When the first portion of this study of the coins of Metopontum was finished, there seemed reason to hope to embody the remainder of the silver coins in a second monograph; but as new dies came to my attention and the combinations of dies continued to increase, it became apparent that it would be necessary to divide what remained into at least two parts. The question which then arose was where that division should come.
It has generally been accepted that the silver coinage of Metapontum, except for the reduced weight issues on what has been conveniently called the Hannibalic standard, ceased with the undoing of the city at the hands of Cleonimos, and the subsequent capture by the Lucanians, shortly before 300 B.C.*
Previous to this date we have the gold issues and the tetradrachms with the Leukippos head, usually associated, and I believe properly so, with the ascendency of Alexander of Molossos. Before his coming there is no outstanding event which connects itself unmistakably with the coinage, and the problem therefore, became one of finding some point in the sequence of dies which would not disrupt the progression. That point seems to have been reached in connection with No. 506, which is to be aligned with the similar type of Terina, whose likeness to the decadrachm type employed by Euainetos at Syracuse, has been pointed out by Sir Arthur Evens *
The only approximation to a dating for this "echo" of the Euainetos type, is dependent on the dating assigned to the same type at Terina, but so little unanimity is to be expected on this question that I prefer to date the coins coming at the end of this second portion of my study as circa 360, trusting that the reasons behind this will become obvious in Part III.
It should be made plain that there is and that there can be no claim to finality in the arrangement here submitted. Hoards, as they are published, frequently record new varieties—sometimes entirely new types. Therefore it is to be expected that new die combinations will appear, and that through these, the reasoning behind some of my arrangements will be rectified or proved of little worth. Few of the hoards found in south Italy have been recorded intact when discovered, and in consequence the coinage of Metapontum , along with that of its neighbors, offers rich fruitage to study. In the meantime, it is hoped that this classification will make possible the identification of these pieces when they are found hereafter, and that it will do away with some of the ambiguous descriptions which make the previous records of such hoards of but little value.
A list of those to whom I have been under obligation for casts or for information regarding these coins, would include the officials of most of the National Cabinets and many private collectors of both Europe and America. To some I am under especial obligation and I am glad to express grateful thanks to Professor Dr. Kurt Regling of the Berlin Cabinet, who supplied me with the weights of the specimens in his care, in spite of the considerable personal inconvenience which this involved. I would also thank Mr. A. H. Lloyd, the Honorary Curator of the collection at Cambridge, for a list of his coins and their weights as well as for the casts of those requested by me.
For convenience of reference I wish to restate the convention used in the interests of space-economy in describing the placing of the ethnic on coins. The barley ear is indicated by a colon (:), the inscription is indicated as being on the left or the right of the ear, according as it is on the left or right of the colon; when the top of the inscription is next the ear or its awns, the inscription is overlined and the topmost letter is indicated by a period (.) over that letter; when the bases of the letters are next the awns the inscription is underlined and again the topmost letter is indicated by a dot over that letter. For example, indicates that the inscription in this case is to the right of the barley ear with the top of the letters nearest the outer awn and with the final letter at the top. In other words, it reads diagonally upwards to the right. A reference to the plates should always clarify any ambiguity. In the text the plate references are given in Roman numerals.
It should also be pointed out that duplication may have occurred in listing the respective coins under their several varieties, although every effort has been made to avoid this. When, however, neither the coins nor casts have been seen by me, it is not possible to identify whether or not these pieces have occurred in sales, and if the weights are not obtainable, this further check on duplication is absent. What results is that the specimens listed as g. and j. of a given variety may prove to be identical.
|*||Numismatic Chronicle, 1909, p. 253.|
|*||Numismatic Chronicle, 1912, p. 46 ff.|
It would not be so simple a matter to select the earliest of Metapontum's double-relief coinage-types, if we did not have a convenient muling of dies. Plate I shows a fairly homogeneous group save for the first coin with its star-like disposition of the barley grains. With this, as with the standing Achelous type, which follows it an obverse die from the incuse series is used. This star-like type does not recur except in the bronze issues, where it is threefold. A somewhat similar type is found among the coins of Melos in the 1907 hoard, but there also a decorative grouping of units is the likely explanation—it is difficult to see any significance in the analogy.
The literature concerning the Achelous type is considerable—in itself a witness to the importance of this type and inscription. Early in my study I came to the conclusion that previous discussions left little new regarding this type to be presented. Recently however, conditions have changed, as will be seen. On No. 311 Achelous is represented in full face—a very early occurrence especially noteworthy because of the small scale of the head. There is a die-break affecting the lower part of the face so that it is difficult to decide whether there is a flowing beard or whether what appears to be a flowing beard is a result of the die-break. The head shows the horns and ears of a bull, but the remainder of the face appears to be human—a conclusion which is unescapable if the "beard" is admitted as intentional. Tiny fillets hang from the ears or horns.
But these are not the only details which differentiate this presentation of the river-god from others. The standing figure is nude save for drapery (called a chlamys in most descriptions) knotted to both (?) arms at the elbow, and to be seen hanging in a curve behind the back. Both ends hang free—much as on the staters of Poseidonia. In his left hand is a long reed with several leaves showing—in his right, a phiale is held as though pouring a libation. The analogy with the type for Selinus is patent, and the accepted explanation that this implies a petition for remedying the unhealthful conditions due to the city's location would be apropriate for Metapontum. Not least in importance is the evidence that games in honor of the river-god were held at Metapontum.
Head's description is correct save in that it repeats an old error traceable to an engraving in Millingen's "Ancient Coins of Greek Cities" (Plate I, 21), and this mistake is repeated by others. A die-break which extends from the ear of Achelous to the outstretched arm, and from beneath the patera to the rim, partly obscuring the E is engraved as a dolphin in the portion affecting the E. None of the four coins known show this dolphin, and Head's "dolphin sometimes in the field" is a mistaken reliance on the statement of others.
The inscription is reproduced accurately in the Historia Numorum and affords valuable evidence for the epigraphist, since the coin must have been struck between 490 and 470 B.C. The coin is not as old as the diamond-shaped omicrons and theta, the three-stroke iota or the arrow-formed chi at first seem to indicate. The E is not of the archaic form found on the incuse coins, nor is the N as early as that on No. 135 (Part I).
Early in 1930, I received the cast of a stater of this type, acquired a little previously by the Naples Cabinet, and courteously sent me through the kindness of Mr. Albert Gallatin. This Achelous die is one entirely unknown heretofore. So striking are the differences, that enlargements are presented (cf. frontispiece). There is no good reason for thinking we have to do with a counterfeit, for the obverse die is identical for both varieties. In addition, the piece was obtained from a peasant along with other coins of little importance, for a nominal sum. It has been examined by a number of competent judges who agree that it is not to be suspected.
The head of the figure has short, thick horns, and ears larger than on the earlier variety. The drapery is more a matter of line than of modelling in relief. The figure is taller and very slender. But the greatest differences are in the inscription. This has taken the form which would result through having been copied on the die in the relative position in which it was found in the coin-pattern. Instead of being at the right, the name of the river-god is on the left of the figure, beginning beneath the patera rather than above it. AEʘΛON, instead of beginning at the top and reading downward (retrograde), begins at a point level with the knee of the figure and proceeds upward (also retrograde). Both omicrons of the first word are almost off-flan, but enough remains to show them circular in form. Both theta and omicron of AEΘΛON show rounded forms. There can hardly have been a considerable interval between the two dies, for the obverse, common to both, served also for one of the incuse forms (No. 261, Part I). It would be logical to conclude that the Heracles type, one of which shows that hero pouring a libation (No. 312) may also have been connected with games.
The fractional issues (diobols ?), on Plate XXVII, Nos. 347–350, show the more usual bull's head with a human face. There are at least four dies and some variation in style so that they may have extended over an interval of several years. On the other hand, except in subject, and then only with differences not easily to be reconciled, are they to be connected with the stater-type.
The two Heracles types Nos. 312, 313 share the same ethnic die with the first of the standing Apollo types—that they precede the Apollo type is indicated by the wearing of the die. In the first, Heracles bears lion-skin, bow and club. An object above his right hand has not been convincingly identified. We find the head of Heracles occurring later on the staters; in all three instances the type changes after a single die has been used.
The bow and the branch of Nos. 314–320, not to mention the treatment of the hair, make the identification of the figure as that of Apollo unmistakable. With the exception of No. 319, the variations are confined to the leaves on the branch. The altar is an obvious reminiscence of No. 312. So far as our present knowledge goes, No. 320 is the only occurrence at Metapontum of the hemi-stater—of division into halves instead of into thirds. The possible significance of this will be seen later.
A glance at Plate XXV will show that there is very little connection in point of style between these coins and those on the preceding plate. The change from the earlier series is striking—the use of the head for the type is a radical innovation for this mint. The quality of the workmanship is poorer—a condition which is even more apparent in the modelling of the barley-ear. Instead of a fine, decorative ear, there is a sickly, scrawny one, which makes it seem as though the tradition had been lost and a new beginning made. There is another radical difference; the badge of the city, the barley-ear, is no longer the anvil or obverse die as it had been since the institution of the double-relief coinage—it has now become the reverse or punch die. All these elements give support to the probability that there was an interval after the coins with the standing figures, an interval in which no coins were struck. And there is historical evidence which lends itself to this interpretation.
Previously in this work, historical or archeological questions which could not be shown to have a bearing on the coinage of the city have been avoided as irrelevant. So little is known of the history of Magna Graecia, and that little is so clouded with uncertainty that it has seemed wisest to allow the numismatic material to stand alone. The excavations conducted at Metapontum by De Luynes did not supply much material of the kind sought by the successful excavator of that day, and the poverty of the city in its later days makes digging there now less promising than at some other sites. As the climate is malarial, we shall in all probability have to wait many years before our scanty knowledge of Metapontum is increased by the spade of the archæologist and this in spite of the temple there, of which fifteen columns are still standing, of a second temple but little more than a mass of blocks, and of the known location of the theatre, which is practically untouched.1
There is, however, a historical occurrence which may explain the gap in the coinage which we have just been noticing. Herodotus tells us (Herodot., VII, 170) of a war between the Iapygians (Messapians) and the allied Tarentines and Rhegians which resulted in a disastrous defeat of the latter—a defeat which he characterizes as "the greatest which in his memory ever befell the Greek people." Diodorus 2 places the beginning of this war in the fourth year of the seventy-sixth olympiad (473 B.C.). Aristotle,3 speaks of the great number of the Tarentine nobility killed and of the change in the form of the Tarentine constitution which was the aftermath. Pais, in an effort to explain a difficulty4 in the account of Diodorus 5 states as his opinion that Metapontum was at this time under the hegemony of Tarentum.6
If it were true that Metapontum was even temporarily under the domination of Tarentum at the time of this defeat, she would have shared in the conditions following upon it, even if her soldiers did not participate in the struggle. This, however, might with equal probability have resulted were she passive, since the economic consequences could hardly have failed to extend over a wide area. There is, on the other hand, one bit of evidence in support of his position which Pais does not mention. The staters of Doric Tarentum were divided into halves, while the Achaean cities divided their staters into thirds. No. 320 is the only instance at Metapontum where the division is into halves, and coming as this does at the end of this series, it might indicate a short-lived predominance of Tarentine influence at Metapontum. The group of staters with the standing figures is not without some analogy to that of the seated oekist at Tarentum.
What remains is that there seems to have been a sensible interval during which Metapontum did not issue staters, and that this interval apparently coincides with the years following the defeat of the Tarentine-Rhegian forces at the hands of the Iapy-gians shortly after 473 B.C.
To justify the placing of the coins on Plate XXV in the order shown, it is necessary to work backward from Plate XXXIII. Here is to be found the wonderful design with the figure of Apollo seated—a die which at first glance we might expect to find associated with the group showing Apollo standing, on Plate XXIV. This die, however, is muled with a reverse that is shared by No. 430. It shows a barley ear that is broad, spread, and entirely too large for the flan. The other obverse with which it is muled, bears the head of Heracles, who, singularly enough, appears also in the series on Plate XXIV. This Heracles head shows the pupil of the eye modelled, and a careful examination of the coins on Plates XXV to XVIII reveals that these coins do not. The indication of the iriș thus becomes a very valuable criterion. By back-tracking from the Heracles head group, it will be found that the coins on Plate XXV fall into the order shown—the connecting steps will be taken up as we proceed.
The plant on the reverse of 321 is identified as a poppy7 and may therefore be taken as a reference to Demeter, with whom the poppy is associated. If the object on the reverse is a torch, it may be an allusion to Demeter's search for Persephone, and this would also explain the veil she is wearing on Nos. 322 and 323, where the identification as Demeter seems incontrovertible. The figure of the "hastening Demeter'' recurs on one of the staters at the other extreme of the city's coinage. If the advanced style of these two dies seems disturbing when compared with those which follow, it might be pointed out that both reverses lack the leaf which regularly accompanies the civic badge on the succeeding dies. The incuse pieces are also without the leaf.
The Berlin specimen of No. 321 is struck over a stater of Croton, apparently one of the late varieties of the thick incuse types; the rings and knob of the tripod basin may be distinguished at the lower right of the obverse. This circumstance is in favor of its being placed here rather than at the beginning of the double-relief coinage, as Dr. Regling proposed in 1906.8 The similarity of the treatment of the barley ear on these coins of Plate XXV affords ocular proof that they belong together. Such details as the forms of the letters and the arrangement of the inscriptions support the evidence of the similar modelling of the heads, the treatment of the profile and the placement of the heads on the flans.
The procedure on the reverses of Nos. 322–323 is interesting. On the reverse of the first, IIONT has been recut over an earlier inscription, apparently, but not certainly, META retrograde. The length of the ethnic on these coins is unusual at this period. Is the carrying over of the II on No. 324 and the filling of the field with a leaf an echo of the procedure on the two earlier dies? Note, please, that this form of leaf appears on the obverse of Nos. 331 an 332 along with three other"symbols"—a bipennis, a branch remotely resembling the silphium of Cyrene, and a B-like object which also occurs on the conage of Croton and which is like the briquet or fire-steel of the middle ages.
In identification of the types, there is room for much speculation. On Nos. 322 and 323 we almost certainly have Demeter—witness the veil and torch. No. 324 is unique, but despite the similarity in workmanship and general appearance, there can be little positiveness as to type unless a more complete specimen comes to light. The fillet and necklace of Nos. 331–332 identify the type as feminine, although the rugged profile might otherwise have pointed to the alternative. I have no interpretation or identification to offer either for the type or the symbols. The rusted state of the die of 331 (it is the same as that of 330), may indicate its having lain idle for an interval. The abundance of symbols, and their use in connection with the head, is to be found nowhere else in the city's coinage.
Although the coins with the Apollo Karneios type coins seem to follow upon those of Plate XXV, because this order depends upon the muling with a plated coin, it can, as yet, hardly be considered as established beyond question. No alternative has been found, however. The acceptance of the identification of the figure as Apollo Karneios is dictated by the reasoning presented by Imhoof-Blumer.9 Head suggests the Libyan Dionysus or "possibly Apollo Karneios." A. B. Cook, in his Zeus,10 feels sure that this is Zeus Ammon. The scholars of the Berlin Cabinet, because of the moist appearance of the hair, believe this a river-god. Since we have here (363–365) and among the later diobols a youthful as well as a bearded horned head, Imhoof-Blumer points out that we can hardly have at approximately the same time a youthful and a mature Zeus Ammon. He also submits that the river-god is usually shown with the horns of a steer, and that Zeus Ammon is usually represented with a human ear rather than the one shown on this type. As there is every condition favoring the worship of Apollo Karneios at Metapontum, and since one of the inscriptions found on the site bears a dedication to Apollo,11 to say nothing of other coin-types which unmistakably refer to him, there is ample support for the opinion of Imhoof-Blumer.
These fractional issues have been grouped arbitrarily on Plate XXVII, partly for convenience, but chiefly because any definitive arrangement of them without further data from hoards must be conjectural. Deductions from style with pieces so small is hazardous, and there is left only analogy of type and weight, and again the smallness makes metrological exactness difficult.
No. 346, a unique piece in the Berlin Museum, may have had some connection with the incuse bull's-head type shown on Plate XXII of Part I. The weights of the incuse diobols range from about 0.98 to 1.32; this coin weighs 0.37. The unidentified symbol (an ant or lizard) might connect it with the late thick-flan staters (209–231).
Of Nos. 347–350, I have been able to find but ten specimens. The weights range from 0.66 to 0.80. If the identification of this type as Achelous is accepted, it is reasonable to place the issue at the same time as the stater (No. 311) referring to the games. The two annulets on the reverse might be taken to indicate the circulation of these pieces as sixths or diobols; they also occur on the types with a barley-corn incuse, of approximately the same range of weights (Part I. Nos. 297–309). The symbol in the right field of the obverse of 350 is a tiny lizard (cf. Part I, Nos. 209–219), a recurrence of the symbol on several of the incuse thick-flan dies. Finally, the use of the barley-ear for the obverse type places the issue before the staters which appear on Plate XXV, after which the ear is relegated to the reverse.
Nos. 351–357, with the triple-crescent type, and apparently obols, weigh from 0.49 to 0.62, with a single specimen, 360, of what is apparently the double, which weighs 1.01 (worn). In the Historia Numorum this type is placed with the incuse issues occurring before 470 B.C., a course for which it is difficult to see the necessity because there are incuse fractions which fit there better than these do. The form of the barley-ear varies greatly, ranging from very low relief to quite the opposite. With the exception of No. 361, no symbols have been found, and unfortunately this one is indefinite. The three crescents on the reverse have become conventional, or rather mechanical with 357, affording a further indication of the type's having persisted over a considerable period. The use of the ear as the obverse type, however, prevents assigning this series to a period later than that of the coins on Plate XXV. It is possible that they bridged the transition from the incuse to the double-relief form.
Nos. 361 and 362 are each known in single specimens—the weight of the latter is 0.40. The ivy (?) leaf symbol is the only connection with the stater series, unless we associate these pieces with No. 321, where both obverse and reverse are also occupied by the barley-ear—compare No. 324 where the leaf symbol occurs in a similar position but on other side of type, and 331–332 where there is such a leaf on the obverse along with other symbols.
