THE COINAGE OF METAPONTUM (PART ONE)

An effort to visualize the status of these Achaean colonies before B. C. 510 should prove suggestive.

The size and wealth of Sybaris must have given that city a predominance over her neighbors, some of which were, like Metapontum, founded by her. If we seek the foundation of the growth and wealth of Sybaris in her commercial relations, it is fairly obvious that her land-trade must have been of greater importance than her traffic by sea. Her pre-eminence has been attributed to having control over the shortest and easiest of the routes between the Ionian and Tyrrhenian Seas, over the narrow instep of the great boot of the Italian peninsula.14 Trade rivalry with Siris, a city controlling a rival trans-isthmus route, is usually accepted as the reason for the destruction of that city at the hands of Sybaris, Croton and Metapontum—although this may not have been the sole cause. It is entirely possible that the demands of her Etruscan and other markets on the Tyrrhenian shore absorbed the entire supply of what Sybaris had to offer, as well as other commodities purchased from the Achaean cities—such as grain from Metapontum—material which Sybaris could transport over the shorter road within her control more economically than any of her neighbors.

Miletus was in close relationship with Sybaris, and there is evidence that this had some commercial basis. Whether it was sufficiently extensive to give Sybaris any considerable advantage as an entrepreneur is not apparent, but whatever the commodity, Sybaris had a double market—her Greek neighbors and the Etruscans. Furthermore she was able to prevent the latter, and in all probability the Greeks as well, from having direct contact with Miletus, and thus could exact a double profit on a single transaction. Speck states that the woolen fabrics of Miletus were exchanged for grain.15

Save for the Milesian and other Ionian cities, and with the important exception of trade among themselves, which must have been considerable, the only sea market open to these Greeks of South Italy would have been the mother country. The Achaeans were a farming rather than a maritime people, and this characteristic the colonies shared. None of them possessed a large natural haven— Tarentum was Dorian, and controlled the only secure harbor. Sicily and the straits of Messina were in the control of the Chalcidians, and the Adriatic was under the sway of the Corinthians. The size of the ships and the consequent smallness of their cargoes would necessitate the carrying of some commodity of high value within small compass before its worth would be such as to exert much economic pressure. The income of these cities must therefore have been from their landward side. It would not be surprising to have archaeologists at some future day find evidence that there was mineral wealth in these mountains—Lenormant states that silver mines were operated in southern Italy up to the time that the discovery of America's store made their operation no longer profitable.

The fall of Sybaris brought many important changes. It is hardly likely that any of the other cities could have continued the contact with the Milesian market, and only sixteen years intervened before Miletus fell to the Persians. The sheltered position of South Italy during the period the Greeks were fighting the hosts of Darius and the Sicilians the Carthaginians, has slight bearing on the period of the incuse coinage. Before passing to the issues of Metapontum, it is desirable that we examine the coinage of this group of cities to see what evidence their money may have for their history.

The fabric of the incuse coins used in common by almost all of the Achaean cities before the fall of Sybaris, was accepted by Lenormant as cause for thinking that there must have been a monetary confederation, and the issues in this form of Dorian Tarentum and Chalcidian Rhegium—trade rivals of the other cities—did not deter him. Dr. George Macdonald has shown,16 however, that there are other serious objections, the chief of which is the variation in the weight standards within the presumed confederation. He seeks an explanation in some practical consideration— adopting Mr. Hill's idea that the form may have been dictated by a desire to stack or pack the coins.17 The difficulty in the way of accepting this will be evident if one tries to "stack" even a few of the staters of Sybaris or Metapontum—they form a very unstable column. Is it possible that we may find some better and more practical explanation ?

What has been said of the preeminence of Sybaris, at once suggests the probability that this city was the originator of the incuse fabric. Metapontum and Poseidonia were both colonies of Sybaris, and it is hardly likely that they would have instituted the form. Croton or Caulonia might have initiated this style of coining, but neither were of a size or importance to have their practice seized upon by their so much larger neighbor. It seems, strangely enough, to have been a spontaneous invention and to have been evolved without any evolutionary development. Mr. Head's position18 that the swastika-incuse issues of Corinth were used as a model does not carry full conviction. Possibly the trade relations between Magna Graecia and Corinth may have brought the germ of the idea, but the hiatus between the two forms is too great to say that the one is derived from the other. We have one of these Corinthian issues used for the flan of a late Metapontum stater of the thickened type which must have been struck about 490 B. C., and the idea that it had been the pattern would imply that the Corinthian piece had been in circulation more than sixty years before restriking. Having only the slight value which attaches to negative evidence, is the circumstance that these pieces have seldom or never been found in hoards unearthed outside Italy. This carries the suggestion that the consideration of preventing the export of money and, consequently, of restricting its circulation to South Italy must have been prominent in the minds of those responsible for originating the form. Again, we rarely find these incuse pieces overstruck. Any attempt to attribute the form to Pythagoras will have to take into consideration that he must have left Samos a fairly considerable number of years after the earliest issues.

There is one circumstance in this incuse coinage as a whole that is of help in our study of the issues of Metapontum. It affords in certain cases a parallel evolution, but Croton alone covers satisfactorily the same period as Metapontum. The destruction of Sybaris in 510 is invaluable as a dating criterion. Up to that time, the coins of Sybaris were of the wide, thin flans, although examination reveals a barely perceptible diminution in the size of the flans, but, more particularly, in the size of the dies.

We should be under no illusion that we have a complete or even an approximately complete series of these incuse coins. The next hoard of them that is unearthed will, doubtless, provide pieces from dies whose like has never been seen before. It follows almost without saying, therefore, that there can be no claim to completeness for this material, even though we try to record all the varieties at present in cabinets devoted to Greek coins.

Whether what we now have sufficiently approaches completeness to permit a probable reconstruction of the coinage of Metapontum, is quite another question, the answer to which is obviated by the fact that we must obtain what benefit we can from the facts in hand. Should additional facts at some future time make rearrangement of this material necessary, it will have provided in the meantime means for the identification and, perhaps, for the further classification of the issues of this city.

Turning to the coins of Metapontum, in the light of the evidence afforded by the coins themselves, it is at once apparent that they are struck from a pair of inter-locking dies. The cutting of the obverse die would be comparatively simple. It is in the reverse die that difficulties are met, and this is due especially to the circumstance that the ear is in such high relief. In some of the specimens, the high point of the middle row of grains is 4 mm. from the field. If the reader is interested in the technical discussion which follows, he will be greatly aided by taking one of these incuse staters and making an impression of the reverse in sealing wax or any soft modeling wax or plastolene. Failing that, if he will take one of our plates and conceive of the lighting for the reverses as coming from the direction opposite to that actually used; through an optical illusion the reverse of the coin will appear as though in relief and consequently like the die itself. He can then follow the argument with sufficient closeness.

To cut the reverse die directly, the die-cutter would have had to remove the entire surface of the die, with the exception of the ear itself and the rim, and he would have had to cut to a depth equal to the relief of the highest point of the ear. In other words, about three-quarters of the surface to a uniform depth of nearly 4 mm. would have to be removed and all of the delicate portions of the relief would have to be left untouched, including the rim as well as the awns. This feat is not impossible, but that it could have been carried out for so extended a coinage without having left some traces is almost inconceivable. Was there any other manner of preparing the die which was open to our artist?

We know very little about ancient dies, especially Greek ones, because almost none that are above suspicion have come down to us. Mr. G. F. Hill, in a very carefully thought-out article on ancient methods of coining,19 summarizes the evidence to be drawn from them. We do not know whether the ancient dies were of steel or of bronze hardened in a manner with which we are not acquainted, and as much depends upon knowing this, our reasoning has to be speculative. It seems probable that some method of hardening the dies was known, just as some method of annealing the silver flans to be struck seems to have been practiced. The circumstances because of which it is impossible to believe that the reverse dies were cut directly at Metapontum, i.e., in relief (cameo) have just been cited. All of these difficulties would be eliminated, however, if what is known as a "hub" in the making of modern medals were used. From the hub, which is the negative of the die, a die can be struck and hardened. Being the negative of the reverse die (which we have seen is in high relief), the hub for this reverse would have to be cut intaglio, just as the obverse had been and as all the gems of this period were cut. If tempering was practiced, the obverse die and the reverse hub would be cut intaglio in the untempered metal and later hardened. Into this hardened hub, the reverse die, probably in a heated state, would have been driven. The die so obtained was then finished and after hardening was ready for use.

If the reverse die was forced into a "steel" hub in a heated state it would have "drawn the temper" of that hub; that is, its heated condition would have burnt out the carbon of the hub and softened it. Unless the ancients had a knowledge of retempering such a hub, it could not have been used again. The reverse dies are fully as numerous as the obverse ones and no evidence of re-using these hubs has been found, although we have reverse dies showing re-cutting (Classes IX and X), and obverse dies with alterations (Cf. Nos. 1-4 and 151). We can hardly escape the conclusion, in the light of these facts, that the "hub" which has been postulated was used simply to get around the difficulty of cutting the reverse die directly in relief.

If we have reached a conviction that hubs were used at Metapontum, it does not follow that this method was used for the entire incuse coinage of South Italy. Where the reverse is very deep, the same reasons in favor of hubs found for Metapontine coins apply, but the shallow incuse coins of Poseidonia and Caulonia give one pause, and make a more careful and detailed examination of them advisable before forming an opinion. The engraved details for the coins of both of these cities, such as the trident and drapery for Poseidonia and the horns of the stag for Caulonia, as well as the inscriptions, could have been added to the die whether it had been prepared from a hub or cut directly. The herring-bone rim could also have been cut either way—a circumstance which is not true of the reverse awns of the Metapontine dies. Certain of the Poseidonia pieces have very shallow incuses and the design is limited to two planes, the second of which is only slightly separated from the other. These would not present the difficulties of modelling which the barley ear provides at Metapontum or the bull at Sybaris. In favor of the hubbing theory, however, certain of the dies which do not have such simple treatment of the design (Pl. 23, G, H, I) must be cited. Here there is cause for believing that the bungling nature of the modelling could have been due to nothing else than an attempt to cut the die directly and the contrast of this crudity with more usual finish of the other dies supports the position that hubs were customary.

The first coin illustrated on Pl. xxiii—the beautiful stater in the collection of M. Vlasto— shows the procedure at Tarentum, where but few of the incusi were struck. Note on the reverse, that the lines of the breast, the strings of the lyre, and the locks of the hair are in relief on the coin, and were therefore cut intaglio on the die. Had the die been cut direct, these elements would have had to be kept in mind from the very beginning, and the whole planned accordingly. In the stater of Sybaris with the locust (B), note the wealth of linear detail—it is hard to conceive that these lines were cut other than intaglio on the die after it came from the hub. In the PAA piece (D), note that the reverse rim must have been done similarly—i.e., after the die had come from the hub with a simple raised rim, this attempt to reproduce a cable border was made by countersinking the dots and by engraving the tiny lines between them; both the dots and the lines are in relief on the coin. In the piece from Poseidonia (F), the inscription, the trident, the details of the drapery, the features and the lines of the torso are all in relief. Note that the drapery passes behind the body, just as on the obverse—on many of the reverses of Poseidonia, it passes in front of the figure. In the stater of Croton shown, from the Hunterian collection, note that the reverse decorations of an octopus and a dolphin have no relation to the crab of the obverse.

Referring to Plate xii, it will be seen that Class VIII of the incuse ears consists entirely of what have been called "imitations". There seems to have been an attempt with at least three of these reverse dies to cut them directly, just as has been described for the late issues of Caulonia. As a result, the barley ear is very crude and the manner of cutting the awns and the border is entirely misunderstood. The awns have been engraved in the die and therefore show in relief on the coins. The border has been formed by leaving a flat rim which has been cut across at unequal intervals giving a result that is coarse and irregular. Some of the other coins on this plate leave the impression that they may have been from official dies which had fallen into unworthy hands and had been re-worked. No single explanation serves for all of them, but the treatment of the border and the awns at once reveals the novice's hand and furnishes a basis for the conclusion that the incuse format may have been a means of keeping counterfeiters from imitating these issues. A variety which had not come to my attention until after Plate xii was finished is reproduced herewith— No. 154c.

The issue for Croton and Pandosia is another latent argument for the hub theory. Please note (Pl. xxiii, E) that the bull of the reverse is in relief on a sunken rectangular field. Had it not been for the fixed idea of the die-cutter that there must be an incuse element to force the metal into the die—that is, had he not been unconscious that this result would have been accomplished with equal effectiveness by cutting the design in the surface plane of the die, rather than in the inta- glio reserve—the piece would have differed not at all from the usual double-relief issues which must have followed it very closely.

The difficulties of working with the incuse pieces of Metapontum may have been one reason for their apparent neglect. Aside from double striking and poor preservation there are handicaps due to poor casts or worse photographs. In addition there is the question of altered dies to make further complications. One rather more than usually involved case occurs at the very beginning. In number I, the obverse die shows signs of a break above the apex of the ear and just inside the border. To eliminate these, the border was re-cut and fortunately there are traces of the older border which are still to be discerned. These remedies, however, did not prove sufficient, for in a third state we have the ear apparently cut deeper in the die and the field on either side, including the section occupied by the awns, planed down and the awns re-cut. Previous to this planing down the inscription had been preserved by deepening with tiny punch marks or drill holes and these are to be seen in specimen I c together with the traces of the awns at the previous angle in the field to the left. In the last change, the inscription has been made linear. On the reverse, pos- sibly the old one, but apparently the third used with this obverse, the inscription has been engraved in the die and therefore shows itself raised on the coin. Changes so extensive as these were not frequent in the incuse coinage, or if they were, traces of them, with a few exceptions, have been obliterated. One of these exceptions is the obverse of No. 151 (Pl. xii). Here not only traces of the earlier awns are to be seen but in the field to the left may be discerned the outline of one of the divided inscriptions. is quite plain and strange to say, no coin with the letters in this position has as yet been found by me.

It is the reverse dies which oftenest show alterations and many of these have to do with the border which had to withstand the tendency of the silver to spread in striking. Number 22 shows a reverse die that is broken across the inscription. Number 43 shows a reverse die from which a segment has broken in the field to the right. In Class III, however, where the raised rim becomes more regular we find sections of this rim occasionally shearing off as in number 76. When this occurs, because there is nothing to force the metal into the obverse die, the obverse border shows a blank for the space involved, which, in number 76 happens to be just below that occupied by the inscription. In Class IV, a number of the specimens show very considerable skill in mending such breaks of the reverse rim. Number 89 is a case in point and others will be found with numbers 96 and elsewhere. With casts of two or three specimens from the same die it is often possible to notice the development of the flaws and the means used to check further spreading of the fracture. Another form of break for the reverse die is shown in number 87 where the high points of the ear have flaked away leaving the coin filled in throughout the middle row of grains. This is partly due to the boldness of the relief and the size of the flan and possibly also to the incautious pairing of dies, the one imperfectly interlocking with the other. Under such conditions the grains are sometimes found worn through, leaving a hole, but because such coins are not considered desirable by numismatists, they are met with only infrequently. Another form of break which is much rarer is to be observed in number 93 where in the obverse die starting at the base of the ear, a seam has opened which extends above the inscription in the field to the left and along the cable border to a point just above the apex of the ear. Part of the border at the left has been broken away. I do not recall any die-break as extensive as this in any of the other coins which have come under my observation.

