The American Journal of Numismatics, 1866–1920.

Monthly, May, 1866–April, 1870.

Quarterly, July, 1870–October, 1912.

Annually, 1913–1920.

With many plates, illustrations, maps and tables. Less than a half-dozen complete sets of the Journal remain on hand. Price on application.

The numbers necessary to complete broken sets may in most cases be obtained. An index to the first fifty volumes has been issued as part of Volume LI. It may be purchased separately for $3.00.

The American Numismatic Society. Catalogue of the International Exhibition of Contemporary Medals. March, 1910. New and revised edition. New York. 1911. xxxvi, 412 pages, 512 illustrations. $10.00. Price to members, $5.00.

Numismatic Notes and Monographs is devoted to essays and treatises on subjects relating to coins, paper money, medals and decorations, and is uniform with Hispanic Notes and Monographs published by the Hispanic Society of America, and with Indian Notes and Monographs issued by the Museum of the American Indian—Heye Foundation.

Publication Committee
• Agnes Baldwin Brett , Chairman
• Stephen H. P. Pell
• Thomas O. Mabbott

Editorial Staff
• Sydney Philip Noe , Editor
• Howland Wood , Associate Editor

Copyright, 1935, by

The American Numismatic Society

george banta publishing company

menasha, wisconsin

The three silver hoards here published were found in three different seasons of the excavations of Dura-Europos by Yale University and the French Academy. 1 Of the Sixth Hoard found in 1931–32, a brief summary has appeared in the Preliminary Report of the Fifth Season of Work (New Haven, 1934), pp. 304–306. Hoard 7 was found on January 18, 1933 in a common-ware jar near the citadel, while Hoard 10 was unearthed on December 24, 1933 diametrically across the town, not far from the Palmyra Gate which is the chief entrance to the city. In the second case the place of finding is very important, for the hoard was in one of those houses lying near the city wall which had been buried in the great embankment with which the walls themselves were reinforced. Since Hoard 10 contains coins of the year 256, the embankment cannot have been constructed until this, the last year of Dura's life, and must have been a device to meet the final Sassanian siege and neither a counter to earlier attacks nor a general precaution to strengthen weakened defenses. It is also worth noticing that this is a case where the owner abandoned his money not because the enemy was within the city but merely because the house where it was hidden was condemned. Of course he may have perished before the building of the embankment, but one would expect some member of the family to have moved the coins to another hiding place when the house was about to be buried.

Since much of the material in these three is parallel, it seemed advisable to publish them together abandoning the earlier system of numbering each coin and to give numbers to the types instead while the representation in each hoard is recorded in columns to the right. The condition of Hoard 10 was the best, that of Hoard 6 much the worst, and this discrepancy very seriously affected the weights. So far as the weights could be tested they showed no significant variation from those given, perhaps in too great profusion, in the publication of Hoards 1 and 2. They are therefore omitted in the present work.

The summary herewith submitted will show the general distribution.

Hoard 10, like Hoard 1, was evidently buried at the time of the final assault by the Sassanians in 256. Hoards 6 and 7, like Hoard 2, may have been buried as early as 253. Conditions were so unsettled in the city's last years that there is nothing unlikely in the supposition that people buried their money and left it underground for some time before the last attack. Hoard 6 is apparently the accumulation of a few years only, begun in the time of Decius and including a few earlier pieces which happened to be current whereas the possessors of Hoards 7 and 10 seem to have begun gathering their coins as early as Caracalla. It is noticeable that Hoard 7 alone contains denarii, and those in a steady succession, but I can suggest no reason for this.

In some instances I have revised the dates and attributions accepted in the publication of earlier hoards, partly on the basis of new information from the excavation, partly influenced by numismatic works which have appeared in the meantime. These revisions may be conveniently discussed here before the presentation of the catalogue itself.

In a volume entitled Antiquités Syriennes, Première Serie (Paris 1934) M. Henri Seyrig has republished with emendations articles of his that had appeared in Syria from 1931 to 1933. On pages 56 to 69 will be found comments on various of the provincial tetradrachms which are so prominent among the finds at Dura. M. Seyrig has not only succeeded in rectifying previous attributions in some cases but has also discovered the general principle that the tetradrachms of Caracalla may be grouped into two classes according to the reading of the obverse legend—a principle which will greatly facilitate the work of further attribution. His list has been followed in this catalogue with one exception: the device of the three Graces which I myself had assigned to Tarsus is here given to Gadara because of bronzes of Elagabalus and Gordian III from that mint in possession of Mr. Newell which bear the same type. The attribution is strengthened by the dissimilarity between the tetradrachms and the known didrachms of Tarsus.

