflN
1 HPAKAEIAHZ-EYKAHZ
1 ANAPEAZ-XAPINAYTHZ
1 TIMOZTPATOZ - nOZHZ
145/4
144/8
140/39
137/6
136/5
134/3
673a
688d; 689c
736e
786a
808c
825b
The hoard is in the Athens Museum and will be published by Mme. Irene
Varoucha.
DEWS HOARDS
In addition to the six Delos hoards discussed individually there are a
number of others listed by Noe and Roussel, some published by Svoronos and
some unpublished, which should be cited briefly for the record. Their evidence
is of slight value. In many cases the data on contents are incomplete and even

indications of earliest and latest issues are somewhat unreliable.1 Other
hoards contain so few coins that their association means little or nothing.
Furthermore, as can clearly be seen from the weights given in Svoronos'
various publications, the Delos coins are usually in such poor condition that
it is difficult or impossible to draw any conclusions from relative wear.
These miscellaneous hoards, roughly in order of burial, are as follows:
Noe 819. Eighteen tetradrachms and two drachms found in 1931. A note from
Kambanis says that the earliest issue is that with monograms and serpents and
the latest that of EYPYKAEI - APIAPA.
Noe 309; JI AN, 1907, p. 193. Two drachms and twelve bronzes found in 1906.
The silver issues are those of HPA - APIZTCXD and AMOIKPATHZ - ETTIZTPATOZ,
associated with bronzes of the types attributed by Svoronos to a Delian mint.
Noe 303; Roussel 1. Forty-three tetradrachms found in 1881. Component issues
range from the early strikings with monograms to APIZTIflN - OIAQN and
EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOZ.
Noe 304; Roussel 2. Some thirty tetradrachms in three separate hoards found
in 1894. The latest coins are those of EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOZ.
Noe 315(2); Roussel 5. Described in the Athens trays and in the present cata-
logue as Hoard IT. Ninety-two tetradrachms found in 1910. Only the issues
after AflZIGEOZ - XAPIAZ have been recorded:
1 This is particularly true of the late issues since the die connections of the present catalogue
have invalidated the old theory of a sharp break between the three-magistrate and two-magis-
trate strikings. A hoard said to end with the coins of Xenokles and Harmoxenos may in reality
include three-magistrate issues of later date.
520
3 AHMHTPIOZ - ArAeiTTTTOZ 181 /0 887; 905a; 921 j
2 NIKHTHZ - AIONYZIOZ 130/29 940c; 956b
2 APIZTIflN - OlAflN 129/8 976b; 981b
1 APOTTOZ - MNAZATO 128/7 Dies illegible
4 EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOZ 127/6 1013a; 1020b; 1026b;
(serpent) one illegible
2 EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOZ 124/8 Both illegible
(dolphin)
The hoard runs through 124/3 B.C. but issues of the two years immediately
preceding are not represented. It is impossible to judge the relative condition
of the coins due to the effect of the fire which destroyed the building in which
they were buried.
Noe not; JIAN, 1911, p. 76. Described in the catalogue as Hoard A1. Thir-
teen drachms found in 1907, published and evaluated as to condition by Svoronos.
9 Grain-ear symbol fair to good
1 EYPYKAEI - APIAPA 154/8 fair 523b
1 EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOZ 124/8 good 1109
(dolphin)
1 EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOZ 128/2 excellent 1124a,b
(Roma)
Noe 312; JIAN, 1911, p. 57. Described in the Athens trays and in the present
catalogue as Hoard IA. Thirteen tetradrachms found in 1908.
1 GEMIZTO - OEOnOMnOZ 149/8
1 MHTPOAflPOZ - AHM0Z9EN 147/6
1 ANAPEAZ-XAPINAYTHZ 186/5

1 AflZIOEOZ - XAP1AZ 182/1 861b
1 APOTTOZ-MNAZArO 128/7 997a
1 EENOKAHZ-APMOEENOZ 127/6 1014c
(serpent)
7 Mithradates VI of Pontus (dated 98/2 B.C.). Three in good condition and
the others badly corroded. Svoronos thinks all are from the same dies.
This is another hoard with coins in a very poor state of preservation as is
indicated by the extremely low weights recorded by Svoronos.
Noe 311; JIAN, 1911, p. 77. Described in the catalogue as Hoard A-2. Twelve
coins found in 1907.
ldr. A<DPOAIZI - ATTOAHEI 155/4 506b
ldr. ZniAOZ - EYANAPOZ 142/1 722d
1 tetr. IKEZIOZ - AZKAHT7IAAHZ 135/4 814g
Hoards
521
1 tetr. APIZTIfiN - OlAflN 129/8 970b
1 tetr. APOTTOZ - MNAZAI~0 128/7 1010b
2 tetr. ffl - fH 86/5 (one with A on the amphora)
8 dr. tfl - Ifl
2 cistophori: Ephesus dated 89 B.C. and Tralles undated.
Svoronos says the tft - fR tetradrachm with A is in good condition.
Noe 313; JIAN, 1913, p. 40. Described in the Athens trays as Hoard IT; dis-
tinguished in the present catalogue from the other IT hoard by the numbers of
Svoronos' publication. Eleven coins found in 1909, with Svoronos' evaluation
of condition.
dr.
ETTirENH - ZQZANAPOZ
158/7
fair
hemidr.
MIKIflN - EYPYKAEI
156/5
fair
dr.
HPAKAEIAHZ - EYKAHZ
139/8 or
fair
137/6
tetr.
ANAPEAZ - XAP1NAYTHZ
good
803b
dr.

186/5
good
810b
hemidr.
184/8
fair
839
tetr.1
ASZIGEOZ - XAPIAZ
182/1
fair
tetr.1
AHMEAZ - EPMOKAHZ
125/4
fair
tetr.
124/8
good
1089
(dolphin)
dr.
116/5
fair
1185
dr.
86/5
fair
Again the weights, especially of the tetradrachms, are indicative of poor
condition.
Noe 305. Stray finds of a two-year period, not a hoard.
There are a number of other deposits on record containing New Style silver.
For the most part they are of minor significance due to the lack of precise in-
formation or to the small proportion of Athenian coins.2
aecatarini (Noe 18). This was undoubtedly an important hoard containing,
as it did, some six hundred New Style tetradrachms. Kambanis reports that
1 Listed as a drachm by Svoronos but the weight indicates a tetradrachm.
522
he had seen eighty-seven pieces of which the latest were emissions of
AHMEAZ - EPMOKAHZ. This implies an absence of late two-magistrate coins
but provides no useful data on the find as a whole.
serres (Noe 960) and marsian (Noe 709). The first had sixty New Style
tetradrachms, the second 106 silver coins of Athens and Thasos. Both hoards
were dispersed and no record of their contents is available.
CRETE (Noe 282). Two groups of coins are combined in this entry. The first
consists of the thirteen tetradrachms discussed on pp. 515f. as Cretan Hoard I.
In the Herakleion Museum there is a second lot of Athenian coins seven tetra-
drachms, two hemidrachms and two bronzeswith consecutive catalogue
numbers. Raven, who provided information on the Herakleion coins, thought
that the second group might be a hoard although he noted that the museum
listing gives no proof of this and no clear indication that the hemidrachms and
bronzes should be associated with the tetradrachms. In the case of the bronzes,
one pre-New Style and one Imperial, a connection is rather unlikely; the frac-
tional silver may belong with the tetradrachms if the coins do come from a
hoard.
1 tetr.
Monograms and grain-ear
187/6
55d
1 tetr.
nOAY - Tl
181/0
104c

1 tetr.
XAPI - HPA
178/7
133b
1 tetr.
WAQ - AYZIA
177/6
167e
2 tetr.
KTHZI - EYMA
171/0
277b,i
1 tetr.
MIKI - 0EOOPA
169/8
320a
1 hemidr.
MIKI - 6E0CDPA
328a
1 hemidr.
AXAIOZ - HAI
160/59
428
simitlii (Noe not). An unpublished hoard of uncertain composition and
date. Gerassimov reports that the Sophia Museum acquired five New Style
tetradrachms of the issues of 0EOQPA - ZflTAZ, ETTirENH -ZOZANAPOZ,
EYMAPEIAHI - KAEOMEN and NIKHTHZ - AIONYZIOZ.
beliza (Noe not). Also an unpublished hoard of indefinite composition and
date from which the Sophia Museum acquired the following:
1 dr. 0ECKDPA - ZQTAZ 162/1
7 tetr. ErhTENH-ZflZANAPOZ 158/7
5 tetr. TTOAEMftN - AAKETHZ 157/6
2 tetr. MIKMN - EYPYKAEI 156/5
1 tetr. KAPAIX - EPRDKAE 153/2
ltetr. KOINTOZ-KAEAZ 122/1
ltetr. APXITIMOZ - AHMHTPI 117/6
ltetr. m- 86/5
Hoards
523
Greece ? (Noe 462). Kambanis reports that this hoard was seen by him in March of
1921 and shortly thereafter dispersed. His summary of its contents is as follows:
14 tetr. ranging from AYIAN - TAAYKOZ (159/8) to
EENOKAHI - APMCEENOZ (127/6 or later)
20 tetr. withfft-ra
50 Roman denarii - Fibia, Calpurnia, Fituria
The moneyers listed by Kambanis would seem to be L. Calpurnius Piso
(90/89), C. Vibius Pansa (89/8) and L. Titurius Sabinus (88). If these identi-
fications are correct, there is a close chronological connection between the
denarii and the Sullan coinage of Athenian type, and the find is similar in
composition to the Abruzzi Hoard.
There are six hoards which contain a single New Style coin associated with
the money of other mints:
zahle. Henri Seyrig reports this Lebanese find of 1957. It contains Ptolemaic
and Seleucid coins, autonomous issues of various Asia Minor cities and a New
Style tetradrachm with monograms and cicada symbol (66b of 185/4 B.C.).
The latest dated piece is a Demetrius II striking of 142 B.C.
babylon (Noe 116). A large hoard of mid-second century burial date with
one New Style tetradrachm of 189/8 B.C.: monograms with Nike symbol.
Catalogue No. 81X.
teheran (Noe 1081). Another large find with many Seleucid and Parthian
pieces and one New Style tetradrachm of 179/8 B.C.: AAEI - HAIO. The deposit
was put away in the early years of the first century.
benkovski (Noe 145). A tetradrachm of MIKIflN - EYPYKAEI (156/5) interred
with silver of Maroneia and Thasos.

marmara (Noe 655). A tetradrachm of ANAPEAZ - XAPINAYTHZ (136/5) with
posthumous Lysimachi and Bithynian regnal issues of which the latest dated
piece is of 116 B.C.
1934/5 (Noe not). Newell records a small tetradrachm hoard of uncertain
provenance in the hands of a dealer in the United States:
7 Mithradates VI
4 Nicomedes III and IV
1 Lysimachus
1 Athens New Style of MENTflP - MOIXIfiN
(118/7 B.C.) Catalogue No. 1167b.
The latest dated coins are three Mithradatic tetradrachms of 75/4 B.C.
524
Finally there are two groups of coins which may represent hoard material.
The collection of the Hunterian Museum has a surprisingly high proportion of
late two-magistrate issues. Of its 110 New Style coins, twenty-eight tetra-
drachms, roughly one-fourth of the total, date c. 121 B.C. and latera repre-
sentation of late strikings which is unparalleled in any other large collection.
The issues are as follows:
Excepting the single Diophantos-Aischines piece, the coins form a tight chron-
ological sequence. Of the consecutive emissions, the first four show greater
wear than the last six, the tetradrachms of Architimos through Sotades being
extremely well preserved. It seems to me likely that most, if not all, of these
twenty-seven specimens are from a hoard, comparable in composition to
Delos =6 and Delos A, but there is unfortunately no way of establishing the
association of the Glasgow coins.
The second group was deposited in the Istanbul Museum prior to 1955 and
consists of eighteen tetradrachms found at or near Samsun:
1 BAZIAE MI0PAAATHI - APIZTIflN
2 MNAZEAZ - NEZTOP
2 KAEOOANHZ - ET7IGETHZ
5 MENTOP - MOZXIflN
1 APXITIMOZ-AHMHTPI
2 AYZANAPOZ - OINOOIAOZ
2 AMOIAZ-OINOOIAOZ
2 EYMHAOZ - QEOEENIAHZ
9 NEITOP - MNAIEAZ
1 ZflTAAHZ-GEMIZTOKAHZ

1 AIOOANTOZ-AIZXINHZ
c. 121 B.C.
120/19
119/8
118/7
117/6
116/5
115/4
114/8
118/2
112/1
108/7
1 riOAYXAPM - NIKOr
1 EnirENH - ZnZANAPOZ
1 AMMQNIOZ - KAAAIAZ
1 ZfiKPATHZ - AlONYZOAfl
1 MHTPOAflPOZ-AHMOZQEN
1 AAMflN - ZQZIKPATHZ
2 HPAKAEIAHZ-EYKAHZ
2 IKEZIOZ - AZKAHTTIAAHZ
1 ahmhtpioz - ArAeinnoz
2 APOTTOZ - MNAZArO
1 EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOZ (serpent)
2 EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOZ (dolphin)
1 MNAZEAZ - NEZTOP
1 OAEMOZ
165/4
158/7
150/49
148/7
147/6
141/0
187/6
185/4
181/0
128/7
127/6
124/8
120/19
Hoards
525
According to the record this is not a hoard, but New Style coins are not com-
monly found in Anatolia and the fact that the pieces came as a lot to the
museum from a single provenance suggests an association. The composition
of the group, apart from the O AEMOI striking, is very similar to that of the
Anatolia Hoard.
BRONZE HOARDS
Consideration of the bronze coinage of the New Style series has been de-
liberately omitted from this volume. Before its arrangement and attribution
can be undertaken a very great deal of material will have to be assembled.
Possibly a die study will be required; at the least there will be need for a careful
analysis of obverse styles. Even cursory inspection of Svoronos' plates reveals
marked variation in the Athena heads appearing on the coinage, and it is
evident that this stylistic criterion must be used in any attempt to bring the
bronze issues into chronological relationship with each other and with indi-
vidual silver issues.
Reliance solely on types and symbols for an association of silver and bronze
is impossible. In the first place we have no assurance that the system governing
the emission of bronze was identical with, or even similar to, that set up for the
silver. The mint magistrates whose names and symbols appear on the tetra-
drachms, drachms and hemidrachms may have had no connection with the
bronze. In fact, the absence of names and monograms, such as are commonly
found on bronze coins of other mints, suggests that this was the case.1 If there
was no single authority concerned with the issuance of both silver and bronze,
then there is no need to posit an exact correlation of symbols. It is highly likely
that ordinarily there was a duplication of devices for contemporary issues in

the two metals if for no other reason than convenience in identifying the bronze
striking as the output of a particular year, but such relationship need not have
been obligatory. The appearance of some bronze types and symbols which
cannot be associated easily, if at all, with silver emissions and the retention
1 Newell interprets the lack of correspondence between the control marks on the gold and
silver and those on the bronze of Demetrius Poliorcetes (Dent. Pol., p. 120) as indication either
of different magistrates supervising the two coinages or of a farming out of the bronze to private
individuals.
Furthermore, with respect to Athens, if the emission of the silver involved a form of monetary
liturgy (pp. 584-599) it seems unlikely that its magistrates would have had any responsibility for
the bronze.
526
on the fractional bronze of identical types over a considerable period of time1
point to a flexibility in the relation of silver and bronze.
Furthermore, the bronze, to an even greater degree than the fractional
silver, would seem to have made use of abbreviated representations. Its symbols
are in large measure simple objects: grain-ear, bakchos, thyrsos, caduceus and
so forth. If these are to be connected with silver symbols, they must in many
cases be interpreted as references to and not as replicas of the devices on the
tetradrachms.2 This adds to the difficulty of precise identification. For ex-
ample, a bronze with pilei symbol may be linked with either the early or the
late silver which bears the same marking or it may be connected with the issue
of Mikion-Eurykleides on which the standing Dioscuri appear. Similarly, the
thyrsos of the bronze may relate to a silver issue with thyrsos symbol or to any
one of the numerous strikings on which one finds a seated or standing Dionysos.
There are a large number of hoards, most of them unpublished, which will
be of decisive importance for the arrangement of the New Style bronze. Eight
of these3 are considered here because their evidence bears directly on the
chronology of the New Style silver and particularly of the controversial Mith-
radates issue. They may for convenience be designated as follows:
1. Attic Hoard I (Noe 105; NNM 42, pp. 1-9)
2. K9 Hoard (Noe 99; JI AN, 1906, pp. 298 f.)
3. Athens Hoard {BCH, 1956, pp. 227f.)
4. Pnyx Hoard (Hesp., Suppl. VII, 1943, pp. 24-27)
5.4 Keratea Hoard (unpublished)
6. Plaka Hoard (unpublished)
7. Attic Hoard II (Noe 106; NNM 42, pp. 9-14)

8. North Slope Hoard (Noe 102; unpublished)
1 Variation in wear on the fractional issues with two owls on the reverse and differences in
style of the obverse heads alike point to their emission over a long period of time. This was noted
by Bellinger in connection with Attic Hoard I (NNM 42, p. 4) and Ins observation is confirmed
by the Keratea and Plaka Hoards.
2 A number of the fractional silver strikings show the same abbreviation of devices as the
bronzes. The standing Dionysos on the tetradrachms of Dioge-Posei is represented on the drachms
by a thyrsos; the elephant of the large silver of Antiochos-Nikog and Karaichos becomes on the
fractions an elephant's head. Some of the hemidrachms, such as those of Dorothe-Dioph, omit
the symbol.
3 Selected because of their availability. Any final study of the New Style bronze will re-
quire access to the bronze hoards of the Athens Museum of which there are a great many (I. Va-
roucha in The Swedish Excavations at Asea in Arcadia, p. 167, note 2).
* This hoard, in the possession of the American Numismatic Society, and the Plaka find,
in private possession, will be published in a future issue of Museum Notes at which time more
detailed analysis of Hoards 1-4 will be undertaken.
Hoards
527
These hoards divide into two groups according to their contents. Group I
consists of the first six entries above for a total of over 800 coins. In com-
position these deposits are notably consistent. All New Style units are of two
basic types:
Athena head in Corinthian helmet/Zeus hurling fulmen with various
symbols (Svoronos, PI. 81, 17-44 and 49-52; BMC 548)1
Zeus head/Athena Promachos (Sv. PI. 22, 53-58)
In all six finds there is a sizable representation of the fractional bronze with
Athena head in Attic helmet and two owls on a thunderbolt (Sv. PI. 24, 60-68).
Included in several hoards is a limited amount of pre-New Style material and
a greater quantity of the fractional coinage illustrated by Svoronos on Plate 107
and assigned by him to Delos but almost certainly of Athenian origin and of the
New Style period.2
Hoards 7-8 (Group II) are entirely different in composition. They contain
only 84 coins in all and their evidence is thus much less impressive than that
of Hoards 1-6 but the two deposits are homogeneous to a marked degree:
Hd.7
Hd.
Athena head in Attic helmet /Owl on amphora and
various symbols (Sv. 79, 8-21,25-28, S8-42)3
26
Athena head in Attic helmet/Miscellaneous types
a. Zeus and fulmen (Sv. 80, 25-28)

b. Tripod (Sv. 80, 1-7)
c. Artemis and torches (Sv. 25,14)*
d. Sphinx (Sv. 80, 18-21)
e. Apollo (Sv. 80, 8-14)
f. Nike (Sv. 80, 15-17)
g. Athena advancing with owl (Sv. 80, 29-82)
18
h. Owl on prow (Sv. 80, 87-48)
Gorgon's head/Athena advancing (Sv. 25, 22-28)
Zeus head/Dionysos head (Sv. 25, 86-42)
Dolphin and trident/Kerchnos (Sv. 107, 1-8)
1 Not all hoards include all issues but there is sufficient overlapping to indicate that all the
issues enumerated do fall within the period covered by Hoards 1-6.
* See note 1 on page 432.
3 These are the varieties in Attic Hoard II; no breakdown of symbols is given in the report
on the North Slope Hoard.
4 See Hesperia, 1941, pp. 199-236 for reassignment of the "cleruchy" issues of Svoronos'
Plate 25 to the mint of Athens.
528
Five noteworthy considerations emerge from the combined evidence of
Groups I and II: 1) the issues with the reverse type of Zeus holding the fulmen
in lowered right hand (Sv. 81, 1-16) are absent from all hoards 2) the issue
with Zeus hurling the fulmen and star and crescents symbol is absent from all
hoards 3) the unit obverses of Hoards 1-6 invariably depict Athena in a
Corinthian helmet while those of Hoards 7-8 always show the goddess in an
Attic helmet; there is no overlapping of the two helmet types 4) the reverse
type of Zeus hurling the fulmen (combined with a Corinthian helmet obverse) is
found only in Hoards 1-6 while that with owl on amphora appears only in
Hoard 7-8; again there is no overlapping 5) other obverse and reverse types
are present in both lots of material but in no instance does the same issue
occur in Hoards 1-6 and in Hoards 7-8.
It is clear that in Groups I and II we have material belonging to two distinct
chronological periods, presumably separated by an interval sufficient to account
for the clear-cut division in types. Let us see if these periods can be even roughly
defined.
Hoards 1-6 are undoubtedly earlier than Hoards 7-8. This is obvious not
only from the better style and better alloy1 of the coinage but also from the
inclusion of a small representation of pre-New Style material in several deposits
of Group I. The issues represented in Hoards 1-6 are not, however, the earliest
of the New Style sequence. They must be preceded by the emissions showing
Zeus standing with a fulmen in his lowered right hand,2 strikings which
apparently are not present in the hoards of Group I because they are of earlier
date. The transition from the one Zeus type to the other may be connected
with the change in the silver from the two-magistrate to the three-magistrate

series. It may well have come earlier; I do not believe it can be placed any later.
If the Zeus hurling fulmen type can with reasonable certainty be assumed
to postdate 169/8 B.C. at the latest it can also, with reference to the hoards, be
assumed to have been discontinued as a standard reverse type before 130 B.C.
Perhaps its terminus can be fixed even more closely. Among the coins of
Hoards 1-6, the issues in the best state of preservation are those with pilei,
thyrsos and bakchos symbols. Of these, the pilei striking seems to be somewhat
earlier than the other two but not removed from them by any wide margin of time.
Its device is the most distinctive of the three and the only one which can with
some degree of probability be associated with the silver coinage. A monograms
issue of 186/5 carries the pilei symbol as does the Demetrios-Agathippos
striking of 131/0. The first is surely too early and the second seemingly too late
1 See pp. 639 f. for chemical analyses.
2 This seems evident from comparison of a group of heads showing Athena in Attic helmet
(Sv. 81, 1-3) with those found on third century bronze of Athens (Sv. 24, 10-17, 33).
Hoards
529
since it falls within the chronological span of Hoards 7-8 (see below) and was
presumably the inspiration for the owl on amphora bronze with pilei symbol.
There is, however, another emissionthat of Mikion and Eurykleides in 156/5
which has a representation of the standing Dioscuri and it seems to me that it
is with this silver emission that the bronze with Zeus and pilei must be con-
nected. Allowing a somewhat later date for the thyrsos and bakchos issues, the
latest of the Zeus hurling fulmen types would appear to belong to the forties
of the second century.
Among the issues represented in Hoards 7-8 are a number with types or
symbols so unusual as to warrant almost certain identification with particular
silver strikings.1 The dolphin and trident type, found on a single fraction of
Attic Hoard II, is identical with the symbol on the second silver issue of
Xenokles-Harmoxenos (124/8); the sphinx reverse surely goes with the coinage
of Diophantos-Aischines (108/7); the Gorgon's head obverse with that of
Niketes-Dionysios (180/29). An elaborate rendering of a poppy-head between
ears of grain is used as a symbol on a bronze issue and on the tetradrachms and
drachms of Lysandros-Oinophilos (116/5).2 These representations occur only
once on the silver and only once on the bronze and the case for their association
is further strengthened in two instances by the close similarity of the Athena
heads on the silver and bronze of the sphinx and poppy-head emissions. The
logical assumption is that the other bronze issues of Hoards 7-8 are also of this
general epoch and that we have in these deposits a cross-section of Athenian
bronze currency struck during the Late Period of the New Style series. The
two hoards were probably interred during Sulla's siege of Athens in 86 B.C.,
a terminus ante quern for their issues. With regard to a terminus post quern for

either the hoard coins or the late bronze as a whole, any conclusion would be
premature. My feeling is that the owl on amphora and related types probably
did not come into use before the early thirties but a precise date can only be
established in the light of more hoard material and a comprehensive study of
the coinage. What is clear from the hoard evidence available is the well-defined
and highly-significant chronological division between the types of Hoards 1-6
and those of Hoards 7-8.
In proof of the rule, we have the exception. There is one issue with Athena
head in Corinthian helmet and fulminating Zeus which cannot be associated
with the other emissions of that series. Its distinctive symbol, a star between
crescents, links it with the gold and silver of Mithradates-Aristion and the
1 Judging by the recurrence of distinctive symbols, there seems to have been a closer cor-
relation between silver and bronze in the later period than in the earlier.
2 These connections have also been made by A. R. Bellinger (NNM 42, pp. 12 f.) and by
J. P. Shear {Hesp., 1933, Plate VII).
connection is underlined by a marked resemblance in profile between the
Athena heads of the bronze and those of the staters, tetradrachms and drachms.
Apart from the inherent improbability of a mid second century date for this
coinage, the fact that not one specimen turned up among the more than
800 coins of Hoards 1-6 proves conclusively that it was not contemporary with
the other fulminating Zeus strikings.
Obviously it is later, but how much later? Fitting it into the gap between
the issues of Hoards 1-6 and 7-8 would explain its absence from all hoards and
also its types, but I doubt that the solution would commend itself to anyone.
Placing it in 87/6 B.C., which is where it has hitherto been put, might explain
its exclusion from all hoards in the somewhat unlikely event that it had not
gained wide circulation before Hoards 7-8 were secreted but so late a date
raises questions which are extremely difficult to answer.
Not only are its types those of the early coinage but its style is good. The
Athena heads are rather heavier than those of the other Corinthian helmet
issues but infinitely superior to the Attic helmeted goddesses of the late second
and early first centuries. The reverses, too, are carefully executed, far better in
workmanship than the average of the owl on amphora and related represen-
tations.1 In alloy the star and crescent bronzes are closely related to the
1 On Plate 127 an example of the Mithradatic bronze is reproduced in association with
other bronzes of early and late issues.
Tell Ahmar
Anthedon
Salonika
Kessab
Naxos
X.

Delos T
Delos B
Attic
to
196/5
PP or A> - M
195/4
X-M or OANI
194/8
E-N
198/2
N--I
192/1
-H
191/0
&P - ffl or
190/89
S-lfl
189/8
W-E
188/7
K-M
187/6
W>-#
186/5
g-ltl
Hoards
53i
bronzes of 130/29, markedly different from those of a later period (page 640
for analyses). If the Mithradates bronze belongs in 87/6 B.C., it is part of an
emergency issue put out in a time of critical danger. Is it probable that the
mint would, under the circumstances, have concerned itself with an improve-
ment in the quality and workmanship of the bronze coinage, taking pains to
produce good dies and to raise the standard of its alloy, and reverting for this
isolated striking to types which had been abandoned perhaps half a century earlier.
Reasons for assigning the Mithradatic issue to c. 121 B.C. are given in the
commentary on the Late Period of the coinage (pp. 416-424). Such a date accords
with the style and composition of the bronze; a return to earlier types for a
special issue is less puzzling when the interval between is closer to twenty
years than to fifty. Finally, although the absence of these coins from Hoards 7-8
is strange, it is not inexplicable. Other issues of the Late Period, large issues
on the evidence of the finds made in the excavation of the Athenian Agora,
are missing from one or both deposits. The fact is that we have in these two
small hoards only a sampling and not a complete record of the bronze struck
at Athens after c. 130 B.C. Is it not more likely that specimens of an issue put
out in 121 or thereabouts should be absent than that not a single coin of a large
contemporary striking should have found its way into the hands of the two
frightened citizens who buried their small accumulations in the days before
Athens fell to Sulla's troops.
Delos AH
Zarova
Halmyros
Carystus II

Ontario
Carystus I
Piraeus
Abruzzi
Dipylon
Anatolia
Cretan II
Delos EG
Delos A
Cretan I
Hierapytna
532
of Athens
The New Style Silver
Coinage
don
rt
.a
CD
nthe
essal
axos
elos
elos
+J
<
C/J
<

AMMfl - AIO (kerchnos)
182/1
nOAY-TI
181/0
AMMfl - AIO (cornucopiae)
180/79
AAEI - HAIO
179/8
XAPI - HPA
178/7
Grain-ear drachms
180-170
100
WAi - AYZIA
177/6
i-i
176/5
AIOOA - AIOAO
175/4
AHMH - IEPJ
174/8
1+

Hoards
533
Delos AH
Zarova
Halmyros
Carystus II
Ontario
Carystus I
Piraeus
Abruzzi
Dipylon
Anatolia
Cretan II
Delos EG
Delos A
Cretan I
Hierapytna
534
AlOTIMOZ-MArAZ
KAEOMEN
fEYBOYAIAHZ - ArAOOKAH
IZQIAOZ-EYANAPOZ
EYMHAOZ - KAAAI(D2N
HPAKAEIAHZ - EYKAHZ1
GEOAOTOZ- KAEOOANHZ
HPAKAEIAHZ - EYKAHZ
IKEZIOZ - AZKAHTTIAAHZ
AGZI9E0Z - XAPIAZ
NIKHTHZ-AIONYZIOZ
APIZTIflN - OlAfiN
APOFIOZ - MNAZArO
EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOZ1
(serpent)
NIKOrENHZ - KAAAIMAXOZ
AHMEAZ-EPMOKAHZ

(dolphin)
(Roma)
KOINTOZ-KAEAZ
ATTEAAIKRN - TOPriAZ
MI9PAAATHZ - APIZTIftN
MNAZEAZ - NEZTQP
KAEOOANHZ - EniOETHZ
MENTflP - MOZXIflN
1 Coins of the Herakleides
definitely assigned to a particular
those were the heaviest emissions
146/5
145/4
144/8
148/2
142/1
141/0
140/89
189/8
188/7
137/6
186/5
185/4
184/8
188/2
182/1
181/0
130/29
129/8
128/7
127/6
126/5
125/4
124/3
128/2
<V
XI
03
01
+8
Zl
2Z
II
+8
IZ
05
+6
fZ
01
+9
IZ
61

SQHVOH
elos AH
irova
almyros
arystus II
ntario
arystus I
iraeus
bruzzi
ipylon
natolia
retan II
'elos =9
'elos A
retan I
[ierapytna
>
>
536
Tell Ahmar
Anthedon
Salonika
Kessab
Naxos
i_
Delos B
Attic
tn
_o
APXITIMOZ - AHMHTPI
AMCDIAZ-OINOOIAOZ
EYMHAOZ - 0EOEENIAHZ
NEZTfiP - MNAZEAZ
ZflTAAHZ - GEMIZTOKAHZ
AEYKIOZ - ANTIKPATHZ
nANTAKAHZ - AHMHTPIOZ
GEOCDPATTOZ - QEMIZTO
AIOQANTOZ - AlZXINHZ
AHMEAZ - KAAAIKPATIAHZ
AAKETHZ-EYAHflN
AlONYZIOZ - MNAZArOPAZ

EnirENHZ-EENQN
MENEAHMOZ - TIMOKPATHZ
MENNEAZ - HPflAHZ
AlONYZIOZ - AHMOZTPATOZ
AHMOXAPHZ - nAMMENHZ
AlOKAHZ -AEQNIAHZ
(DIAOKPATHZ - HPflAHZ
KAAAIMAXOZ - EniKPATHZ
APXITIMOZ - nAMMENHZ
AlOKAHZ TO AEY - MHAEIOZ
AnEAAIKQN - APIZTOTEAHZ
HPAKAJ2N - HPAKAEIAHZ
(DIAOKPATHZ - KAAAKDQN
TPY(DflN - nOAYXAPMOZ
TO TPI AlOKAHZ - AIOAQPOZ
AlOKAHZ MEAI - MHAEIOZ
AnOAHElZ - AYZANAPOZ
117/6
116/5
115/4
114/8
113/2
1 112/1
111/0
110/09
109/8
108/7
107/6
106/5
105/4
104/8
103/2
102/1
101/0
100/99
99/8
98/7
97/6
96/5
95/4
94/8
98/2
92/1

Carystus II
Hierapytna
Delos AH
Zarova
Halmyros
Ontario
Carystus I
Piraeus
Abruzzi
Dipylon
Anatolia
Cretan II
Delos EG
Delos A
Cretan I
to
*.
IU
1-1
|(S O) ^ to
1-1 tO
t-i t-i t-i H -f-
CD
to
538
This large body of hoard material considered in its entirety is of importance
not only for the chronology of the New Style coinage but also for its contribu-
tion to our knowledge of commercial and political relationships between
Athens and other sections of the Hellenistic world. The evidence is to some
extent fragmentary and unbalanced. Systematic excavations on Delos have
provided us with what would seem to be a fairly complete record of Athenian
and other coinages circulating on that island. Similarly, the substantial number
of coins from hoards of Northern and Central Greece gives one a measure of
confidence in the comparative accuracy of the data from those areas. On the
other hand, the material from Crete and the other islands, from Anatolia,
Syria and Italy is scanty. New deposits from those regions may well alter the
present picture. However, it is worth noting that extensive excavation has
been carried on in Italy and in the Levant. The fact that more New Style
coinage has not been found is in itself significant.
Our primary concern is with the bearing of the hoards, individually and as
a group, on the over-all chronology of the New Style silver. The commentaries
on the Early, Middle and Late Periods include analyses of the hoard evidence
as it relates to particular sections of the coinage and there is no need to repeat
in extenso those evaluations, but it may be useful in connection with the hoard
tabulation of the preceding pages to recall briefly the more important finds
and the essential contribution of each to the general chronological picture.
Of the early hoards, the Anthedon deposit with its limited number of early
issues establishes a beginning date for the New Style series as a whole. The
large Salonika Hoard, restricted to six issues of coins in excellent state of
preservation, helps to fix the sequence of the strikings between 170 and 165 B.C.

In the Kessab Hoard all tetradrachm emissions between 181/0 and 163/2 B.C.
are represented except for four strikings whose position is attested by die links
and by the evidence of the Salonika Hoard. The two finds then substantiate the
assignment of certain issues to the 181-163 period although they do not, of
course, prove the absolute chronology. From the Attic Hoard we have data for
the dating of the anomalous drachms with grain-ear symbol and also clear
indication from condition that the issue of Mikion-Euryklei is close to that of
Aphrodisi-Apolexi, welcome corroboration of the stylistic criteria for the
placement of the former emission which is not die linked.
Only one major hoardDelos Tends in the Middle Period. Its unbroken
sequence of issues from 152/1 through the FDC coins of Theodotos-Kleophanes
and Herakleides-Eukles (188/7 and 137/6) is in accord with the numerous die
links and supplementary stylistic criteria upon which the arrangement rests.
The Late Period provides a group of hoards whose evidence is of vital im-
portance for the chronology. Between 143/2 and 132/1 B.C. we have twelve
Hoards
539
issues whose relative position is so firmly established by die links as to be un-
questionable. For the period between 131/0 and 120/19 there are some die links
but not the chain of the period just preceding. Here the evidence of style is
powerfully supported by that of the hoards. Delos KS ends in 131/0; Delos B,
AH and possibly the Oreos Hoard end in 130/29; Zarova in 127/6; Halmyros in
124/3; Carystus II in 123/2; Carystus I in 121/0. The New Style material of the
Piraeus, Abruzzi and Dipylon finds also stops in 121/0; that of the Anatolia
Hoard one year later. Inclusions and omissions in these hoards and the relative
wear of their component issues combine with the die links and the stylistic
criteria to establish for the period between 131/0 and 120/19 a sequence as
soundly based as that of 143/2-132/1. Less assistance is given by the few hoards
of later date but Cretan II, Delos =0 and Delos A do offer support for the order
of emissions between 120 and 111 B.C. Cretan I provides evidence for the assign-
ment of the last of the New Style issues to the period before Sulla.
There are several striking aspects of these deposits. The first is most vividly
illustrated by the two large hoards of Macedonia and Thessaly. Zarova and
Halmyros are almost identical in size, both come from an outlying district to
the north of Athens, and both, in view of the variation in wear that their
contents show, may with probability be regarded as currency hoards. In
general composition the two finds are highly comparable. The Zarova Hoard
includes every New Style issue between 161/0 and 127/6; Halmyros every issue
between 168/7 and 124/3 except for the Epigene-Sosandros striking of 158/7.
However, when one examines the number of coins for the individual issues in
the two deposits one is struck by a rather remarkable disparity. It must, of
course, be remembered that surviving specimens identifiably from Halmyros

are twice as numerous as those from Zarova but the three lots of Zarova coins
correspond closely enough in distribution by issues and in proportionate
representation of coins to warrant the assumption that the original composition
of the find would not violently contradict the picture we now have.
Over one-half of the surviving specimens from Zarovathat means at least
one-quarter of the contents of the original hoardbelong to the four relatively
early issues of Epigene-Sosandros (158/7), Polemon-Alketes (157/6), Mikion-
Euryklei (156/5) and Karaich-Ergokle (153/2). All other issues are represented
but in substantially smaller quantity. The number of coins for the last ten
strikings in the Zarova Hoard totals less than the number for Epigene-Sosan-
dros alone. This same issue is absent from the Halmyros Hoard and the other
three major Zarova emissions are represented by four or five tetradrachms
apiece. The bulk of the coinage from Halmyros is concentrated in its final
issues, which is, of course, what one would expect. However, there is one
anomaly even here. The count by years runs as follows: 132/1(44), 131/0(64),
540
130/29(49), 129/8(61), 128/7(59), 127/6(1), 126/5(23), 125/4(53) and 124/3(19).
Although the Xenokles-Harmoxenos striking of 127/6 is light in comparison
with other emissions of the same period it is not sufficiently minor to account
for its almost complete absence from the Halmyros Hoard.
These two deposits seem to point up what is an entirely reasonable premise
but one that is perhaps sometimes forgotten, namely that coinage did not flow
in and out of any given region in a steady stream but rather in irregular waves
as dictated by the exigencies of commerce, politics, military operations and
other circumstances and that the hoards inevitably reflect this erratic monetary
pattern. Evidently a tremendous amount of Athenian money was shipped into
Macedonia during the fifties of the second century, enough so that it was still
the chief currency in circulation twenty-five years later.1 The issues which
went in such quantity into the Zarova region travelled to the Halmyros district
in substantially lesser supply, whereas the later issues came in more abundantly
than they did into the more northern area. Even so there were yearly fluctua-
tions, as witness the single example of the late emission of Xenokles-Har-
moxenos in what is otherwise a consistent body of hoard material.2
Another noteworthy feature of the hoard evidence concerns five late de-
posits: Piraeus, Abruzzi, Dipylon, Cretan II and Delos A. Three of these come
from the Athens area, for the Abruzzi Hoard must be considered, in part at
least, as an Athenian accumulation; two come from the islands. All have a
considerable amount of regular New Style coinage mixed with other material.
Taking the three Athenian hoards first, the small Piraeus find contains
middle and late New Style coinage, two-thirds of it from the decade between
130 and 120 B.C. The latest issue is that of Apellikon-Gorgias in 121/0. Two

Mithradatic tetradrachms of 88 B.C. are also in the hoard. The larger Dipylon
deposit is almost identical in composition although its range of New Style
strikings is wider, including early as well as middle and late emissions. Nearly
half of these are from the years between 130 and 120 with the latest issues
those of Mithradates-Aristion and Apellikon-Gorgias. Four Mithradatic
tetradrachms of 88 B.C. appear in this find. Finally, the Abruzzi Hoard, at least
that section of it which can be classified as an Athenian collection, has middle
and late New Style material, two-thirds of it from 130-120 B.C. with the latest
striking that of Apellikon-Gorgias. Four Pontic tetradrachms of 90/89, four
other tetradrachms from the same general region and nine tetradrachms of
Sulla's tfl - ffi issues are in the hoard.
1 It is of interest that the Bulgarian hoard of Beliza, judging by the accessions of the Sophia
Museum, also had a high proportion of Epigene and Polemon coins.
2 The extensive representation of the Xenokles with serpent issue in the Anatolia Hoard
suggests the direction in which that emission moved.
Hoards
54i
These three hoards are basically homogeneous. In each case the deposit
ends with New Style coins of 121/0 B.C. in good or excellent state of preserva-
tion. Combined with them are Mithradatic and Sullan emissions of 90-85 B.C.
in splendid condition. There is in some instances a variation in wear between
the latest New Style tetradrachms and the Mithradatic and other specimens
which suggests that the former had seen rather more circulation but the differ-
ence is not great.
The evidence of the two island hoards is similar. In Delos A the New Style
material runs down to 112/1 B.C. with about one-third distributed fairly evenly,
considering the small size of the hoard, over the years between 130 and 111.
The latest strikings are in excellent to FDC condition. With these coins were
found two drachms of the Sullan coinage of c. 86 B.C. The composition of
Cretan Hoard II is more complex. Its New Style currency represents only
two-thirds of the total contents and of this only one-third can be dated between
130 and 116 B.C. Additional material in this find consists of Cretan and other
coinages, the latest dated piece being a Mithradates tetradrachm of 76/5.
In all five deposits a considerable number of years, ranging from twenty-five
in the case of Delos A to forty in the case of Cretan II, intervenes between the
latest of the New Style issues and the latest coinage in the hoard as a whole.
In view of the condition of the last of the New Style coins, it is impossible to
suppose that they were circulating up to the time the hoards were buried. One
must assume in each case that accumulation of the Athenian pieces stopped
some years before interment of the deposit. It should be noted in this connec-
tion that the answer does not lie in bringing these late Athenian coins down into
the period immediately preceding Sulla and attributing issues not found in the

hoards to the post-Sullan era. Even if one were willing to abandon all indications
of an earlier date for the issues in question, the solution provided would still
be only a partial one. Cretan Hoard II and the small 1934/5 Hoard recorded
by Newell (p. 523) contain Mithradatic issues of 76/5 and 75/4 B.C. Both show
exactly the same composition with respect to the Athenian issues as do the
hoards buried c. 86 B.C.the latest New Style coin in one instance dates from
117/6 and in the other from 118/7, and they are alike in excellent state of
preservation.1
1 Extensive chronological gaps within hoards are by no means uncommon. In Susa Hoard 3,
recently published by Georges Le Rider ("Monnaies a legende grecque et monnaies des rois
d'Elymaide," pp. 29-34), there is an interval of at least fifty years between the last and the next
to last issues. However, the earlier coins are well worn and it seems evident that they continued
to be the standard medium of exchange in the Susa region long after the date of their emission.
Dura Hoard 5 (E. T. Newell, NNM 58 and A. R. Bellinger, Dura-Europos, pp. i6gf.) consists
of several lots of material, widely-spaced in time, with a lacuna of over sixty years between the
last and next to last issues. Here the state of preservation of the second century denarii rules out
542
The circumstances surrounding the assembly and burial of the various
hoards undoubtedly differed but there is, I believe, one factor which serves to
explain the basic composition of all of them. This is the growing shortage of
Athenian coinage after 121/0 B.C. For the size of the individual issues the
number of known obverse dies is perhaps our safest guide since the number of
surviving specimens is dependent in large measure on the extent of the hoard
material. Between 132/1 and 121/0, the obverse dies (for tetradrachms) record-
ed per year are: 29, 47, 38, 80, 25, 19, 17, 17, 42, 14, 7,1 12; between 120/19
and 112/1: 10, 7, 8, 7, 6, 10, 8, 17, 6; between 111/0 and 88/7: 1, 2,1, 1, 2, 2, 1,
4, 4, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 4, 8, 1, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1. Clearly there was a decline in the
amount of money issued after 121/0 and little more than a token coinage after
112/1. What new currency was put out during those years may well have been
reserved for export; the average Athenian citizen may have been compelled
to make do with the old but extremely abundant money of the preceding
decade.2 Even in the matter of export there were curtailments. The Anatolia
Hoard and the Samsun accumulation (p. 524) suggest that new coinage did not
travel in that direction after 120/19. Delos continued to receive shipments down
to 112/1. After that date only sections of Crete, as witness the contents of
Cretan Hoard I and the Hierapytna Hoard, seem to have been supplied.
This new money cannot have moved in quantity even to Crete for the simple
reason that it did not exist in quantity. Evidently it was not available to the
owner of Cretan Hoard II. What Athenian tetradrachms of earlier periods he
could get his hands on he collected; after the supply dwindled he could put
aside only Cretan issues and the foreign coinage circulating on the island.
the possibility of long circulation and one must assume that the hoard represents successive

accumulations. A similar explanation probably holds for our Tell Ahmar and Kessab Hoards
with their admixture of early New Style and late Seleucid strikings.
All of these deposits, it will be noted, involve compilations of foreign currency, not the
output of a local mint. They are thus more easily explicable than Susa Hoard 4 (Le Rider, loc. cit.,
pp. 34-37) in which there is an interval of many years between well-preserved early and late
issues of Phraates IV struck at Susa itself.
The New Style hoards under present discussion are comparable with Dura 5 and Susa 4 in
the combination of early and late issues in excellent state of preservation; two of them, the
Piraeus and Dipylon finds, bear a further resemblance to Susa 4 in that it is issues of the local
mint which are so strangely missing from each hoard.
1 The three obverse dies of the Mithradates-Aristion striking may belong in the same
year (see pp. 423 f.).
2 It is in fact possible that some of this old money was put into circulation at a later period
than its date of emission would indicate. The very large issues struck between 132/1 and 123/2,
which seem to have been far in excess of the city's normal financial requirements, may represent
an attempt to build up a silver reserve in the form of coinage rather than bullion (see p. 714)-
Hoards
543
The New Style composition of Delos Hoard A is in complete accord with the
general body of excavation material from that site. Apparently very little, if
any, of the coinage struck in Athens after 112/1 went to Delos, for nothing
later than that date has been unearthed either in a hoard context or in chance
finds. In Delos Hoards A and =0 we have two highly comparable deposits, both
terminating with New Style coins of 112/1 in excellent or FDC condition. Hoard
EG may have been buried almost immediately since it contains no later material;
Hoard A cannot have been finally interred until after 86/5 B.C. It seems likely,
however, that its New Style coins were withdrawn from circulation shortly
after 112/1. Whether the Sullan drachms were added at a later date by the
original owner or by someone who had come into possession of the hoard during
the intervening years can never be known for certain.
With respect to the three Athenian finds, the circumstances attendant upon
the formation of the Abruzzi Hoard are highly uncertain. Its New Style issues
may simply represent an accumulation put aside in the years after 120 B.C.
which was found and absorbed by a Roman soldier during the sack of
Athens. Such an explanation clearly will not suffice for the Piraeus and
Dipylon deposits which must have been buried by Athenian owners shortly
before the conquest of the city. In both cases, the only answer seems to be
that there was little or no new money available in the Athens area after
121/0 B.C.1 It was not until 88 B.C. that there was a marked improvement
in the situation, thanks no doubt to extensive financial help from Mithradates,
and it was then that the tetradrachms of the Pontic king were added to
both hoards.
Before leaving this section on Hoards, it will be of interest to note the

geographical distribution of the deposits here recorded. The tabulation below
summarizes for six regions the number of hoards found, the amount of identifi-
able New Style coinage included and the chronological span of the pertinent
hoard material.
Central Greece: 10 hoards2 1859 coins All periods of New Style to 121/0 B.C.
Mithradatic tetradrachms of 90-88 B.C.
tfl - coins of 86-85.
Delos: 17 hoards 1015 coins All periods of New Style to 112/1. Mith-
radatic tetradrachms of 98/2. Ml - fB of
86-85.
1 If the O AEMOX material of Carystus I is to be associated with the Mithradatic War
(pp. 444-449), that hoard parallels in composition the three Athenian deposits and testifies to a
dearth in Southern Euboea as well as in Attica of the New Style issues struck after 121/o B.C.
2 Including the Abruzzi Hoard as basically an Athenian accumulation.
544
Crete: 4 hoards1 184 coins All periods of New Style to 92/1. Pre- and
post-Sullan material from other mints.
Macedonia, Balkans: 6 hoards 746 coins New Style from 170/69 to 117/6. One
tfl - of 86-85.
Anatolia: 2 hoards* 88 coins New Style from 165/4 to 120/19.
Syria and East: 5 hoards 58 coins New Style to 168/2.
This evidence, fragmentary as it is for certain areas, does give definite in-
dication of the direction in which Athenian currency moved during the second
and early first centuries. In the Early Period it circulated freely in Central
Greece, as one would expect, and travelled out to Crete, Delos, Syria and as
far east as Babylon and Teheran. The picture as it concerns Syria and the
East is particularly striking. Almost without exception the New Style coins
from that area antedate 162/1 B.C.; virtually nothing of a later period is
known.3 The decline of Athenian association with the Levant coincides with
the growing importance of Delos as a trading center and undoubtedly reflects
a reorientation of Athenian commercial interests in favor of her cleruchy.4
As the flow of Athenian money toward the East tapered off, it found a new
outlet to the north. The earliest New Style coins from hoards in Northern
Greece, the Balkans and Anatolia date from 170/69 B.C. Apparently Athens
took immediate advantage of the opportunity presented by the Roman defeat
of Macedon and the ensuing suppression of the great mines in that region. That
she was able to retain her position even after the northern workings had been
reopened is indicated by the contents of the Zarova Hoard. From 168 to 120,
owls were common in the north as they were in Central Greece, on Delos and
on Crete.