Nos. 363–365 would logically be associated with the staters shown on Plate XXVI. The weights range from 1.02 to 1.35, which makes this a diobol. This issue is not to be confused with a much later one with a plough, or an owl devouring a grasshopper, as symbols.
One cannot go far in the study of the coins of Metapontum without having to face the question of plated pieces. They occur in the thick-flan incuse pieces, and occasionally, but much more rarely, among the earlier incuse of spread flans. A re-examination of the evidence regarding these fourrée pieces must some day be attempted, but this evidence is very widely scattered, and generalizations usually leave the impression that all of the elements which must enter into the problem have not been considered. My effort in recording what the Metapontine series has to show, is to be exceedingly scrupulous in statement.
In his valuable classification of the Tarentine Oekist-type, M. Vlasto distinguishes between plated pieces which he calls barbaric imitations, and others which seem to be in the nature of trial-pieces struck in the mint, and occasionally sharing dies muled with unquestionably authentic issues.12 M. Vlasto's position that some plated pieces are official and some are not, is supported by the evidence of the Metapontine series. It would be safest to regard as "official" only those which are found muled with other dies in coins of full weight, which are unquestionably genuine.
In a supplementary plate, certain of these plated coins are shown. Often they are of such poor style and workmanship that it is not easy to determine which types are being copied. Unfortunately, our problem is complicated by the so-called "barbaric imitations," (cf. Nos. 343 and 344), and Plate XXVI of this monograph illustrates these complications. The obverse of No. 333 is a fairly close copying of that of Nos. 325–331, and only by close comparison will it be seen that it is weaker workmanship. The next coin on the plate, No. 334, has an obverse with modelling that differs from Nos. 335–7 and 339–341 which follow it, but the same reverse as No. 333. The weights of the four known specimens of 334 are low, and more than one of them is to be suspected of being plated. But this reverse, as well as that of the plated piece which precedes it, is almost identical with that of No. 335, which is next on the plate, and of which there are four specimens of full weight. Furthermore, No. 338, of which there are three specimens known, is under-weight in all three cases, and is catalogued as plated in at least one of them—the reverse occurs, however, in No. 340—a coin weighing 7.39 in Mr. Lloyd's collection. For comparison with the workmanship of the "barbaric" style, we need go no further than Nos. 343 and 344 on the same plate. No. 342 with the badly worn obverse die and the reverse die broken across the ear diagonally downward to the right, I have been unable to trace in any other specimens. For further data regarding plated staters, see page 51.
Can anyone question that we have Demeter's daughter in the type on Plates XXVIII and XXIX? Elsewhere we are sometimes at a loss in knowing whether Demeter or Persephone is intended—a possibly deliberate condition with the Greek whose symbolism did not sharply distinguish between the mother grain-stalk (Demeter) and the seed, which, like the daughter, must spend certain months of the year underground, and whose reappearance in the tiny grain-shoots of the spring was as joyously greeted as the return of the daughter. This might be called the Kore type, because of the obviousness of the intention to depict the just-achieved maturity of a maiden, which makes this head among the most beautiful in Greek art.
The dies of the coins on Plates XXVIII and XXIX, are among the most difficult of the Metapontine issues to differentiate. Significant details are frequently obliterated through wear or injudicious cleaning, or because of the placement on the flan. To support their position following the horned male head of Plate XXVI, we have first of all the condition that almost without exception these staters show the eyeball without the iris—the change comes in a following series. Further than this, none of the reverses show the bird or insect symbols which appear in the groups which follow. Besides this, they agree in style with the reverses of the preceding plate, especially in the placing of the ethnic and the form of the letters; a comparison of the unquestionably "official" obverse dies (Nos. 335–7 and Nos. 339–40) on Plate XXVI, with the heads of these two plates, reveals technical similarities which are obscured by the difference in types.
Although the group is an extended one, the number of coins from each combination of dies is seldom great, the largest being eleven (No. 383). The barbaric imitations have been placed at the end (Nos. 388–9). It will simplify comparisons to note that Nos. 384–388 are without the fillet-loop behind the head, and that Nos. 373–377 have the reverse inscriptions downward. The die-breaks are often of great help in establishing identities, but they fail, of course, if the piece is from an early state of the die. A very singular condition arises with No. 375, which, without the three specimens recorded might be viewed with suspicion. For this coin, two reverse dies were used. For a time the mint may have been without a single obverse die.
The absence of a necklace throughout the entire group is noteworthy, and among the technical details, the timid treatment of the often-obliterated earring is in contrast to the handling which it receives later with Aristoxenos and his successors. The flan is broader and the dies larger than with most others in the city's coinage in double relief.
The coins on Plates XXX and XXXI resolve themselves into four groups roughly corresponding to the rows on the Plates. The Hygieia type No. 411, is a development of the coins immediately preceding it (Nos. 406–9). No. 405 shares its reverse with No. 406, and the progressing die-break shows that No. 406 is later than No. 405. The treatment of the barley-ear in Nos. 400–2, groups them with No. 404, and the working of the eyeball precludes their coming later in the series as a comparison with No. 411 will demonstrate. The group on the first row of Plate XXX should precede those on the lower row, because of the use of subsidiary symbols on the reverses in the second group.
From the ears of barley in the field and in the hair of the goddess, coupled with the maturity of the face, there can he little opposition to the identification of the type on Plate XXX as Demeter.
The placing of the barley-sprays in the field of Nos. 391–392 is not without an eye to the decorative effect, but it is not so happy in No. 393. Two plated specimens (No. 394) are shown as a demonstration of how far short these pieces fall in point of style. The imitation of the leaves below the neck on the obverse is meaningless, while on the reverse, the feeble modelling of the barley-ear and the poor lettering are hard to understand in view of the close approximation to the model on the obverse. In No. 398, one barley-ear projects above the forehead—a second one, which is usually partly obliterated by wear, is to be seen on sharply struck specimens lying in the hair along the line of the fillet.
The reverse symbol of Nos. 397–399 is a praying mantis (mantis religiosa). There is a mention of this insect by Anacreon (10, 3) as well as other writers. The primary meaning of the word is "prophet" or "one who divines," and the appropriateness of the appellation is apparent to anyone who is familiar with the mantis. Any explanation of a significance with which this symbol may be supposed to have been attended must take into account not only the locust and the bird with upraised wings of the succeeding numbers, but the crayfish (or lobster) on Plate XXXII as well. The mantis may have been mistakenly classed with the locust and the bird as a grain-destroyer and their use as symbols interpreted as propitiatory in intention, but we can hardly add the crayfish to this class. Inanimate symbols, along with others like these, occur on Plates XXXIII and XXXIV. No. 396 is known in a single specimen. No. 399, though of very poor style, is not dangerously below standard weight and does not seem to be plated.
Nos. 400–401 are obviously modelled on the earlier type—compare Plate XXIX. The treatment of the eyeball and the absence of reverse symbols place it here. I have not been able to fit in Nos. 402–403 satisfactorily anywhere. The hair bandeau reminds of the types on Plate XXIX, and the style of the barley-ear is that of the coins on Plate XXVI, but the use of the letter Ξ, behind the neck is a much later practice, although it also occurs exceptionally on Nos. 404–405.
The position of No. 405 is fixed by the muling of the reverse die with No. 406. The change of scale in No. 411 (No. 410 is left blank) is interesting because of the close following of the type in all other details. The inscription on the neck-base—⊢YΓIEIA —seems, therefore, in the nature of an epithet rather than an identification of the type as may be the intention with later inscriptions in the same position, such as AIIOΛ and NIKA (Nos. 460 and 488). The bud beneath the chin in the prototype and the absence of the barley-ears in both varieties, might be interpreted as indicating Persephone rather than Demeter. It would, on the contrary, be more reasonable to think of the type of No. 411 as that of the daughter, and the maturer type which precedes it as Demeter. A misreading of the Hygieia inscription led Raoul-Rochette to identify this as the signature of an artist "Augias"— a confusion not difficult to understand.
With the coins on Plate XXXII, there is but little to add to what will be noted in connection with the alteration of dies (page 27) or with the discussion of the sequence of the signatures of Aristoxenos (page 30). The persistence of the Hygieia type may have a significance that escapes us, as may also the use of the wreath encircling the type. This convention is to be found also at Terina, and, at Rhegium, at an earlier date. At Terina, however, there is an approximation of type as well as of its use in a wreath—a possible indication of a market for their produce shared by the two cities. No. 417 is of very crude workmanship when compared with the others of the group—the condition is true of the reverse also—have we here to do with another of the "barbaric imitations?'' The manner of dividing the ethnic in No. 415 is distinctive—it recurs in Nos. 427 and 435, but not elsewhere. The change of the inscription of No. 420 from HOMONOLA to DAMATER on 421 may be taken as an indication that the use on the former die is that of an epithet. If this be conceded, the same conclusion would follow for the HYGIEIA type. Lastly, the progression toward the exquisiteness of the Demeter type of No. 422 will bear mentioning.
In Part I of this study (pages 23–28) evidence showing the alterations in finished dies was submitted; to that I would now add further evidence that the practice did not stop with the incuse form. Most of these statements can be followed much easier with the coins involved, or with casts of them, but a number are apparent even where photographic reproduction has minimized the relief. It is, of course, not possible to show all stages in the breaking down of a die in more than a few instances, but deductions based on occurrences of a single specimen from a die have been avoided. In the more startling of these alterations I have not relied on my own observations solely, but I have submitted them for confirmation to the experiences of my colleagues, Messrs. Newell and Wood, to whom I make grateful acknowledgment. In addition to other instances quoted, the practice of adding to dies finds illustration at Terina in the piece discussed by Sir Arthur Evans (Num. Chron., 1912, pp. 59 ff.). In this instance, a symbol was added to the reverse exergue, and a monogram to the obverse. The practice is not uncommon at Velia.
The dies for the double relief issues are in the beginning slightly convex, so that the coins are concave on the reverse. A number of the pieces illustrated show die outlines. With few exceptions these show the dies themselves to have been circular or nearly circular in shape. On one exception, the obverse die appears to be hexagonal; others are apparently oval rather than circular. The absence of this concavity may sometimes be noted on the dies which are to be suspected of being unofficial. Cf. No. 534.
By comparing Nos. 418 and 419, it will be seen that the encircling wreath about the head on the obverse is identical for both coins in its placing with relation to the features. The die broke over the ear, the flaw beginning in the hair above, and extended down and included the ear. Apparently an effort was made to repair this damage by deepening the die over the cheek and neck. Re-cutting the enclosing wreath may have been with the intent of preventing further widening of the seam by having the wreath serve as a rim to take up the stress due to the expansion of the metal in striking. This deepening left an opportunity on the level of the neck truncation for the addition of a signature of which at least five letters can be read certainly—"APIΣT."
This signature is not present in any of the staters in the earlier state of the die. It occupies the space previously used for the epithet—⊢YΓIEIA—occurring on a single die (Nos. 411–13 inclusive).
Imhoof-Blumer in the Revue Suisse for 1908, page 137, calls attention to one of the most interesting die alterations in this entire series. No. 420 shows a head to the left with the inscription −OMONOIA. There are traces of a die-break extending from the crown of the head in a curved line below the ear and including the earring. In No. 421, we have the same die and because of the die-break already described, unmistakably identical, but now having, instead of the inscription found on No. 421, a "torch'' and the inscription ΔAM—(ATEP). Above the line of the torch can be seen the faint traces of the top of the N as it appeared on the initial state of the die. Beside this change, the necklace which in the first state was a simple line across the throat with a pendant in front, has now been altered so that it is a necklace of beads. The form of this recut bead necklace is strikingly similar to that of No. 422, which is signed by Aristoxenos. Can it be that we have a second die altered by his hand? Another condition, however, which seems not to have been noticed by Imhoof-Blumer, is that the reverse die also exists in more than one state. It is an unusual die in that the divided inscription shows the A in an inverted position above the tip of the leaf to the left. Other divided inscriptions have occurred in the preceding group but none in quite this form. In addition, however, there is a slight flaw just at the extremity of the leaf, and directly below the letter A, and this flaw in conjunction with the unusual position of the letter enables us to identify the die when it recurs in No. 446. The flaw at the extremity of the leaf now shows a considerable increase in size and there is a further break across the barley ear diagnonally downward to the right. There has been added, however, between the wreath and parallel with the outermost awn of the ear, the letters ΛY retrograde—letters which occur on No. 447, and on the obverse of Nos. 477–9, as ΛYΔO (retrograde).
Another interesting die-break is to be found in Nos. 487 and 488. On this reverse a diagonal break below the pear symbol is to be seen in the field to the right and it gradually develops to include a larger segment although there is apparently some effort to adjust the flan to the broken die so that the defect is minimized.
No. 465 shows a somewhat different break, also in the reverse die, which obscures the insect symbol in most of the specimens that have come down to us. Unfortunately, the piece showing the earliest condition of the break is too poorly preserved for illustration.
No. 450 shows a very beautiful head with the inscription NIKA to be seen on perfectly centered specimens. A specimen in Vienna shows no signs of the break which, in later specimens for this die, begins above the ear and extends out over the cheek and back below the ear and across the neck like a large square "C." This defect seems not so much a breaking away of the die as a thin surface flaking or possibly a sinking-in of the die's surface due to insufficient hardening of the metal. Because the specimens available show the development of this flaw so satisfactorily, the various stages are illustrated in seven specimens. In the last state, No. 452, it will be seen that the die has been re-cut below the diadem so that the face is in high relief where before the relief was moderate. The whole aspect of the type has been modified so that there would be difficulty in recognizing it as the same head which began as No. 450a.
In No. 525 we have another unusual reverse break which seems to have affected only the symbol in the field to the right which is apparently a sea-shell in some measure resembling a murex. One specimen only is known in this state. On the reverse of No. 526 we find an almost undistinguishable symbol which on comparison proves to be the one we are discussing. It now has, however, on a small cartouche below it the inscription ⊢EP and of this state three specimens are known. This might be considered evidence for supposing that ⊢EP was a magistrate whose symbol was the murex and that his initials were added after the break had developed, and when the symbol could no longer be recognized. If this could be established, we should gain support for the identification of all the letters beneath symbols which occur on the later issues as being subject to the same interpretation. Unfortunately we have later, different names accompanying the same symbol.
At Metapontum, the name of Aristoxenos occurs, in full or in part, on at least six obverse dies and on two reverses—the identification on one of these latter, No. 433, is possibly questionable. At Heracleia, his name occurs on both the obverse and reverse dies of the same stater—hidden at the base of the crest of the Attic helmet on the one side, and between the feet of Heracles struggling with the Nemean lion on the reverse. Whether we have his name in an abbreviated form at Tarentum, is a moot question which need not complicate our present discussion—I shall submit reasons for my position that this is not a necessary conclusion in a later study of the occurrence of the names API and APIΣTI at Metapontum.
Nowhere else in Metapontum's coinage, and rarely elsewhere in the coinage of Magna Graecia, do we have the artist's name given in full. If this is not to be accepted as an indication of the honor in which Aristoxenos was held, is it not significant of his indispensability? One who was subservient would hardly risk consequences by such an innovation.
The preceding study of altered or re-cut dies is necessary before examining the signed dies of Aristoxenos, because as has already been shown, in No. 419; we have a die that has been deepened. Moreover, if the re-cut die for No. 421 was not altered by Aristoxenos, we have at least evidence that someone repaired it, and we may conclude that the die could be repaired more rapidly than a new one could be cut. In other words, the mint may have been without a die cutter for a period, a significant fact, as will be seen later.
The study of the workmanship of Aristoxenos on his signed dies is now in order. On the first of these, No. 422, at the base of the neck, one reads APIΣTOΞE. The reading is certain because a number of fleur-de-coin specimens occur in the Palombara Hoard 13 and are now in several private cabinets. The mature head represents Demeter, as will be seen by comparison with No. 421, which is so inscribed. There has been much discussion of the significance of single ivy leaf in the wreath of laurel, but without any convincing conclusions. This phenomena also occurs on the early staters of Thurium (Jameson 352). The proportions in the relief and scale are admirable.
The second type is in strong contrast. The relief is of the rarest delicacy. The artist has been exquisitely successful in conveying the beauty of a maiden approaching maturity. The drawn-in chin and the delicate profile give a sense of modesty and reserve. Beyond faintest doubt this is Demeter's virgin daughter. The hair is tucked in at the back over what appears to be a continuation of the ampyx seen above the forehead. The austerity of the design is lessened by the loose locks above the ear. The earring, the lion-head pendent to the necklace, as well as the treatment given to the signature, are worthy of note. How unobtrusive this signature is; and yet how perfect its relation to the head.
It seems scarcely to be hoped that any addition to the occurrences of the signature of so well-known an engraver as Aristoxenos remained to be discovered. There is considerable satisfaction in recording an unpublished die signed by him. On the reverse of a unique piece, in Mr. Newell's cabinet, hidden along the edge of the barley-leaf in the smallest letters imaginable, occurs the name of our artist. It is written out as fully as on any of the obverse signatures, and possibly it is complete, although the piece illustrated is worn, and I am unable to be certain. On two other occurrences of this die, muled with another signed obverse, the signature is even less distinct. It is to be hoped that a fleur-de-coin specimen will be discovered in the cabinet of some fortunate collector and that a better preserved piece may settle this question. Nor does the style of this die belie the signature. Although the reproduction can give but a poor idea of the delicacy of the relief, this is not so with the design. How admirable the insect is in its proportionate relation to the ear of barley! The inscription, too, in the size of its letters, is just as it should be. The angle of the awns with the ear, the curve of the leaf, and the delightful combination of all these elements pay further tribute to an artist who could realize their decorative value and express it. Small wonder that he signed his work!