I do not intend to discuss here the general question of the tetradrachms. When the excavations are through and the new material they supply has been examined I hope to devote a special study to the issues of Caracalla and Macrinus, and M. Seyrig has already made a most welcome contribution to such a study by sending me photographs of the pieces with which he has worked. At present I should only like to point out what does not appear to have received due attention: that this sudden increase in the number of mints striking silver cannot be accidental. It must be regarded as a definite item in the policy of Caracalla toward the East and is undoubtedly to be connected with the increase of Roman coloniae in the same region. Why the monetary experiment should have been abandoned by Elagabalus is a question which cannot be settled at this time.

Harold Mattingly has published an article en- titled "The Coinage of Septimius Severus and his Times. Mints and Chronology" in the Numismatic Chronicle, Vol. XII (1932), pp. 177–198. Mr. Mattingly's extensive and productive labors in the field of the Roman imperial coinage give his pronouncements great weight, and, although there are only a few pieces in these hoards which are affected by his arguments, it is desirable to review his general conclusions somewhat at length, since they ultimately concern a large number of the coins from Dura.

Mr. Mattingly distinguishes three separate imperial mints operating under Septimius in the East. The first of these he would place at Alexandria, the other two in Syria, at Laodicea-ad-Mare and Emesa. Not only does he cite a difference in style, but also he calls attention to differences in the obverse legend: Mint I reading IMP CAE L SEP SEV PERT AVG; Mint II (until 196), L SEPT SEV PERT AVG IMP I (II, V, VII, VIII); Mint III, IMP CAE L SEP SEV PERT AVG COS (COS I or COS II). 2 After 196 only Mint II is represented. Its output is said not to have extended beyond 202.

This interesting paper led me to subject to a more careful scrutiny the coins of the Third and Fourth Dura Hoards already published. The result follows:

The number of coins from each mint, year by year, is as follows:

On the basis of this division I studied the styles, and, although at first skeptical, gradually came to feel that a difference could be detected, though it still seems to me very doubtful whether single pieces could be assigned with confidence to one mint or the other without the assistance of the legend. But so far as these coins go, and those in the Yale collection, they do support Mr. Mattingly's division.

As to the location of the mints it is much harder to be sure. The attribution of Mint I to Alexandria rests on the fact that "there is something very like identity of style between these coins and the Alexandrian potin" (Mattingly, op. cit. p. 181). The phrase shows how subjective the decision must be, particularly when compared with the remark about the other two mints, that "neither shows identity of style with Antioch, as represented by the coins of Niger" (p. 182). The relation between "identity" and "something very like identity" is so subtle that it behoves us to walk with extreme care. I have not the material and this is not the place to argue the matter of Alexandria. I will only call attention to the fact that we have, in the Third and Fourth Hoards, four denarii from Mint I, though no other coin of Egyptian provenance has been found at Dura nor anything else that could come from Egypt. Evidence from place of finding is not proof, of course, but it is evidence which should not be overlooked because it is entirely objective. No excavator would be so reckless as to deny that a coin might find its way to his site in defiance of all probability, but that does not lead him to disregard probability. It has been abundantly proved that Dura's normal contact with the West was through Antioch, and for coins to have passed through Antioch from Egypt is not impossible, but it is improbable. So far as they go, then, these pieces tell against the attribution to Alexandria.