By 120 B.C. the stream had begun to dry at its source. No coinage after that
date has been found in Central Greece or in Anatolia, nothing later than 117/6 in
Macedonia and the Balkans, nothing after 112/1 on Delos. Only Crete continued
to be supplied until the very end of the New Style period.
1 Including the seven coins in the Herakleion Museum which Raven thought might be a
hoard.
2 Including the Samsun group. Even if this is not a hoard, its issues are representative of the
coinage circulating in that area.
* This is true not only of the few hoards on record but also of the material in general: coins
in trade and the contents of public and private collections in Syria and Lebanon.
4 Rostovtzeff (Anatolian Studies, p. 298) cites the inclusion of Athenian owls in Syrian and
Eastern hoards as proof of close commercial relations between Delos and Syria in the late second
and early first centuries B.C. While the hoards that he mentions (Til-Barsib and Teheran) were
buried within that period, the latest identifiable New Style coin in the two deposits dates from
173/2 B.C. Numismatic data provide no evidence for commercial ties between Athens and Syria,
either direct or through Delos, after the sixties of the second century.
Hoards
545
Italy and Sicily provide no hoard evidence of connections between Athens
and the West.1 Seemingly Athenian coinage during the New Style years did
not move in that direction at all. Nor did it travel toward Egypt.
Regnal issues of Pontus and Bithynia of pre-Sullan date are mixed with
Athenian material in Central Greece, on Delos and on Crete, testifying to the
activity of Mithradates and his generals in those regions before the outbreak
of war with Rome. Sullan issues of 86-85 appear in Athens in the Abruzzi
Hoard and in isolated finds on Delos and in Bulgaria.
1 Again assuming that the Abruzzi Hoard is an "import".

35
MAGISTRATES
The 110 issues of the New Style are inscribed with 634 names. Of these, 629
are listed in the pages that follow. For the early years of the coinage the magis-
trates are designated by monograms and there is, of course, a strong element
of uncertainty involved in their decipherment. When the initial letters at least
of the monogram seem clear it has been included; in five cases1 not even that
much can be determined and those magistrates are of necessity omitted from
the record.
The 634 names on the coinage do not by any means indicate 634 different
men. There is certainly a great deal of repetition of minting service, much more
in all probability than can ever be established. In the listing below cases of
what seem to me definite or highly probable identity are marked by solid
bracketing, cases of possible identity by broken bracketing. To some the extent
of linking will seem rash and to others over-cautious. I can only offer it as my
judgment based on the criteria of rarity of names, proximity of terms of office
and recurrent patterns of family relationship.
Discussion of individual magistrates makes frequent reference to the two
comprehensive studies of Athenian mint magistrates: J. Kirchner's Prosopo-
graphia Attica (1901-1903), which is based primarily on Beule's record of the
coinage but includes citations of other early sources, and J. Sundwall's articles
in the Finska Vetenskaps-Societetens Forhandlingar (XLIX, 1906-1907, No. 9;
L, 1907-1908, No. l).a Sundwall's work, postdating Kirchner's by a few
years, corrects some of the earlier readings on the basis of personal examination
of the coins in the Berlin Cabinet. A number of the entries in both Kirchner
and Sundwall are erroneous, due chiefly to the confusion of lettering consequent
on the recutting of names on reverse dies; some of the entries in the present
compilation represent new material, magistrates unknown to either epi-

graphist.
Many of the monograms and abbreviated names of the early coinage are
dealt with in the commentaries following the individual issues. In such cases
the reader is referred back to the pertinent pages of the catalogue for the
explanation of the monogram and in some instances for the identification of the
1 E of 195/4, of 188/7, $ of 186/5, a(j of 177/6 and ft of 172/1.
2 Unless otherwise indicated, references throughout to Sundwall are to be understood in
terms of these articles: Untersuchungen iiber die attischen Miinzen des neueren Stiles.
Magistrates
547
magistrate. Only exceptionally is there cross-reference to earlier discussion of
the officials of the three-magistrate and late two-magistrate periods since in
almost all cases relevant information regarding them is presented here for the
first time.
The listing which follows gives the name of the official, his position (first,
second or third magistrate), the issue with which he is associated identified by
the names of the annual moneyers, the date of that issue, and finally the number
of the Prosopographia Attica entry in the case of names appearing in Kirchner.
Archon dates are those of Meritt in The Athenian Year (pp. 231-238) and for the
later period between 62/1 and 53/2 B.C. those of Dow (Hesp., Suppl. VIII,
1949, pp. 116-125).1
ABPflN (8) ANTIOXOZ - KAPAIXOZ 168/2 PA 6
Our mint magistrate is surely the Habron son of Kallias of Bate who was prytany
treasurer in 162/1 B.C. {IG II2 2864) and hieropoios in 156/5 {IG IP 1987). In con-
nection with the earlier inscription Kirchner notes that the stemma of the family
{PA 11) must be changed and that this Habron seems to be the brother of Kal-
lias III. This, however, is impossible since he is designated as Habron son of Kallias
while Kallias III is the son of Habron. The two men must be cousins rather than
brothers. Ophelas, third mint magistrate of 167/6, would also be a cousin of Habron.
ArAGA (8) ANTIOXOZ - KAPAIXOZ 168/2
ArAGinnoz (2) ahmhtpioz - ArAQirrnoz isi/o pa 38
ArAQOKAH (2) EYBOYAIAHZ - ArAQOKAH 142/1 PA 75
The annual magistrates of 142/1 are members of a family from Trikorynthos.
Kirchner {PA 75 and 5838) regards them as brothers. Euboulides son of Agathokles
is known from a listing of sacerdotal officials {IG II2 1939, dated 130-120 B.C.) and

also as hieropoios of the Romaia in 127/6 {Insc. Ddlos 2596).
AAEI (1) AAEI - HAIO 179/8 PA 193
AAEI may, as Kirchner points out, stand for either Adeimantos or Adeistos. The
former name, however, is more common in Attic records and furthermore there
seems to be a strong probability that the first magistrate of 179/8 is Adeimantos
of Ikaria, priest of the eponymos in a decree of 178/2 B.C. {Hesp., 1957, p. 40).
Stamires in discussing the inscription suggests that the priest is the same Adei-
mantos who as genarch contributed for himself and his sons Mnesagoras and Adei-
mantos c. 188/2-176/5. The association of the mint magistrate with the priest and
genarch of Ikaria is the more likely in that several mint magistrates of the late
second century come from this same Ikarian family (see under AIONYZIOZ and
MNAZArOPAZ).
1 This section on Magistrates has been read by Professor Benjamin D. Meritt and by Mr.
George Stamires, and the writer is immeasurably grateful for the help which they have given in
checking, amending and supplementing the prosopographical data.
548
A0
AGH
AGHNAI
A9HNI
A9HN0BI
(2)
(8)
(3)
(8)
(8)
AOPOA1ZI - AlOrE
ZSJKPATHZ - AlONYZOAfl
ZflKPATHZ - AIONYZOAQ
AYZAN - fAAYKOZ
196/5
152/1
148/7
148/7
159/8
PA 245
This is undoubtedly Athenobios of Eupyridai. Sundwall publishes stemmata of the
family, first in his Untersuchungen (p. 27) and later in the Nachtrage (p. 7), which
are markedly different. The revision is based upon a Delphic inscription relating to
the Pythais of Dionysios in 128/7 B.C. (FD III 2, 12). This inscription and its inter-
pretation are of particular importance for our study since it contains the following

names: Dionysios and Niketes sons of Athenobios, Timostratos son of Ariston and
Ariarathes son of Attalos. Identification of the category of these Pythaists is con-
jectural in that the heading of the stone is not completely preserved. Originally
Colin (Culte d'Afollon 47) considered them Pythaists KAnpcoToi; the later Fouilles
de Delpkes publication restores tt [u]0ccio-[Tcci TralSss] citing the circumstance that
the names of two Pythaists (other than those mentioned above) are found in a
listing of ephebes of the Pythais of Demetrios a few years later. The grounds for
assuming that the Pythaists of 128/7 are boys seem sound enough but there is this
to be considered. A Dionysios and a Niketes served together as mint magistrates in
132/1 and 180/29 and an Athenobios was mint magistrate in 159/8. The association
of these three names, two of them uncommon, with the mint and the dates of their
activity strongly suggest that we are dealing with two generations of the Eupyridai
family. A Timostratos and a Poses were annual mint magistrates in 184/8; again the
two names point to the Phaleron family of which Timostratos son of Ariston was
a member. Concerning Ariarathes the evidence is less clear but the name is rare at
Athens and a connection between the second mint magistrate of 154/3 and the
Pythaist of 128/7 is likely.
Timostratos and Ariarathes will be discussed under their respective entries. Our
immediate concern is with the Eupyridai family in which the names Athenobios,
Dionysios and Niketes occur. If all the Pythaists of FD III 2, 12 are boys, then the
Dionysios and Niketes of the Pythais of 128/7 cannot be the mint magistrates of
132 and 130 nor can their father Athenobios, who in Sundwall's revised stemma is
identified with a boy victor in the Theseia of 154/3, be the mint magistrate of 159/8.
Clearly Sundwall's later stemma will have to be amended to include these three new
members of the family. On the other hand if, as was originally assumed, the Py-
thaists of this particular listing are not exclusively boys but are of all ages, there is
no problem. Along the lines of Sundwall's earlier stemma, the three mint magistrates
are the Pythaists and their father, while the Athenobios who was a boy in 154/3 is
the cousin of Dionysios and Niketes.
AGHNOAfl
AIANTI
rAIZXINHZ
ÂIZXI
(8)
(8)
(3)
(3)
AIONYZI - AIONYZI
AYZAN - TAAYKOZ
nOAYXAPM - NIKCT
ASJP09E - AlOd)
159/8
165/4
Magistrates 549
AIZXINHZ
(2)
AIOOANTOZ - AUXIN HZ
108/7
PA 886
AAE=
(8)
EYMHAOZ - KAAAIOflN
140/89
AAEEA
(8)
MENEA-ETTirENO
167/6
AAEEAN
(3)
EYPYKAEI - APIAPA
154/8
PA 485
AAEEAN
(8)
CDANOKAHI - ATTOAAflNIOZ
143/2
PA 488
Of the four entries immediately above, the first may be expanded in various ways.
The other forms are almost certainly abbreviations of Alexander and it is quite pos-
sible that the same man served in 167, 154, and 148 b.c. Sundwall's identification

of all four magistrates with the archon of 174/8 seems somewhat tenuous in that
the name is not uncommon.
AAKETHZ (2) FIOAEMflN - AAKETHZ 157/6 PA 581
AAKETHZ (1) AAKETHZ-EYAriQN 106/5 PA 585
The annual magistrates of 106/5 and the second official of 157/6 are members of a
Kothokidai family (stemma under IG IIa 4082). Kirchner identifies Alketes I,
Euagion III and Alketes III as the magistrates of the coinage. On the evidence
of the inscriptions cited, it seems to me that the floruit dates of the various genera-
tions are too high by a decade and that the annual magistrates of 106/5 are the
brothers Euagion II and Alketes II, grandsons and not great-grandsons of Alketes I,
mint magistrate of 157/6 B.C.
AAKIAAM (2) EYMAPEIAHZ - AAKIAAM 145/4 PA 606
Alkidamos and Eumareides are brothers, sons of Euphanes of Euonymon, according
to Kirchner. The two names appear in a listing of knights of 128/71 (FD III 2, 27),
while the former is also commended in another Delphic inscription of the same
year and the latter is named as an ephebe in an inscription dated by Kirchner to
the beginning of the second century (IG II2 2980). Sundwall (p. 58) redates this
last inscription on the evidence of a listing of 188/7, thought to be of ephebes
(FD III 2, 28), which includes Eumareides son of Euphanes.
I believe that the mint magistrates of the mid second century are the knights of
128/7. In the two listings of ephebes we seem to have a record of two boys named
Eumareides, of whom the older may be our mint magistrate if the stone is somewhat
later than Kirchner suggests. The younger Eumareides may be his cousin.
If the magistrate Alkidamos is indeed the knight of 128/7, it follows that his re-
placement as second magistrate early in 145/4 was due not to death but to some
other circumstance.
AAKITinOZ (8) AMMnNIOZ-KAAAIAZ 150/49 PA 684
rAMMfl (1) AMMfl - AIO 182/1 PA 718
LAMMfl (1) AMMJ-AIO 180/79 PA 718
AMMSJNIOZ (1) AMMflNIOZ-KAAAIAZ 150/49 PA 719
1 Of the name appearing just above that of Alkidamos only E [ ]AHZ remains but
this is surely to be restored as E [YMAPEI]AHZ.
550
The first magistrates of 182/1 and 180/79 are surely the same Ammonios and it is
likely that the first magistrate of 150/49 is a relative, possibly a son. A relationship
between the annual magistrates of the two earlier issues is almost certain in view
of the occurrence of the names Ammonios and Dionysios in a well-known family
of Anaphlystos (for stemma see Roussel, Ddlos, p. 104).
AMYNOMA (8) ANAPEAZ-XAPINAYTHZ 136/5 PA 738
AMOIAZ (1) AMOIAZ - OINOOIAOZ 115/4 PA 754
These magistrates of 115/4 B.C. are father and son, Amphias I and Oinophilos I of
Aphidna (PA 11864 for stemma) and not the brothers Amphias II and Oinophilos II,
as Kirchner supposes. Actually the only reason for assuming a second Amphias
seems to have been that the coinage on which the name appears was formerly dated
to the middle of the first century B.C. See also Wilhelm (Beitrage, p. 85) for a some-
what different stemma of this family and its relationship to that of Eukles of Trine-
meia who was associated with the mint in the middle of the second century.
I-AMOIKPATI (8) TIMAPXOY - NIKArO 166/5 PA 770
LAMQIK (3) 0EOOPA - ZffTAZ 162/1 PA 770
AMOIKPATHZ (1) AMOIKPATHZ - ETTIZTPATOZ 183/2 PA 774
Amphikrates and Epistratos of 133/2 B.C. are identified by Kirchner as the brothers
of the deme Perithoidai whose floruit was c. 100 B.C. (PA 774 and 4951). I should
suggest rather that the coinage on which these uncommon names recur gives us a
record of two earlier generations. The mint officials of 183/2 would be either brothers
or cousins, the second magistrate the father of Amphikrates and Epistratos of
100 B.C. A still earlier generation would be represented on the coins of 168/7, 166/5
and 162/1 (see under ETTIZTPATOZ as well as above).

c. 166 ETTIZTPATOZ (I) AMOIKPATHZ (I)
(Mint Mag. 168/7) (Mint Mag. 166/5, 162/1)
I'1
c. 138 AMOIKPATHZ (II) ETTIZTPATOZ (II)
(Mint Mag. 138/2) (Mint Mag. 133/2)
c. 100 AMOIKPATHZ (III) ETTIZTPATOZ (III)
AN (8) XAPI - HPA 178/7
rANAPEAZ (1) ANAPEAZ- XAPINAYTHZ 186/5 PA 832
:ÂNAPEAZ (3) NIKOfENHZ - KAAAIMAXOZ 126/5 PA 832
Magistrates
55i
The name is rare and Kirchner's association of the magistrates Andreas with the
archon of c. 144 b.c. seems plausible. Whether this man is, as Sundwall believes,
the Andreas son of Andreas of Piraeus who was herald of the Boule and epimeletes
of Delos at the beginning of the first century (PA 888) is problematical.
ANTITONO (8) ETTirENH - ZflZANAPOZ 158/7 PA 1007
ANTIKPATHZ (2) AEYKIOZ - ANTIKPATHZ 111/0 PA 1077
There seems to me a strong probability that this is the Antikrates of Epikephisia
who was priest of Apollo on Delos in the archonship of Medeios and polemarch a
few years later (PA 1082).
rANTIAOX (8) AflPOGE - AlOfl) 164/8 PA 1095
l-ANTIAOX (3) ANTIOXOZ - NIKOr 168/2 PA 1094
The name of Antilochos appears on the coinage during the last month of 164/8 and
the first month of 168/2. Similar instances of identical names at the end and at the
beginning of contiguous issues are too frequent for one to suppose that the corre-
spondence of names is coincidental. There can, I believe, be no question but
that the tenure of the third magistrate ran over on occasion from one year to
the next.
rANTIOXOI (8) TIMAPXOY - NIKATO 166/5 PA 1155
i-ANTIOXOZ (1) ANTIOXOZ - NIKOr and KAPAIXOZ 168/2 PA 1160
This Antiochos is not a Seleucid prince but an Athenian citizen serving as third
magistrate in 166/5 and as first magistrate a few years later. Reasons for rejecting
the traditional Seleucid identification are given on pp. 158-160.
ANT1Z9E (3)
rANTlOA (3)
-ANTIOANHZ (8)

An (3)
An (8)
Possibly the same man
are close in time.
rAnEAAIKlN (1)
L-AnEAAlKQN (1)
ZS2IAOZ - EYANAPOZ
AlONYZI - AlONYZI
MHTPOAfiPOZ - MIAT1AAHZ
NIKOfENHZ - KAAAIMAXOZ
AnEAAIKflN - TOPriAZ
AnEAAIKflN - APIZTOTEAHZ
142/1 PA 1187
151/0 PA 1217
147/6 PA 1217
181/0
126/5
for these two issues which
121/0 PA 1343
94/8 PA 1343
(Ap..) served as third magistrate
The griffin symbol appearing on the coinage of 121/0 B.C. definitely identifies the
magistrate Apellikon with the bibliophile and Peripatetic philosopher from Teos
who was adopted into the family of Apolexis and Aristoteles of Oion (PA 1361 for
slemma). The Aristoteles serving with Apellikon in 94/8 is quite certainly his brother
by adoption. Concerning further details of Apellikon's life we know little except
that he was in exile for a time but back in Athens by 88 B.C. In the spring of that
year he was placed in charge of Athenian forces sent out in an unsuccessful attempt
to gain control of Delos. His death apparently occurred about 84 B.C.
552
ATTOA
(3)
KAPAIX - EPrOKAE
rAFTOA
(8)
timoztpatoz - ftozhz
i-AFTOA
(3)
APOTIOZ - MNAIArO
ATTOAHEI
(2)
AOPOAIZI - ATTOAHEI
AT70AHEII
(1)
AnOAHEII - AYIANAPOI
158/2
184/8
128/7
155/4 PA 1354
88/7 PA 1863
The magistrates of 88/7 are brothers of a family from Piraeus (stemma under
PA 1363). In view of the comparative rarity of the name it is likely that the earlier
Apolexis is their grandfather, the Apolexis son of Lysander who was agonothetes
c. 140 B.C. (IG IF 961).
rATTOAAOAQ (8) AXAIOZ - HAI 160/59 PA 1386

j-AnOAAOAfl (8) TTOAEMflN - AAKETHZ 157/6 PA 1386
i-ATTOAAOAn (3) XAPINAYTHZ - APIZTEAZ 144/8 PA 1887
Kirchner considers the magistrates of 160/59 and 157/6 to be the same man and
there is no reason, chronologically speaking, why all three should not be identical.
PA 1464
PA 1464
rAnOAAOOA
LAnOAAOOA
(3)
9EMIZT0 - 9E0TT0MTT0Z
149/8
(3)
ZflKPATHZ-
AIONYZOAfl
148/7
ATTOAAQ
(3)
9E00PA-ZQTAZ
162/1
ATTOAAftN
(3)
AMMQNIOZ
-KAAAIAZ
150/49
rAnOAAflNI
(8)
ZQKPATHZ-
AIONYZOAQ
148/7
LATTOAAQNI
(3)
AAMSJN - ZQZIKPATHZ
141/0
AFIOAAfiNIA
(3)
nOAYXAPM
- NIKOr
165/4
AnflAAJJNIAHI
(8)
AIOTIMOZ -
MArAZ
146/5
Magistrates
553
the royal title. As for Ariarathes' son and successor, Ariarathes VI, he was still a
boy when his father died in 180 B.C., hence any connection with the coinage is out
of the question. Whoever our Ariarathes may have been, he was not one of the
Cappadocian kings of that name.
In Attic records there is an Ariarathes son of Attalos who was a Pythaist in 128/7
(FD III 2, 12) and an epimeletes at the end of the second century or the beginning
of the first (Insc. Dilos 1827-1829). From a somewhat later period there is an
Ariarathes son of Polemaios of Sypalettos, councillor and treasurer of Kekropis in
95/4 (Hesp., 1948, p. 26). Our mint magistrate may belong to one or the other of
these families; it seems to me that he may well be identical with the Pythaist and
epimeletes. The date of Ariarathes' epimeleia was originally put c. 132 B.C. (BCH,
1905, pp. 226 f.) but later brought down to the end of the century, presumably in
line with the re-interpretation of the inscription of 128/7 as a listing of boy
Pythaists (see under A0H N O BI f or a discussion of this stone). If the Ariarathes of 128 /7
was an Athenian of mature years, an earlier date for his epimeleia is likely and
an association with the mint in 154/8 entirely possible.
APIZ (8) TTOAEMflN - AAKETHZ 157/6
APIZ (8) AIONYZI - AIONYZI 151/0
APIS (8) EYMAPEIAHZ-KAEOMEN 145/4
APIZ (8) TIMOZTPATOZ-nOZHZ 184/8
APIZT (8) 0ECKDPA - ZflTAZ 162/1
APIZT (3) AMCDIKPATHZ - ETTIZTPATOZ 188/2 PA 1673
APIZTAI (8) AIONYZI - AIONYZI 151/0
The name is expanded by Sundwall as Aristaichmos and the magistrate identified
as the archon of 159/8 B.C. Sundwall's stemtna (p. 38) of a family from Phyle in which

the name occurs further relates Aristaichmos, mint magistrate of 151/0, and Philo-
tades, mint magistrate of 122/1, as grandfather and grandson. The connection in
view of the rarity of both names seems plausible.
PA 1654
PA 1672
PA 1787
PA 1787
Identification of the Aristion of the coinage with the Athenian dictator and zealous
partisan of Mithradates VI and the attribution of the two issues on which his name
appears to the years 88/7 and 87/6 have long been regarded by numismatists and
historians alike as beyond controversy.1 Certainly the case is convincing. The
1 It is to be noted, however, that the two most recent studies of the New Style coinage as
a whole, those of Kambanis and Bellinger, modify the traditional chronology by separating the
two issues of Aristion. Both leave the Mithradates-Aristion striking in 87/6 but Kambanis (BCH,
1938, p. 78) assigns that of Aristion-Philon to 114/3 and Bellinger (Hesp. Suppl. VIII, 1949,
p. 10) puts it one year later.
APIZTAP
(8)
AOPOAIZI - AnOAHEl
155/4
APIZTE
(8)
MENEA - EnirENO
167/6
APIZTEAZ
(2)
144/8
rAPIZTIflN
LAPIZTIflN
(1)
APIZTIflN - OlAflN
129/8
(2)
BAZIAE MIGPAAATHZ-APIZTlflN
c. 121
554
Pegasus symbol of Aristion's earlier coinage corresponds so closely to the standard
type on tetradrachms struck by Mithradates VI as to make its Pontic significance
unmistakable. The appearance on the later issue of the name King Mithradates
combined with that of Aristion and the use of the star and crescent device of the
Pontic house as a symbol provide proof positive that the mint magistrate Aristion
was intimately associated with the Mithradatic dynasty. A connection with the
Aristion who was Mithradates' agent and dictator of Athens between 88 and 86 b.c.
is obvious and logical.
If, however, the New Style coins with the name of Aristion were, as I believe, issued
during the lifetime of Mithradates V (see pp. 416-424), the shift in chronology neces-
sarily entails a re-appraisal of the identification of the mint magistrate. Is the
Aristion of the coinage of the second century the same Aristion who was tyrant of
Athens in 88 B.C.? Chronologically it is not impossible assuming that Aristion was
in his twenties in 129/8 and in his sixties when he became dictator. Concerning his
career after he appeared in Athens as the representative of Mithradates VI we are
well informed from a variety of sources; concerning his earlier life we know prac-
tically nothing except for the testimony of Appian (Mithr. 28) that he was an
Athenian citizen and had studied Epicurean philosophy. His close association with
Pontus may have been a life-long affair, an allegiance first to Mithradates V and
later to Mithradates VI. Or in the coinage we may have evidence of a family affil-
iation with the Pontic house. The mint magistrate Aristion may have been the
father of the dictator of 88 B.C. A third possibility, of course, is that there is no
connection between mint magistrate and tyrant. The name is not uncommon and
there are several prominent Aristions of the late second century, anyone of whom
might have served in the minting office. On the whole it seems unlikely that two

unrelated men of the same name would have close ties with successive kings of
Pontus but our knowledge of the history of the period in question is scanty and the
possibility cannot be summarily rejected.
apizto
(8)
ANTIOXOZ - KAPAIXOZ
163/2
APirro
(3)
M1KIQN - EYPYKAEI
156/5
APIZTO
(3)
0EMIZTO - OEonoMnoz
149/8
rAPIZTOAH
(3)
MHTPOAQPOZ - AHMOZ0EN
147/6
PA
1801
ÂPIZTOAHMOZ
(3)
143/2
PA
1801
apiztok
(3)
HPA-APIZTOO
168/7
APIZTOK
(3)
AMOIKPATHZ - ETTIZTPATOZ
133/2
APIZTONOYZ
(3)
ATTEAAIKflN - TOPriAZ
121/0
PA
2037
APIZTOZ
(8)
Magistrates
555
rAPMOEE (3) APOTIOZ - MNAZARD 128/7
|-APMOEENOZ (2) EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOZ 127/6 PA 2287
l-APMOEENOZ (2) EENOKAHI - APMOEENOI 124/3 PA 2237
LAPMOEENOZ (2) EENOKAHZ - APMOEENOZ 128/2 PA 2287
Our mint magistrate is conceivably related to Harmoxenos son of Harmoxenos of
Kekropis who was a victor in the games of the Theseia of 157/6 b.c. The rarity of
the name makes it practically certain that a single individual served as third mag-
istrate in 128/7 and as second magistrate in 127/6, 124/8 and 123/2.
APOTTOZ (1) APOTTOZ-MNAZARD 128/7 PA 2243
Sundwall and others have associated the magistrate Aropos with Aropos son of
Leon (PA 2244) who was epimeletes of Delos and agonothetes during the first
decade of the first century B.C. The connection is especially persuasive in that the
symbol on the coinage of Aropos and Mnasagoras is a winged Agon. However, the
mint magistrate Aropos used the Agon representation on his coins some thirty-five
years before Aropos son of Leon served as agonothetes and unless one assumes that
the latter also held a much earlier agonothesia, for which there is no evidence, it is
impossible to establish a firm identification between our Aropos and the epimeletes
and agonothetes of the early first century. The symbol does no more than suggest
that the first magistrate of 128/7 had recently served or was then serving as agon-
othetes, an office which practically every prominent Athenian would have held at
some time during his public career.
It seems to me that the Aropos of the coinage may well be the Aropos son of
Aphrodisios of Azenia in a list of noblemen of the last quarter of the second century
(IG II2 2452 and stemma under PA 2246) and that his father is possibly the first
mint magistrate of the issues of 155/4 and 152/1 b.c.

APTEMQN (8) ZQKPATHZ - AIONYZOAS2 148/7
-APXE (8) HPA-APIZTOQ 168/7
ÂPXEZ (8) TIMAPXOY - NiKArO 166/5 PA 2410
APX1AZ (8) MHTPOAGPOZ - AHMOZOEN 147/6 PA 2450
APXITT (8) EYPYKAEI - APIAPA 154/8 PA 2547
rAPXITIMOZ (1) APXTTIMOZ-AHMHTPI 117/6 PA 2567
LAPXITIMOZ (1) APXITIMOZ - TTAMMENHZ 96/5 PA 2567
The first mint magistrate of 117/6 and 96/5 is identified by Kirchner with the
archon of the late first century. This is quite impossible but the name is very rare
and the Architimos of the coinage is likely the archon's grandfather. An Architimos
son of Architimos of Sphettos was thesmothetes in 56/5 (IG II2 1717). Kirchner
suggests that he is the archon's father; he is also, in all probability, the mint
magistrate's son.
-AZKAA (8) AIONYZI - AIONYZI 151/0 PA 2582
j-AIKAAnflN (8) ZflKPATHZ - AIONYZOAG 148/7 PA 2582
i-AZK (8) EYMAPEIAHZ - KAEOMEN 145/4
-AZKAATTflN (8) (DANOKAHZ-ATTOAAGNIOZ 143/2 PA 2588
556
Two Delphic inscriptions are of significance for the identification of this magistrate.
Concerning the first, a listing of ephebes in the Pythais of Argeios (FD III 2, 26),
there is no element of uncertainty. The stone carries the name of EPMOKPATHI
A[ZKA]A[TTJIQNOZ, an ephebe in 98/7. The second inscription has to do with the
Pythais of Agathokles in 106/5 and gives a listing of Pythaists of uncertain category
(FD III 2,15). This stone is broken at two crucial spots so that of the name which
concerns us only JMOKPATHZ AZKAA[ remains. However, another fragment
thought to join at this point has NOZ and the Fouilles de Delphes restoration, by
analogy with the inscription of 98/7, is [EPjMOKPATHZ AZKAA[TTIfl]NOZ. Kirchner
had earlier (PA 18756) restored the name in the inscription of 106/5 as TIMO-
KPATHI AIKAA[TTQNOZ] and identified the mint magistrates Timokrates and
Asklapon as this Pythaist and his brother.
Without question the argument for EPMOKPATHI AZKAATTinNOZ on the frag-
mentary stone is a strong one but the numismatic evidence suggests that in actuality
Kirchner was right and that we have indeed two individuals: Hermokrates son of
Asklapion and Timokrates son of Asklapon. On the coinage the name Asklapon in
full or in abbreviation1 appears four times between 151/0 and 148/2; a Timokrates
is associated with Asklapon in 145/4 and 143/2, and the name recurs at the end of
the century. This pattern of mint activity, so similar to that found in other Athenian
families, in conjunction with the epigraphical data, seems to me strongly indicative
of blood relationship. It is unlikely that Kirchner's Pythaist of 106/5 is the magis-
trate of the mid second century but he may well be the mint official of 108/2.
AZKAATTQN

(Mint Mag. 151/0, 148/7
and with his brother
145/4, 148/2)
TIMOKPATHZ (II)
(Mint Mag. 108/2;
Pythaist 106/5)
AIKAH (8) MIKIflN - EYPYKAEI
AIKAH (8) HPAKAEIAHZ-EYKAHZ
AZKAHTTI (8) ZQIAOZ - EYANAPOZ
AZKAHniAAHZ(?) (1) W-E
For the monogram see pp. 46 f.
TIMOKPATHZ (I)
(Mint Mag. with his
brother 145/4, 143/2)
156/5
139/8
142/1
188/7
1 On the coinage of 145/4 the form of the name is AZK which, of course, is not necessarily
an abbreviation of AZKAATTBN. Two years later the dies are inscribed with the full names of
AZKAATfflN and TIMOKPATHZ. This certain association of the two names with the coinage of
143/2 strongly suggests that the AZK and TIMOK of the coinage of 145/4 refer to the same men.
Magistrates
557
AZKAHTIIAAHZ (2) IKEIIOX - AZKAHT71AAHZ 135/4 PA 2586
The magistrates of 185/4 are identified by a Delphic inscription referring to Askle-
piades son of Hikesios, hieromnemon c. 125? (IG II2 1134 and for the date Daux,
Chronologie, p. 59, L 68) and also a tragic poet (PA add. 2589b). Kirchner makes
the mint magistrates his sons but Sundwall more accurately considers our Askle-
piades as the hieromnemon himself and Hikesios as either his father or son. The
former is more likely in view of the date of the coinage and the sequence of names.
[-AOPOAIII (1) AOPOAIZI - ATTOAHEI 155/4 PA 2778
LAOPOAIZI (1) AOPOAIZI - AlOrE 152/1 PA 2778
Possibly Aphrodisios I of Azenia (see under APOT70Z and stemma under PA 2246).
rAXAIOZ (1) AXAIOZ-HAI 160/59 PA 2790
^-AXAIOZ (3) ZflKPATHZ-AIONYZOAQ 148/7 PA 2790
The name is uncommon which makes it likely that the same man served in 160/59
and again in 148/7. It is probable that he is the archon of 166/5 b.c.
BAKXI (8) AOPOAIZI - ATTOAHEI 155/4 PA 2822
BAKXIOZ (8) (DANOKAHZ-AnOAAflNIOZ 148/2 PA 2828
^BAKXI (8) HPAKAEIAHZ-EYKAHZ 137/6 PA 2823
BAZIAEI (8) HPA - APIZTOO 168/7 PA 2841
The rarity of the name supports Kirchner's identification of the mint magistrate
as the Basileides of Piraeus who was councillor of Hippothontis c. 160 B.C. (Hesp.,
1940, pp. 128f.) and hieropoios of the Ptolemaia in 152/1 (IG 11* 1988).
BOYKATTHZ (8) MIKIflN - EYPYKAEI 156/5 PA 2905
To the best of my knowledge the only other occurrence of this name in Attic
records concerns aBoukattes of Leontis, a knight in an inscription of 128/7 (Sund-
wall, Nachtrage, p. 42). Our mint magistrate may be the same man.

BOYAAP (8) ETTirENH-ZQZANAPOZ 158/7 PA 2909
This is another uncommon name. The mint magistrate is likely the Boularchos of
Eiresidai who was a Panathenaic victor c. 166/5 B.C. (IG II2 2816 and PA 2910).
Boularchos' deme is established by another inscription (IG II2 5995/6).
BYTTAKOZ (8) AMMflNIOZ - KAAAIAZ 150/49 PA 2988
As Kirchner points out, the mint magistrate is the Byttakos of Lamptrai who was
an envoy in a decree of 144/8 (Insc. Ddlos 1507). In all probability thePyrrhos who
served as third magistrate in 147/6 was his brother (stemma given by Roussel,
Ddlos, p. 102).
rrAAY (1) TAAY-EXE 170/69
TAAYKOZ (2) AYZAN - TAAYKOZ 159/8 PA 8006
Kirchner considers the magistrates of 159/8 to be brothers, members of a well-
known family of Piraeus, whose floruit is put c. 169 B.C. (stemma under PA 10100).
It seems probable that the first magistrate of 170/69 is the same Glaukos. This
family was still providing mint magistrates at the beginning of the next century
(see under MHAEIOZ and AIOKAHZ MEAI, his brother-in-law).
558
rrA(?)
(8)
AflZIOEOZ - XAP1AZ
132/1
ÂAY
(8)
NIKHTHZ-AIONYZIOZ
130/29
ropriAi
(2)
ATTEAAIKfiN - rOPriAZ
121/0
PA 8066
ropnn
(8)
MIKIflN - EYPYKAE1
156/5
PA 8079
roproiNO (?)
(1)
K-M
187/6
For the monogram
see p. 48.
AAM

(8)
TIMOZTPATOZ - T70ZHZ
134/3
rAAMfiN
(8)
AYZAN - TAAYKOZ
159/8
PA 3135
ÂAMftN
(1)
AAMflN - ZQZIKPATHZ
141/0
PA 3135
AEINIAI
(3)
ZfllAOZ - EYANAPOZ
142/1
AEINIAZ
(8)
121/0
PA 3155
rAEINOK
(8)
EnirENH - ZQZANAPOZ
158/7
PA 3182
^-AEINO
(8)
AOPOAIZI - AnOAHEl
155/4
PA 3182
,-AHME
(8)
APOTTOZ-MNAZArO
128/7
PA 3808
l-AHMEAI
(1)
AHMEAZ - EPMOKAHZ
125/4
PA 3309
LAHMEAZ
Magistrates 559
grandfather, the Demetrios of Alopeke who was councillor of Antiochis in 169/8
(Prytaneis, pp. 129ff., no. 71). Certainly the unusual addition of the patronymic
must have been intended to distinguish this man from another Demetrios active in
mint affairs at about the same time. Some or all of the magistracies of 174/3, 178/2
and 168/7 (and possibly those of 161/0 and 157/6) were in all probability held
by this other Demetrios.
It is only the proximity of their terms of office that underlies the tentative
bracketing of the third magistrate of 136/5 and the first magistrate of 181/0.
Finally, it seems likely that the Demetrios of 117/6 is identical with the Demetrios
of 110/09 since an individual frequently served repeatedly in the mint magistracy
during the Late Period of the coinage.
AHMO
(8)
MIKIQN - EYPYKAEI
156/5
AHMO
(8)
145/4
AHMO
(8)
NIKHTHI - AIONYZIOZ
130/29
AHMOZ
(8)
AIONYZI - AIONYZI

151/0
AHMOZ
(3)
9E0A0T0Z - KAEOOANHZ
188/7
AHMOI0E
(3)
nOAYXAPM - NIKOr
165/4
PA 3579
AHMOZ
(3)
ACPPOAIZI - AT70AHEI
155/4
PA 8579
AHMOI0EN
(2)
MHTPOAftPOZ - AHMOZGEN
147/6
PA 3579
AHM0I9
(3)
HPAKAEIAHZ - EYKAHZ
189/8
PA 8580
Undoubtedly there are fewer than nine individuals represented in the nine entries
above but AHMO and AHMOZ are not necessarily abbreviations of Demosthenes
and it is difficult to discern any clear pattern of association.
AHMOZTPATOZ (2) AIONYZIOZ - AHMOZTPATOZ 101/0
AHMOXAPHZ (1) AHMOXAPHZ-T7AMMENHZ 100/99
This magistrate is probably the archon of 108/7 B.C. (PA 3707) and very likely the
son of Dositheos, first mint magistrate of 182/1 (see under AQZI0EOZ).
rAIO (2) AMMfl-AlO 182/1
LAIO (2) AMMQ-AIO 180/79
Almost certainly the same pair of magistrates served in 182/1 and 180/79. For a
family connection see under AMMfl.
rAIO
(3)
AiorE - nozEi
161/0
AIO
(3)
AOPOAIZI - AlOrE
56o
That the Dioge of 125/4 is identical with the third magistrate of 121/0 is likely in
view of the frequency with which mint magistracies are repeated during the Late
Period of the coinage.
A possible clue to the identification of the earliest Dioge is provided by the issue
of 161/0 with the names AIOrE - TTOZEI. In a fourth century family from Alopeke
one finds the names Diogenes and Poseidonios. The coinage may well be evidence
of a later generation in this same family.
rAIOAO (2) AIO<DA - AIOAO 175/4 PA 8887
i-AIOAO (8) MENEA - ETTirENO 167/6 PA 8888
AIOAOTOZ(?) (2) A>-tf 183/2
For the monogram see p. 56. If the interpretation is correct, it seems to me possible
that this Diodotos is identical with the magistrates of 175/4 and 167/6.
AlOAflPOZ (2) TO TPI AlOKAHZ - AIOAQPOZ 90/89 PA 3923
Kirchner identifies our magistrate with the archon of 58/2 B.C. I should suggest
rather that he is Diodoros son of Theophilos of Halai {PA 3935), a prominent Athenian
of Roman sympathies who was active in civic affairs in the years before Sulla.
rAIOK (8) HPAKAEIAHZ - EYKAHZ 189/8
LAIOK (8) HPAKAEIAHZ - EYKAHZ 187/6
rAIOKA(?) (1) 8-|fl 189/8
^-AIOKA(?) (2) 176/5
For the two monograms above see pp. 44 and 78.
AIOKA (8) EYPYKAE1 - APIAPA 154/3
AIOKA (8) EYMHAOZ-KAAAIOflN 140/89
AIOKAE (8) AflPOGE - AIOd> 164/8 PA 3974
The abbreviation AIOKAE clearly stands for Diokleides. The other entries above

may represent the same name or they may be short for Diokles. It is possible,
perhaps even probable, that the AIOKA of 140/39 is identical with the AIOK of
139/8 and 187/6.
AlOKAHZ (8) MIKIflN - EYPYKAEI 156/5 PA 8994
rAIOKAHZ (1) AlOKAHZ - AEflNIAHZ 99/8 PA 4033
[-AlOKAHZ (1) AlOKAHZ TO AEYTE - MHAEIOZ 95/4 PA 4033
LAIOKAHZ (1) TO TPI AlOKAHZ - AIOASPOZ 90/89 PA 4033
In this single instance the coinage gives precise testimony to the fact that the same
Diokles held the first mint magistracy for three terms. The man in question selected
representations of Asklepios, Hygieia and Dionysos for his three issues and this
ostensibly points to Diokles son of Diokles of Kephisia who held the priesthood of
Asklepios and Hygieia in 51/0 b.c. One must assume, however, that an earlier
member of this Kephisia family, probably the Diokles I of PA 4081, held the same
priesthood and that he was the Diokles of the coinage. Another interesting numis-
matic indication of a priesthood held by different generations is provided by the
coins of EYPYKAEI - APIAPA (see p. 604 of the section on Symbols).
Magistrates
56i
AIOKAHZ MEAI (1) AIOKAHZ MEAI - MHAEIOZ 89/8 PA 4040
After the three terms of Diokles of Kephisia it was obviously necessary to indicate
in some distinctive fashion the magistracy of a different Diokles and this was done
by means of the abbreviated demotic following his name. The first mint magistrate
of 89/8 B.C. is not, as Kirchner suggests, Diokles II of Melite but his father Diokles I,
brother-in-law of Medeios of Piraeus with whom he shared the mint magistracy
[PA 4089 and stemma under PA 10100).
AIOME
(3)
KAPAIX - EPrOKAE
158/2
AION
(8)
145/4
rAION
(8)
184/8
ÂION
(8)
AfiZIOEOZ - XAPIAZ
182/1
AIONY
(2)
178/2

l$l-li
For the monogram
see p. 91.
AIONY
(8)
AAP09E - AIOO
164/3
rAIONY
(8)
EYPYKAEI - APIAPA
154/8
ÂIONY
(8)
KAPAIX - EPrOKAE
158/2
AIONY
(8)
GEOAOTOZ- KAEOOANHZ
188/7
AIONYZ
(8)
144/8
AIONYIIOY
(3)
TTOAYXAPM - NIKOr
165/4
PA 4105
AIONYZI
(1)
AIONYZI - AIONYZI
151/0
AIONYZI
(2)
AIONYZI - AIONYZI
151/0
rAIONYZI
(3)
AMMflNIOZ - KAAAIAZ
150/49
LAIONYII
(3)
5^2
the Ke is not of much help to us. The letters probably stand for a demoticKe-
phale ?but an abbreviated patronymic is possible.
Bracketing is on the basis of chronological proximity and must be regarded in most
cases as highly tentative. It does seem to me likely that the AION of 184/8 and 132/1
is the same man as the AIONYZIOZ of 180/29. In 132/1 both NIK and AION appear
as third magistrates while the annual magistrates two years later are Niketes and
Dionysios. In the case of other magistrates of the same period (e.g. Harmoxenos and
Demeas) one finds a similar situation involving third magistracies shortly before
service in the first or second office. (For the probable relationship of Niketes and
Dionysios see above under A0HNOBI and below under NIKHTHZ.)
Dionysios and Mnasagoras of 105/4 are related (see under MNAZAI~OPAZ) and it
is almost certain that the same Dionysios served with Demostratos four years later.
[-AIONYZO (8) HPAKAEIAHZ-EYKAHZ 189/8
LAIONYZOr (8) HPAKAEIAHZ - EYKAHZ 187/6 PA 4271
In all likelihood the same man despite the omission of the gamma in
139/8.
rAIONYZOAfl
(3)
TTOAEMfiN - AAKETHZ
157/6
PA 42S0
FAIONYZOAQ
(2)
ZflKPATHZ - AlONYZOAfl
148/7

PA 42S0
ÂIONYZOAG
(3)
144/3
PA 4281
Kirchner associates the first and second AlONYZOAfl; all three may well be the
same man.
AlOTIMOZ
(1)
AlOTIMOZ - MArAZ
146/5
PA 4374
AIOO
(2)
AflPOGE - AIOO
164/8
This may be the AIOOA of 175/4 (below).
AIOO
(3)
KAPAIX - EPrOKAE
158/2
AIOOA
(1)
AlOcDA - AIOAO
175/4
AIOCDANTOZ
(1)
AIOOANTOZ - AIZXINHZ
108/7
PA 4423
rAPOMO
(3)
NIKHTHZ - AIONYZIOZ
130/29
LAPOMO
(3)
APIZTIfiN - OIAQN
129/8
AS2PO
(3)
TTOAEMQN - AAKETHZ
157/6
Magistrates
563
AflPOGE (8) 0EOAOTOZ - KAEOQANHZ 138/7 PA 4594
AQZI6E0Z (1) AflZIGEOZ - XAPIAZ 182/1 PA 4682
Dositheos and Charias are thought by Kirchner to be brothers of the deme Chol-
leidai. Raubitschek in the American Journal of Archaeology for 1945 (pp. 484f.)
changes the deme of the family to Aithalidai and makes certain additions to
Roussel's stemma (BCH, 1908, p. 867, no. 577). The mint magistrate Charias is
probably the pompostolos of a mid second century inscription (Insc. Dilos 2609). His
colleague Dositheos is undoubtedly a relative and very likely the father of Demo-
chares, agoranomos in a dedication dated about the beginning of the first century
{Insc. Dilos 2381).1 This Demochares may be identified with the first mint magis-
trate of 100/99 B.C.
E9E (1) ff-N 198/2
For the monogram see p. 87.
EIKAAIOZ (1) 6-ltl 185/4
For the monogram see p. 52. The name is extremely rare and it seems certain that
our magistrate is the Eikadios of Trinemeia who was a donor in 188/2 B.C. (PA 4642).
EiPHNA (8) ANTiOXOZ - KAPAIXOZ 168/2 PA 4643
EIPHNA! (3) OANOKAHZ-AnOAAflNIOZ 148/2
The earlier Eirenaios is identified by Kirchner with a man from Piraeus who was
a donor in 183/2 (PA 4645).
EAI= (3) AOPOAIZI - AlOrE 152/1 PA 4665
EMBI (8) NIKHTHZ-AIONYZIOZ 180/29
As the name is very rare, our Embios is surely the father of the Embios son of
Embios of Prospalta known from an inscription of the late second century (IG II2
1944).

-ETTirENO (2) MENEA-ETTirENO 167/6 PA 4785
i-EnirENH (1) EnirENH - ZftZANAPOZ 158/7 PA 4785
ETTirEN (8) AAMfiN-ZnZIKPATHZ 141/0
ETTirENHZ (1) ETTirENHZ-EENQN 104/3 PA 4812
Kirchner considers the annual magistrates of 104/8 to be brothers from Melite
(PA 4812 for stemma) whose floruit is put c. 100 B.C. A tentative revised stemma is
published by Roussel (Dilos, p. 105) but his association of the mint magistrates
with the ephebes of the early first century is impossible. Our Epigenes is the epi-
meletes of an inscription dated prior to 126/5 (Insc. Dilos 1648), his choice of an
Apollo symbol for his coinage apparently a reference to his connection with Delos.
Xenon is probably a brother.
1 Raubitschek restores the name of the father of Demochares as either A[flZI0E]OY or
A[IOAJP]OY; the coinage suggests that the first reading is the correct one.
564 , 0 5
188/7
4980
152/1
4939
168/7
4948
188/2
4951
(8) - 167/6 4824
(8) - 144/8 4825
(2) - 119/8 4836
&3. 119/8 -
1\ 1
( II2 2452 & 4887).
(2) - 97/6 4903
^ :
& 100/99 ( 2 2886) & 3.1 & 3.1>
(8) 6000 -
(8) -
1 (8) -
(2) -
(8) - 144/8
& ( ^ $6-$,
. 119). & , , 1\ .