For the thick flan staters, another peculiarity is to be observed. A great many of them bear, in what is obviously their center point, a small pellet or dot. This same pellet is also to be observed in the center of the thick flan staters of Croton, with the incuse flying eagle, Cf. Pl. xxiii, L. The following is submitted as the explanation of its being there. It will be observed that in most of these cases in which a dot appears at the center, the border consists of wedge-like strokes rather coarser than the usual border and pointing toward a common center, that common center being the aforementioned dot. By some mechanical means, with this center as an application point and with a contrivance having a uniform radius, it seems to have been possible to cut the border, or possibly to re-cut it This application point, which in the die exists as a depression, when the die is used for striking, appears on the coin as a pellet. Without some agency such as the foregoing, it is hard to explain either the mechanical regularity or the coarseness of the border as compared with the fineness of workmanship which occurs on the rest of the design of the Croton staters with the eagle reverse, as well as on some of the thick flan staters of Metapontum. In the latter case it will be observed that occasionally the central point of application for the mechanical device postulated is no longer observable through surface corrosion of the piece or the breaking of the die itself at this point. Illustrations for the Metapontum pieces of the foregoing may be noticed in numbers 233, 249 and 191. The practice at Metapontum was apparently not so extensive as at Croton.

Another form of alteration which seems to have been confined almost entirely to the thick flan staters was designed to permit re-cutting of the border. The function of this reverse border was to force the metal into the die so that the rim on the obverse should come out clearly and sharply. It served as a grip on the flan and kept the flan from spreading. When, with use, the little segments into which it was divided began to wear and to lose their power of gripping, it seems to have been the practice to re-cut the border and, as we have seen, some mechanical device aided in doing this for a number of these thick flan staters. This device, however, was not used for all of them, and re-cutting was accomplished without its agency. It was possible to cut away the field of the die close to the worn rim and to bevel it down so that the transition from the old level was gradual. The greatest cutting away of the field was nearest the rim. It was simple, then, to re-cut the rim thus obtained and once more to have it gripping the flan and keeping it from slipping during the striking. In some cases the re-cut border has trespassed on the outline of the ear and very frequently the point at which the recutting has begun can be established where the end of the work overlaps the beginning. (Compare Nos. 184, 205 and 218.)

The types and symbols of the incusi do not begin to compare in importance with those of the double-relief coinage. The παράσημον of the city is the barley ear, and the conformation of the head of grain is such that there is faint cause for believing it to be wheat. The kernels of wheat are placed irregularly—those of barley are in groups of three. If one attempts to remove a kernel of barley, it will be found that there are two others joined to it and tending to leave the stem at the same time. This badge of the city is constant throughout the coinage with relatively few exceptions—on some of the bronze issues. On one type of the double-relief staters it occurs on both sides, while in one of the gold issues, we find two ears. This occurs also on the "Hannibalic half-units" identified by M. Vlasto.

For the earliest issues we have the stater, the third and the twelfth, all with the barley-ear-incuse reverse. It is possible that there were also sixths, but from the style and the manner of dividing the inscription, it is hard to believe that the pieces of this denomination with the bull's head incuse reverse came into use before the thick-flan staters and it seems probable that the twelfths with the barley grain (incuse) reverse (Pl. xxi) were contemporaneous with these sixths.

It should be noticed that the bull's head on the reverse of the sixths is not a bucranium. There are marked variations in the type as an examination of plates xxii and xxi will show. The circular frame of the die permitted the designer but scant liberty and the curves of the animal's horns are presumably a resultant of this condition. On numbers 283 and 290 the bull has short horns— either a deliberate indication of the animal's not having reached full growth or less probably a reproduction of a shorthorned variety. The downward curve of the horns is in contrast to their normal position and might lead us to think that the intention was to represent the head of an ox or bullock. The shorthorned type will bear comparison with the issues of Phocis, which, of course, are in relief. Thus, by analogy with the use of the barley ear, this type is a reference to the flocks and herds of the city as a contributory source of its wealth. We may see therein support for identification of the horned male head of the double relief series as that of Apollo Karneios rather than Zeus Ammon.

Although the barley ear is an almost constant type throughout the Metapontine coinage, the sub- sidiary symbols have exceptional variety. With the double relief issues the barley ear occupies the reverse and the obverse types change frequently. It is not my present purpose to consider these type-changes. The subsidiary symbols are not frequent on the incuse coinage, but they must be considered as a whole and, therefore, their use on the later issues must be anticipated here.

Perhaps, the first significant condition revealed by study of these symbols at Metapontum is that the explanation that answers for the earliest issues does not suffice for the later ones and that the procedure from 325 to 300 B. C. is certainly not the same as that from 425 to 400.

(a) During the period of the incuse coinage symbols are used very sparingly. Nos. 100-102, 104-105, have on the obverse a grasshopper and on the reverse (incuse), a dolphin. Others (thick flan) have as subsidiary symbols a ram's head (Nos. 221-228), a mule's head (Nos. 231-2), lizard (Nos. 209-220), murex (Nos. 229-30), and grasshopper (Nos. 258-261), while a grain of barley (or wheat) occurs on one of the thirds (Nos. 108-9). With the exception of the barley grain (and strictly, this can hardly be called an exception) all these symbols are animate.

(b) In the period of c. 335 B. C. we might take as typical the tetradrachms with the head of Leukippos20 on the obverse. These have as subsidiary symbols the forepart of a lion and the letters A H. The reverse has a club as a symbol and the letters AMI. The name AMI occurs on didrachms with the same symbols21 and also with an open-winged bird as a reverse symbol.22 The name A H occurs on other didrachms with the forepart of a Pegasus23 (although not so directly associated as with the forepart of the lion), and elsewhere with a crescent.24 A M I also occurs on the obverse without a symbol.25

(c) About 400 the procedure is much simpler —we have either the symbol or the initial letters —sometimes neither. The last condition, however, is easily explainable, for the obverse type changes would serve to distinguish the issues.

At Maroneia we find the names alone and later the names with symbols in addition. For this city the names are often complete and leave no question of two persons having names with the same initial letters. We find the same names recurring after a fairly considerable interval, the interval being indicated by weight, style or technique.

The warrant for believing these symbols to be magistrates' badges rests on a fairly firm foundation. As shown by Sir Arthur Evans,26 the Heracleian tables27 offer a close analogy, which might fairly be applied to the period to which they are attributed and therefore the procedure outlined by them is reasonably certain to have been in use for a term sufficiently long to have become established.

If we try to believe that these badges are those of magistrates appointed annually, we get into difficulties for at Maroneia we have the same name recurring two, three or even four times and at intervals. But it is obvious that these badges do serve to distinguish one issue of the coinage of a city from another. Ostensibly they have as their purpose the tracing back to a responsible individual of questions of debasing or underweight or other forms of unrighteousness in connection with their manufacture.

Viewing the question from the angle of the small city state, it is hardly reasonable to suppose that the coinage needs of the many Greek towns with mints were uniform from year to year. No mint of the modern world puts forth equal issues for each successive twelve-month—why should the requirements of the comparatively small towns of Greece be independent of the score of conditions which affect the amount of currency required for local needs ? Certainly during conflicts with neighboring rivals, the needs were greater than in times of peace. This is shown for Mende by the hoard found there in 1914. M. Babel on decided upon 423 as the year in which the hoard was probably buried,28 and working independently and viewing the evidence from another angle, my own conclusions coincided with his.29 This was the year in which the city surrendered to the Athenians and the hoard shows unmistakably a quickening of the coinage just preceding its burial. This evidence may be drawn from the circumstance that there is an increase in the number of dies or rather an increase in the number of dies which are muled one with the other, thus showing their contemporaneity. These dies are distinguished by exergual-symbols which recur on differing dies and which, therefore, may not be identified as artists' symbols or die-distinctions. Insistence here is merely upon the point that the coinage needs of Mende were greater during the period of its conflict with Athens than at a normal period and that the coinage shows this. It is now generally accepted as proven that the occasional gold issues of cities not customarily striking gold coins are attributable to a time of war—the best illustrations being the gold issues of Tarentum at the time of the coming of Alexander of Molossos and the gold issues for Athens. Unquestionably the silver issues must have felt some of this stimulus— and the more so in cities which never put forth gold issues.

In contrast, for a small city state during a long stretch of peaceful years, there must have been many conditions which would have affected the number of coins minted. In agricultural districts, the failure of crops would automatically have cut down the expenditures of its citizens and reduced the need for media of exchange. Other modifications would vary with each of the cities.

Turning to the economic aspect of the mint itself, very few of these towns had mines to provide the metal they needed for their coins. Whence did it come and how was the purchase of the metal arranged? When brought from a distance it was subject to capture by enemies, to loss in transit or to any of the many chances which one's imagination can supply. Taking such conditions into consideration, are we not compelled to give to the monetary magistrate a higher place than has hitherto been assigned him? His was a position of responsibility. He was trusted to keep the metal unadulterated—his probity was subjected to many other tests. He must have received some remuneration and this coupled with the responsibility must have made the office a desirable one. For such cities as Corinth, where the badge of the city, Pegasus, remained unchanged, and where the symbol for the issue appears beside the Athena head of the reverse, there would have been not the slightest difficulty in handing on the Pegasus die from one "magistrate" to the next. In certain of the mints there seems to be a reference through the symbols to some local occurrence rather than to a personal badge. This, however, offers but a slight difficulty if we realize that the person responsible for such an issue would presumably be well known, and therefore, need no identification on the coin itself.

Would not most of our difficulties be eliminated, if we could see in these symbols, the identification for a particular issue, thereby admitting that the symbol might be a badge or a reference to the agency responsible for it, whether that agent were an individual, whether that agency had some connection with a religious festival or a more direct relation to the temple of a local deity, or whether there were some intention of investing the symbol with significance of a purely civic or local nature, such as a victory?

But some will say, "Wherein then lies the difference between all this and the magistrate-symbol idea?" The difference lies in the application, but it is much greater than it seems. The advantage of the theory is that it gets away from the time element—from our modern way of thinking of a uniform number of coins struck for each year or that the "magistrate" was appointed for a set period. Our theory admits of there having been periods in the smaller cities during which no coins at all were struck. It also considers that during a season of stress many times the normal requirements must have been issued and by associating an increase in the coinage with known crises in the history of the city concerned, we are given a basis for dating which may prove very valuable. It has also a very direct bearing on the employment of artists for the die-cutting and makes plausible the recurrence of their signatures in more than one of the cities of Magna Graecia.

To test the theory, permit me first to apply it to Metapontum's issues. Mention has been made of the di-staters with the head of Leukippos. These form the only issue of this denomination at Metapontum and as one of the two issues of gold coins also has for its type the head of Leukippos,30 there is no reason for questioning the assignment to the period of Alexander of Epirus, if we accept the customary explanation regarding such gold issues. Just as might be expected, we find an increase in the output of staters also at this time and this is established by the occurrence of the same initials as appear on the di-staters. We find more than twenty-two dies with the lion's head for symbol with A M I and club on reverse, and sixteen dies for this type with the seated dog. We also find staters of this type with other symbols and with varying combinations of symbols and initials. We find the thunderbolt which occurs on the coinage of Alexander of Epirus and which we are accustomed to accept as his signet, associated with A M I, a name which also oc- curs without the Alexander reference. We might read from this "struck by A M I, the agent of Alexander."

The magnitude of these respective issues is indicated by the number of dies, but instead of an issue which extended over an interval equal to the collective life of the dies, it is much more logical to believe the issue to have been struck within a comparatively short period.

Earlier in the coinage of Metapontum (c. 400), we find a beautiful head of Kore bearing the first three letters of the name of Aristoxenos at the base of the neck, a position favored by this artist who signs two other dies in a similar position.31 This die, easily identified as a single die by a slight defect which gradually enlarges, is found coupled with seven reverse dies, two of which bear symbols and the others of which show slight differences in the position of the inscription or of the accompanying leaf. None of these reverse dies are found coupled with any other obverse. It seems only reasonable to believe that these reverses were used for successive issues, which were presumably frequent and which must have been comparatively small in size to permit the obverse die to outlive all seven reverse dies.

One further illustration before passing to the incuse issues which most directly concern us here. Shortly after the adoption of the double- relief style for this city, we find a series of coins with the horned head of Apollo Karneios (7 dies plus two imitations).32 These dies bear neither symbols nor initials. The reverse dies differ very slightly in the arrangement of the awns, of the leaf or of the ear. Is it not reasonable to see here an issue which for some reason sought to honor Apollo Karneios—an issue of a size necessitating the number of dies indicated? The issue may have been for a single year or may have extended over a longer time.

For the incuse pieces, the grasshopper-dolphin issue illustrated on Plate viii is typical. We have the grasshopper on the obverse coupled (1) with a reverse which is blank, Nos. 101 and 103; (2) with a dolphin in outline—incised in the die and, therefore, in relief on the coin; (3) and with the dolphin incuse—two dies. If the grasshopper is a magistrate's badge,33 what shall we say of the dolphin? Lenormant's belief that the insect was introduced with a propitiatory significance makes no allowance for the dolphin—there may have been a plague of locusts but could there have been a plague of dolphins ?33

Going back to the theory with which we started, however, there is every reason to believe that whatever its significance on these seven dies, the grasshopper is placed there to distinguish the issue. The die-combinations connote this and com- pared with this circumstance for our present purposes, the significance of the symbol is secondary. In a similar way we may consider the lizard, which appears later on the thick-flan issues. Have we not the well-known statue of Apollo Sauroktonos? Similarly the ram's head symbol might be a further reference to Apollo Karneios, but again the significance is less important for our purpose than the probability that in each case we have a single issue.

It should be noted that the grasshopper is found repeatedly throughout the Metapontine coinage— there are at least four recurrences of the symbol, all readily distinguishable, and each separated from the other by an appreciable interval. This gives color to the suggestion that this may have been the arms of a family rather than of an individual. Its use as a symbol would have been sufficient to indicate the responsibility for the issue because there would have been a general knowledge as to which member of the clan had been entrusted with the striking of that issue. On one of the later staters there is a combination which seems to support such a suggestion.

We find on this piece of about 343-39 B. C., in the field of the reverse, an owl devouring a grasshopper. Now owls are nocturnal and grasshoppers are not; furthermore, there are abundant instances of the accuracy of the Greeks' observation in such matters and we can hardly believe that such a combination would occur without intention. The owl, too, occurs previously on the Metapontine issues but without the grasshopper. Have we then a record of a feud between members of the grasshopper clan and the family whose arms were the owl, possibly for the purpose of indicating their Athenian origin? It is interesting to note that the letters which appear on this issue are A Φ A and that there are at least two dies. But the use of the grasshopper as a clan symbol does not explain its occurrence elsewhere—Messana, Mende, Velia, Sybaris. Again we are forced to the conclusion that the evidence is insufficient for dogmatism and all that we can safely deduce is that the issues with this combination of symbols belong together.

It would be presumptuous for me to try to apply this principle to the other coinages on which symbols occur. No other explanation I have found, however, works so well for the Corinthian issues, with the coinage of Abdera, or with that of the other cities whose issues have been tested. In the recently published British Museum Catalogue for Cyrene, p. lxxxix-xc, a table is given for pieces bearing magistrates' names. Just as might be expected, certain of the names are found on tetradrachms alone, while others occur on two or more denominations. Would not this connote that A's commission was the striking of tetradrachms only, from a fixed appropriation or quantity of silver, while Magistrate B's task required the issue of all denominations? If some system involving seignorage was in use, B's would probably have been the more desirable appointment. The practice must have varied in the different cities and suffered modifications from century to century, so that each mint's procedure must be studied independently. Metapontum is fairly representative of a number of Greek city-states, and the method used there may be not dissimilar to those of other centers.