Mint II is attributed to Laodicea-ad-Mare on two grounds, style and historical probability. The first does not seem to me conclusive, but, as for the second, there is really more to be urged in its. favor than Mr. Mattingly has taken time to explain. It is certain that Antioch was in some way penalized for her fidelity to Niger. "Spartianus" (S.H.A. Severus , 9, 4) reports that Severus took many privileges from the city; Herodian (III, 6, 9) that Antioch was enslaved to Laodicea; and Malalas (XII, p. 293, Bonn) that Laodicea was made metropolis of Syria, a dignity which is proved by the coins. 4 The Digest (50. 15, 1, 3) informs us that it also received the ius Italicum. The reason for this is clear. From hostility to Antioch, Laodicea had declared for Septimius at the news of his victory at Cyzicus 5 and had suffered in consequence. 6

Now this does not of necessity prove that the mint was transferred from one city to the other, but here the dating of the coins is conclusive. Mr. Mattingly has doubts about the readings IMP I and COS I (p. 182, n. 10); I assume that he doubts the correctness of the inscription, not of its recording, for IMP I and COS I do certainly appear on the coins. So far as Mint II is concerned it makes no difference, for both the first and second Imperial acclamations fall in 193; the third in January 194. 7 The final defeat and death of Niger did not come until October of 194 8 so that the coins with IMP I and IMP II cannot have been struck in Antioch. Neither can the first of Mint III, for that matter, unless one assumes that COS and COS I (193) is always a mistake for COS II (194), which seems unreasonable. I conclude, therefore, that Mints II and III must be located in cities which had declared for Severus before the fall of Antioch, and of these Laodicea is the likeliest suggestion for Mint II, which is the more important.

At the same time I cannot agree with all the evidence which Mr. Mattingly has cited. He would attribute doubtfully to Laodicea the tetradrachms of Severus with an eagle "standing on a hare" (p. 183, n. 12). Surely this description is a mere inadvertence. The very coin which he illustrates appears in the British Museum Catalogue 9 and is there listed as "Eagle, facing, on leg and thigh of animal." It is a type which occurs as early as Hadrian. 10 It may or may not have to do with the legend of the city's foundation recorded by Libanius, but it certainly belongs to Antioch and the sudden trans- formation of the leg and thigh into a hare must be rejected.

Nor need it in the least weaken the argument for Laodicea if these tetradrachms be attributed to Antioch. If it is certain that Antioch was punished it is as certain that it was restored to favor. "Spartianus" in the life of Caracalla (I, 7) says that it was at the intercession of that prince that Severus gave back to the citizens of Antioch and Byzantium their ancient rights, and it is generally agreed that in the case of Antioch the occasion was January 202 when the two emperors assumed the consulship in that city. 11 Now the tetradrachms of Severus are dated in the third consulship, that is, 202, and one type, with the usual Tyche of the city even Mr. Mattingly admits as probably of Antioch. 12 There is no reason, then, to doubt that the second type may be from the same mint and we may very reasonably conclude that these issues celebrated the restoration of the city's privileges. But it is not necessary to assume a revival of the issue of denarii from Antioch. The theory that the eastern denarii were not continued beyond that year 13 is probable enough, since Severus then left the east and turned his attention to Africa and the west. It is true that the latest obverse legend, SEVERVS PIVS AVG was continued in Roman issues until 210 14 but that does not prove anything about the Syrian mint, and there is certainly no change in that coinage which would indicate a transfer from Laodicea to Antioch. All that we can assign to the latter city is the series of tetradrachms which may continue until the end of the reign.

Mint III is located by Mr. Mattingly at Emesa, the native city of Julia Domna. The sources have nothing to say about that city's position in the wars between Severus and Niger, though nothing is more likely than that the influence of Julia should have insured its fidelity to her husband. It would then have been in a situation to strike the coins with COS or COS I. Mr. Mattingly suggests (p. 183) that tetradrachms of Severus with a star between the eagle's legs belong to that mint, saying, "this symbol, star, is probably the distinctive mark of Emesa, as seen on the tetradrachms of Elagabalus and on silver of his dynasty at Rome. The star evidently represents the chief of the stars, the sun." I cannot believe that he means to attribute to the mint of Emesa the enormous output of tetradrachms by Elagabalus. The great quantity of bronze of Antioch under the emperor is all against such a theory, which is made more improbable by the fact that this bronze frequently bears a star as symbol 15 whereas his bronze from Emesa does not. But, as a matter of fact, it is not a star but a head of Helios which is used as a symbol of Emesa on the tetradrachms, as Dieudonne has pointed out, 16 showing the error of Imhoof-Blumer's attribution to Heliopolis, which is followed in the British Museum Catalogue. As for the tetradrachms of Severus and Caracalla with a star, they belong to Antioch like those of Elagabalus; the star appears as a symbol at Antioch as early as 11 a.d. 17 It is at once apparent that the eagle with a star differs considerably from that on the leg and thigh. I have already given my grounds for believing that, in spite of this, the two varieties are from the same place 18 and I might refer in addition to M. Seyrig's discussion of the tetradrachms from Carrhae 19 where one must admit either that one mint could strike two dissimilar tetradrachms or that two mints used the same symbol, which seems even harder doctrine. Of course the coins of Severus need not have been contemporary. Since his third consulship was his last, the date on his tetradrachms proves only that they were not struck before 202.