(8) - 150/49 4968
&^ , 35 ^ (. 9.), 3.
& - ^ . 1>
II ' 5, 3. -
109/8 . { 2 1014).
(2) - 158/2
& , & \11 &
182/1 . { 5058).
(8) - 134/8
(3) - 147/6 5122
& 3. & 188/2 -
\ & .
(2) - 125/4
& 3.
125/4 & &
& . & &-
& & & ( (1 ).
(8) - 161/0 5151
- (8) - 160/59 5151
^ (3) - 148/7
(8) - 161/0 5196
85 5^5
13 1)6 35 & 50 51315 130
\ 133. 152/1 ( 5199). ,
> 188/2, 33 167/6 (
). 3 .
(2)
106/5
5234
3.
106/5 ( ).
(3)
156/5
(2)
142/1
5269
(3)
150/49
5285

(1)
142/1
5338
3.3.5 142/1 &6 &
( ).
(3)
150/49
5345
(3)
189/8
(3)
160/59
(3)
158/2
(3)
160/59
5889
(3)
144/3
5890
& & 160/59
(8) - 157/6
(8) - 188/2
(1) - 191/0
. 41. 33 -
& ( 5452).
(8) - 162/1 5707
^ (8) - 147/6 5707
566 \ , 5
- &
3.65 145/4 3. (
^ ). -
3.3. 155/4 & 152/1.
(8) - 168/2 5814
, &5 5\11 , 171/0 .
(8)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(1)
147/6
5746
171/0
155/4
5808

152/1
5808
145/4
5809
(3)
158/7
5833
(1)
140/39
5833
(1)
114/3
5834
(3)
168/2
5862
(8)
125/4
5917
(3)
150/49
5921
5\31
15 185/4 . \>
(8)
167/6
- (2) - 156/5 5965
- (1) - 154/8 5967
55 5^7
( )
(8) - 161/0 6281
- (8) - 155/4 6281
- 3. , .
183/2 .. ^ & 1> 3.3.
>1 . 154/8 152/1
\ \ 3-3.5
& \ 160 & 150 188/2. 1>
& {$., 1942, . 308.).
(8) - 163/2 6284
(8) - 162/1
& 3. 3.3. \
163/2 162/1.
() (8) - 129/8 6862
&^ ; &.
3.3. & (' & \ .
(2) - 179/8 6404
(2) - 160/59 6405
(8) - 158/7 6405
11 , & 5>&11 ^, & 3.
3.1 .
(2) - 178/7
- (1) - 168/7
&^& 178/7 \ &
- &, & 3.

\35 , & &3.
189/8 187/6 & \ &11
53. &. &
& &
3. .
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(1)
(1)
140/39
150/49
6445
121/0
6451
160/59
6445
155/4
6445
154/8
6445
568
, ^ 5
\ 3.
3. . , 3. \1 ,
656 \ 3. \1 331 &.
(2) - 98/2 6446
3.&. 3. 93/2 .. ^ 3. 104/8.
\ 60/59 . 1> & .
& 33. ( 6544)
\ & . 80/79 . ( 2 1089). &5
(3)
(1)
(3)
(3)

(8)
(2)
(2)
146/5
6506
98/2
65091
168/7
6509
162/1
6509
188/2
6524
102/1
98/7
6538
[-
6651
(8) - 1 165/4
(8) - 158/2
(8) - 150/49 6651
(1) - 149/8 6651
, 3. 31 33.
149/8 .
^ 1> .
(2) - 112/1 6652
3 (2) - 109/8
33. 109/8 3 , & : 3
( 6654 3510 $). ,
83 .
(3)
129/8
(3)
149/8
55 5^9
133 109/8 ( ).
86615 )030 !3 333 169/8, 167/6 162/1 \
1> 81 , 3 3 \ 83
3 38 - 3.
(8) - 146/5 7245
- (8) - 145/4 7245
3 3 338 3 83
33 &. 3 , 38
, 33 \ 3 ' 181/0 ..
(3)

(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(3)
(1)
(1)
149/8
6834
143/2
6835
142/1
6834
141/0
6884
144/8
142/1
114/8
6979
149/8
7020
185/4
147/6
7110
169/8
57 \ ,
(3)
(8)
(3)
(2)
(1) - 135/4 7573 <1
. 25895
133 3.6 1 311 3110 ( ).
(8) - 160/59 7655
^ (3) - 154/3 7655
, & ^-
154/3 , 3 \11-1\
- ( 7883 ).
(?) (1) - 196/5
(?) (2) - 191/0
. 88 3. 41.
- 146/5 7779
- 1 155/4 7820
- 154/8 7820
- 150/49 7820
1> & & .
, 11 !3 335 150/49
155/4 & 154/8. &

, .
(8) - 126/5 7909
3 &, 35 5(1\31 &, 1) -
.3. &\
(, . 54).
(8) - 158/7 7948
(2) - 107/6 7989
\1 & 53, 3.
(107/6 ..) \
03.1 ^. 31 -
( ) 109/8 (16 II2 1014).
(2) - 126/5 8000
(1) - 97/6 8021
126/5 & \ 97/6 3 3.
31 , ( ). 331 & 1>
(8) - 151/0
^ (3) - 147/6
531 (. 48 .) 3.1>1)3 & 3
33.5 3 (156/5 .). 3 &
33
]3.
53 571
() (8) - 161/0 8229
(8) - 147/6 8229
(2) - 140/39 8229
83 . 3-
. \
(2) - 92/1 8281
\ 58/7 . 1> 3. .
^ , 3.3.
\ -
(. 811 14 8280).
(8) - 165/4 8252
1- (2) - 168/2 8252
- (1) - 158/2 8252
& 3.3..
, 3.8 5, 183/2,
, 31 3. .
(8) - 144/8
(8) - 158/2
(8) - 160/59 8477
(2) - 122/1
(8) - 141/0 8489
1 (8) - 180/29
(3) - 125/4 8490
1>5 & 3. 35

3 (119/8 .)
& 125/4 & 141/0 35
. (. 86) 3.3. 180/29 125/4
141/0 3. 125/4.
& 3. 1 3.3.3
125/4 3
119/8.
3 3.3. 188/7 119/8 3.5 \ -
33.1 159/8 3. 138/7. & 3. 1
(8)
(2)
(3)
(2)
(1)
188/2
145/4
8592
159/8
8629
188/7
8630
119/8
8680
572 81 5
(8) - 166/5
(1) - 122/1 8688
& 122/1 !. \>
56/5 .. \}\1 1 .
(8) - 142/1 8818
- (8) - 141/0 8818
<- (8) - 186/5
142/1 141/0 3 3.
1&5 - .
II & 3.
, , - .
(1) - 171/0
(3) - 162/1
1 . & 5\&11 . &
3.8, 53. ^ 1)6 - &.
186/5 ( II2 2828 & 2325) ' 188/2
( 2 2882).
(8) - 146/5 8984
^- (8) - 142/1
(8) 1 - 184/8
(8) - 158/7 9039
\ \&
178/7 {$, . 120\, . 64).
(8) - 184/8
(1) - 111/0 9053
53. 111/0 \ 59/8

3. & \ & ^.
(8) - 145/4 9102
(2) - 99/8 9123
3.3.6
& ., & II '
( 217).
(1) -$ 176/5
^ . 78.
9290
(8)
157/6
(3)
144/8
(8)
167/6
(1)
159/8
573
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(2)
5\3.
(&,
& &.
(3)
(8)
(3)
(3)

(3)
3.3. 159/8 & (
10100). ^ & 167/6 5 3.1\
159/8.
(8) - 150/49
(1) - 116/5 9293
(2) - 88/7 9294
& , , & & . \ '
& ( 1863), & 116/5
1> 3.( &&1 3. 88/7 \1 1>
& II, 117/6 ( II2 1009).
(8) - 149/8 9301
& & 150/49 ..
^ - 177/6
- 166/5
- 125/4
- 142/1
- 142/1
- 138/7
- 146/5 9650
. 128) & 3.&5 &3. -
- 1 155/4 9785
- 158/2 9860
- 166/5 9860
- 168/2 9860
- 166/5 9860
& 5& & 3. &3. 166/5
168/2. &
1& \ \ \ &
& &.
(8) - 180/29
,- (8) - 168/7
- (1) - 167/6 9889
- (8) - 159/8
3& 168/7
11\ & 159/8.
(1) - 108/2 9891
& 92/1 .
574
(1) - 102/1
(8) - 142/1
3. 11 ' .
(8) - 149/8 10057
(1) - 118/7 10060
. . II5 1 & , ,
118/7 $ -
99/8 .. ( II2 1084).
(2) - 95/4 10099
1- (2) - 89/8 10099
- --1, II
& ( 10100 $1) . 108 .. &
3 95/4.
(2) >-
- (2) - -
\ 5 . 85 48.
- 1

1><;
. , \,
3. 1 : 158/7 .
1>
, .
(1) - . 121
1 .
\ (. 416-424),
1 V VI.
- (1) - 169/8 10186
- (1) - 156/5 10187
156/5
IV III ' $1 ( 5966)
(3)
(^)
(8)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(1)
195/4
187/6
184/3
145/4
158/7
10138
155/4
10138
151/0
158/7
10138
160/59
55
575
164 .. ^ 169/8 & &&, III,
&. 3., IV, 1> &&.
. 106.
(2) - 147/6 10208
& ) & & ( 10215),
& . &
. . &
& 13.' 13.11
^&.
(2) - 128/7 10227
(2) - 105/4 10227
\11 (. 63 .) 3 && & ^& -
1& ( 2 2452) &
, 98/7 .. ( III 2, 17).
& . &8 128/7
\ 105/4 ^
& \ & & \ 1>
& &. && 128/7 3.3.
105/4 &3. 179/8 ( ).
(1) - 120/19 10228
- (2) - 118/2 10228
& ^ 120/19 & 118/2.
&
&&

(3)
166/5
10285
(3)
151/0
(3)
158/7
10488
(3)
189/8
10484
(2)
118/7
10484
(2,1)
-1*1 1*1-^1
184/8
184/3 . 54
(.
(8) - 138/7
& .
(8) - 148/7
(1) -1$| / 190/89
. 48.
(2) - 120/19 10657
^ (1) - 118/2 10657
576 \ 5, , 3
(1) - 192/1
56 . 39.
(8) - 144/8
(2) - 166/5 10672
5 13.0 - & - & . 3
1> (. 50 & &, . 10) & \> ( 11978).
3.553.5 53.1 \1 ^ \!056 15 . 148 ..
II 36613 & . 3. & &1 .-
35 & & & 166/5.
(8) - 160/59
1\ > .
(8) - 160/59 10696
- (8) - 159/8 10696
(2) - 198/2
3. . 37.
(8) - 182/1
[- (1) - 130/29 10754
^ (8) - 126/5 10754
& & 35
( 10759 ).
1\ 3. 180/29 35 1>
& & \!
1 . 3.11 >)1
184/3, 182/1 3 126/5 3 1>15
. 3.1 1>5 \ 33 159/8. (,
, 3. 3 .)

(3)
167/6
10850
(2)
165/4
10850
(2)
163/2
10850
(3)
167/6
(3)
128/7
(1)
126/5
10849
^ 53 \1 -
^ 31 ( 10850 $1).
\1 \3
167/6, 128/7
159/8 146/5.
11\ ' , 33 167/6 , 3-
161/0, 157/6 3
1\ (,& & ) &\> & . \1
55 577
15 II, 3 & 33 & , -
31 3.5 353 167/6. 353
165/4 168/2 \1 & 33 1. 3 & 3 3
^ III, 3 161/0,
128/7 3(1 126/5.
3.3.5, 1&1 159/8 146/5
( ) \ ^ III, 1 ^ III.
(8) - 146/5 10857
(8) - 164/8 10880
1- (8) - 159/8 10879
3 & 351 &)5 1535
( 10881) & 3 3333 3
160 ..
(3)
162/1
(3)
141/0
10979
(3)
159/8

11096
(8)
146/5
11096
003>1 III 1 ( 11121).
& 331 3 3~35 ( ).
(8) - 168/2 11128
33 168/2 \> 33 3. 1
, &3 53 3. & .
^ '5 3 3 \1 -
35 3. 3
\3 &1 5 . 5\31 555
3 .
. 3 3
--
& \
33, 3 3
. 333 1&1, \ 3
3 109/8. ' (3 \35
3' , ( II2 8510).
(8) - 154/8 11288
(2) - 104/8 11888
33 104/8 , >3 ( ).
(2)
(8)
[-
(1)
(1)
(1)
192/1
180/29
127/6
INCKDIAOZ (2) AYZANAPOZ - OINCXDIAOZ 116/5 PA 11363
INCKDIAOZ (2) AM<DIAZ-OINO<DIAOZ 115/4 PA 11363
The Oinophilos who served as mint magistrate in 116/5 and 115/4 is the basileus of
a listing of archons c. 90 B.C. His colleague in 115/4 is his father (see under AMQIAZ).
oay (8) ahmhtpioi - ArAeirrnoz 181/0
OAYMniOZ (3) AMMfiNIOZ - KAAA1AZ 150/49
OCDEAOY (3) MENEA - EnirENO 167/6
Almost certainly the Ophelas son of Habron of Bate who was hipparch in 157/6
and a donor at about the same time (PA 11501). He would be a cousin of the third
mint magistrate of 168/2 (see under ABPQN).
-TTAMMENHI (2) AHMOXAPHZ - TTAMMENHZ 100/99
TTAMMENHZ (2) APXITIMOZ - TTAMMENHZ 96/5 PA 11520
Dow (Hesp. Suppl. VIII, 1949, pp. 128f.) discusses the archon Pammenes and
suggests that he may be the man who served as mint magistrate with Architimos.
This is possible only if the archon is someone other than the Pammenes son of Zeno
of Marathon who was a boy Pythaist in 106/5 and again in 97/6. As Dow points
out, if Pammenes of Marathon is the archon he would have been at most twenty-
nine years old in 88/2, the date of his archonship. Under no circumstances could
he have been the mint magistrate of 100/99 and 96/5.
TTAMOI (8) ETTirENH - ZQZANAPOZ 158/7 PA 11528
T7ANTAKAHZ (1) TTANTAKAHZ - AHMHTPIOZ 110/09 PA 11596
Citing an earlier study by Kohler, Kirchner connects the first magistrate of 110/09
with the deme Plotheia. The name Pantakles son of Pantainetos of Plotheia is
recorded on a fourth century gravestone (IG IP 7239). On the coinage of our Pan-
takles the symbol seems to be a standing figure of Herakles whose cult is known to
have flourished in Plotheia. These indications of demotic affiliation may well be

valid but any precise identification of the magistrate in
question is impossible.
TTAP
(1)
FP-M
195/4
TTAPA
(3)
MIKIfiN - EYPYKAEI
156/5
TTATPft
(8)
TTOAEMflN - AAKETHZ
157/6
PA 11702
Probably the brother of Polemon, first mint magistrate of the same
year (see below
under TTOAEMflN for the family).
TTEI0OAA
(8)
HPAKAEIAHZ - EYKAHZ
139/8
TTEIZflN
(8)
0EOOPA - ZQTAZ
162/1
TTAATQN
(8)
6E0A0T0Z- KAEOOANHZ
138/7
PA 11847
rnAEIZTIAZ
(3)
AHMEAZ - EPMOKAHZ
125/4
PA 11865
LT7AEIZT1AZ
(3)
KOINTOZ - KAEAZ
122/1
PA 11865
nOAEMQN
(1)
Magistrates
579
nOAY(?) (1) W-# 186/5
nOAY (1) nOAY-TI(|l 181/0
The magistrates are brothers, Polykles and Timarchides of Thorikos (see p. 61).
nOAYKAH (8) OEOQPA - ZflTAZ 162/1
This third magistrate is probably the sculptor Polykles III of Kirchner's stemma
(PA 11992), son and nephew of the mint magistrates of 181/0 immediately above.
TTOAYKPA (8) ZfllAOZ - EYANAPOZ 142/1 PA 12010
TTOAYM (3) HPA - APIZTOO 168/7
rnOAYX (3) HPA - APIZTOO 168/7
LnOAYXAPM (1) nOAYXAPM - NIKOr 165/4 PA 12109
The first magistrate of 165/4 is identified by Kirchner with a donor of about this
period, Polycharmos of Phaleron. Almost certainly the third magistrate of 168/7
is the same man.
nOAYXAPMOZ (2) TPYOflN - TTOAYXAPMOZ 91/0
nOTTAI (8) 0EOAOTOZ-KAEOQANHZ 188/7
ttozei (2) AiorE-nozEi i6i/o
Poseidonios and Diogenes are names which occur in a fourth century family from
Alopeke (PA 12188 and 8813). The annual magistrates of 161/0 may be second
century members of the same family.
nOZHZ (2) TIMOZTPATOZ - TTOZHZ 134/8 PA 12149
Timostratos and Poses, annual magistrates of 184/8, are without question members
of a well-known Phaleron family (PA 18824). The date of their magistracy neces-
sitates certain changes in Kirchner's stemma as follows:
TIMOZTPATOZ (I)

(Comic Poet. Donor 188/2)
APIZTflN (I)
(Poet II cent.)
TIMOZTPATOZ (II) APIZTftN (II) nOZHZ (I)
(Mint Mag. 184/3.
Nobleman late II cent.
? Pythaist 128/7)
(Mint Mag. 184/8)
(TIMOZTPATOZ III) FIOZHZ (II)
(? Boy Pythaist 128/7) (Thesmothetes c. 90 B.C.)
APIZTON (III)
(Prytanis c. 50 B.C.)
.7'
58o
The uncertainty with regard to Timostratos II and Timostratos III concerns the
Pythaist listing of 128/7, fully discussed under AGHNOBI.
TTPOTIM
(8)
nOAYXAPM - NIKOr
165/4
PA 12280
npflTorE
(8)
ANTIOXOZ - KAPAIXOZ
168/2
PA 12306
nPftTOM
(8)
ZftKPATHZ - AlONYZOAft
148/7
TTY90KAHZ
(3)
AXAIOZ - HAI
160/59
PA 12489
rfYGONI
(8)
ETTirENH-ZfiZANAPOZ
158/7

PA 12459
T7YPPI
(8)
145/4
TTYPPOZ
(8)
MHTPOAfiPOZ - AHMOZQEN
147/6
PA 12509
Pyrrhos of 147/6 and Byttakos of 150/49 (see under BYTTAKOZ) are brothers of a
prominent Lamptrai family (Roussel, Ddlos, p. 102 for stemma) and not father and
son as Sundwall suggests.
ZAPAni
(3)
ANTIOXOZ - KAPAIXOZ
168/2
PA 12557
ZAT
(3)
OANOKAHZ - AnOAASJNIOZ
148/2
rZATY
(8)
EYPYKAEI - APIAPA
154/8
LZATY
(3)
AOPOAIZI - AlOfE
152/1
Satyros and
Hegemachos, whose names appear on the coinage of the
mid second
century, are
members of a family from Leukonoe (see under HTENIA).
ZIMI
(8)
AOPOAIZI - ATTOAHE1
155/4
PA 12667
ZIMflN
(3)
Magistrates 581
years, were held by a single man or possibly by a father and son.1 It is interesting
to note certain associations which repeat themselves. Thus the Sokrates of 156/5
served with Mikion and Eurykleides and the Sokrates of 154/8 with the same
Eurykleides. Sokrates of 162/1 was third magistrate under Theophrastos and Sotas
and the same Theophrastos was almost certainly co-magistrate with Mikion in
169/8 B.C.
ZflZANAPOZ
(2)
ETTirENH - ZflZANAPOZ
158/7
PA 18160
ZfiZIBIOZ
(3)
AXAIOZ - HAI
160/59
PA 18184
znzirE
(8)
TIMAPXOY - NIKArO
166/5
PA 18199
ZflZIKPATHZ
(2)
141/0
PA 18245

ZQZIKP
(8)
HPAKAEIAHZ-EYKAHZ
187/6
PA 18246
ZflZIKPA
(8)
AHMEAZ-EPMOKAHZ
125/4
PA 18247
ZOZTPA
(3)
KOINTOZ-KAEAZ
122/1
zoztpatoz
(8)
CDANOKAHI - ATTOAAflNIOZ
148/2
PA 18388
IfiTAAHI
(1)
ZQTAAHZ - 0EMIZTOKAHZ
112/1
PA 18876
IflTAI
(2)
9E00PA - ZffTAZ
162/1
PA 18382
ZftTAZ
(8)
GEOAOTOZ - KAEO<DANHZ
188/7
PA 13383
IiOA
(8)
MENEA - EnifENO
167/6
In all probability the Sophanes son of Dionysios of Themakos who was a donor in
188/2 (see under EZTIAIOZ).
TEIZ
(8)
IKEZIOZ-AZKAHFTIAAHZ
582
For the monogram see pp. 44 and 52. Whether or not the interpretation is correct, the
magistracies of 189/8 and 185/4 were certainly held by the same man.
OAINNOS (8) AOPOAIII - AlOrE 152/1
The name is otherwise unknown from Attic records.
OAAAI (8) 0EOOPA - IfiTAZ 162/1
rOANlA (2) X-M or OANI 194/8
LOANIA (1,2) M -1*1 and 1*1 - M 184/8 PA 14021
Phanias and Moschos of Kydathenaion, the annual magistrates of 184/3, are
brothers (see page 54 for the monograms and discussion). It is highly probable
that the same Phanias served the mint ten years earlier.
rOANOKAE (8) TIMAPXOY - NIKAI"0 166/5 PA 14043
LcDANOKAE (3) TTOAYXAPM - NIKOr 165/4
This is another instance of a magistracy running over from the last month of one
year to the first month of the next. The rarity of the name makes it certain that
only one man is involved.
PA 14046
PA 14061
OANOKAHZ
(1)
OANOKAHZ - AnOAAQNIOX
143/2
OANOKPI
(8)
EYPYKAEI - AP1APA
154/3

OEIAI
(3)
KAPAIX - EPTOKAE
153/2
01
(3)
ahmhtpios - ArAeinnoi
131/0
<t>IAAN
(3)
HPA - APIITOO
168/7
OIAHM
(3)
9E00PA - ZGTAS
162/1
OIAI
(3)
APOTTOI - MNAXAfO
128/7
In view of the closeness of the two issues this magistrate and the 01 of 131/0 may
well be the same man.
OIAINOZ (3) OANOKAHI - ATTOAAQNIOI 143/2 PA 14309
The third magistrate immediately preceding Philinos in 143/2 is Hieron. It seems
very likely that the men are members of a Paiania family in which the two names
occur (see under IEPJ2N).
OIAIQ (8) AlOrE-TTOZEl 161/0
OIAOAO (8) TTOAYXAPM - NIKOr 165/4
The name is otherwise represented in Attic records only by the Philodoxos of a
stone of Roman date (JG II2 8808).
0IA09 (8) MENEA - EnirENO 167/6
rOiAoeEOZ (8) oanokahi- AnoAAnNioi 143/2
LOIAO0 (3) EYBOYAIAHZ - ArAGOKAH 142/1
Philotheos of mu in 143/2 and Philoth of alpha in 142/1 are surely the same man.
It seems to me probable that he and Stratios, another mint magistrate of 143/2,
belong to a Lamptrai family in which the two names occur (see under ZTPATIOZ).
Magistrates
583
<t>IAOKPA
(3)
AYIAN - TAAYKOZ
159/8
PA 14581
r<t>IAOKPATHZ
(1)
OIAOKPATHZ - HPflAHZ
98/7
PA 14583
UDIAOKPATHI
(1)
CDIAOKPATHI - KAAAKK2N
92/1
PA 14583
OIAOE
(8)
AOPOA1ZI - AlOrE
152/1
(DIAOnO
(8)
MHTPOAfiPOZ - AHMOZ0EN
147/6
OlAfl
(8)
168/7
OlAft

HPA - APIZTOO
(8)
0EMIZTO - GEOnOMnOZ
149/8
OIAQN
(2)
APIZTIflN - QIAflN
129/8
PA 14812
OlAflNI
(8)
eEMIZTO-GEOnOMnOI
149/8
PA 14886
On the coinage of 149/8 the third magistrate (D1AQNI is
succeeded by OlAfl. The
difference in abbreviations suggests a distinction between Philonides and Philon.
<t>IAflTAAH
(8)
KOINTOZ - KAEAZ
122/1
Possibly the Pythaist from Phyle - Philotades II of Sundwall's stemma (p. 38)
or conceivably his uncle. Sundwall associates Aristaichmos of 151/0 and Philotades
as grandfather and grandson (see under APIZTAI).
XAI (?)
(1)
*-<DANI
194/8
XAI
(8)
KAPAIX - EPrOKAE
153/2
XAIP
(8)
AQZI0EOZ - XAPIAZ
182/1
XAPEIZIOZ
(8)
ATlEAAIKflN - ropriAz
121/0
54
XAPMI (8) AflPOGE-AIOO 164/3 PA 15509
It seems very probably that this magistrate is the father of the Dorotheos son of
Charmides (PA 4595) who was victor in a contest for boys in the Theseia of 161/0.
The first magistrate of 164/3 is Dorotheos and the combination of the two names
suggests a family connection (see under AftPOQE).
XAPMIA (3) HPAKAEIAHZ - EYKAH2 137/6 PA 15509
XPYI (8) IKEZIOZ-AZKAHTTIAAHZ 185/4
Numerous and diverse theories have been advanced regarding the men
whose names appear on the New Style coinage of Athens. The annual magis-
trates, those whose names are found in first and second place on all dies of a
year's emission, have been identified as ex-archons, fiscal officers corresponding
to the Roman Triumviri Monetales, generals, treasurers of the military funds.
Traditionally the rotation of the third magistrates has been associated with the
month dates on the coins as indication of a connection with the prytanies.
These theories are summarized by Sundwall who published at the beginning
of the present century the first comprehensive study of the Athenian mint
magistrates. In two articles in the Finska Vetenskaps-Societetens Forhand-
lingar1 he correlated in tabular format the data provided by Beule, Svoronos,
the Berlin Cabinet and other sources with respect to the names and months on
the silver of the New Style. Testing existing hypotheses against his compilation
of numismatic evidence and finding most of them untenable, he came to the
conclusion that the annual magistracies involved an epimeleia of a liturgical
nature, at least in the second century. As Sundwall pointed out, the possibility
of such a liturgy, performed by one or both annual magistrates, had already
been suggested by Beule, Kohler and Hill; Kirchner's subsequent discovery

that the first and second magistrates were often related greatly strengthened
the case for a liturgical epimeleia.
As for the third magistrates, Sundwall, like others, found the irregularity
of their respective terms of office irreconcilable with any orderly system of
rotation such as would be implicit in an appointment from the prytanizing
tribes. Moreover, he discovered what seemed to be instances of men from the
same phyle serving in the course of a single year, which, if true, would definitely
rule out any connection with the prytanies. Again Sundwall concluded that an
epimeleia was the only reasonable answer, that the third magistrates were
drawn from a control commission set up by the Areopagus and charged with
direct fiscal responsibility. The norm would have been a college of twelve, each
member subject to call for a month's service. Fluctuation in the amount of
1 XLIX, 1906-1907, No. 9; L, 1907-1908, No. 1. References to earlier publications on the
magistrates are given there and will not be repeated.
Magistrates
585
coinage issued would explain the variation from year to year in the number of
third magistrates and also to some extent the irregularities of their tenure
although it seemed possible to Sundwall, as it had earlier to Macdonald, that
the latter were chiefly due to a double dating system: the months on the am-
phorae being lunar while the magistrates operated on a solar calendar.
Since Sundwall's publication there has been little added to the discussion
of the magistrates. Kambanis1 considered the third magistrate to be the
official who supervised the workshops and was directly responsible for the
weight and good alloy of the coinage. His term was normally a month but there
were times when the mandate was extended for administrative reasons beyond
the month for which he had originally been appointed. One magistrate may
have been unable to finish out his term and his successor was then in office for
more than a month to compensate or alternatively there may have been so
much coinage in a particular month that two third magistrates were needed.
It was Kambanis' opinion that the third magistrate existed from the beginning
of the series but that his name only appeared on the silver when the correlation
between months and terms of office became so irregular that the date alone
was no longer sufficient to fix the responsibility.
More recently Pink, citing parallel features of the New Style money and
the denarius coinage, has argued for a direct connection between the Athenian
and Roman systems of fiscal control.2 His commentary on the appointment
of the mint officials at Athens is merely a summary of Sundwall's thesis, but
his theory that the Athenian monetary formula served as the model for the
Roman requires careful examination since it implies a basic similarity between
the Athenian magistrates and the Triumviri Monetales. According to Pink, a

trifold parallelism links the two coinages:
1) Administration is vested in three annual moneyers who change yearly,
one being the leading moneyer.
2) Signatures of the moneyers appear first in monogram, later in abbre-
viation, and finally in full.
8) Coins are not issued every year.
The argument for Athenian influence rests, of course, on the assumption
that the New Style currency antedated the denarius, and this is by no means
certain.3 For our purposes, however, the essential problem is not relative
1 Arethuse, 1928, pp. 123-127; BCH, 1938, pp. 68-70.
* The Triumviri Monetales and the Structure of the Coinage of the Roman Republic, pp. 51 f.
* Pink uses the traditional date of 229 B.C. for the former and 210 B.C. as a terminus a quo
for the latter. With a beginning date of 196/5 B.C. for the New Style silver, the proposition that
Athens influenced Rome can be maintained only on the premise that the denarius was introduced
586
chronology but whether the two coinages are indeed so analogous as to imply
similar or identical patterns of monetary administration. I cannot agree with
Pink that the correspondence is close. With respect to his third parallel, there
is no evidence for a break in the sequence of strikings at Athens; even if this
were the case it would scarcely provide a strong parallel since irregularity of
emission was characteristic of many Greek coinages. Nor can it be said that
the New Style issues resemble the denarius strikings in being controlled by
three annual moneyers. Athens consistently employs two annual magistrates.
Although a third name appears on the coins at certain periods, the tenure of
this official is less than a full year, often only a matter of weeks or a month.
The number of men associated with a single year's coinage ranges widely from
two to eighteen but no emission has more than two annual moneyers. Finally
in the matter of signatures, it is true that the general progression at both
mints is from monograms to abbreviated names to names in full, but this is
after all a perfectly natural and logical evolutionary process which need not
imply direct copying. Other Greek coinages of roughly contemporary date
such as those of Ambracia, the Epirote Republic, Sicyon and the Thessalian
Leagueshow the same admixture of signature forms. When the issues in
question are ultimately arranged in chronological sequence, it is more than
likely that some at least will reveal the same pattern of development that we
find at Athens and at Rome.
Of Pink's three parallels, then, only the second has even a surface validity.
If Rome borrowed from Athens or Athens from Rome, there is little in the
coinage itself to indicate copying and nothing to suggest that the systems of
fiscal control which produced the two currencies were in any way similar. The

administration at Rome during the New Style period, is in the hands of three
men whose terms of service are of equal length and who rarely if ever hold
office twice. Each magistrate puts out his own distinctive coinage marked with
his name alone; only occasionally are the signatures of two or three moneyers
found together on the same coin. The Triumviri Monetales not only stamp their
names and symbols on the denarii but often select the types as well, with
reference to family achievements. At Athens the number of moneyers and their
terms of office vary, and recurrent service is commonplace. A single issue is
spread over the year, each unit dated by the month of emission and each
carrying the names of all magistrates functioning at that particular time. The
at a later period. Into this controversial question the writer has no intention of entering, but
Rudi Thomsen's admirable summary of scholarly research over the past 160 years (Early Roman
Coinage, I, pp. 210-248) makes it abundantly clear that no unanimity of opinion has as yet been
achieved.
Magistrates
587
magistrates place their names on the coinage and choose the symbols but they
have no control over the types which are uniform and civic in character. These
fundamental differences surely point to totally disparate concepts of the
minting office, its organization and its administration.
Before any attempt is made to interpret the Athenian magistrates in the
light of the more extensive numismatic material now available, it will be well
to recapitulate the data which the coinage provides. In what follows reference
will be made to the Statistical Survey of the distribution of coinage throughout
the issues of the three-magistrate period (pp. 658-708) and of the year by year
record of surviving specimens and dies (pp. 650-654) as well as to the prosopo-
graphical information presented above. The existing numismatic material is
clearly incomplete but one may, I believe, safely assume that it represents in
relative terms a comparatively accurate reflection of the original output of the
Athenian mint. There is, however, inherent in both numismatic and prosopo-
graphical data the possibility of factual and interpretative error which should
be borne in mind. Without further preamble, let us turn to the coinage itself.
The mint magistrates were members of the prominent, influential and
wealthy families of Athens. Of this there can be little doubt; the number of
men from well-known families who served in the minting office provides ir-
refutable testimony. There is nothing surprising about this. It would indeed be
strange if it were otherwise since the mint magistracies must surely have been
comparable with other posts of civic service whose holders were drawn from
the upper ranks of the Athenian community. Furthermore, it is interesting to
note that age seems to have been of no importance with respect to this office.
Twenty-seven years separate the two terms of Apellikon of Teos. If Kambanis'

date for his birth, 142 B.C., is correct, he would have been only twenty-one
when he held the office of first magistrate in 121/0, forty-eight when he served
for a second time. If the Aristion of the coinage is the dictator of 88/7, he must
have been a very young man when he acted as first magistrate in 129/8. On
the other hand Nikogenes III of Philaidai would seem to have been in his
forties as third magistrate in 128/7 and Polykles and Timarchides of 181/0
would have been even older if Kirchner's date for their floruit is accurate.
Seemingly the difference in the three categories of magistrates was in no
way related to civic status or maturity of years. In 184/8 the two monograms
of the coinage are interchanged during the course of the year. In 120/19 Mnaseas
and Nestor serve as first and second magistrates; seven years later the annual
officials are Nestor and Mnaseas in that order. These instances imply an
equality of first and second magistrates. Even more significant is the situation
as regards the third magistrates. Frequently a man moved from the third post
to the second and finally to the first, suggesting that the third magistracy went
588
to younger and inexperienced men while the greater dignity of the second or
first magistracy was reserved for older men of civic prominence. This logical
progression, however, is by no means the rule. Take, for example, NIK (3) of
132/1, N1KHTHZ (1) of 130/29 and NIKHTHZ (3) of 126/5; AQP06 (3) of 166/5
and 165/4, AflPOGE (1) of 164/3 and AfiP09E (3) of 161/0; EXE (2) of 170/69 and
EXE (3) of 168/7; XAPINAYTHI (3) of 146/5, XAPINAYTH2 (1) of 144/3 and
XAPINAYTHZ (2) of 136/5. It is stretching coincidence too far to assume that
in all instances these are different men of the same name. One must, I believe,
conclude that holding a third magistracy did not imply any inferiority with
respect to age, status or experience. It was not invariably a preliminary to
service in the second or first post but was at times held after annual service
had been rendered. This would seem to invalidate Kambanis' hypothesis of a
distinction between the annual magistrates whose position was honorary and
the monthly magistrates who performed regular duties in the workshops of the
mint. There is no evidence from the coinage to support any distinction in the
three categories of magistracies other than that of length of tenure.
There is no demonstrable relationship between any Athenian civic office and
the mint magistracy. The names on the coinage can be associated with men
who served as archon but this is true in comparatively few instances. Meritt's
listing of archons between 210/09 and 87/6 (The Athenian Year, pp. 235-238)
gives the names of 108 men. A connection between archon and mint magistrate
might be postulated in thirty cases but this would be an absolute maximum
arrived at by including such common names as Demetrios and Dionysios, by
considering very short and ambiguous abbreviations on the coinage (such as
APII and MHT) as identical with names like Aristophantos and Metrophanes in

the inscriptions and by allowing up to thirty years as an interval between
archonship and mint magistracy. There are not more than seven cases at most
of mint magistrates who can surely or with high degree of probability be iden-
tified as ex-archons. Of these, as many served in the third post on the coinage
as in first or second office. Certainly the available evidence does not warrant the
assumption that there was a fixed relationship between archonship and mint
magistracy. For other civic offices our records are extremely fragmentary.
Sundwall, in testing the strategos theory of Reinach, found no significant
degree of correspondence between the names of mint magistrates and those of
known generals but it is true that his tabulation is largely restricted to the
twenty years preceding Sulla's capture of Athens. The compilation of the
present publication shows clearly that the mint magistrates who can be iden-
tified with reasonable certainty prove to be known for a variety of other civic
undertakings. They are the men who served the state and the gods as archon,
strategos, epimeletes, agonothetes, envoy or priest, often in several capacities.
Magistrates
589
They are poets, sculptors, orators, victors in the festival contests, donors to
public projects. In short they are typical public-spirited Athenians. Their
service as mint magistrates may be regarded not as a corollary of any other
official post, past or present, but rather as an independent manifestation of
their commitment to civic service.
The one common denominator which does with a surprisingly high degree
of frequency emerge from a study of the mint magistrates is that of consan-
guinity. For the 110 issues of coinage there are twenty-one practically certain
and three possible instances of family relationship between first and second
magistrates. Since our record of family ties is certainly incomplete, this means
that at a minimum roughly one in five of the annual magistracies was a family
affair. The usual connection is that of two blood brothers but there are cases
of fathers and sons, of cousins, and of brothers by marriage or adoption. Nor
does family relationship stop with the first and second magistrates. There are
examples of two brothers serving as third magistrates during the same year
and also of one brother in a third magistracy and another in the first or second
post, again for a single issue of coinage. A record of mint service often runs
through two generations. In at least two instances, the Adeimantos-Mnasa-
goras-Dionysios family of Ikaria and the Nikon-Nikogenes family of Philaidai,
we find three generations represented.1
Normally the first and second magistrates served for a single calendar year.
There are, however, exceptions to this general rule. During 184/8, as has been
pointed out, the monograms on the coinage are transposed so that the name
of each magistrate is given first place on roughly half of the known reverse dies
of that year. There is a replacement of the first magistrate in 195/4 and a re-

placement of the second magistrate in 190/89, 163/2, 147/6 and again in 145/4.
In 142/1 a complete shift occurs, both first and second magistrates are replaced:
Euboulides and Agathokles by Zoilos and Euandros. For the two monogram
issues which precede the addition of month dates to the coinage, we have no
way of telling when the transfer took place. In all other cases, including that
of Euboulides-Agathokles and Zoilos-Euandros, the substitution was made
at or very close to the beginning of the third month of the year. If this is sheer
coincidence, it is certainly an extraordinary instance of it. Finally, there is clear
evidence that the annual mint magistracy, unlike the archonship, was not
limited to a single term. Although in point of fact the majority of first and
second officials did serve only once, instances of the same man holding either
the first or second post twice or first one and then the other post are common.
1 It is interesting to note that these families are related by marriage. Apollonia, daughter
of the Nikogenes who was a mint magistrate in 167/6, 165/4 an<i J^3l2> was trie wife of Adei-
mantos, son of the Adeimantos who served as mint magistrate in 179/8 B.C. (IG II* 7646).
59
On three occasions the same pair of officials served twice: Ammo-Dio in 182/1
and 180/79, Herakleides - Eukles in 139/8 and 137/6 and Mnaseas - Nestor
in 120/19 and 113/2. Three men served three times: Diokles of Kephisia as first
magistrate in 99/8, 95/4 and 90/89 and Xenokles-Harmoxenos together in
127/6, 124/3 and 123/2. The second and third terms of Xenokles-Harmoxenos
and the two terms of Oinophilos, second magistrate in 116/5 and 115/4 are
contiguous;1 otherwise there is always an interval of at least a year between
a man's terms in office. On the whole it seems likely that the annual magistracy
was regarded as at most a two-term post and that service was not requested in
consecutive years. Only very exceptionally in 123/2, 115/4 and 90/89 was there
deviation from the normal practice and it is noteworthy that these deviations
are limited to the late years of the coinage.
As for the third magistrates, there is no apparent norm with respect to the
number of men per year, their length of tenure or the frequency with which
they held office. The summary on pages 650-654 gives the number of third magis-
trates known for each issue of coinage and also what evidence we have, in the
form of surviving coins and recorded dies, for the size of the individual strikings.
The only pattern which emerges is a tendency toward curtailment of the
number of magistrates. Between 168/7 and 142/1 ten to fourteen men normally
function as third officials; between 141/0 and 121/0 there are three to nine each
year. Contrary to general belief, no correlation exists between the number of
third magistrates and the abundance or paucity of coinage. The issues of 142/1
and 140/39, for example, are highly comparable in surviving coins and in known
obverse and reverse dies. The first issue had fourteen third magistrates, the
second three. Again on the evidence of dies, the coinage of Demetrios-Aga-

thippos in 131/0 was the heaviest single emission of the New Style series and
it was put out with the help of three third magistrates while nine years later
the coinage of Kointos-Kleas, one of the smallest issues on record, required
four third magistrates. Under Euboulides-Agathokles and Zoilos-Euandros
there are fourteen third magistrates; under Antiochos-Nikog and Karaichos,
Theophra-Sotas and Phanokles-Apollonios there are thirteen. These are the
highest numbers recorded and it may be significant that in two instances the
large number of third magistrates coincides with a replacement of one or both
annual officials during the course of the year.
The tenure of the individual magistrates follows a similarly erratic pattern.
Of the forty-five issues with three magistrates there are exactly nine which
present a "normal" relationship of magistrates and months, each third magis-
trate serving for a single calendar month. These "normal" years are scattered
1 If the first officials of 174/3 and 173/2 are the same Demetrios, this would represent an-
other instance of contiguous terms on the part of an annual magistrate.
Magistrates
59i
throughout the coinage. They do not represent a standard established with the
first three-magistrate issue in 168/7 and abandoned nine years later. Neither
do they coincide with years of abundant or scant coinage. The listing below
makes these two points quite clear:
1G6/5
TIMAPXOY-NIKArO
66 coins
9 obv. dies (tetr.)
42 rev.
159/8
AYIAN - TAAYKOZ
91
11
65
158/7
ETTirENH-IflZANAPOI
244
18
112
157/6
nOAEMQN - AAKETHI
182
12
78
156/5
196
16
86
155/4

MIKIflN - EYPYKAEI
AOPOAIII - AfTOAHEl
44
11
84
151/0
AIONYII - AIONYII
175
25
104
148/7
IfiKPATHZ - AIONYIOAQ
121
15
62
122/1
KOINTOI-KAEAZ
28
16
. dies (tetr.)
For the remaining issues, the pattern ranges from minor irregularities, such
as the division of a month between two magistrates or the continuation of a
single magistrate's tenure over two or three months, to what seems complete
chaos. In 140/39 one finds three third magistrates serving as follows:
AAEE: A, B, T
AIOK: A, E
HPA: E, Z, H, 9, I, K, A, M
By 132/1 it is far worse:
AION: A, B, A, E, Z
NIK: B, T
IOA: H, 9, A, M
TA: I
XAIP: K, A, M
The broken tenures of AION and IOA and the concurrent service of IOA and
XAIP at the end of the year are alike inexplicable in terms of a normal rotation
of magistrates.
For the next issue, that of Demetrios and Agathippos, we have one third
magistrate in office throughout the year and two others associated with him
592
These three issues of great irregularity come well within, not at the end, of the
three-magistrate period; the striking of Demetrios-Agathippos is a very heavy
one but the emissions of 140/39 and 132/1 are no more extensive than others
which present a far more orderly pattern of rotating magistrates.
It is difficult to draw any firm conclusions as to the number of times a
third magistracy was held by the same man for when a name recurs after a
lapse of some years one cannot feel certain in many cases that it is the same
man. There seems, however, to have been no restriction on the repetition of
third magistracies and we may have, in Herakleides and Sokrates, instances of
officials serving as many as four and five terms. Service in consecutive years
was apparently a fairly common practice, which in itself is not particularly
noteworthy. What is remarkable is the fact that on occasion the term of service
ran continuously from the end of one year into the beginning of the next. This
happens in 166/5-165/4 with OANOKAE, in 164/3-163/2 with ANTIAOX, in
163/2-162/1 with HrHMS, in 143/2-142/1 with OIAO0EOZ, in 142/1-141/0 with
KP1TON and possibly in 139/8-138/7 if AHM0I6 and AHMOI are the same man.
With the exception of the coinage of 164/3-163/2 all the issues are die-joined
so that there can be no doubt as to their contiguity. In the case of OANOKAE
the carry-over into the second year is limited to a drachm die of alpha and in
the case of ANTIAOX, HrHMft and OIAO0EOI to a few tetradrachm dies of alpha
but KPITflN's coinage continues through alpha, beta and gamma and AHMOI'
through alpha and beta. A coincidence of names or a diecutter's error might
serve to explain one or two examples of apparent carry-over but not five or six.
Of all the irregularities connected with the tenure of the third magistrates this
continuous service from one year into the next is perhaps the strangest.