Nos. 433 and 434 seem a working-over of the type of No. 424. Some may think the result not so pleasing. The hair treatment is much less simple, and there is a consequent lessening of its effectiveness. The form of the pendent is changed. The reverse does not suffer by comparison with that of No. 424. It shows the artistry of the man who, rather than repeat himself has made a new problem out of very much the same material. In 1869, Dr. Imhoof-Blumer, that great student of the coinage of the Greeks, first published the Heracleian stater (Berliner Blätter, 1870, pp. 32–35) with the signature of Aristoxenos. In discussing further occurrences of our artist's signature, he called attention to the minute letter A on the reverse of this stater of Metapontum. It is found on the lowest grain in the right row. He pointed out that this had not been noticed by Raoul-Rochette in his well-known "Letter to M. le Duc de Luynes," published in 1831, and emphasized the significance of the repetition of the signature of the artist who had designed the obverse.
If, as is possible, this is an abbreviation of the signature of Aristoxenos, we may compare this reverse die with that of No. 424. There are the same exquisite qualities in the design. The curve of the leaf, the placing and the prominence given to the letters, and the proportions of the ear, all reveal the taste and skill of a master. Were it not for the occurrence of the extended signature of Aristoxenos on the reverse of 424, there might be reason to question Imhoof-Blumer's identification of this letter and consider it a die-break—it is not too convincing in any of the specimens which it has been possible for me to examine.
On Aristoxenos' last signed type (439–445), as with the three preceding, Persephone is to be recognized. This coin evidences anew the versatility of our artist. The profile of the goddess is less winsome than in No. 424, but how perfectly he has modelled the hair as it falls over the neck. The single spray of barley, too, is very happy in its simple directness. There is less of the maidenly immaturity here than in the second type. The first three letters of his name occur on the base of the neck. In all of these dies it is noticeable that Aristoxenos has frankly accepted the limitations of his medium. The results are so wonderful because they show that he has made of these limitations the ladder to his success. There is no under-cutting, no effect gained by exaggeration of one detail at the expense of the others, but there is a thorough understanding of the possibilities of his die medium. And because the strain is evenly distributed, because there are no outlines in high relief to develop into cleavages, this die occurs in combination with no less than seven reverse dies, none of which is found in any other combination.
Since Aristoxenos worked for at least two mints, and as his signed dies are in the proportion of two for Heracleia to eight for Metapontum, it is probable that he worked at the latter place for the longer period of time. It does not necessarily follow that he abandoned the one to undertake work for the other. He seems to have returned to Metapontum after at least one sojourn elsewhere, for his signed dies at Metapontum are to be divided into at least two classes. In the first, in its two dies, Nos. 419 and 422, Aristoxenos depicts types which had occurred previously. One of these, as has been shown, is the Hygieia type, No. 419, a re-cut die which is not signed in the original state. This, as we have said, may warrant the interpretation that the die was needed so urgently that re-cutting was preferred to waiting for a new die. It may, but probably does not indicate the earliest appearance of Aristoxenos at this mint, since he may have been the author of dies not signed.
In the second class of the work signed for Metapontum, the types are unlike any unsigned dies that have preceded. It would be permissable, therefore, to postulate an interval between the two groups. It is into some such an interval that the Heracles-head group (Nos. 428–430) must be fitted.
A stylistic comparison of the work of Aristoxenos with the Heracles head or with the three reverses associated with it, affords no ground for thinking he could have cut these dies. They are by a distinctly heavier hand, although the forcefulness of the modelling is undeniable. Observe first, however, that the head is larger than those on any of the preceding staters—not only the die, but the flan is larger. The bold relief of the head takes this increase of the size of the die into consideration, but the head is still too large for the flan, notwithstanding. This die-cutter was obviously not at home in the scale used at Metapontum. The same condition of unaccustomed restraint is to be seen in the three reverse dies. They, too, have nothing in common with any other barley ears in the coinage. The seated Apollo, however, is unlike either the Heracles head or these over-grown barley-ears, and it is difficult to associate it with them as the work of the same hand.
There would be less reason for thinking of Aristoxenos as the author of the seated Apollo figure if we did not have as his signed work the design of the struggle with the Nemean lion. A comparison, despite the difference in theme, shows the same breadth of treatment, and in the Heracleian stater a fitting of the design to the field that distinguishes a worker in relief from a sculptor in the full round. Just such a fitting of the scale and relief of the figure to the size of the die marks the seated Apollo design, and the absence of these qualities in the Heracles head refutes any idea that one hand can have done both. Does it not seem that we have another instance of Aristoxenos having been called to fill the breach— just such another case as we have seen with the Hygieia die mentioned previously, or with the HOMONOIA—DAMATER type? Being called upon to furnish a die which would replace the Heracles head—a die measuring 22 + mm. as against about 18 mm. customary on the preceding Hygieia series, the artist has created a design which takes full advantage of the increase in size, and which stylistically is quite in keeping with the signed group at Heracleia. Who, beside Aristoxenos, was capable of this?
It does not follow that the Heracles head group should be placed in the series where it is placed on the plates. This grouping is somewhat a matter of convenience, designed to permit the comparison of Aristoxenos' signed work with the seated-Apollo die. The treatment of the eye-ball precludes placing it before the types on Plates XXX and XXXI. The animate subsidiary symbols of the reverse preclude its fitting into the later groups, which are, in almost every instance, connected by muled dies. With additional specimens from some still-to-be-discovered hoard, it may be possible to be more definite in assigning the placement of this group.
With the coins on the preceding plate we come definitely to the end of the pieces signed by Aristoxenos, and the workmanship of the succeeding staters supports the conclusion that, whatever the reason, we no longer have Aristoxenos working at Metapontum. It is not surprising to find types similar to his persisting,—Nos. 446–8 are fairly close to Nos. 435–37; the head is to the right rather than to the left, but the cutting is less skillful and the scale is not quite so well suited to the size of the die.
In looking closely at Nos. 446–8 and 477–479, certain differences in the obverse dies and a very wide divergence in the reverses, force themselves upon the attention. The repairing of the reverse die of No. 446, and the addition of the letters ΛY has already been mentioned—the muling of this with the Homonoia die and the reverse symbols on Nos. 478 and 479, establish that the obverse die of Nos. 446–8 is earlier than that of Nos. 477–9. This manner of dividing the ethnic on No. 447, strange to say, does not occur elsewhere on the double relief coinage. Besides this we find the reverse of No. 448 showing the tiny letters ΛY within the terminal curve of the leaf.
The obverse die of Nos. 477–479 next claims attention. Here in minute letters beneath the sphendone, the inscription OΔYΛ appears. Reading this retrograde as with No. 446, we have what is probably the name appearing on Nos. 446 and 448. Does the presence of this signature indicate repairing or recutting as it unquestionably did with No. 446? An unqualified answer is not warranted by the specimens known at present, but I believe this to be the case. The relief is higher and I cannot see that the changes in the later state are not entirely possible. The chief of these are the elongating of the neck and the alteration in the form of the earring. The size of the leech-shaped earring has necessitated a heavy globular form on No. 478. The line of the necklace is clear in the first die, while the loop at the back is faint. In the second die, the loop is easily distinguishable, while the line of the necklace has disappeared in the postulated deepening, and the pendant has taken another angle due to the lengthened neck which now touches the enclosing circle as it did not do in the earlier die.
Looking at the reverses of the second die, Nos. 477–9, we find further matter for thought. None of these reverses are muled with the earlier die. One of them shows an inanimate symbol as well as a longer inscription than is usual up to this time. The locust motif of No. 478 seems copied from No. 450. The A of No. 477 has the double-stroke cross-bar which is to be found in Nos. 483, 484 and 486. To top it all, the reverse die of No. 479 occurs again, with No. 480, in a series that also contains a reverse die with ΛY.
Because all these circumstances point in one direction, are we not forced to the conclusion that there must have been an interval between these two obverse dies? I believe that we are, and into this interval the group of coins on Plate XXXV and the two following plates seems to fit. It is first necessary to establish that these constitute a group. There are seven obverse types some of which have several variant dies. On two of these appear inscriptions on the base of the neck,— AΠIOΛ and ΠOΛY. The detail of a wreath of leaves, or of a band combined with a wreath of leaves, is repeated almost throughout the "group." Further than this there is found what has not occurred heretofore, the single letter Σ in three instances as well as this letter combined with Π in two cases, and T in two others. Although fairly homogeneous in style, it has not been found possible to demonstrate any progression, and the absence of mulings makes the ordering within the "group" a matter of judgment. It does appear, notwithstanding this, that this "group" properly precedes No. 480, from which point the mulings establish a sequence at the further end of which these coins could scarcely come. Such details as the presence of the reverse subsidiary symbols preclude their introduction at an earlier stage, and the absence of symbols on the types shown on Plate XXXVI, prohibit their later dating. The reasoning behind the order within the "group" will be submitted as we proceed. A second specimen of No. 478 has been shown on Plate XXXIX (out of numerical order) for the sake of permitting comparisons.
The first of the types on this plate, because of the diadem with its ivy leaves, is unmistakably Dionysus. As has been shown, this belongs with the other dies bearing Σ or ΣΠ and because of the style of the barley-ear and the absence of symbols, can hardly come later in the city's coinage. There is wide variation in the style of the reverse dies—judging from these alone, one would hardly place them in juxtaposition, but since they are muled with but two obverse dies; there is no other choice. The crudeness of the reverses of Nos. 456 and 457 is in strong contrast with the finish of No. 453—compare the letters also for their wide variations. So striking is this divergence in No. 457, that I suspect we may have here another die by the hand that cut those of Nos. 531 and 532. A comparison of the reverses supports this, the more so that a similar crude style is not to be found elsewhere among the city's issues. Plated coins of this type are found.14
The type on No. 460 is described by Imhoof-Blumer as a"Panin"—the delicate horn precludes the identification as Dionysus, and the femininity of the head supports the position of Imhoof-Blumer. This head would take a place among the "heads of nymphs" as the uninscribed and symbol-lacking types that follow are usually described.
The head of Apollo (Nos. 461–462) is unmistakable, because of the laurel wreath. It offers some complications, however, because of the inscription on the base of the neck—A<OΛ—which, from its form one would not hesitate to accept as an artist's signature. On specimen No. 463g this inscription has been read by Mr. E. S. G. Robinson 15 as ⊢AP. I have not seen this piece, and on none of those of which I have obtained casts are these letters clear-cut enough to confirm this reading. The well preserved specimen in Berlin shown on Plate XXXVI, No. 463, seems to be indecipherable.
AIΠOΛ has figured in the literature regarding artists's signatures ever since Raoul Rochette's path-breaking letter to the Due de Luynes, and opinion seems fairly divided between regarding this as the beginning of some artist's name, such as Apollonius on the one hand, or as an identification of the type on the other. If we conclude that this is an artist's signature, what shall we say of the sigma which appears below it? If Mr. Robinson's reading for No. 463g is accepted, the second theory is ruled out. In spite of being unable to penetrate the significance of the sigma, I believe the AΠOΛ to be an artist's signature, and that this had taken the form read as ΓAP because of a worn or repaired die. None of the specimens of the second form examined by me are clear and definite—the crudeness of the letters seems to have been present from the earliest stages of the die.
In the light of what has already been said in connection with the sequence of types (page 39), and the alteration of dies (page 28), there are but few details on Plate XXXV that require mentioning. On No. 449, we have a facing head of Demeter (or Persephone) with the inscription SΩTHPIA—the identification is unmistakable because of the grain-ears in the hair. This is, therefore, another epithet to add to the Hygieia and Homonoia met previously. The coin's placement at this point is arbitrary, having only the style of the barley-ear, the form of the letters, and the absence of any symbol as justification.
Have we NIKA as an epithet of Persephone in Nos. 450–2? Its later occurrences are both with youthful types (Nos. 488 and 495). Or, despite the differences in form, have we Nike herself? On No. 452, we have on the reverse the inscription METABO with the B substituted for Π of the immediately preceding type. This is repeated in No. 476, but not elsewhere in the silver issues. It does not seem logical that two occurrences of this form of the ethnic could be responsible for the voluminous literature regarding Metabus, and how the city's name came to be changed to Metapontion. It does seem more reasonable that this is an intrusion of a provincialism. Whether the literary statements which derive support have their independent basis or origins, is a question which must be left to an experienced philologist. But it must be admitted that the form METABO is without the frequency of occurrence that literary statements would seem to imply. The occurrence in more than a single instance is opposed to any explanation that this is merely a die-cutter's error.
The ivy wreath on Nos. 464–466 identifies a Dionysiac type once more, but one that is obviously feminine. We also have another ivy leaf on the reverse of No. 466, as the subsidiary symbol. On the neck-base we read ΠOΛY, and behind the head, rather than below it as heretofore, is Σ. The other reverse symbols are an alighting owl and a soldier ant (?)—a die-break obscures the insect on most specimens of No. 465. These bear comparison with the reverse symbols of Nos. 467–472, where we have a laurel (?) leaf, an ant, a standing owl, and two dies showing a grape cluster. Beneath the neck on the obverse are the letters TPO, (with the reading of the first letter questionable), and rather large in scale for an artist's signature. The type would seem to be Demeter, judging from the barley-ear projecting over the forehead and the poppy-bud (?) in the field to right, but the youthfulness may indicate Persephone.
The rather unlovely head on the obverse of Nos. 472 and 475 has close similarities of workmanship with the preceding type (Nos. 467 and 471) especially in the cutting of the profile. The problem of the braided hair was a bit beyond the ability of the artist, but the quality of the reverse is excellent. Imhoof-Blumer indentifies the type as a nymph. Nos. 472–473 share their reverse dies, while Nos. 473 and 474 have a common obverse—this time a more successful effort to make the braided hair decorative. This die bears the tiny letters AA, but none of the specimens extant permit being definite that this is the entire inscription.
The sequence of dies up to No. 480 has been covered in the preceding pages; the type of Nos. 480–485 is unlike any that has preceded. Imhoof-Blumer identifies this as the head of a nymph.16 The fillet binding the hair shows in four successive turns (?) or windings; it leaves a loose top-knot, or rather loose locks of hair at the top. In the first die, the fillet is represented by a single line; in the second, the line is double, although it barely shows below the top-knot. A slight difference in the earring also serves to distinguish the two dies. There is nothing to identify the obverse type of Nos. 486–487, which is very different in scale from the preceding dies.
As for the reverse symbols, there are the conventionalized lotus and honeysuckle, (2 forms), the quince (?) and the pear. On No. 483 we have the earliest (?) occurrence of letters as a substitute for a symbol. This practice becomes a fairly regular one with the coins of the next plate.
The head on the die of Nos. 488 and 490 is inscribed NIKA on the neck-base. Neither of the heads on the other dies inscribed thus, show a diadem. The modelling is weak and the design not particularly happy, but in 489 there is an imitation of this weakness with results that are deplorable. The hair above the diadem is indicated by two or three continuous wavy lines, while the flatness of the whole, coupled with the lack of character to the facial outline, leave little that is to be commended. The reverse shows like quality to that of its companion die, but this is not so obvious until it is brought into comparison with its prototype.
Nos. 490 and 491 share a common reverse die, while No. 492 shares its obverse die with No. 491. Nos. 493 and 494 have a common obverse die. None of these obverse types have any attribute to identify them—a condition that continues until No. 529. The reverse symbols, pomegranate (?), shell and laurel-leaf call for no comment. A tendency to lengthen the ethnic is worthy of noting.
On No. 495 we have Nike with a star-ornamented sphendone, with a pomegranate symbol on the reverse and METAΠIONTION. Neither of their dies is associated with any other in my observation. In scale and relief, both dies are out of place in this group. A comparison will show that this type is closely similar to the one at Terina, which, on the basis of style, Sir Arthur Evans considers Kimonian, his impression being "that, if not from the actual hand of Kimon, it was executed in his atelier, and under his immediate inspiration" (Num. Chron., 1912, p. 43). The Metapontum type is even less close to the style of Kimon than that of Terina, but does it necessarily follow that the imitation of the decadrachm types of Kimon and Euainetos implies such direct responsibility on the part of these artists or on the part of their "atelier?" The difficulties in the dating of the later issues at Terina are easily cleared up if one postulates that the imitation of the types of Kimon or of Euainetos need not have taken place during their lifetime.
Nos. 496–497 share a common reverse die, while that of No. 498 is so similar as to be misleading. This is also true of the obverses of Nos. 490–498, where the placing of the KPI is the most noticeable difference. This obverse shows a die-break in the hair in No. 500 on the succeeding plate.
No. 500 shares its obverse die with No. 499. Nos. 501 and 502 are connected with the foregoing chiefly by the inscription KPI—compare page 122—for the reasons for thinking that No. 502 may be a recutting of the die of No. 501. Another reason for the placing of these two coins at this point is the absence of either symbols or letters on the reverse dies. The style of the reverse of No. 502, however, seems later than that of its neighbors on the plate.
Nor is there any muling to connect No. 503 with the foregoing types. This die is signed APIΣTI on the base of the neck—the Berlin specimen has been read APIΣTH. The letters behind the head are read ΣʘAT in the Jameson Catalogue. The third letter might be Λ. This inscription has never been satisfactorily interpreted, so far as I can ascertain. There are several reasons for placing this die here, and although singly they could hardly be called strong, cumulatively, and in the absence of other criteria, they are not lightly to be set aside. The signing on the base of the neck, and the placing of these large letters behind the head occurs on Plates XXXVI, XXXVII and XXXIX. The treatment of the hair finds analogies, on Plate XXXIX, as well as among the types which succeed this (which are further connected by muling). The absence of either symbols or letters on the reverse dies preclude their coming later, where either symbols or letters or both do occur. If the series which they initiate (Nos. 502–527) were to be shifted, they would, therefore, have to come earlier rather than later. This could hardly happen without an overlapping with the preceding groups which, had it occurred, would almost certainly have left evidence in the form of further mulings. Perhaps further hoards may bring such evidence to light.
No. 506 and the variants which follow, is a type of singular beauty and may be considered the apogee of this period. Strength and dignity make an unusual combination with daintiness—the workmanship is impressive. Nos. 507–509 are softer and weaker than their prototype. Note that they use the letters ΞΩ in the field of the reverse, and that No. 511 replaces these with ΛY, the letters here being larger in scale than those of Nos. 496–498. The type is usually identified as a "head of a nymph" following Imhoof-Blumer's lead; it is possibly intended as Persephone, although the variation is considerable.