The assignment of imperial coinage to Emesa, then, draws no support from the local coinage and must stand on its own inherent probability. In that regard the testimony of the Third and Fourth Hoards should be cited for what it is worth. For the years before 196, Mint II is represented by 4 coins, Mint III by 38. The numbers are small, but not too small, I think, to be significant. Since Mint II is clearly the more important, one would expect to find it more largely represented, unless Mint III was more accessible to Dura. Now Laodicea is actually nearer to Dura than Emesa. 20 Our evidence, then, would fit better a town to the east of Laodicea. It is worth suggesting that Zeugma might be the town. The striking there of rare bronzes in 195 21 is not much to go on, but it is more than we have for Emesa. Caracalla minted tetradrachms there. 22 Samosata also struck bronze under Severus, but no tetradrachms that have yet been identified. The mint certainly cannot be across the Euphrates since partisans of Niger held Nisibis and the rest of Mesopotamia was in revolt. Beroea, Hieropolis, Cyrrhus and Doliche are also possible but there is nothing in the way of evidence in their case. I am quite aware that the argument against Emesa is slight, but where so little is sure it is well to bear all the chances in mind.

There is one more word to be said in regard to Antioch. Hoard IV, Nos. 148 f. are attributed to that mint although they are of the year 210 and therefore have no connection with the denarii which we have been discussing. Mr. Mattingly believes that they are of eastern origin but suggests that they come from Alexandria. I have already given the basis for my reluctance to attribute coins from Dura to Alexandria, and in this case it seems a needless conjecture. The peculiarities of the coins are just such as are found on earlier issues from Antioch; the difference in style from Caracalla's preceding coins would be explained by the transfer of the mint to that city from Laodicea; Caracalla was striking tetradrachms at Antioch in 208 and 213 and it seems perfectly plausible that he would also have struck a small issue of denarii there. I therefore abide by the original attribution.

In dealing with the coins of Philip I have here followed probability rather than convenience (which I ought to have done in publishing the First Hoard) and put the undated tetradrachms with the eagle on the palm (Nos. 163-170) in 246, 247 instead of in 244. If the reverse inscription of No. 158 is not a mere error it may be the first issue of 245, having the consulship recorded without a number. No. 171 shows that the second variety of obverse inscription for Philip Sr., regularly associated with the issues of 245-247, was also used occasionally in 248. Nos. 181 and 182 show the appearance of Philip Jr. as Caesar and as Augustus both in the same year. The actual year of his elevation was 247 or even 246 but I here retain the date 248 for this reverse type, having been confirmed in my opinion of four years ago by the other cases of confusion on the coins between the titles Caesar and Augustus. No. 203 is an interesting piece, doubtless one of the very last of Philip's coins showing on the obverse an officina mark such as is regular on the issues of Trajan Decius. It is not the latter emperor therefore, but Philip who is to be credited with the introduction of that system. In some other points this catalogue supplements the published tetradrachms of Philip, but only by containing varieties whose existence might be assumed with certainty.

For the sake of brevity I have not listed separately the output of each officina under Decius and Gallus, merely indicating which officinae are represented. It may later be advisable to study their comparative frequency, though the chance of arriving at any useful conclusion seems very remote.

No. 242 shows that the eagle with the pellet between its legs was used for Trajan Decius as well as for his wife and sons. I had previously assumed (Hoard II, No. 67) that the obverse of No. 244, which is like the earliest of Gallus' portraits, was Decius' last type, but the likeness of the reverse of Nos. 242 and 243 to Gallus' reverses is probably more significant.