The coinage as a whole falls into three general categories with respect to
magistrates: from 196/5 through 169/8 there are two annual magistrates, from
168/7 through 121/0 two annual magistrates and a varying number of third
magistrates, from 120/19 through 87/6 again two annual magistrates. These
divisions are not rigid. Two early issues1 carry the monograms of third magis-
trates, or so it seems, on a limited number of reverse dies. During the three-
magistrate period there are times when no name of a third official is inscribed
on the coinage. This occurs in 164/3 for a few dies at the beginning of the year
and for one die of Dionysi - Dionysi (151/0). In 131/0 under Demetrios and
Agathippos, as the tabulation above shows, there are six months for which
dies with and without a third magistrate's name are known. Reverses into
gamma of the coinage of Nikogenes and Kallimachos in 126/5 have no third
name while the dies of the remainder of the year are carefully inscribed, often
with the names in full. Moreover, there are three issues falling within the three-
1 Those of 195/4 and 178/7 B.C.
Magistrates
593
magistrate period which carry on all reverses only the names of the two annual
officials and it is of interest that all three were put out by the same pair of
magistrates: Xenokles and Harmoxenos in 127/6, 124/3 and 128/2. A degree of
correlation exists between the size of the coinage at different periods and the
presence of two names or three on the reverse dies. The late issues with two
names are very small for the most part, often only token strikings, and it would
seem evident that two officials sufficed for their production. However, it is
equally clear that this explanation does not hold good for all two-magistrate
issues. Many of the early emissions are also relatively small but those of 188/7,
175/4, 174/8, 171/0 and 170/69 are heavy issues, as large or larger than some
of the three-magistrate strikings. The first and third issues of Xenokles-Har-
moxenos are not unduly heavy but their second emission is one of the most
extensive of the entire coinage.
From the data provided by the coinage one thing at least seems entirely
certain and that is that there was no systematic procedure involved in the
selection and rotation of the mint magistrates. The lack of significant corre-
spondence between the names of the minting officials and the holders of other
civic posts and the recurrent instances of consanguinity among the mint magis-
trates make it impossible to suppose that they were regularly appointed from
any specific body of Athenian citizens whether the membership of the Areo-
pagus, the priesthoods or the military. Again the family connections and the
frequent instances of repeated service over a short period of time cast grave
doubt upon an interpretation of the annual magistrates as members of a duly
constituted fiscal college in the sense of the Roman Triumviri Monetales or of
Sundwall's control commission of the Areopagus. As for the third magistrates,

the association of brothers in a single year and the instances of service con-
tinuing from one year to the next rule out any connection with the prytanizing
tribes, while the notable variation in number of terms and length of tenure is
hardly reconcilable with any orderly system of appointment from the ranks of
a fiscal commission established by the state.
It remains then to consider the suggestion, advanced tentatively by Beul6,
Kohler, Hill and Sundwall, that the annual mint magistracies involved a liturgy
in some form or other. This seems to me the only explanation which in every
respect provides an answer to the anomalous pattern of the coinage. I should,
however, go further than any of my predecessors and postulate a group liturgy
embracing all three categories of magistrates.
Any definition of the operation of such a monetary liturgy, of which no
historical or epigraphical record exists, is of necessity highly hypothetical.
From the coinage one gets the impression that it would have been a very
flexible arrangement and at the same time one calculated with precision in
3S
terms of service rendered and recognition received. Clearly it could not have
covered all expenses of the coinage, such a burden would have been beyond the
capacity of any individual or small group. Like other liturgies of which we have
record, it must have entailed defraying only a proportion of the costs.1 Pos-
sibly certain expenses, such as the cutting of dies, the labor of the mint work-
men, the smelting and refining of the ore were a charge against the liturgy;
possibly, and this seems to me more likely, the holders of the liturgy were
expected to provide a specified amount of money toward the over-all expenses
of the minting operation, a contribution which may have been fixed or which
may have varied from year to year in relation to the amount of coinage
scheduled.
The active role of the state may well have been limited to selecting a man
willing to undertake the responsibility for the liturgy of a given year. His
primary task would have been that of raising the requisite funds and in this
he would have had freedom to associate with himself in the liturgical service
as many or as few men as necessary.2 Let us suppose that during the middle
years of the coinage an annual liturgy cost one talent or 1500 tetradrachms.
The first magistrate, presumably the man tapped by the state and responsible
for raising the money, would surely be expected to contribute the largest
single sum, perhaps 500 tetradrachms. A lesser amount, 400 tetradrachms,
might be the share of the second magistrate, leaving 600 tetradrachms to be
made up by a group of third magistrates whose number would depend upon
how much each was willing to provide toward the required total. In return for
their gifts the men associated in the liturgy would receive the honor of having
their names inscribed on the coinage, the amount of recognition in each case
being in direct proportion to the amount of money given. All dies of the year

would carry the names of the two substantial donors, in first or second place,
while each contributor of a lesser sum would be entitled to his name in third
place on a certain number of coins. A man giving fifty tetradrachms, for ex-
ample, might be credited with twenty bars of bullion to be stamped with dies
1 As the trierarchyj involved the equipping and managing of a ship but not providing the
ship itself. The ordinary and extraordinary liturgies at Athens with citation of ancient sources
are fully discussed in Boeckh, The Public Economy of Athens, and in Gilbert, The Constitutional
Antiquities of Sparta and Athens.
2 At an earlier date a liturgy could be shared. After the Sicilian War it was decreed that
two men could perform the choregia together (Boeckh, op. cit., II, p. 205 with reference to Schol
Aristoph. Ran. 406). A syntrierarchy was fairly common practice if enough wealthy men could
not be found to bear it singly and with the establishment of the symmories a number of members,
often five or six, combined for the equipping of a ship. Those not rich enough for the complete
trierarchy had to help others in performing the liturgy in proportion to each individual's wealth
(Boeckh, pp. 328-345; Gilbert, op. cit., pp. 373f.).
Magistrates
595
bearing his name; a man giving one hundred tetradrachms would be entitled
to twice as much.
It remains to see how a liturgy along these lines works out in terms of the
coinage and how successfully it explains the anomalies we have noted. During
the Early Period the monograms or names of only the two annual magistrates
appear on the coins and it would seem that in the beginning either the cost of
the liturgy was less or the state was fortunate in finding men willing and able
to contribute generously in this public service. Perhaps the novelty of the
liturgy, which rewarded its holders with the unusual and signal honor of com-
memoration on the coinage, had something to do with it. In two instances,
however, the brief appearance of the third monogram would indicate recogni-
tion of a supplementary contribution and it may be significant that in one case
this coincides with a replacement of the first magistrate inasmuch as such re-
placements are probably to be explained on economic grounds (see below).
Another irregularity of the early coinage, the shift in position of the monograms
on the issue of 184/3, suggests that the annual magistrates had contributed
equal sums toward the liturgy and were, therefore, entitled to first place on an
equal number of tetradrachms. Finally it seems likely that the elaboration of
monograms and the gradual replacement of monograms by abbreviated names
are evidence of a growing desire or demand on the part of the donors for more
precise and unequivocal recognition of their services.
In 168/7 a far more elaborate system of magistrates is introduced. The
names of three to fourteen third magistrates are added to the dies of each issue
and their terms of office are highly irregular. This change, it should be em-
phasized, does not coincide with an increase in coinage. The trophy striking of

early date (188/7) employs more obverse dies than any of the first ten issues
of the three-magistrate period while the emissions of 171/0 and 170/69 use two
to three times as many as the issues of the same early three-magistrate group.
Either the burden of the annual liturgy was proving too onerous for two men
and it was becoming increasingly difficult to find prospects or the state, real-
izing a good thing when it saw one, decided to raise the cost of the annual
service with the understanding that additional men could be brought into the
liturgy and their names, too, would be given a place on the coinage. During the
Early Period the first magistrate had at times, and probably more often than
our present information indicates, associated a brother with himself in the
annual office. In the three-magistrate period family magistracies become in-
creasingly common. One finds fathers and sons, brothers or cousins serving
together in first and second posts, brothers holding third offices in the same
year, sometimes a brother in the first or second magistracy and another brother
in the third. Apparently the man primarily responsible for the liturgy turned
first, as would be natural, to his own kin and then to friends and acquaintances1
for help in raising the necessary funds.
The number of times that a man served in the mint office would depend on
his willingness to make repeated contributions, the post in which he served
would depend on the amount he was willing or able to give. Thus we have
magistrates appearing only once and others returning again and again to the
minting posts. It is to be noted that prior to 123/2 there is no evidence for a
man serving in either the first or second magistracy more than twice and no
certain evidence for his holding those annual posts in contiguous years. In 123/2
and twice thereafter we have exceptional instances of men serving annually for
a third time and serving in consecutive years. These deviations from general
practice were probably due to a shortage of candidates for during this same
period the number of annual magistrates serving two terms is higher than at
any other time.
The theory of a group of men expending varying sums of money in the per-
formance of a common liturgy would explain all irregularities in third magis-
tracies for the middle years of the coinage. If we try to imagine the system in
its ideal form, the man responsible for the liturgy would have first secured a
colleague to serve with him throughout the year. He would then presumably
have obtained from the treasury officials information on how much bullion
was earmarked for the year's coinage and possibly the period of time over which
it was to be issued. Normally this would have been twelve or thirteen months
but there are years in which coining seems to have started late or ended early
and it may be that the state at times deliberately scheduled production for less
than a full year. Clearly from the point of view of minting operations, particu-
larly the cutting of dies, it was desirable to have the output evenly distributed

with a single third magistrate associated with a single month during which a
fixed number of tetradrachms would be stamped from dies bearing his name.
If the first magistrate could get twelve or thirteen men, depending on the
nature of the year, to contribute equal sums of money and if all went smoothly
at the mint, the result would be an absolute correlation of months and magis-
trates' names. This ideal was apparently achieved nine times in the course of
the forty-five years of the three-magistrate series. Difficulties in maintaining
an even schedule of production and the impossibility of always eliciting equal
1 This is, of course, something which is difficult to establish but note EYMA and EYMAPEI
in the two years for which Aphrodisios was first magistrate, AIONY20 and AlONYZOr as well
as AlOK and AIOK during both terms of Herakleides and Eukles, ZflKPA and IftKPATHX under
Mikion-Euryklei and Euryklei-Ariara. Almost certainly the same Sokrates was third magis-
trate a few years earlier under Theophra- Sotas, the former associated with Mikion in the magis-
tracy of 169/8.
Magistrates
597
gifts from the group of third magistrates would account for the erratic pattern
of the remaining issues. Let us suppose that one man's donation entitled him
to his name on the tetradrachms from twenty bars of bullion. Under normal
conditions these would all have been struck during epsilon but unforeseen delays
developed and a few bars had to be carried over into zeta. Another man,
contributing the worth of sixty bars, was entitled to his name on an equivalent
number of tetradrachms regardless of how many months it took for their
production. On five and possibly six occasions the amount of bullion to the
credit of the last third magistrate was not fully used by the end of the year and
it was necessary to continue stamping his name on coins of the next year until
the worth of his contribution was expended. On other occasions it proved im-
possible to secure from the third magistrates their full share of the levy, hence
silver appeared without any third name.
The abnormalities connected with the first and second magistracies are also
explicable in terms of a liturgy. During the 109 years of the New Style series
seven men holding first or second office are replaced before the end of the year,
two of them simultaneously in 142/1 B.C. Concerning the first two cases which
involve monogram issues of early date we can say little since we have no way of
knowing when the substitutions occurred. The names of the five others con-
sistently disappear from the coinage at the end of the second or early in the
third month of the year. Now it is manifestly absurd to suppose that five men,
including both annual officials of one issue, chose exactly the same time of year
to die or commit some disgraceful action which would disqualify them from
holding public office. Most if not all of these replacements must simply mean
that the magistrate in question originally undertook less than a full year's

service. It is noteworthy that the brief appearance of a third monogram on
one of the early issues coincides with the replacement of an annual official and
that three of the later changes take place in years for which an unusually large
number of third magistrates is known. Surely all of this reflects a difficulty in
finding men to perform the liturgies of those years. By way of contrast we have
a pair of magistrates not only willing to undertake the liturgy three times but
wealthy enough to defray its full cost on each occasion. The three sizable issues
of Xenokles and Harmoxenos within the three-magistrate period carry no
third names and this would seem to indicate that the annual magistrates were
bearing the entire expense. Against this background, their service for a third
time and in contiguous years is understandable if one supposes that the state,
unable to fill the liturgy of 123/2, had no choice but to appeal again to men
obviously able to bear the burden of further service.
After 120 B.C. all issues have the names of only the two annual magistrates.
At this late period there is clearly a connection with the size of the coinage.
59
Less and less money was being put out. Since this would involve a consequent
reduction in the amount of recognition a man's service received, it seems likely
that the state was forced to reduce the cost of the liturgy to the point where two
men could underwrite it without difficulty.
Basically the problem of the mint magistrates is bound up with the inter-
pretation of their role in relationship to the coinage. The common belief, at
least with respect to the third officials, has been that they were held account-
able for the quality of the money, that their names on the dies served to fix the
responsibility for any fraudulent practices uncovered in connection with the
silver issued during their terms of office. Alfred Bellinger has gone into this
question at some length in a publication of the tetradrachms of Ilium1 and he
argues persuasively that this concept of the function of the magistrates is
faulty. Obviously there were ways in which the coinage could be falsified to the
profit of a dishonest individual or group of men: adulteration of the silver
during the various stages of the refining process, substitution of copper cores
for pure silver in the manufacture of flans, production of illegally light blanks
and diversion of silver in the form of bullion or coined money before delivery
was made to the treasury. No one of these methods, however, could have been
employed without grave risk of detection. The only one in which the mint
magistrate himself could have indulged with any hope of success would have
been the last, the misappropriation of bullion or coins; the other types of fraud
would have involved the connivance or cooperation of workmen and in conse-
quence almost certain discovery. But, as Bellinger points out, the moneyer's
name on the coinage could in no way protect the state against his stealing
bullion or coins or convict him of the theft once it had taken place. The obvious

safeguard against this form of fraud would have been a careful and periodic
balancing of the books to make sure that the tetradrachms received by the
treasury tallied with the amount of bullion issued for their production.
If on the other hand the responsibility of the mint magistrate is conceived
primarily as an accountability for the fraudulent practices of others, it follows
that his function was that of an inspector. To fulfil his duty he would have had
to supervise all stages of the minting operation from the refining of the ore to
the stamping of the silver. It is doubtful that this could have been done by a
single man or even by three if one supposes that the two annual magistrates
and their third colleague were similarly employed. Even if it were possible, can
one imagine the leading citizens of Athensmen like Mikion and Eurykleides,
Medeios of Piraeus and Diokles of Kephisiaperforming this kind of service?
If the names of the magistrates were not placed on the coinage as a control
measure, one must then assume that they were placed there as a form of rec-
1 "The First Civic Tetradrachms of Ilium," ANSMN VIII, 1958, pp. 15-18.
Magistrates
599
ognition. To merit this distinction a man must surely have made some outstand-
ing contribution and it is difficult to see what else this could have been except
a contribution toward the expenses of the coinage on which his name appeared.
Such a monetary liturgy would be in complete accord with what we know of
Athenian fiscal policy. From early times individuals had been expected to
undertake public service at their own expense and these ordinary and extra-
ordinary liturgies provided an important source of indirect revenue for the
treasury. A state which relied on private citizens for the equipping of its
triremes would certainly have found nothing strange in the idea of calling upon
individuals to underwrite in part the cost of its coinage.
In its essential character the monetary liturgy conforms to the general
practice of other liturgies for which we have literary and epigraphical evidence.
It involved contributing toward the expense of an important and necessary
civic program, it was performed by a group of prominent and wealthy citizens,
it was normally limited with respect to its annual holders to terms of service
in non-consecutive years, its rewards were honorary.1 The form which the
honor took in this instance may serve to explain the otherwise puzzling circum-
stance that ancient sources make no mention of a liturgy in relation to the
coinage. The service of a man who performed a trierarchy, for example, was
commemorated in an inscription set up in a public place so that his fellow-
citizens might know of his benefaction. The service of a man who performed
a monetary liturgy was commemorated at home and abroad on the coins them-
selves. There would have been no need of any further recognition.
Whether a monetary liturgy was peculiar to Athens or whether it was
common practice throughout the Greek world is not germane to the present

inquiry.2 One would expect so eminently practical and profitable a procedure
to have spread rapidly once its potentialities were appreciated, and the prev-
alence of magistrates' names on Hellenistic coinages may bear witness to its
popularity. If Athens did not originate the idea, she can at least be credited
with perfecting it, for no other coinage gives evidence of so elaborate a system
of monetary magistracies.
1 A basic difference between it and the liturgies of an earlier period would seem to have
consisted in the contributing of cash rather than service and the degree to which the contribution
was voluntary. In this respect the monetary liturgy suggests the voluntary gift in cash or kind
(rrriSoois) solicited by the state for special purposes. On occasion maximum and minimum
amounts to be accepted were specified (Gilbert, op. cit., pp. 363^).
1 The suggestion of a liturgy has been made in connection with certain issues of Kolophon,
Eretria and Ilium. Cf. J. G. Milne, Kolophon and Its Coinage: A Study (NNM 96, pp. 26-29) '
W. Wallace, "Some Eretrian Mint Magistrates" (The Phoenix, 1950, pp. 21-26); A. R. Bellinger,
"The First Civic Tetradrachms of Ilium" (ANSMN VIII, 1958, pp. 23L). See also T. Gerassimov
"Alexandrine Tetradrachms of Cabyle in Thrace," ANSCent., p. 276.
SYMBOLS
The symbols placed on the New
appear are as follows:1
Agon (128/7)
Anchor with star (166/5)
Aplustre (172/1)
Apollo (175/4, 148/7, 104/8)
Ares? (114/8)
Artemis (143/2, 142/1, 88/7)
Artemis and Demeter (111/0)
Asklepios (167/6, 99/8)
Athena (89/8)
Baitulos (119/8)
Bakchos (112/1)
Bakchos and kerchnos (195/4)
Bee (142/1)
Caduceus, winged (165/4, 101/0)
Cicada (185/4, 159/8, 100/99)
Club (191/0)
Club with lion's skin and bow (168/7)
Cock with palm (178/7)
Cornucopiae (198/2 in part, 180/79)
Cornucopiae with grain-ears (160/59)
Cornucopiae, double with fillet (152/1)
Style coins and the years in which they
Demeter (115/4, 108/2, 94/8)
Demeter and Artemis (111/0)

Demeter? (144/3)
Demeter? and Dionysos (136/5)
Dionysos (161/0,134/8,105/4, 98/7,90/89)
Dionysos and Demeter? (136/5)
Dioscuri (156/5)
Dioscuri, caps (186/5, 181/0)
Dolphin with trident (124/8)
Eagle (173/2, 158/7)
Eagle's head (98/2)
Elephant (163/2)
Elephant's head (163/2)
Fillet (109/8)
Fulmen, winged (162/1)
Gorgon's head (130/29)
Graces (154/3)
Grain-ear (s) (187/6,180-170, 166/5, 133/2)
Grapes (147/6)
Griffin (121/0)
Harmodios and Aristogeiton (118/7)
Hekate (102/1, 91/0)
1 Some repetition occurs in the listing. If the symbol consists of two distinct elements (such
as Demeter and Artemis) there is a double entry. If on the other hand the symbol in its component
parts presents a basic unity (as in the case of the star and crescents, anchor and star) there is only
one entry. No attempt has been made to differentiate the renderings of the various gods and
goddesses.
For the sequence of symbols the reader is referred to the chronological outline of issues on
pages 27-29.
Symbols
601
Helios, bust (170/69)
Helios in quadriga (151/0)
Helmet (174/3, 106/5)
Herakles (110/09)
Herm (188/2)
Hermes (126/5 in part)
Horse, forepart (177/6)
Hygieia (95/4)
Isis (117/6, 107/6)
Isis headdress (125/4)
Kerchnos (182/1, 120/19)
Kerchnos and bakchos (195/4)
Lion, forepart (164/3)
Nike (189/8, 171/0, 155/4, 92/1)
Nike in quadriga (169/8)
Nike and Roma (122/1)
Palm branch (es) (192/1, 181/0)
Pegasus (129/8)
Poppy head with grain (116/5)
Prow (153/2)
Prow with trophy (149/8)
Quiver and bow (141/0)
Roma (128/2)
Roma and Nike (122/1)
Rudder (190/89)

Serpent (s) (184/3, 127/6)
Serpent staff (167/6)
Sphinx (108/7)
Stag (113/2)
Star with crescents (c. 121)
Term of Hermes (see Herm)
Thyrsos (176/5, 161/0, 96/5)
Torches (150/49)
Trident (179/8)
Trident with dolphin (124/3)
Tripod (157/6)
Triptolemos (145/4, 97/6)
Trophy (188/7)
Trophy on prow (149/8)
Tyche (140/89, 132/1)
Tyche with amphora (189/8, 137/6)
Wreath (185/4)
These devices have been explained and associated in a variety of ways. In
a very early publication Cavedoni1 dealt with some of them and came to the
conclusion that they were selected by the first magistrates of the coinage in
allusion chiefly to their own names. Shortly thereafter, Rathgeber2 interpreted
the symbols as nothing more than the personal seals of the individual mint
officials. Beule in his compilation of Athenian coins3 gave the subject its first
detailed treatment. Poking fun at Cavedoni's associationswhich are often
enough highly amusing*and regarding Rathgeber's theory as unsound,
1 Osservazioni sopra le antiche tnonete di Atene, Modena 1836.
2 Neunundneunzig silberne Miinzen der Athcnaicr, Weissensee 1858.
* Les monnaies d'Athenes, Paris 1858.
* For example, the magistrate Nestor (113/2) chose the stag as his emblem because the
Homeric Nestor was renowned for length of years and the stag was proverbially a symbol of
longevity.
602
Beule found the key to the symbols in the religious and political events of the
time. Furthermore, he presented at length his belief that the connection of the
devices was almost invariably with the second magistrate. Subsequently
Grotefend and Kohler1 opposed this view, the latter arguing not only that
the symbols indubitably were linked with the first officials but that they were
freely-chosen devices. Early in the present century Macdonald (Coin Types,
pp. 54-60) summarized the situation in a judicious presentation of the evidence,
concluding that there could be no reasonable doubt but that the first official
chose the symbol and that the selection was motivated by a variety of con-
siderations. This, however, did not end the discussion. In 1926 Lederer2 ex-
pressed the opinion that the symbol, in the beginning at least, was probably an
independent control, unrelated to either magistrate. A few years later Kam-
banis in the initial publication of his studies of the New Style coinage (Arethuse,
1928, p. 125) spoke of the symbol "which, in a majority of cases, seems to
belong with the name of the second magistrate," but it is clear from his notes
that he later changed his mind. In the BCH for 1932 (pp. 46, 53) he belittled
the significance of the devices, regarding them as primarily accessory controls
added to the money because they would be clearer and more intelligible than
names to people who could not read. Finally, the writer in a discussion of the
bronze coinage with Eleusinian types suggested that most of the symbols might
be connected with the civic festivals.3
As Macdonald said in 1905, there can be no doubt but that the first monetary
official selected the device which appeared on the coinage. In cases where a
relationship between symbol and magistrate can be firmly established, the con-
nection is with the first name.4 The fact, upon which Beule laid so much stress,

that the symbol does not normally carry over when the same man serves as first
magistrate for two or more terms means nothing unless one argues that the
device was the personal seal of the individual, an argument which Beule him-
self rejected. There is, however, one instance of a recurrent symbol associated
with a particular magistrate which has not been noted before and which is
highly significant. On the coinage of 144/3 for which Charinautes served as first
magistrate the device is a standing figure (Demeter or Kore) in long robes and
1 C. L. Grotefend, Chronologische Anordnung der athenischen Silbermiinzen, Hannover 1872;
U. Kohler, "Numismatische Beitrage" (Z/2V, 1885).
2 "Ein unbekanntes athenisches Tetradrachmon," ZfN, 1926, p. 59, note 1 with reference
to the transposition of the monograms in 184/3.
3 Hesperia, 1942, pp. 215 f. This theory, like others regarding various aspects of the New
Style silver which the writer advanced rashly before the material had been organized and studied,
is proved invalid by the coinage.
4 This was Macdonald's basic argument and many of the examples discussed in the pages
that follow were cited in his earlier exposition.
Symbols
603
holding two torches. A few years later in 186/5 the same Charinautes, and this
seems practically certain in view of the rarity of the name, served as second
magistrate. For this issue the symbol consists of a seated divinity, probably
Dionysos, and beside him a standing figure in long robes with two torches,
almost identical with the representation on the earlier striking. The conclusion
is inescapable that this standing goddess was the device chosen by Charinautes
for the coinage of 144/3 when he was first mint official and repeated on the
coinage of 136/5 when he was second magistrate, this time in combination with
the Dionysos symbol of the first magistrate Andreas. This is the only issue for
which an association of the symbol with both magistrates can be posited1 but
the standing goddess of 144/3 and 136/5 does not invalidate the basic premise
that it was the first official's prerogative to select the device for the coinage.
If he chose to permit his colleague to share the representation, that was his
decision.
Symbols which can be interpreted with some degree of certainty fall into
several general categories:
Canting Badges
There seem to be a few instances of devices which consist primarily of a play on
the name of the magistrate. The first, occurring early in the series with the issue
of 190/89, involves an initial monogram which can most plausibly be resolved as
NAYKPAT[HZ] and an accompanying rudder symbolic of dominion of the sea.
On the issue of 168/7 the club, lion's skin and bow of Herakles surely derive
from the name of the first magistrate: HPA. Similarly the elephant on the coins
of 163/2 was in all likelihood chosen by ANTIOXOZ as a Seleucid badge appro-
priate for his Seleucid name. The two palm branches of NIK.... in 192/1 may

refer to specific victories or simply to his name.
Allusions to Antecedents
These divide into several classes. First are references to the magistrate's per-
sonal achievements or career. The Nike in quadriga which Mikion of 169/8
placed on his coins recalls a victory or victories in the Panathenaic games. At
1 A dual device is extremely rare on the New Style silver. The only other true instance of
it occurs at a later period with the Demeter and Artemis of Leukios-Antikrates in 111/0 B.C.
This may be a second case of annual magistrates combining their choice of divinities. The Dioscuri
of Mikion -Eurykleides was probably selected because the brothers wanted an emblem which
would stand for both of them, and similarly the Harmodios and Aristogeiton of 118/7 may express
some bond, some mutual devotion to the cause of freedom, on the part of Mentor and Moschion.
604
least one such triumph is recorded and others are highly likely. The Tyche and
amphora symbolizing agonistic victory used twice on the coinage of Herakleides
(139/8 and 187/6) would also seem to imply achievement in the contests. The
winged Agon of Aropos (128/7) may have the same significance or it may refer
to service as agonothetes. In 148/7 and in 104/8 an Apollo symbol appears and
it is noteworthy that in the case of both first magistrates, Sokrates and Epi-
genes, a prior connection with Delos is probable. Diokles of Kephisia chose as
his devices in 99/8 and 95/4 representations of Asklepios and Hygieia. The
priesthood of Asklepios and Hygieia was held by a Diokles of Kephisia in the
mid-first century B.C.; the Diokles of earlier date is surely his father or grand-
father serving in the same priesthood. Another priestly allusion is provided by
the coinage of Eurykleides (154/3). This man's great-grandfather, Eurykleides I
(of Kirchner's stemma, PA 5966) may have been a priest of the sanctuary of
Demos and the Graces, his grandfather (Mikion III) is known to have served
in that capacity. Almost certainly the coinage with its symbol of the Three
Graces bears witness to an association of our Eurykleides (III) with the same
priestly office.1 In a rather special category is the device chosen by Diokles
of Melite. His wife Philippe was a priestess of Athena and the Athena Parthenos
of Diokles' coinage is clearly a graceful tribute to her.
1} Other allusions to antecedents concern the family or place of origin of the
magistrate. It is possible that the trophy on a galley selected by Themistokles
in 149/8 was more than a reference to his name, that the mint official of the
second century was actually a descendant of the famous Themistokles. In 156/5
a representation of the Dioscuri, associated with Mikion and Eurykleides,
points to the relationship of the magistrates and perhaps as well to their pride

in belonging to an illustrious family. The griffin of Apelhkon (121/0) derives
from the Teian birthplace of the philosopher and bibliophile. A Macedonian
origin or family connection is suggested by the Macedonian helmet used by
Demetrios of 174/3 and possibly by the eagle of the succeeding issue if a single
Demetrios is involved in the two magistracies. The unusual device of a sphinx
is found on the coins of Diophantos and Aischines in 108/7 and this is conceiv-
ably indicative of a connection between the two men and the island of Chios.*
In two cases the symbol on the coinage seems to have a demotic significance.
1 For the connection of this family with the sanctuary and the general Agora area in which
it was located, cf. G. R. Edwards, Hesperia, 1957, p. 343.
2 The emblem is, of course, peculiarly Chian and there is the further circumstance that a
man named Aischines served as mint magistrate of Chios after 84 B.C. {BMC, Ionia, p. 337, 85).
This may well mean nothing; it may on the other hand point to Chian antecedents for the two
Athenian magistrates and the return of at least one to his homeland shortly before or after the
sack of Athens.
Symbols
605
A distinctive rendering of a youthful Dionysos in short chiton on the issue of
105/4 was likely inspired by the Ikarian origin of the magistrate Dionysios
since it was there that the god was traditionally supposed to have made his
first appearance in Attica and his cult was celebrated with great splendor in
that deme.1 Similarly the figure of Herakles on the coins of Pantakles in
110/09 is thought to be related to the cult of Herakles in Plotheia which was
presumably Pantakles' deme.
Allusions to Festivals
Evidence for a connection between a symbol and one or another of the major
Athenian festivals2 is comparatively slight. Any of the numerous represen-
tations of Dionysos may pertain to the Dionysia but in only one instance is
there definite indication of this, namely in the Dionysos holding a mask which
appears in 184/3 under Timostratos. The combining of Eleusinian symbols
kerchnos and bakchoson the issue of 195/4 seems to me very likely linked
with the celebration of the Eleusinia in that year. Some at least of the other
Eleusinian devices (Demeter, Triptolemos and ears of grain) may be associated
with the Eleusinia of 187/6, 145/4, 133/2, 115/4, 111/0, 103/2 and 97/6. With
the Ptolemaia there is only one connection but that a highly gratifying one.
Initial arrangement of the coinage along strictly numismatic lines brought the
issue of Aphrodisi-Dioge with its distinctive symbol of a double cornucopiae
with fillet to the year 152/1 B.C. This symbol is unquestionably of Egyptian
derivation, the cornucopiae markedly different from any found on other New
Style issues but practically identical with the reverse type of the Ptolemaic
gold and silver.3 Later reference to Ferguson's discussion of the Ptolemaia in
Athens revealed the significance of the coin device. During the archonship of

1 Cf. M. Thompson, Hesperia, 1941, pp. 2231. with reference to representations of the
Ikarian Dionysos. The date there suggested for the coinage of Dionysios-Mnasagoras is erroneous
but the relationship between magistrate and symbol still seems valid.
2 These were the Dionysia, held annually but more elaborately every third year; the Great
Panathenaia, falling in the third year of the Olympic cycle; the biennial and quadrennial cele-
brations of the Eleusinia in the second and fourth Olympic years; and the Ptolemaia in the initial
year of the Olympic sequence.
Ferguson (Klio, 1908, p. 340 and HA, p. 291) puts the lesser Eleusinia in the second year and
the greater in the fourth; Dinsmoor (Archons of Athens, pp. 210-212) argues that the order should
be transposed. With respect to the Ptolemaia there is also a difference of opinion, Dinsmoor
(p. 262) placing the festival in the second rather than the first Olympic year, but in this case the
coinage seems to substantiate Ferguson's dating.
8 Compare Plates 55-56 with the illustrations throughout Svoronos' Td Noulo-ucrra toO
KpcVrous tcov TTToXepiaioov.
6o6
Lysiades, which Ferguson places in 152/1, the Ptolemaia were celebrated with
special brilliance, over sixty-one hieropoioi having had charge of the games.1
It was undoubtedly this gala event which inspired the Egyptian symbolism on
Aphrodisios' coinage, providing us with a most satisfactory coalescing of
numismatic and epigraphical evidence with respect to the date of both archon
and mint magistrate.
Allusions to Politics
Most of these are found in the period between 180 and 120 B.C. and it is inter-
esting to have this early numismatic record of links between Athens and the
two foreign powers whose conflict would ultimately destroy the Athenian state.
The Roma of Xenokles in 128/2 and the Roma crowned by Nike of Kointos in
the following year are probably to be interpreted merely as indicative of
Roman origin or sympathies on the part of the individual magistrates. In the
case of the Pontic symbols, the situation is more complex. The star and cres-
cents of c. 121 combined with the name of Mithradates is the state's official
recognition of a Pontic subsidy. The Pegasus of 129/8 and the Gorgon's head
of 130/29, if the latter is of Pontic inspiration, may have a similar connotation,
testifying to assistance from Mithradates V in respect to supplementary sources
of bullion (pp. 422f.) or they may simply reflect the Pontic partisanship of
Aristion and Niketes. In all likelihood the only other example of a symbol
which seems to have been politically motivated, that of the Seleucid anchor
and star in 166/5, also pays tribute to the benefactions of a foreign ruler, in
this case Antiochos IV.
It must be emphasized that relatively few of the symbols discussed are
explicable solely in terms of the categories in which they have been grouped.

In the present state of our knowledge we have no way of knowing for the most
part whether an agonistic device reflects a man's personal triumph or his
service as agonothetes, whether an Eleusinian symbol is merely the record of
a contemporary festival or indication of a personal connection with the Eleu-
sinian cult and its ceremonies, whether it was family pride or a coincidence of
names that inspired Themistokles' trophy on galley. One may assume that
often enough a combination of factors dictated the choice of the individual
magistrate. Thus his own name plus his Ikarian origin plus perhaps a personal
devotion to the god may have produced the Dionysos of Ikarian type found on
1 Klio, 1908, p. 341 dealing with IGII21938. Dinsmoor (op. cit., pp. 261 f.) rejects Ferguson's
dating of Lysiades, ascribing his archonship to 159/8 B.C. Meritt in his archon list of 1957 (Hes-
peria, p. 95) assigns Lysiades to 148/7 but in a more recent study (The Athenian Year, pp. 187 f.)
he accepts the coin evidence for a return to Ferguson's date.
Symbols
607
the coins of Dionysios. Finally, there is always the possibility that a man of
little or no imagination chose the first device that came to mind, that the
symbol has no real significance in its association with his name, for there are
issues without device and these imply that the officials in question either had
no desire to personalize their coinage or were unable to think up suitable
emblems.
A majority of the symbols found on the coinage cannot be explained at all
with reference to particular events or individuals. With additional prosopo-
graphical data we may in time be able to relate some of them. In two instances
the coins supply a clue at least. On the silver of 182/1, 180/79 and 150/49 the
devices are Eleusinian: kerchnos, cornucopiae and torches. For all three issues
the first magistrate is Ammonios, presumably two related men, which suggests
a strong tie between this family and the Eleusinian sanctuary. Similarly the
Demeas who served in 125/4 and again in 107/6 would seem to have had some
close connection with the cult of Isis since his devices are first the Isis headdress
and later the standing goddess.
Fragmentary though the evidence is, it does clearly indicate, as Macdonald
pointed out, that a variety of considerations governed the selection of emblems.
There was no system involved, no regulation imposed by the state or tradition
controlling the choice. The individual magistrate was at liberty to place on the
coinage whatever device suited him and the selection tells us something of the
men themselves: their pride in athletic prowess, in family, in civic service
performed. Few indeed seem to have glimpsed broader horizons.
For the most part the symbols which can be associated with particular
Athenians add little to what we already knew about the individuals in question,

but in several cases they do provide important data. Among those holding the
priesthood of Demos and the Graces we can now include Eurykleides of 154/8;
among the priests of Asklepios and Hygieia, the Diokles of Kephisia who was
active in the early years of the first century. The symbol placed by Aphrodisios
on the coinage of 152/1 is welcome confirmation of the date of the archon
Lysiades and the chronological outline of the New Style sequence.
STATISTICAL SURVEY
A. Amphora Letters
These are the months of the Athenian civil or festival calendar1 dating the
coinage by the twelve or thirteen divisions of the ordinary or intercalary year.
With minor deviation, as noted below, they occur on all tetradrachms from
185/4 through 88/7 B.C.2 The coins of the present catalogue provide the record
of monthly emission which appears on the next few pages.
For the Early Period the evidence is without question incomplete and no
firm conclusions can be drawn as to the distribution of coinage over any given
year. The future will undoubtedly provide new reverse dies to fill in at least
some of the gaps in the month record. It may be assumed that, if we had the
complete picture, the pattern of the early emissions would correspond to that
of the issues of the Middle Period, with production normally scheduled for all
months of the year but interrupted on occasion. Amphora letters appear in the
twelfth year following the introduction of the New Style series and continue
to be employed throughout the remaining years of the coinage with the ex-
ception of a short interval between 182/1 and 177/6 when the practice was
abandoned, resumed briefly and again abandoned. This period coincides with
the first use of control combinations and presumably indicates an initial un-
certainty as to whether both dates and controls were needed.
With respect to the Middle Period we can feel reasonably sure of the com-
parative accuracy of the data, thanks to the large hoards containing numerous
examples of the issues of this three-magistrate section.3 Of the thirty-seven
1 I know of no disagreement with this interpretation. The elaborate arguments of Macdonald
(NC, 1899, pp. 288-321) followed by Sundwall (Untersuchungen, 1st part, pp. 72-92) for a
double dating system according to which a lunar calendar regulated the dates on the amphorae
while a solar calendar, coinciding with the prytany year, governed the rotation of the third magis-

trates are of no relevance since it has been established that the terms of the third magistrates can
have borne no relationship to any Athenian calendar, real or hypothetical.
2 Month dates are not found on the hemidrachms and they are sometimes omitted from the
drachms. In the case of both fractional issues, emission was sporadic. Not every year saw an
output of drachms and hemidrachms and even during periods of production there was never, so
far as we know, a continuous striking of fractions throughout the year.
3 That the breaks in the month sequence for this period are not accidental is strongly
indicated by the emissions of Polemon-Alketes in 157/6 and Mikion-Euryklei in 156/5. These
represent two issues from which an unusually large number of coins have survived (182 and
196 tetradrachms respectively). In both cases reverse dies for A and M are missing. It is highly
unlikely that chance would have produced this hiatus in the extensive record of these two striking
Amphora Letters 609
zzzzz
zz
ZZZZ
zzzzz
< < < < <
<<<<< << <<<
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^: ^
IX x
NMN
ffiffiO-ffi ffi
XXX x-xxxx
N N Nl N N N N
ffiO
XXI X II IIII
NNMNN N N N N NNN
UJ Ul
I<<<
CD CD QQ
(U uj. ol UJ Ul 111 UJ LU
< <<<<<<
CD OQ CQ CO GO CQ
Ul Ul Ul Ul HI' U1UIUIU1U1U1U1U1
ST
|<<<<< << < < < < <3
ft,

^ 1 [ t I I l_l_L_l_l_L_ I l_
CQ CQ GO CQ 00 CO CQ CD CQ CQ CQ CQ
<<
<<<<<< <
<<<<< <<< <<<<
. . , , ^ . . ^ OS ,. . . , . ,. ,. ,. . . ^ ^ OS . .
1>CO<Mi1 O t- 00 t- 0 lOIIMlSHOtOaD
lOilWOlHOttOO t tOifiTtta5<Mi-(C5
DODCDOOQOODt t t t-t-t-t-t t C D
t !fl W ^ OS (Mr-lkftc0t-Or5
00 t- 0 II 00<Ni-iOsaOt-CO
(O (D ffl (O tO tDtOtOtOlOWWlt:
<
EE *1
Hi <
s. a 1 1 <
Is
<y
11
<1
CZ < < X a< < < 3E *
<
<
a.
UJ
ui ui ci
i_ i
PZ
39
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
in

i-l
C/3
>
I1
<
<3
(fl
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
Amphora Letters
6ii
zzz
zsszz
<<<<<<<
* * y: *: ^ *
<<<
11 I I I X I X I
NNN MN N M M
UIUJLU 111 ill m ill UJU1
< < < < < <3 <
MN
LU
NM
LU
<<
CD CO CD CO CO CO
CO CO
CO CO
00
CO 03 CO
<<<<<<<< <<<<<<
~ ^ ^ ^ ^ .- 0> s~.^~.^-.^^^^s-*^G>

^ co_ oj_ ^.SL^-^S.1'5 2 22. S_ 2_ -
?1 <H <M (M <M .JjHT-li-Hi-irHi-lt-li-li-*!-!
t-<O-*MlSrt00t<Ol6^(SH
as
6l2
years involved, only nineteen or twenty are full,1 coinage having been struck
in every month. There are ten instances of a single unrecorded month, four of
two, two of three, and one of five. As one would expect, the pattern usually
reflects curtailed production at the end of the year, lambda and mu being the
months most frequently missing from the list. This is, however, not the whole
story, for at some time or another an interruption in the coinage occurs in
connection with every month except gamma. It would seem evident that when
a year's allotment of currency had been put out ahead of schedule, emission would
stop. Cases of temporary interruption apparently stem from difficulties which
the mint experienced in the matter of bullion supply, equipment or personnel.
In its first decade the Late Period resembles the Middle except for the
strange breaking off of coinage early in 123/2 and again in 122/1. From 120/19
to 112/1 there is increasing evidence of sporadic production. Nine months of
mint activity is the highest recorded, five to six represents the average. For
114/3 we have coins from alpha and kappa alone. After 112/1 there is only a
token coinage in comparison with earlier years,2 and in this period the con-
tinued use of month dates would seem to be little more than a concession to
tradition. For a number of issues, striking seemingly was limited to a single
month. Curiously enough this does not always, or even often, coincide with the
beginning of the year. In 98/7 and again in 97/6, lambda was the month during
which coins were issued, in 90/89 it was kappa. One can only suppose that the
irregularity of emission during the final years of the New Style series reflects
a hand-to-mouth existence on the part of the mint as regards bullion supply.
When silver was available it was struck but there was never enough to spread
over an entire year in an orderly production schedule.

It should be noted that in one respect the gaps in the coinage record are
actually more extensive than the outline above indicates. Only eleven of the
issues between 185/4 and 88/7 have dies with a nu date, attesting an intercalary
year, while the most recent epigraphical publication on the subject lists twelve
additional intercalary years in this same period for which there is evidence
from the inscriptions.3
Although the contribution of the New Style series to the problem of the
intercalary years is limited, it is nonetheless highly important. Issues with nu
lettering appear in 184/3, 171/0, 170/69, 167/6, 162/1, 154/3, 137/6, 134/3,
1 For the issue of Theophra- Sotas months A and I are uncertain.
2 That the scanty record provided by the late coinage is not merely due to insufficient
material is clearly indicated by the large proportion of coins from the same die or dies within
individual issues. After 112/1 very little money was struck at Athens.
3 B. D. Meritt, The Athenian Year, pp. 236-238. The years other than those on the coinage
are: 181/0, 177/6, 175/4, 173/2, 160/59, 157/6, 135/4, 127/6. 116/5. 108/7, 105/4 and 102/1.
Amphora Letters
613
125/4, 119/8 and 113/2. Of the accuracy of the first nine dates I am quite con-
fident. The two last depend upon the interpretation of the Mithradates-
Aristion issue as a special emission put out in a year during which other coinage
was struck. This seems to me very likely but if it is not true then the intercalary
issues following the Mithradates striking would be of later date.
The numismatic evidence for intercalary years was discussed at length with
Benjamin D. Meritt and it has subsequently been published by him as a part
of his recent study The Athenian Year (pp. 180-191). The writer has nothing to
add to his careful presentation of the combined numismatic and epigraphical
material but it might be pointed out here that there is no conflict of evidence
and that in one instance the numismatic record throws fight upon what had
hitherto been a puzzling sequence of ordinary and intercalary years. Finally,
with respect to the controversial question of consecutive intercalary years, it
will be noted that the coinage establishes one such sequence in 171/0 and 170/69
and still another derives from the numismatic evidence for 184/3 and the epi-
graphical data for 135/4.1
B. Control Combinations
The term "control combination" has been used to designate the letters,
two to four in number, which appear below the amphora or in the left field2
from 182/1 until the end of the New Style coinage. Twenty-nine such combina-
tions are known:
AN AH Zfl ME, MEN, MENE IT, ZTE
An, AnO Ai, AIO HP, HPA MH ZO, Z<DA, Z0>AI
AP EM, EM4>3 GY MO Si
Bl, BIA En, ET7I IZ, IZI TIE, FFEP Tl, Tir

TA EP KE FTP, T7PO, TTPfl4 (Dl
AA EY KT, KTH ZO, ZOA
1 When I first discovered what seemed to be a certain case of contiguous intercalary years,
otherwise unattested for the second century, and feared that I might become involved in the
intricacies of the Athenian calendar, I discussed some of the problems with Prof. W. Kendrick
Pritchett during a visit to Athens in 1955, and I am most grateful for the information and biblio-
graphical material which he helpfully supplied.
2 On some dies of the first issue employing both dates and control combinations, that of
nOAY-TI in 181/o, the controls appear on the amphora. A few tetradrachm reverses omit
the controls but this is exceptional. They are invariably missing from the hemidrachms and fre-
quently from the drachms as well.
8 EO and Md> which occur in 175/4 are almost certainly errors for EM<t>; EN and EN<D prob-
ably also represent a misunderstanding of the same combination.
* FTPft which appears only once is likely a mistake for TTPO which is common.
On
>
a:
>
ii
<
Early Period1
Zd>
n np
np
np
ZO Tl
zn ti
np

np zd> zfl
np za>
np zo
np
zo zn
Zfl
Z<D Zfl
ME
MH
MH
ME MH
ME
ME
ME
ME MH MO
ME
ME MH
KT
KE
EY HP 9Y
KT
Al HP ME
EP
EY Zfl
EY Zfl
EY HP
EP
EP EY
EY
EY
EY
EY
HP
Middle Period
HP
EM EN
EMd> EN<D
TA
An TA
Control Combinations
6i5
99
LU
mis
<<
99999
99
999
999
99
>eee eeee
ww"
ee
ww
eee
ee
ww
W W W W W W WW
www
as
000
0000
tr
www

88
wwww
LLlQJLlJLLllJjlxJIJJLlJUJ
UJ LU
LU UJ
UJ UJ UJ
LU Ul UJ UJ
ZZZZZZZZZ
zz
zz
ZZZ
zzzz
CL
< <<<<<<
<
<
rs
--^ ^ ^ Oi ^ ^ . . ^ _ OJ ^ ^
o"o oo" P S" o ST e7
N 1-1 Ci CO t- ?0 0 .. ^ ~ 1- _ , -. ^ -
eiO!Ot6lO>010lOlOll5101fliaTf^ -^1 tJ( tJI T(t 05 00 OS
?H. ^H. JH, II 11 1IF"IilillllliI^Hi-HiI -rI 1I ,| rI i-H 1I 1I 1I 1I 11 1-4
. Ci .. .
00 t-
eo~ T i^h~ a 01 co
IB B 3 ID 5 * *
t- CO
iq as
^<
h o 00 3d" t-~ S~
<N O CI 00 t-
6i6
ooooo
wwwww
tU Ml til ill ill
m in m in in
5 S W
ooooop
wwwwww
cl o. a.
LUUJUJUJUJUJUJUJ
IIIX
UJ
UJ
wwwwwww
o_ a. q. a. a. il cl
UJ UJ UJ UJ LLl UJ LU
LU UJ
<<<<<<
<<<<< <<<<
<<
<
<<
< < < <C

<<<^
0.0,0.0,
<<<<
555
555
55
IO if S3 IS H
co m
co as
CO
CO <M
CO CO
P IS 00
ao* jC~ co* s tjh co <m i-i o S S co t- co 5!_^^5!SLS.
cococqScsicsic^'^'CNCSicsi .<fT-|TH,-,'^'H^^^Z3^

Control Combinations 617
Q.
Q. Q- Q.
Ill
Q.
ft. ft. ft.
Ill
<<
OO l (B IO ># M H OD
Tt< OS <N rt
OS
00 OD
Oooooooooi050i0i050s0i05cioooo c
v' * * ' 4-*
6i8
Several points of interest emerge from the tables above. The span of indi-
vidual control combinations is in many instances impressive: ME from 181/0
to 181/0 and uninterruptedly from 167/6 to 131/0; Z<D from 181/0 to 126/5 and
continuously with only two breaks between 167/6 and 140/89; Ifi irregularly
from 176/5 to 92/1. Other controls like KE, 6Y, MO occur in only a single issue;
a number are limited to two strikings. For the Middle Period of the coinage
the range of control combinations and their use within an issue are alike re-
stricted. Between 165/4 and 132/1 no emission has more than five separate
combinations, most have four and some three. Apart from two different controls
employed by Epigene-Sosandros in 158/7, only ATT, AI, ME, T7E, 10, IO and EG
make their appearance. The Early and Late Periods present a far more diver-
sified picture in the variety of control letters and in the number used by
individual issues. There are at least twelve in 174/8, only four the next year,
yet the two issues are not disparate in size. The two largest strikings of the
series (181/0 and 124/8) employ five, a very small emission a few years later
uses six.
Against the background of extreme longevity in the case of some controls,
it is clear that the letters are not the abbreviated names of individuals. They
must be the initial letters of words pertaining to something of a permanent
character. Earlier studies have explained them in terms of either mint work-
shops or the mines supplying the bullion for the coinage and some years ago
the writer analyzed these theories in relation to the numismatic material then
available. What follows is in essence a summary of that earlier article.1
First, it is quite certain that the control combinations do not indicate
ateliers of the Athenian mint. The tables showing the distribution of coinage