The incuse coinage of Metapontum has been considered as a monotonous repetition of the barley ear type, but monotonous it is not. The ingenuity with which the design is varied is impressive, and the splendid quality behind these variations is no less wonderful. The relief ranges from exceeding boldness to the greatest delicacy. The die-cutter seems to have taken advantage of every faintest possibility of the material, utilizing not only the subsidiary symbols, such as the grasshopper, but making very decorative groupings of the initial letters of the city's name as well.

In describing these issues, it is desirable to eliminate undue repetition and to decide upon a form which will leave room for no mistake. It will be noticed that the end of the barley ear sometimes tapers and sometimes is square-cut. For distinguishing these dies (such as that of No. 88), it has been found advisable to state the number of grains in each row. The outer rows of No. 88 contain six grains each, while the one in the middle has seven, and on either side of the topmost central grain there are two tiny additional grains. In describing the dies it is the outer rows which have been counted because very often the middle row is worn and it is difficult to distinguish the number of its grains. In consequence, the formula used herein is "six-grained barley ear with small additional terminal grains." Doublestriking and wear make it advisable to rely on the number of grains to the ear except where there are no other outstanding points of differentiation.

From each of the grains in the ear extend the long lines of what we call the "beard" of the grain. The units are technically known as awns and as such are referred to hereinafter. Later, with the double relief coinage, each of these awns is shown with the small barbs with which they are equipped in nature—an instance of the closeness of observation of the Greeks, of which we shall have many another illustration.

Another convention which has been used throughout applies to the inscription. Neither the British Museum Catalogue nor that of the Berlin Museum is entirely satisfactory or entirely free from ambiguity on this score. The scheme used is a modification of one outlined by M. Arthur Sambon in the Revue Numismatique for 1916.34 Again referring to No. 88, it will be seen that we have the first four letters of the city's name and that these are divided, the two on the left being read downward, the two on the right upward. By using a colon to indicate the ear and placing a line above the letters to show which part of the letters (i. e., the top or the base) is nearest the awns (), there is no longer any room for doubt as to the order of the letters. When, however, as with No. 135, the inscription is straightforward on one side and retrograde on the other, it seems wiser not to print the latter portion of the inscription backwards but to make our convention meet the case by indicating the uppermost letter by a dot over that letter. The formula for 135 thus becomes Nor does it seem wise to repeat the archaic letters again and again. Oftentimes the printed letter is but a poor approximation to what appears on the coins. Moreover, in the majority of cases, the letters are readily distinguishable on the plates which presumably would first be consulted for purposes of identification.

It remains to indicate the broad classes into which the early coinage divides itself. For this purpose the form of border is the first criterion, although the size of the flan does enter, especially with the latest class.

CLASS I (Nos. 1-36; 37-39 imitations). For the first class the distinctive mark of difference is the pair of tiny folioles or bracts at the base of the ear of barley on the obverse. These do not occur in any other series or class. Besides this, the border is also distinctive. Usually it is described as "of coarse dots" or "grènetis". It will be seen that inside this coarse border an inner border, very much finer, begins early, (Plate II) and that this develops by steps which have a clear evolutionary trend and ultimately becomes continuous and linear. The inscription is usually confined to the first three letters of the city's name, sometimes, but not frequently, retrograde; on the obverse, with one or two exceptions they are to the left of the ear—on the reverse, to the right. These three letters also occur in a few reverse dies but in relief—that is they have been engraved in the reverse die after it was otherwise complete and therefore are in relief on the coin itself. This peculiarity is not found elsewhere in the incuse coinage until we reach the Class XI with the pieces of smallest module.

CLASS II (Nos. 40-50) is not large in numbers. In contrast with Class I, the rim is not coarse and is in the same plane or almost the same plane as the field. It is not raised as in succeeding classes. The inner linear circle which supplemented the coarser one in Class I has now as a complement, an outside circle as well, so that the border now becomes a circle of dots between two linear circles. The bracts which occur throughout Class I are absent. The inscription is uniformly to the left and of three letters only. The relief throughout is very flat, the ears are short and well-centered, and the stem long.

CLASSES III to VIII really form a single large group which has been separated for convenience of identification. There is a sharp break between this group and the two earlier groups, and no satisfactory connecting link has been found. Whether this means that there was a break in the coinage or merely a change of workmen and a consequent change of style in the output, it is impossible to say. What is more likely is that no hoard has furnished us with the issues of just this time. The classification is not strictly chronological, but neither is it purely arbitrary; the arrangement endeavors to obviate the difficulties of identifying the dies in view of the close similarity of some of them.

CLASS III (Nos. 54-84). The distinctive feature of this class is the increased module, some dies reaching 31 mm. in diameter. This is larger than any other class within the coinage. The border is similar in form to that of Class II, but is now pronouncedly raised. It should be noted also that the border for the reverse die has undergone a change and is now beautifully regular. In Class I this reverse border was coarse; in the next division it had become less crude but without having reached the form in which it appears here. (Cf. the discussion of the technical elements of this under die-making and die-breaks.) The ears are in exceptionally high relief but modelled with the greatest of delicacy. The inscriptions are uniformly to the right and either MET or META and in only one case retrograde. A comparison of numbers 58 and 79 will show that the line of progression to the next class is none too certain. It will be noticed that the reverse of the former coin has eight grains to the ear while the obverse has six.

CLASS IV (Nos. 85-99). In this class the inscription is divided, save for one exception—85a —where it is to the left. (Cf. also Class VIII for imitations.) The style is close to that of Class III in some specimens but in general the barley ears are composed of rows having six very large grains. The relief is bold and well-modelled. In this and in the succeeding class we have the introduction of the guilloche border, which is also found on some of the thick flan staters, on the coinage of Sybaris, as well as on some of the other incuse coinages of Magna Graecia. At the end of the series there are one or two dies of a reduced module (26 mm.) which have been placed here because of their divided inscription. They serve to indicate that the order within these classes was independent of our arbitrary arrangement and that these two dies probably came close to the beginning of what we call Class IX, the thick flan staters.

CLASS V (Nos. 100-111) is easily to be distinguished by the presence of the subsidiary symbols of the grasshopper on the obverse and the dolphin on the reverse, the latter in outline only, as well as intaglio. The dies vary from 28 mm. to 26 mm. in diameter and are thought by some to show the high-water mark for the incuse coinage. Border guillochée.

CLASS VI (Nos. 112-135). This class is distinguished from Class III, aside from style, chiefly by its smaller module (26 to 27.5 mm.). The inscription is in four letters but not divided (see also Class VIII for imitations). There are nineteen varieties with inscription to right, five to left. The letter A is frequently the most helpful criterion in distinguishing dies, not only in its special relation to the rest of the design but in view of its form—round or pointed top and with its cross bar downward to either right or left.

CLASS VII (Nos. 136-144). This class is easily distinguishable because of its five-letter inscription. The variations in the form of the ear show that these staters were not issued as a class. Comparison with the other issues demonstrates that they should be interpolated among the coins arranged arbitrarily (like these) on preceding plates. The coins are rather less common than most of the other varieties and show the gradual decrease in module which has been noticed in some of the preceding classes. The last two varieties really belong to the thick flan staters.

CLASS VIII (Nos. 145-154b). Imitations. These pieces because of the crudity of their style or of their lettering or of both, have been separated and placed in a class by themselves. They have been discussed at length in considering the making of dies. In general, they exhibit a lack of understanding of the methods used for the rest of the incuse coinage—a difference so great as to warrant considering them unofficial imitations. An examination of the reverse dies will bring this out very clearly, especially in the treatment of the awns and the borders.

CLASS IX (Nos. 155-208). Thick flan staters without symbols. Module approximately 24 mm. This class for convenience is sub-divided into (1) inscriptions right, (a) with three letters, (b) with four letters, and (2) inscriptions left (a) with three letters, (b) with four letters.

This is perhaps the least interesting class of the entire incuse coinage. The dies are difficult to distinguish one from another, especially when the coins are at all worn. The chief variations occur in the inscriptions, but these may have been recut in some cases. The rims of the reverses are sometimes recut—compare Nos. 176 and 191.

CLASS X (Nos. 209-232). Thick flan staters with symbols (excepting the grasshopper types of class XII). These symbols are the lizard, ram's head, mule's head, murex. The module varies from 24 to 16 mm. Some of the reverses have inscriptions engraved in the die and in relief on the coins, notably 228, 229, 230.

CLASS XI (Nos. 233-257); Small flans without symbols, ranging from 20 mm. to 16 mm. As with Class X, some of the coins have inscriptions engraved on the reverse dies (Cf. numbers 246, 247, 248).

CLASS XII (Nos. 258-261). The grasshopper types of the thick flan issues. These are separated and placed here because of their connection with the double relief issues.

There is slight reason for thinking that the date assigned by Head in Historia Numorum for the incuse coinages of Metapontum needs any changing, although there is not much positive evidence to justify making 470 the date for the last of the incuse issues. For the beginning of the coinage, we can only gauge that it must have been well before the destruction of Sybaris (510). The extensive coinage of that city warrants believing that it may have begun as early as 550 B. C. The great influence of Sybaris must have been partly responsible for the continued use of the thin incusi up to the time of Croton's victory, but for this there is only the negative evidence of hoards that the thin form did not long continue after the downfall of Sybaris. The practice of overstriking was much more common with the thick flan staters and especially with the later issues. But these, save with some of the issues from Agrigentum, offer little help in dating. M. Babelon in his Traité illustrates the Achelous piece as coming before 470 and in view of its having an obverse die identical with that of No. 91, his conclusions, based on style and lettering, are borne out. There seems small reason for doubting that the somewhat similar standing Apollo and Hercules issues in double relief also followed closely upon the thick-flan incusi. The early stater issued by Pandosia, which is so obviously modeled on these issues of Metapontum, helps to confirm this placing of them (Cf. Head's illustration and remarks).35 With the Metapontine issues in mind, it is easy to complete the obverse type, which the bad preservation of the British Museum specimen has made indefinite in the cut used by Head. The object at the lower left is clearly an altar similar to that on several dies of Metapontum.

With the exception of the Curinga and the Taranto hoards, we have no adequate account of hoards in which the incuse coins of Metapontum occur. Those listed in the introduction of Sambon's "Recherches sur les Monnaies Antiques de l'Italie" are helpful but as the varieties are not distinguished, their value is limited. A very important hoard is recorded by von Duhn 36 It was found at Cittanuova in 1879 and must have contained data which would have settled many questions regarding these South Italian issues, but aside from the portion secured for the Berlin cabinet, we know very little of its make up. Mention has already been made that so far as our present knowledge goes, these incusi are not found outside of Italy.

The Curinga hoard is one of which we have record of two-thirds of the pieces unearthed. A list of the varieties is given in a note.38 These show that the hoard must have been buried some time after the adoption of the thick-flan fabric and before the flan had been reduced to its smallest format. B. C. 490 would be a fair approximate date, judging by the issues of Metapontum alone. There are comparatively few of the issues which I consider the earliest. There are none of the grasshopper-dolphin pieces and few or none of the wide-flan and divided-inscription issues of Classes III and IV. Casts of the Metapontum pieces were prepared for me through the kindness of Dr. Orsi.

The Taranto hoard in the record made by M. Babelon provides much valuable data. It was possible to supplement this by a study of the pieces which still remained in the possession of Messrs. Spink &Son, who courteously permitted me access to this residue. The list appended gives the varieties seen.39 This hoard, again judging by Metapontum's pieces alone, would seem to have been formed at least a decade before the Curinga accumulation. There was at least one of the thick-flan staters but the crystallized condition of most of the pieces left little room for deductions concerning their circulation, although at the same time it served as a reason for believing that this thick flan stater could hardly have been an intrusion. Additions to the hoard must have ceased about the time of the beginning of the use of the thick flan format. It may have been in the process of formation during an extended period since there was a large proportion of the earlier varieties.

No. 100b, struck over a Croton stater, shares with the Poseidonia issue struck over the Metapontine type (De Luynes Coll. 524), the distinction of being one of the few overstruck incusi known to us.

It is to be hoped that some future hoard will give us more facts upon which to build. The history of Metapontum is so fragmentary that further data would be very welcome.

1a 1* Eight-grained barley ear with bracts or folioles at the base. Border narrow and light. Die-break to left of the apex of the ear and extending to 1. to outermost awn. Double-struck—note awn to r.

℞ Eight-grained barley ear incuse, tapering slightly toward top.

28 mm. 8.00 Curinga Hoard.

1b Same die as 1a. The break has developed. The border is recut and is now coarse. The traces of the earlier border may be seen at the lower 1. The enlarging of the border has been at the expense of the field, and has partly eliminated the break above the inscr.

℞ Die of ia.

28 mm. 7.78 Taranto Hoard.

1c Die 1a with further re-cutting. The inscr. has been preserved in its relative position by deepening its outline with some sharp tool so that it is now a sequence of fine points. The rim and pos- sibly the ear have been deepened. The die-break at the apex has been almost, but not entirely eliminated. The awns, now at an angle of 45 degrees do not obliterate those of the earlier stage of the die, and these may be seen in the field to the left.

℞ A new die with ear having eight grains and a coarse borde—double struck.

28 mm. 7.97 The American Numismatic Society (ex Taranto H'd).

1d Die in later stage than 1c. The die-break at the apex has deepened. The inscr. has been made linear, although there are traces of the stippling visible in 1c.

℞ Probably same die as 1c, altered by the addition of the inscr. which has been cut in the die and is therefore in relief on the coin.

28 mm. 7.77 Cambridge (McClean—ex Taranto H'd?); Brandis 72—8.10 (not certainly these dies).

2 Eight-grained ear. Inscription compact and with die-break to left of the M.

℞ Very similar to No. 1d—possibly the same die.

29 mm. —. —Sir Arthur J. Evans; Sir Herman Weber Coll. 734, 7.47.

3 Eight-grained barley ear. The dots of the border instead of being coarse are fine and regular.

℞ Eight-grained ear, the uppermost grain very small. The border narrow and finer than usual.

28 mm. 7.90 The American Numismatic Society; Naples (Fiorelli 2283); Spink &Son, ex Taranto H'd, 4 specimens, 7.58, 7.78, 7.97 and 7.97; Naville V, 427—8.15; Paris (illustr. in La Musee, 1908. p. 126); Berlin; Curinga H'd—8.02.

4 Broad barley ear, 14 mm. wide at base, with flattened bracts which touch the border. Relief very high and bold. Inscr. weakly cut.

℞ More boldly cut than obv. Base of ear of same width as obv. Inscr. in relief.

28 mm. 8.06 Jameson (ex Taranto H'd); Bement 150—8.19; E. T. Newell, 6.69; Vienna, 7.74; Cambridge (McClean 896), 8.16; Hirsch XXX, 158— 8.20; London (B. M. C. 2), 7.84; Munich; Spink and Son, 7.90, 7.97, 7.76, 7.97, 8.10, 7.81—all ex Taranto H'd, and possibly from variant dies.

5 Barley ear less broad than No. 4 which this piece may possibly precede. Die shows signs of having broken at border.

℞ No inscription. Similar to No. 4, but the middle row of grains is narrower.