It will be found that I have revised the dating of the Antoniniani of Gallienus. Webb (R.I.C. V, 1) dates them in 254; they are here put in 256. The reasons for the change are given in the forthcoming Sixth Preliminary Report of the excavations, in the chapter on the coins, but they may be summarized here. With corpses of Roman soldiers killed in a mine during the last assault on the city were found a number of coins which had certainly been on their persons. Thirty-seven of these were coins of Valerian, three of them of the year 256; there were none of Gallienus. This is easily explained if the latter Emperor's issues from Antioch only began in 256. Such a date would also give much better proportions to the last Antoniniani of the First and the Tenth Hoards. Before 256 only Valerian would be represented, and he chiefly by his Roman coins, whereas the last pieces would be chiefly from Antioch and divided between Valerian and Gallienus, with a majority for the former.

CARACALLA

211–217
12. ΑϒΤΚΜΑΑΝΤΩΝЄΙΝΟС СЄΒ Head r., laur.
Rev. ΔΗΜΑΡΧЄΞϒΠΑΤΟСΤΟΔ Eagle, head l., between legs, star. (Hoard IV, No. 140)
Tetradrachm. Antioch 213. Plate I		1	1
13. Same.
Rev. Same inscription. Eagle, head r., on leg and thigh of animal; to l. and r., ΔЄ (cf. B.M.C. p. 195, No. 363, Hoard IV, No. 179 Macrinus)
Tetradrachms. Antioch 213.	1	2
14. (Beginning lower l.) ΑΝΤΩΝЄΙΝΟС СЄΒ ΑϒΤΚΜΑ Bust l., laur.
Rev. ΔΗΜΑΡΧЄΞϒΠΑΤΟΔ Eagle, head r., on leg and thigh of animal, (cf. B.M.C. p. 195, No. 362)
Tetradrachm. Antioch 213. Plate I			1
15. ΑϒΤΚΜΑ ΑΝΤΩΝЄΙΝΟС СЄΒ Head r., laur.
Rev. ΔΗΜΑΡΧЄΞϒΠΑΤΟСΤΟΔ Eagle, head r., on club; between legs, star. (Seyrig p. 66, No. 1)
Tetradrachms. Antioch 213. Plate II		3	1
16. Same.
Rev. Same inscription. Eagle, head r.; between legs, cornucopiae. (B.M.C. p. 196, No. 373. Seyrig p. 66, No. 2)
Tetradrachms. Antioch 213. Plate II		3
17. Same.
Rev. Same inscription. Eagle, head l.; nothing visible between legs.
Tetradrachm. Antioch? 213.		1
18. Same inscription. Bust r., laur.
Rev. Same inscription. Eagle, head r., on thyrsus bound with fillet. (Cf. B.M.C. p. 197, No. 376. Imhoof-Blumer G.M. p. 242, No. 14)
Tetradrachm. Antioch? 213. Plate II		1
19. Some inscription. Head r., laur.
Rev. Same inscription. Eagle, head r., standing on horns of a bull's head facing. (Seyrig p. 67, Fig. 12 d. B.M.C. p. 196, No. 369)
Tetradrachm. Carrhae 213. Plate II		2	1
20. Same.
Rev. Same inscription. Eagle, head r., on thunderbolt. ( Imhoof-Blumer G.M. p. 241, No. 7)
Tetradrachm. Cyrrhus or Seleucia Pieria 213.		1
21. Same.
Rev. Same inscription. Eagle, head l.; between legs, bust of Helios, l. In field, l., H (cf. B.M.C. p. 291, Nos. 7–9)
Tetradrachm. Emesa 213. Plate II			1
22. Same.
Rev. Same, but in field, r., . (Cf. B.M.C. p. 291, Nos. 7–9)
Tetradrachm. Emesa 213. Plate II			1
23. Same inscription. Bust r., laur.
Rev. Same, but mark in field illegible. (Cf. Hoard I, No. 5)
Tetradrachm. Emesa 213.		1
24. Same.