(pp. 658-708) prove this. In a large number of cases an obverse die is associated
for all or most of its life with one particular control combination. Sixteen of the
seventeen reverses connected over a period of six months with Obverse 465 of
Polemon-Alketes are stamped ZJ, and there are many other examples of
similar consistency involving fewer reverses. On the other hand an obverse die
within a single month may be, and often is, linked with three different control
combinations and in 158/7 Obverse 450 is associated with four. Customarily all
or most of the controls of a given year are in simultaneous use month by month
but there are months scattered through the coinage during which all or a
majority of the reverses bear a single control combination. This is undoubtedly
the result in part of insufficient material but disproportion is manifest too often
for this to be the whole story. Recutting of control combinations is common
1 "Workshops or Mines," ANSMN V, 1952, pp. 35-48. Additional data and further study-
alter in some cases the details cited in connection with the illustrative material of 1952 but the
basic import of the earlier evidence is unaffected.
619
practice through the middle section of the coinage. The overcut control does
not then disappear; it is found on reverses of the same or succeeding months
within that year.
On the workshop theory most of these abnormalities would have to be
interpreted as instances of dies transferred from one atelier to another. But
surely this is very strange. Why shift some obverse dies back and forth between
three and four workshops within a single month and leave others in the same
atelier for six months? Why transfer reverses from one shop to a second, with
all the labor and expense of recutting the control combinations, when the first
shop in each case continues to operate? Why concentrate the coinage for
certain months in one or two workshops and leave others standing idle?
To these instances of erratic procedure involving individual dies can be
added two general considerations which make the theory of workshops wholly
untenable. There is, as has been pointed out, no correlation between the size
of the coinage in any given year and the number of control combinations em-
ployed nor is there at certain periods any sensible relationship between the
controls of one year and those of the next. No mint would operate twelve
ateliers in one year and shut down eight of them in the year following, the
amount of money to be put out being roughly the same. If five ateliers were
sufficient to produce the tremendous emissions of 181/0 and 124/3, would six
be required for the inconsiderable coinage of 122/1? The die-linked issues of
Miki-Theophra and Hera-Aristoph present a peculiar picture in terms of
workshops. The former would have five in use and the latter three, but the
three of the second year are entirely different; five ateliers would have gone
out of business at the end of 169/8 and been replaced at the beginning of 168/7

by three new onesonly temporarily in three instances for in 167/6 three of
the 169/8 controls again appear. The pattern of the combinations between
131/0 and 121/0 reveals a picture of almost complete chaos under the work-
shop premise.
If the letter combinations cannot be workshops, is there any valid reason
for supposing that they are connected with the mines supplying the silver for
the Athenian mint ? This theory was advanced by Sundwall and by Svoronos1
and it still seems to me, as it did in 1952, that the answer lies in this general
direction although I am now less inclined to think that the abbreviations stand
specifically for the names of mines. New material has brought no additions to
the eleven instances of correspondence between control combinations and mine
names, as cited in Museum Notes V. As between twenty-nine controls and some
forty mines the association is not strong but it must be remembered that the
1 Untersuchungen, 2nd part, p. 18, note 2; JI AN, 1917, p. 119.
620
leases which name the mines1 are of fourth and early third century datewe
have no information as to how many, if any, of the earlier workings were still
active under the same names in the second century. Similarly inconclusive is
the picture as it relates to control combinations and the spectrometric analysis
of individual coins (see pp. 622ff.). The two control combinations for which
we have the greatest amount of evidence show the following relationship:
ME:
(C)
(Au)
in-.
(Cu)
(Au)
178/7
1.02
0.82
157/6
0.72
0.19
176/5
2.8
0.152
156/5
0.008
0.086
171/0
0.054
156/5
0.034
0.13
164/8
0.092
0.12
148/7
0.067
0.11
159/8
0.675
0.32
145/4
0.161
0.18
158/7
0.157
0.098
138/7
0.036

4.3
0.0005 -
156/5
0.24
0.68
108/7
2.7
0.44
156/5
0.032
0.18
107/6
5.9
0.40
154/8
0.74
0.18
103/2
5.2
0.39
152/1
0.047
621
silver composition; at the same time a great many control combinations make
their appearance, some for only a single year and others for much longer inter-
vals. During the Middle Period analysis indicates a supply of bullion from a
smaller number of comparatively rich workings, producing silver of homo-
geneous quality; the control combinations of this section of the coinage are
few and all are employed for very considerable stretches of time. Concerning
the Late Period the evidence is, I believe, complicated by the importation of
silver from abroad (pp. 635f.) but the decrease in coinage which sets in about
123 B.C. surely points to a decline in silver supply from all sources. What ore
was still being extracted from Laurium must have been obtained with difficulty
from again scattered and small workings; in this period new control combi-
nations appear and old ones long abandoned reappear.
It will be apparent that an interpretation of the control combinations in
terms of bullion supply provides a reasonable explanation of the peculiarities
noted in connection with their use. If the controls guaranteed the purity of the
metal, each ingot delivered to the mint must have been stamped with letters
indicating a particular lot of metal and the same lettering would in turn be
reproduced on the reverse die used to strike coins from that ingot. The con-
sistent association of an obverse die with a single control combination and the
linking of another with several controls would simply mean that, as one would
expect, silver from the various sources of a given year was not always supplied
in uniform proportion or used up at the same rate. If the supply of ingots with
a particular stamp was temporarily exhausted before the reverse die bearing
the same stamp wore out, production did not stop until a new supply came in;
the reverse in question was recut to indicate that it was now being used with

a different lot of silver. The shifting pattern of ephemeral and long-lived con-
trols and the complete or partial substitution of one set of controls for another
within a few years would be alike explicable in relation to changing sources
of bullion.
The question is, of course, how the system functioned and here I can only
hazard a guess. One assumes that the ore as it came from the mine was subject
to a rough smelting in the field, perhaps in small installations servicing a group
of neighboring workings, and that it was subsequently shipped to a central
point where more elaborate refining was undertaken. The ingots would have
been stored in the Laurium region preliminary to mass shipment to Athens and
later in some Athenian center for delivery to the mint in scheduled lots.1
1 These storage centers in Laurium and Athens may be tentatively identified. In an article
on a series of tower-like structures located in the Sunium region, John H. Young ("Studies in
South Attica," Hesp., 1956, pp. 122-146) describes one building, the Red Tower, as situated in
the very center of the mining district and equipped with an unusually intricate system of bolts
622
Either in Laurium or in Athens the control combinations would have been
applied to the ingots but the original identification of the batch of metal must
have been made before that if the guarantee of purity was to be worth anything
for it is evident that adulteration could have occurred in the early stages of the
refining process. It seems to me probable that the lot of metal was somehow
tagged as to source from the time it left the field establishments and that the
designation given it was in relation to those installations. As to how this was
done or what principle governed the choice of letters, I have no idea.
Although a guarantee of purity was probably the primary purpose of the
control combinations, it is likely that they were also useful as a practical
accounting device. A balancing of the treasury's books at stated intervals
would have been imperative as a check on the honesty of the mint workmen
and officials. Such an auditing of the accounts could have been performed
quickly and accurately in terms of so many ingots from a certain source supplied
the mint against so many tetradrachms by weight with the same stamp re-
turned to the treasury.1
C. Silver Analyses
Early in 1959 eighty-six New Style tetradrachms were analyzed by the
neutron activation method to determine the amounts of gold and copper
and bars. He suggests that it may have been used as a combined workshop and storage place,
related to the weighing and stamping of bullion and the stocking of ingots or coins. The actual
production of the New Style silver undoubtedly took place in Athens but this tower in Laurium
may very well be the center where ingots were accumulated prior to shipment to Athens. It is
even possible that the final processing of the ore was carried out in or near this establishment.
Sherds of fourth to second century date were found around the Red Tower which would bring

its period of use into the New Style years.
Among the structures excavated in the Agora is one designated as the Hellenistic Building,
erected in the latter part of the third century and destroyed by Sulla in 86 B.C. In a study of
"Panathenaics of Hellenistic and Roman Times" (Hesp., 1957, pp. 333-336) G. R. Edwards
suggests that the building may have served as headquarters of the military treasurer, one of
whose responsibilities was the control of silver bullion (IG II2 1443). This large structure, close
to the Hephaisteion, would have been conveniently located in relation to the mint which in all
probability was also situated in the Agora area (H. A. Thompson, Hesp., 1954, pp. 45-48 and
1955, p. 59) and it seems very likely that it was the place where the ingots for the coinage were
stored.
1 For what seems to have been a somewhat similar accounting system at Corinth, see Ravel.
Les "Poulains" de Corinthe, II, pp. 46-57. E. J. Seltman [JIAN, 1913, pp. 1-10) cites a stamped
bar of silver found in the Tarentum Hoard as evidence of a control system based on a correlation
of the markings on ingots and coins.
Silver Analyses
623
present.1 This process involves the irradiation of the coins with neutrons in
an atomic pile and examination of the ensuing radioactivity by means of a
gamma-ray spectrometer. The presence or absence of a particular element is
revealed by the presence or absence of the gamma-rays characteristic of that
element and the amount of the element present is ascertained by measuring
the intensity of its gamma-rays. Since the method is entirely non-destructive
and is furthermore capable of accurate measurement of minute concentrations
of trace elements, it is admirably suited for the analyzing of ancient coinage.2
Of the specimens tested, the vast majority was supplied by the Heberden
Coin Room of the Ashmolean Museum through the courtesy of Dr. Colin
M. Kraay. In addition to the Oxford coins a relatively small group of teta-
drachms from the collections of the American Numismatic Society, of E. S. G.
Robinson and of Burton Y. Berry was examined. Irradiation was done at
Harwell and the coins were subsequently examined by Miss Vera M. Emeleus
of the Oxford Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art.
To all those who cooperated in making material available and in conducting
the scientific tests the writer is deeply grateful.
The purpose of the tests was fourfold:
1) to see if variations in gold and copper content had any chronological
significance. Earlier chemical analysis of a limited number of New Style bronze
coins (see pp. 638-642) had revealed a striking correlation between metallic com-
position and the date of the specimens tested and it was thought that some
similar pattern might emerge with respect to the composition of the silver coins.
2) to determine whether or not the readings of fourteen coins considered "sus-
pect" because of their abnormal style were notably different from other readings.

3) to explore the possibility of a relationship between metallic composition
and a series of control combinations which appear on the reverses of the coins.
It seems highly likely that the latter are associated in some way with the source
of the bullion, hence it was thought that coins marked with a particular control
combination might show a distinctive pattern of gold and copper content.3
4) to provide data from a late period of Athenian coinage for comparison
with the analyses of sixth and fifth century coins from the same mint already
published by Kraay (Archaeometry 1, 1958, pp. 1-5; 2, 1959, pp. 1-16).
1 A preliminary report on these analyses and their implications has appeared in Archae-
ometry 3, i960, pp. 10-15.
2 For technical details of the process, cf. V. M. Emeleus, "The Technique of Neutron Ac-
tivation Analysis as applied to trace element determination in pottery and coins," Archaeometry 1,
1958, pp. 6-15.
3 A tabulation of the relationship between metallic composition and two control combi-
nations is to be found on page 620.
624
5-
"" , & &
-. ^ , -
& .1
& 3.&1; 1-4 ^
3. .2
1.
2.
3.
.-*
4.
-1*1
5.
>-6
6.
7.
8.
9.

10.
11.
*-
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
&%
193/2
0.37
0.19
189/8
0.97
0.88
186/5
3.2
0.058
185/4
5.8
0.11
183/2
0.035
15%)
0.052
181/0
2.87
0.0076 ( 15%)
.55
625
, %
25.
0.085
( 30%)
0.10
26.
0.041
( 25%)
0.094
27.
- 1
156/5
0.047
( 15%)
0.052
28.
1 -
0.24
0.68
29.
0.28
30.

0.86
0.008
( 40%)
0.086
31.
0.084
( 30%)
0.18
82.
0.082
( 30%)
0.13
88.
154/3
0.74
0.18
34.
152/1
0.086
( 20%)
0.10
35.
0.047
( 20%)
0.94
30.
151/0
0.084
( 25%)
0.16
37.
150/49
0.18
0.12
626
\ , .
5 \ 5
&
(196-169 ..)
" - '
-!. _ - - - -.
!|5
'
1*
- 0.5
! ._
1*1
,! .
. .
16
0.01 0.05 0.1
0.5
1.0

. 1
- 155
627
0.001
0.005
87 &
5 \ 5
(168-182 .)
10
!5
1.0
'
_ 0.5
. ^ .
!*
! !?
0.05

" *
. "! , .
0.01 . 0.1
^ 0
. 2
0.5
1.0
628
\ -
5 \ 5
(131-87 .)
1 10
!! .
1 |
! * **"
'' .
0.5
_| .
0.0
! .
0.001
0.005
17
4 &
0.01 0.05 0.1
. 3
0.5
<

-,
-,
1.0
8 .55
629
5 \ 5
&
1.0
10
0.5

>
1-.
1.0
0.05
0.5
0.01
0.1
0.005
0.05
0.001
630
\ - 5
.. )
>
..,
>^^
^^
/'
*0
90
..'

/' /
..
/ /(3
/'
4<
>
***
0.() .'*
5 .3
1^.
_^
/3
/<
.^'* / ^^
-*- \ *.$
,\)
'<
/ .^
- 35 63
64.
1.79
0.46
65.
119/8
4.9
0.48
66.
118/2
4.9
0.37
67.
108/7
2.7
0.44
(18.
107/6
5.9
0.40

69.
108/2
5.2
0.39
70.
94/3
4.6
0.47
71.
1 -
11.8
0.42
72.
93/2
8.2
0.37
1 \ 1>), 3.5
\ \ .1
, .
' (8, 1950, . 189-312 1957,
. 1-23) \
. . . , \ 1 -
&\1 , -
\ \ ,
. ^
11 200 . \
\ \
\^
, .
^ \
1 " \" ( , . 133-142)
113. , /
229 . 150 \ . 5-
15 .
555 196-150 ..
3.5
632
gives the results of neutron activation analyses of sixteen "Wappenmiinzen''
of sixth century date and thirty-nine "owls" of the fifth century. The latter
were undoubtedly coined from Laurium ore and their composition shows uni-
formly low percentages of gold and copper, the average gold percentage for the
first twenty-three specimens tested being 0.026 and the average copper per-
centage 0.14. On the other hand the "Wappenmiinzen" are far more diverse
in composition with higher percentages of both trace elements: 0.12 average
for gold and 0.84 for copper. Although Laurium seems the most likely source
of "Wappenmiinzen" silver, it must be admitted that there is no certainty on
this point. Kraay suggests that "the more variable composition of the earlier
issues might be due either to the exploitation of the less homogeneous surface
deposits at Laurium or to the presence of silver from some other source."
For purposes of comparison five samples of Laurium silver were obtained
through the good offices of M. Nikos Kyriazopoulos who is connected with the
Compagnie Francaise des Mines du Laurion now working in the area. These
were analyzed by the neutron activation method at Brookhaven National
Laboratory through the cooperation of Dr. Edward V. Sayre.1
Copper %2 Gold %
(From a gallery in the Plaka region 85-95 m. above sea level, at a depth of
100-120 m. below the surface)
1. 0.012 0.0021
2. 0.009 0.0035
3. 0.015 (less) 0.0050
4. 0.024 0.0062
(From a gallery in the Plaka region 120-140 m. above sea level, at a depth of

70-120 m. below the surface)
5. 0.14 (less) 0.10
1 When a temporary suspension of activity at the Oxford Laboratory made it impossible
to have the samples of modern ore tested there as a supplement to the coin tests run earlier.
Dr. Marie Farnsworth, who has been of great assistance in technical matters, suggested that I
get in touch with Dr. Sayre at Brookhaven. For his ready and helpful response I am indeed
deeply grateful.
2 Dr. Sayre reports that the copper concentrations of the first four pieces were so low that
the gamma ray peaks due to copper following neutron activation were just discernible and the
results were, therefore, only approximate. Accordingly the specimens were dissolved and the
copper determination redone by a sensitive colorimetric procedure which gave the results shown
here, these being of the same order of magnitude as the concentration estimates from neutron
activation. In the case of Nos. 3 and 5 the specimens were so small that the total amount of
copper was below the limits of quantitative determination but the neutron activation results
would indicate that the concentrations do not lie far below these limits.
Silver Analyses
633
The first four samples show concentrations of gold and copper markedly
lower than the averages for the fifth century "owls" while the fifth has con-
siderably less copper but about the same amount of gold as the "Wappen-
miinzen" average. Since it is likely that these variations reflect in some measure
the difference between ancient and modern mining techniques, the contem-
porary percentages are less significant for the readings themselves than for the
proof that they afford of disparity in the composition of Laurium silver. All
samples from the first gallery indicate an ore of extreme purity while the specimen
from a different gallery in the same region has substantially higher quantities
of both copper and gold, suggesting that silver from widely-separated mines
might reveal even greater diversity.
Data on the mines and analyses were then submitted to a mining engineer in
order to obtain technical advice on the extent of variation in metallic compo-
sition that would be considered normal in ore coming from a field as sizable
and diversified as that of Laurium. Mr. Sanford R. Knapp and several of his
associates in the mining firm of Taylor-Knapp Company most kindly prepared
a helpful memorandum giving their judgment on specific points at issue. In
essence, assuming a generally high grade silver ore, a wide variation in copper
and gold is to be expected from "pocket to pocket, between different veins or
seams in the same mine, from the surface to a 200-meter depth, and certainly
from different mines in a fifteen kilometer area." An additional factor to be
considered in relation to the copper content is variability in temperature con-
trol during the smelting and refining process. Certain pockets of ore might well
have contained as much or more copper as the amount found in some coins
and if the smelting pot were heated above the melting point of copper, which

is 1088 C. as against 960.5 C. for silver, some portion of the copper would
mix and probably alloy with the silver.
With this background material in mind, let us turn to the analyses them-
selves. It is immediately apparent from the tabulation and graphs that there
is no consistent change, downward or upward, in gold or copper percentages.
What do emerge are three distinct patterns of gold and copper traces strikingly
paralleling the three chronological divisions of the coinage.1 For the Early
Period there is a great diversity of metallic composition, gold ranging from
1 The dividing line between Middle and Late Periods is seemingly identical with respect both
to the character of the coinage and its metallic composition, but there is an element of uncer-
tainty involving the striking of 132/1, for which we have no analyses. In some respects, notably
the size of the issue, it relates to the early Late Period emissions rather than to those of the
Middle Period. The division is less exact between Early and Middle Periods in that the three
analyses of 170/69, in copper percentages at least, are related to the Middle rather than the
Early Period. Actually it is also true that the coins, except that they still carry the names of
only two magistrates, have the basic characteristics of Middle Period issues.
634
0.0076 to 0.83 and copper from 0.035 to 5.3, with a notable lack of concen-
tration points. It is interesting that this diversity of composition is in keeping
with the character of the early coinage. The issues are uneven in size, some very
small and others extensive; the quality of the workmanship varies from ex-
cellent to mediocre or worse; the bullion supply seems to have been drawn from
a large number of relatively unproductive sources on the evidence of the control
combinations. It may be assumed that the range of copper and gold shown in
the analyses of the early coins is due, in part at least, to this circumstance that
ore was being obtained from small workings scattered over a wide area rather
than from a few rich lodes. Furthermore, the variation in copper content prob-
ably also reflects a carelessness in temperature control during the refining
process, which would be in accord with other indications of a generally un-
stable situation with regard to minting activity during the period in question.
It is perhaps significant that the earliest coins of Athens, the "Wappen-
miinzen" of the sixth century, show a lack of uniformity in composition very
similar to that of the coins of the early New Style series and it is likely that
the determining factors in both cases were roughly the same.1
By contrast the Middle Period shows a marked degree of consistency in
metallic composition, with gold concentrating at 0.09-0.25 and copper at
0.05-0.4. The coinage of this period is also far more homogeneous than that of
the Early Period. Its style is good to fair, its dies are in general carefully cut
and its production is relatively stable from year to year with bullion apparently
supplied from the yield of a few highly productive sources. Careful supervision
of the refining process and a uniform overall supply of metal from a limited
number of homogeneous deposits would seem to be the explanation of the con-

sistent pattern of gold and copper content in the Middle Period. Again one
finds a parallel situation prevailing in early Athens. The "owls" of the fifth
century, minted from rich, deep veins of Laurium silver, show substantially
less gold and somewhat less copper than the New Style coins of the Middle
Period but they do resemble the latter in their uniformity of composition.2
For the Late Period the relationship between metallic composition and
other aspects of the coinage breaks down. Percentages are uniformly high,
concentrated between 0.25-0.5 gold and 1.5-5.5 copper, but there is no corre-
1 The distribution patterns of the two coinages are highly comparable and their average
gold percentages are identical: 0.12. For copper, the early New Style shows an average of 2.01
as against 0.84 in the case of the "Wappenmunzen" but this seems to me of no real significance
in view of the fact that copper content may depend largely on the competence and carefulness
of the workmen refining the ore.
a Average gold percentage for the New Style of the Middle Period is 0.17, for the fifth
century 0.026; average copper for the New Style is 0.20, for the fifth century 0.14.
Silver Analyses
635
sponding stability in mint operations. Style is uneven and generally poor,
emissions range from very large to very small, sources of silver for much of the
period are apparently both diversified and scanty. The high copper content in
all coins may well be the result of deliberate "adulteration" for the purpose
of strengthening the alloy or stretching the silver. Certainly carelessness in
temperature control, the explanation which best fits the fluctuating percent-
ages of the Early Period, is less likely to be the reason for the consistently high
readings of the Late Period.1 Increased gold content, however, is another
matter since this is something which could not have been altered in the refining
process. The puzzling aspect of the picture as it relates to the gold is not the
individual readingsisolated examples of even higher percentages are found
in the Middle Periodbut the fact that all readings are high. There is no wide
range of percentages such as one finds in both Early and Middle Periods.2
This distinctive pattern of gold content suggests at least that the answer lies
outside Laurium, in the importation of silver from abroad.
Even before any analyses had been made, the decline of coinage after
120 B.C., and especially the token strikings characteristic of the period be-
tween 111 and 88, had implied a growing scarcity of silver during the last
thirty-two years of the New Style period. From the new evidence of metallic
composition it would appear that at an even earlier date the Laurium mines
were being worked out and that supplementary sources were being tapped
throughout the Late Period. In this connection several factors may be of
significance. With the last issue of the Middle period, that of Dositheos and
Charias in 132/1, there is a marked increase in the amount of coinage. The first
1 Ardaillon (Les Mines du Laurion dans I'Antiquiti, pp. ii3f.) cites a few analyses of Athen-

ian coins and comments on the higher percentages of copper found in the late issues. Rejecting
the theory that this was added deliberately, he suggests that after centuries of exploitation the
purer veins in the mines may have been worked out leaving only ore of inferior quality available
or that a general decadence in the mining industry resulted in less careful metallurgical processing.
It seem to me, however, that the element of deliberation is implicit in the high copper readings
of all coins of the Late Period. Adulteration is perhaps not the best word to describe the procedure
for copper was probably added outright to the silver only exceptionally, as in the case of Nos. 56
and 71 with their extremely high readings of over eleven per cent. A consistent heating of the
smelting pots above the melting point of copper would have produced a bullion of high copper
content and ultimately a coinage which, by comparison with that of the Middle Period, was to
all intents and purposes "adulterated".
* Mr. Knapp and his associates felt that the relatively uniform gold percentages might be
the result of increased overall production of silver from a greater variety of sources which would
tend to blend the gold content of the different ores closer to an average. This theory would serve
well enough for the first decade of the Late Period with its very heavy issues of coinage calling
for large supplies of silver but it would not explain the same high gold readings in later emissions
of very small size.
636
issue of the Late Period, that of Demetrios and Agathippos, is the largest
single emission of the entire New Style series. Forty-seven obverse dies are
employed in 131/0, three times as many as the average for the 142-132 decade.
The next two issues are also heavy and that of 124/3 with forty-two obverse
dies is the second largest striking of the coinage. This unusually extensive
production at the beginning of the Late Period, in sharp contrast to the lighter
emissions of the Middle Period, implies a great increase in bullion supply,
which is more likely to have come from abroad than from the long-worked
Laurium deposits. A contributing cause in the decline of Laurium is probably
to be found in the slave revolt of about this time.1 We know little of the
circumstances or extent of the insurrection but it must at the very least have
disrupted production. It may well have had more lasting effects in the destruc-
tion or crippling of mining properties.2 In any event the evidence of the coins
suggests that c. 132 B.C. Athens, for the first time in her history, was confronted
with the problem of finding a supplementary supply of silver adequate for her
monetary needs.
The source of this silver can be only a matter of conjecture but a Pontic
origin is a possibility, one might even say a strong possibility.3 The coinage
itself, in the Aristion-Philon issue of 129/8 with its drinking Pegasus symbol
1 Lauffer (Die Bergwerkssklaven von Laureion, pp. 999 f.) dates the beginning of the Laurium
rising to 134 B.C. and its suppression to 133. This would bring it some years earlier than the Delos
insurrection, which Lauffer assigns to 133 and Ferguson to 130 but which on the evidence of
two Delos hoards (p. 486) is conceivably as late as 129 B.C. The Attic and Delian revolts are
usually considered simultaneous outbreaks but, as Lauffer indicates, there are insufficient
grounds for this assumption. Diodorus mentions both in the same sentence but he also associates

with them other uprisings in various places, all of which can scarcely have been contemporary.
2 In an article on Attic mines of the fourth century (Ann. Br. Sch. Athens, 1953, p. 247),
R. J. Hopper points out that silver-mining as a means of putting capital to profitable use was in
competition with other types of investment such as agriculture, other industry and mercantile
loans. When the margin of profit from mining operations was low in relation to the cost and risk
of developing the properties, one may be certain that potential investors would be reluctant
to engage in this form of speculative enterprise. If, as seems likely, the Laurium deposits were
already showing signs of exhaustion before the slave revolt, any damage resulting from the
uprising would have had serious consequences since the repair or replacement of the installations
would require a substantial outlay of capital without any prospect of adequate compensation
from the profits of the re-opened mines.
3 In very early times the mountains of Pontus, notably the Paryadres, were a rich source
of metal, including iron, copper and silver. Strabo (XII. 3. 19) describes the silver mines as no
longer productive in his day but Forbes (Metallurgy in Antiquity, pp. igof.) enumerates seven
important deposits of Pontic silver and makes special reference to the mines mentioned by Strabo.
saying that the latter's information must have been wrong since "the mines still contain enormous
amounts of galena." With regard to the richness of the Pontic deposits Forbes comments that
Pompey took 6000 talents from them and that even today they are by no means exhausted
Silver Analyses
637
and the Mithradates-Aristion issue of c. 121 with its regnal inscription and
symbol, bears witness to the fact that the close friendly ties which had long
existed between Athens and Pontus were still firm in the twenties of the
second century. It would surely have been natural for Athens in her financial
emergency to have turned to Mithradates V for help in securing foreign silver,
and it seems likely that the Pegasus of 129/8 and possibly the Gorgon's head
of 130/29 make grateful acknowledgement of this assistance. Is it only coin-
cidence that a reduction in the Athenian coinage is roughly contemporary
with Mithradates' death and that a further decline comes at about the time
his son Mithradates VI was beginning his military campaigns and presumably
initiating a coinage to finance them.1
As mentioned earlier, fourteen "suspect" coins were examined, with the
following results:
Copper %
Gold %
Catalogue No.
1. E-N
198/2
82.
0.089
1846
2. ETTirENH - ZflZANAPOZ
158/7
72.
0.17

1362
3. MIKIftN - EYPYKAEI
156/5
92.
0.038
1895
4. KAPAIX - EPrOKAE
153/2
80.
0.12
1382f
5. ZflKPATHZ-AIONYZOAfl
148/7
8.2
0.26
1405
6. AAMflN - ZOZIKPATHZ
141/0
8.6
0.40
1407
7. GEOAOTOZ-KAEOOANHZ
188/7
1.9
0.47
1411d
8. 9EOAOTOZ-KAEOOANHZ
1.2
0.47
1413
9. NIKHTHZ-AIONYZIOZ
130/29
2.78
1418
10. EENOKAHI - APMCGENOZ
123/2
8.8
0.33
1420
11. AFTEAAIKflN - TOPriAZ
121/0
43.
638
plotted since the phenomenally high gold reading of 2.73 made it in some way
impossible to determine its copper content. The three remaining coins of the
"suspect" group (Nos. 10, 12-13) have readings not unlike those of genuine
Athenian coins of the Late Period. They are still "suspect" on the basis of
style but the case for separating them from the output of the Athenian mint
is not strengthened by the evidence of metallic composition.
In addition to the eighty-six coins already discussed, six tetradrachms
falling outside the New Style coinage proper were analyzed.
Nothing conclusive emerged from these analyses, which is not surprising.
The first three tetradrachms are examples of the coinage put out by Sulla
after his capture of Athens and almost certainly struck at the Athenian mint.
The silver, however, may be assumed to have come from a variety of sources
including coins in current circulation and temple treasure from Athens, Delphi
and Delos.
Analysis of the few Cretan pieces was undertaken to see whether their com-
position was in any respect distinctive since it is probable that some of the
earlier imitations of the New Style are of Cretan origin. Nothing can be proved
one way or the other. Crete must have imported her silver; she may well have
obtained some at least from Laurium. Her cities may have melted down old
coins of foreign issue for these scanty Cretan strikings.
D. Bronze Analyses
A number of Athenian bronze coins have been chemically analyzed. The
evidence of metallic composition which they provide, taken in conjunction
with the evidence of the bronze hoards discussed in an earlier section of this
study, is of considerable significance for the chronology of the New Style

coinage and particularly for the dating of the Mithradates issue.
Most of the analyses below were originally published by Earle R. Caley
in The Composition of Ancient Greek Bronze Coins (pp. 24-59). This material,
supplemented by the results of tests on three other coins, was later tabulated
by the writer in connection with a discussion of the "cleruchy" issues of Athens
4. Hierapytna (Palm tree type of BMC, p. 48, 2)
5. Cydonia with Athenian types
6. Gortyna with Athenian types
1. tfl-
2. tfl-ffl
8. -
Copper % Gold %
0.90 0.58
4.0 0.41
1.2 0.47
0.88 0.42
4.1 0.84
1.4 0.43
Bronze Analyses
639
(Hesp., 1941, pp. 229f.). Eight additional analyses are in the present tabu-
lation.1
The pre-New Style and Imperial specimens included for purposes of com-
parison are identified only by reference to Les monnaies d'Athenes and their
order is that of Svoronos' plates. Brief type descriptions are associated with
the New Style pieces and their arrangement is roughly chronological.
Each result represents an average of two closely agreeing determinations.
In the case of analyses of more than one coin of the same type, the tabulation
gives an average for the three elements and for the ratio of lead to tin.2
Cm
Sn
Pb
Ratio
Pre-New Style
{Pb to Sn)
5 PI. 22, 85-45
89.49
8.69
1.71
.19
2 PL 22, 64-70
88.78
9.72
6.04
.62
85.75
11.10
2.79
.25

4 PI. 22, 72-79
1 PI. 22, 80-84
82.38
8.41
9.22
1.09
2 PI. 22, 85-88
81.98
12.62
4.77
.87
2 PI. 24, 10-16
86.88
8.79
3.91
.44
1 PI. 24, 42-50
87.49
10.67
1.29
.12
2 PI. 24, 51-57
87.89
10.58
1.71
.16
New Style
1 Athena hd. Corinthian helmet/Zeus lowered
arm, prow symbol. PI. 81, 9-16
88.74
11.10
.22
.02
1 Athena hd. Cor. helmet /Zeus hurling ful-
men, eagle and cornucopiae. BMC 548
86.88
10.56
2.73
.26
640
Cu Sn Pb Ratio
(Pb to Sn)
New Style
Athena hd. Cor. helmet/Zeus hurling ful-
men, pilei symbol. PI. 81, 83-89
88.86
9.36
1.03
.11
Athena hd. Attic helmet/Owl on amphora,
no symbol. PI. 79, 1-7
84.96
9.89
5.15
.59
Athena hd. Attic helmet /Tripod. PI. 80, 1-7
81.25
8.54
9.93
1.16
Gorgon's hd./Athena advancing. PI. 25,
75.13
8.25
15.31
1.86

22-28
Athena hd. Cor. helmet/Zeus hurling ful-
men, star and crescents. PI. 81, 45-48
78.42
7.96
12.33
1.55
Athena hd. Attic helmet/Sphinx. PI. 80,
18-21
74.99
6.59
17.49
2.65
Dionysos hd./Athena advancing. PI. 25,
29-82
78.16
7.54
18.82
2.49
Athena hd. Attic helmet/Owl on amphora,
cicada. PI. 79, 88-42
75.73
6.02
17.72
2.94
Athena hd. Attic helmet/Athena advancing,
owl at feet. PI. 80, 29-82
78.60
6.89
18.68
2.71
Zeus hd. /Dionysos hd. PI. 25, 86-42
70.25
Bronze Analyses
641
of the next three issues is suggested by the relative wear of coins in the first
Attic Hoard recorded by Bellinger (NNM 42, pp. 1-9). That these four strikings
came before all or most of the nine emissions which conclude the New Style
listing is established by the composition of the eight bronze hoards mentioned.
Some of the last nine issues can be associated with particular silver strikings
and given a definite place in the chronological sequence: the Gorgon's head/
Athena advancing bronze is linked with the Niketes-Dionysios silver of
180/29; the Athena head/Sphinx with Diophantos-Aischines of 108/7; the
Athena head/Owl and cicada with Demochares-Pammenes of 100/99 and pos-
sibly the Athena head/Athena advancing with Diokles Meli-Medeios of 89/8.
Other issues owe their placement chiefly to the relationship between their
metallic composition and that of the dated issues.
The significant factors in these analyses are the amount of lead present and
the proportion of lead to tin. Caley (op. cit., pp. 186-149) suggests that the
high percentage of tin in early bronzes may have been due to inexperience on
the part of mint officials undertaking production of a new currency, a tend-
ency to use the same kind of alloy that had proved successful for other purposes,
such as statues, without realizing that its hardness and brittleness made it
unsuitable for coinage. Gradually correction was made in the interests of malle-
ability. However, since the advantages of leading cease when the proportion
exceeds a certain limit, about 5% or a little more, after which the alloy be-
comes too soft and weak, it is apparent that the over-leading which charac-
terizes much of the New Style coinage was the result of other considerations.
These probably involved the higher cost of tin and its increasing scarcity after
the destruction of Carthage and the consequent disappearance of the Cartha-

ginian trade in tin. Certainly for Athens it would have been far cheaper and
easier to use the lead of Laurium than to import tin from abroad.
From the tabulation it seems quite clear that lead percentages and the
lead-tin ratios correlate closely with the dates of the coinage. In the third
century bronze the proportion of lead is consistently below 10% and generally
below 5%, the ratio less than 1% in all cases but one. The earliest New Style
strikings show a similar pattern with very little lead, even less on the whole
than is found in the pre-New Style coins.1 Later New Style pieces have con-
siderably more lead and it is noteworthy that for issues which can be dated
with precision there is a direct relationship between the amount of lead and
the lateness of the emission. With the Imperial coinage, excessive proportions
of lead make their appearance in all specimens except the last three entries.
1 Caley notes (p. 43) that there is frequently a "tendency of the earliest coins of an entirely
new series to contain a greater proportion of tin and a smaller proportion of lead than the coins
at the end of an immediately preceding long series."
41
642
These would seem on the basis of style to belong early in the Imperial sequence,
which would explain their comparatively low lead percentages, the first issues
of a new series being better in composition than the last of the series imme-
diately preceding.
It cannot, of course, be supposed that analysis alone will provide a tight
chronological sequence. As will be noted, the individual results from several
coins of the same issue show variations in lead percentages and in lead-tin
ratios. Even greater variation might reasonably be expected from bronzes of
different years no matter how closely associated in time. Furthermore an
absolutely consistent progression cannot be assumed. The alloy of one year
will not inevitably be poorer than that of the year or years previous; it may
for one reason or another be slightly better. Still the overall pattern is un-
mistakable: a substantial difference in lead percentages and lead-tin ratios
may safely be taken as indication of a chronological disparity while a notable
correspondence implies relative proximity of emission. The last five issues of
the New Style section of the tabulation presumably belong to the final years
of the coinage, roughly between 110 and 87 B.C.; the Mithradates bronze
should be closer in time to the Gorgon's head striking of 130/29; the entries
just preceding are seemingly even earlier.
E. Weights
In determining average weights for the listing below and in drawing up the
six frequency tables which follow, coins of less than 16 grams and mutilated
or badly corroded pieces have been omitted. The weights that have been used
are, I fear, not invariably above suspicion1 so that the results of the tabula-
tions must be interpreted with a degree of caution.

Year Number of tetradrachms Average weight Individual weights
of 17 gr. or more
196/5 8 17.16 17.00, 17.19, 17.30
195/4 10 16.82 17.05(2), 17.06, 17.07
194/3 8 16.93 17.04, 17.20, 17.28
193/2 10 16.94 17.05, 17.08, 17.09
192/1 1 16.75
1 Many are derived from sales catalogues and it is often true that different weights for the
same coin are given in the different listings. Usually the variation is not great but there is one
instance of an early reading of 17.40 and a later record of 15.79 grams.
Some of the weights in excess of 17 grams are for coins in trade but others relate to museum
pieces, a number of which have been checked and found accurate. Individual tetradrachms
weighing over 17.50 grams do exist.
Weights
643
Year
Number of tetradrachms
Average weight
Individual weights
of 17 gr. or more
191/0
12
16.88
17.00, 17.05, 17.07
190/89
17
16.68
17.05, 17.06
189/8
14
16.71
17.01
188/7
20
16.57
187/6
21
16.60
186/5
20
185/4
21
16.44
184/8
34
16.56
183/2
19
16.75

16.58
17.05, 17.10
182/1
15
16.52
181/0
87
16.59
17.24
180/79
31
16.57
179/8
20
16.52
178/7
24
16.54
177/6
25
16.65
17.00, 17.17
176/5
24
16.56
17.00
175/4
30
16.46
174/3
48
16.55
173/2
33
Year Number of tetradrachms Average weight Individual weights
of 17 gr. or more
150/49
102
16.54
149/8
84
16.57
148/7
94
16.57
17.05
147/6
86
16.52
146/5
67
16.52
145/4
78
16.55
144/8
108
16.59
17.07
148/2
16.51
17.00
142/1
70
16.52
17.00
141/0
77
16.49

78
140/89
59
16.50
189/8
87
16.48
188/7
99
16.55
187/6
84
16.45
136/5
48
16.45
17.04
185/4
44
16.47
184/8
52
16.48
188/2
87
16.87
132/1
67
16.44
181/0
94
16.42
180/29
101
Weights
645
Year
Number of tetradrachms
A verage weight
Individual weights
of 17 gr. or more
112/1
10
16.77
17.01(2)
111/0
16.67
110/09
16.80
17.05
108/7
16.45
107/6
16.54
106/5
16.57
16.23
104/8
16.64
108/2
16.56
101/0
16.25
99/8
16.68
98/7
16.72
97/6
16.39
96/5
16.76

105/4
17.00, 17.01, 17.29
95/4
16.82
94/8
16.97
17.05, 17.19
98/2
16.71
92/1
16.48
91/0
16.89
90/89
646
196/5-187/6 (116 coins)
17.30
17.20
17.10
17.00
16.90
16.80
16.70
16.60
16.50
16.40
16.30
16.20
16.10
16.00
17.30
17.20
17.10
17.00
16.90
16.80
16.70
16.60
16.50
16.40
16.20
16.10
lG.no

16.30
171/0-170/69 . ,
168/7-167/6 (265 C0U,S'
Any more precise calculation than this would be of dubious value in view
of the uncertainty as to the accuracy of much of the data. One can feel reason-
ably certain of only the overall pattern: tetradrachms of good weight in the
initial years of the series, somewhat lighter coins during most of the middle
years, a further reduction c. 132-130 coinciding with the period when the
Laurium mines were seemingly showing signs of exhaustion, and finally after
120/19 a return to the higher standard of the first issues.1
1 It is conceivable that this higher standard toward the end of the second century is in some
way related to the decree on weights and measures (IG II2 1013) which prescribes a general
tightening up of the standards and fixes the value of the commercial mina in terms of the coinage.
But if the rather confusing equations outlined in the decree do imply any improvement in the
standard of the coinage, I confess that I am unable to comprehend the connection. Ferguson
(Klio, 1904, pp. 8-9) assigns the inscription to 103/2 B.C. but Roussel (DCA, p. 120, n. 3) believes
that its date is entirely uncertain. If it belongs to the last years of the century, it is unlikely that
any adjustment of the weight standard of the coinage is involved for there is no evidence of a
change in the standard at that time.
Weights
647
!5S.'7-157/6 (348 coins)
149/8-148/7 (178 coins)
Wide variation in weight of well-preserved tetradrachms of all periods
suggests that the mint did not attempt to strike individual coins in absolute
or even close conformity to the prevailing standard. Rather one assumes that
the treasury supplied a certain weight of silver from which it expected a
certain number of tetradrachms to be struck and that weight correspondence
of individual pieces was largely dependent on the skill of the workman de-
tailed to prepare the flans. A yield of 1550 tetradrachms per talent for the
early and late years, 1560 for the middle years and 1570 for the period of greatest
decline would be in rough accord with the readings of the frequency tables.
That the mint's basic concern was with the number of coins from a given
weight of metal rather than with the weight of each piece is further suggested
by the results of adding the weights of two large lots of coins. Five hundred
tetradrachms representing all specimens of the listing above for the years 164/3
through 158/7 gave a grand total of 8289.07 grams; five hundred tetradrachms

of the years 157/6, 156/5, 154/3 and 153/2 (with the omission of five coins)
648
182/1-180/89 (262 coins)
17.80
17.20
17.10
17.00
16.90
16.80
16.70
16.60
16.50
16.40
16.30
16.20
16.10
16.00
17.30
17.20
17.10
17.00
16.90
16.80
16.70
16.60
16.50
16.40
16.20
16.10
16.00

16.80
120/19-87/6 (203 coins)
gave a total of 8302.54 grams. Despite individual variations of as much as a
gram or more in both groups of coins, the total for the first lot of tetradrachms
was lighter than that of the slightly later lot by less than the weight of a single
tetradrachm: 18.47 grams.
F. Die Positions
Die axes are adjusted vertically in the vast majority of cases but in all
except five issues of the Early Period and in all but five of the Middle Period
there are examples of minor deviation. Seven strikings between 131/0 and
112/1 also show some irregularity. With the exception of one grain-ear drachm
which is related f ->, the inclination is always very slightly to the left or right
of the vertical position. Through 184/3 the tilt is usually right, between 183/2
and 174/3 about equally divided left and right, from 173/2 through 141/0
Die Positions
649
almost invariably left and after that date almost invariably right as in the
initial phase of the coinage. The period of greatest deviation occurs between
174/3 and 150/49; before and after those years there are only a few examples
per issue of aberrant position.
The inclination may be the result of carelessness or, more likely, of an
adjustment made by means of a line through the front or nape of the neck
rather than through the center.1 It would seem to have no significance except
as a record of the varying techniques or work habits of individual mint em-
ployees.
195/4 /
171/0
150/49 \
192/1 /
170/69 / \
149/8 /\
190/80 /
169/8
148/7 \
189/8 /
168/7
147/6 /\
188/7 /

167/6
146/5 \
187/6 /\
166/5
145/4 \
186/5 /
165/4
142/1 /\
185/4 /
164/8
141/0 /\
184/8 /
168/2
188/7 /
183/2 /\
162/1
187/6 /
182/1 /
161/0
136/5 /
181/0 /\
160/59
185/4 /
180/79 \
159/8
138/2 /
179/8 \
158/7
132/1 /
180-170 (drs.) /->
157/6
180/29 /
I I I I H I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 00 I I
I I I I i-H I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I <?J ! I
I I I I <-H I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I <3 I!
I I I 1^1 I I ti I I I I CM I I I I I <S I ~h I 3 I
I I I <M I I I i' I I I lrH| | | | | ^ I ( I fc- J I
I I I I^HI I I ( f I I I <M I I I I log I * I JS I
"*05T-l(N<N-<*<O><M-'#OOTHi-lOTt<C0 I S >* 3
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
O OS t-
>C'^CO(Mr-IOOOOOt-eO>n'^la5(Mi-lOt-ODt-'--l tO US <l K !4 ^
oio-âsiMT-ioasaot-coo-^coiMi-'Oasaoo t- o irs cc ci
OOiSlOJOlOlOiCOOOOOOOCBOOflOOOODflOt-t-OO t t- t t fc t-
1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 |ol<< 2 a 1 Q x '
S*td2jSie*3>l'tiJ-*Q:<tz<<><o K^-* <J < 5

o 1 7 1 x1 1 1
Annual Distribution
651
I OS
I OS t-
I US OS
I CO OS
t- co
t- O
CM <N t-h
M N 00
"1
(C * M M H i-l H I I 91 SI IN H I I I I I
00
tNJ
S3
00 Q0
2?
IIIII
.0
00 N f 0 N t<5 9Q I I <M <Si <-1 I I I I I
t-i fs Oi iOOS'*sO(>jTj<US'*<T<(MCMTt<'*rJi(N
C<J i-H 11 1-H
lO IO (S t(I i-Ht-(i-li-lO>l(M^H(MOS<Mi-l-iCN(N'^
to n e) m eo 50-^<MoS(NoS50'*ix>i-i^Tt<-i<t-

10 <o so ^ 9)M33<eHt>(Ba^[-teo<o
Oh (N Ol fll !D 00 COt-00HCOlfiH(O00(S>O5^
"i O* 1-H < 1 1*1 . !,
_ C5
o o 00
T-H O
t- t- CO
<N <M t- OSOS<N<MOt-i,-h,-ItH<?J<M
1 rH t"H T-H tH T* tH rH H r-H rH t* i* r-H rH rH T"H tH
00
t-_ _ us^ ^ co^ oj^ r-^ o_ ?_ E^. S2_ SJ. S. 21 22. >
CCt-COliti^ OS<Mi-Ha0t-tfS-<1<OS<MT-lO> 'ITn
>>
T3 O
Hi -m
.S vO
c^
C I-*
652
J3
rt
rt
tn
t9
4-1
rt
i-
-9
. > <u
$3

OQ
. tn
> 4)
"4) -*H
Pi Q
>
tn
>
".a
tn
.3
I l<M III I I i t I I I I -1 I t
I I IS III i I tH i-H | | | | iH | |
I I SO III I I 04 <M I I I I H I I
"5 <M i-Hrti-H l-*il<?JC3<>Tj<GO<M<OI>-l
CO CO <N ,-h ,-1 Htl5rt(M(S(fl(fl(S
OH "H 00<O>OtON^NN^N
S<m woo ocoi-i c*a)^HistocDioo;
to com to w Ti<T)<-ô3t-eccotMcOT}tco
CQuj to t- t CO OSCMOOt-efllMTHTjiwsos
t r4 ^1 T-t 11 HHrtHHSrtHrtHJI
00
33
OS t-
to
00
t- to
2? CO
OS r
P0U3J 3JVJ
Lf
66
06
9Z
61
Ll
Ll
Zf
Zl
01
01
LI
961
211
Zll
69
68

851
f6
OL
19
86
LZ
96
08
06
91
56
81
91
LI
61
OT
61
16
91
17
25
No. of
Coins
28
66
94
Rev.
Dies

No. of Tetradrachm totals Drachm totals Hemidrachm totals
Rev.
Dies
11
88
49
Obv.
Dies
Annual Distribution
655
For one section of the coinage, namely that struck between 168/7 and 121/0,
it may be assumed that the large number of surviving specimens and dies pro-
vides a reasonably accurate reflection of the month by month operations of
the mint. The production schedule of each year, the obverse and reverse dies
in use and their longevity, the rotating third magistrates, the distribution of
the control combinations, and the extent to which recutting and transferal of
dies was practiced are all a matter of record. The pattern as it emerges, both
in detail and in broad outline, is of considerable interest and since this is the
only Greek coinage for which we have data on so comprehensive a scale, it has
seemed worthwhile to present the picture in full. This has been done on the
pages that follow by means of a series of diagrammatical outlines embodying
the information available for each issue.
The arrangement is by months and third magistrates. Under the name of
each official are recorded the obverse dies, numbered to correspond with the
catalogue entries, in operation during the tenure of that particular magistrate.
Long vertical lines down from the names indicate tetradrachm dies, shorter
lines drachm and hemidrachm obverses. Below the number of the obverse die
is a listing of the control combinations found on reverses employed with that
obverse during the month in question. Every control combination then repre-
sents a reverse die but the order of entry is in most cases arbitrary.1 Transfer
of a reverse from one obverse to another or from one magistrate to another
is denoted by broken lines. When the shift is within a single month under a
single magistrate, there will be no recutting involved unless it be of one control
combination over another. In such instances the sequence of controls is rec-
orded by an arrow indicating the direction in which the die has moved.