The single letter behind the head on No. 510 and 511 (Ξ or T) gives place to K (retrograde in No. 513) on No. 512—except for this circumstance, it might have been associated with Nos. 491–492. A comparison, however, shows a difference in the scale of the heads as well as in other respects. We find the reverse symbol of No. 513, a conical helmet, recurring in No. 529, although differing in form. The workmanship begins to show marked deterioration, especially in the cutting of the profile and hair. The relief is no longer sharp-cut and bold, but shallow and weak (compare Nos. 517 and 522). No. 516 is possibly the reflex of No. 473, but very feeble and ineffective, and made amusing in addition, by the upright locks of the coiffure above the forehead.17
On the reverse, the letters and symbols seem to alternate—note that Nos. 519 and 520 have the same obverse die, with a leaf as the symbol on one and the letter Ф on the reverse of the other. There seems to be a tendency toward lengthening the ethnic although this is perhaps no more than an assumption of greater freedom in this regard on the part of the die-cutter.
With No. 524, the feeble die-cutting noted on the coins of the preceding plate seems to have reached its lowest ebb. The leaf-symbol of the reverse is in outline rather than in relief as on No. 521. The alterations to the reverse die of Nos. 525 and 526 have been mentioned (cf. pages 29–30). The added inscription ⊢HP, serves to connect Nos. 526 and 527. Since certain of the Leukippos type pieces bear the letters ⊢H, it is possible that we have here a connecting link between the two groups, or the point at which they overlap.
Nos. 528 and 529, owe their position here to the placing of the ethnic on the raised cartellino or band which occurs also on No. 527. The style of the obverses confirms this, but should we find better preserved specimens of No. 528, which is unique and whose symbol is off-flan, they may enable us to assign these types more definitely.
There has been previous discussion of the Fourrée coins (pages 17–19 ff.), and, for purposes of comparison and demonstration, plated pieces have been illustrated along with the genuine ones (Nos. 333, 334, 338, 394, 438). It has seemed desirable, in addition, to illustrate a group of these pieces imitating the types described in the preceding pages. Some of the pieces which I have described as barbaric imitations, especially where I have been obliged to base my judgment on plaster casts without having seen the coins in question, may prove to be plated pieces. The converse of this—that some pieces may have been considered plated mistakenly—is less likely because of the data afforded by the weights. For greater convenience in referring to them, these plated pieces have been given a serial number, just as though they properly belonged to the series. Certain of them may properly belong then, as will be seen.
No. 530 is a typical plated piece. Its resemblance to its prototype, No. 330, is such that it would not arouse suspicion in the mind of any but an experienced collector, but a comparison shows up its superficiality. This is demonstrated in the poorly cut barley-ear as well as in the feeble modeling of the head.
Perhaps the most notorious of these plated coins are Nos. 531 and 532. M. Jameson possesses specimens of both varieties (weight 6.30 and 5.64), while a second specimen of No. 532 is in the collection of Mr. A. H. Lloyd (the one illustrated—weight 5.89). The obverse die is the same for both coins, although part of the inscription is off flan on No. 531. This coin, which, as Mr. Vlasto has pointed out,18 appears to have come from Garrucci's collection, is described by Garrucci as bearing the name KIMΩN. No. 532 shows this reading to be untenable, for the completed inscription is TAEPINON. Even if these pieces were not plated, the form of this inscription provides insurmountable objections to the claim that we have here an indication of an alliance coinage for Terina and Metapontum. The type imitated, however, is Metapontum's (cf. Nos. 366–383 on the plates) rather than Terina's, if we may judge from the use of the fillet-bow at the back, but a comparison with the Terina types will make apparent more quickly than many pages of description, how closely similar some of these issues of nearby cities were, and afford support for the theory promulgated by Mr. Keary 19 that such similarity is an indication of competition in a common market.
No. 533 is an imitation of the die of Nos. 450–452. The flatness of the modelling and the omission of the sigma in the field below the chin show at once that something is wrong; the style of the reverse confirms it. I have seen only a cast of No. 534—the modelling is flat, and the cutting of the braided hair encircling the head is misunderstood, while the letters of the reverse, which are over large, and the mouse, which is over-plump, are unlike the neighboring dies of this group. A single specimen is known (The Hague), and neither die is found muled—weight 7.70.
No. 535, however, is unquestionably plated (weight 5.05). It imitates the same die, No. 472. The difference in the style of the reverses is to be noted— the similarity to No. 472 is patent.
On the strength of the statement of Dr. von Dressel, No. 536 was placed among the plated pieces—a course which seemed the more warrantable because of the crescent shaped gouge, on the reverse, presumably made for testing. The weight (6.93) is not far below the normal. It was stated in addition, that this and two other coins—one weighing 7.53 and the other 6.63—were from the same dies, but no other specimens from these dies had been found by me, and as one of these three pieces was described as being plated, I wrote to the Director of the Berlin Cabinet, Dr. Regling, asking him to confirm whether these were genuine and plated specimens from the same pair of dies. Dr. Regling's reply informed me that one of the three pieces had been sold as a duplicate (Hess sale 1902), and that the piece weighing 6.93 which had been explicitly described as being plated, although encrusted with greenish oxidation, was, in his opinion, not plated. The second coin, weighing 7.63, was not suspect, and as it was impossible to trace the third piece, there was no proof that it was plated. In consequence, this variety should be placed in the series between Nos. 485 and 486, as it provides another obverse die in this series, the reverse having the same symbol as No. 481.
Nos. 539 to 541 afford new problems. No. 541 comes from the Picard Sale (Sambon, March 13, 1923, 115), and weighs 7.00. Mr. A. H. Lloyd, in whose collection this piece now is, very courteously sent me a cast, and when I told him of my suspicions, carefully examined the piece for indications of plating. Neither he nor Mr. Forrer, who also examined it, were able to find any indications whatever of plating.
It will be seen, however, that the reverse of this piece is the same as that of No. 540, and that the obverse of No. 540 is the same as the obverse of No. 539. Both Nos. 539 and 540 are plated. The testimony of two such experienced numismatists as Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Forrer was not lightly to be set aside, and while endeavouring to find the way out of this dilemma, I rediscovered a coin in Mr. Jameson's collection, No. 428, which I then remembered having connected with Mr. Lloyd's coin previously. Another specimen from the same pair of dies had occurred in sales (Hirsch, XXX, 285; Naville, IV, 169; Naville, X, 143), and on mentioning the circumstance to Mr. Newell, I was informed that this second piece was in his collection. Mr. Jameson's piece weighs 5.72, Mr. Newell's piece 7.36. On examination Mr. Newell's piece proved to be unquestionably plated.
If, therefore, the coin in Mr. Lloyd's collection is not plated, we have the condition that both its obverse and reverse dies occur elsewhere only in plated coins. That his coin is not plated, in spite of showing no traces, though not impossible, is very improbable. The possibility is lessened by the circumstance that Messrs. Jameson's and Newell's pieces are of Croton, while the other three are coins of Metapontum. Since we have five coins from two obverse and three reverse dies, imitating the coins of two different mints with a resemblance which will not withstand close comparison of the type imitated, it seems that we may safely conclude that here we have neither barbaric imitations nor official pieces made for trial purposes in the mint, but ancient counterfeits made illicitly. Some of the barbaric imitations look to have been struck with debased silver (this is true of No. 344), but so far as my observation at Metapontum is concerned, these barbaric imitations are not plated. The fourrée pieces, therefore, are to be divided into at least two classes, official trial-pieces and counterfeits.
No. 542 will be seen to be closely similar to Nos. 506 and 509. This specimen in the Brussels Cabinet was examined, at my request, by M. Tourneur, who informed me that there is not the slightest visible evidence of its being plated. The weight is 6.86. But that which most awakens suspicion of the coin's being an official issue is the reverse. Here the base of the barley-ear is in exceptionally high relief tapering sharply toward the apex. The symbol, a poppy head (?) and the inscription KAΛ occur on one of the varieties of the series with the head of Zeus, others of which have KAΛ on the reverse but not the symbol. The dies, however, in spite of their being so close in subject are very different in style. All this does not preclude No. 542 being a barbaric imitation, although in my observation such imitations rarely muled dies not customarily associated.
No. 543 is an imitation of No. 498, but without the letters behind the head and otherwise differs radically from the type imitated. The weight is 6.60.
Nos. 544 and 545 seem to be imitating the type of Nos. 497 to 500, but again the barley-ear reverses are radically different from any of the imitated types. It should be noted that the same obverse die serves for Nos. 544 and 545. Similarly a common die serves for the obverses of Nos. 546 and 547. In this case the imitation is of Nos. 521 or 523, and the reverses are worthy of careful attention for it will be seen that the cross bar of the T is lacking in No. 546, and that this has been added in No. 547, together with a leaf similar to that which appears on No. 494, although in this case it is upside down, as is shown by its veining.
Other specimens of plated coins might be submitted but these are typical. They seem to indicate that the practice was more prevalent at the close of the period covered by this monograph than at its beginning.
The available data regarding hoards is frequently of little value in the coinage of Metapontum, because of the indefiniteness of the identification of the varieties comprised. We know of very few hoards whose burials can be assigned to the period of 450– 350 B.C., but this purely negative circumstance hardly warrants us in thinking that this section was free from hostile incursions during this interval. We do know, however, that Terinay was destroyed by the Brettians in 356, and if there may have been a truce with the Italic peoples up to this time, it is certain that there was a state of warfare from the middle of the century to its close.
The famous Carosino hoard which has already played a large part in the chronology of the issues of the Tarentum,20 is of great significance in any study of South Italian coins. Unfortunately, our record covers a portion of its contents only and for this reason is robbed of some of its significance. The portion obtained for the Taranto Museum by its Director, Dr. Quagliati, and published by him,21 is possibly not much more than a quarter of the whole, judging from the statements of Sir Arthur Evans and M. Vlasto.
Combining the information available from all of these sources, we learn that the hoard was composed of coins of Tarentum of the III and IV periods (380 to 334 B.C.); at least one coin of Heraclea (with the signature KAΛ) and coins of Thurium, (one of the variety with MOΛOΣΣOΣ) as well as of the following numbers in my classification for Metapontum: one thick flan incuse, and Nos. 404, 406b (?), 416, 437, 449, 483, 485, 491, 493, 507, and one Leukippos head stater with a cluster of grapes behind the head and a poppy seed-pod for symbol on the reverse. The pieces acquired by Dr. Quagliati indicated above are marked by an asterisk.
The date of the burial of the hoard as assigned by M. Vlasto, 336–334, seems to be in accord with the evidence furnished by the Metapontum pieces in the find, and as is to be expected, the types coming at the end of my arrangement are the more numerous. The occurrence of the Leukippos type is significant for the succeeding rather than for the present portion of my study. On the basis of the Metapontine issues alone there is reason for dating the burial about 340.
310. Die of No. 257 (cf. Pt. I).
R. METAΠ. Five grains of barley forming a star, the center of which is a pellet, the letters of the inscription being separated by the grains. The M is still archaic.
|a. R. Jameson, 264||7.76|
|b. Br. Mus. Cat. 45||8.06|
|c. Berlin (struck over transitional Corinth)||7.93|
|i. Cambridge (McClean 915)||7.20|
|k. A. H. Lloyd||7.94|
|l. Hirsch VII, 39||–.—|
|m. Hirsch XIII, 139 (Rhousopoulos)||7.40|
311. Die of No. 261 (cf. Pt. I).
R. AEИON (retrograde): AψEΛИO. Facing nude figure of a man with the horns and ears of a bull. The beard is obscured by a die-break. His right hand holds a patera (phiale mesomphalos?), his left, a reed. A scarf which is knotted to his left arm passes behind the back and falls freely (?) over the right arm at the elbow. The cable border is poorly cut.
|a. R. Jameson, 265||7.62|
|b. Paris, De Luynes 466||7.55|
|c. Berlin (cf. Zeit. Num. I, 293—illustr. Pl. I of this work, PL xxi; M. Fox coll., ex Dupre, 47)||7.47|
311 1/2 . Die of Nos. 261 and 311 (Pt. I).
R. AψEΛOИO (retrograde): AEʘΛON (also retrograde). Type of 311—the figure is taller and the extended arm longer. The drapery to the left is separated from the body by a wider interval. The thetas and omicrons of the inscr. are rounded rather than diamond shaped as in 311. The border is beaded instead of having the cable form.
R. Heracles with club and strung bow in 1. hand— the bow-string parallel with the club. The lion-skin covers his head and falls from his shoulders as he stands before an altar holding a patera. Above his right hand is an object described in the British Museum catalogue as a bucranium, but which is possibly a fountain-spout. The low-relief border shows even less understanding of the method of cutting the cable pattern than No. 311.
|a. Br. Mus. Cat. 51||8.22|
|b. Paris (De Luynes 467)||7.80|
|c. Berlin, ex Löbbecke||7.66|
|d. Strozzi Sale, 984||7.38|
313. Die of No. 312.
R. Nude standing figure of Heracles with club over his right shoulder. His 1. hand rests on his hip—hanging from the wrist is a bow, its string parallel with his body.
|a. Br. Mus. Cat. 50||8.14|
|c. Cambridge (McClean 917, ex Strozzi 985)||6.32|
|d. Munich (ex Hirsch XXXI, 43)||6.90|
|e. A. H. Lloyd, ex Headlam 210 and Hirsch XXVI, 221||7.92|
314. Die of Nos. 312 and 313.
R. Nude figure of Apollo standing with an unstrung bow in his left hand, and a branch or small tree with very large leaves in his right.
|a. Br. Mus. Cat. 47||7.87|
|e. R. Jameson 266||8.02|
|f. E. T. Newell||7.48|
|g. Count Chandon de Briailles||7.70|
|h. Hirsch XV, 540||7.84|
|i. Naville X, 62||7.88|
|j. Ratto, 1926,466, ex Naville V, 445||7.65|
315. Similar to No. 312—the base of the ear is nearer the border.
R. Similar to 314—the branch is more nearly perpendicular.
|b. Delbeke Sale 22||7.84|
|c. Naville I, Pozzi, 165||7.59|
316. Die of No. 315.
R. Similar to 315 save that the leaves are much smaller.
|a. Br. Mus. Cat. 46||8.01|
|b. Berlin, ex Peytrignet||7.59|
|c. Berlin, ex Löbbecke||7.37|
|d. Paris (De Luynes 465)||8.07|
|e. The Hague||6.40|
|f. Munich, ex Hirsch XXX, 173||7.98|
|g. Hirsch XVIII, 2207||7.94|
|h. Naville X, 62, ex Naville V, 444||7.88|
317. Die of Nos. 315 and 316.
R. Similar to 316, save that the head is smaller, the bow longer and the lower end of the branch at a greater distance from the badly-standing figure.
|c. Cambridge, McClean 919||7.62|
|d. A. H. Lloyd, ex Sir H. Weber 745||7.24|
|e. Polese Sale 244, ex Sambon-Canessa, 1927, 308||6.70|
318. Similar in form to 312 and 315, but of much poorer workmanship.
R. A rather coarse version of317 —the figure is shorter and heavier.
|a. W. H. Woodward 18, ex Collignon Sale 30 and Nervegna 458||8.04|
R. Similar to preceding Apollo-types, save that the lower end of the branch rests upon an altar. The British Museum coin shows a small plant at lower r.
|a. Br. Mus. Cat. 48||7.50|
|b. Br. Mus. Cat. 49||7.89|
|d. Berlin, ex Fox||7.79|
|f. Boston, Regling-Warren 70||7.78|
|g. Cambridge, McClean 918||7.75|
|i. Brussels, De Hirsch||7.75|
|j. E. T. Newell, ex O'Hagan 50, Montagu 41 and Hoffman||7.78|
|k. Hess, Berlin Dupl. and Greau Coll.||–.—|
|l. Naples, Fiorelli 2349||–.—|
|m. Pozzi, Naville I, 166||7.09|
|n. Hamburger, 1929, 45, ex Löbbecke||6.93|
|o. Naville XII 394,395||7.54|
|p. Naville XII 394,395||7.20|
|q. Hirsch XII, 16||–.—|
R. Nude male figure (Apollo) standing with his r. hand on his hip, and looking to r. He holds a strung bow in his 1. hand. A laurel-wreath encloses the whole.
|a. Naville XIV, 32||3.96|
|b. Br. Mus. Cat. 52||3.61|
|c. Berlin, ex Fox||3.80|
|d. Berlin, ex Peytrignet||3.63|
|e. Cambridge, McClean 920||3.66|
|f. Naples, Fiorelli 2350||–.—|
|h. Hunterian, 27||3.40|
|i. E. T. Newell, ex Headlam 211 and Hartwig 2l5||3.80|
|j. A. H. Lloyd, ex Ratto, 1912, 248 ex Hirsch XXVI, 22||3.92|
|k. Baron Pennisi di Floristella||–.—|
|l. Hess, Berlin Dupl. 297||–.—|
|m. Hirsch XIV, 84||3.70|
321. "Lean" barley ear with five grains and two small additional terminal ones. Leaf to 1. In the field at right a cross-headed torch (?)—cf. Ward, 'Greek Coins and their Parent Cities,' p. 10 for Mr. Hill's note. This object is also identified as a 'bird-frightener., Border of dots.