Rev. Same inscription. Eagle, head l.; between legs, three Graces in a wreath. (Cf. B.M.C. p. 196, No. 317, Hoard I, No. 16 Tarsus)
Tetradrachm. Gadara 213. Plate II			1
25. Same inscription. Head r., laur.
Rev. Same inscription. Eagle, head l.; between legs, god with harpa and two animals. (Seyrig p. 65, Fig. 11)
Tetradrachm. Orthosia 213.		1
26. Same.
Rev. Same inscription. Eagle, head r.; between legs, caps of the Dioscuri. ( Imhoof-Blumer G.M. , No. 787, Seyrig p. 68)
Tetradrachms. Tripolis 213. Plate II		3
27. ΑϒΤΚΑΙΑΝΤWΝΙΝΟССЄ Head r., laur.
Rev. Same inscription. Eagle, head l., on torch around which serpent is twined. (Cf. Hoard I, Nos. 17–19. Seyrig pp. 56 f.)
Tetradrachm. Caesarea in Palestine 213. Plate III			1
28. Same inscription. Bust r., laur.
Rev. Same. (Hoard I, Nos. 17–19. Seyrig pp. 56, f.)
Tetradrachm. Caesarea in Palestine 213.			1
29. Same inscription. Head r., laur.
Rev. Same inscription. Eagle, head l.; between legs, ram's head, l. (Hoard I, No. 2)
Tetradrachms. Damascus 213.		2
30. Same.
Rev. Same inscription. Eagle, head l., on ear of corn. (Hoard I, No. 3. Seyrig pp. 63 ff.)
Tetradrachm. Salamis in Cyprus 213.		1
31. Same.
Rev. Same inscription. ]ΟΔ Eagle, head r.? standing on ear of corn; below, dove r. and before it uncertain symbol.
Tetradrachm. Salamis in Cyprus 213. Plate III			1
32. Same inscription. Bust r., laur.
Rev. Eagle, head l.; beneath, Europa on bull r. (B.M.C. p. 303, No. 33)
Tetradrachm. Sidon 213.		1
33. Same inscription. Head r., laur.
Rev. ΔΗΜΑΡЄ (Sic) ϒΠΑΤΟСΤΟΔ. Same type. (Cf. B.M.C. p. 303, No. 33)
Tetradrachm. Sidon 213. Plate III			1
34. Same.
Rev. ΔΗΜΑΡΧЄΞϒΠΑΤΟСΤΟΔ Eagle, head l., on club; between legs, murex shell. (Hoard IV, No. 144)
Tetradrachms. Tyre 213.		2	1
35. Same inscription. Bust r., laur.
Rev. Same. (Hoard I, No. 6)
Tetradrachms. Tyre 213.		2
36. Same inscription. Bust r., laur., in cuirass.
Rev. Same. (Cf. Hoard I, No. 6)
Tetradrachm. Tyre 213.		1
37. Same inscription. Head r., laur.
Rev. Eagle, head l.; between legs, prow, l. (B.M.C. Phoenicia p. 303, Nos. 31 f. Hunt Coll. 3 p. 223, No. 1)
Tetradrachm. Uncertain Mint 213. Plate III			1
38. IMP ANTONINVS AVG Young bust r., laur.
Rev. FIDES MILITVM Fides stand-
ing l., looking r., holding standard and ensign. (Cohen IV, p. 151, No. 80)
Denarii. Rome 198–201.		2
39. IMP ANTONINVS PIVS AVG Head r., laur.
Rev. Same inscription. Legionary eagle between two standards. (Cohen IV, p. 151, No. 81)
Denarius. Rome 198–201.		1
40. IMP CAE M AVR ANT AVG P TRP Young bust r., laur.
Rev. SPES PVBLICA Spes walking l., holding flower and raising robe. (Cohen IV, p. 205, No. 599)
Denarius. Syria 198.		1
41. ANTONINVS PIVS AVG Head r., laur.
Rev. PONTIF TRP XIII COS III Concordia l., holding patera and cornucopiae. (Cohen IV, p. 194, No. 484)
Denarius. Rome 210.		1
42. ANTONINVS PIVS FEL AVG Head r., laur.
Rev. CONCORDIA MILIT Two standards between two legionary eagles. (Cohen IV, p. 144, No. 25)
Denarius. Rome 213.		1