When a reverse is transferred from month to month or from magistrate to
magistrate, recutting of the amphora letter or magistrate's name or both has
taken place.
The conventions described may be more easily understood in relation to a
definite issue. In 167/6, for example, coinage under the annual magistrates
MENEA and ETlirENO is struck in every month of an intercalary year except M,
the space between A and N signifying the interruption. A single third magis-
trate is associated with each month's coinage except in Z which is shared by
and 25 for hemidrachmsa grand total of 1293. The running inventory numbers of the cata-
logue bring the figure to 1272. This discrepancy of 21 is due to the designation by X
numbers of 19 tetradrachm obverses and 2 drachm obverses, added after the catalogue had
been completed.
1 The sequence of reverse dies within a given month can be determined only in relation to
an obverse which develops flaws. Occasionally the transfer of a reverse from one month to the
next establishes that die as the last or first of a series.
656
IQQA and EniTO either in rotation or concurrently.1 Two to three tetradrachm
obverses are in operation every month, with the exception of E and I for which
we have evidence of only one,2 with from one to six reverses associated with
a single obverse. The life of these obverses ranges from one month (No. 352)
to five (Nos. 353-354).3 In 167/6 drachms and hemidrachms are also struck:
Nos. 356-358 representing the former and No. 359 the latter. Six instances of
transfer of reverse dies are recorded but only one involves recutting. A reverse
stamped with the HP control combination is used by NIKOr in month H; it
continues in use under his son and successor, NIKOr NE, in month 0 with NE
added to NIKOr in the field and 0 cut over H on the amphora.
For the diagrams as a whole, certain shortcuts have been taken in the in-
terests of clarity and space conservation. Only the first two letters of a control
combination are given although up to four letters may be inscribed on the dies.
Control combinations which are entered in the catalogue as in some degree
uncertain are here given without qualification, the question mark, standing
alone, being reserved for wholly illegible readings. Only obverse die numbers
are recorded in connection with the fractions. This is usually all the information
that we have since control letters rarely appear on the smaller coins. To have
added them when they do occur and to have marked out the comparatively
few instances of transferred reverses would, it seems to me, have confused the
charts without commensurate gain since the fractions represent a minor part
of the silver emission during the New Style period.
There are other omissions which are of greater importance but unfortu-
nately unavoidable. If a tetradrachm reverse has an illegible amphora letter
and the third magistrate associated with it is known to have served for more

than a single month, one cannot tell with which month the die belongs and it
must be omitted from the diagram. In the case of a recut name, there is no
way of connecting the earlier form of the reverse with a particular obverse die
unless we have examples of the reverse in both stages. Omissions in these two
categories are fairly numerous and, of course, affect the completeness of the
record. With respect to the fractions, dies on which the date is uncertain and
1 In the case of two or more magistrates linked with a single month, the sequence of the
diagram is usually based on the evidence of recut names, progressive deterioration of an obverse
die or association of an official with another month. Since Z24>A of 167/6 had been connected
with epsilon, coins with his name probably belong at the beginning of zeta. It is possible, of course,
that those with ETTirO's name are contemporary rather than subsequent.
2 With regard to iota it is evident that there is a gap in the record. Obverse 354 is used in
theta and again in kappa and was almost certainly also employed in iota. Lacunas such as this
will be discussed in more detail in connection with the interpretation of the diagrams.
3 As indicated in the note immediately preceding, No. 354 was surely used in iota as well
as in theta, kappa, lambda and mm.
Annual Distribution
657
the third magistrate's name ambiguous1 have of necessity been omitted. In
a very few instances, however, a hemidrachm striking which could be linked
with either of two magistrates has been assigned to the one under whom
drachms were struck since hemidrachms normally appear in months during
which the larger fractions were issued.
The information in the diagrams is then fragmentary to an even greater
degree than in the catalogue. Some of the gaps can be filled in with relative
certainty, others are beyond repair in the present state of our evidence. What
we have in essence is a skeleton, from which the anatomy of the coinage if not
its fully rounded form can be deduced. Nevertheless even this is remark-
ably helpful.
1 For example, TTOA on a hemidrachm of HPA - APIZTOO (No. 346) may be an abbre-
viation for TTOAYX of alpha or TTOAYM of delta and epsilon. Since dates are not inscribed on the

hemidrachms a definite association cannot be made.
658
hpa - apiztoo
(168/7)
TOAYX (A)
324 330 331
HPAKfl (9)
I 344
837
HP
MENEA (B)
In
I 341
380 331
AN ANTA
AN HP TA
HP
<DIAAN (I)
335 337
AN TA
AN TA
HP
HP
TA
AHMH (O
I 341 342

330 331 332
AN HP HP
HP HP
nOAYM (A)
I1III
342 343 344
332 333
HP AN
IIOAYM (E) <DlAn (E)
332 333
TAfA
APXE (Z)
"346
344
333 334 335
AN TA TA
AN
APXE (E)
333 33G
AN TA
TA
BAZIAE (K)
II
345
AN TA
ETTI5TP (A)
lis
I 345
335 339
HP AN TA TA
AN AN--AN TA
API2TOK (M)
339 340
TAHP AN
TAHP AN
TA
336
HP
EXE(H)
IP
I 344
335 336
AN TA
Annual Distribution
659
GEOOP (A)
350
347 348
TA TA AN HP
TA HP AN in
MENEA - EnirENO
(167/6)
NIKOr(H)
851
HP-
356 357
353
HP
ME
:-HP
AIOAO (B)
I I I 356
347 348 349
FA in TA HP TA
in HP HP HI
NIKOr NE (9)
3511 353 354
KD' HPME HP
HP ME I<J>
oiAoe (O
356
348

359
in HP
in
849
TA
350
OOEAOY (A)
348 350
in in TA
HPHP TA
m TA
inOA (E)
351
AYIAN (I)
I 359
357
853
HP IO
HP ME
AAEEA (K)
357 358
353
HP
354 355
HP HP
Z<|>.I<p
ME
EYPYK(A)
358
354 355
ME IO
? ME
ma>A (Z) Eniro (Z) apiite (N)
356 I I 356 357 | |
351 352 353 354 355
AI HP ME ME ME-ME
10 HP ME-ME IO
66o
A0P09 (A)
"375
309
360 361
Z4> 2<t>
20>
Z4>
362
ME
ME
ME
TIMAPXOY - NIKArO
(166/5)
APXE2(H)
I I 375
371 372
864
ME
ME
MNA2IK(B)
361 362 363
2<t> ME 2<t>
AMcDIKPATI (Q
369
362 363

ME 2<t>
ZO-20>
2<D
2021 fE (A)
"375
369
362 363 364
ME ME2<D 24>
MEXD
MENAN (E)
f 369
364
MENANAP02 (9)
372
364 365
ME 2<D
KAEQN (I)
372
366 367 368
20> 2<t> ME
ME
20
ANT10X02 (K)
367 368
ME ME
ME
2<D
OANOKAE (A)
373
367 368
ME ME
20) 2<I>
AY2IA (Z)
364 365
2<D ME
ME 20
Annual Distribution
OANO (A)
~~r
878
nOAYXAPM - NIKOr
(165/4)
AHM0I6E (B)
373
868 876
Al Al
2<J>
AIANTI (B)
376 877
Z<D io
(DIAOAO (O
376 378
ME ME
ATTOAAnNIA (A)
-i
382
381
378
ME
Al
AIONYIIOY (E)
381

378 379
Al ME
2tt
0EMIITOKAH (Z)
378 379
..Al ME
Al _. XJ> .
I<t> ME
Al ME
EME
662
AfiPOGE - AIO<D
(164/3)
-(A)
| 39
391
383 384
ME. A! Al
ZO Al10
NIKOAQ (H)
394
388 389
Al ME
Al-Al
ME-ME
AUXINHI (H)
| 394
389
Al
AIOKAE (B)
AIZXINHZ (9)
391
383 384 385 386 I
ME AIM_ Al ZO .?
ME AIME AI

AHMH OYAI (Q
385 386
AI Al
ME
AIONY(K)
AHMH OYAI (A) j""^
r~] 390
392 ME
387 Al
Z<D
AHMH OYA (E)
387
ME
XAPMI (A)
| 895
394
389 390
ME Al
Z<t> ZO
Al
AHMH OYA (Z) ANTIAOX (M)
~T FT"1
388 889 390
ZO Al ME
Al ZO V Al'
Annual Distribution
ANTIAOX (A)
ANTI0X02 - NIKOr and KAPAIXOI
(168/2)
AP!ITO(H?)
896 897
ME in
HI-in
400
in
NIKnN (B)
402
396 397
ME in
10
IAPATTI (0)
399 400
10) IO
10
in
ABPnN (Q
402
396 897
ME 10
EYNOM (I?)
400
in
402
896
897
ME
ME

EIPHNA (A)
AfAGA (K)
399 400 401
m~*io-io
in-in
IKYMNOI(E)
| 403
402
897
iom
in ME
EYMAXOI (E)
403
402
897
ME
ME
HfHMn (A)
401
ME
in
npmorE (Z)
398 899
m in
ME
664
9E00PA - lOTAI
(162/1)
HrHMn (A) HPAKX2N (A)
401 406
me in
OIAHM (B)
in
411
405 406
10IO in
10 znm
EYKAHI(0
406 407
ZQ---Zfl
Z<t>
TTEIZfiN (A)
401
Z<t>
"1
411
404
20
405 406
m---m
in in
ZO

MEME
AA1N (6)
I 411
408
in
APIZT (I)
411
409
za>
AMOIK (K)
I 411
409 410
ME IO
MEME
NIKOK(A)
407
ZO
410
ZQ
inKPA (E)
407 408
in ME
nOAYKAH (Z)
( 411
408
ATOAAn (H)
[~411
408
in
HP
NIKOK (M)
409
ME
in
OAAAI (N)
409 410
io m
ME
Annual Distribution
665
ETTIAI02(A)
419
413 414 415
ED ME SD
AIOrE - TTOIEI
(161/0)
6E0A0T (H)
417 418
Al SD
ME
AHMH (B)
414
ME
415
SD AI-
MEAI
419
416
"A,SD
aP
EPMOKPA (0)
417 418
ME Al
419
415
ME
ME
ME
416
SD
Al

AIO (O
(DIAIQ (E) HfEMA (E)
416 416X 417
ME SD Al M_
Al MEME
AflPOGE (Z)
417 418
a>MC ai
? ME
666
axaioz - HAI
(160/59)
EPMOKPA (6)
411
422 423 418
ME AlAl Al
2<t>
HPAKAEI (0)
421
ME
423 425
AIXD ME
Al?
NIKANnP(9?)
422
ME
EYAHMOS (O
| 411
11 422 423
Al Xt> *t>
ME Al
irrnoNiKos (A)
411

421 423 424
ME 10 Al
NIKANQN (f?)
423
nY60KAHI (!)
425 426 427
ME MEXD 10
Al??
ATTOAAOAn (K)
425 426 427
Al ?-MEZO Al
SD? MEZO?
MHTPOAQ (A)
KAEAPX (E)
421 424
ME?
ME
KAEAPX (Z)
424
ME
EYAH (Z)
421 423
ME Al
ME
425 426 427
ME *D ME
? Al Z<D
Al
SnilBIOZ (M)
425 426 427
ME ME Z4> Al
ME ME SD
Annual Distribution
667
AYZAN - TAAYKOZ
(159/8)
lEPn (A)
429
MEZO
ME ME
430
ZO
431
ZO
NIKflN (B)
429 431 432
Zn ME ME
ME ZO
AAMftN (H)
433 434 435
Zn ZO ME
01A0KPA (9)
433
20
440 440X
434 435 436
ZO ZO ME
zn Z<J>
ME ME

AGHNOAn(0
430 432
Z<t> ME
? zn
KAEOOAN (A)
430 431
ZO ME
ZO
432
ZO
ME
MENEA (E)
431 432 433 434
>zo
20 ME za> ME ZH^ ME
AGHNOBI (I)
435 436
ME zn
ME
NIKOAn (K)
434 435 436 437
Z<t> ME ZO ME
Z<t> ME Zn ME
NIKANnP (A)
437 438 439
ZO ZnME ME
zoa zn? ME
zo zn? zo
ZO ? ME ME Zn
668
KAAAIKPA (A)
ETTirENH - ZQZANAPOZ
(158/7)
441
Al ME--
Al ME -
Al?
AIME-
442
MEzo-
MEZO
ME
459
443
.ZO
MOZXI (B)
ZO
ME
ME
Al
441 442 443 444 445
Al ME'Yoê'aTaT'mE
ZOZOHPHPAI ME
ME 20 HP- HP^
j HP HPZ?

EYMH (O
443 _ 445 446: 447 449
10 ME" ZOZO"mEZO Al 20 Al
20 ME 20ME-ME20 Al ZO
ZOZO ME ME HPHP
h,p np i
AEINOK(A)
445 446 448 449
ZO-ZO ME MEZO
TTP-nP MEAI
ME HP AI-,
HAIOAn (E)
449 450
zo np.-np hp
20AIAl HP
ZOAI ? ME
20 ME
MHTPO(Z)
449
Ar
450
ME
461
20
452 453 454
? ME Al
MHTPO Al (H)
454
451 452
TTP-TIP
20
ANTirONO (9)
460
452 453 454 455 456
TTP ME Al nP 20
ME Al
BOYAAP (I)
453 454 456 457
ME Al 20 nP
TTYGONI (K)
Annual Distribution
669
nOAEMON - AAKETHZ
(157/6)
6E0A0T0Z (A)
461 462 463 464 465 466
HI ME ?ZOZO 2X12X1 ME
20 5X1--2Q ME
ME
TIMQN (H)
469 470
ZO ME
ZO ME
471
zn
zn
nATPn (B)
474
473
464 465 466 467
zozo znzn-zn zn
zozn-znzn zo
zo ? znzn me
m zn m,e
AHMH (0
473
464 465 466

ZO zn ME
zo zn ME
AlONYZOAn (A)
~474
465 466 467 468 469
zn ME ZOZO ZO
zn 20-
APIZ (0)
473
469 470 471
zo me zn
ZO ZOzo
ME
EYAI (I)
468
zn
473
469 470 471 472
ZO ME--ME ZO
i zn i
AnPO (K)
470 471 472
me zn zo
me zn zo
zo i
AITOAAOAn (E)
465 466 469 470
Zn ME ZOZO<--ME
ZOZO
AYKI(Z)
473
465 469 470 471
zn zo-zo zn
ME
670
MIKIQN - EYPYKAEI
(156/5)
apizto (A)
475 476 477 479 480
Zfi IOIO ME 10 Z-
Zn ME ME
ME
EYAN (H)
"493
491
483
ME
484
SO.
ME<--ZO'
in
485
ZO
AZKAH (B)
478 479 480
ME ME Z0
MEMEIO^Zn2"
AHMO (G)
484
ZO.
ZO

10'
485 486
in zn
zn
487
ME HI
MEZO
MEZO
AIOKAHI (O
478 479 480
ML zo zn
me"2 zo z-
BOYKATTHZ(A)
479 480 481 482
zo znzn zo-zo
MEZnm me
ME J
ropnn (i)
492
486 487 488
m MEmtZOZW
APEZTOZ (K)
I 493
492
487 488 489 490
ME ZOZO ME ME ZflZQ
ME 10Zn ME ME 2X21-
ZnKPATHZ (E)
491
483 484 485
MEME^ Zn
ZO
me zo zn
nAPA (Z)
rn
483 484 485
zn me zo zo zn
ME ME 20 ZO
Annual Distribution
671
MHTPO (A)
494 495 496
ZO ME ME
AOPOAII1 - AnOAHSI
(155/4)
ZIMI (G)
[ 5^7
498 499
ME ZO
AHM0Z9(B?)
496X 497
ZO Al
AEINO (I)
500 501
ME?
MEIAfiN (O
497 498 499
? ME ZO
ZO
EYMAPEI (K)
500 501 502
ME Al Al
ME
KAAAIA (A) HfEMA (A)
Al

497 498 499 500 500 501 502
Al ZO Z<t> ME
ME Al Zd>
ME
BAKXI (M)
500 502 503
ME ZO ME
ME
APIZTAP (Z)
501
498
ME Al
HPAKAEI (H)
672
EYPYKAEI - APIAPA
(154/3)
AAESAN (A)
503 508
ME AI
2HKPA (B)
503 509
ME-ME
rAI
506 523
510
-in
AIONY(r>
509
ME
1;
510 ; 1511
in-J; ai Ai-
m-
in
.1
innoNi (A)
509 510 512
ME

ME in AI
AIOKA (E)
510 512
m AI
AI
IATY (Z)
512
512 513 514 515
AI AI m ME
AI
HPAKAEI (H)
HPAKAEI (0)
515 517 518
ME in?
ME pin
HPAKAEI (I)
515 !517
ME !in
i -m-
(DANOKPI (I)
515 517 518
ME A! AI
-IIQ
EENOKPA (K)
518
AI
HENOKPA (A)
517 618 519 520
in AI ME in-
in ME
APXin (M)
518 J 520 521
ai --inin
AI
ME
KAAAI (M)
518 520
AI-- in
KAAAI (N)
518 522
-AI ME
Annual Distribution
673
KAPAIX - EPTOKAE
(153/2)
TIMO (A)
~1
542
524 525 526
me 10
ME
in
XAI (H)
538 534 535
ME in?
Z<D
10
GEM I (B)
MENA(0
527
528
529
ME
ME--
-ME
2<t>
ME
in

I<t>
527 528 529
MEML Xt>
? in
EYAH (A)
529 530 531
*t> ME in.
ME<-in'
I<D
XAI (0)
5:S:5
ME
534 585
xt>- m
536
ME
-ME
AIO<t> (I)
534 535 536 537
let) in*-, in 7-AI-
ME-|i--in ! ME
-? ii in-, i me
r'i-ME
11
Lr-rf
4...:.:
538
-AI
KD
xt>
10
OEIfcl (Kji
535 ;536! 538 539
m-J MEi-in ME
in 10
540
ME
in
KAE (E)
542
530 531 532
ME in I<D
674
ErriNi (A)
543 544
Al Zd>.
r-AI -Zd>
3D
EYÎA (B)
EYMA (0
543 544
Al-Al
543 J 544 545
Al i-ZO ME
Al Zd)
AOPOAIII - AlOrE
(152/1)
ePAZY(r)
543 545 546
Al ME Zd>-
A9H (H)
546 547
Z<D Al
ZflTTY (9)
550
ME

ZQKPA (I)
znnY(H)
nn
548
Al
Al
549
Zd>
AIO (K)
546 548
Zd> Al
ZQKPA (G)
549. 550
Zd> ME
550
ME
0IAO2 (A)
EAIS (A)
543 544 546
Al ZO Zd)
Al ME ZO
EAIS (E)
543 544 546
Al ME ME Z<D
MEME ME ?.
XD J
A0H (Z)
544 546
ME Z
546
Zd>
548 549 550
Al Z<D ME
Al
ZATY (A)
548 550
Al ME
551
Zd>Z
ME
Al ME Z<DZ<D
Annual Distribution
675
ANTIOA (A)
578
AIONYII - AIONYII
(151/0)
MHTPO (H)
552 553 554 556 557
-AI ME Id) in ME ME Al
: ai in in -inAi-
566 567 568 569
m IOIO ME Al-
m IOIO ME
m 1$
671
-Al
APII (B)
554 556 557 558
m ME AIAI-Al
10
m --Al ME--, MEr-ME-
: m-;imi,--m
: iifEilLAi
-in-
559 660 661
IO ME IQ
550
10

APIITAI (0
560 561 563
2<t> IO-IO
578
Al
559 560 561 562 563
IH ME Al IO Al Al
m mio ai
AHMOI(A)
APIITO (6)
569 570 571 572
IO m Al ME
ME m ME-ME
AIIXI (K)
569 570
io m
IO
571
Al
Al
573
ME
579
566 567 568 569 570 571
m IO ME IO m Al
Al IO Al
TIMfiN (I)
KAAAII (E)
564
Al
Al
505
ME
5G6
111
567
IO
MNHIAP (A)
569 570 571
676
AIONYZI (A)
AYIAN (Bj
581
nE
nE
nE-
582 !583 584
ME--! ZO AI--
ME :-nE-nE
-' 10-
HPAKAE(O
581 582 583
nE>ME zo
ME
HPAKAE (A)
582
ME
583
ZO
Al
AI-
584
Al-
AMMnNlOZ-KAAAIAZ
(150/49)

577 580 581 582 583 584
ZO SO nE ME ZO Al-
AI .nE .-ME ZO
EYBOYAOZ (A)
83 584
583
ZO
ZO
EYBIOZ (H)
~r
588
ME<
AAKirmOZ (H)
585
ZO--. ZO
AAKinnoz (9)
586 588 589 590
ZO ME ZO M.E
OAYMniOZ (9)
585 590
>nE ME
BYTTAKOZ (I)
586 590 591
ZO MEKJItT ZO
i MEME i
BYTTAKOZ (K)
59^ 593
ZO nE
EYnOAE (A)
ZO
592 593
ZO nE-;
ZO
595
590 591 592 593
ME ZO ZO nE
nE
EYBOYAOZ (E)
84 58
51
Annual Distribution
677
6EMIZT0 - GEOnOMnOZ
(149/8)
OIAONI (A) AYZANI (H)
596 597 598 602 603
Al ME Al ME Al<-
AI ME
OlAfi (B)
599
ZO
AnOAAOOA (B)
AYZANI (9) AHMHTPI (6)
;<J7
5!
ME
ME
598 599
Al ZO
Al
010
601
ZO.
600 603

ZO Al
600 602 603
ZO nE Al
MENOI (O
597
ME
Al
598 600 601
Al ZO ZQ
IP.
ZQ
APIZTO (I)
603 604 605 606
Al nE-nE ME
Al nE ME
nE
MENOI (A)
COO
, -Z<D
APIZTO (K)
603
604
G05
606
A!AI
Z4>
nE
ME
za>
ME
MENOI (E) OEOAflP (E)
600
-Z0>
610
597
ME
600
20
601
Al
GEOAfiP (Z) OEOrEN (Z)
cot
nE
678
A1TOAAOOA (A)
611 612 613 614 615
SO- SO
SO ME r-Z0
HI ME
SOKPATHS - AIONYSOAO
(148/7)
rTPOTOM (H)
620 622
SO 10
so
ZOIAOS (B)
ASKAATTON (9)
613 614
Hi ME
Hi
615
SO-
61G
SO.
SO SO'
so
626
617
ME

619
621 622
SO SO
SO
MOYSAI (0
616 618
SO SO
AXAIOS (I)
SO
621
622
SO
SO
SO
APISTOS (A)
615 616 617 619
SO SO ME SO
SO
APTEMON (K)
618
ME
619
SO
621
SO
622
SO
627
623
SO
624
ME
625
ME
AGHNI (E)
I I I 627 628
615 617 619 620
SO ME SO SO
L..-...7 J
Annual Distribution
679
ANTIOANHZ (A)
MHTPOAfiPOZ - MIATIAAHZ and AHMOZ0EN
(147/6)
EYKAHZ(H)
629 630 631
ZO 20 ME
ZO ZO ME
632
ZO
633
TTE
TTE
637 639 640
ZO ZOZO
KAAAIZ (H)
In~n
I 646 647
637 638
ZO TIE
ZO
ANTIOANHZ (B)
629
ZO

EPMOfENHZ (B)
630 631 633
E-nE TIE
ZO ME TIE
KAAAIZ (0)
639 640
ZO ME
TTYPPOZ (0
631
ME
632 633 634 635 C36
ZO E ZO_^ ME ZO
. zo
KAAAIO (A)
633 635
E ME
637
ZO
EYKPA (I)
640 641 642 643
ME ZO ZO nE
ME ZO ZO nE
0EOOI (K)
640 642 643
ME ZO ZO
nE
OlAOnO (K)
640
ME
KAAAIO (E)
APXIAZ (E)
633 635 637 638 639
nE ME ZO nE ZO
OlAOnO (A)
640 642 643
MEME^n nE
ZO u
APIZTOAH (Z) ZMIKY0 (M)
Js &4
635 637 638 639 640 643
ME ZO nE ZO ME nE ME
i ME ME
68o
AIOTIMOZ - MArAI
(146/5)
NIKOAHMOZ (A)
648 649
ME---ME
650
zo
661
TIE
TIE
665
652 653
ZOZO.
ZO'
ZO
ATTOAAflNlAHZ (H)
GGO
ZO
661 662
Z<t> ZO,
ZO'
zo
XAPINAYTHZ (B)
065

654 655
Z<D 4--ZO
XAPINAYTHZ (f)
! 656 657 658
Z<D nE-nE
2<t>-. r-TTE ME
XAP.INAYTHZ (A)
<656
-ZO
658
>ME
Go!)
EXEZ9ENHZ(A)
655 657 658
nE-nE M
ZO
MEZ,
ME
:o
EXEZOENHZ (E)
657 658
nE ZO
KAAAIAAHZ (0)
658 660
ME-MTE
ME nE
AAMI0Z(9)
658 660
ME nE
AAMIOZ (I)
661 662
ZO>ZO-
ZO
goinoz
22
661 662
ZO ZO--
~668
GGG
663 664
!nE MEM_
ZO ZO n?MEME
HPAKAEOA(A)
Annual Distribution
681
eoi (A)
zn zn
ME
AION (B).
671 672
? ME
EYMAPEIAHZ - AAKlAAM and KAEOMEN
(145/4)
"1
685
669 670 671 672 673
ZO zn Zn^ ME?
673 674 675
10 ME 2X2
? zn
MHTP (H)
673
ZO
677 678
Zn r"ME
-ZQ i
G79
ZO
TIMÔK (95
ZO

C73
678 ; 679
ME ! ZO
ME..L
680
ME
APIZ (O
676
673
ZO
677 678
ZQ ME
ZO
AET1N (I)
680
681
ME
ZO
ME
ZO
r-ME
AHMO (A)
673 677 678 679
ZO?
ZO
MEME 10
ME ZO
AHM (E)
673 677 679
zo zn zo--j
AZK(Z)
677 678 679 |
zn ME ZO~
zn ME
AEnN (K)
679 682
zo zn
nyppi (A)
TTYPPI (K)
683
682
NIKA (A)
686 687 688 689
r--ME ZOc-ZQZQ-;;Z0
!r-ME 10??
SO
AlONYIOAn (B)
686 687
ME ZO
: >zo>
088
Zn "-SO
ZO
689 690
ME
ME
(144/3)
AYKIZKO (H)
691 693 694
-Al ME ZO
-Al
AIONYZ (0)
692
694
-Al
zo
zn

in-
EYAHMOZ (T)
688 689 690
Zn-jZOZO ME
! ZO-;
687 j 688 689
ZO! Al zn
izn
HPftKAEI (E)
688 ! 689 690
*AI | ZO ME
zn-i--zn ME
EniTI (Z)
688 689
ZQ r--?
9-.
690
ME
690
ME
691
ZO-
ZO
AnOAAOAn (Z)
691 092 693 694
-ZO r--Al I--ZO-ZO
!r-AI:
Emro (i)
691 692 694 693
ZO ME-
ME'
Alzo Al
ZO !~ZQ
GEOHE (A)
691
692
694
695 !i
-ZO
-zn
Annual Distribution
683
TIMOKPATHZ (A)
OANOKAHZ - AnOAAQNIOZ
(143/2)
AAE(H)
697 698 699
zn ZOZO zo
ZO ?--
700
zn-
701 702
ME ?-2<D-i
APIZTOAHMOZ (B)
700 701 702
h-zn ME ZO-
ME-
ZnZTPATDZ (O
700 701 J 702
-zn ME- ZO
eEOAflPOZ(H)
700
zn
EIPHNAI (6)
702 703! 705
zo<zo-I .zn
Z<D

zn 1
! zn...
jI
IEPDN ()
685
706
702 705
ZQZXJ 1 ME--v
->ZO
Z<D
OIAINOZ (I)
702 705 706 707
ZO zn ME?
zn 1 v
BAKXIOZ (A)
700 701
ZO ME
ME
li ToC
ZO
703
ZO
AAEEAN (Z)
701
ME
703
ZO-
704
ME
AZKAAnnN (K)
706 707
ME ZO
ZAT(A)
ZTPATIOZ (A)
705
zn
ZTPA (M)
707 !708
zo i--zo
705__.7P6__707( 708
ZCH
ZO.ME
684
EYBOYAIAHZ - ArAGOKAH
ZQIAOZ - EYANAPOZ
(142/1)
0IA09 (A)
710 711 714
ZO ZO ZO-
0EOA (A)
i-
712 713 709
i--zn-^n--, ME-
722
AYIin (B)
722
709
1>ME
ME
714
20-.
ZO
714
zo
.-10-,
ayzitt (o
713 714 715
i^

-in --. ZO?
AYZIMEN (Q
709
ME
AZKAHTTl (H)
nOAYKPA (H)
715
ZO
ZOIAOZ (9)
714 715
-ZO ZO
-ZO i~
716
ME
eEOSEN (I)
714
i-ZO
717
719
ME
714 715 716!
-ZO I--IO-, ME-J
Ii
6EOEN (8)
I 722
716
ME
ZOKPAT (0
719 720
ME ME
ME
MENNON (A) AEINIAZ (A) ZOKPAT 09
713 714 709 714
-ZO ZO ME ZO
in
718
Z4>
AEINIAZ (E)
714
ZO
ZOKPAT (A)
Annual Distribution
685
KPITON (A)
AAMflN - 2H2IKPATH2
(141/0) ,
719 723 721 724
ME TTE 20? TTE
ME4--MEZO nE
ETTirEN (H)
726 728
1-nE ME
KPITON (B)
719 723 721 724
ME rAn 20 nE
.--20 .-nE
KPfrON (Q
719 ; 723
ME !An
724
nE
725
ME
NIKONO <JA)
721
r-20

725 ! 726
ME !nE
NIKONO (0
i733
727
Artf
--me .-nE An
721
-nE
lAIfiN (E)
OEOAHP (E)
721
20
727
An
7i2S
ME-
721
.--SO
.: zp
724 726
nE .nE-
727
.-An<
728
ME
ME
eEOAHP (Z)
APIZTON (Z)
726 727 728
nE .-An ME
l.j
721 J 726 |727
20 --? !An
- ...nE1!
EnirEN (6)
726 727 728
nE An-An
.--ME
686
AAE5 (A)
747
729 780 781
ME An .-10
EYMHAOI - KAAAKDQN
(140/89)
HPA (H)
739 740 741
ME ZO J--ME-
ME!
I AAES (B)
ir. . .
>731 732 735 736
i-XO 20 An ZO
ZO--t
AAES (O
729 731 735 786
ME ZO._ An ZO-
AIOKA (A)
736 737 738
ZO An An-
AIOKA (E)
736 788 739
ZO
HPA (E)

An MEfcJ
MEME
HPA (Z)
736
'10
738 740
An ZO
An
HPA (0)
740 741
ZO ME--
HPA (I)
742 743
An ZO
HPA (K)
742 743
An-. 10
740
786
789
! 740
744
745
ZO
ZO--;
ME
!-zn
ZO
ATI
ZO
ZO
ZO
740 741
ZO ME<
-HI ME
HPA (A)
747
743
ZO
HPA (M)
741 745 746
ME ME ZO
ME An ZO
Annual Distribution
687
HPAKAEIAH2 - EYKAH2
(139/8)
AIOK(A)
747
745 749
An ME
A2KAH (B)
745 750
An 20-
A2KAH (T)
749
ME
AIONYIO (0
745 749 750 751 762
An ME 202020 10
1010
20-.
APIZTON (A)
|751
2-20
752 753
20 20
An

APIZTON (E)
nEieOAAKH)
753 755 ! 756
An ME ! ME--i
EYB0YA02(9)
756 757!
ME 20*2
ME
748
AlOfE (I)
753 755 756 757
An 20 ME 20
AlOfE? (K) AHM029 (K)
758
753
-An
AHM0I9 (A)
753 756
!-An ME
751 754
20 ME
API2TON (Z)
753
An-
M02XIQN(Z)
754 755
ME An 20
20
AHM029 (M)
757
20
20
688
AHMOZ (A)
; ahMoz (B)
759 760' 761 762
ZO ME An ZQ-
ZO .--ME ,-ATT
*I
I 760 ;761 762 768
S-ME i-ATT in ZOZO
6E0A0T0I - KAEOOANHZ
(138/7)
rME An
S!
zo-
ZnijAZ (B)
761 '762 763 764 765
An i-zn zo me zo
An-i zn .--zo ME~i!
-An! i zo ---
! 1!
ZQTAZ(O
762
764
765
766 j
767
ME-

ZO
->ZO
An--:
zri
ME
ZO
An
zn
ME
An
zo
ZTAZ(A)
765 766 768
ZO An ME
AflPOeE (A)
765 766
ZO An
An
767
zn
768
ME
nAATON (A)
765
ZO
zo
766
75S
767 768
zn ME
An
EniMAXOZ (E)
I 758
765 768 769 770 771
ZO ME An ME ZO
ME An
EniMAXOZ (Z)
758
AYZinn (z)
Annual Distribution
EOAOTOI - KAEOOANHZ
(138/7)
nOTTAI (H)
774 775
An ME
TOnAI (G)
770 771 773 J774
ME 10 mXQ-!ATT
zo za--; An
nonAi (i)
71 775
:o An
AIONY (K)
773 775
ZD ME
AIONY (A)
774 775
AnAn
ME
AIONY (M)
771
ZO
773

ZQ
6go
TIMAP (A)
HPAKAEIAHZ - EYKAHZ
(137/6)
ZQZIKP (H)
777 778 779
.-ME An
ZO
j TIMAP (B)
780
An
AIONYZOr (B)
T~1
799 800
778 779 780 781
-ME-j iAn ZO MEME--MEZO
An ZOrMEME-;ZOZO
ZQ| :1
AIONYZOr (0 XAPMIA (Q
800
778 782
An An
779 782 783
784
An

r-ZO An ME-
XAPMIA (A)
779 782 783 784 785 786
'S.O An ME ZO ME ZQ--:
An i 1 i
. ...
XAPMIA (E)
782 784 785 786 I 787
An ZO ME ZQ- ME
JEQ
zqzikp (Z)
800
786 787 788 789 790
ZO
ZO
ZO
ME An
An
ZO
787
ME
788 789 790 791 792 793
An ZO ZO-T ME ZO zp
An
ZO [ ME
ZQZIKP (0)
789 791
ZO ME
ZQZIKP (I)
BAKX1 (I)
792
ZO
BAKXI (K)
789 793
in An
789 794 795
ZO ME r-ME
BAKXI (A)
793 794
Annual Distribution
691
(136/5)
KPIT (A)
795 797 798
zo ,riE An
! TIE-
T~l
800 810
KPIT (B)
1! 1
795
797
ZO t-TTE
801
>ME
"I
810
802
An
An
AMYNOMA(O
801 802 803 804
ME An ZO ME
An
AMYNOMA (A)

804 805
ZO ME nE
AHMHTP (H)
802 807 808
An ZO ME
AHMHTP (I)
r~
811
AHMHTP (K)
805
nE
AHMHTP (A)
802 808 809
v.An me nE
An zo
AMYNOMA (E) AHMHTP (M)
802?" 808 J9
n 10 ME nE
An
AMYNOMA (Z)
I I I I 810
802 804 805 806
An ME ME nE ZO
ME nE
692
XPYZ(A)
812 813
? -ME
?:
IKEZIOZ - AZKAHniAAHZ
(135/4)
809
814
TTE
ZO
10
6EOO (0)
820
20
TEIE (B)
rtf 11
i 811
812 i 813 814
TIE L-ME ZO
TEIZ (O
809 814
!-nE ZO
GEOO (I)
820

ZO
6E0O (K)
817 818 819
TTE -TTE An
An:
TEIZ (A)
l 822
814
ZO
TEIZ (E)
809 814 815
TTE ZO ME
GEO (M)
817 818
ME TTE
820
ZO
9E0<D (Z)
814 816 817 818
ZO MEME TTE
6EOO (H)
817 .818 819
ME TTE An
Annual Distribution
693
TIMOZTPATOZ - TOZHZ
(134/3)
AION (B)
823 824 825 826
ME ZOZOnE ATT
ZO-? TTE
AAM (9)
828 829
ME r-TTE
AOPO (I)
829 ! 830
ITE ->ZO
TTE
EPMA (O
823 824 825 826
ME ZO TIE An
An
MHT(A)
825
-TTE
AAXHZ (E)
824 826 826X 827 828
ZO ?r-ME An ME
:~4 An

AAXHZ (Z)
827 828 829
J-nE'/'-MEME-- n(E
AEY (H)
836
828 829 830
ME ?nE
ME nE
APIZ(K)
829 830 831 832
nE ZO-; An ME
APIZ(A);
829 830!
Tl
J837
rnE
zo!
ATOA (M)
838
829
-nE
nE
830j 832
?J
833
ME-ME
AnOA (N)
834!
ZO-!
835
AIT
6q4
AMOIKPATH2 - EniZTPATOI
(133/2)
KAEOMA (A) EYAI (H)
T~l
837 852
833 834 835 840 842 844 845 846
,-me ? An i nE r-An me An
?--; i
apittok(b) EYAI(e)
833 841 842 846
i-ME ZO so An
nE
APirroK (o
in
I 853
833 842
ME nE
EYAI (I)
846
rME
APIZTOK(A)
848
?--
EYAI (E)

842 843
?-ME
HPOAO (A)
841 842 843 844
-20 nE ME An
EYAI (K)
842! 845 846
me!ME- An
EYAI (A)
842 847 848
nE ? nE
APIZT (A)
846 848 849 850
? nE ZO ME-
ME
EYAI (Z)
841
842
nE
ZO
apizt (M)
848 849 850 851
nE An zo me An
nEzo An
Annual Distribution
695
AQZI0EOZ - XAP1AZ
(132/1)
AION (A) ZOA (H)
847 850 851 854 855 863 867 868
TTE ME An ME ZO An ME ZO
TIE i An j TTE
AION (B)
877 878
NIK (B)
ZOA (9)
847 855 856 857 858
? ZO TTE ME TTE
ZO-
TTE-j ME-
! ME
NIK(0
ME
An
nE
TTE
TTE
AION (A)
861 862 863
An ME An
AION (E)

864 865 866 867
nE ME-? ME
ZOZO
855 857 859
ZO -20 ATO-ME
ME ME?
TTE ZO-
863 867 868X 869
An nE ME ZO
S TA?(I)
11
870 870X
871
11
nE An-
ME
859X 860
861
ZO ZO
An
nE
XAIP (K)
nE
l1
869 870 j 872 .873
zo nE i-An-An
ZO
XAIP (A)
ZOA (A)
874 876
An ZO
An
ZOA(M)
874 875 876
An ME ZO
XAIP (M)
AION (Z)
873 876
871
An ZO ME
6g6
(181/0)
An (A) 01(A)
rm m
879 883 884 885 880 881 882
nE An ? 20 TIE zo An
ATT(B)
883 888 891 892 894
AH TTE nE ZO MH
ZO
<W(B.
>
86 8
(9 890 89
ME HE ME An--. ZO
OAY (B)
An
An(Q
883 891 892 895 896 897
An zo zo mh An An
890
An-

01(0 i
- (D
899
MH
An (A)
892 897
zo An
AH(E)
898 899 900
nE ,MH ZO
ii
897 898 900 !904 909
An nE zo*nE nE
An S J
OI(E)
893 905 906 907 908
ZO nE- MH ZO MH
nE MH
OAY(E)
903 905 906 907
An nE MH ZO,
An :-nE MH ZO-
.10
(E)
899 900 901 902 904
MH MH--MH MH MH
An(Z)
904 909 910 911 912 914 915 916 917 918 919
nE nE AnAn mhmh zo zo zo mh zo An
An MHnE MH
-)
913
An
Annual Distribution
ATT(H)
909 917 918 921
TTE MH SO TIE
ahmhtpioz - ArAeinnos
(131/0)
OAY(H) -(H)
905
TTE
885 905 906 907 920
20 TTE MH ZO MH
TIE MH
An (9)
919 921
AU HE
TTE ,C
An (i)
885 899 921 924
ZO MH nE An
<w 0)
908 921 922 923
ME nE ZO MH
ZO
-0)
884 920
An MH

An(K)
921 924
nE An
01 (K)
923
MH
-(K)
894
MH
MH
An (A)
921 925
TTE,IC MH
An<M)
922 924 925
zo An MH
Z0 TTE MH
698
NIKHTHI - A10NYZI0Z
(130/29)
AHMO (A)
932 933 j 934 936
MH TTE-* An 10
MH IO
MH
929 930 931 932 933 934 935
Z0~ -ZO~ -ZO MH TIE ATT ZO
r-TTE
AHMO (B)
AHMO (I")
APOMO (0
MENE(f)
933 935
TIE ZO
TIE
TAAY (A)
937 938 939 940
MH An ZO
MH An nEl,b
KAEI (E)
933 934 935 936
ZO

An An ZO MH
935 937
? MH-
937 939 940 941 942
mh nE zo_n An nE
MHMH zoZO An??
gpa(Z)
941 942 943 944 945
An ,--nE
An
ZO
ZO
MH
Annual Distribution
ePA'(H)
942 !944 946 947
TTE-'An 10 An
N1KHTH2-AI0NYII0Z
(130/29)
SENO (H)
948 949
MH MH
MH
950
944 945 948 949 950 951 952
An MH MH MH nE nE^ nE
MH
An nE
EMBI (9)
949 952 953
MH nE An
An
954 955
10 nE
956
20
EMBI (K)
955 956
nE 20
958
An

EMBI (A)
EMBI (M)
950 952 953 956 957 958 959 960 961
An 20 An 20 20 MH 20 MHnE MH
An MH | 20 nE? MH
700
APIZTIflN - OlAfiN
(129/8)
APOMO (A)
HriAI (H)
959 960- 961 963 964 970 971 972 973
20 ITE MH ZO An MH nE An-An_n
An 20
APOMO (B)
96^0 961
nE MH
APOMO (T)
960 963 964
nE 20 An
GEO (A)
961 965
? nE
GEO (E)
961 963 964 966 967
MH 20 An MH .--An
MH-i An J An
! An -1
HHA2 (9)

970 974 975 976 977
mh nE-nE nE ,-An-
ATT!
HHA2 (I)
976 977 978 979 980
nEnE<"An 20 mhmh-mh
nE-: MHMH MH
Hf}A2 (K)
975 j 97C 977 j 978 979 981 982 983 984 985
An--nEnE-.An-j 20 mh nE ah 20 20 mh
nErnE j An mh i An 20
HflAS (A)
981 1984
nE !20
nE!
eEjD(Z)
967! 968 969 970
An l->20 nE MH
An 20?
20
HHA2 (M)
981 985 986 987
nE ? nE MH
MH
20
20
An
701
(128/7)
()
()
()
990 991 992 993 994 995 996
- -
^ -
1007
1008
1009
1010
()
()
996 997 998 999
.,, -
()

1008 1009 1011
()
()
996 1000 1001
1011 1012
()
1010 1012 1013
()
996 999 1000
()
1011
()
1000 1002
()
1010
()
1012 1014
()
1000 1001 1002 1003 1004
1000 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009
- -
??
-_1
SN3HXV &0 30VNI03 H3A1IS 31A1S M3]tf 3HX
NV
HV NV
0801 6501
(W)
311
HV 311
8501 LTOI
(Z)
oz
oi an
mi izox
OZ
9501
(V)
OZ
9g()T
(X)
OZ i"\
550T I50T|
H7--J
0501
(V)
NV HV OZ

JZ.0I 8501 5501
(I)
HV OZ
iiv hv an oz hv an iiv
1501 0501 6101 8101 8T0I MOT 9101
Q)
oz-oz-oz
9501 Sr-OX t50I
(e)
311 uv
JMOI 9I0T
(a)
(V)
(9/i5l)
(quadras) Z0N320WdV - IHVXON3S
73
-()
1032 1033
--
-()
1034
-(
1035
<
1038 1039
(126/5)
(1)
1044 1045 1046
()
1040 1041
7--- *
()

1041 1042 1043
? ,
()
1046 1047
--,
()
1045 1047 1048
. -
()
1043
()
1047 1048
704
AHMEAZ - EPMOKAHZ
(125/4)
KAEIAA (A)
1050 1051 1052 1053
AH Al rr TTE
ai :--rr An
!! *
XAPIAZ (B)
1052 1053 1054 1055
-rr .-'nE An ah-.
nAEirriAs (Q
1052- 1053 1055
rr f-nE ah
An
AlOrE (0)
1060 1061 1062 1063
AH An AH nE
EY7TEI (I)
AYZIMAX (I)
1060 1060 1061
AH AH>BI

AYZIMAX (K)
1063 1064
nE AH
AYIIMAX (A)
1061 1063 1064
Bl nE An
AnOAAfiNIOZ (E) ZfillKPA (E)
057 1058 10
1055 1056 1057 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059
ah nE An ah nE bi An-An
AH BI?
SnZIKPA (Z)
1055 1060
AH-AH
AYZIMAX (N)
1061 1063 1064 1065 1066
bi nE An ah nE
ZnilKPA(H)
1057 1060
An-An
Annual Distribution 705
HENOKAHI - APMOEENOS (Dolphin)
(124/3)
(A) (H)
1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1087 1088
tie An An-An An nE ap ap
nE
nE r-An r-AP nE
1066
nE
(A)
1064 1072
-An i.-AP
AP
1074
AP
1075 10T,
UE
1076
r-AP
1076 1077 1078
? nE nE
,--TTE nE
()
P)
1082
1086
1087

1071 1064 1072 1073 1074
An
An
AP
np ai
1075! 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082
np :-->ap nE ap ap-! An An An
np ap j An
AP
nE nE
nEAP
(0
1087
AP
09
1091 1092 1093 1094
nE An._? np
AnATT ai
(A)
1095 1096 1097 1098 1098X 1099
nE nE ai ai An ap
nE np np
<Z)
1079 1083 1084 1085 1086
ap i An nE An
CM)
1100 1101 1102 1103
ap np An tie
AI
706
\ 5
()
1110
- ()
(123/2)
()
1123
()
1124
1111 1112 1113
1112 1113 1114 1115
()
1124
1113 1114 1115 1116
()
..

1124
1114 1117 1118 1119
(*
1119
1120 .1121 1122

707
()
1122 1123 1125
(122/1)
()
1130
1126 1127
101 ()
1127 1128
()
110
1128 1129
SN3HXV JO 30VKIOO HHAHS 31AXS 3HX
uv
113 WW
mi wit mi
(W) 20!2l3dVX
W33 uv
ia hv vv
eHI Tfll WII
(V) IOI3JdV
dV
vv
Of II
() 3V>IVdH
113
6811
TJ
<D NUWK
dVHV m
vvw
68IT 8SII
(H) ZV1NI3V
UV
113 |">HV W
8811; 2,811 S8.II
(57) ZV1NI3V
(o/ist)
11V

SVIJdOJ ~ NUHIW311V
>HV w-VV-;
1,811 98IT S8II
(V) IOIIANOIV
dV 113
dV 113 VV-
nil 88TI 5811
!(J) ZAONOlZIdV
VV 6
88IT 1811
(a) 3Joiv
VV HV
IV IV
sen mi
(V) 3JOIV
Annual Distribution
709
How much New Style silver did Athens issue and how was it distributed
over the production period? Even a tentative answer to these questions must
be based upon the coinage itself. There is no literary or epigraphical record of
the amount of money which the Athenian mint put into circulation during
any part of the second or early first centuries. All that we have are some seven
thousand surviving coins, a substantial mass of material but clearly only a
small proportion of the tetradrachms, drachms and hemidrachms which once
sustained the commercial and political life of the city.
Figures on surviving specimens in themselves mean very little for there is
no such thing as a general survival rate which can be applied indiscriminately
to the various issues of Greek coinage. In a most interesting study devoted to
the Amphictionic coinage of Delphi,1 E. J. P. Raven uses the fragmentary
accounts of the amount of old silver re-issued as Amphictionic staters, drachms
and triobols to arrive at an overall survival rate ranging (in round numbers)
between 1 in 12,000 and 1 in 20,000. A breakdown by denominations gives a
rate between 1 in 7000 and 1 in 12,000 for staters, between 1 in 73,000 and 1 in
120,000 for drachms and between 1 in 146,000 and 1 in 240,000 for triobols.
More recently E. S. G. Robinson has published an article on the later fifth
century coinage of Athens2 in which he discusses the money struck in 407/6
from the golden Nikai. Our information on this coinage is of particular signifi-
cance in that it includes not only the source of the bullion but also the number
of punch and anvil dies employed in striking the staters. Assuming that the
gold obtained from seven Nikai, weighing two talents each, was supplemented
by a lesser amount secured from other gold objects, Robinson calculates that
a total of gold roughly equivalent to 100,000 drachms by weight was available.