28.5 mm. —.— Paris (Taranto H'd. Cf. Rev. Num., 1912, Pl. IV, 12).

6 Eight-grained barley ear tapering toward the top and with short folioles at the base. The border very crude but with an inner circle of dots.

℞ Nine-grained barley ear, longer and broader than obverse. Border very crude.

29 mm. —.— Taranto H'd, 1911; The American Numismatic Society, 7.32 (ex Taranto H'd).

7 The bracts are only slightly curved and do not touch border. Width of ear 8 mm.

℞ Similar to No. 2. Width of ear 10 mm.

29.5 mm. 7.84. Taranto H'd, Spink &Son—three, 7.97, 7.90, 8.10; London, B. M. Cat. 4, 7.70.

8 Eight-grained ear in high relief. The bracts are almost semi-circular and touch the border. Width of ear 8.8 mm.

℞ in relief. Ear, 10 mm. wide, is broader than on obv.

29 mm. 8.18 Bement 152; Spink and Son, ex Taranto H'd, 2 pcs. weighing 7.97.

9 Eight-grained barley ear. The middle row constricted to little more than a line. As in No. 12, the workmanship is very crude. The ear is crooked. The inner border of dots is coarse.

℞ The die-workmanship is crude. The border is unlike anything heretofore.

28.5 mm. 8.10 Paris.

10 Eight-grained ear. Inner border of dots well defined. Foliole to left curves upward at outer extremity.

℞ Eight-grained ear, larger than ear of obv.

27 mm. 8.00 Vienna; London, B. M. Cat. 5, 7-78; The American Numismatic Society, 7.61; Spink &Son (Taranto H’d), two, one weighng 8.00.

11 Eight-grained ear. Thick stem.

℞ Similar to No. 10.

27 mm. 8.00 Curinga Hoard and one—possibly two others; Charles H. Imhoff; Berlin; Naples (Fiorelli 2284); Munich; Spink &Son (Taranto H’d), two, one 7.97.

12 Note that E has elongated vertical stroke.

℞ Similar to No. 10.

28 mm. 7.07 Curinga Hoard.

13 Stem very short. The border of dots more pronounced. The ear broader at the centre than at the base.

℞ Similar to No. 10. Note line just within border.

27.5 mm. 8.02 Bement Sale 151; Curinga Hoard—two 8.01 and 8.00; Spink &Son (Taranto H’d—7.78).

14 Similar to No. 13, but bracts more pronounced.

℞ Similar to No. 13 but with awns at wider angle.

27.5 mm. 8.21 E. T. Newell; Curinga Hoard, 7.09; Cambridge (Corpus Christi—Lewes Coll.); Spink &Son (Taranto H’d)—four or five, 7.81 (identification not certain), 7.97, 7.84 (two), 7.90; Naville V, 428—7.94.

15 Compact inscription, the vertical stroke of the T extending slightly beyond the horizontal. Right bract touches border.

℞ Similar to Nos. 10-14.

25.5 mm. 8.01 Curinga Hoard.

16 Similar to No. 14 but the M and the E of the inscription are separated by an interval equal to that which separates the E from the T.

℞ The ear similar to No. 11.

28 mm. 8.11 Berlin; Paris (ex Taranto Find, illus. Rev. Num. 1912, PI. IV, No. 11; ten (?) other specimens weighing from 7.50 to 8.15, see also No. 11); W. Gedney Beatty; Arolsen; Curinga Hoard 8.00; Headlam Sale 196, 8.27; Spink &Son (Taranto H’d),— 7.97.

17 Eight-grained, square-topped ear. Short stem. Inner circle of dots well defined.

℞ Similar to No. 16.

29 mm. 8.29 (Spink &Son—ex Taranto H'd).

18 Similar to No. 17.

℞ Ear tapering slightly toward top.

28 mm. –.— Naples (Fiorelli 2285).

19 Short, compact ear of eight grains. The awns at the apex have an interval greater than heretofore.

℞ Eight-grained ear slightly larger than that of obv.

28 mm. 7.97 Spink & Son (ex Taranto H'd); Allotte de la Fuye Sale 61, 8.20.

20 Similar to No. 19. The bracts are unequal in length, and each touches circle of dots inside the main border.

℞ Closely similar to No. 19.

29.5 mm. 7.96 Locker-Lampson Coll. 17; Spink's Circular, 53358 (ex Taranto H'd), 8.29 and four others —8.10, 8.10, 8.07, 7.78; Curinga Hoard, 8.01; G. F. Marlier, Pittsburgh.

21 Closely similar to No. 20–possibly same die with inner border made linear. Eightgrained ear, tapering towards top.

℞ Eight-grained ear, tapering towards top.

28 mm. –.— E. P. Robinson, Newport; Naville V. 64–8.19.

22 Similar to No. 20.

℞ In relief. Eight-grained ear.

27.5 mm. —.— Berlin; Pozzi 156, 7.96; Naville V, 429—7.98; Spink &Son (Taranto H'd), 7.71, 7.97 and 7.41.

23 Eight-grained ear. Well defined circle within border.

℞ In relief. Eight-grained barley ear tapering toward apex.

27.5 mm. 8.05 Curinga Hoard; Hunterian 1, 7.77; Spink &Son (Taranto H'd)—two, one weighing 8.10; Caprotti 188, 7.70.

24 Similar to 18 but the ear not so broad and the inner circle linear.

℞ In relief. Eight-grained ear.

27 mm. 8.16 E. T. Newell.

25 Eight-grained ear of even width. The flan is more than usually cupped. The awns have been deepened to form a continuous line. The border shows recutting in some specimens.

℞ A broken die. The break at the end of the awn farthest to the right has been repaired and the die recut for a short distance. The crack in the field to the r. has become continuous.

28.5 mm. —. ——7.99, 816. American Numismatic (2); Berlin; Curinga H'd, 8.00.

26 Die of No. 25.

℞ In relief. Otherwise similar to No. 25.

28 mm. —.— Spink and Son (Taranto H'd?).

27 The awns more widely separated than heretofore. The flattened bracts do not touch the border which has an inner linear circle, but no apparent outer circle.

℞ Similar to Obv. in dimensions. The bracts are present at the base of the ear for the single time on the r. in the entire incuse series.

27.5 mm. 8.00 E. T. Newell.

28 Seven-grained ear tapering toward top; with folioles. Coarse border similar to that of Nos. 1-5.

℞ Seven-grained ear.

16.5 mm. 1/3 stater 2.69 E. T. Newell.

29 Tapering seven-grained ear with small additional terminal grains; folioles at base.

℞ Seven-grained ear with tiny additional terminal grains.

19.5 mm. 1/3 stater 2.59 Spink &Son 53376; Berlin (2).

30 Seven-grained ear. Folioles very slight.

℞ Seven-grained ear.

19 mm. 1/3 stater —.— Paris; Vienna (2, 2.43 and 2.46).

31 Seven-grained ear similar to No. 28.

℞ Seven-grained ear.

18.5 mm. 1/3 stater 2.66 G. F. Marlier, Pittsburgh.

32 Seven-grained ear with right foliole higher than 1. Coarse border.

℞ Seven-grained ear.

17.5 mm. 1/3 stater —.— Berlin; C. S. Bement; E. S. G. Robinson; Arolsen; Vienna, 2.42; H. Chapman.

33 Narrow seven-grained ear with folioles, similar to Nos. 7-8.

℞ Seven-grained ear, very broad at base.

17.5 mm. 1/3 stater 2.61 American Numismatic Society (ex Taranto H'd); Berlin.

34 Broad five-grained ear. Coarse border.

℞ Five-grained ear.

8.5 mm. Obol 0.46 Naville VI, 159.

35 Broad five-grained ear. Coarse border.

℞ Five-grained ear.

8.5 mm. Obol 0.40 London, B. M. Cat. 35.

36 Inscription obliterated ? Six-grained ear. Coarse border.

℞ Six-grained ear.

10 mm. Obol —.— Berlin.

37 Crude seven-grained ear, evidently imitating No. 14; border unusual, it shows that the die-cutter had no conception of the way it had been cut in his model.

℞ Eight-grained ear tapering toward apex; the awns do not extend to the rim.

28 mm. 6.88 Naples (Santangelo 3900).

38 Crude eight-grained ear in low relief, possibly imitating No. 9. The inner border of dots almost as heavy as in No. 37.

℞ Eight-grained ear tapering toward apex.

29 mm. 7.73 Cambridge (Leake).

39 Seven-grained ear in high relief with small additional terminal grains. Folioles at base. The awns, formed by a series of dots, are very awkwardly spread. The lettering is crude. Border of dots between two lines—a type of border not used with Class I.

℞ Eight-grained ear—border unlike preceding pieces.

19 mm. 1.90 London, B. M. Cat. 30.

40 Seven-grained ear with square top. The ear is more compact than in Class I, the stem longer, and the folioles are lacking. The border is of dots between two linear circles, but in same plane as the rest of the design.

℞ Similar to Obv. Die has begun to wear on lowest grain on the left side.

29 mm. 8.10. Taranto Find, Spink's Circular No. 53355; Berlin.

41 Eight-grained barley ear narrowing at base and apex. The stem is long.

℞ Double struck; eight grains in left row and nine grains in right.

29 mm. 8.19. E. T. Newell; Naples (Fiorelli 2285 and 2289); Hirsch XXX, 162—8.15; W. Gedney Beatty Coll.—7.96.

42 Similar to No. 40, but inscription less compact.

℞ Similar.

29 mm. —.—Taranto H'd, 6 specimens— 7.97, 7.78, 7.65, 8.03, 7.90. Spink's Circular No. 53358b, and 53356; London, B. M. Cat. 6, 7.64; Paris (ex same find—Rev. Num., 1912, PI. IV, 7); W. Gedney Beatty Coll. 8.12; One hundred specimens of this general type occurred in Taranto hoard.

43 Ear a trifle wider than in No. 42. Inscription differs.

℞ Usual type. Note that the die is broken at the border at both sides; at the right, it has been mended by hammering (?) the edge inward so that a segment of the border has disappeared.

30 mm. 7.91. E. T. Newell; Taranto H'd, Spink's Circular No. 53357a; Spink &Son (Taranto H'd) (6), 8.10 (2), 8.16 (2), 7.90 and 7.32; American Numismatic Society—7.89; Hoyt Miller Coll.—8.05.

44 Seven-grained ear, short and broad but uniform in width.

℞ Similar to Obv., but the ear is eight-grained and slightly narrower at apex than at base.

30 mm. 8.13. Spink's Circular No. 61998; Copenhagen, 7.80.

45 Similar to No. 44, but stem slightly longer.

℞ Seven-grained barley ear, the two uppermost grains very small.

28 mm. 7.54. Vienna.

46 Eight-grained ear—the uppermost grains small. The M of the inscription not extended.

℞ Similar to Obv. The border finer than in the preceding pieces.

28 mm. –.— Paris (Rev. Num., 1912, Pl. IV, 6); Munich; Spink & Son (Taranto H'd), 7.97.

47 Closely similar to No. 46. Compact inscription.

℞ Eight-grained ear; the upper grains small.

30 mm. –.— Naples (Santangelo 3893).

48 Seven-grained ear, with small additional terminal grains. Border of dots between two lines. Similar to No. 6 in shape of ear, but without folioles and with border of Class II.

℞ Seven-grained ear similar to obverse. Traces of inscription (?) in field to r.

19 mm. 2.58. Naville V, 438; Dr. Petsalis, Athens.

49 Graceful five-grained ear with small additional terminal grains, similar to No. 42.

℞ Five-grained ear.

19 mm. –.— Paris and a second piece illustrated. Rev. Num. 1912, Pl. IV, 8 (2.36).

50 Six-grained ear, somewhat similar to No. 40. Border of coarse dots only. No folioles at base.

℞ Five-grained ear with rounded top.

10 mm. 0.38. Vienna.

51 Six-grained ear with small additional terminal grains. Border of dots between two lines.

℞ Narrow six-grained ear.

18 mm. 2.71. Sir H. Weber Coll. 738, (ex Bunbury, 126); Vienna (2.20).

52 Six-grained barley ear with small additional terminal grains.

℞ Eight-grained ear with rounded top, and additional terminal grains.

19 mm. 2.70. E. T. Newell.

53 Five-grained ear in high relief. Border of dots between two lines.

℞ Five-grained ear with small additional terminal grains. The whole slightly longer and broader than on obverse.

18 mm. 2.56. Brussels (de Hirsch).

54 Ear longer and in considerably higher relief than in Class II, and stem entirely lacking or merely indicated. Border raised to form a rim. Barley ear with eight grains on left and nine on right. Ear 21.5 x 8 mm. Base of ear broken at border.

℞ Die very boldly cut. Six-grained barley ear with grains at the left pronouncedly narrower than those on the right.

30 mm. 7.91. Taranto Find, Spink's Circular No. 53370; Naples (Fiorelli 2294)'

55 Eight-grained ear with rounded top.

℞ Nine-grained ear.

31 mm. –.— Naples (Fiorelli 2280 and 81); Arolsen; Naville III, 65—8.07.

56 Eight-grained ear with small additional terminal grain, and rounded top. The awns curve outward slightly.

℞ Nine-grained ear—the two upper grains smaller.

30 mm. 8.18. Naville V, 431.

57 Similar to 56 but the inscription has the tops of the letters closer to the outermost awn.

℞ Die of 56.

30 mm. –.— Berlin.

58 Six-grained ear of even width (22 × 8 mm.). Slight break in die at apex of ear.

℞ Eight-grained barley ear with two addi- tional terminal grains. The ear is slightly larger than on Obv.

30.5 mm. 8.21. Brussels (de Hirsch); Vienna 7.77; E. T. Newell 8.17; Curinga H'd—8.01.

59 Seven-grained ear with small additional terminal grains.

℞ Seven-grained ear with square top.

30 mm. –.— Naples.

60 No inscription. Five grains on 1. and six on r. row of ear. Narrow, in high relief. A pronounced border of dots between two lines.

℞ Five-grained ear. Border possibly recut.

9.5 mm. Obol 0.37. London—B. M. Cat. 37.

61 No inscription. Five-grained ear with short stem.

℞ Five-grained ear, much narrower than obverse.

9 mm. Obol. –.— Berlin.

62 No inscription. Five-grained ear. No stem.

℞ Five-grained ear.

9 mm. Obol. —.— Berlin.

63 No inscription. Six-grained ear.

℞ Six grained ear.

10 mm. Obol. –.— E. S. G. Robinson Collection, London.

64 Crude. Four (?) grained ear in low relief, with leaf to left in the field.

℞ Five-grained ear.

7 mm. Obol. 0.40. Vienna.

65 Four-grained ear with two additional terminal grains. Coarse border.

℞ Four-grained ear—awns widely separated.

10.5 mm. Obol. –.— Berlin.

66 Six-grained ear with distinctive apex.

℞ Six-grained ear.

9 mm. Obol. –.— Naples (Santangelo) Turin, Medagliere del Rè, (Fabretti 17967—0.50).

67 Compact six-grained ear with small additional terminal grains.

℞ Seven-grained ear.

9 mm. Obol. –.— Berlin.

68 (Ṫ) Wide six-grained ear touching border at both extremities.

℞ Six-grained ear, narrower than on Obverse.

9 mm. Obol. –.— Berlin.

69 Compact five-grained ear in high relief.

℞ Six-grained ear.