R. (AT): (reading not certain). Barley ear similar to that on the obv. In field at r., a poppy plant bearing seed-pod.
|a. Berlin (struck over Croton)||7.74|
|c. Br. Mus. Cat. 58||7.57|
|d. Metropolitan Mus. of Art (Ward), 59||7.81|
|e. R. Jameson 267||7.82|
|f. Berlin, (from Turkey)||7.81|
322. Female head in profile to r., wearing a band that is narrow at the front, but gradually broadening—a sphendone (?). A thick veil falls in a graceful curve over the back of the head. The ear-ring hangs parallel with the edge of the veil, rather than perpendicularly. In form it is like those occurring on the Demareteion and contemporaneous tetradrachms of Syracuse. The hair treatment is early in style. In front of the face is an object like that on the obv. of No. 321.
|a. J. P. Morgan Coll., ex Strozzi 987||7.60|
|b. Berlin, ex Gansauge||7.74|
|d. E. T. Newell||7.14|
|e.||A. H. Lloyd (ex Bement 171 and Hirsch XXVI, 277)||7.25|
|f. Naville XIII, 76||6.92|
323. Similar to 322 with differences in the fold of the veil.
R. . The ear is much larger than in 322, with but six grains to each row and seven awns on either side of the one at the apex. All specimens show a recutting of the rev. die—the ΠONT is over some previous inscr.—apparently META. The length of the abbreviation for the ethnic is unusual at this period—the extension may be an effort to cover an error.
|a. R. Jameson 280||7.47|
|b. Br. Mus. Cat. 146||7.57|
|c. Berlin, ex Imhoof-Blumer||7.72|
|d. Berlin, ex Fox||7.56|
|f. Ratto Sale, 1/25/26, 489, ex Hirsch XXX, 186||7.86|
|g. Carelli 66. Garrucci CIII, 26||–.—|
324. Female head facing r., with fillet or sphendone only slightly like that of 323—in the modelling and the treatment of the profile, it is very close.
|a. E. T. Newell, ex Naville XII, 419||7.79|
325. Female head to 1. with fillet tied in a bow at the back. The faint line of a necklace shows, and a pendant hangs in front.
|c. The Hermitage||–.—|
326. Die of 325.
|a. Berlin, ex Löbbecke||7.35|
327. Die of 325.
|a. Naville XV, 145, ex Nav. VI (Bement), 164||7.96|
|b. Cambridge, McClean 922, ex Hirsch XI, 42||7.67|
|d. A.H. Lloyd||7.30|
|e. De Sartiges Coll. 36||–.—|
|f. Naville XII, 396||6.53|
328. Same die as 325.
|a. Paris, De Luynes 474||7.74|
|c. Brussels, De Hirsch||7.40|
|f. Naples, Fiorelli 2403||– —|
|g. Sambon-Canessa Sale, 1927, 309||7.75|
|h.Polese Sale 246, ex Vogel Sale, Mar. 1929, 68||79|
329. Same die as 325.
|a. E. T. Newell||7.35|
|b. Naville I, Pozzi, 174||7.48|
330. Female head to 1. wearing fillet but without ear-ring. Head small in proportion to width of flan. A thin necklace is visible.
|a. E. T. Newell||7.98|
|c. Naples. Fiorelli 2404||– —|
|d. R. Jameson 283, ex Strozzi 989||8.03|
|e. W. Gedney Beatty||7.47|
|f. Naville XV, 146, ex Naville V, 456, Hirsch XXVI, 223 and Hirsch XXXII, 2||7.78|
|g. Naville X, 64, ex Naville I, Pozzi, 173 and Hirsch XV, 557||7.87|
331. Female head to r. wearing fillet, necklace and ear-ring. A bipennis is beneath the tranche, a leaf directly before the eyes, a sturdy branch behind the head, and beneath the chin the letter B(?)—the lobes separated. This object also occurs on the early staters of Croton and Velia, and its resemblance to the medieval fire-steel presents the possibility that it is not the letter B. The occurrence of single letters so early is unusual at Metapontum, but so too, is the number of subsidiary symbols. The whole is in a circle of dots.
R. Die of 330.
|a. Br. Mus. Cat. 135||7.63|
|b. E. T. Newell||7.76|
|c. R. Jameson 270||7.51|
|d. A. H. Lloyd||7.52|
332. Die of 331.
|a. Br. Mus. Cat. 134||7.31|
|b. E. T. Newell||7.90|
|c. A. H. Lloyd, ex Hirsch XXVI, 246||7.52|
|d. Helbing Sale, Nov. 1928, 3366||7.62|
333. Closely similar to 325—the necklace and pendant are absent.
334. Male head to r. with ram's horn and ear. A wreath of olive extends forward from the ear three leaves projecting over the forehead. The hair is stringy. The type is identified as Apollo Karneios, Zeus Ammon and a river-god—for discussion and citations, see p. 14.
R. Die of 333.
|a. Br. Mus., ex Bunbury 140||6.50|
|c. Berlin—possibly fourrée||6.20|
|d. H. A. Greene, Providence, fourrée||– —|
335. Similar to 334, but in higher relief. The locks of hair are thicker. In field to 1. a die-flaw or an indefinite symbol (?).
R. Die of 333 and 334.
|a. Brussels, De Hirsch||7.88|
|b. Br. Mus. Cat. 67||7.85|
|c. Cambridge, McClean 931||7.13|
|d. Late Coll. (Rothschild), Soth. 1900, 47||7.71|
|e. Egger XLV, 142||6.45|
|f. Vienna — questionable — possibly fourrée||4.87|
336. Same die as 335.
|a. Berlin, ex Peytrignet||7.92|
|b. Berlin, ex Imhoof-Blumer||7.77|
|d. Naples, Fiorelli 2353||– —|
|e. The Hermitage||–.—|
|f. Sir. C. W. C. Oman, ex Hartwig 217||7.45|
|g. Hirsch XX, 49, ex Hess, Berlin Dupl., 301||7.70|
337. Same die as 335 and 336.
R. Eight-grained barley ear—leaf to 1.
|a. Paris, De Luynes 472||7.95|
|c. Turin, 17971||7.70|
|f. R. Jameson 272||7.84|
|g. De Sartiges 33, ex Durufle 71 and Well-known Coll. 153—Regling- Warren 71||6.91|
|h. Benson 53, ex Montagu 42||7.71|
|i. Hirsch XII, 19||– —|
|j. R. Cyril Lockett, ex Naville VI, Bement, 169 and Hirsch XV, 551||7.80|
|k. Bunbury I, 139||7.79|
|l. Naville IV, 73, ex Sir H. Weber 748||7.51|
|m. Sir H. Weber 749||7.64|
|n. Ratto Sale 4/4/1927, 205, ex Nervegna 459||7.69|
338. Similar type—head larger, more broadly treated and in low relief.
|b. Berlin—fourrée, ex Imhoof-Blumer||6.30|
|c. Naville XIII, 79, fourrée||6.45|
339. Similar to 335 save that the hair hangs straighter and the ear is smaller.
R. Die of 338.
|a. A. H. Lloyd, ex Picard Sale, 119||7.39|
340. Die of 339.
R. Six-grained ear with small additional terminal grains. The E of the ethnic is up-tilted.
|a. E. T. Newell, ex Headlam 233 and O'Hagan 52||7.39|
|b. Br. Mus.||7.14|
|c. Wotoch Sale, 1901, 108||– —|
341. Similar to 340, but the relief is higher and the strands of hair thicker.
R. Die of 340.
|a. A. H. Lloyd||7.23|
342. Similar to 340, but larger in scale.
R. A weakly-modelled seven-grained ear with a slanting die-break through the E and extending across the entire flan.
|a. S. P. Noe||7.10|
343. Similar to 334—weakly modelled.
R. Tapering seven-grained ear with a crudely curved leaf to right.
344. Die of 343.
|a. Naville VI, Bement, 168||7.64|
346. Four-grained ear with an ant (?) in field to right.
R. Full-face bull's head with horns curving downward.
|a. Berlin, ex Fox||0.37|
347. Five-grained ear with faint linear (?) border. R. Small head of man-headed bull (Achelous) in profile to r., with small annulet in front and behind.
|a. Br. Mus. Cat. 57||0.73|
|c. Berlin, ex Imhoof-Blumer||0.775|
|d. Turin, Fabretti 916||0.75|
|e. E. T. Newell, ex Sir. H. Weber 746||0.69|
348. Similar—the border heavy.
R. Similar—the head larger and with a bad die-break diagonally to r. upward.
|a. Berlin, ex Imhoof-Blumer||0.705|
349. Die of 348.
R. Similar to 347—the annulets larger.
|a. Br. Mus. Cat. 56||0.80|
|b. Cambridge, McClean 921||0.74|
350. Broad, five-grained ear with a small lizard in field to r.
R. Large head with the line of moustachio showing diagonally across the beard.
|a. Paris, De Luynes 516||0.66|
|b. Br. Mus. Cat. 55||0.74|
351. Six-grained ear with flat top—border of dots.
R. Three crescents with the convex sides adjacent, and with a pellet in each of the arcs and one at the center of the die.
|a. Berlin, ex Fox||0.50|
R. Similar to 351.
|a. British Museum ex Sir H. Weber, 742 Roman Sale, 1883, 70||0.60|
|c. Pozzi 164||0.53|
353. Five-grained ear in low relief.
R. Crescents smaller, and with pellets near the rim.
354. Six-grained ear in high relief, with small leaf to r., the whole in border of dots.
R. Similar—the pellets large, and the tips of the crescents tapering.
|a. Berlin, ex Nervegna 487 and Merzbacher, Nov. 1910, 101||0.49|
355. Six-grained ear.
R. Similar to 353.
|a. Berlin, ex Löbbecke||0.57|
356. Five-grained ear in border of heavy dots.
R. Similar—the central pellet is larger, and a linear border is present.
|a. Paris, DeLuynes 517||0.62|
357. Square-topped, five grained ear in high relief, touching the border at its base.
R. Similar to 353—the central pellet large.
358. Five-grained ear.
R. Similar to foregoing—the tips of the crescents touch, and the enclosing linear circle is heavy.
|a. Sir. Arthur J. Evans (not illustrated).||-|
R. Similar to 355.
|a. Munich (not illustrated).|
360. Six-grained ear with olive leaf (?) in field to r., the whole in border of dots.
R. Five (?) crescents touching the linear rim at their extremities—large pellet in center. Possibly double-struck—condition very poor.
|a. Berlin, ex Imhoof-Blumer||0.36|
362. Five-grained ear touching border of dots at its base.
|a. British Museum, ex Sir H. Weber, 743||0.40|
363. Youthful, horned head to r., similar to that on preceding plate.
|a. Br. Mus. Cat. 68||1.12|
|f. E. T. Newell||1.08|
364. Similar—the head larger, the neck shorter.
R. Similar to 363—the T lower than the top of the E and A.
|a. Pozzi 180||1.02|
|b. Berlin, ex Imhoof-Blumer||1.01|
|c. Berlin, ex Löbbecke||1.125|
|d. The Hague||1.35|
R. Similar to 364, but inscr. not in a straight line.
366. Youthful female head to r., (Kore) wearing a double fillet which crosses just above the ear, and whose ends project in an S-loop at the back. The hair-treatment is simple—a parting line shows above the ear. The line of the nose and forehead is almost straight. The drawn-in chin and the high cheek-bone create an impression of beauty but newly matured. The eye-ball is without the iris. A small ear-ring, in the shape of a dagger, sometimes is not to be seen, having failed to withstand wear or over-zealous cleaning. The head, in low relief, and admirably proportioned to the flan, is enclosed by a broad linear circle.
|a. E. T. Newell, ex Benson 55 and Archeologist, 14||7.69|
|b. The Hague||7.60|
|d. Naples, Fiorelli 2367||–.—|
|e. Hirsch XV, 549||7.98|
|f. Hirsch XXIX, 47||7.80|
367. Die of 366.
R. Similar to 366, but the barbs on the awns are slightly more pronounced and the inscription is further removed from the ear.
|a. Naville, X, 68, ex Naville I(Pozzi),176||7.80|
|b. E. T. Newell||6.68|
|c. Sir C. W. C. Oman||–.—|
368. Closely similar to 366; differences in the hair above the forehead, in the width of the fillet at the back, and in the form of the loop.
R. Die of 367.
|a. G. Empedocles||7.90|
369. Die of 368.
|a. S. P. Noe||7.72|
370. Similar. The die-surface is greater than heretofore, and the head larger in scale. The cheek is overmodelled, which leaves the ear with the effect of being set in a depression.
R. The inscription in slightly larger letters The awns are separated by a wider interval, the ear is broader.
|a. R. Cyril Lockett, ex Hirsch XXI, 356||7.92|
|b. E. T. Newell||6.90|
|c. T. C. Schmuck, ex Nav. XII, 403||7.85|
|d. Mrs. O. S. Thrasher||7.75|
|e. Feuardent Sale, 1913, 33, ex Hirsch XVI, 93||7.80|
|f. Sambon-Canessa, Dec. 1907, 33||7.70|
|g. Naville XII, 403, ex Guzman, 76 and Delbeke 23||7.84|
|h. Sotheby Sale, 1905 (H. P. Smith), 22||–.—|
371. Similar to 370—the hair above the ear and the loop of the fillet differ.
R. Die of 370.
|a. Cambridge—Lewes Coll.||–.—|
|b. Whereabouts unknown (Cast).||–.—|
372. Similar to 367, but larger in scale.
R. The E of the inscr. has very short cross-bars.
373. Similar to 367—the loop of the fillet shows a die-fault slightly off the perpendicular.
|c. Naville X, 69, ex Naville IV, 71, Egger XLV, 150, Hirsch XXVI, 224||7.80|
|d. Naville X, 67, ex Naville IV, 70||7.89|
374. Die of 373—a die-flaw now shows below the eye.
|a. Naville XIII, 78||7.98|
375. Reverse die of 373.
R. Reverse die of 374.
|b. Cambridge, McClean 914||6.95|
|c. Count Chandon de Briailles||7.66|
376. Similar to 373, but with slight differences in the ear-ring, and fillet-loop
R. Similar to 373; the ear is smaller and inscr. differs.
377. Similar—the hair much finer and more regular. The ear-ring is short and shaped like a grape-cluster.
|a. Boston—Regling-Warren 78||7.65|
|c. Seabey Sale II, 96||–.—|
378. Similar to 377—a die-break connects the tip of the nose and the lips.
|a. Paris, De Luynes 478||7.83|
|b. E. T. Newell||7.94|
|c. Cambridge, McClean 929, ex H. P. Smith Sale, 22||7.89|
379. Die of 378—a later state.
R. Similar to 378—the top of the inscr. almost touches the awn.
|a. Naville V,452||7.84|
|b. Cast—present whereabouts?||–.—|
380. Similar to 377—the hair in higher relief.
R. Die of 379.
|a. A. H. Lloyd, Hill's Select Greek Coins, XXX, 3||7.96|
381. Die of 380.
R. Ear similar to 380, but inscr. further removed.
|a. E. T. Newell, ex Naville VI, 167 and Hirsch XXXI, 45||7.75|
|b. E. T. Newell||7.55|
|c. E. S. G. Robinson||–.—|
|d. H. R. Drowne||– .—|
|e. Hirsch XXXIV, 43||7.90|
382. Badly broken die—possibly 378–9.
R. Similar—die-break at middle of the ear.
|a. The American Numismatic Society||7.75|
383. Similar to 370, but the modelling is better. The line of the nose and forehead is slightly curved.
R. Similar to 381.
|a. Boston, Regling-Warren 77||7.68|
|b. Br. Mus||7.65|
|g. Naples (Stevens)||–.—|
|h.||Cambridge, Corpus Christi—Lewes Coll||–.—|
|j.||R. Jameson, 271||7.93|
384. Similar, but without either fillet-loop or ear-ring.
|a. Glasgow, Hunterian 15||7.78|
|b. Hamburger Sale, 5/29/29, ex Löbbecke||7.80|
|c. Hirsch XXIX, 49, ex Benson 56||6.95|
|d. Naville XII, 401||7.72|
385. Similar to 384, but fillet is much narrower
R. Six-grained ear with square top. The inscr. close to the awn.
|a. Br. Mus., ex Sir H. Weber Coll., 757||7.98|
|c. White-King Sale, 1909, 22, ex Hirsch XV, 548||7.71|
386. Die of 385—a die-break has obliterated the ear-ring.
|a.||Glasgow, Hunterian 14||7.69|
|c. Munich, ex Hirsch XXXI, 46||7.85|
|d. Naples, Fiorelli 2365||–.—|
|f. Comte Chandon de Briailles||7.39|
|g. Ratto, 1927, 202||7.70|
|h. Commerce||– .—|
387. Similar to 384—possibly same die; die-break in hair at top.
R. Die of 384.
|a. Toronto, Royal Ontario Archeol. Mus.||–.—|
|b. E. T. Newell||7.65|
388. Closely similar to 387, but another die, although there is a die-break in the same position. The ear-ring differs—the lower eye-lid also. Behind the head, K.
|a. Naville X, 71, ex Naville IV, 72 and Sir H. Weber 761||7.41|
|c. E. T. Newell||7.66|
389. Same die as 388.
|b. Picard Sale (Sambon, 1923), 117, ex Strozzi, 997||7.93|
390. Head of a mature woman, to r., without necklace or ear-ring. The fillet binding the hair does not cross behind the ear, but suspends a strand of hair, from which the ends hang loosely.
|a. Hoyt Miller, ex Naville XII, 404||7.41|
391. Head similar to No. 390, but with a stalk of barley in front of the lips (with a curved leaf beneath the chin) and another behind the head. The curves of a ribbon or fillet show across the tranche of the neck.