This was used to put out coins in six denominations: staters, drachms, triobols,
diobols, obols and hemiobols. Twenty-six of these coins have survived, in-
cluding four staters, and their aggregate weight is twenty-five drachms, giving
a survival rate for the gold of about one part in 4000.
Robinson makes no estimate as to how many coins of each denomination
were struck but this we must attempt to do with respect to the staters if we
are to profit from the fortunate chance which has left us a record of the anvil
and punch dies used for their emission. In Raven's calculations it was supposed
that an equal number of each of the three Amphictionic denominations was
struck and a division of the Athenian gold along these fines would result in
25,000 coins of each denomination from the 100,000 drachms of gold. This,
however, is almost certainly too high a figure for the staters. As Raven quite
rightly points out, fractions would surely survive in smaller quantity than
1 NC, 1950, pp. 1-22.
2 ANSMN IX, i960, pp. 1-15.
710
units; in the case of the Amphictionic issues the list of specimens known in
1950 includes twenty staters, two drachms and one triobol. The fractions of
Athens have survived in considerably higher proportion. Of the twenty-six
recorded pieces, twenty-two are denominations below the stater. Only the
hemiobol has failed to come down to us; all other fractions are well repre-
sented. On Plate 15 of Les monnaies d'Athenes, Svoronos reproduces three
drachms, three triobols, two diobols and three obols; Robinson's total is just
double that of Svoronos. If minute pieces, smaller than the triobols of Delphi,
have survived in such quantity, it is evident that they must once have far
outnumbered the staters. Hence it would seem to me that, as a maximum
figure, one might reckon forty per cent of the original gold40,000 drachms
by weightas the allotment for the production of staters. This would result
in 20,000 staters for a survival rate of 1 to 5000. Four anvil and twenty-two
punch dies were used for their striking. Assuming that the anvil dies were
equally durable and that the last was worn out when minting stopped, we get
a total of 5000 coins per obverse. For the first time we have at least an ap-
proximate figure for the amount of coinage produced by a single obverse die.
There are, of course, various factors which must be considered in relating
these calculations to the New Style issues. Were the dies for the later silver
made of iron, as was the case with the dies for the gold, or of bronze? Would a
die for a special currency be discarded when it first began to show signs of
wear and thus have a shorter life than one used for a standard issue of silver?
Were the gold dies perhaps used in rotation rather than seriatim with the
possibility that no one was completely worn out at the time the coinage stopped?
Such questions cannot be answered with certainty. All that we can do is to

take them into account in weighing the probabilities. My feeling is that a
reasonable estimate for the amount of New Style silver struck from an obverse
giving full service would be in the neighborhood of 6000 coins.1
1 At first impression one would suppose that dies used for the gold, which is a softer metal
than silver, would produce more coins but there are other considerations. Surely the mint would
have taken greater pains with the special gold issue and retired the dies when they first began
to show signs of wear whereas the dies for the silver were kept in operation until they really
broke down. There is a further possibility which must be taken into account. The dies for the
silver were used until they wore out, being carried over from one year to the next if necessary;
the dies for the gold were used only until minting stopped, until the supply of bullion ran out.
The practice of the mint in the Hellenistic period was to put between two to five obverses into
simultaneous operation; if a similar procedure was followed with the earlier gold, then some or
even all of its dies may have been only partially worn when coining stopped and they were
retired from service. There are, of course, a great many imponderables but I believe that the
figure of 6ooo coins per die provides at least a working basis for calculating relative productivity
if not absolute output.
Annual Distribution
711
Before applying this estimate to the individual issues, we shall need some
indication of the comparative completeness of our data with regard to the
obverse dies. Unless we know most or all of the dies originally in operation any
calculation may be more misleading than helpful. Here we enter the shadowy
realm of statistics where I have no competence and would not venture to
express an opinion. I can, however, due to the kindness of Mr. Raven, give the
results of a study undertaken by Dr. Francis Marriott, a statistician of his
acquaintance, who made computations on the basis of the average number of
coins known from an obverse die.1 It seems that if six to eight coins have
survived from a single die, very few dies are likely to be missing. When
the figure drops to three or two, the chances are in favor of a larger
proportion being unknown. My own experience with two large lots of new
material suggests that this is a reliable index to the accuracy of the record
for new obverses practically never turn up in issues with six or more coins
per die.
With relation to these findings, it is clear that our information on the Early
Period is very fragmentary. Only one regular issue, that of Miki-Theophra in
169/8, and one special striking, that of the grain-ear drachms of 180-170, have
a proportion of more than six coins to a die. All other emissions give an average
of three to five. Obviously it would be useless to try to estimate the extent of
the early coinage except in the most general terms since only two of its issues
provide a safe basis for precise calculation. With the Middle Period we are on
far firmer ground. Of the thirty-seven issues, only five show a ratio of less than
six coins per obverse die. The overall average is eight and seven strikings have
ten or better: 167/6 with eleven, 160/59 with ten, 158/7 with thirteen to four-

teen, 157/6 with fifteen, 156/5 with twelve, 144/3 with thirteen and 141/0 with
ten. Certainly few, if any, obverse dies are missing from these seven emissions.
With the Late Period the proportion drops sharply. Between 181/0 and 112/1
the average is again three to four, with the single exception of the coinage of
Apellikon-Gorgias in 121/0 which shows a ratio of seven to one. After 112/1
there is no real basis for calculation. If only one or two coins have survived
from an issue, the fact that a single obverse die is known means nothing. How-
ever, in a few instances the proportions suggest that our information is rela-
tively complete. For 108/7 five tetradrachms have survived, all from the same
obverse die, for 98/7 six from a single obverse and for 94/8 seven. Had a number
of obverse dies been in use during those years, it seems highly unlikely that
chance would have given us so many coins from a single example. The scanty
1 Dr. Marriott's calculation, as he stresses, is based on the assumptions that each die
originally struck roughly the same number of coins and that the coins found constitute a random
selection from those originally struck.
record of surviving specimens in the last stages of the Late Period is probably
a valid indication of the size of the original output.
During the Middle Period, between 168/7 and 132/1 B.C., 473 obverse dies
produced a coinage from which 3866 tetradrachms have survived. Assuming
that the record is comparatively complete and that missing dies would be
balanced out by known dies providing less than their full quota of 6000 coins,
we get an output of nearly 3,000,000 tetradrachms, the equivalent of roughly
2000 talents of silver. The overall survival rate for this section of the coinage
is 1: 734. With regard to the fractions, a wider margin of error exists in that
the proportion of coins to dies is generally lower than in the case of the tetra-
drachms. A minimum output of 402,000 drachms from 67 talents of silver and
102,000 hemidrachms from just under 9 talents may be estimated, with re-
spective survival rates of 1: 980 and 1: 1545.
For the seven years with the highest proportion of coins to dies the figures
per issue are much higher:
167/6
54,000 tetradrachms struck
101 survivals
1:534
160/59
48,000
79
1:608
158/7
108,000
244
157/6

1:442
72,000
182
1:395
156/5
96,000
196
1:489
144/3
60,000
129
1:465
141/0
72,000
122
1:590
All these issues fall within the period of the large hoards which explains their
extremely high survival rates1 and the same is true of the grain-ear drachm
series of the Early Period. Before the Attic Hoard was found only 48 examples
were known as contrasted with 148 now on record. With 21 known dies giving
an approximate output of 126,000 coins, the present survival rate is 1: 867
while that of the pre-hoard period was 1: 2625.
In the Late Period only the issue of Apellikon-Gorgias with a ratio of
seven coins to one obverse die can be considered representative. Twelve
obverse dies give an original output of 72,000 tetradrachms, of which 85
have survived. This striking is not included in quantity in the hoards and its
survival rate is accordingly lower than those of the Middle Period issues:
1 to 847.
1 Actually the figures would be still higher if one took into account dies giving less than
full service. As will be evident from later discussion, there are in each issue a number of dies
providing less than the maximum quota of coins, hence the output figures given here are some-
what high and the survival rates somewhat low.
Annual Distribution
7i3
Although it is impossible to calculate with any degree of accuracy the
amount of coinage issued in the Early and Late Periods, we can derive some
idea of its extent in relation to that of the Middle Period and the results are
startling. During the Middle Period the number of obverse dies per issue ranges
from 6 to 25, excluding the final striking of 132/1 which clearly belongs in out-
put with the issues immediately following and which, moreover, provides in-
sufficient data in its proportion of coins to dies. The overall average of obverse
dies is 13 per year. This is the period for which our information may be assumed
to be relatively complete. But from 191/0 through 170/69, years for which our
information is fragmentary, there is almost the same range of number of ob-
verse dies per issue6 to 21and almost the same average12 in this case.
Only two strikings of the Middle Period have more dies per year than the four
Early Period issues of 174/8, 172/1, 171/0 and 170/69. There can be no doubt
but that this was originally a far more abundant coinage than that of the
Middle Period. In thinking it smaller, we have been misled by the greater
number of surviving specimens from Middle Period issues and by the change
from two magistrates to three, implying a larger coinage requiring greater
regulation. This is certainly not the case. It seems likely that the trophy issue
of 188/7 with 13 obverse dies and 38 surviving coins was a more substantial
emission than that of Epigenes-Sosandros, one of the largest Middle Period
strikings, with its 18 dies and 244 surviving coins.
The situation in the Late Period is less surprising except in degree. A great
many coins of the initial issues have survived, thanks to the large hoards, and
from this we could have surmised an extensive coinage. Its full size, however,
cannot be apprehended from surviving specimens alone. Between 182/1 and

124/8 the number of obverse dies per issue is as follows: 29, 47, 83, 30, 25, 19,
17, 17, 42. Again it must be remembered that this is a period when our in-
formation is incomplete as contrasted with the Middle Period, yet even on the
data available the single issues of 181/0 and 124/3 used three to four times as
many dies as the Middle Period average. This is the peak of the entire New
Style coinage. After that there is a decline which cannot be accurately measured
but which probably brings output down to the levels of the Middle Period.
From 111/0 on there is a further drop. Exactly 41 obverse dies for tetradrachms
are known for the last quarter century of the coinage. Since it is unlikely that
we have a record of all dies, the number might be raised to 50 for an output
of some 800,000 coins or even doubled for what is surely too high an output,
492,000 tetradrachms. But 50 dies must have been used in 181/0 alone, well
over 82 in 181/0 and 124/3 combined.
This evidence for an extensive coinage in the Early Period, only a moderate
output in the Middle Period, a tremendous emission between 182/1 and 124/3
7i4
and a gradual decline to a mere token coinage in the decades before Sulla
is one of the most interesting results of the New Style study. It was not the
years during which Athens held Delos and the other cleruchies that witnessed
her great outpouring of silver currency; it was in the periods before and after
she controlled the islands that production reached its highest levels. The his-
torical significance of this is by no means clear to me but the fact is established
by the coinage.1
Particular aspects of the diagrammatical outlines have been discussed in
earlier parts of this publication. The uneven distribution of the tenures of the
1 A possible explanation for the large issues between 175 and 170 may lie in a vast building
program in the Agora involving the remodelling of the square by the construction of a group of
Stoas. Of these, the earliest unit is the Middle Stoa and the latest the Stoa of Attalos, which is
to be dated to the very middle of the second century. In a preliminary report on the Middle Stoa
(Hesp., 1952, pp. 86-90) Homer A. Thompson tentatively assigns it to the late 6o's and suggests
that Ariarathes V may have been responsible for its erection, but he tells me there is now reason
to believe that the Stoa was a civic enterprise rather than the gift of a foreign ruler and that
work on it may have started in the 70's. Construction of this large and elaborate building would
have required a considerable sum of money and it may well be that the extensive coinage of the
late 70's was put out to meet this need.
The tremendous emissions of 132-123 B.C. present a greater problem. They cannot be ex-
plained in terms of a building program in Athens, nor can they be justified in the fight of military
or unusual commercial activity. Yet if the annual issues between 169 and 132 are indicative, as
they must be, of the routine financial requirements of the demos, one must assume that special
circumstances dictated the vast increase of coinage in the period immediately following.
There are two factors which singly or in combination may provide a partial answer. The first

concerns an inflationary trend in price levels throughout the Mediterranean world. In a recent
article (Finanzarchiv, 1955, pp. 498-511) F. M. Heichelheim records a rise in grain prices in
138 B.C. or slightly earlier to 500 per cent of the low of 140 B.C., a second sharp rise c. 127 to
nearly 1200 per cent of the 140 level, followed by a recession c. 121/0 B.C. The extensive issues of
132-123 B.C. may be related to these inflationary prices although it will be noted that the chrono-
logical correlation is not exact and it is further noteworthy that an earlier period of catastrophic
prices, prior to 160 B.C., finds no reflection in the coinage.
A second factor is the decline or exhaustion of the Laurium mines on which Athens had long
depended for a constant and seemingly unlimited supply of bullion. This was undoubtedly a
severe blow which may have had profound psychological repercussions. To be sure, an adequate
supply of foreign silver was secured but there was no certainty that this would continue to be
available, no certainty that access to it would always be possible. The city may have felt it wise
to lay in a sizable surplus while circumstances were favorable so that these reserves could be
used if necessary as a cushion against any future interruption of supplies. A stockpiling of coins
rather than bullion seems somewhat surprising but minted silver would, of course, be more
readily usable than ingots. In connection with this second hypothesis it might be noted that it
not only would serve to explain the strange imbalance of minting activity during the Late Period
but would also make more comprehensible the composition of a group of late hoards (pp. 540-543)
under the assumption that some of the coins originally minted between 132 and 123 B.C. were
actually put into circulation at a later date.
Annual Distribution
7i5
third magistrates begins with the first issue of the Middle Period: FTOAYM
associated with delta and epsilon and APXE with epsilon and zeta. Still a third
official, OIAQ, is linked with epsilon, making three magistrates for that one
month. Two years later in 166/5 the sequence is perfectly regular. This has all
been presented in connection with the section on Magistrates and needs no
repetition here. The transfer of reverse dies and the recutting of control com-
binations has also been treated but something might be added with reference
to transfers with no recutting involved. To a great extent this merely reflects
the wearing out of an obverse and the shifting of its still usable reverse to an
obverse which continues in operation. Yet this can scarcely be the full ex-
planation. In the first month of 168/7 a reverse moves from Obverse 830 to
Obverse 381 (or vice versa) but neither anvil die is worn out, for both appear
with reverses of beta and gamma. Evidently one anvil has stopped work for
some reasona shortage of flans or bullion or perhaps personnel troublesand
its reverse die has been given to a second anvil, still functioning but in need
of a new reverse. The picture is far more complicated at other periods. Under
Epigenes-Sosandros and Polemon-Alketes in 158/7 and 157/6 there is an
unusually high incidence of mobile reverses. One might suppose that this
offered support for the theory that the assignment of dies to an anvil was on
a day to day basis, but the evidence as a whole is against such an interpretation.
If there was no systematic procedure regarding the association of obverse and
reverse dies, examples of multiple connections would surely be more numerous
than they are. For the most part the two dies seem to have been used in con-
stant conjunction, irregularity is the exception and not the rule.
Instances of seemingly pointless shifting about of reverse dies may be

explicable in terms of an uneven supply of bullion marked with the particular
control combinations of the year in question. In the second month of 157/6,
for example, three reverses are moved about among Obverses 464, 465 and
466. No one of the anvil dies is discarded, all continue to function the next
month. No. 464 is normally allotted bullion with the control combination Id),
No. 465 bars with Ifi, and No. 466 bars with ME.1 At the beginning of beta,
however, the only bullion on hand is marked Zfi. Most of this is allocated to
No. 465 with smaller amounts to the other anvils in order to keep them in
operation. Somewhat later a supply of IO metal comes in and is assigned to
No. 464 with a lesser quantity to No. 466, still deprived of its normal ME quota.
1 It is interesting to note the extent to which an obverse die is associated with a particular
control combination. Assuming that these controls served as a checking device for tallying the
amount of bullion issued against the number of tetradrachms produced, it may be supposed that
bookkeeping operations would be simplified if each lot of bullion could be routed through one
or two anvils rather than distributed at random.
716
The ISi reverses which the two anvils have been using, together with what
bullion remains to them, are turned over to No. 465 for future use. Nos. 464
and 466 begin to strike with the Z<t> silver. At a still later date the ME bullion
finally arrives and is allotted to No. 466 with a little given to No. 464 which is
running out of IO bars. It is only when a new supply of IO bullion comes in
that No. 464 is able to turn over its ME reverse to No. 466 and resume opera-
tions along normal lines. During gamma a more even distribution of bullion
is effected. All reverses of No. 464 have the IO control, all of No. 465 the SI
lettering and all of No. 466 the ME combination.
During the initial stages of the Middle Period the recutting of names and
amphora letters occurs in isolated instances. The case of NIKOr and NIKOrNE
with 0 over H, from the coinage of 167/6, has already been mentioned. In 158/7
there is a reverse with HAIOAQ cut over AE1NOK, E over A, and ZC> over Al.
A few years later re-engraving becomes more or less standard procedure with
a number of examples recorded for most issues through the remainder of the
three-magistrate period. A maximum degree of alteration is associated with a
reverse of 141/0 which has been inscribed with four names and five month
letters. Although the results of all this recutting leave much to be desired from
the point of view of legibility and general appearance, the practice must have
represented a considerable saving in the cost of engraving and for our purposes
it has an added advantage. Only in this period of extensive recutting can we
feel certain that reverse dies remained in service until they were worn out. In
the earlier years of the coinage it probably often happened that a serviceable
die was discarded with a change in magistrates and months.
As to the longevity of obverse and reverse dies and the number of reverses

coupled with a single obverse, the diagrams provide maximum figures: nine
months for Obverse 714 in 142/1, five months for a reverse in the next year,
seventeen reverses associated with Obverse 465 in 157/6 B.C. These records,
however, are meaningless except in relation to the picture as a whole and
particularly the production schedule of the individual issues.
One of the most important contributions of the diagrammatic outline is
the light it throws on the internal organization of the mint. During the Middle
Period and the earlier years of the Late Period, two to five anvils were in
simultaneous operation. Between 168/7 and 159/8, two to three was the norm;
the strikings of 158/7, 157/6 and 156/5 employed four; those of 155/4-152/1
seemingly only three. Most of the remaining issues of the Middle Period put
four into operation while a few emissions of the Late Period used five or more.1
1 It is impossible to tell what was happening in 131/0 and 124/3, the two years of greatest
production. This is probably due to the fact that only a small proportion of the original number
of reverses has come down to us.
Annual Distribution
717
Undoubtedly there were times when an anvil was closed down within the
course of the year or an additional one set to work but the general pattern is
so consistent as to suggest that normally a fixed number of anvils went into
production at the beginning of the year and that the same number continued
to function throughout the months of coinage. This may not be immediately
apparent from the charts but it becomes evident when one studies individual
issues.
The striking of Antiochos - Nikog and Karaichos in 163/2 is a good ex-
ample of a two-anvil emission. Chances are very good that we have most of
the material, certainly with respect to obverse dies, since the ratio of surviving
coins to dies is nine to one. In the diagram the distribution of tetradrachm
obverses is as follows:
AEI
896 897 897 400 899
BZK
396 897 898 399 400 399 401
THA
896 897 400 401
A0
396 897 400 899
Some changes in the diagram can be made with reasonable certainty. Ob-
verse 399 appears in zeta and in theta and can surely be restored for eta; there
would be no point in temporarily retiring a good obverse and cutting a new
die (No. 400) to take its place. In kappa there seem to be three obverses in
operation but it is unlikely that they functioned concurrently. Obverse 399

was by then in its fifth month of service, almost certainly it wore out during
the course of the month and was replaced by Obverse 401. Two months seem
to have employed a single obverse. With regard to lambda, it is entirely pos-
sible that in this final month of coinage the remaining supply of bullion was
used up with one die. In the case of epsilon it seems probable that our record
is faulty. The orderly pattern of two obverses in months preceding and suc-
ceeding implies that another obverse was coupled with No. 397 either No. 396
for a fifth month or No. 398, otherwise known only for zeta. An amended
diagram then would give the following distribution:
7i8
AE1
896 897 (898) 897 400 399
BZK
896 397 898 899 400 899
401
rha
396 897 400 (399) 401
Ae
896 897 400 899
This was a small coinage for which two tetradrachm anvils sufficed. Six
obverse dies are recorded but full service cannot be assumed for all six. No.401
carries over into the next year and No. 398 seems to have been a poor die which
yielded less than its quota of coins. Probably the equivalent of five full dies
produced the large silver of 163/2: 30,000 tetradrachms from 20 talents of
bullion. In addition drachms and hemidrachms were struck. An obverse die
apiece gives 12,000 fractions from another talent and a half of silver.
It should be possible to estimate very approximately what the production
rate was during 163/2. Each anvil would have turned out 15,000 tetradrachms.
Coinage was spread over eleven months but the last month is apparently a
period of scanty output with only one anvil working and hence a calculation
on the basis of ten and a half months might be more accurate. This would give
1428 coins per month per anvil or 357 per week. Assuming that the week
averaged six days due to time out for festivals and other celebrations and that
the mint employees worked ten hours a day, we arrive at a basic output of
about one tetradrachm every ten minutes. If the 12,000 fractions were pro-

duced on the same anvils the rate would go up to about a coin every seven
minutes. Even this second figure seems rather low but we have no information
on the division of labor at the mint in the late Hellenistic period. If the pre-
paring of flans was done by the same men who struck the money, the complete
process from ingot to coin might well have taken seven to ten minutes as an
overall average. Certainly the work in all its phases was onerous and could
scarcely have been maintained for long stretches at high speed. Under pressure,
as we shall see, the mint did better but in general it may be assumed that there
was no attempt to achieve anything like our mass production tempos.1
A representative three-anvil issue is that of Lysan and Glaukos in 159/8.
Parenthetical addition of obverses which must have been in operation during
1 There is no thought of offering these calculations as anything more than the roughest
approximations. Their value lies not in the definite figures for any issue but in their interrelation-
ship as a gauge of productivity at different periods.
Annual Distribution 719
certain months even though we have no precise evidence results in an amended
diagram along these lines:
AA0
429 430 431 432 430 431 434 433 435
436
BEI
429 (480) 481 482 433 481 (484) 486 485
432 434
THK
482 480 (481) 484 488 485 484 486 485
487
489 488 487
Die transfers substantiate the replacement of 482 by 484 in epsilon and of
435 by 487 in kappa. There is no similar evidence for the coupling of 429 and
482 in beta and of 488 and 486 in theta but I feel certain that the dies did
operate seriatim and that we have again a perfectly ordered distribution of
the year's coinage over a set number of anvils, in this case three. Eleven ob-
verse dies are recorded for 159/8. All except the last two are in use for several
months so that presumably the equivalent of ten full dies produced the coinage,
giving a total output of 60,000 tetradrachms. With an additional 12,000drachms
the amount of silver consumed would have been 42 talents. Three anvils pro-
ducing for ten months give a rate of one tetradrachm every seven minutes or
one coin every sixa better record than that of 168/2.
Of the four-anvil issues, that of Polemon-Alketes in 157/6 may be assumed to
provide the most complete data since it shows the very high proportion of fifteen

surviving coins per obverse die. Amending the original diagram gives this picture:
AAH
461 462 463 464 465 466 467 469 471 470 (468) 469
465 466 468
BEG
465 466 467 464 465 466 (468) 469 471 470 (468) 469
470
rzi
465 466 (467) 464 465 470 (468) 469 471 470 (468) 469
471 472
471 470 468 472
Reverse transfers support the replacement of 467 by 468 in delta and that
of 469 by 472 in iota. There can be little doubt but that 465 was worn out by
zeta and succeeded by 471 and similarly that 466 was ready to be retired in
epsilon and replaced by 470. Three dies of the first month (461-463) have a
single reverse apiece, suggesting that they had been taken over from the
coinage of the preceding year and functioned for only a short time at the be-
ginning of 157/6. The Ifl control found on reverses of 461 and 465 and the ME
lettering on those of 462 and 466 have determined the coupling of obverses.
If three of the twelve dies of 157/6 were already well worn when put into
operation and 472, in use briefly at the end of the year, is another example of
a die of limited service, we are perhaps justified in regarding these four dies
as the equivalent of one full one and calculating on the basis of nine dies. This
gives a coinage of 54,000 tetradrachms to which should be added 6000 drachms
and 6000 hemidrachms. The rate would be a tetradrachm every ten to eleven
minutes or a coin about every eight.
Calculations with respect to any five-anvil issue involve more than the
usual number of pitfalls. The coinage of Niketes-Dionysios in 130/29 has the
highest ratio of surviving coins and dies but even this is only four to five speci-
mens per die. What we seem to have is the following arrangement:
AEK
929 930 981 982 933 939 940 941 937 942 955 (950) 956 (952) (953)
934 935
BZA
984 (935) 936 982 988 944 945 941 948 942 [955] (950) (956) (952) 953
rhm
984 985 936 987 933 944 945 946 947 942 958 950 956 952 953
Ae

949 950 951 952 948 959 957 960 961
939 940 [936] 987 988 949 (950) 954 952 953
955 956
The pattern of five anvils seems definite for B, r, E, Z, and K. It is also
highly likely for A since successive transfers of a single reverse suggest that 929
and 930 gave very short service due perhaps to their having been carried over
from the coinage of 131/0. For A and A we have a record of less than five anvils
but it may, I think, be supposed that this is a result of incomplete data and
that in both months a fifth die was in operation, although there is no assurance
that the bracketed restoration is in either case correct. By M, Nos. 950, 952,
953 and 956 had been in use for a considerable time and it is not unreasonable
Annual Distribution
721
to surmise the replacement of all four in the final month of the year. The
situation in H and 0 is more confused. Many dies are in service for only a brief
period and at least ten are associated with the former month. It seems to me
doubtful that five additional anvils were brought into operation for this one
month and then all closed down two months later. Rather I should assume a
short term of intensive production during H and part of 9 with dies wearing
out rapidly and being replaced with greater frequency but with striking still
confined to the original five anvils.
To some extent dies missing from the record may be offset by dies giving
less than full service, of which there seem to be a number. Only the most
tentative kind of estimate is possible. With 30 dies, as a probable minimum,
output would be 180,000 tetradrachms; with 40, as a probable maximum, it
would be 240,000. Between 120 and 160 talents of silver would have been
needed. Even though coinage was spread over eleven months and five anvils
were in operation, the mint's resources must have been strained to put out
this vast amount of money. The production rate rises to a tetradrachm every
three to four minutes and one imagines that periods of peak activity required
additional personnel.
The life span of a representative obverse die is, as one would expect, in
inverse relationship to the production rate of the issue. When the mint operates
at low speed, as in 163/2 and 157/6, a die giving full service lasts on the average
for four to five months; when production is at a higher tempo, as in 159/8, it
survives for three to four months. Under Niketes-Dionysios in 180/29, seven
obverses of the middle months of the year are associated with a single month.
Most others last about two full months but two (Nos. 950 and 952) survive

for three full months and a part of two additional months. For this year our
evidence is probably too fragmentary for any definite conclusion except that
longevity is in general substantially reduced.
A fair number of reverse dies are inscribed with two or three amphora
letters and in one case five are recorded. Even with a low production rate for
the issue in question and under the assumption that the die was engraved at
the end of the first month and retired at the beginning of the fifth, its durability
is remarkable and must have been quite exceptional. Certainly the average
reverse die is expended in the course of a single month.
A final point of interest concerns the numerical relationship of obverse and
reverse dies. If all dies of the gold of 407/6 were used to capacity, each anvil
die employed 5.5 punches. The ratio for the New Style silver is definitely
higher than this and probably considerably higher. For the seven issues giving
us presumably our most complete record, the number of reverses associated
with a single obverse averages out at 7, 7, 6.2, 6, 5.4, 5.6, and 8.6. However,
722
in no one of these issues are all obverses used to capacity nor can we assume,
even for these years, that we have full information on reverse dies and obverse-
reverse combinations. Our best years, judging by the proportion of surviving
coins and obverse dies, are 158/7 and 157/6. One-half of the obverses of the
first striking are coupled with eight or more reverses; two have sixteen each.
One-half of the obverses of 157/6 are used with nine or more reverses; one is
combined with seventeen. Since adjustments must be made with respect to
these maximum figures in that reverses were transferred and some undoubtedly
discarded prematurely due to a change in magistrates and months, it may be
safer to consider a group of obverses rather than isolated examples. Under
Polemon-Alketes, Obverses 464, 465 and 466 are associated respectively with
fifteen, seventeen and eleven reverses. In four instances, the same reverse is
connected with two obverses so that only thirty-nine separate reverses are
employed by the three anvil dies. Since this is the period when recutting of
reverses is not common practice, a certain number of dies will have been retired
at an early stage. At most, this could have happened with eleven reverses but
it is highly unlikely that in all eleven cases the dies were cut at the very end
of a month. Subtracting six from the total would seem to be a generous de-
duction. We have then thirty-three reverses associated with three obverses
or an average of eleven apiece. No allowance is made for gaps in our infor-
mation; if more reverses were originally employed by these three obverses the
ratio would, of course, be even higher. Without doubt there were many ob-
verses with shorter life spans using fewer reverses, but it may, I think, be
assumed that an average die giving full service under normal conditions would
have employed between eight and twelve reverses. This is a somewhat dis-

heartening conclusion since it indicates more clearly than anything else how
low a proportion of material has survived even in a substantial body of coinage
such as this.
IN CONCLUSION
Our primary concern in the preceding pages has been with the individual
tesserae, some large and some small, which combine to form a fragmentary
mosaic of the silver currency of Athens in the New Style period. Since the
attrition of the past twenty centuries has left us a scant 7000 coins from what
must once have been millions of tetradrachms and hundreds of thousands of
fractions, restoration has been neither easy nor uniformly conclusive. In some
areas the pattern is unmistakable, the pieces fit together in smooth joins to
reproduce the original design; in other sections the reconstruction is fairly ex-
tensive, its rough outlines often clearly defined by the overall composition
but the precise arrangement of component units deriving from probability
rather than certainty. All of the tesserae have been described and their com-
bination in various parts of the mosaic discussed in some detail. It remains
to take a look at the picture as a whole.
One hundred and ten separate issues were put out by the Athenian mint
during the New Style period. With the probable exception of the Mithradates-
Aristion coinage, which seems to be a special emission rather than the exclusive
output of a year's minting, these represent annual strikings. The size of the
individual emissions, their consistent distribution over most months of the
calendar year, their interlocking stylistic trends and the frequent transfer of
obverse dies are all indicative of uninterrupted production, at least through
112/1 B.C. After that date there may have been isolated years in which no
money was struck and others in which two very small issues were combined
but this is merely a remote possibility. There is nothing in the data now avail-
able which suggests any break in the sequence of New Style issues.
Inception of the series in 196/5 B.C. rests upon the solid evidence of the
Anthedon Hoard. Its termination in the summer of 87 B.C. with the arrival of

Sulla derives from the numerical correlation of issues and years, from the
composition of Cretan Hoard I in relation to the Aesillas overstriking of pre-
Sullan date, and from the identification of many mint magistrates of the latest
emissions with men who played a dominant role in Athenian affairs during the
years immediately preceding the sack of the city. The exact sequence of issues
between 171/0 and 123/2 is in large measure fixed by the incontrovertible
evidence of die transfers and dovetailing hoards; very little re-arrangement
would be possible within this period. For the order of emission before 171/0
+6
and after 123/2 the criterion is largely stylistic, supported in a few instances
by die transfers and by hoard composition. Although less weighty than the
evidence of die links, the stylistic argument has considerable validity with
respect to much of the New Style coinage since its initial indication of conti-
guity has frequently been corroborated by the subsequent discovery of a die
transfer. At certain points the specific chronology is substantiated by epi-
graphical and historical data. The distinctive Egyptian device of the coinage
of 152/1 is surely to be connected with the elaborate celebration of the Ptole-
maia in the archonship of Lysiades, dated by Ferguson and Meritt to 152/1;
the change in the character of the coinage c. 132 B.C. and the abrupt termi-
nation of two Delos hoards with tetradrachms of 130/29 coincide with the
general period of the slave revolts and suggest a connection with the insur-
rections at Laurium and Delos.
Between 86 and 84 B.C. a very large coinage was produced at the Athenian
mint to supply Sulla's war needs. That this was regulated by Sulla's quaestor,
Marcus Lucullus, and inscribed with his name and office is practically certain.
These are the tfl - ftl issues, identical in character with the regular New Style
strikings except that the Athenian ethnic is omitted. They were followed by
a small emission of similar format but with the two trophies of Sulla replacing
the monograms, which is undoubtedly to be associated with the return of the
Roman general to Athens, after the capitulation of Mithradates, and the intro-
duction of the Sylleia in his honor. After that, the mint of Athens struck no
more silver; its output consisted solely of the bronze of the "Imperial" series.
Six hundred and thirty-four namesin monogram, in abbreviation or in
fullare found on the coinage. In general the progression is from two mono-
grams to two abbreviated names to three names in full or with some abbre-

viation and finally to two names in full or with slight abbreviation, but there
are two periods of deviation. Monograms and abbreviated names are used
interchangeably between 177/6 and 171/0; two-magistrate issues are inter-
polated in the three-magistrate sequence between 128/7 and 122/1. The men
whose names appear on the coinage are not magistrates in the usual sense of
the word. Numerous irregularities and abnormalities characterizing their
respective tenures are irreconcilable with any systematic rotation of duly
constituted officials and seemingly explicable only in terms of a monetary
liturgy whereby an individual's contribution toward the expense of the minting
operation was rewarded by the inscription of his name on a certain number of
coins. These donors are wealthy and prominent Athenians, many of them
known to us for service in other capacities. In only one instance is a foreign
dignitary associated with the coinage. Ariarathes and Antiochos are ordinary
citizens of Athens, not princes of Cappadocia and Syria, but Mithradates is,
In Conclusion
725
as the title and symbol of his emission indicate, a king of Pontus. It is, how-
ever, Mithradates V and not Mithradates VI who is thus honored for his gifts
to the state.
Unquestionably it was the prerogative of the first magistrate to choose the
symbol placed on the coins of any given years. One official at least seems to
have shared this privilege with his annual colleague, the dual representation
of 136/5 embodying the emblems of the two men. The selection was apparently
unrestricted and the devices for the most part have purely personal import,
chiefly with reference to the antecedents of the individual magistrates. A few
may be interpreted in terms of contemporary religious or political events. In
two cases the symbols provide new information on the careers of particular
Athenians: Eurykleides, mint magistrate of 154/3, almost certainly held the
priesthood of Demos and the Graces, and Diokles of Kephisia, mint magistrate
of 99/8, 95/4 and 90/89, that of Asklepios and Hygieia.
Amphora letters provide evidence for eleven intercalary years. Twice in
the course of the second century consecutive intercalary years are attested:
171/0 and 170/69 by the coins and 135/4 and 134/3 by the inscriptions and
coins. The precise significance of the control combinations remains uncertain,
but we can safely rule out any connection with workshops of the mint. Rather
the clearly-defined relationship of metallic composition, the character of the
coinage at various periods, and the number and distribution of the control
combinations strongly suggests that the last are in some way indicative of the
sources of bullion and intended as a check on the quality of the silver. The same
combination of evidence points to unsettled conditions during the Early
Period with silver coming from numerous but relatively unproductive deposits

and processed in the field and in the mint itself by workmen of varying capa-
bility. In the Middle Period the situation is far more stable with a steady flow
of silver from a few rich yields and a superior standard of technical achieve-
ment. Late in the 80's the Laurium mines seem to have reached a low level of
production, their output perhaps further impaired as a result of the servile
insurrection. The tremendous increase in coinage between 132/1 and 124/3 and
the marked change in the metallic composition of the silver surely reflect a
supplementary supply of bullion from foreign sources, and it is possible that
Mithradates V was instrumental in making this new ore available.
For the production of the coinage the mint kept two to five anvils in
simultaneous operation, the number employed in any one year dependent upon
the size of the individual emission. A fairly consistent level of activity seems
to have been maintained throughout the period of striking. A year of light
coinage required six to ten obverse dies, one of average output about twice
that number, while a few extremely heavy strikings used between forty and
726
fifty. As many as eight to twelve reverses were normally coupled with a single
obverse. The life span of individual dies varied greatly, in inverse relationship
to the production tempo of the coinage. Nine months for an obverse and five
months for a reverse are the recorded maximums but these figures are excep-
tional. The average reverse lasted for less than a month and the average
obverse associated with an issue of median size survived for three to four
months. During periods of intensive production longevity was considerably
reduced. Recutting of amphora letters and third magistrates' names was
practiced extensively, especially during the Middle Period. One reverse is in-
scribed with four names and five dates; dies with three names and three or
four month letters are by no means uncommon.
The output of the mint for the whole of the New Style period may be very
roughly estimated at between eight and twelve million coins of all denomi-
nations. Large silver was struck every year except in 100/99, a single drachm
being our only record of that issue. Drachms were produced in eight years of
the Early Period, in all years of the Middle Period and in seventeen years of
the Late Period. In addition a large striking of drachms with grain-ear symbol
was put out between 180 and 170 B.C. Hemidrachms were issued only four
times during the Early Period and seventeen times during the Middle Period.
Judging by the number of surviving obverse dies, peak production of drachms
came between 180 and 164 B.C. and of hemidrachms between 170 and 162 B.C.
On the basis of the ratio of surviving coins per die, we are warranted in
assuming that we have a complete or practically complete record of the obverse
dies in use between 169/8 and 134/3 and fairly comprehensive data on those
employed after 112/1 B.C. For the remainder of the coinage our information is

clearly fragmentary. We cannot estimate with any accuracy the amount of
money that was issued but we can gauge its extent in relation to the emissions
of the Middle Period by comparing the number of known obverse dies. From
the available evidence, output seems to show the following variations: very
light to fight between 196/5 and 192/1, heavy to very heavy between 191/0
and 170/69, light between 169/8 and 160/59, moderate to fairly heavy between
159/8 and 133/2, exceedingly heavy between 182/1 and 124/3, moderate to
fairly heavy between 123/2 and 112/1, very light to light between 111/0 and
88/7. Contrary to expectation, the three-magistrate period in general proves
to be a time of only moderate mint activity; the really extensive coinage is put
out before 169/8 and after 133/2 B.C.
That the New Style owls traveled widely is evident from their inclusion in
hoards found as far north as Bulgaria and as far east as Teheran. The shifting
pattern of their movement provides an interesting commentary on Athenian
trade relations at various periods: between 196 and 162 to the Levant and
In Conclusion
727
further east, then abruptly cut off in that direction and channeled north into
the Balkans and Anatolia to take advantage of the closing of the Macedonian
mines and at the same time moved in greater quantity to Delos and Crete.
After the initial years of the Late Period the coinage is in short supply every-
where. No issue later than that of 117/6 has been found in a hoard context
from the Balkans, Anatolia, northern or central Greece; nothing after 112/1
has been unearthed on Delos. Apparently only parts of Crete continued to
receive silver until the very end of the New Style period. There is no indication
that the New Style coins circulated in Italy, Sicily or Egypt.
As would be inevitable with any large coinage such as this, imitations were
plentiful in ancient times. The drying up of the flow of genuine pieces inspired
copies of early issues in the East and at a somewhat later period replicas
emanated from the northern fringes of the Greek world. Other imitations were
produced closer to home on a surprisingly vast scale. One of the most inter-
esting of the imitative issues is that inscribed AGE O AEMOZ which is likely
connected with the colony of Athenian exiles taking refuge in Pontus at the
time of Sulla's siege. The KOINTOX - XAPM02TPA striking, usually regarded
as a part of the regular New Style series, seems also to have been of foreign
origin.
Our tesserae then, scanty as they are, have made a not inconsiderable con-
tribution in several fields. For the numismatist their chief value will lie in the
chronology of the series and its component issues and in the light thrown on
the operating routine and productive capacity of the mint; for the epigraphist
in the prosopographical data and in the dating of the intercalary emissions;
for the historian in the fluctuating pattern of output and distribution abroad,

in the indication of a relatively precise date for the working out of the Laurium
mines, in the evidence for a monetary liturgy and in the record of a hitherto
unsuspected bond between Mithradates V and Athens. On all these matters
the coinage has something to say, unequivocally or tentatively, and in so
doing it brings into clearer focus that century late in Athenian history which
opened in the bright promise of Flamininus' proclamation of freedom and
closed in the shadows of political dissension and approaching catastrophe.
INDEXES
ISSUES
(Boldface numbers refer in each case to the catalogue and associated commentary.
Further discussion of individual issues is to be found in the general commentaries on
the Early, Middle and Late Periods.)
& - $ with term of Hermes (188/2): 40,
55f, 58; analysis, 624; in hoards, 476, 511
W - E with trophy (188/7): 40, 45-47, 54;
in hoards, 474, 476, 507(?); imitations,
440
K - M with grain-ear (187/6): 47f; in
hoards, 476, 479, 482, 522(?)
M - tj with eagle (173/2): 72f, 88-91, 98;
in hoards, 474, 476, 502, 507, 518
S - Itl with Nike (189/8): 43f, 54; ana-
lysis, 624; in hoards, 528
S- tf| with cicada (185/4): 50-52, 55f, 58;
analysis, 624; in hoards, 474, 501, 528;
imitations, 440, 441(?)
E - N with cornucopiae or without symbol
(198/2): 36-38; analysis, 624; in hoards,
473, 476; imitation, 440; analysis of imi-
tation, 687
-Rwith club (191/0) :40f
ft - A without symbol (196/5): 7,32f, 34, 36;
in hoards, 478; modern forgery, 468
k - $ with thyrsos (176/5): 72, 76-78;

analyses, 624; in hoards, 476, 478,
507(?), 511, 518
ffP - m or/R with rudder (190/89): 7n, 41-43
N- -1 with two palms (192/1): 7,38-40, 48,
87; in hoards (fractions), 478, 482
PP or S - M with kerchnos and bakchos
(195/4): 7, 33-35, 36; in hoards, 473
RAfl - AYSIA with forepart of horse
(177/6): 72 f, 73-75, 77; in hoards, 476 f,
479, 482, 522(?)
W - # with caps of Dioscuri (186/5): 49f;
analysis, 624; in hoards, 476, 482, 502
M - 1*1 with serpents (184/8): 52-^55, 56,
58; in hoards, 476, 519; imitation, 441
X - & or OANI without symbol (194/3):
35f, 54; in hoards, 478
* - ft with aplustre (172/1): 72f, 91-94;
analysis, 624; in hoards, 476, 478 f, 502,
507, 511, 518
AAEI - HAIO with trident (179/8): 64 f, 72;
in hoards, 476, 478 f, 502, 518, 528;
imitation, 442
AAKETHZ - EYATON with helmet (106/5):
382 f
AMMfi-AlO with cornucopiae (180/79):
58n, 61-63, 65, 81; in hoards, 476,507,511
AMMQ - AIO with kerchnos (182/1): 57f,
63; in hoards, 476(?), 479
AMMfiNIOZ - KAAAIAI with two torches
(150/49): 58, 216-21, 225; analyses, 625;
in hoards, 480, 482 f, 485, 488, 496, 500 f,
509, 514, 518, 524(?); imitation, 457
AMOIAZ - OINOOIAOZ with Demeter
(115/4): 375f; in hoards, 514f, 524( ?)
AMOIKPATHI - EniZTPATOI with grainears
(188/2): 296-300, 805; analysis, 625; in
hoards, 484f, 489, 497,505, 512f, 515, 518f
ANAPEAI - XAPINAYTHZ with Dionysos
and Demeter? (136/5): 252, 287-90,
292; in hoards, 482, 484, 489, 497, 500(?),
501, 510, 512-14, 519-21, 523
Indexes
729
ANTIOXOZ - NIKOr and KAPAIXOI with
elephant (163/2): 155-60, 162; in hoards,
476, 478, 480f, 488, 495, 514, 518; imi-
tations, 449 f
ATTEAAIKflN - APIZTOTEAHZwithDemeter
(94/8): 389; analyses, 681; in hoards, 516 f
ATTEAAIKflN - rOPriAZ with griffin (121/0):
364-68, 379; analysis, 625; in hoards,
501, 508, 505, 508, 510, 514, 540; analysis
of imitation, 637
ATTOAHEIZ - AYZANAPOZ with Artemis
(88/7): 391
APlZTIflN - (DIAQN with Pegasus (129/8):
329, 335-40, 558; in hoards, 489, 497,
500, 508, 508, 510, 512, 516, 519-21
APOfFOI - MNAIArO with Agon (128/7):
340-44, 846; in hoards, 489, 498, 500, 505,
508, 510, 512, 515, 520f, 524(?)
APXITIMOZ - AHMHTPI with Isis (117/6):
372-74; in hoards, 512, 514, 522, 524(?)
APXITIMOZ - TTAMMENHZ with thyrsos
(96/5): 388; in hoards, 516f
AOPOAIZI - ATTOAHEI with Nike (155/4):
193-96; in hoards, 478, 480, 483, 488,
495, 507, 509, 520, 588; imitations, 452

AOPOAIZI - AlOrE with double cornuco-
piae (152/1): 205-09, 215, 220; analyses,
625; in hoards, 480 f, 483, 485, 488, 495,
502, 505, 513, 518; imitations, 455f
AXAIOI - HAI with cornucopiae (160/59):
166-69; in hoards, 478, 480, 488, 485,
488, 495, 501, 507, 509, 511, 522(?); imi-
tations, 450 f
TAAY - EXE with Helios bust (170/69): 87,
98-102; analyses, 624; in hoards, 475-78,
480f, 488, 485, 495, 507, 511, 518; imi-
tations, 442 f
AAMQN - ZflZIKPATHZ with quiver and
bow (141/0): 262-67, 271; in hoards, 480,
484f, 489, 496, 501, 508, 510, 512, 518,
524(?); imitations, 458; analysis of imi-
tation, 687
AHMEAZ - EPMOKAHZ with Isis headdress
(125/4): 350-54, 359; in hoards, 498, 500,
508, 508, 510, 518, 515-17, 521 f; imi-
tation, 854, 379, 460 f
AHMEAZ - KAAAIKPATIAHZ with Isis
(107/6): 382; analysis, 681; in hoards,
516; overstruck by Aesillas, see Aesillas
in General Index
AHMH - IEPfl with helmet (174/3): 7n, 8n,
72, 77 n, 81-88; in hoards, 474, 476-78,
481 f, 508(?), 511; cut over die of Diopha
- Diodo, 86
AHMHTPIOZ - ArAGinnOZ with caps of
Dioscuri (181/0): 5n, 320-29, 834; ana-
lyses, 625; in hoards, 482, 484, 486, 489,
497, 500, 508, 505, 508, 510, 512f, 518,
520, 524( ?)
AHMOXAPHZ - TTAMMENHZ with cicada
(100/99): 7n, 8,386; bronze, 419f, 641;
analysis of bronze, 640
AlOrE-TTOZEl with Dionysos (161/0):
163-65, 169; in hoards, 477, 480-88, 488,
495, 514; imitations, 443, 450
AIOKAHZ - AEQNIAHZ with Asklepios
(99/8): 884, 386 f
AIOKAHZ TO AEY - MHAEIOZ with Hy-
730
Indexes
AlOOA - AIOAO with Apollo (175/4): 56,
72f, 78-81, 86; in hoards, 476, 478f, 511,
518; recut by Deme - Hiero, 86
AIOQANTOI - AIZX1NHI with sphinx
(108/7): 381; analysis, 631; in hoards,
517, 524( ?); bronze, 419f, 529, 641; ana-
lyses of bronze, 640
ABP06E-AIOO with forepart of lion(164/S):
151-54; analysis, 624; in hoards, 476-78,
480f, 483, 495, 507, 514, 518; imitations,
449 f
AGZ10EOZ - XAPIAZ with Tyche (182/1):
281, 300-06, 828, 884; in hoards, 482,
484, 486, 489, 497, 500, 505, 508, 510,
512f, 515, 518, 520f
ETTirENH - ZflZANAPOI with eagle on ful-
men (158/7): 188, 173-81, 186, 242; ana-
lyses, 624; in hoards, 480, 483, 488, 503,
521f, 524(?), 539, 540n; imitations, 443,
450-54, 468; analysis of imitation, 637
EnirENHZ - EENQN with Apollo (104/3):
383f; in hoards, 516f
EYBOYAIAHZ - ArAGOKAH with Artemis
(142/1): 257-62; in hoards, 484f, 489,496,
513