9 mm. Obol. –.— Berlin.

70 Compact seven-grained ear in high relief.

℞ Six-grained ear with small additional terminal grains.

10 mm. Obol. —.— Henry Chapman (stock).

71 Compact six-grained ear with widely separated terminal awns.

℞ Six-grained ear with rounded top.

9.5 mm. Obol. .40 Vienna.

72 Six-grained ear. Border of dots between two lines.

℞ Six-grained ear.

9 mm. Obol. —.— Naples (Santangelo).

73 Eight-grained ear with small additional terminal grains. Ear is long and narrow. The A has a rounded top and cross-bar downward to 1.

℞ Ten-grained barley ear with square top.

31 mm. —.— Berlin.

74 Six-grained ear with two additional terminal grains. The A has rounded top and cross-bar downward to 1.

℞ Nine-grained barley ear, the uppermost grains small.

29 mm. –.— Arolsen; Curinga Hoard (2)— 8.00 and 8.01; Naples (Santangelo 3914); Turin, Royal Collection 8.10; W. Gedney Beatty Collection 8.14.

75 Eight-grained ear with small additional terminal grains. For die-cutting Cf. No. 126. The A round-topped and with cross-bar downward to r.

℞ Nine-grained barley ear with square top. Note break in rim at extremity of outermost awn to r.

30 mm. –.— Berlin; R. Jameson Coll. 260— ex Hirsch XVI, 91—8.19.

76 Trace of stem showing. The bar of the A is downward to r. The break in the reverse die is the cause of the blank segment of the border beneath the inscription on the obverse. The break keeps the metal from being forced into the obverse die.

℞ Nine-grained ear similar to No. 75 but ear is longer.

30 mm. –.— A. B. Cook, Cambridge; Egger XLV, 138—Hartwig 208, 8.12; Taranto H'd, 7.71.

77 Eight-grained barley ear with two smaller additional terminal grains; the awns curve slightly at the outer extremities. The A with rounded top and cross-bar slightly downward to r.

℞ Nine-grained barley ear similar to No. 76 possibly an earlier state of that die.

31 mm. Stater –.— Sir Arthur J. Evans Coll.; Curinga Hoard—8.00. Naville V, 430—8.17.

78 Eight-grained barley ear with two small additional terminal grains. The crossbar of the A downward to 1.

℞ Seven-grained barley ear with additional terminal grain.

30.5 mm. —.— W. B. Osgood Field Coll.; Paris; Curinga Hoard (2) 8.01 and 7.09 (?).

79 Eight-grained barley ear in high relief similar to No. 75. The A with cross-bar downward to left.

℞ Eight-grained ear with rounded top—rim broken at extremity of outermost awn to 1.

19.5 mm. —.— C. H. Imhoff.

80 Eight-grained barley ear in high relief. The letters of the legend very small; crossbar of the A downward to r. Compare with No. 126.

℞ Eight-grained barley ear with rounded top.

18 mm. 2.33 Vienna.

81 Short six-grained barley ear with small additional terminal grains. The A with cross-bar downward to r. Compare with Nos. 53 and 58.

℞ Eight-grained ear with additional terminal grains—markedly longer than obverse ear.

18 mm. 2.16. E. T. Newell; Vienna (2.48); Cambridge (McClean, 903—2.67).

82 Six-grained ear with additional terminal grain. A with pointed top and crossbar downward to right.

℞ Badly worn, but apparently six-grained ear with additional terminal grain.

18 mm. —.— Hermitage.

83 Six-grained barley ear. Inscription follows the rim; the A with pointed top and cross-bar downward to r.

℞ Six-grained ear with rounded top.

16.5 mm. 2.6 5. Pozzi Sale, 161; Berlin; Vienna (2.59).

84 Six-grained barley ear with small additional terminal grains. Stem showing.

℞ Six-grained ear, broader at base than at apex.

18 mm. –.— Berlin; Egger XL, 155 (2.56)

85 The six-grained barley ear is appreciably bolder and wider.

℞ Six-grained ear. The awns have the same acute angle as on the obv.

30 mm. 7.84. Spink (Taranto Hoard), second piece 8.10; Barron Sale (Hirsch XXX, 159—8.30); Sir Arthur Evans; Naville V, 426—8.02.

86 Similar in style to 77. Very short stem; the nine-grained ear is consequently low on the flan. Die broken at the base of the ear.

℞ Seven-grained ear with square top, similar to No. 85 and notably different from obverse.

31 mm. 7.97. Taranto Find (Spink's Circular No. 53365); H. Chapman; Naples (Santangelo 3910).

87 Six-grained ear in high relief. Stem lacking.

℞ Similar to No. 86. Die broken at the centre, the surface having flaked off.

29 mm. 7.91. Taranto Find (Spink's Circular No. 53364); Berlin; 5.92 (sic); Sambon-Canessa Sale, 1907, 28—8.25.

88 Six-grained barley ear with small additional terminal grains. The letters larger than in No. 87. The awns are unusually thick.

℞ Ear larger than obv. and longer than in preceding pieces of C1. III.

30.5 mm. 7.58. Berlin; Hirsch XXX, 165—8.15.

89 Seven-grained ear. Similar to No. 87. Short stem.

℞ Similar to No. 85. Die broken at the border on the right and recut for half of the circumference.

32 mm. 8.25. E. T. Newell; Munich; Copenhagen, 7.67; Spink &Son (Taranto Find 7.78).

90 Seven-grained ear with small additional terminal grains.

℞ Six-grained ear with square top.

28 mm. 8.00. Cambridge (Leake); S. P. Noe 8.13.

90a Die of No. 88.

℞ Die of No. 90.

29 mm. (flan broken). Paris (Rev. Num. 1912, PI. IV, 9); Miami University, Oxford, O.

91 Similar to No. 90—possibly same die.

℞ Barley ear with six grains in side rows, and seven in middle row. The rim in various stages of mending.

30 mm. 8.22. Hoyt Miller Coll. (ex Chapman Sale July 25, 1922—Reimer's Coll.); American Numismatic Society, 8.25; Berlin, 8.09; Sambon-Canessa Sale, 1907, 29—8.18; C. T. Seltman, 7.55.

91a Die of No. 91.

℞ Closely similar to No. 88—possibly same die.

30 mm. Paris (Rev. Num. 1912, P1. IV, 10); Arolsen; Spink's Circular, 53366 (7.84).

92 Similar to Nos. 88 and 89. Seven-grained ear with same proportions as Obv.

29.5 mm. 8.12. Vienna (= Egger XL, 150); London, B. M. Cat. 11 (Head's Guide, Pl 7, No. 10), 8.04; Spink's Circular 53362; Athens; Bement Sale 154—8.13, W. Gedney Beatty Coll., 7.91.

93 Six-grained barley ear. Cable border. A die-break extends from the base of the ear above the letters at the left, to the rim, and along it to a point above the apex of the ear.

℞ Similar to 89.

31 mm. 8.35. E. T. Newell.

94 Six-grained ear, cable border. Short stem.

℞ Similar to No. 54. Break in center row of ear near top. Awns widely separated.

30 mm. 7.78. Cambridge (McClean Coll., 889); London, B. M. Cat. 14—8.18; Merzbacher Sale, 1919, No. 91—8.39; Hirsch XIV, No. 83—8.17.

95 Six-grained ear with small additional terminal grains; high relief. Cable border.

℞ Six-grained ear, similar to No. 93.

30 mm. –.— Sir A. J. Evans.

96 Die of No. 95.

℞ Six-grained ear, similar to No. 94—possibly same die.

32 mm. –.— Naples (Fiorelli); American Numismatic Society (flan broken).

97 Seven-grained ear with border of dots between two lines. The cross-bar of the A is horizontal.

℞ Seven-grained ear with rounded apex. Awns very slight.

26 mm. 7.65. Berlin; Arolsen; Vienna, 7.85; Curinga Hoard, 8.01; E. S. G. Robinson, London.

98 Eight-grained ear, slightly broader than at the apex. Stem short.

℞ Ear similar in proportions to obv. The rim is unusual. Stem does not show.

27.3 mm. 7.43. Boston Museum of Fine Arts, (Regling-Warren, 64—ex Bunbury 1896, 124).

99 6-grained barley ear.

℞ Seven-grained ear with square top.

17.5 mm. 1/3 stater 2.54. S. P. Noe; Berlin; Munich; Arolsen.

100 Seven-grained barley ear. Grasshopper in field to right, its body parallel with awns and its head toward their extremities. Cable border.

℞ Dolphin to left, engraved in die and therefore with outline in relief.

28 mm. 7.85. Berlin; Hirsch XV, 533—7.53.

100a Same die as No. 100, struck over a stater of Croton. The three legs of the tripod cross the ear at right angles. The Croton stater seems to have been hammered almost flat before being restruck—most of the details are obliterated. This is the earliest of the Metapontum staters I have found struck over the piece of another city.

℞ Same die as No. 100, but broken at the base and apex of the ear. The lines of the tripod show faintly.

28.5 mm. 7.80. Jameson Coll.

101 Die of No. 100.

℞ Six-grained ear with square top.

29 mm. 7.39. E. T. Newell.

102 Seven-grained barley ear—the stem is almost eliminated by the proximity of the base of the ear to the rim. The inscription differs from that of No. 100 in the forms of the E and A. Grasshopper, at r., head upward.

℞ Barley ear similar in proportions to obv. At the left, in raised outline, a dolphin with head upwards.

28 mm. 8.15. Brussels (de Hirsch); Hirsch XXX, 167—8.20.

103 Die of 102.

℞ A badly worn die, unlike previous dies. Several imperfections show—at the apex of the ear, at the middle of the right row of grains, and at several points in the border. These appear to be chips from the surface of the die.

27.5 mm. 8.07. Barron Sale (Hirsch XXX, 166).

104 Seven-grained barley ear having grasshopper with head upwards to right. The insect is shorter than heretofore. Cable border.

℞ Ear similar in proportions to No. 102 but the dolphin with head upward on the right is intaglio.

27 mm. 7.87. Berlin; B. M. Cat. 15—7.50. E. T. Newell ex Jameson 259 and Delbeke Sale, 17— 8.22; Paris (Babelon, Traite PI. LXVI, 9—8.02); Gotha; Locker-Lampson Coll., 8.09.

105 Similar to No. 104 but with greater interval between the E and T. The ear broader and in lower relief, and the grasshopper shorter. Border of dots between two lines.

℞ Seven-grained barley ear with square top. In field to left a dolphin intaglio, much smaller than in No. 104.

25½ mm, —.— Berlin; Arolsen.

106 Six-grained barley ear. In field to left, grasshopper with head upward.

℞ Seven-grained ear.

18 mm. 1/3 stater. 2.46. Berlin; Boston, Warren-Regling, 68, ex Bunbury, 124—2.64; The Hague; Bement, 158—2.66.

107 Five-grained barley ear in high relief. In field to right, a ram's head pointing downward. Compare Nos. 221-228.

℞ Five-grained ear with small additional terminal grains.

19 mm. —.—Berlin; Arolsen.

108 Seven-grained barley ear in high relief. In field at right a grain of barley.

℞ Six-grained ear with rounded top.

18.5 mm. 1/3 stater 2.57. A. H. Lloyd ex Bement 157; Berlin.

109 Closely similar to 108. Variations in the inscription and awns. Possibly a re-cut die.

℞ Six-grained ear narrower than No. 108. Border re-cut.

17 mm. 2.47. Naville, XII, 392.

110 Narrow six-grained ear. In the field to right a barley grain. Border of dots between two lines.

℞ Six-grained ear.

9 mm. 0.32. London, B. M. Cat. 38.

111 Inscription questionable. Fivegrained ear with small additional terminal grains. In field to left a ram's head (?) upwards.

℞ Six-grained ear.

10 mm. —.— Naples (Santangelo).

112 The flan (26 mm.) is nearer in size to No. 105 than to 100 (28 mm.). Sevengrained barley ear, topmost grains very small. The A with a pointed apex and crossbar sloping downward to right. Border of dots between two linear circles.

℞ Six-grained ear with small additional terminal grain. Top of ear nearly square.

mm. 8.00. Curinga Hoard; Vienna—6.46; Naples (Santangelo and Fiorelli 2311).

113 Similar to 112, save that the awns are much further apart. The cross-bar of the A points sharply upwards to the right.

℞ Seven-grained ear.

27 mm. 7.05. Curinga Hoard; Naples (Fiorelli 2314).

114 Compact eight-grained ear with small additional terminal grain.

℞ Ear of eight grains with additional terminal grain.

28 mm. —.— Hoyt Miller Collection.

115 Seven-grained barley ear, the awns with more than the usual interval. The A has a rounded apex with cross-bar slightly upward to the right.

℞ Seven-grained barley ear, the topmost grain very small.

27 mm. —.— Arolsen; American Numismatic Society—8.04.

116 Short six-grained barley ear with small additional terminal grains. The A is broad, round-topped, and with cross-bar slanting downward to right.

℞ Seven-grained barley ear, square-topped with awns at sharper angle than on obv.

27 mm. 8.01. Curinga Hoard.

117 Eight-grained ear of beautiful proportions; the outermost awns on the left curve slightly.

℞ Eight-grained ear of not uniform width. Both the ear and the border are shallow.

28 mm. —.— Sir Arthur Evans.

118 Eight-grained ear—the A with cross-bar downward to right. The E is archaic.

℞ Eight-grained ear.

28 mm. Stater 7.95. Milan; Naples (Fiorelli).

119 Eight-grained barley ear with small additional terminal grains. The A with rounded top and cross-bar downward to left.

℞ Eight-grained barley ear with rounded top.

27 mm. —.— Berlin; Spink &Son—8.00.

120 An interval between the M and the E—the T almost touches the top of the A. The bar of the A upwards to right—a die flaw above the A between the second and third awn.

℞ Eight-grained ear, slightly broader than obverse.

27.5 mm. 7.97. Vienna; Berlin; Curinga Hoard —8.01; Hunterian 3.

121 Eight-grained ear with small additional terminal grain. The A with rounded top and cross-bar downward to right.

℞ Nine-grained ear with square top.

27.5 mm. Stater 8.00. Hunterian 2; W. Gedney Beatty Coll. 8.20.

122 Eight-grained barley ear with two smaller terminal grains. The A with rounded top; cross-bar downward to left.

℞ Eight-grained ear with small additional terminal grain.

28.5 mm. 7.78. Taranto Find, Spink's Circular 53372 (and 53373); London, B. M. Cat. 9, 7.72; Copenhagen, 7.99; Curinga Hoard—8.01; S. P. Noe.

123 Nine-grained ear.

℞ Seven-grained barley ear with small additional terminal grain, and squared top. Die-break below the middle of the ear.

27 mm. 8.00. Curinga Hoard.

124 Die of 123.

℞ Closely similar to No. 122.

28 mm. 7.78. Taranto Find, Spink's Circular No. 53374.

125 Similar to No. 124, but in bolder relief. Die-break between M and E.

℞ Eight-grained ear with rounded top.

28.5 mm. —.— Berlin; Naples (Stevens); Baron S. Pennisi di Floristella, Acireale; C. T. Seltman; Naville V, 432—8.13; Hoyt Miller, —.—; E. T. Newell—8.17; Ratto 1912, 245—8.22; Egger XLVI, 34— 8.19.