R. Similar to 390—the ear more compact, and the leaf to r. curved gracefully.
|a. E. T. Newell, ex Durufle, 67||7.58|
|b. Br. Mus. Cat. 65||7.71|
|d. Cambridge, McClean 926||7.44|
|f. W. Gedney Beatty||7.55|
392. Die of No.391.
R. Long, well-modelled, seven-grained ear.
|a. Berlin, ex Löbbecke||7.72|
393. Similar to 391, but coarser—the leaves beneath the neck-tranche are copied uncomprehendingly.
R. Similar to 390–391 in placing of inscr. and leaf, but the ear is lop-sided—the left row is narrower than the right one.
|a. Brussels, De Hirsch||7.44|
394. A fairly close imitation of 390 so far as detail is concerned, but larger in scale and lacking in spirit.
|a. Hunterian 16, fourrée||–.—|
|b. Naples (illustrated), fourrée||– —|
395. Mature, female head to 1., similar to 391 in treatment. The hair is fastened at the back by a fillet, one end of which hangs free. Entwined in this fillet are two stalks of barley, one of which projects above the forehead. The second, parallel with the line of the fillet, is to be seen on unworn coins only—it lies just above the ear. The leaf of this second stalk extends from the point at which the fillet is tied, to the crown of the head. A pendant is visable, but not the line of the necklace.
|b. Br. Mus. Cat 60||7.55|
|d. Naples, Stevens||–.—|
|e. Naville XII, 397||7.73|
396. Female head to 1. without ear-ring or necklace. The hair is bound by a string of pearls (the Benson catalogue describes it as wreathed with barley). The knot of the fillet shows at the back. The face has a decidedly unpleasant expression.
|a. De Sartiges, 37, ex Benson 52||7.71|
397. Die of 395.
|a. Naples, Fiorelli, 2405||–.—|
|c. Berlin, ex Imhoof-Blumer||7.70|
|d. The Hermitage||–.—|
|g. Cambridge, McClean, 923||7.52|
|h. E. T. Newell||6.70|
|i. W. Gedney Beatty||7.63|
|j. Henry A. Greene||– .—|
|k. Naville X, 65, ex Bement, 165 and Hirsch XXVI, 232||6.84|
|l.||R. Cyril Lockett||–.—|
398. Similar to 395—a bead necklace is now visable.
|b. E. T. Newell||7.72|
|c. Berlin, ex Löbbecke||7.82|
|d. Hunterian 18||7.64|
|e. R. Jameson 274||7.82|
|f. A. H. Lloyd||7.96|
|g. E. T. Newell (2nd)||– .—|
|h. Mrs, O. S. Thrasher||7.04|
|i. Archeologist (Evans) 12||7.48|
|j. Naville V, 457||7.73|
|k. Hirsch XXX, 179||7.75|
|l.||Cahn Sale 60, 82||7.11|
|m. Seaby II, 98 ex Polese, 245||– .—|
|n. Spink's Circular 53436||7.78|
399. A crude imitation of 395—the ear is very badly modelled, and the pendant a mere pellet.
R. Similar to 398; the first three letters of the inscr. bunched, and smaller than the A. The mantis is well modelled.
|a. Berlin, no trace of plating||6.74|
|b. Br. Mus. Cat. 61, plated (?)||6.91|
400. Remotely similar to the type on Plate 29—a single line of the fillet shows. It does not cross either at the back or front. The hair treatment is less careful. The eye shows one—possibly two, dieflaws.
|a. Brussels, De Hirsch||7.95|
|d. Sir. C. W. C. Oman||–.—|
|e. A. H. Lloyd||–.—|
401. Die of 400.
|c. Hirsch XXXIV, 42||7.90|
402. Female head to r., with necklace and triple-pendant ear ring. Behind the ear a fillet or band shows—in front, this consists of but a single line. The ends of a lock of hair show at the back above the band. A die-flaw shows at the outer extremity of the eye. Behind the head .
|a. R. Jameson, 292||7.83|
|c. Cambridge, Leake||7.84|
|d. New York City, The American Numismatic Society||–.—|
|e. Hirsch XXX, 183||8.65?|
|f. E. T. Newell, ex Sambon-Canessa, 1927 310||7.25|
403. Probably the die of 402 deepened—the head is in higher relief—the flaw at the eye has been eliminated, and the necklace is barely discernible.
R. Die of 402.
|c. Hirsch XXXIV, 45, ex Bachelor, 78||7.70|
404. Similar to Kore type, but the fillet line shows even less than in No. 401. Neither necklace nor ear ring are present—can this be intended as a man's head? Behind the head is a retrograde K. The relief is low.
|a. E. T. Newell||7.70|
|g. Taranto—Carosino Hoard||7.75|
|h. Cambridge, McClean, 930||7.83|
|i. A. H. Lloyd||7.90|
|j. De Sartiges 35, ex Benson 58||7.64|
|k. Headlam 230, ex Hirsch XXVI, 227||7.23|
|l.||Dr. N. Petsalis, Athens||–.—|
|m. Polese Sale, 254||–.—|
|n. Commerce (2)||–.—|
405. Apparently the die of 404 with the face and lower part of the hair recut (deepened in the die). The letter behind the head is a reversed or retrograde E, replacing the K.
|a. Berlin, ex Imhoof-Blumer||7.80|
|c. Br. Mus. Cat. 54||7.91|
|d. Paris, De Luynes, 479||7.75|
|e. Naples, Santangelo||–.—|
|f. Naples, Fiorelli, 2406||–.—|
406. Similar to 390, especially in the hair-arrangement. The symbol beneath the chin, whether identified as a seed-pod of the poppy or as a lotus bud, tends to confirm the identification of the type as Demeter. Note the difference in the treatment of the eyeball as compared with Pl 28 and 29.
R. Die of 405.
|a. Naville VI. 166 ex Ready Sale, 68||7 75|
|b. R. Cyril Lockett ex Pozzi 168||7.85|
407. Die of 406.
|a. Boston, Regling, 73||8.00|
|b. Brit. Mus., ex Hirsch XX, 53 and Hirsch XV, 547||7.28|
|d. Naples, Fiorelli, 2407||– —|
|e. E. T. Newell||7.60|
|f. R. Jameson, 294||7.06|
|g. Naville V, 449||6.65|
|h. Sambon-Canessa, 1927, 312, ex Ratto, 1/25/26, 469||7.75|
408. Die of 406.
|c. Naples, Stevens||–.—|
|d. Ratto Sale, 1912, 250||7.82|
409. Similar to 406–8, but a different die; there are two instead of three loose tresses at the back of the neck.
R. Similar to 408, but both the ear and bird are larger.
|a. Berlin, ex Löbbecke||7.96|
|e. Pozzi 169, ex Strozzi, 998||7.70|
411. Youthful, female head to r., similar in details to the older head on Nos. 390–393 and 407–410, but smaller in scale, and wearing ear ring. In minute letters, along the tranche of the neck, is the inscr. ⊢YΓEIA, identifying the type, or possibly used as an epithet, in this case with Persephone understood, (cf. Head). The enclosing linear circle is frequently off-flan.
R. Thick leaf to 1. The barbs on the outermost awn to 1. (only) are on the outside.
|a. Br. Mus. Cat. 62||7.84|
|b. A.H. Lloyd||7.26|
|c. Sir H. Weber, 754||7.77|
|d. Naville XII, 399.||7.32|
412 Die of 411
|a. R. Cyril Lockett, ex Pozzi, 170||7.65|
|c. Naville XII, 398, ex Strozzi, 1000 and Sambon-Canessa, 1907,34||7.67|
413. Die of 411–2.
|b. Berlin, ex Fox||8.03|
|f. The Hague, Six Coll.||7.40|
|g. Naples, Fiorelli, 2364||7.44|
|h. R. Jameson, 293||7.74|
|i. E. T. Newell, ex Merzbacher, 1910, 102||7.371|
|j. Count Chandon de Briailles, ex Num. Straniero, 864||7.93|
|k. Strozzi, 999||–.—|
|l. Naville V, 448||7.74|
|m. Naville V, 447, ex Merzbacher, 1909, 2240||7.70|
|ex Num. Straniero, 249||7.71|
|ex Egger XLV, 151||7.72|
|n. Naville XV, 148||7.63|
413 1/2. Die of 413.
|a. Berlin, ex Imhoof-Blumer||7.90|
414. Closely similar to 411–413, bat without trace of inscr.
R. Similar to 413, but with an A above the curve of the leaf.
|a. Cambridge, McClean, 925, ex Hirsch XV, 545||7.60|
|c. A. H. Lloyd||7.55|
415. Similar to Hygieia type, but without inscr. and now enclosed in a wreath. Note that ear ring hangs diagonally.
|a. Spink's Circular 53392, ex Headlam 231 and Maddelena 352||7.18|
|b. Cambridge, McClean, 927||7.65|
|d. Hirsch XIV, 86||7.84|
|e. Helbing, 10/24/27, 2547, ex Pozzi, 167||7.42|
|f. Seabey I, 533, ex Ratto, 1926, 467, ex Sir H. Weber 756||7.77|
416. Die of 415.
R. Die of 413 1/2. The coin chosen for illustration is unfortunate in its reverse which has been tooled or over-cleaned. In this process the die flaw at the outer awn between the two letters has been removed— this flaw is the simplest way of identifying the die. It is in its initial stage in No. 413 1/2.
|a. E. T. Newell||7.25|
|f. Taranto, Carosino Hoard||7.67|
|g. R. Jameson, 268, ex Hirsch XV, 541||7.32|
|h. E. P. Robinson, Newport||7.65|
|i. A. H. Lloyd||7.87|
|j. W. H. Woodward, 19—Naville XV, 149, ex Naville V, 450 (Br. Mus. Dupl.)||7.81|
|k. Ratto 1926, 468, ex Naville V, 451||7.51|
|l. Naville X, 66, ex Naville IV, 69 and Sir H. Weber, 755||7.64|
|m. Naville XIII, 77, ex Benson 54 and Montagu, 43||7.84|
|n. Sambon (Picard), 1923, 116||–.—|
|o. Helbing sale, Nov. 1928,3339||7.75|
417. A barbaric (?) copying of 416–7. The leaves of the wreath are outlined rather than modelled in relief. Both the ear ring and the knot of hair at the back are poorly cut.
R. A crude copy of 416.
|a. Br. Mus. Cat. 53||6.19|
418. Die of 415–6, now much worn.
R. MET:—between the leaf to left and the ear. In field to r., a crayfish or lobster with head upwards.
419. Die of 415–6 and 418, now recut—apparently in an unsuccessful effort to remove the die-break which has begun to show in 418 over the earring. Signed in tiny letters, on the neck-tranche, APIΣT(—)—the last letter is uncertain.
R. Die of 418.
|a. Berlin, (cf. Friedlander, Archeol. Zeitung 1847, p. 118)||7.68|
|b. Vienna, Richter Coll.—Num. Zeit. 1914. p. 221, Pl. I, 30||7.54|
420. ⊢OMONOIA. In a linear circle, a female head facing to 1. The hair is fastened by a fillet which shows at the back of the head. A large earring is of the 'leech' form. A lentoid pendant is suspended from a plain necklace which is tied in a loop at the nape of the neck.
|a. Paris, De Luynes, 473||8.00|
|b. Br. Mus. Cat, 59||7.99|
|c. R. Jameson, 269, ex Ashburnham Sale, 12||7.92|
421. Die of 420 with inscr. altered by the introduction of a 'torch,' and the recutting of the letters not covered by the torch. The necklace is now beaded. A diebreak disguises the earring and extends in a curve toward the crown of the head. Cf. Imhoof-Blumer, Rev. Suisse, 1908, p. 137 (249).
R. Die of 420.
|a. Boston, ex Bunbury Sale, 124 (Cf. Greenwell, Num. Chron., 1897, p. 270)||8.05|
|d. E.T. Newell, ex Naville V, 446||7.61|
422. In a linear circle, wreathed head of Demeter facing to 1., wearing necklace of beads and earring. The wreath consists of six pairs of olive (?) leaves— the one on the right of the lowest pair is larger than the others—the British Museum Cat. suggests that it is of ivy. APIΣTOΞE. Across the tranche of the neck, in tiny letters. The earring is in the form of an inverted pyramid with two beads pendant on either side—cf. coins of Locris and Elis illustrated in the Br. Mus. Cat. of Jewelry, p. 180.
|a. Boston, Regling-Warren, 74||7.90|
|b. Paris, De Luynes, 475||7.65|
|c. Berlin, ex Fox||7.88|
|d. Cambridge, McClean, 924||7.57|
|e. Brussels, De Hirsch||7.81|
|f. The Hermitage||–.—|
|g. R. Jameson, 273||7.56|
|h. Vicomte de Sartiges, 39||–.—|
|i. W. Gedney Beatty||7.43|
|j. Locker Lampson Catalogue, 19||8.02|
|k. Munich, ex Hirsch XXVI, 231||7.47|
|l.||Naville XIII, 80, ex Carosino Hoard||7.90|
|m. Naville XIII, 81, ex Egger XLV, 149||7.72|
423. Die of 422.
R. For descr. see 424.
|a. Berlin, ex Imhoof-Blumer||7.70|
|b. Br. Mus. Cat. 74 (struck over B. M. C. Corinth Pl. VII, 6).||7.87|
|c. The Hermitage||–.—|
|d. E. T. Newell, ex Nervegna, 470 and Feuardent, 1913 (Mathey), 34||7.59|
|e. E. T. Newell||7.06|
424. Youthful female head (Kore) facing to left, wearing earring, ampyx and necklace with a pendant in the form of a lion's head. The hair is gathered in a roll at the back, but the locks over the ear are loose. Behind the neck is a large A, beneath the cross-bar of which the remainder of the signature is to be seen— PIΣTO. The whole is enclosed in a linear circle.
R. . Seven-grained barley ear with leaf to r.; in the field to 1. a locust, head upwards. Along the line of the leaf, in microscopic letters, is the name APIΣTOΞE. The last two letters are not certain.
|a. E. T. Newell||7.48|
425. Die of 424.
|a. A. H. Lloyd, ex Hirsch XXX, 177||7.60|
|b. Br. Mus. Cat. 72||7.54|
|d. E. T. Newell, ex Hirsch XV, 555, and Maddalena, 349||7.70|
|e. R. Jameson, 275||7.80|
426. Die of 424.
|a. E. T. Newell, ex Naville XII, 418, and Sambon-Canessa, Dec. 1907, 35||7.53|
|c. Strozzi Sale, 1006||–.—|
|d. Naville XV, 159||7.41|
427. Same die as 424, but with signature recut Apparently the alteration has been made by planing down the field and recutting the new surface. A die-break has developed at the end of the ampyx, and another below the earring.
|a. Berlin, ex Peytrignet||8.08|
|b. R. Jameson, 276.||7.79|
|c. Bourgey Sale, May, 1910, 13||–.—|
|d. Helbing Sale, Nov., 1928, 3340||7.80|
428. Head of beardless Herakles in lion's skin, to r.
|a. E. T. Newell, ex Bunbury 136, and Sir H. Weber, 747||7.39|
|b. Naples, Fiorelli, 2352||–.—|
|c. Turin, Royal Coll. 17979||7.90|
|e. G. Empedocles, ex Nervegna, 457||7.65|
429. Die of 428.
|a. Berlin, ex Löbbecke||7.30|
430. Die of 428.
R. Large and broad barley ear with six grains to each row. Locust with head upwards in field to r.
|a. Berlin, ex Löbbecke||7.92|
|b. Berlin, ex Fox||7.43|
|c. British Mus||–.—|
|d. Paris, De Luynes, 470||8.00|
|e. Cambridge, McClean, 939||7.21|
|f. Cambridge, McClean, 941, ex Hirsch XXI, 361||7.89|
|g. A. H. Lloyd, ex Num. Straniero Sale, 1909, 870||7.49|
|h. Baron Pennisi de Floristella, Acireale||–.—|
|i. E. P. Robinson, Newport, R. I.||7.55|
431. Apollo, nude, facing to r., seated on a four-legged stool, holding a lyre on his knee. The drapery covers his 1. thigh and falls from the seat of the stool. In the field to r., the trunk of a tree; the whole in a circle of dots.
R. Die of 430.
|b. Lecce—in the Rev. Num., 1915, p. 84,ote 2, it is stated that there is a unique specimen of this stater in the Museum at Lecce. Prof. E. Salvaggi, writing to Prof. Dott. S. Mirone under date of May 21, 1922, stated that this piece had been stolen by a visitor to whom the former director had accorded the privilege of examining the museum's coins||–.—|
432. Female head to r.—a crude imitation of the type on Plates 28 and 29. The crossed fillet of that series has not been understood by the cutter of this die, although the fluttering ends behind the head indicate what he has been attempting to copy. Compare also the cutting of the ear. The coarse hair and the heavy features should be noted.
433. Female head (Kore) to 1. The ampyx and earring are as in 424, but the hair-treatment is less careful. A globular pendant hangs from a necklace tied in a loop at the back. On the tranche of the neck is the signature APIΣTO.