EYMAPEIAHI - AAKIAAM and KAEOMEN
with Triptolemos (145/4): 242^46, 256;
analyses, 625; in hoards, 480, 484 f, 488,
496, 508, 505, 512f, 518f, 522
EYMHAOZ - QEOEENIAHI with Ares?
(114/8): 8n, 376f; in hoards, 516f, 524( ?);
imitation, 878 f, 461
EYMHAOI - KAAAKDflN with Tyche
(140/89): 267-71, 275; in hoards, 480,
482, 484f, 489, 496, 500( ?), 502, 505, 508,
512, 519; imitations, 458f
EYPYKAEI - APIAPA with Graces (154/3):
480, 483, 485, 488, 495, 501, 507, 518-20
ZfllAOZ - EYANAPOZ with bee (142/1):
257-62, 266; in hoards, 480, 484 f, 489,
496, 502, 510, 512, 520; imitation, 458
HPA - APIZTOO with club, lion's skin and
bow (168/7): 48, 133-38, 169; in hoards,
475, 476( ?), 477f, 480f, 483, 495, 507, 511,
514, 519; imitation, 449
HPAKAEIAHI - EYKAHZ (I) with Tyche
and amphora (139/8): 271-75, 281, 285n,
286; in hoards, 480, 484f, 489,496, 502( ?),
508(?), 516(?), 518(?), 521(?), 538;
imitations, 460
HPAKAEIAHI - EYKAHI (II) with Tyche
and amphora (187/6): 281, 282-86, 289;
analyses, 625; in hoards, 481 f, 484f, 489,
496, 500f, 502(?), 505, 508(?), 510, 512f,
515, 516(?), 518(?), 519, 521(?), 524(?).
538; imitations, 460
HPAKABN - HPAKAEIAHZ with head of
eagle (93/2): 389; analysis, 681
QEMISTO - eEOTTOMTTOI with trophy on
prow (149/8): 221-26; analysis, 625; in
hoards, 480, 482 f, 485, 488, 496, 502, 509,
514, 516, 518, 520
9E0A0T0Z - KAEOOANHZ without sym-
bol (188/7): 275-82; analysis, 625; in
hoards, 480, 482, 484 f, 489, 496, 500, 503,
505, 512f, 516, 588; imitations, 459; ana-
lyses of imitations, 637
Indexes
73i
KAEOOANHZ - ETTieETHI with baitulos
(119/8): 370f; analysis, 681; in hoards,
514f, 517, 524(?)
KOINTOZ - KAEAZ with Roma and Nike
(122/1): 362-64, 867; in hoards, 489f(?),
505, 508, 510, 512, 514, 522
KTHZI - EYMA with Nike (171/0): 8n, 72f,
80n, 94-98; analyses, 624; in hoards,
476-78, 480, 482, 502, 507, 511, 516, 518,
522(?); imitation, 442
AEYKIOZ - ANTIKPATHZ with Demeter and
Artemis (111/0): 380
AYZAN - TAAYKOZ with cicada (159/8):
170-73; analysis, 624; in hoards, 477,
480, 483, 485, 488, 495, 511, 528; imi-
tations, 450 f
AYIANAPOZ - 01NOOIAOZ with poppy-
head and grain (116/5): 374f; in hoards,
514, 517, 521, 524(?); bronze, 529
MENEA - EnirENO with Asklepios (167/6):
475, 477f, 480f, 488, 495, 507, 511, 518
MENEAHMOX - TIMOKPATHZ with Deme-
ter (108/2): 384; analysis, 681; in hoards,
516f

MENNEAZ - HPQAHZ with Hekate (102/1):
7n, 884, 385
MENTflP - MOZXIflN with Harmodios and
Aristogeiton (118/7): 371 f, 378f; in
hoards, 512, 514, 517, 528, 524(?)
MHTPOAflPOZ - MIATIAAHZ and AHMO-
Z9EN with grapes (147/6): 232-37; ana-
lyses, 625; in hoards, 480, 488, 485, 488,
496, 501, 509, 516, 518, 520, 524(?);
imitation, 458
MI9PAAATHZ - APIZTIflN with star be-
tween crescents (c. 121): 368, 529 f, 542 n,
558f, 606, 618; analysis, 625; in hoards,
508, 524(?), 540; imitations, 468; gold,
416, 420f; bronze, 419-21, 529-81, 642;
analyses of bronze, 640; evidence for dat-
ing, 416-24
MIK1 - 0EOOPA with Nike in quadriga
(169/8): 82, 103-06; in hoards, 475-78,
480f, 488, 485, 507, 511, 522(?); imi-
tions, 443, 449, 468
MIKIflN - EYPYKAEI with Dioscuri (156/5):
187-93; analyses, 625; in hoards, 478,
481, 488, 488,495,501, 511, 521-28, 538f;
imitations, 448, 452-56; analysis of imi-
tation, 637; bronze, 419f, 529; analyses
of bronze, 640
MNAZEAZ - NEZTflP with kerchnos (120/
19): 369 f; analyses, 625, 681; in hoards,
510, 512, 517, 524(?); imitations, 468
NEZTGP - MNAZEAZ with stag (118/2):
8n, 377-79; analysis, 681; in hoards,
514f, 517, 524(?); imitation, 879, 461;
analysis of imitation, 687
NIKHTHZ- AIONYZIOZ with Gorgon's head
(180/29): 829,329-35, 889f, 848n; analy-
sis, 625; in hoards, 484, 486, 489, 497,
500, 503, 505, 508, 510, 512, 515, 518,
520, 522; imitation, 385, 460; analysis of
imitation, 637; bronze, 419f, 529, 641 f;
analyses of bronze, 640
NIKGTENHZ - KAAAIMAXOZ with Hermes
or without symbol (126/5): 347-50, 862;
732
Indexes
TTANTAKAHZ - AHMHTPIOZ with Hera-
kles (110/09): 7n, 380f; in hoards, 515(?)
TTOAEMflN - AAKETHZwith tripod (157/6):
150n, 181-87, 198; analyses, 624f; in
hoards, 480f, 488, 488, 495, 501, 522, 589,
540n; imitations, 451-55
nOAY - TldS with palm behind owl (181/0):
58-61, 75; analysis, 624; in hoards, 476,
479, 522(?); imitation, 441(?)
nOAYXAPM - NIKOr with caduceus
(165/4): 148-51, 154, 169; analysis, 624;
in hoards, 475, 476(?), 477f, 481, 488,
488, 495, 514, 524( ?); imitation, 450
ZQKPATHZ - AlONYZOAfl with Apollo
(148/7): 226-32, 364; analysis, 625; in
hoards, 480, 482f, 485, 488, 496, 500f,
508, 507, 512, 518, 524(?); imitation,
457; analysis of imitation, 687
ZQTAAHZ - 9EMIZT0KAHZ with bakchos
(112/1): 379f; in hoards, 514f, 524(?)
TIMAPXOY - NIKArO with anchor and star
(166/5): 72n, 87, 143-47, 150; in hoards,
475, 478, 480-83, 485, 488, 495, 500. 507,
514, 518; imitation, 449; grain-ear
drachms and hemidrachm, 145-47

TIMOZTPATOZ - TTOZHZ with Dionysos
(184/8): 281, 292-96, 299f; in hoards,
482, 485, 489, 497, 508, 514, 519, 521
TPY<DflN - nOAYXAPMOZ with Hekate
(91/0): 7n, 390
OANOKAHZ - ATTOAAflNIOZ with Artemis
(143/2): 252-57, 261; analysis, 625; in
hoards, 480, 484 f, 489, 496, 501 f, 505,
508, 512, 518
OIAOKPATHZ - HPflAHZ with Dionysos
(98/7): 387
OIAOKPATHZ - KAAAIOflN with Nike
(92/1): 390; in hoards, 516
XAPI - HPA with cock (178/7): 84n, 65-67,
75; analysis, 624; in hoards, 476, 502,
518, 522(?)
XAPINAYTHZ - AP1ZTEAZ with Demeter?
(144/3): 246-52, 257, 281, 290; analysis,
625; in hoards, 480, 484f, 489, 496, 501,
505, 507, 510, 512, 515, 519
Irregular issues
Grain-ear fractions without names of ma-
gistrates (c. 180-170 and 166/5): 48, 52,
68-73, 87 f, 145-47; in hoards, 478, 481 f,
518, 520, 538
tfl-ffl, Sullan coinage (86/5 and 85/4):
425-39; analyses, 688; in hoards, 484,
505, 515, 521-28, 540f, 543-45; recut as
coin of Cnossus, 468; bronze, 438 n
Two trophies, Sullan coinage (84/8):
430-39
O AEMOZ, imitations: 7, 444 49; analysis,
446,687; in hoards, 448 n, 502 f, 524(?), 543
KOINTOZ - XAPMOZTPA, imitations: 7.
415 n, 464-67; analysis, 637
SYMBOLS
(Boldface numbers refer to the catalogue pages of the issues with which the symbols
are associated.)
Aetolia(?): on imitations, 461-68 Apollo: 78-81, 123, 226-30, 383f, 568, 580,
Agon: 340-43, 555, 604, 604; on imitation, 457
anchor with star: 14347, 606; on imitation, Ares( ?): 376; on imitation, 461
449 Artemis: 252-56, 257-61, 391; and Deme-
aplustre: 91-94 ter, see Demeter
Indexes
733
Artemis(?): 252
Asklepios: 138-41, 386, 410, 560, 604
Athena: 391, 419, 604
baitulos: 370 f
bakchos: 33-36, 379 f, 605; on bronze, 418,
419n, 526, 528f
bee: 257-61; on imitation, 458
bow and quiver, see quiver
bow in case with lion's skin and club, see
club
caduceus: 148-50, 385; on imitation, 450;
on bronze, 526
cicada: 50-52, 170-72, 386; on imitations,
440 f, 450; on bronze, 419 f
club: 40f; with lion's skin and bow in case,
48, 133-38, 608; on imitation, 449
cock with palm: 65-67
comucopiae: 36-38, 58 n, 61-63, 108, 607;
double with fillet, 205-09, 605; on imi-
tations, 455 f; with grain-ears, 166-68;
on imitations, 450 f
crescents and star, see star
Demeter: 375 f, 384, 389, 605; and Artemis,
380, 608n
Demeter(?): 246-52, 583, 602; and Dion-

ysos, see Dionysos
Demos(?): on imitations, 445n, 448f
Dionysos: 163-65, 292-96, 383, 387, 390,
526, 560, 605 f; on imitations, 443, 450;
and Demeter(?), 252, 287-90, 603
Dioscuri: 187-92, 419, 526, 529, 608n, 604;
on imitations, 443, 452-56; caps of
(pilei), 49 f, 320-26, 528; on imitation,
443; on bronze, 418-20, 526, 528 f
dolphin and trident: 354-59, 529
eagle: 88-91, 604; on fulmen, 173-80; on
imitations, 448, 450-54, 468; head of,
389
elephant: 155f, 158-60, 526n, 603; on
imitations, 449 f; head of, 156 f, 526 n
fillet: 381
fulmen: 160-62; on imitation, 450
Gorgon's head: 329-34, 420, 422f, 529, 606,
687; on imitation, 460
Graces, three: 196-99, 604
grain-ear: 47f, 68-73, 145^47, 605; on
bronze, 526; grain-ears, 296-99, 605; on
imitations, 464. See also cornucopiae,
poppy-head
grapes: 232-36; on imitation, 458
griffin: 364-67, 551, 604
Harmodios( ?): on imitations, 445, 448 f
Harmodios and Aristogeiton: 371 f, 603 n
Hekate: 385, 390
Helios: bust of, 98-102; on imitations,
442 f; in quadriga, 209-15; on imita-
tion, 455
helmet: 81-88, 91, 382f, 604
Herakles: 380 f, 578, 605
Hermes: 347, 849f; term of, 55f
horse, forepart of: 73-75
Hygieia: 388 f, 410, 560, 604
Isis: 372 f, 382, 558, 607; headdress of,
350-53, 558, 607; on imitation, 460
kerchnos: 33-35, 57f, 68, 108, 369f, 605,
607; on imitations, 468
Kore(?): 252, 602
labyrinth: on forgery, 468
734
Indexes
Perseus(?): on imitations, 444, 448
poppy-head with grain-ears: 374, 529; on
bronze, 529
prow: 200-05; on imitations, 444, 452f,
455-57; with trophy, 221-25, 568, 604,
606
quiver and bow: 262-67; on imitations, 458
Roma: 850, 359-62, 863, 409n, 606; and
Nike, 362 f, 409 n, 606
rudder: 41-43, 608
Selene(?): 252n
serpent: 344-46; serpents, 52-55; on
imitation, 441
serpent staff: 141 f
sphinx: 381, 529, 604
stag: 377f; on imitation, 461
star between crescents: 368, 428, 554, 606,
637; on imitations, 468; on bronze, 419,
528 f
term, see Hermes
Theseus(?): on imitations, 445n, 448f
thunderbolt, see fulmen
thyrsos: 76-78, 164f, 388; on bronze, 418.
526, 528f
torches, two: 58n, 216-21, 607; on imi-

tation, 457
trident: 64f; on imitations, 442; and dol-
phin, see dolphin
tripod: 181-86; on imitations, 451-55
Triptolemos: 242^15, 387, 605
trophy: 45-47; on imitations, 440; on prow,
see prow; trophies on Sullan issue, 480f
Tyche: 267-70, 300-04; on imitations,
458f; with amphora, 271-75, 282-86,
568, 604; on imitations, 460
wreath: 290-92
MAGISTRATES
(An alphabetical listing of mint magistrates is given on pages 547-584. Names of Athenians
mentioned in connection with these magistrates are included in the General Index.)
HOARDS
(Boldface numbers refer to the section on Hoards where the individual deposits are
discussed at length. An asterisk preceding an entry indicates that there is no New
Style material in the hoard.)
Abruzzi: 418, 488f, 504-06, 523, 539-43,
545
Aecatarini: 521 f
Anatolia: 846, 418, 471, 509-11, 525, 589,
540n, 542
Anthedon: 82f, 107, lllf, 114n, 129,473f,
588
Athens (AE): 526-30
Attic: 72, 129, 811, 478f, 507n, 588, 712
Attic I (AE): 526-30, 641
Attic II (AE): 526-31
Babylon: 523
Beliza: 522, 540n
Benkovski: 523
Carystus I: 445f, 502f, 589, 548n
Carystus II: 899, 500 f, 589
"Chalcis Find" (Halmyros): 498
"Chalcis-Euboea Hoard" (Halmyros): 498
Chersonesus: see Cretan II
Chesm: 448 n
Corinth: 107 n
Indexes
735
Cretan I: 880n, 407, 413-15, 417f, 518,
515 f, 522, 589, 542
Cretan II: 846, 418, 511-13, 589-42
Crete (hoard ?): 522, 544n
Delos A: 418, 484, 514f, 524, 589-43
Delos B: 899, 482-84, 486, 518, 589
Delos T: 816, 470, 479-81, 538
Delos ir (1909): 521
Delos ir (1910): 519f
Delos IA: 520
Delos K$: 899, 481 f, 589
Delos A-l: 520
Delos A-2: 520 f
Delos AH: 899, 484-86, 518, 589
Delos =6: 403, 513 f, 524, 589, 543
Delos, miscellaneous: 519
Dipylon: 417f, 421, 504n, 507-09, 589-48
Dragomir: 521 n
Dura 5: 541 n
"Euboea Hoard" (Halmyros): 493, 495n
Greece?: 523
Halmyros: 810n, 812, 885, 899, 472, 491-
500, 501, 539 f
Hierapytna: 407, 412 f, 418, 518, 516 f, 542
"Hoard of 1980" (Halmyros): 498

Hunterian Museum (hoard ?): 524
KG (AE): 526-30
Keratea (AE): 526-30
Kessab: 809, 474, 475-77, 588, 542n
Lamia (Halmyros): 492
Levadia (Halmyros): 492
Marmara: 523
Marsian: 522
Naxos: 809 f, 477f
*Nevrokopsko: 521 n
Newell 1984/5: 523, 541
North Slope (AE): 526-31
Ontario: 501 f
Oreos: 517 f, 589
Piraeus: 418, 503f, 589-43
Plaka (AE): 526-30
Pleven: 521 n
Pnyx (AE): 526-30
Salamis: 816, 518 f
Salonika: 129, 808, 475, 538
Samsun (hoard?): 524f, 542, 544n
Serres: 522
Simitlii: 522
*Susa 8: 541 n
Susa 4: 542 n
Tarentum: 622 n
Teheran: 523, 544n
Tell Ahmar: 474f, 477, 542n, 544n
Til-Barsib: see Tell Ahmar
Zahle: 523
Zarova: 810n, 812, 899, 487-91, 499f,
589 f, 544
INSCRIPTIONS CITED
IGl* 824 48 IG1V 961 552
IG II2 791 47 1009 578
847 87 1018 646n
910 88 1014 564, 570
919 87 1084 574
736
Indexes
/Gil2 1089
568
1184
557
1835
142
1706
48
1717
555
1937
547
1938
557
1989
547
1944
563
1968
88
2314
106, 142
2816
557
2823
2825
572
2381
102
2332

572
85,41,44,47;
2334
88
2886
564
2452
555, 564, 575
2864
547
2980
549
3510
568, 577
3864
75
4082
549
5995/6
557
6579
38
6599
54
7239
578
7646
589 n
8808
582
FD III 2,12 548, 553
15 556
17 575
23 549
26 556
27 549
Insc. Ddlos 1507 557
1643 563
Indexes
737
Alexander III, coins of: countermarked,
81; overstruck by Athens (?), 49
Alketes (I) of Kothokidai: 549
Alketes (II) son of Euagion (I) of Kotho-
kidai: 549
Alketes (III) son of Euagion (II) of Kotho-
kidai: 549
Alkidamos son of Euphanes of Euonymon:
549, 566
Amastris, coins of: 446
Ambracia, coins of: 586
Amisus: 447; coins of, 446
Ammonios of Anaphlystos: 58, 549 f
amount of coinage, see quantity of coinage
Amphias (I) of Aphidna: 550, 565
Amphias (II) son of Oinophilos (I) of
Aphidna: 550
Amphikrates (I) of Perithoidai: 550
Amphikrates (II) son of Epistratos (I) of
Perithoidai: 550
Amphikrates (III) son of Epistratos (II)
of Perithoidai: 550
amphora handles found at Laurium: 681 n
amphora letters: combined with control
combinations, 60 f, 119 f; in field, 61;

introduction of, 52, 118f, 608; lacunas in
sequence of, 608-12; omitted on drachms,
68-71, 77, 90, 145f, 194f (normally
omitted on hemidrachms); recutting of,
267 319, and passim through catalogue;
tabulation of, 609-11; temporary ab-
andonment of, 58, 68, 65, 67, 109, 119f,
608; errors in earlier readings of, passim
through commentaries on individual
issues. See also intercalary years
analyses: of Athenian bronze, 419f, 628,
638-42; of Wappenmiinzen and Old
Style silver, 628, 682-84; of New Style
silver, 620f, 624-29, 631, 633-85; of
Sullan issues, 638; of Cretan coins, 638;
of New Style imitations, 637 f; of Lau-
rium silver, 681-88; neutron activation
method, 622 f
Anatolia: circulation New Style coins in,
525, 538, 540n, 542, 544, see also Index of
Hoards; New Style imitations from,
470-72; civic coinages in hoards, 528;
slave revolt in, 486 n
anchor (?) countermark: 62n
Andreas, archon (c. 144): 550 f
Andreas son of Andreas of Piraeus: 551
Andros, coins in hoards: 477
Antenor, sculptor: 445n
Antikrates of Epikephisia: 551
Antioch, mint of: 477
Antiochos III, at Chalcis: 118
Antiochos IV (Epiphanes): benefactor of
Athens, 160, 606; "mint magistrate" of
Athens, 8f, 158-60
Antiochos V: 158 f
Antiochos VII: 158; coins in hoards, 474
Antiochos VIII, coins in hoards: 474
Antiochos IX, coins in hoards: 474-75
Apellikon of Teos: 409n, 551, 587, 604
Aphrodisios of Azenia: 555, 557
Apolexis of Oion: 551
Apolexis son of Lysander of Piraeus (c. 140):
552
738
Indexes
Ariarathes VI of Cappadocia: 558
Ariarathes VII of Cappadocia: coins in
hoards, 510
Ariarathes IX of Cappadocia: 428n; coins
in hoards, 510
Ariobarzanes I, coins in hoards: 510
Aristaichmos of Phyle: 558, 588
Aristion: dictator, 421, 423n, 445, 447,
504n, 506, 553f, 587; mint magistrate,
409 n, 422 f, 587
Ariston (I) son of Timostratos (I) of
Phaleron: 579
Ariston (II) son of Ariston (I) of Phaleron:
579
Ariston (III) son of Poses (II) of Pha-
leron: 579
Aristoteles of Oion: 551
Aropos son of Leon: 555
Aropos son of Aphrodisios of Azenia: 555
Asia Minor, see Anatolia
Asklapon (in Pythaist listing): 556
Asklepiades of Diomeia: 47
Asklepiades son of Hikesios: 557
Asklepios and Hygieia, priesthood of, see
priesthood
89

Asteriades coins from Zarova Hoard: 487-
Athena, priestess of: 604
Athenaeus: 482
Athenion: 408
Athenobios of Eupyridai: 548, 576
Athens: coinage other than New Style
silver, see bronze, gold, Old Style,
Wappenmtinzen; commercial and po-
litical relations, see Anatolia, Balkans,
Crete, Delos, Macedonia, Pontus, Rome;
emigres from, 445, 447; financial crises
at, 421 n; monetary system compared
with Roman, 585-87; oligarchic regime
at, 408, 444; storage center for ingots in,
621; subsidies to, see Mithradates V and
VI, Pontus, Seleucid kings. See also
Agora, Antiochos IV, Areopagus, Ari-
stion, calendar, cleruchies, festivals, mint,
Mithradates VI, Sicily, spoils of war,
Sulla, Index of Hoards
Attalos, Stoa of, in Agora: 714n
Babylon: 544. See also Index of Hoards
Balkans: circulation of New Style silver in,
521 n, 544 and see Index of Hoards
Basileides of Piraeus: 557
Berlin Cabinet: additions from, 6n, 68n
Beule" collection: 271 n
biga and driver on helmet of Athena: 32f,
36, 40f, 112, 114
Bithynia: coins in hoards, 434, 448 n, 505,
512, 528, 545; era of, 504n
Boeotia: 436 f, 448
booty, see spoils of war
Boukattes of Leontis: 557
Boularchos of Eiresidai: 557
bow in case countermark: on New Style
coin (?), 62n; of Tralles, 81
bronze coinage of Athens
pre-New Style: 522, 527f, 639, 641.
See also analyses
New Style: in Agora, 415n, 421 n, 531;
attributed to cleruchs, 432, 519, 527;
Indexes
739
Byttakos of Lamptrai: 557, 580
Byzantium Lysimachi found in hoards:
484, 448 n, 505
Caesarea: 509
calendar of Athens: 180, 585, 608, 618n
Cappadocia: coins in hoards, 484, 505, 510.
See also Ariarathes V, VI and IX
Carthage: 641
Carystus: 448; coins in hoards, 502, see
also Index of Hoards
cast coins: 472n and passim through
catalogue
Chaeronea, battle of: 482, 485n, 489
Chalcis: 118, 448, 492; coins in hoards,
107, 473
Charias of Aithalidai: 568, 583
Charmides brother of Dorotheos: 562
Charmostra, magistrate on New Style
imitations: 467
Chersonesus, Crete: 511. See also Index of
Hoards
Chios: 604; coins in hoards, 448n
choregia: 594 n
Christodoulos, forger: 468
chronology: earlier studies, 1-4; evidence

for, in Early Period, 107-29; in Middle
Period, 807-18; in Late Period, 892-424
circulation of New Style silver: 588, 540,
542-45. See also Anatolia, Crete, Delos,
Levant, Macedonia
cistophori: 81; in hoards, 448n, 482, 517,
521
cleruchies, Athenian: 489, 714; coins attri-
buted to, 482, 527. See also Delos
Comana, coins of: 446
Cnossus imitation of New Style, modern
forgery: 468
control combinations: on amphora, 61;
combined with amphora letters, 60 f,
119f; introduction of, 58, 119f; of Early
Period, 119-21, 128; of Middle Period,
818f; of Late Period, 898 f, 402, 404, 407,
417; omitted on tetradrachms, 188, 877;
on drachms, 68-71, 77, 84f, 90, 101, 105,
185f, 141 f, 145 f, 149f, 158f, 156f, 161 f,
164, 168, 172, 179f, 185f, 192, 194f, 199,
205, 220, 225, 240f, 256, 266, 270, 278,
280, 286, 289, 292, 295, 299, 804, 826, 884,
859, 861, 868, 867f, 870, 876 (normally
omitted on hemidrachms); recutting of,
819, 618f and passim through catalogue;
related to bullion, 619-23, 634, 715f;
tabulation of, 613-17; errors in earlier
readings of, passim through commen-
taries on individual issues
Corinth: 107n, 412, 622n
countermarks: 62, 81
Crete
coins of: analyses of, 638; bullion for,
688; imitations of New Style, 446, 468,
469n, 470, 472, 517, 688
coins found on: Cretan, 512, 517, 541;
New Style, 880n, 518, 588, 542, 544 and
see Index of Hoards; other, 512, 517,
522, 545; chronological significance of,
412-14, 417
Cydonia, analysis of coin of: 688
Cynoscephalae, battle of: 107
740
Indexes
Demetrios son of Hieronymos of Potamos:
88
Demetrios son of Ouliades of Alopeke:
558f
Demetrios I of Syria, coins in hoards: 475
Demetrios II of Syria, coins in hoards; 474,
523
Demetrios Poliorketes, coins of: 525n
Demetrios II of Macedon, monogram of: 91
Demochares son of Dositheos of Aithalidai:
559,563
Demos and Graces: priesthood of, 604, 607;
sanctuary of, in Agora, 604
demotic on coins: 158, 180, 242, 891, 561 f,
574, 577
denarii: beginning of, 585; compared with
New Style coinage, 585-87; found in
Agora, 415n; in hoards, 413, 484, 505f,
517, 523, 541n
die positions: 318, 648f
die transfers
obverse: 77, 109, 122, 126, 129,147,
150, 162, 169, 199, 215, 220, 256f, 261,
266, 271, 275, 281, 289, 292, 299, 805,
314f, 839, 346, 859, 863, 867, 373, 894-96,

400-02 and see also imitations; erroneous
record of, 8, 130f, 200n, 811-13, 815n,
378 f; indicative of contiguity, 2 f; number
known, 8; tabulation of, 307, 810f, 815,
892
reverse: 715 f and passim through cata-
logue
dies: added from Berlin material, 6n, 68n;
completeness of record of, 8, 71118,
717, 719f; longevity of, 151, 169, 180,
186, 829, 878f, 716, 721; number cata-
logued, 654; numerical ratio of obverse
and reverse, 710, 721 f; recutting of,
passim through catalogue. See also die
transfers
Diodora daughter of Mentor: 574
Diodoros, archon (58/2): 410, 560
Diodoros son of Theophilos of Halai: 408,
410, 560
Diodorus Siculus: 686 n
Diogenes of Alopeke: 560, 579
Diokles (I) of Kephisia: 408, 410f, 560f,
574, 590, 598, 604, 607
Diokles (III) son of Diokles (II) of Kephisia:
560, 604
Diokles (I) of Melite: 408, 410, 561, 574, 604
Diokles (II) son of Diokles (I) of Melite: 561
Dionysia: 605
Dionysios of Anaphlystos: 58, 550
Dionysios son of Athenobios of Eupyridai:
548, 562, 576
Dionysios son of Herodes of Sphettos: 568
Dionysios son of Mnasagoras of Ikaria:
562, 575
distribution of coinage, annual: diagrams
of, in three-magistrate period, 655-708:
tabulation of, 650-54
Dorotheos brother of Charmides: 562
Dorotheos son of Charmides: 562f, 584
Dorylaus: 448
Dositheos of Aithalidai: 563, 588
Spccxiiotl OTE<pavri<p6poi: 432 n
drachms, see fractions
Indexes
74i
Epistratos (II) son of Epistratos (I) of
Perithoidai: 550
Epistratos (III) son of Epistratos (II) of
Perithoidai: 550
Epithetes son of Aphroditos of Aithalidai:
564
Epitimos, potter: 564
era: Bithynian-Pontic, 504n; of Pergamum
on Mithradatic coinage, 504n
erasures, see ethnic, symbols
Eretria, coins of: 599n; in hoards, 107, 473
Ergokles, archon (132/1): 564
errors, see amphora letters, control com-
binations, die transfers, mint magistrates
Ethelandros of Acharnai: 87
ethnic: erased, 69; omitted on imitation, 459
Euagion (II) son of Euagion (I) of Kotho-
kidai: 549
Euagion (III) son of Alketes (II) of Kotho-
kidai: 549
Euboea: 548n; coins found in, 445, 448;
League coinage of, 649 n. See also Carystus,
Chalcis, Eretria
Euboulides son of Agathokles of Triko-
rynthos: 547

Eudoros of Kydathenaion: 41, 565
Eukles of Trinemeia: 550, 565
Eumareides son of Euphanes of Euonymon:
549, 566
Eupolemos, archon (185/4): 566
Eurykleides (I) of Kephisia: 604
Eurykleides (III) son of Mikion (III) of
Kephisia: 106, 566, 574f, 598, 604, 607
festivals, see Dionysia, Eleusinia, Pana-
thenaia, Ptolemaia, Romaia, Sylleia,
Theseia. See also symbols
Flamininus, proclamation of: 107
flans, comparative size of: 78n, 126f
forgeries, modern: 468, 472; in Halmyros
Hoard, 494
fractions: emission of, 40, 87, 608n and
see tabulation, 650-54; with ethnic alone,
88-40, 85-87; grain-ear, see Index of
Issues; omissions on dies of, see amphora
letters, control combinations, mint magi-
strates, symbols
frequency tables: 646-48
Glaukos of Piraeus: 102, 557, 572f
gold: coinage of Athens, 421, 709f, 721
and see Mithradates-Aristion in Index of
Issues; of Mithradates VI, 504n; of
Ptolemies, 605; of Sulla, 431; Nikai of
Acropolis, 709; objects in Halmyros
Hoard, 492
Gortyna imitations of New Style: 446, 638
graffiti: 151, 157n, 324n, 850n
grain distributions: 78, 147
Habron son of Kallias of Bate: 547
Harmodios, statue of: 445n
Harmoxenos son of Harmoxenos of Ke-
kropis: 555
Hegemachos son of Satyros of Leukonoe:
567, 580
Hellenistic Building in Agora: 622n
hemidrachms, see fractions
Hephaisteion in Agora: 622n
Herakleides, archon (104/8): 408, 568
Hermitage Cabinet: Beul6 coins in, 271 n;
742
Indexes
chronological significance of, 588 f; com-
bined, 477, 511; geographical distribution
New Style coins in, 539 f, 548-45; lacunas
in, 418, 474, 476 f, 540 f; tabulation of,
530-37. See also Indexes of Hoards and
Issues
of bronze: 525-81
Hygieia and Asklepios, priesthood of, see
priesthood
Hypsimos of Eiresidai: 44
Ikaria, deme: 605
Ilium, coins of: 598, 599n
Imbros, cleruchy of Athens: 439
imitations: analyses of, 637f; categories of,
468-70; ethnic omitted on, 459; in hoards,
440, 448f, 449, 458, 460f, 462n, 470-72,
481, 498, 510, 512; plated, 440, 443f,
449-60, 468, 469-71; possible, included
in catalogue, 42 f, 187, 246, 377; pro-
venance of, 470-72; transfer of obverse
dies of, 449-56, 458-61, 470 f. See also
Arabia, cast coins, Crete, forgeries,
Levant, plated coins, Index of Issues
inflation in grain prices: 714n
intercalary years: record of, from coinage,

55, 96 f, 100, 142, 162, 200, 286, 296, 854,
371, 879, 612f; from inscriptions, 612f;
contiguous, 125f, 129f, 613
Isis, cult of: 558, 607
issues, annual: chronological sequence of,
27-29; die-linked, see die transfers;
evidence for arrangement of, see chro-
nology; with monograms interpolated in
abbreviated names series, 109, 131 f;
with two magistrates interpolated in
three-magistrate series, 846, 863, 409;
number recorded, 7f. See also Index of
Issues
Italy: 436, 538, 545; hoards found in,
488 f; slave revolt in, 486 n
Jason, orator: 569
Justin: 422n
Kallias son of Habron of Bate: 547
Kallikratides son of Kallikrates of Steiria:
570
Kallikratides son of Syndromos of Steiria:
570
Kallimachos of Leukonoe: 408, 564, 570
Kalliphon: 408, 410, 571
Kallistratos, archon (156/5): 570
Kallitheos son of Lysiades of Berenikidai:
570
Kambanis, M. L.: casts and notes of, 4n;
erroneous die links recorded by, see die
transfers; record of Halmyros Hoard,
491-99
Karaichos of Halai: 571
Kayseri: 509
Kleidamos of tribe Antiochis: 564, 571
Kleon, graffito: 151
Kointos, archon (56/5): 572
Kointos, magistrate on imitations: 467
Kolophon, coins of: 599n
Kritios, sculptor: 445n
Lachares: 421 n
Laines of Dekeleia: 572
Lamia: 492
Laodice, wife of Mithradates V: 422
Indexes
743
411; square sigma, 885f, 405, 410f;
cursive omega, 82 f, 40 f, 121 f, 205, 884 f,
887, 891, 405f, 410f
Leukios, archon (59/8): 572
AeukoAAeicc: 485-88
Levant: circulation New Style coins in,
470, 474 f, 538, 544 and see also Index of
Hoards; commercial relations with Delos,
544n; imitations of Old Style coins in,
469 n
Lihyanite script: 441
liturgies: monetary, at Athens, 525n, 584,
593-99; elsewhere, 599 n; other, at Athens,
594 n, 599
Lucullus, Lucius (L. Licinius Lucullus):
432, 434-38
Lucullus, Marcus (M. Terentius Varro Lu-
cullus): 484, 487-39
Lyandros son of Nikogenes of Philaidai: 576
Lysander of Piraeus (family of Medeios):
102, 557, 578
Lysander (I) of Piraeus (c. 121): 578
Lysander (II) son of Lysander (I) of Pi-
raeus: 552, 573
Lysiades, archon (152/1): 606

Lysimachi in hoards: 484, 448n, 505, 523
Macedonia: coinage of, 88; circulation New
Style coins in, 490 n, 540, 544 and see
also Index of Hoards; mines, 544; war
with Rome, 107, 118, 544; withdrawal
of garrisons from Athens, 8, 681 n. See
also Aesillas, symbols and individual
Macedonian kings
Magas of Marathon: 578
magistrates, see mint magistrates
Maroneia, coins in hoards: 528
Medeios of Piraeus: 408-10, 561, 578f, 598
Megara: 436
Memnon: 422 n
Menedemos, archon (92/1): 408, 578
Mentor father of Diodora: 574
metallic composition of coinage, see ana-
lyses
Metellus: 467
Middle Stoa in Agora: 714n
Mikion (III) son of Eurykleides (I) of
Kephisia: 106, 575, 604
Mikion (IV) son of Mikion (III) of Kephisia:
106, 566, 574f, 598, 604
Miltiades son of Zoilos of Marathon: 575
mint
of Athens: location of, 482n, 622n;
Mithradatic coinage struck at, 504 n;
Sullan coinage struck at, 431 f, 487-89;
operating routine of, 710n, 716-21; out-
put of, see quantity of coinage; pro-
duction rate of, 718-21
on Delos: 482 f
of Pergamum: used by Mithradates
VI, 504n
in Peloponnese: used for Sullan issues,
482, 485f
at Sunium: 482 f
mint magistrates: alphabetical list of,
547-84; compared with Triumviri Mone-
tales, 584-87; consanguinity of, 584, 589,
598, 595f and passim through listing;
earlier theories regarding, 584 f, 588, 598;
744
Indexes
earlier readings of names, passim through
commentaries on individual issues
Mithradates III: 423n
Mithradates IV: 428 n
Mithradates V: 554, 574; benefactor of
Athens, 422-24, 606, 637; of Delos, 422
Mithradates VI: 447 f, 545, 574; Athenian
partisans of, 409, 447, 504n, 553f; early
years, 422; early military campaigns,
637; financial aid to Athens, 504 n, 506,
509, 548; "mint magistrate" of Athens,
8; at Pergamum, 448 n, 504 n; war with
Rome, see Mithradatic War
coinage of: with era dates, 504n, 637n;
circulating in Athens, 423 n; found on
Delos, 412, 548, 545; found in hoards,
418, 484, 448n, 504-06, 508, 512, 520,
523, 548, 545; struck at Athens, 504 n;
struck at Pergamum, 504 n; types and
symbols of, 428n, 554
Mithradates Chrestos: 422
Mithradatic War: 484-87, 448, 543n, 545
Mnasagoras son of Adeimantos of Ikaria:
547, 575
Mnasagoras son of Mnasagoras of Ikaria: 575

monograms: formation of, 48; variant
forms of, passim through catalogue of
Early Period
month dates, see amphora letters
Moschos of Kydathenaion: 86, 54, 582
Moschos son of Moschion of Ankyle: 54
Naukrates of Hamaxanteia: 43
Naxos, coins in hoards: 477. See also Index
of Hoards
Necote: on coins, 142, 576 f; on inscriptions,
106, 142
Nestor (Homeric): 601 n
neutron activation method of analysis: 662f
Newton, C. T., British vice consul: In
Nicomedes II, coins in hoards: 448n
Nicomedes III, coins in hoards: 505, 528
Nicomedes IV, coins in hoards: 512, 528
Nikagoras of Phlya: 576
Nikai, golden, of Acropolis: 709
Niketes son of Athenobios of Eupyridai:
548, 562, 576
Niketes son of Niketes of Pergase: 87, 576
Nikodoros son of Nikesias of Leontis: 577
Nikogenes (I) of Philaidai: 576 f, 589 n
Nikogenes (II) son of Nikogenes (I) of
Philaidai: 576f
Nikogenes (III) son of Nikon (III) of
Philaidai: 577, 587
Nikon of Kephisia: 577
Nikon (III) son of Nikogenes (I) of Philai-
dai: 577
Oinophilos (I) son of Amphias (I) of Aphid-
na: 550, 578
Oinophilos (II) son of Oinophilos (I) of
Aphidna: 550
Old Style silver of Athens: 40, lllf, 441,
446; in hoards, 107n, 521 n; imitations
of, 469 n. See also analyses
oligarchic revolution at Athens: 408
Olympia, spoils of war from: 484
omissions, see accordion plates, amphora
letters, control combinations, ethnic,
mint magistrates, symbols
Indexes
745
Peloponnesian mint of Sulla: 432, 485f
Pergamum: cistophori in hoards, 448 n,
482; era of, 504n; headquarters for
Mithradates VI, 448 n, 504 n; monogram
of, 504 n
Perseus: 428, 448. See also Index of Symbols
Perseus of Macedon, coins of: 91
Phanias of Kydathenaion: 86, 54, 582
Phanias son of Moschos of Kydathenaion:
54
Pharnaces: 422, 428 n
Philinos of Paiania: 569, 582
Philip V of Macedon: 107, 118; coins of, 88,
91
Philippe wife of Diokles of Melite: 604
Philodoxos (on inscription of Roman date):
582
Philotades of Phyle: 553, 588
Philotheos of Lamptrai: 580, 582
Phraates IV, coins of: 542n
Piraeus: 118, 486f. See also Index of Hoards
Piso, L. Calpurnius: coins in hoards, 528
Plaka: district of Laurium, 682; district of
Athens, see Index of Hoards
plated coins: 687 and passim through cata-

logue. See also imitations
Plotheia, deme: 578, 605
Plutarch: 422n, 482, 484-88, 447f, 571
Polemon of Perithoidai: 578
Polybius: 102
Polycharmos of Phaleron: 579
Polykles (II) of Thorikos: 61, 579, 581, 587
Polykles (III) son of Timarchides (I) of
Thorikos: 579
Pompey: 686 n
Pontus: Athenian partisans of, 409, 447,
504n, 553f, 606; coins of, 446, 448; era
of, 504 n; mines of, 686 n; political situ-
ation c. 120, 422; subsidies to Athens,
421-23, 606, 636 f; symbols on New
Style coins, 419, 422 f, 554, 606, 686 f.
See also Mithradatic War and individual
Pontic kings
Poseidonios of Alopeke: 560, 579
Poses (I) son of Ariston (I) of Phaleron:
548, 579, 581
Poses (II) son of Ariston (II) of Phaleron:
579
priesthood: Asklepios and Hygieia, 411,
560, 604, 607; Athena, 604; Demos and
Graces, 604, 607; in family, 411, 560, 604
prytanies: 584, 598
Ptolemaia: 552, 557, 565, 605f
Ptolemies, coins of: 605; found in hoards,
528
Pyrrhos of Lamptrai: 557, 580
Pythais: of Agathokles (106/5), 556; of
Argeios (98/7), 556, 575; of Demetrios
(128/2?), 548; of Dionysios (128/7), 548,
558, 580
quantity of coinage: at different periods,
712-14, 718-21; decline in Early Period,
40; in Late Period, 518, 542 f, 598, 597f,
612, 635, 687; increase c. 181, 685f, 718,
714n; original output of mint, 726; survi-
ing specimens, 654
Raven, E. J. P.: notes on Cretan hoards,
515, 522
746
Indexes
war with Macedon, 107; war with Pontus,
see Mithradatic War, Sulla; war with
Syria, 118. See also symbols
Sabaean coins and legends: 441
Sabinus, L. Titurius: coins in hoards, 528
Saher Halal: 441
Samsun: 445, 447, 471, 524. See also Index
of Hoards
Santangelo collection in Naples Museum:
434 n
Saroglou collection, coin from: 468n
Satyros son of Hegemachos of Leukonoe:
567, 580
Schol. Aristoph.: 594n
Scipio: 102
Seager collection, coin from: 468
Seleucia Pieria, coins in hoards: 475
Seleucia on Tigris: 107n
Seleucid kings: benefactors of Athens, 147,
160, 606; coins of, in hoards, 107 n, 474 f,
477, 528, 542n. See also symbols and indi-
vidual rulers
Seleucus III, coins in hoards: 107n
Seyrig, H.: record of Hermitage coins, 6,
262n; of Kessab Hoard, 475 f; of Zahle

Hoard, 528
Sicily: 545; Athenian expedition to, 469n,
594 n; slave revolt on, 486 n
Sicyon, coins of: 586
Side, coins of: 81
silver: for coinage, see bullion, mines; re-
serve, see stockpile of coins
Skyros, cleruchy of Athens: 489
slave revolts, see Anatolia, Delos, Italy,
Laurium, Sicily
Sokrates son of Sokrates of Kephisia: 580
Sophanes of Themakos: 565
Sophanes son of Dionysios of Themakos:
581
spoils of war: from Athens, 434, 487, 506,
543, 638; from Greek sanctuaries, 484,
486 f, 638
Stephanephoros: 849 n, 432
CT<pavri<p6pou Spccxnoci: 432 n
Stoa of Attalos in Agora: 714n
stockpile of coins: 542n, 714n
Strabo: 422n, 686n
Stratios of Lamptrai: 580, 582
style as guide to chronology: Early Period
obverses, 108-18, 122-26; reverses. 111,
118, 127-29; Middle Period obverses,
807-16; reverses, 816-18; Late Period
obverses, 893-97, 400-07; reverses, 397 f,
407 f. See also aegis serpent, biga, Pegasus
and commentaries on individual issues
subsidies: to Athens, see Mithradates VI,
Pontus, Seleucid kings; to Delos, 412,
422
Sulla: aid to Delos, 412; Greek campaigns,
484-89, 448; levies in Greece, 434, 486f;
military payments, 434-87, 506; route
to Athens, 436; siege and sack of Athens,
415, 421, 486f, 488n, 445, 447, 506, 509,
622 n; visit to Athens in 84/3, 439
coinage of: found on Delos, 515, 521,
545; found in hoards, see Index of Issues;
gold, 431; struck at Athens, 425-89, 506;
struck in Peloponnese, 482, 485 f
Indexes
747
sonal, 39, 43, 137, 159, 252n, 603-05;
Pontic, 419, 422f, 554, 606, 636f; Roman,
113, 606; Seleucid, 147, 159f, 603, 606
symmories: 594 n
syntrierarchy: 594 n
Syria: war with Rome, 113. See also An-
tioch, Levant, Seleucid kings and indi-
vidual Seleucid rulers
Teheran: 544. See also Index of Hoards
Teos, see Apellikon of Teos
Thasos, coins in hoards: 522f
Thebes: 436
Themistokles: 568, 604
Themistokles son of Theophrastos of Hag-
nous: 568 f, 577
Theophrastos of Hagnous: 568 f, 577
Thermopylae, battle of: 118
Theseia: 548, 555, 562, 575-77, 584
Thessaly: 436; coins of League, 586
Thoinos, orator: 569
Timarchides (I) of Thorikos: 61, 579, 581,
587
Timokrates (I) of Pythaist listing: 556
Timokrates (III) son of Asklapon: 556
Timokrates son of Demetrios of Potamos:

88
Timostratos (I) of Phaleron: 579
Timostratos (II) son of Ariston (I) of Pha-
leron: 548, 579 f, 581
Timostratos (III) son of Ariston (II) of
Phaleron: 579f
Tralles: coins of, 81; in hoards, 521; counter-
mark of, 81
trierarchy: 594n, 599
Triumviri Monetales: 584-86, 598
types: of New Style silver, 31; of New Style
bronze, 418 f, 527-29
Wappenmunzen: 632-84
weights: frequency tables, 646-48; tabu-
lation of averages, 642-45; weight stan-
dards, 645-48
Xenokles son of Sophokles of Acharnai: 577
Xenon of Melite: 408, 568
Xenon son of Asklepiades of Phyle: 47
Zoilos son of Zoilos of Sphettos: 566
Zopyros, archon (186/5): 566

The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens. Text / by Margaret Thompson

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens. Text / by Margaret Thompson

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 20:29 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 20:29 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015010306465

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 20:29 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015010306465

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 20:29 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015010306465

Bibliography, Collections and Key to Abbreviations 11

The Sequence of Issues 27

Note on the Catalogue 80

The Early Period (196/5-169/8 B.C.)

The Middle Period (168/7-182/1 B.C.)

The Late Period (181/0-88/7 B.C.)

Sullan Issues 425

A. Amphora Letters 608

B. Control Combinations 618

C. Silver Analyses 622

D. Bronze Analyses 638

F. Die Positions 648

G. Annual Distribution of the Coinage 649

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 20:29 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015010306465

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 20:29 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015010306465

ject of serious numismatic study. Its attraction is easily understandable, for

in the field of Greek numismatics there is perhaps no series which presents a

fulfilment. This is an abundant coinage, extensive in time, varied in style, and

rich in factual information. Its reverses provide the names of hundreds of

Athenian magistrates, the month dates of individual pieces, and an elaborate

system of control lettersthe only important omission is the years of striking.

If any undated sequence can be arranged in exact chronological order it would

which Beule thought related to the tetradrachm strikings. The arrangement is

period immediately succeeding the death of Alexander.1

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 20:29 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015010306465

The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens

Beule's alphabetical arrangement of the issues with magistrates' names was

followed by Barclay V. Head in the British Museum Catalogue of 1888, but in

The general groupings which he mademonograms, two magistrates with ab-

accepted and retained by later scholars.

A still more elaborate study of stylistic sequence was presented by Jean

Svoronos. The monumental work on which he was engaged, Les monnaies

is no accompanying text but the plates certainly represent Svoronos' con-

clusions as to general arrangement. Eight divisions of the coinage are indicated

each division is still alphabetical.

a tool of precision which it had hitherto lacked. In a series of "Notes sur le

classement chronologique des monnaies d'Athenes," Kambanis presented his

crucially important discovery that obverse dies were sometimes transferred

is firm proof of chronological sequence. Unfortunately, like Svoronos, Kam-

indicate the conclusions he had reached in respect to the arrangement of sec-

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 20:29 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015010306465

tions of the coinage.

and conclusions of earlier numismatists, summarizes the present state of the

arrangement embodies the links published by Kambanis and is guided to a

considerable extent by Svoronos' groupings, but there are important deviations

which are carefully explained.

aspects of the New Style coinage were receiving attention. J. Sundwall in

the prosopographical material and drew up a most useful tabulation of third

Macdonald in an article on "The Amphora Letters on Coins of Athens." Sund-

articles, notably by Lederer and Svoronos, considered the problems raised by

sections of the present publication.

lived, demonstrably untrue in the light of further study; others, although

grounded in probability rather than certainty, have been accepted by so many

authorities that they have solidified as basic premises, well-nigh indistinguish-

able from facts.

stance which indicates chronological contiguity. Even this should perhaps be

immediate sequence. However, unless there is conflicting evidence, it seems

year and at the beginning of another as consecutive strikings.

Generated for anonymous on 2015-02-15 20:29 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015010306465