126 Eight-grained ear in high relief, with smaller additional terminal grain. The middle row is in considerably higher relief than the two side rows. The stem breaks the line of the rim.

℞ Closely similar to No. 125.

27.5 mm. 7.15. Brussels (de Hirsch); Vienna, 7.60.

127 Eight-grained barley ear with tiny additional terminal grain. Inscription compact and letters small.

℞ Nine-grained barley ear; the uppermost grains have the appearance of having been recut.

28 mm. 8.14. Brussels (de Hirsch); Cambridge (Corpus Christi—Lewes Coll.).

128 Seven-grained barley ear, with small additional terminal grain, the whole in low, flat relief. The letters of inscription are evenly spaced.

℞ Eight-grained ear with a rounded apex.

28 mm. —.— Munich; Vienna (7.80).

129 Similar to No. 116. The A has rounded top and cross-bar downward to left.

℞ Seven-grained barley ear.

26 mm. 8.00. Curinga Hoard.

130 Initial stroke of the E unusually long. Stem short, and like the vertical stroke of the T, it turns to the right at its lower extremity.

℞ Six-grained ear.

27 mm. 7.90. Vienna; Egger XL (Prowe), 149— 7.75.

131 Seven-grained barley ear, the apex is distinctive. The A with pointed top and cross-bar downward to right.

℞ Seven-grained barley ear, square top. Finely cut (recut?) border. Compare with Nos. 137 and 139.

26 mm. — —— Berlin; Turin, 909.

132 Die of No. 131.

℞ Seven-grained barley ear with recut (?) border. Cf. No. 28.

26 mm. 8.02. Curinga Hoard; Cambridge (McClean 898—7.94); Naville V, 66—8.20.

133 Narrow, seven-grained barley ear, with distinctive apex.

℞ Seven-grained barley ear. Recut (?) border.

26 mm. 8.01. Curinga Hoard; Athens, 7.81; Spink &Sons—7.96.

134 The ear is well centered, squaretopped and has a short stem showing.

℞ Similar to obv. but ear slightly wider and stem wanting.

29 mm. 8.12. Bement 153 (ex Carfrae, II and O'Hagan, 46). Curinga Hoard—8.01; Hermitage.

135 Seven-grained ear with small additional terminal grains; high relief. Compare square top with that of No. 139.

℞ Seven-grained ear.

27 mm. Stater 8.00. London (ex Sir Herman Weber, 7.33 and Baron v. Berner, 1888); Naples (Fiorelli 2310—two specimens).

136 Narrow eight-grained ear with small additional terminal grains. Border of dots between two lines. Compare with 118 and 122.

℞ Eight-grained barley ear slightly longer than obverse and with square top.

28.5 mm. — —— Berlin.

137 Narrow seven-grained ear. The inscription is parallel with the awns instead of following the line of the rim.

℞ The ear is narrower, less blunt at the top than No. 136 and is likewise without stem. The edge is of exceptional regularity and delicacy.

27.5 mm. 7.91. E. P. Robinson Coll. Newport; London, B. M. Cat. 12, 7.94; Paris, 7.56; Berlin (broken flan).

138 The inscription follows the curve of the rim. A very narrow, nine-grained ear, of exquisite proportions.

℞ Eight-grained ear, slightly wider than on obverse.

28 mm. 7.80. Vienna.

139 The first three letters of the inscription are crowded together. Seven-grained ear, 19.5 x 7.7 mm.

℞ The ear is slightly broader than on obverse. Stem wanting.

26 mm. 8.11. Hoyt Miller ex Bement 155; Berlin; Naples (Fiorelli 2308); Hermitage; Pozzi Sale 158; E. T. Newell, 7.64.

140 Less careful in style than No. 139. A joint or node shows beneath the ear. Compare 136.

℞ Much coarser in style than No. 139.

27 mm. 8.02. Curinga H'd; Coll. de Sartiges, 31 (ex Hirsch XI, 40); The Hague; London, B. M. Cat. 13—5.92.

141 Seven-grained ear with square top, lower in relief than No. 136, which see.

℞ Seven-grained ear with small additional terminal grain; the top rounded. The left row of the ear is wider and shallower than the right; and the apex shallower than the base.

27.5 mm. — —— Naples (Santangelo 3874).

142 Seven-grained ear similar to No. 139. The inscription is retrograde as No. 140.

℞ Similar to 137 but the ear narrower.

28 mm. — —— Naples (Fiorelli 2309).

143 Thickened flan. Seven-grained ear, narrower and in high relief. Narrow cable border. The inscription in a straight line.

℞ Six-grained ear with apex touching the border, which has been recut; break shows at the left.

25 mm. 8.01. Curinga Hoard; Berlin.

144 Thickened flan. Seven-grained ear, wider and in lower relief than No. 143. Cable border.

℞ Six-grained ear. The lower part very coarse. The border irregular (recut?)

Stater 23 mm. — —— Berlin.

145 Eight-grained ear, the two uppermost grains small. Coarse rim lacking inside linear circle. The A with rounded top and crossbar downward to left. The awns formed by first engraving the lines and then using a drill throughout their length.

℞ Crude seven-grained barley ear, poorly cut; the awns are engraved in the die just as on obverse. The border is very irregular. See text regarding technique.

29 mm. 8.15. Naville X 59 ex Pozzi Sale 157; Berlin.

146 Eight-grained ear; the uppermost ones small. Coarse rim lacking inside linear circle.

℞ Eight-grained ear, very poorly cut. The awns are engraved in the die and, consequently, in relief on the coin. Border very crude; broken above the ear.

29 mm. 8.00. Dresden.

147 Die of 146.

℞ Six-grained ear with rounded top. Crude border. The awns engraved in the die.

30 mm. 8.36. London, B. M. Cat. 8.

148 Nine-grained ear, the uppermost one very small. The A has pointed top and crossbar is sharply upward to right. Letters of inscription thick.

℞ Poorly cut and unsymmetrical ear. The awns thick and crude. The border off-flan, show- ing that this die is slightly larger than the obverse. Possibly not barbaric.

29 mm. — —— Florence.

149. The seven-grained ear very crudely modelled. The lettering also coarse. Border of dots between two lines. Awns recut above letters M E.

℞ Five-grained barley ear with two smaller terminal grains. The border is much cruder than even the earliest of the preceding series; and although the awns are cut in a similar way, the workmanship is of the coarsest. The die is broken at the upper right.

30 ½ mm. 7.91. Berlin.

150 Eight (?)-grained barley ear in high relief, with middle row well defined. The awns are widely separated and the inscription is crude. The A of the inscription is of unusual form. The border is a series of separated dots between two continuous lines.

℞ Die of No. 149.

30 mm. 7.78. Taranto Find, Spink's Circular, 53363; Vatican.

151 Seven-grained barley ear, the topmost grains smaller than the others. A with pointed top and cross-bar slightly downward to right. Border of dots between two lines. The style heavy and crude. The die has been recut, and traces of a former inscription are visible in the field to left where can be deciphered. The awns of the first state of the die show at left and right.

℞ Seven-grained barley ear with rounded top; the awns are broad (recut?).

28 mm. 6.08 (?) Curinga Hoard; American Numismatic Society—6.12; G. Empedocles—8.00.

152 Broad, seven-grained ear with small additional terminal grain. The border coarse. The E is of unusual form. The middle row shows a line extending from the base to the apex.

℞ Seven-grained ear with small additional terminal grain. The middle row also shows a line (an awn?) extending from base to apex. The border is unlike any occurring elsewhere in the Metapontine series, but similar to that used at Sybaris.

Stater 30 mm. 7.64. Sir H. Weber Coll., 736.

153 Nine-grained ear in low relief, the grains smaller on the right than in the left row. The border a crude linear circle, outside of which are crude dots.

℞ Nine-grained ear tapering slightly toward top. Usual border.

28 mm. Stater 8.54. E. T. Newell.

154 Broad six-grained barley ear with small additional terminal grain. The inscription compact; the A with cross-bar downward to right. Cable border.

℞ Six-grained barley ear. Very broad awns are engraved in the die and, therefore, in relief on the coin. The border crude and apparently not recut.

25 mm. —.—— Berlin.

154a Crude six-grained barley ear with coarse awns. Border of large dots between two lines.

℞ Five-grained ear.

18.5 mm. 1/3 Stater —.—— Paris.

154b Narrow seven-grained ear tapering toward apex. Border of dots. The whole differing markedly in style from other pieces in the series.

℞ Small bull's head incuse with absurdly long horns curving downward. The border differs from the others of the series, Nos. 264-296.

12.5 mm. 1.40. Berlin; Vienna (1.16).

154c Crude six-grained ear with tiny additional terminal grains. Border of dots on a raised rim. Stem very short.

℞ Six-grained ear with rounded top. The awns are similar to those of Nos. 145-147.

30 mm. 7.72 E. T. Newell (ex Sambon, 1927. Sale, Obv. of 298. Rev. of 299 on Pl. X).

155 Broad six-grained ear with two small additional grains.

℞ Broad seven-grained ear, touching the rim at top and bottom. The awns are thick. The border is recut as is also the ear in the upper left row.

. 24 mm. 7.47.—.—— Berlin (plated?).

156 Six-grained ear with additional terminal grain. Compact inscription.

℞ Shallow six-grained ear. Coarse border.

25 mm. —.—— Berlin; C. H. Imhoff Coll.

157 Five-grained ear with small additional terminal grain. The A with pointed top and cross-bar slightly downward to right.

℞ Six-grained ear with rounded top.

Stater 24 mm. 7.90. Naville V, 433; Copenhagen—7.94.

158 Similar to 157—the ear in higher relief. The inscription differs slightly.

℞ Six-grained ear, wider than on obverse.

24 mm. —.—— Canessa, Naples.

159 Five-grained ear with small additional terminal grain. Interval between T and A.

℞ Similar to 158—possibly same die.

25 mm. —.—— Naples.

160 Six-grained ear, the topmost grains small. The A has pointed top and crossbar, slightly downward to left. Rim of more than usual width—the flan slightly smaller.

℞ Six-grained ear.

23.5 mm. 7.85. E. T. Newell; Naples (Santangelo).

161 Six-grained ear. The A has a pointed top with nearly horizontal cross-bar.

℞ Six-grained ear—double-struck. The original impress was upside down.

22 mm. 7.54. Vienna.

162 Six-grained ear with square top. Letters of inscription very large, filling the field to right. The A with pointed top and crossbar downward to left.

℞ Shallow six-grained ear.

Stater 22 mm. 8.04. Spink &Son; Hermitage; Naples.

163 Plated. Both ear and inscr. of poor style. Border of dots on raised rim.

℞ Copper core shows plainly at left.

Plated. 24 mm. —.—— Commerce.

164 Six-grained ear with small additional terminal grain. The top of the A rounded, the cross-bar slants pronouncedly downward to the right.

℞ Seven-grained ear.

24 mm. —.—— Berlin; London, B. M. Cat. 17—8.05; Cambridge; Paris; Munich; Naples (Santangelo).

165 Six-grained ear with small additional terminal grains. The awns curve outward slightly. The A with rounded top and crossbar downward to right.

℞ Seven-grained ear, broader than obverse.

24 mm. 8.01. Curinga Hoard; Naville V, 4347.98; Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Me.

166 Six-grained ear with small additional terminal grains. The A has pointed top and cross-bar downward to right.

℞ Six-grained ear with rounded top.

25 mm. 8.00. Curinga Hoard.

167 On this coin, and on the others of plate XIV (i. e. Nos. 161-178 inclusive) the barley ear has six grains in the left row, with a small additional terminal grain. The form of the A is taken as the easiest means of distinguishing the varieties. A with rounded top and cross-bar downward to right.

℞ Six-grained ear with additional terminal grain. The die broken at lowest grain of the middle row.

25 mm. 7.97. Cambridge (McClean) 892; Paris.

168 Similar to 167—inscription varies.

℞ Grains at apex and base smaller than others—the lowest in the left row little more than a line.

23.5 mm. 8.00. Curinga Hoard; Sir A. J. Evans.

169 A with pointed top and crossbar downward to r.

℞ Die of 168.

25 mm. 8.09. London, B. M. Cat. 18; Spink's Circular 53383—7.06.

170 The A has a pointed top. The cross-bar is inclined slightly downward to right.

℞ Seven-grained barley ear, topmost grains very small.

24.5 mm. –.— Munich.

171 Similar to 170. The A as in 168.

℞ Six-grained ear with small additional terminal grains.

24 mm. 8.00. Curinga (Catanzaro) Hoard; Naples (Fiorelli 2320, Santangelo 3939 and one other).

172 Closely similar to 170—possibly same die.

℞ Possibly same die as 171.

24 mm. Stater 8.00. Curinga Hoard; Milan (?); Spink &Son—8.05.

173 The cross-bar of the A downward to left; the awns to the left show double cutting.

℞ Seven-grained ear with breaks in centre row at top and bottom.

25.5 mm. Stater 7.98. Cambridge (McClean) 890; Naples (Santangelo).

174 Ear in high relief. The A with pointed top and cross-bar downward to right. The E has archaic form.

℞ Six-grained barley ear. Recut border.

25 mm. 8.00. Curinga Hoard (2nd spec. 8.01); Naples (Fiorelli 2322).

175 Similar to 173, save that the A has the cross-bar downward to right.

℞ Eight-grained barley ear, the two topmost grains smaller than the others.

24.5 mm. —.—— Toronto.

176 Similar to 175 save for inscription.

℞ Similar to 168—border and ear recut.

24 mm. 8.01. Curinga Hoard.

177 Ear similar to 173—the A with cross-bar downward to right.

℞ Seven-grained barley ear.

24 mm. —.—— Berlin.

178 A with pointed top and crossbar downward to left.

℞ Shallow six-grained ear with small additional terminal grain and crude border.

25 mm. —.—— Naples.

179 Six-grained ear with small additional terminal grain. The A with rounded top and cross-bar downward to right. Cable border.

℞ Six (?) grained ear.

24 mm. —.—— Hoyt Miller Coll.

180 Similar to 175, save in spacing of letters of inscription.

℞ Similar to 170.

mm. 8.00. Hoyt Miller Coll.

181 Seven-grained ear.

℞ Seven-grained ear.

24 mm. 8.01. Curinga Hoard.

182 Narrow, seven-grained ear. The A pointed and with cross-bar downward to left.

℞ Six-grained ear.

24 mm. 8.05. Vienna; Athens (struck over a Selinus (?) didrachm) 8.03; E. Beesley Collection; Curinga Hoard—8.05.

183 Broad seven-grained ear. The A has pointed top and cross-bar downward to right.

℞ Seven-grained ear.

25 mm. —.—— Munich.

184 Seven-grained ear—the middle row in more than usually high relief. Inscription follows curve of narrow cable border.

℞ Ear touches border at apex and base.

25 mm. 8.10. Spink's Circular 70328; Egger XL, 151, 7-99; Arolsen.

185 Seven-grained ear. The A has pointed top and cross-bar downward to left.

℞ Six-grained ear of even width.

24 mm. —.—— Arolsen.

186 Seven-grained ear; the topmost grain smaller. Cable border. The A is distinctive.

℞ Die of 185.

23.5 mm. 8.11. Curinga Hoard; American Numismatic Society—7.80.

187 Narrow seven-grained ear. The A with rounded top and cross-bar downward to r.

℞ Six-grained barley ear. Die broken in the rim at left.

24 mm. 8.00. Curinga Hoard.