R. The slender, six-grained ear is beautifully proportioned. Twisted leaf to 1. On the lowest grain to the right is the letter A(?). The upper half of the outermost awn to the left has the barbs on its outer side—for the lower part, they are inward.
|b. Berlin, ex Imhoof-Blumer||7.80|
|d. Brussels, De Hirsch||7.73|
|f. Cambridge, Lewes Coll||–.—|
|h. E. T. Newell||7.65|
|i. E. T. Newell||6.93|
|j. R. Jameson, 277||7.78|
|k. S P Noe||7.50|
|l.||Ratto Sale, 1/25/26, 477||7.39|
|m. Sambon-Canessa, 1927, 311||7.35|
|n. Brandis Sale 76||7.30|
|o. Helbing Sale, Nov., 1928, 3341||7.86|
434. Die of 433.
|a. Bement 191||7.64|
|c. Cambridge, McClean 971||7.78|
|d. E. T. Newell, ex Cahn Sale # 61,19 and Naville XII, 417||7.87|
|e. A. H. Lloyd||7.78|
|f. Spink's Numismatic Circular 53397, ex Egger XLV, 152 and Strozzi||7.84|
435. Female head to 1. wearing ampyx, necklace with bifurcate pendant, earring and sphendone ornamented with eight four-pointed stars. Short locks of loose hair are above the ear and the sphendone. A tiny spray of barley (often erased by over-cleaning is behind the head, tip downward. On the tranche of the neck APIΣTO (—). The whole is in a linear circle.
|a. Sir H. Weber 753, ex Bunbury I,122?||7.97|
|f. Cambridge, McClean 970||7.97|
|g. E. T. Newell||7.05|
|h. A. H. Lloyd, ex Naville IV, 74||7.98|
|i. W. Gedney Beatty||7.81|
436. Die of 435.
|b. Hunterian 9||7.76|
|c. Sir C. W. C. Oman||–.—|
|d. Strozzi 1004||7.50|
437. Similar to 435—the border is dotted and the sphendone shows only five stars. The necklace is of beads.
|a. Berlin, ex Prokesch-Östen||7.57|
|b. Berlin, ex Löbbecke||7.79|
|c. Br. Mus. Cat. 71||7.97|
|d. Paris, De Luynes 504||7.67|
|e. Boston-Regling—Warren 81, ex Bun-bury 124||7.69|
|g. New York City, Metropolitan Mus., Ward 57||7.81|
|h. Hunterian 10||7.28|
|i. Cambridge, Corpus Cristi—Lewes Coll||–.—|
|j. E. T. Newell||7.46|
|k. R. Jameson 289||7.76|
|l.||Bement 190, ex Rhousopoulos 143, and Hirsch XX, 50||7.95|
|m. Baron Pennisi di Floristella||–.—|
|p. Bachelor, Sotheby, 1907, 75||7.58|
|n. G. Empedocles, Athens||6.90|
|o. G. Empedocles||7.00|
|p. E. P. Robinson, Newport||7.52|
|q. Hirsch XIV, 87||7.75|
|r. Hirsch XXVI, 241||7.74|
|s. Seabey II, 97||–.—|
438. Similar to 437, but larger in scale and of coarser style. Plated?
R. Similar to 437, but with murex diagonally to 1. and inscr. more extended.
|a. Count Chandon de Briailles, ex Naville V, 453 and Ratto, 1912, 251 and Nervegna 467||5.05|
|b. Helbing Sale, 10/24/27, 2548, ex Naville XII, 415||6.14|
439. Female head (Kore) to r., with a single ear of barley in the hair above the forehead. One leaf of the stem is above the ear while the other extends in a graceful cur??e to the back of the head. The hair falls in thick tresses. A bead necklace is worn, but no earring. Behind the head is a single grain of barley. On the tranche the letters API appear. The linear circle enclosing the whole is frequently off-flan.
|b. Br. Mus. Cat. 83||7.72|
|c. Berlin, ex Löbbecke||6.85|
|d. Naples, Fiorelli 2361||–.—|
|e. The Hague||6.95|
|g. E. T. Newell||7.37|
|h. R. Jameson, 324||7.64|
|i. A. H. Lloyd||7.54|
|j. Naville XII, 405||7.49|
|k. Hamburger Sale, June 12, 1930, 571||7.62|
440. Die of 439.
|a. Brussels, De Hirsch||7.77|
|b. Berlin, ex Prokesch-Östen||7.95|
|e. Cambridge, McClean 942||7.85|
|f. A. H. Lloyd||7.96|
441. Die of 439.
|a. W. Gedney Beatty||7.85|
|b. Morgan Memorial, Hartford||–.—|
442. Die of 439.
443. Die of 439.
|a. Paris, De Luynes 496||7.72|
|b. Seabey 1, 533a, ex Ratto, 1/25/26, 478||7.75|
444. Die of 439.
|a. Sir H. Weber, 770||7.58|
|b. Br. Mus. Cat. 84||6.28|
|c. Berlin, ex Imhoof-Blumer||7.66|
|d. E. T. Newell||7.78|
|e. R. Cyril Lockett, ex Strozzi 1002, and Maddalena 350||7.78|
|f. HG. Empedocles, ex Hirsch XXVI, 22||7.91|
|g. Hirsch XV, 558||7.77|
|h. Hirsch XVI, 96||7.50|
445. Die of 439.
|a. R. Jameson, 325, ex Strozzi 1003||7.94|
|b. Berlin, ex Imhoof-Blumer||7.54|
|c. Cambridge, McClean 941||7.89|
|f. The Hermitage||– .—|
|g. Egger XL, 163||7.53|
446. In a linear circle, female head (Kore?) to r., wearing an earring and necklace with pendant, and tiny knot or loop at the back. The hair is held by a figured sphendone.
R. Die of 420–421, with the breaks further developed and the letters YΛ added between the leaf and the ear.
|a. R. Jameson, 285, ex Consul Weber 7.26 Sale, 357—wt. given||8.22|
|b. A. H. Lloyd||7.86|
447. Die of 446.
|a. A. H. Lloyd, ex Sir H. Weber, 760, and Martinetti-Nervegna, 465||7.61|
|b. Hunterian 11||7.60|
|c. E. T. Newell||7.33|
|d. Hirsch XXXI, 48, ex American Artist Sale, 67 and Well-known Amateur 152, Regling-Warren 82||7.90|
|e. Naville XII, 414||7.61|
|f. Sambon-Canessa, 1927, 313||7.60|
448. Die of 446.
|a. E. T. Newell||7.42|
|b. Br. Mus. Cat 70||8.07|
|e. Egger XLV, 173||7.52|
449. ΣΩTHPIA. Female head facing three-quarters to r., with flowing locks and a wreath of barley, an ear of which extends on either side. The inscr. is above the head. The necklace is composed of disproportionately large pendents.
|b. Taranto (ex Carosino Hoard)||7.48|
|c. Br. Mus. Cat. 144||7.83|
|d. Br. Mus. Cat. 145||7.86|
|e. Paris, De Luynes 505||7.47|
|f. Berlin, ex Peytrignet||7.36|
|g. Berlin, " Löbbecke||7.50|
|h. Berlin, " Imhoof-Blumer||7.36|
|j. Cambridge, McClean 937, ex Strozzi 1025, and Sambon-Canessa, 1907, 370||7.35|
|k. Cambridge, McClean 938||7.51|
|l. Cambridge, Corpus-Christi, Lewes Coll||–.—|
|m. Naples, Fiorelli 2354||–.—|
|n. Munich||– —|
|o. R. Jameson, 326||7.53|
|p. E. T. Newell, ex Hirsch XXVI, 276 - 7.69|
450. Female head to 1. The hair is bound by a diadem ornamented with a wreath of olive leaves, the foremost of which projects over the forehead. The ends of the diadem hang from a bow at the back. In front of the forehead, and reading upward, NIKA. Beneath the chin, the letter Σ. Cf. pp. 28.
|b. Br. Mus. Cat. 136||7.98|
|d. Berlin, ex Löbbecke||7.79|
|e. Cambridge, McClean 933||6.63|
|g. R. Jameson, 279||7.89|
|h. E.T. Newell, ex Hirsch XXXI, 49||7.78|
|i. G. Empedocles, ex Hirsch XXVI, 228||7.95|
|j. Bement 170, ex Hirsch XXXIV, 44||7.85|
|k. Sambon (Picard), 143||–.—|
451. Die of 450—the sinking-in of the die has extended still further. In specimen a., the defect has almost surrounded the ear, which accounts for the statement of M. Jameson's catalogue that the piece is 'countermarked' over the ear. One of the Berlin pieces is struck from the recut die—cf. 452.
|a. R. Jameson, 295||7.87|
|b. Br. Mus. Cat. 137||7.65|
|c. Berlin, ex Imhoof-Blumer||7.73|
|d. Berlin, ex Löbbecke (no trace of plating)||6.46|
452. Die of 450, recut. In an effort to eliminate the die-defects, there has been a complete re-working below the diadem. The profile is in much higher relief and the expression entirely changed.
|a. Br. Mus. Cat. 138||7.80|
|c. Cambridge, McClean 932||7.74|
453. Head of Dionysus to 1. with hair falling in tresses, and wearing a broad diadem decorated with a meander pattern and with a row of ivy leaves above. Behind the head a loop and one end of the diadem show. Beneath the chin, the letter E.
|a. A. H. Lloyd||7.92|
|d. Berlin, ex Fox||7.74|
|g. E. T. Newell||7.66|
|h. O'Hagan, 52, ex Balmanno||7.51|
|i. Sambon Sale, 1925, 109.||–.—|
454. Die of 453.
|b. Br. Mus. Cat. 91||8.08|
|g. Gotha –.—|
|h. R. Cyril Lockett, ex Bement 174||6.50|
|i. De Sartiges 38||–.—|
|j. Headlam 234, ex Rollin-Feuardent, 1908, 55, and Hirsch XV (Philipsen), 563 and Hirsch VIII, 792||7.72|
455. Variant of 453—the head is larger and the relief not so high. Below the head, the letters ΣΠ.
|a. Paris, De Luynes 477||7.69|
|b. Berlin, ex Löbbecke||7.57|
|c. R. Jameson 296||7.96|
|d. Hirsch VIII, 791, ex Montagu, 1896, 44||7.84|
456. Die of 455.
|a. E. T. Newell, ex Hirsch XXX, 185||7.82|
|b. Br. Mus. Cat. 92||7.84|
|c. Naville XV, 151||7.95|
457. Similar to 455—possibly a barbaric imitation.
|a. E. T. Newell||7.61|
458. Die of 455.
|a. Spink's Numismatic Circular 53401c, ex Hirsch XXI, 359||7.90|
|c. Hirsch XXX, 184||7.80|
|d. Naville XII, 407||7.60|
459. Die of 455.
|a. Hirsch XXVI, 247, ex Strozzi 1007||7.90|
|b. Cambridge, McClean 943, ex Hirsch XIV, 93 and Well-Known Amateur 154, Regling-Warren 80||7.83|
|c. Van Belle Sale, 1901, ex Rhousopoulos, Hirsch XIII, 147 7.67|
460. Head of Pan or 'Panesse' to r., with ivy wreath and a short goat's-horn. On the Berlin specimen ΣΠ is to be read in front of the forehead. Cf. Num. Zeit., 1915, p. 99.
|a. Berlin, ex Fox||7.84|
|b. Br. Mus. Cat. 90||7.69|
|c. Cambridge, McClean 936, ex Hirsch XV, 562||7.26|
|f. R. Jameson 1866, ex Hirsch XXVI, 24||7.68|
461. Laureated head of Apollo (?) to r. On the neck-base, AΠOΛ. Beneath, Σ.
|a. Berlin, ex Fox||7.81|
|b. Berlin, ex Imhoof-Blumer||7.63|
|c. The American Numismatic Society (Illustr.)||7.65|
|h. Brussels, De Hirsch||8.13|
|i. Hunterian 20||7.91|
|k. Lyons Cabinet||7.70|
|l. Hungarian National Museum||7.63|
|m. R. Jameson, 300||7.57|
|n. E. T. Newell||7.72|
|o. R. Cyril Lockett, ex Bement 173 and Hirsch XXVI, 249||7.69|
|p. E. S. G. Robinson||–.—|
|q. Naville X, 73, ex Pozzi, 172||7.77|
|r. Hirsch XXVI, 23, ex Löbbecke||7.63|
|s. Sambon-Canessa, 1927, 316||7.90|
|t. Sambon (Picard), 1923, 138||–.—|
|u. Seabey I, 532||8.05|
462. Variant of 461—the inscr., much blurred, is sometimes read ΓAP; the Σ in higher relief.
|a. Berlin, ex Imhoof-Blumer||7.42|
|b. Br. Mus. Cat. 95||7.71|
|c. Cambridge, McClean 935||7.55|
|f. E. T. Newell, ex Stiavelli 73 and Merzbacher, 1909, 2250||7.71|
|g. Naville V, 461||6.73|
|h. E. T. Newell||7.49|
463. Die of 462.
|a. Berlin, ex Fox||7.71|
|b. Br. Mus. Cat. 94||7.81|
|e. De Sartiges 40, ex Hirsch XXVI, 248||7.70|
|f. Hoyt Miller||7.48|
|g. W. H. Woodward 20, ex Mathey||8.02|
|h. Strozzi 1015||– —|
464. In a circle of large dots, youthful Dionysiae head to r., wearing a wreath of ivy leaves. Along the base of the neck, IΠOΛY—behind the head, Σ.
|a. Br. Mus. Cat 93||8.02|
|c. Berlin, ex Imhoof-Blumer||7.65|
|f. E. T. Newell||7.44|
|g. R. Cyril Lockett, ex Pozzi 171||7.43|
|h. S. P. Noe||7.41|
|i. Rollin & Feuardent Sale, 1908, 54, ex Hirsch XV, 564||7.77|
|j. Ex Berlin Dupl||7.20|
465. Die of 464.
|a. Berlin, ex Gansauge||7.98|
|c. Paris, De Luynes 493||7.51|
|d. Hunterian 45||7.30|
|e. Hunterian 46||7.49|
|f. Weimar—Goethe Coll.||– —|
466. Die of 464.
|a. Berlin, ex Prokesch-Osten||7.84|
|b. Berlin, ex Imhoof-Blumer||7.62|
|c. Brussels, De Hirsch||7.96|
|d. E. T. Newell, ex Hamburger, 5/29/29, 49.||7.35|
|e. Naville VI, 172, Bement, ex Sir. H. Weber 762||7.70|
|f. Well-known Archeologist, 1898, 13||7.32|
467. Female head to 1. with necklace of pearls but no ear-ring. The hair is bound by a wide fillet which encircles the head giving the effect of a sphendone. A tiny ear of barley hangs down over the forehead, and a small leaf curves upward from the front of the sphendone—cf. Nos. 470 and 471. In field to r., a poppyhead with leaf. Beneath the neck, TPO, the first letter possibly a Π or Γ.
R. Barley ear with leaf to 1.—above it, a laurel-leaf.
|a. Br. Mus. Cat. 119||7.91|
|b. Berlin, ex Imhoof-Blumer||7.48|
|d. Naville V, 458, ex Br. Mus. Cat. 120||7.81|
468. Die of 467.
|a. R. Jameson, 278||7.83|
|b. Brussels, De Hirsch||8.03|
|d. W. Gedney Beatty, ex Naville XII,|
|f. 416, and Merzbacher 1909, 2242||7.49|
|e. Sir A. Evans|
469. Die of 467.
|a. J. P. Morgan Coll., ex Strozzi 996||7.82|
|c. E. T. Newell||7.28|
|d. Hoyt Miller||7.39|
|e. A. H. Lloyd, ex Stiavelli 78 and Hirsch XIV, 99||7.63|
470. Die of 467.
|a. Naples, Santangelo||–.—|
|b. Naples, Stevens Coll.||–.—|
|f. Cambridge, McClean 972||6.29|
|g. E. T. Newell, ex Strozzi 995 and Sambon-Canessa, 1907, 32 and Hirsch XXIX, 48||7.72|
|h. R. Cyril Lockett, ex Hirsch XXI, (Consul Weber), 360||7.61|
471. Die of 467.
|a. Br. Museum||–.—|
|b. Berlin, ex Löbbecke||7.71|
|c. Naples, Fiorelli 2362||–.—|
|d. Cambridge, Corpus Christi-Lewes Coll.||– .—|
|e. E. T. Newell||7.80|
|f. A. H. Lloyd Cf. Num. Chron. 1924, Pl. X, 11||7.67|
472. Female head to 1., wearing necklace. The hair is in a thick braid which encircles the head, and is doubled over the forehead—cf. 475 and 476. Behind the head ΣT.
|a. E. T. Newell||7.71|
|b. E. T. Newell||7.48|
473. Female head to r. encircled with a braid of hair not so thick as in 472. In the field above and behind the head A៷A, retrograde. Beneath the base of the neck, ΣT—the T is questionable. Imhoof-Blumer (Berl. Bl. f. Munzkunde, 1870, p. 33), suggested that a well preserved specimen would permit the reading AʘANA, but the piece owned by Mr. Lloyd shows this very unlikely unless the missing letters are off-flan in front of the forehead—none of the specimens examined are complete for this section of the die except the Naples one, on which all of the letters seem to have been removed by cleaning.
R. Die of 472.
|b. Naples, Santangelo||–.—|
|c. E. T. Newell||7.70|
474. Die of 473.
|b. A. H. Lloyd||6.99|
475. Die of 472.
R. Die of 474.
|a. Br. Mus. Cat. 140||7.48|
|b. Berlin, ex Imhoof-Blumer||7.60|
|d.R. Jameson 291||7.99|
|e. A. H. Lloyd, ex Naville V, 459 and Hirsch XXX, 187||7.86|
|f. A. H. Lloyd, ex Hirsch XXXIII, 162 and Hirsch XXX, 188 and Strozzi 1012||7.95|
|g. Helbing, Nov. 1928, 3367, ex Naville IV, 77 and Hirsch XXVI, 274||7.60|
|h. Sambon (Picard), 144||–.—|
476. Die of 472 and 475, deepened by recutting.
|a. Vienna Cf. Imhoof-Blumer, Nymphen, etc. Pl. I, 22 and Sambon, Riv. It. Num., 1889, 143||7.74|
|b. De Sartiges, 41||–.—|
|c. Sir H. Weber, 777||6.88|
477. Female head to r., of the same type as 446–448, but with ovoid earring with terminal globule replacing leech-shaped one. Beneath the sphendone, in tiny letters, OΔYΛ, the last letter lying just above the clasp or loop of the necklace. Probably a recutting of the die of 446.
|b. Br. Mus. Cat. 69||7.79|
|d. A. H. Lloyd, ex Hirsch XXVI, 230 Cf. Proceedings Royal Num. Soc. 1914, p. 20||7.64|
|e. Hoyt Miller||–.—|
478. Die of 477.
|a. Naville X, 72, ex Pozzi 175 and Hirsch XV, 553||6.93|
|b. Berlin, ex Löbbecke (Plate 35)||7.64|
|c. Cambridge, McClean 959||7.45|
|d. E. T. Newell||7.60|
|e. Count Chandon de Briailles, ex Hirsch XXX 181||7 70|
|f. Hirsch XIV, 85 (86 on plate)||6.92|
479. Die of 477.
|b. Naples, Fiorelli 2358||– —|
|c. R. Cyril Lockett, ex Hirsch XXXIII, 145||7.55|
480. Female head to r. in border of dots. The hair is bound by a fillet which encircles the head four times, leaving a top-knot of loose locks at the back. The earring has a single pendant in the shape of an inverted pyramid. The head is noticeably small in scale.
R. Die of 479—die-break across the ear in many specimens.
|a. Paris, De Luynes 491||7.60|
|c. Br. Mus. Cat. 86||7.76|
|f. Cambridge, McClean 976||7.50|
|g. Cambridge, Corpus Christi-Lewes Coll.||–.—|
|h. W. Gedney Beatty||–.—|
|i. Hirsch XXI, 358||7.99|
|j. Hirsch XXVI, 243||7.77|
|k. Egger XLV, 148||7.63|
481. Die of 480.
|c. Turin—Royal Coll. 17972||7.60|
|d. Naples, Fiorelli 2357||–.—|
|g. Br. Mus. Cat. 87||7.64|
|i. R. Jameson 287||7.71|
|j. E. T. Newell||7.69|
|k. E. T. Newell||7.60|
|l. A. H. Lloyd||7.65|
|m. Hoyt Miller||7.64|
|n. Ratto Sale, 1927, 208||7.25|
|o. Ready Sale 70, ex Hess 1902, 306— ex Coll. Fox||—|
482. Similar to 480, but with globular earring and with fillet showing as a double line. Possibly 480 recut.
R. Die of 481.
483. Die of 482.
|a. E. T. Newell||7.94|
|b. The American Numismatic Society||7.55|
|f. Naville XII, 420||7.08|
484. Die of 482.
|a. E. T. Newell, ex Hirsch XXXIII, 144||7.70|
|b. Br. Mus.||7.28|
|e. W. Gedney Beatty||–.—|
|f. G. Locker Lampson Cat. 21||7.63|
485. Die of 482.
|a. Taranto, ex Carosino Find||7.71|
|b. Spink's Numismatic Circular 53399||7.78|
486. Female head to r., the head bound with a fillet. The earring is triple pendant; the bead necklace is often obliterated.