188 Similar to No. 187, save that the letters of the inscription are larger and the A is different.

℞ Six-grained ear, slightly broader than obverse. Die broken at the rim on right.

25 mm. 8.01. Curinga Hoard.

189 The eight-grained ear is long and narrow, the A similar to that of No. 186.

℞ Six-grained ear; touches border at apex. Border recut?

25 mm. —.—— Berlin; Curinga Hoard—8.00; Spink’s Circular 53383a. B. M. Cat. 16—8.12; Naville XII, 388—8.10.

190 Seven-grained ear—compare with 180. The traces of a pointed top A are visible on the cast. This has been changed by the addition of a stroke which makes the letter seem an H.

℞ Seven-grained ear—unusually short.

23 mm. 7.87. Berlin.

191 Six-grained ear with small additional terminal grains. Border of dots between two lines.

℞ Six-grained ear. Recut border—note pivot mark at center of die.

23.5 mm. 8.01. Curinga Hoard (and four others—each weighing 8.00); Vienna, 7.76, 8.10; Cambridge (McClean 900—7.85); Egger XLV, 140—7.14; Berlin; E. S. G. Robinson, London.

192 Six-grained ear with small additional terminal grains. Wide cable border.

℞ Six-grained ear.

24 mm. 8.03. Berlin; Curinga Hoard—8.01; London, B. M. Cat. 21—8.26; Naples (Fiorelli 2338, 2340 and 2341).

193 Similar to 192 but less high in relief.

℞ Eight-grained ear touching border at top and bottom.

24 mm. —. Paris; Spink’s Circular 53384 (7.52); E. Beesley Collection; Curinga Hoard—8.01; Copenhagen—8.03.

194 Seven-grained ear, the topmost grains smaller than the others. The grains in right row are higher than their corresponding ones in the left row. Guilloche border.

℞ Seven-grained ear. Border recut—note pivot mark at center of ear.

25 mm. 8.01. Curinga Hoard (2).

195 Possibly same die as 193.

℞ Seven-grained ear, touching border at apex.

23.5 mm. 7.86. Vienna; Commerce.

196 Six-grained ear.

℞ Six-grained ear, much broader than on obv.; touches border at apex.

23 mm. 8.08. E. T. Newell; Vienna.

197 Seven-grained ear.

℞ Seven-grained ear. Recut border.

23.5 mm. —. Berlin; Curinga Hoard—8.00.

198 Six-grained ear in high relief, the topmost grain small.

℞ Six-grained ear.

22 mm. —. Berlin.

199 Six-grained ear. Die-crack through first two letters of inscription. Uppermost grain in left row not uniform with right.

℞ Six-grained ear. Recut border.

23 mm. Naples (Fiorelli 2291); Curinga Hoard, 8.01, (2).

200 Six-grained ear. Possibly die of No. 199 recut and with A of inscription added. Note the die-crack. Guilloche border.

℞ Five-grained ear slightly larger than on obverse.

23 mm. —. Paris; Vienna; W. Gedney Beatty Collection—8.17.

201 Six-grained ear is in higher relief than No. 199. The A is nearly square topped and with cross-bar downward to right.

℞ The six-grained ear extends from rim to rim.

28.5 mm. —. Dr. Van Buren Collection, Rome; Naples (Fiorelli 2332 and Santangelo); Curinga Hoard (2), 8.00; London, B. M. Cat. 19—7.92.

202 Six-grained ear similar to No. 200, but the inscr. more extended.

℞ Six-grained ear, the topmost grains smaller than the others.

23 mm. 8.01. Curinga Hoard, (2).

203 Six-grained ear similar to No. 200. Inscr. slightly more extended with differences in the E and A.

℞ Six-grained ear.

23 mm. 8.00. Curinga Hoard. Cambridge (McClean 894—8.11).

204 Six-grained ear. Die-break shows between second and third grains in right row. A with cross-bar downward to left.

℞ Six-grained ear.

24 mm. —.—— Berlin; Naples, Fiorelli (2334) I Copenhagen, 7.69; London, B. M. Cat. 20— 8.02 (struck over archaic Corinthian Stater—illus. Head, Guide to Coins of the Ancients, PI. VII, II. The identification of this type is not certain because details have been eliminated in the striking).

205 Same die as No. 204, but with the break further developed and with the inscr. recut; the A has cross-bar downward to r. whereas in the first state of the die it was downward to 1.

℞ Die of No. 204.

24 mm. —.—— Berlin; Naples 3886.

206 Six-grained ear, the topmost pair of grains smaller than the others.

℞ Six-grained ear with recut border.

24 mm. —. Florence; Curinga Hoard; Copenhagen, 8.02.

207 Six-grained ear; cable border of more than usual width.

℞ Six-grained ear slightly broader than on Obv. and with dot at centre as in 233 (evidence of re-cut border).

24 mm. 8.14. Sir H. Weber, 735 (ex Von Wotoch, 101 ?); Vienna; Paris; Curinga Hoard—8.01; Sir A. J. Evans.

208 Seven-grained ear with small additional terminal grains. Guilloche border.

℞ Eight-grained ear touching rim at top and bottom.

25 mm. Stater 8.13 Cambridge (McClean— 895). Cambridge (Leake)—7.83.

209 Seven-grained barley ear. Large lizard with head upward at r. Border of dots between two lines.

℞ Similar to No. 196. Six-grained barley ear. The border is coarsely cut; the specimen last described shows it much finer and possibly the border has been recut after wearing down. The die-break across ear shows in all the pieces described below.

24.5 mm. —.—— Pozzi Coll. 160, 8.03; American Numismatic Society; Cambridge (McClean 904— 7.80); A. H. Lloyd Coll.

210 Die of No. 209.

℞ Possibly the same die as No. 82 with the border and awns recut. Note the break across the middle of the ear.

25 mm. —.—— (Feuardent).

211 Six grained ear, with a lizard in field to right, that is smaller than the one on 209. This symbol as well as the flan is somewhat smaller than on Nos. 209, 210.

℞ Seven-grained ear with re-cut border.

24 mm. 8.00. Curinga Hoard, (2).

212 Six-grained ear. At r. a small lizard with head upward.

℞ Seven-grained ear.

23 mm. 8.11. A. H. Lloyd Coll, ex Coll. Marquis Ginori; Paris, (De Luynes 454—8.00); Berlin; Naville V, 437—8.03.

213 Six-grained barley ear, the topmost grains small, higher in relief than No. 212 and narrower. Possibly recut die of 212. At r., a small lizard, head upwards.

℞ Six-grained barley ear having proportions of obv.

21.8 mm. 7.55. Spink’s Circular 53388; Vienna; Naples (Fiorelli 2302).

214 Six-grained ear, tapering slightly toward top. The lizard at r. has head and body curved toward ear. The M touches lower grain at 1.

℞ Broad seven-grained ear, wider than obv.

22 1/2 mm. Stater 7.58. E. S. G. Robinson.

215 Six-grained ear. In field to r. a lizard—higher on flan than in preceding.

℞ Seven-grained ear with re-cut border.

22 mm. 8.01. Curinga H’d; Copenhagen, 8.02; Gotha; Berlin; Egger XL, 153—801.

216 Six-grained ear. In field to right small lizard with head upward. The M of the inscription nearly touches the mid-stroke of the E.

℞ Similar to No. 212.

22.5 mm. Naples (Fiorelli 2301 and two others); Berlin; Sir Arthur Evans; Vienna—7.90.

217 Six-grained ear. Small lizard to r., head upwards. Guilloche Border.

℞ Similar to No. 212. Border possibly recut.

22 mm. 7.41. E. T. Newell; Sir Arthur J. Evans.

218 Eight-grained barley ear in bold relief. At the left, a small lizard, head downward, the body forming a double curve. Note that the flan although large, does not accommodate the border.

℞ Eight-grained ear.

24.5 mm. —.—— C. H. Imhoff.

219 Seven-grained ear, with rounded apex. At the 1., a lizard (?), head upward, seen from the side; the legs touch the border, and the body forms an almost straight line. Border very unusual—showing that the die-cutter had not grasped the method used on other pieces. Possibly modern.

℞ Six-grained ear.

20 mm. 7.61. E. T. Newell.

220 Six-grained ear, the topmost ones notably smaller than the others. In field to 1. ram’s head upward.

℞ Six-grained ear.

20 mm. 7.77. Copenhagen.

221 The A larger than the other letters in the inscription. Six-grained ear. Border of dots between two lines. At r. a rani’s head pointing upward, the cross-section squared. Border of dots on a raised rim.

℞ Six-grained ear, with usual border.

20 mm. 8.07. Bement 161; London—7.78; Paris; Berlin—7.96; Naples (Fiorelli 2298); S. R. Milbank—7.64.

222 Similar to 221—the ram’s head larger.

℞ Six-grained ear.

20 mm. —.—— Berlin; Baron S. Pennisi di Floristella, Acireale; E. T. Newell—7.51; Vatican; Cambridge (McClean 905)—7.86; Sir Arthur Evans; London, B. M. Cat. 27—7.76.

223 Five-grained ear with small additional terminal grains. To the 1., a ram’s head upward, similar to 221.

℞ Six (?)—grained ear.

19.5 mm. Stater 8.03. Sir H. Weber Coll. 744; Gotha; Munich; Naples (Fiorelli 2307—struck over(?)); Copenhagen, 7.77; E. S. G. Robinson, London; Naville V, 436—7.82.

224 Broad, five-grained ear with small additional terminal grain. The awns are coarse and more extended than in any of the pieces of this series. Large ram’s head (upward) to 1. Plated.

℞ Six-grained ear, of good workmanship.

205 mm. 6.42. Pozzi Sale, 159. Another plated piece—similar—5.64, is in Vienna.

225 Beautifully proportioned sixgrained ear. At r. a ram’s head pointing upward, the lower jaw next the ear.

℞ Die of 223.

18 mm. 7.97. E. T. Newell.

226 Five-grained ear. To the right a large ram’s head upward with the lower jaw next to the ear.

℞ Similar to 223.

18 mm. —.—— Munich; Hoyt Miller Coll.— 7.56.

227 Six-grained ear. At the left, small ram’s head (?) upward with lower jaw next to the ear.

℞ Similar to 223.

18 mm. 7.85. Vienna.

228 Probably same die as 226.

℞ Inscr. engraved in die.

17 mm. —.—— Berlin; Copenhagen—8.02.

229 Six-grained ear. In field to left, murex slanting diagonally to left.

℞ Six-grained ear with awns as well as the inscription engraved in the die.

15 mm. —.—— Naples (Stevens Coll, and Fiorelli 2300). Dr. Petsalis Coll., Athens.

230 Die of 229.

℞ Die of 228.

16 mm. Stater —.—— Naples (Fiorelli 2299).

231 Seven-grained barley ear. To the left, a mule’s head upward and with the lower jaw next to the ear. Border of dots on a raised rim.

℞ Seven-grained barley ear.

19 mm. 8.15. Paris (De Luynes 456); Cambridge (McClean 907—6.81); Vienna—7.57.

232 Seven-grained ear of great crudity. Border of dots between two lines. In field to left, an indefinite symbol—a ram’s (?) head upward, or possibly the symbol of No. 231.

℞ Six-grained ear with central dot indicating re-cut border.

22.5 mm. Stater 7.14. Cambridge (McClean, 901).

233 Six-grained ear. Border of dots on slightly raised rim.

℞ Six-grained ear. Border incomplete or broken at lower 1.

19 mm. —.—— Cleveland Museum; Hunterian 4—7.28 (struck over Corcyra stater)—see PI. XIX.

234 Die of 233.

℞ Recut border—note application point of device used for recutting border at center of ear. Originally die of 233?

20 mm. 8.10. E. T. Newell; Berlin; Munich; Hoyt Miller Coll., ex Stiavelli Sale 60—8.14; A. H. Lloyd Coll, (ex Naville V, 435)—8.13.

Struck over Agrigentum:

Berlin,

Paris (De Luynes 455—8.10).

London (ex Hasbrouck Coll. 8.12).

Bement (160—8.10).

Syracuse:

Paris—Bab. Traité 2078—8.08.

Corinth:

Gotha.

Gela:

Paris (De Luynes 458—8.00).

London (B. M. Cat. 25—8.15).

Corcyra (Dyrrachium according to Babelon, Fils):

Paris (De Luynes 460—8.05).

235 Die of 233—the rim not struck up.

℞ Six-grained ear with weak border which explains weak border on obverse.

20 mm. 8.00. London, B. M. Cat. 23.

236 Similar to No. 233 but the ear is smaller and the inscription more compact. Border of dots on raised rim.

℞ Shallow six-grained ear and border.

21 mm. 7.93. Copenhagen; Hermitage; Baron Pennisi di Floristella.

237 Die of 236. Struck over Corinthian (?) didrachm.

℞ Small six-grained ear—border broken at lower 1. Note awns at apex of ear.

20 mm. 7.95. Paris (de Luynes 457).

238 Six-grained ear in high relief. Inscr. followed curve of border.

℞ Six-grained ear. Recut border.

20 m. —.—— Berlin.

239 Six-grained ear. Border off flan.

℞ Five-grained ear. Border recut.

18 mm. —.—— Berlin.

240 Six-grained ear with small additional terminal grains. The A with pointed top and crossbar slightly downward to right.

℞ Seven-grained ear with small additional terminal grains.

19.5 mm. 6.97. Vienna.

241 Six-grained ear; border of dots on a raised rim.

℞ Six-grained ear.

19.5 mm. —.—— Paris.

242 Six-grained ear with raised border.

℞ Six-grained ear larger than that of obv.

20 mm. Stater —.—— Naples (Fiorelli 2342), Sir A. Evans (not certainly this type) over stater of Thasos.

243 Seven-grained ear with additional terminal grains. A with rounded top and cross-bar downwards to left. Border of dots between two lines.

℞ Seven-grained ear with small additional terminal grains—ear with rounded top.

18.5 mm. —.—— Naples (Fiorelli 2326).

244 Six-grained ear. Border of dots on raised rim (possibly cable border).

℞ Six-grained ear with square top.

19.5 mm. 8.16. London, B. M. Cat., 22; Naples (Fiorelli 2345); Copenhagen, 7.62 (?).

245 Compact six-grained ear. The letters of the inscription are badly cut.

℞ Six-grained barley ear.

19 mm. 8.11. Boston (Regling-Warren 65 ?— traces of millsail incuse under type).

246 Six-grained ear in bold relief. The border is a raised band with some traces of dots.

℞ Six-grained ear. The awns and inscriptions engraved in die and therefore in relief on coin.

17 mm. —.—— Berlin; Hoyt Miller Coll., ex Naville XII, 391—8.04.

247 Narrow six-grained ear with square top.

℞ engraved in die and, therefore, in relief on coin. These letters are so slight that it is difficult to see them except on well-preserved specimens. They fail to carry through the photographer’s process, and therefore do not show on the plates.

17.5 mm. —.—— American Numismatic Society; Dresden, 8.04; London; Berlin; G. Empedocles, Athens—7.80.

248 Six-grained ear, with folioles at base as in first incuse coinage. In field at 1. an “x”.

℞ Barley ear with same proportions as obv. with “x” in the field at both left and right—possibly punched in die as the letters are in relief on the coin.

18 mm. —.—— Berlin; Cambridge (McClean, 108—ex Egger XL, 154—7 84).

249 Six-grained ear with small additional terminal grains. The A of the inscription has the cross-bar horizontal; the die is broken at the letter E, giving it a crescent shape.

℞ Six-grained ear with square top.

17 mm. –.— Berlin; Cambridge (McClean, 909—7.31).

250 Six-grained ear or possibly a die-break that has obliterated the inscr. The border, a markedly raised rim.

℞ Six-grained ear; the flan shows the "ears" which are found on the Syracuse tetradrachms and elsewhere.

16 mm. –.— Wayte Raymond; Baron S. Pennisi di Floristella, Acireale; American Numismatic Society.

251 Six-grained ear. The A is pointed and has the cross-bar very slightly downward to the right.

℞ Ear with seven grains. Traces of overstriking.

18 mm. 7.97. Boston (Regling 66—ex Bunbury 124). Vienna.

252 Six-grained ear. Border of dots between two lines.

℞ Six-grained ear. Recut border.

19 mm. –.— Berlin.

253 Six-grained ear, the awns curving outward slightly.

℞ Six-grained ear. Border recut.

20 mm. 8.01. Curinga Hoard; Naples (Fiorelli 2336); Naples—(struck over Gela didr.).

254 Six-grained ear in high reliet. Border of dots between two lines.

℞ Six-grained ear with square top. Border possibly recut.

18 mm. —.—— Naples (Fiorelli 2337).

255 Small six-grained ear in moderately high relief. Border of dots between two lines.

℞ Five-grained ear, and two small additional terminal grains.

21 mm. 7.83. E. T. Newell; London, B. M. Cat. 24—7.72; Jameson—8.16 (struck over Gela stater— inscription legible on R.).

256 Six-grained ear. The inscription divided; on the left, the letter T or E discernible; on the right, the lower of the two letters is a pointed-top A with cross-bar downward to r. The second letter resembles the archaic I with three strokes. Of barbaric style.

℞ Six-grained ear; the style crude. No middle row of grains.

17 mm. 7.04. Berlin.

257 Narrow seven-grained ear of very delicate proportions; the raised border is off flan. Note that this die is combined with what must, for that reason, be considered one of the earliest double-relief types, Plate XX.

℞ Narrow seven-grained ear. Border indefinite.

20 mm. Stater —.—— Naples (Fiorelli 2323).

258 Eight-grained ear—the topmost ones very small. Along the outermost awn to r. a locust with head downward. Border of dots (without a raised rim).

℞ Seven-grained ear.

21 mm. 8.25. Paris (Luynes 453); Spink’s Circular 53389—7.78; London, B. M. Cat. 26 (Over Corinth)—7.78; Copenhagen—7.21; Cambridge (McClean 906—5.25, plated); Bement 162—7.74; G. Empedocles, Athens—8.05; Egger XLVI, 35 (ex Hirsch XXXIII, 134).

259 Closely similar to 258, and possibly the same die, with some re-cutting especially in the thorax of the locust.

℞ Possibly the die of No. 90, with recut border and awns; the latter are here slightly curved.

20.5 mm. Stater —.—— Berlin; Paris.

260 Broad six-grained ear in pronounced relief; on the outermost awn to the 1. a locust with head upward; the rim, evidently an attempt to cut a guilloche border, shows the die-cutter's inability to understand the method of doing it.

℞ Seven-grained ear.

19 mm. 7.75. Berlin; E. T. Newell 8.33; Vienna; Dresden.

261 Six-grained ear; on the outermost awn to 1. a locust with head upward. Narrow cable border on a raised rim. This die is also combined with the famous stater inscribed (Plate XXI).

℞ Eight-grained ear, much longer than on obv. The rim is unlike any others of the series.

21 mm. 7.63. E. T. Newell; Naples (Fiorelli 2306 and Santangelo 3952, the latter struck over Corinthian stater type of B. M. Corinth Pl. II, 5 (?); Hermitage.

264 Without inscription. Six-grained ear. Border of dots between two lines.

℞ Ox head incuse with horns curved downward. Border similar to that of thick flan incuse staters. Note dot at center of die.

13 mm. Diobol ——.——— Berlin, (2); Copenhagen; Naville VI, 442—1.34.

265 Without inscription. Six-grained ear similar to 264, but with a greater interval between awns.

℞ Narrow ox head, incuse.

13 mm. Diobol 1.25. Dresden; London. B. M. Cat. 43—1.32.

266 No inscription. Coarse five-grained ear.

℞ Ox head, incuse.

13 mm. Diobol —— ——— Commerce.

267 No inscr. Similar to 264.

℞ Ox head, incuse. The horn to r. recut (?).

12 mm.— ——_ E. T. Newell.

268 Compact six-grained ear which does not touch rim at base.

℞ Similar to 264, save that the horns are short, and sharply curved.

13 mm. Diobol 1.22. Vienna.

269 Five-grained ear.

℞ Ox head, incuse. The horn to right is the longer. The forehead is decorated by concentric semi-circular lines.

13 mm. Diobol 1.24. Naville, VI, 440.

270 Die of 269.

℞ Ox-head incuse—forehead with three semicircular rows of dots.

13 mm.—— ——_ H. A. Green, Providence, R. I.

271 Five-grained ear.

℞ Ox head incuse.

13 mm. Diobol 1.25. Naville VI, 439.

272 Five-grained ear with barbs on outside of the awns. Border of dots between two lines.

℞ Ox head, incuse, with top of r. horn slightly higher than 1.

12.5 mm. Diobol 0.68. Bement Sale 163; Vienna (1.00); Munich.

273 Broad five-grained ear.

℞ Ox head incuse. Straight horns, downward.

12 mm. Diobol — ——_ Berlin.

274 Five-grained ear broader at the base than at the top.

℞ Ox head, incuse.

12 mm. Diobol 1.08. Vienna.

275 Six-grained ear.

℞ Ox head incuse.

13.5 mm. Diobol —— ——— Berlin and second piece; Arolsen Coll.; Vienna (1.09), Cambridge (McClean 910—1.20). Egger XLV, 141—1.16.

276 Five-grained ear with small additional terminal grains.

℞ Ox head incuse.

12.5 mm. Diobol — ——_ Berlin; Vienna (1.26); E. T. Newell (1.13).

277 Five-grained ear.

℞ Ox head with short horns, slightly curved downward. Forehead bears granular decoration.

13 mm. Diobol 1.24. Copenhagen.

278 Five-grained ear with additional terminal awns. Inscription less compact than 277.

℞ Ox head, incuse. The forehead has linear, and the muzzle granular decoration.

11.5 mm. Diobol 0.98. London, 41.

279 Compact five-grained ear in high relief, with additional terminal awns. Ear does not touch the rim at the base.

℞ Similar to foregoing.

12 mm. Diobol 1.32. Sartiges Cat. 32.

280 Five-grained ear with small additional terminal grains. Cable border.

℞ Ox head incuse.

12.5 mm. Diobol 1.14. Vienna.

281 Five-grained ear with the leaf in the field to the left.

℞ Ox head, incuse, with short and only slightly curved horns.

13 mm. Diobol 1.24. Cambridge, McClean, 912; Vienna, 1.08; Munich.

282 Crude five-grained ear with very broad base—possibly double struck.

℞ Ox head incuse.

12 mm. Diobol 0.98. Pozzi, 162.

283 Six-grained ear in high relief. Border of dots between two lines.

℞ Ox head incuse with short horns (which do not curve downward) and ears showing.

14 mm. Diobol — —— Berlin.

284 Six-grained ear in high relief, the uppermost grains smaller than the others. The A of inscription with cross-bar downward to 1.

℞ Ox head, incuse.

13 mm. Diobol — —— Berlin; Arolsen, E. S. G. Robinson, London.

285 Five-grained ear with small additional terminal grain.

℞ Similar to 285.

12 mm. Diobol 1.13. London; Munich.

286 Six-grained ear, the terminal grains smaller than the others.

℞ Ox head, incuse, with thick horns.

13 mm. Diobol — ——— Berlin; Hermitage.

287 Five-grained ear with additional terminal grain and rounded top.

℞ Ox head; right horn slightly longer than left one.

13 mm. 1.24. Naville VI, 441; Paris.

288 Five-grained ear with wide border of dots between two lines.

℞ Ox head, incuse.

13 mm. Diobol — ——_ Paris.

289 Crude five-grained ear. Border of dots between two lines.

℞ Ox head, incuse.

12.5 mm. Diobol — —— Berlin.

290 Six-grained ear with additional terminal awns. Ear touches rim at the base.

℞ Short-horned ox head, similar to 283.

13 mm. Diobol 1.17. Vienna.

291 Six-grained ear.

℞ Ox head with horns downward and almost straight. Space between the horns has a granular decoration instead of the vertical lines in most of this series.

12 mm. Diobol 1.02. Cambridge, McClean, 911.

292 Six-grained ear in high relief. Border of dots between two lines.

℞ Ox head incuse with straight horns downward. Coarse border.

13.5 mm. Diobol — —— Berlin; American Numismatic Society.

293 Six-grained ear with coarse awns. Border of dots between two lines.

℞ Ox head, incuse, with short horns, downward, and slightly curved.

13.5 mm. Diobol 1.34. W. Gedney Beatty (ex Sir H. Weber, 739); Jameson 262—1.21; Berlin, Egger XL (Prowe), 156—1.21.

294 The last two letters of inscr. are very faint. Broad five-grained ear.

℞ Ox head incuse, the horns straight downward.

13.5 mm. Diobol 1.33. E. T. Newell; London. B. M. Cat. 39—124; Berlin (2); Vienna—1.29; Merzbacher, Nov., 1909, 2238—1.24.

295 Die of 294.

℞ Ox-head incuse, with straight horns, as in 294. The forehead has granular decorations, and the muzzle is indicated by two horizontal lines.

13 mm. 1.24. London, B. M. Cat. 39.

296 Six-grained ear.

℞ Small ox-head incuse with vertical lines between horns and faint scale-surface between the eyes.

13 mm. — ——_ E. Beesley Coll. (not illustrated—through error the Berlin specimen of No. 294 is shown on Pl. xxi).

297 Six-grained ear of low relief and irregular shape. No inscr.

℞ Incuse barley-grain.

10 mm. Obol 0.63. Copenhagen.

298 Six-grained ear.

℞ Barley-grain incuse.

10 mm. Obol 0.68. Naville Sale V, 443.

299 Five-grained ear. Border of heavy dots (?).

℞ A barley-corn incuse with an annulet each side.

10.5 mm. Diobol — —— Munich.

300 Four-grained ear.

℞ Similar to No. 297 but annulets larger.

10 mm. Diobol 0.84? Berlin.

301 Very crude four-grained ear—the upper grains are smaller.

℞ Similar to No. 297.

10 mm. Diobol — —— Berlin.

302 Four-grained ear. Similar to No. 298 but in higher relief and with more pronounced awns.

℞ Similar to No. 298.

10 mm. Diobol 0.70. Vienna.

303 Five-grained ear with linear border.

℞ Similar to No. 297.

10.5 mm. Diobol –.— Naples (Santangelo)

304 Narrow six-grained ear touching the linear border at the bottom.

℞ Similar to No. 297 save that the barleycorn is larger and very shallow.

11 mm. × 7.5 mm. wide. Diobol 0.75. Cambridge (Leake).

305 Six-grained ear with an annulet in field on either side.

℞ Similar to No. 297.

10 mm. Diobol –.— Berlin; Naples (Santangelo); Vienna (o.66); Cambridge (McClean 913—0. 81).

306 Four-grained ear with heavy linear border and annulets on either side of the ear.

℞ Barley-corn, incuse, with annulets on either side.

8.5 mm. Diobol 0.65. Sir H. Weber Coll. 741.

307 Six-grained ear with an annulet in the field on either side.

℞ Barley grain with annulet in field on either side. Note dot at center of die.

10 mm. Obol. –.— Hermitage.

308 Small five-grained ear. Border of dots. In field to 1 an ivy leaf with tip upward.

℞ Similar to No. 775.

10.5 mm. Diobol 0.69. Berlin.

309 ? Four-grained ear. In field to 1.

a grasshopper, head upward.

℞ Similar to No. 297.

11 mm. Diobol. –.— Berlin.

End Notes

• Sydney P. Noe. Coin Hoards. 1921. 47 pp. 6 pls. 50c.
• Howland Wood. The Mexican Revolutionary Coinage 1913-1916. 1921. 44 pp. 26 pls. $2.00.
• Anges Balwdin. Five Roman Gold Medallions, 1921. 103 pp. 8 pls. $1.50.
• Sydney P. Noe. Medallic Work of A. A. Weinman. 1921. 31 pp. 17 pls. $1.00.
• Gilbert S. Perez. The Mint of the Philippine Islands. 1921. 8 pp. 4 pls. 50c.
• David Eugene Smith, LL.D. Computing Jetons. 1921. 70 pp. 25 pls. $1.50.
• Edward T. Newell. The First Seleucid Coinage of Tyre. 1921. 40 pp. 8 pls. $1.00.
• Harrold E. Gillingham. French Orders and Decorations. 1922. 110 pp. 35 pls. $2.00.
• Howland Wood. Gold Dollars of 1858. 1922. 7 pp. 2 pls. 50c.
• R. B. Whitehead. Pre-Mohammedan Coinage of N. W. India. 1922. 56 pp. 15 pls. $2.00.
• George F. Hill. Attambelos I of Characene. 1922. 12 pp. 3 pls. $1.00.
• M. P. Vlasto. Taras Oikistes (A Contribution to Tarentine Numismatics). 1922. 234 pp. 13 pls. $3.50.
• Howland Wood. Commemorative Coinage of United States. 1922. 63 pp. 7 pls. $1.50.
• Agnes Baldwin. Six Roman Bronze Medallions. 1923. 39 PP. 6 pls. $1.50.
• Howland Wood. Tegucigalpa Coinage of 1823. 1923. 16 pp. 2 pls. 50c.
• Edward T. Newell. Alexander Hoards—II. Demanhur Hoard. 1923. 162 pp. 8 pls. $2.50.
• Harrold E. Gillingham. Italian Orders of Chivalry and Medals of Honour. 1923. 146 pp. 34 pls. $2.00.
• Edward T. Newell. Alexander Hoards—III. Andritsaena. 1924. 39 pp. 6 pls. $1.00.
• C. T. Seltman. A Hoard from Side. 1924. 20 pp. 3 pls. $1.00.
• R. B. Seager. A Cretan Coin Hoard. 1924. 55 pp. 12 pls. $2.00.
• Samuel R. Milbank. The Coinage of Aegina. 1925. 66 pp. 5 pls. $2.00.
• Sydney P. Noe. A Bibliography of Greek Coin Hoards. 1925. 275 pp. $2.50.
• Edward T. Newell. Mithradates of Parthia and Hyspaosines of Characene. 1925. 18 pp. 2 pls. 50c.
• Sydney P. Noe. The Mende (Kaliandra) Hoard. 1926. 73 pp. 10 pls. $2.00.
• Agnes Baldwin. Four Medallions from the Arras Hoard. 1926. 36 pp. 4 pls. $1.50.
• H. Alexander Parsons. The Earliest Coins of Norway. 1926. 41 pp. 50c.
• Edward T. Newell. Some Unpublished Coins of Eastern Dynasts. 1926. 21 pp. 2 pls. 50c.
• Harrold E. Gillingham. Spanish Orders of Chivalry and Decorations of Honour. 1926. 165 pp. 40 pls. $3.00.