R. Die of 485, considerably worn; the O and N of the inscr. filled in, and flaws elsewhere.
|b. E. T. Newell||7.59|
|c. E. T. Newell||7.71|
|d. A. H. Lloyd.||7.21|
|e. Spink's Numismatic Circular 53398||7.78|
487. Die of 486.
|a. Br. Mus. Cat. 143||7.77|
|c. The Hague||7.85|
|d. Cambridge, McClean 967||7.57|
|e. Buda Pesth—Hungarian National Museum –.—|
|f. R. Jameson 297||7.57|
|g. Count Chandon de Briailles||7.30|
|h. E. P. Robinson||7.61|
|i. Naville V,455||7.50|
|j. Egger XLV, 175||7.57|
488. Female head to r. with triple-pendant earring and necklace. The head is encircled by a diadem which holds in place a wreath of leaves. On the neck-base, 'NIKA'.
R. Die of 487, with the break considerably enlarged.
|a. Berlin, ex Imhoof-Blumer||7.49|
|b. Berlin, ex Löbbecke||7.94|
|c. Paris, De Luynes 488||7.70|
|e. Count Chandon de Briailles||7.35|
|f. G. Empedocles||7.30|
|g. Durufle, 1910, 72||–.—|
|h. Hirsch XVI, 99||7.55|
|i. Naville V, 460||7.73|
489. An imitation of 488. The inscription is absent and the modelling very feeble.
|a. R. Jameson 303||7.70|
|b. A. H. Lloyd||7.76|
490. Die of 488.
|a. Cambridge, McClean 991, ex Maddalena 377||7.70|
|b. Naples, Fiorelli 2409||—|
491. Female head to r., with small triple-pendant earring. The hair at the back is bound by a net.
R. Die of 490.
|a. Taranto, ex Carosino Hoard||7.61|
|d. E. T. Newell||7.31|
|e. R. Jameson 288||7.22|
492. Die of 491.
|a. E. T. Newell||7.74|
|b. Baron S. Pennisi de Floristella, Acireale||– —|
|c. Cahn 66, 44, ex Cahn Sale 60, 83||7.57|
493. Female head to r., with single pendant earring, and hair bound by a sphendone or sakkos.
R. Die of 492.
|a. Hoyt Miller||–.—|
|b. Taranto, ex Carosino Hoard||7.91|
|d. E. T. Newell||7.82|
|e. R. Jameson 282||7.76|
|f. W. H. Woosdward 21, ex Collignon 31 and Maddalena 355||7.98|
|g. G. Locker Lampson Cat., ex Nervegna 466 and Mathey, 31||7.75|
|h. A. H. Lloyd||7.77|
494. Die of 493.
|a. Br. Mus. Cat. 133||7.78|
|b. Hunterian 48||7.54|
|d. Cambridge, McClean 966||7.41|
|f. G. Empedocles, ex Hirsch XXVI, 271||7.68|
495. Female head to r., with ampyx and sphendone ornamented with three stars. The necklace suspends an ornament; the earring has a single pendant. In front of the forehead, with the top of the letters adjacent thereto, reading upward, 'NIKA'.
|b. Brussels, De Hirsch||7.82|
|c. Br. Mus. Cat. 141||7.81|
|e. Paris, De Luynes 489||7.98|
|f. Berlin, ex Imhoof-Blumer||7.90|
|h. E. T. Newell||7.16|
|i. E. P. Robinson||7.83|
|j. A. H. Lloyd||7.89|
|k. A. H. Lloyd||7.89|
|l. Cambridge, Corpus Christi—Lewes Coll.|
|m. Naville V, 491||7.48|
496. Similar to 491—the head is larger.
|a. E. T. Newell||7.27|
|b. R. Cyril Lockett, ex Pozzi 178 and Hirsch XXXIII, 160||7.75|
|c. A. H. Lloyd, ex Naville XIV, 33||7.66|
|d. Helbing Sale, 1928, 3365||7.70|
497. Similar to 493—the head larger. KPI in field to 1.
R. Die of 496.
|a. H. A. Greene, Providence||–.—|
|c. The Hague, Six Coll||7.80|
|d. Hunterian 49||7.51|
|f. Br. Mus. Cat. 131||7.67|
|g. R. Jameson 281||7.84|
|h. Archeologist Sale, (Evans), 15||7.39|
498. Similar to 497—the KPI differently placed. A bead necklace shows faintly.
R. Closely similar to 496–7—the base of the ear is in higher relief, and the lambda is slightly broader. The Y is off-flan.
|a. Naville IV, 75, ex Sir H. Weber, 773||7.42|
499. Die of 497.
|a. Cambridge, McClean 961||7.62|
|d. Naples, Fiorelli 2359||–.—|
|e. Seaby I, 535||7.76|
500. Die of 499.
|c. E. T. Newell||7.45|
|d. H. A. Greene||7.45|
501. Female head to r. with broad fillet or ampyx, which is visible over the hair-mass at the back.
|b. Br. Mus. Cat. 142||7.89|
|e. E. T. Newell||7.50|
502. Same type as 501—the fillet does not show at the back, and the letters of a signature, possibly KPI, show behind the neck. Probably a re-cutting of the die of 501—note the added relief to the profile, and in the knot of hair at the back, as well as the enlargement of the single-pendant earring.
|a. A. H. Lloyd, ex Bement 185, and Hirsch XXXI, 66||7.40|
|b. Cambridge, McClean 960||7.58|
|c. S. P. Noe||7.45|
503. Female head to r. with single-pendant earring and ampyx. The necklace is held at the back by a tiny circlet apparently suspended from the hair; the pendant is bifurcate. In the field behind the head, ΣOAT(?). In tiny letters along the base of the neck, APIΣTI. The whole is in a linear circle.
|a. Paris, De Luynes 490||8.04|
|b. Cambridge, McClean 934||7.80|
|c. Hunterian 17||7.26|
|d. E. T. Newell, ex Sotheby, July 6, 1921, 171||8.03|
504. Die of 503.
|a. R. Jameson 298, ex Hirsch XV, 556||7.76|
|c. H. A. Greene||–.—|
505. Die of 503.
506. Female head to r. with triple-pendant earring and necklace. The hair is rolled back from the forehead and tucked in at the back. Border of dots. The type is apparently derived from the Euainetos head at Syracuse—possibly through the version used at Terina (cf. Evans—The Artistic Engravers of Terina, Num. Chron. 1912, p. 21.)
R. Die of 505.
|a. British Museum, ex Sir Herman Weber 758 and Sambon Sale, 1902, 325||7.33|
|b. E. T. Newell||7.75|
507. Similar to 506 but smaller in scale and not so well done.
|a. Taranto, ex Carosino Hoard||7.87|
|b. Berlin, ex Friedlander||7.77|
|c. Berlin, ex Löbbecke||7.76|
508. A copying of 507, in lower relief. The hair, where it is tucked in at the back is not well done.
R. Die of 507.
|a. R. Jameson, 284, ex Hirsch XV, 559||7.45|
509. Die of 507. Cf. also No. 542.
R. Seven-grained barley ear with leaf to r.; above it, vertically upward, ΞΩ.
|a. Br. Mus. Cat. 85||7.98|
|c.Naville XV, 174, ex Helbing Sale, Nov. 1928, 3364||7.60|
510. Similar to die of 493 or 497–500, but with letter I behind the head.
R. Die of 509.
|a. Cambridge, McClean 963||7.71|
|b. Naples, Santangelo||–.—|
|c. Egger XLV, 174||7.68|
511. Die of 510.
|a. Bement, Naville VI, 186||7.78|
|b. E. T. Newell||7.75|
|c. Sambon-Canessa, 1927, 314 (7.85), ex Ratto, Jan. 26, 1926, 488||7.66|
512. Female head to r. with earring and necklace. The cutting of the hair-net, evidently a reminiscence of preceding dies, is ineffective. In field to 1., K.
|a. British Museum, ex Sir H. Weber 759||7.52|
|c. Vienna (over Corinthian stater)||–.—|
|d. Cambridge, McClean 962||7.64|
|f. E. T. Newell (struck over ?), ex Ratto, 1912, 257||7.69|
|g. Hirsch XXVI, 245||7.82|
|h. Naville V, 454||7.61|
513. Similar to 497–500, but with a retrograde K behind the neck.
|a. Brussels, De Hirsch||7.85|
|b. Br. Mus. Cat. 132||7.59|
|d. E. T. Newell (over Corinthian? stater)||7.43|
|e. A. H. Lloyd, ex Naville V, 488||7.80|
|f. Naville V, 489, ex R. Payne Knight Coll||7.39|
514. Die of 513.
|a. E. T. Newell||7.72|
515. Similar to 513, but of finer workmanship.
|a. Headlam Sale 232, ex Stiavelli 76 and Well-known Amateur 158 (Regling-Warren 79)||8.10|
|b. Cleveland Museum (overstruck)||–.—|
|c. Baron Pennisi di Floristella||–.—|
|d. Cahn 61st sale, 20, ex Nervegna 469||7.70|
516. Female head to r. with single pendant earring and necklace. The head is encircled by a braid of hair, the ends of which are arranged as a tuft or aigrette at the top.
|a. Paris, De Luynes 480||7.77|
|b. Bement 187, ex Hirsch XXVI, 275||7.90|
|c. Nervegna 468||–.—|
|d. E. T. Newell||7.25|
517. Die of 516.
|a. E. T. Newell||7.45|
|b. Naples, Fiorelli 2408||–.—|
|c. Naples, Santangelo||–.—|
|d. Cambridge, McClean 965||7.95|
518. Die of 515.
|b. Cambridge, McClean 964, ex Hirsch XIII, 150||7.86|
|c. Ratto, 1912, 258, ex Naville V, 490||7.76|
519. Female head with earring and necklace, and with hair bound by net, facing to 1.
|b. Pozzi 179, ex Hirsch XVI, 100||7.87|
520. Die of 519 with break below.
|a. Br. Mus. Cat. 130||7.93|
|b. Cambridge, McClean 968||7.31|
|c. Hungarian Nat. Museum, Buda Pesth||7.65|
521. Female head to 1. with earring (single-pendant).
R. Die of 519.
|a. Cambridge, McClean 969||7.68|
522. Die of 521.
|d. Naples, Santangelo||–.—|
523. Similar to 521, but smaller in scale and higher in relief.
|a. Berlin, ex Löbbecke, fourrée||6.37|
524. Probably same die as 521.
|a. Paris, De Luynes 476||7.85|
|b. Br. Mus. Cat. 128||7.99|
|c. R. Jameson 286, ex Prowe Sale, 1904, 98||7.74|
|d. E. T. Newell||7.40|
|e. George J. Bauer, Rochester||–.—|
|f. Hirsch XX, 56, ex Hirsch XIII, 149||8.02|
|g. Naville XIII, 88, ex Hirsch XXX, 180||7.98|
|h. Ratto, 1/26/26, 487||7.52|
525. Similar to 524, but the head is smaller.
|a. E. T. Newell, ex Pozzi, 177, and Hirsch XV (Philipsen), 588||7.40|
526. Die of 525.
R. Die of 525 with a small cartouche bearing the inscr. ⊢HP beneath the murex. This addition seems to have been made to offset a break in the die at this point.
|a. Berlin, ex Hamburger Sale, 10/29/1901, Pl. I, 10||7.66|
|b. Naples, Santangelo 4140||–.—|
|c. A. H. Lloyd||7.82|
527. Die of 525.
|b. Br. Mus. Cat. 127||7.68|
|c. Berlin, ex Imhoof-Blumer||7.59|
|d. Berlin, ex Löbbecke||7.94|
|f. E. T. Newell||7.40|
|g. Cambridge, Corpus Christi, Lewes Coll||–.—|
|h. Hunterian 12||7.70|
|i. Hunterian 13||7.76|
|j. The Hermitage||–.—|
|k. A. H. Lloyd, ex Bement 189||7.86|
528. Female head to r., with earring (leech-shaped) and necklace.
|a. Paris, De Luynes 492||7.30|
529. Similar to 528, but smaller in scale and higher in relief.
|a. Br. Mus. Cat. 126||7.86|
|c. Hunterian 47||7.69|
|d. Cambridge, McClean 975||7.52|
|e. R. Cyril Lockett||7.81|
|f. Count Chandon de Briailles||7.53|
|g. Stiavelli 77||7.85|
530. Imitation of No. 330.
R. Similar to reverse of 332, save that the ethnic has four letters—the prototype has but three.
|a. Milan-Castello Sforzesco||–.—|
531. See 532 for descr.—same die.
|a. A. H .Lloyd||5.89|
|b. R. Jameson, 330||6.30|
532. Imitation of the type of Nos. 366–383, with the added inscr. TAEPINON. Cf. Num. Zeit. 1915, p. 100.
|a. R. Jameson, 1870||5.64|
533. An imitation of No. 450. The modelling is much flatter than in the prototype; the hair is badly done and so is the ear. The ribbon at the back of the head is bungled.
|a. The Hague||6.70|
534. An imitation of No. 472—the die has a flat field, and lacks the letters behind the neck.
R. The modelling and the lettering are unlike that of the reverses muled with this obverse type. The mouse on the leaf to the right is a little overlarge in scale. The awns are cut by first making holes with the drill and then making the line thus formed continuous—a practice not observed elsewhere in the dies of this period. The ear is well-modelled; the die unusually flat.
|a. The Hague—possibly not plated.||7.70|
535. Also similar to 472, but with bolder modelling than in No. 534.
Similar to reverse of 472; the mouse is long-eared.
|a. B. M. Cat. 139||6.05|
536. Same type as Nos. 480—484, but a third die. The locks of hair at the back are longer, the earring differs. See discussion of this type on p. 53.
R. Similar to 481, with differences in the placing and form of the symbol.
|a. Berlin (Von Dressel thought it plated, Dr. Regling doubts this)||6.93|
537. Imitation of Nos. 480–484.
|a. Vienna—plating not certain||6.59|
538. An imitation of the type of Nos. 467–471. R. Imitation of 471.
539. Imitation of No. 495.
R. Fairly close imitation of 495—the barley ear is not so well-proportioned.
|a. A. H. Lloyd, ex Hirsch XXX, 182||5.38|
540. Die of 539.
R. Imitation of No. 471, but not the same die as 538.
|a. Vatican Cabinet. Cf. Garrucci ciii 28||–.—|
541. An imitation of No. 471.
R. Die of No. 540.
|a. A. H. Lloyd, ex Auct. Sambon, Mar. 13, 1923 (Picard), No. 115||7.00|
542. A close following of No. 506—the die-cutting lacks the brilliancy of its pattern.
|a. Brussels (De Hirsch)—"no traces of plating"||6.86|
543. Similar to 497 to 500 (without KPI).
R. Fairly close imitation of rev. die of Nos. 496–497.
544. Imitation of No. 493.
|a. Berlin—no evidences of plating, ex Peytrignet||7.16|
545. Die of 544.
546. Imitation of 521 or 523.
|a. Br. Mus. Cat. 129||7.45|
547. Die of 546.
R. Die of 546 with the cross-bar of the T added, and with a leaf, tip downwards, added to the field at the right.
|1||Koldewey and Puchstein, Die Griechischen Tempeln in Unteritalien und Sicilien, Berlin, 1899,|
|2||Diodorus, XI, 52.|
|3||Aristotle, Polit., V, 2, 8.|
|4||This difficulty lies in the statement that the allied Rhegians after the defeat fled "toward Rhegium." So great was the impetus of the pursuers "that they rushed into Rhegium together with the fugitives and took possession of the city." Pais believes that the city to which reference is made was a trading post or fortress in the valley of the River Siris granted to their Rhegian allies by the Tarentines.|
|5||Pais, Ancient Italy, p. 27 ff.|
|6||Pais bases his opinion on (1) The absence of any mention of the name of Metapontum in the war between Tarentum and Thurium in 433 over the site for Heracleia; (2) on the omission of Metapontum's name as participating in the council of the Italic League held at Heracleia (Strabo, VI, p. 280C); (3) on the absence of any mention of Metapontum when the Achaean League was revived, (Polybius, II, 39). I have not found that Pais' conclusions are shared by anyone else. If Tarentum had controlled Metapontum at this time, there would have to be an explanation of why the coinage was allowed to continue.|
|7||Br. Mus. Cat. Italy, p. 244; Ward, Greek Coins and their Parent Cities, p. 10.|
|8||Klio, VI, pp. 509 and 515.|
|9||Revue Suisse, XXI, 1917, p. 5, where further references are cited.|
|10||Zeus, Pt. 1, p. 372.|
|11||M. Lacava, Topogr. e Storia di Metaponto. Naples, 1891.|
|12||M. Vlasto, Taras Oikistes, p. 90, etc.|
|13||See Selvaggi in Apulia, 1910, v. I, p. 58.|
|14||Baranowsky Sale, 1931, No. 213.|
|15||Ancient Greek Coins in the possession of William Harrison Woodward, p. 7, No. 20.|
|16||J. I. N., 1908, p. 1 ff.|
|17||Cf. Sambon, Rev. Num., 1915, p. 85.|
|18||Num. Chron., 1920, p. 277.|
|19||Num. Chron., 1885, p. 165ff.|
|20||M. Vlasto in Numismatic Chronicle, 1926, p. 218 ff., where a dating of 336-4 B.C., is assigned.|
|21||Atti e Memorie dell’ Istituto Ital. di Num. vol VI, pp. 1–72.|