• David Eugene Smith, LL.D. Computing Jetons. 1921. 70 pp. 25 pls. $1.50.
• Edward T. Newell. The First Seleucid Coinage of Tyre. 1921. 40 pp. 8 pls. S1.00.
• Howland Wood. Gold Dollars of 1858. 1922. 7 pp. 2 pls. 50c.
• R. B. Whitehead. Pre-Mohammedan Coinage of N. W. India. 1922. 56 pp. 15 pls. $2.00.
• George F. Hill. Attambelos I of Characene. 1922. 12 pp. 3 pls. $1.00.
• M. P. Vlasto. Taras Oikistes (A Contribution to Tarentine Numismatics). 234 pp. 13 pls. $3.50.
• Agnes Baldwin. Six Roman Bronze Medallions. 1923. 39 pp. 6 pls. $1.50.
• Howland Wood. Tegucigalpa Coinage of 1823. 1923. 16 pp. 2 pls. 50c.
• Edward T. Newell. Alexander Hoards—II. Demanhur Hoard. 1923. 162 pp. 8 pls. $2.50.
• Harrold E. Gillingham. Italian Orders of Chivalry and Medals of Honour. 146 pp. 34 pls. $2.00.
• Edward T. Newell. Alexander Hoards—III. Andritsaena. 1924. 39 pp. 6 pls. $1.00.
• C. T. Seltman. A Hoard from Side. 1924. 20 pp. 3 pls. $1.00.
• R. B. Seager. A Cretan Coin Hoard. 1924. 55 pp. 12 pls. $2.00.
• Samuel R. Milbank. The Coinage of Aegina. 1925. 66 pp. 5 pls. $2.00.
• Sydney P. Noe. A Bibliography of Greek Coin Hoards. 1925. 275 pp. $2.50.
• Edward T. Newell. Mithradates of Parthia and Hyspaosines of Characene. 18 pp. 2 pls 50c.
• Sydney P. Noe. The Mende (Kaliandra) Hoard. 1926. 73 pp. 10 pls. $2.00.
• Agnes Baldwin. Four Medallions from the Arras Hoard. 1926. 36 pp. 4 pls. $1.50.
• Edward T. Newell. Some Unpublished Coins of Eastern Dynasts. 1926. 21 pp. 2 pls. 50c.
• Harrold E. Gillingham. Spanish Orders of Chivalry and Decorations of Honour. 1926. 165 pp. 40 pls. $3.00.
• Sydney P. Noe. The Coinage of Metapontum. 1927 (Part I). 134 pp. 23 pls. $3.00.
• Edward T. Newell. Two Recent Egyptian Hoards—Delta and Keneh. 34 pp. 3 pls. $1.00.
• Edward Rogers. The Second and Third Seleucid Coinage of Tyre. 1927. 33 pp. 4 pls. $1.50.
• Alfred R. Bellinger. The Anonymous Byzantine Bronze Coinage. 1928. 27 pp. 4 pls. $1.50.
• Harrold E. Gillingham. Notes on the Decorations and Medals of the French Colonies and Protectorates. 1928. 62 pp. 31 pls. $2.00.
• Oscar Ravel. The "Colts" of Ambracia. 1928. 180 pp. 19 pls. $3.00.
• Howland Wood. The Coinage of the Mexican Revolutionists. 1928. 53 pp. 15 pls. $2.50.
• Edward T. Newell. Alexander Hoards—IV. Olympia. 1929. 31 pp. 9 pls. $1.50.
• Allen B. West. Fifth and Fourth Century Gold Coins from the Thracian Coast. 1929. 183 pp. 16 pls. $3.00.
• Gilbert S. Perez. The Leper Colony Currency of Culion. 1929. 10 pp. 3 pls. 50c.
• Alfred R. Bellinger. Two Hoards of Attic Bronze Coins. 1930. 14 pp. 4 pls. 50c.
• D. H. Cox. The Caparelli Hoard. 1930. 14 pp. 2 pls. 50c.
• Geo. F. Hill. On the Coins of Narbonensis with Iberian Inscriptions. 1930. 39 pp. 6 pls. $1.00.
• Bauman L. Belden. A Mint in New York. 1930. 40 pp. 4 pls. 50c.
• Edward T. Newell. The Kühük Köhne Hoard 1931. 33 pp. 4 pls. $1.00.
• Sydney P. Noe. The Coinage of Metapontum. Part II. 1931. 134 pp. 43 pls. $3.00.
• D. W. Valentine. The United States Half Dimes. 1931. 79 pp. 47 pls. $5.00.
• Alfred R. Bellinger. Two Roman Hoards from Dura-Europos. 1931. 66 pp. 17 pls. $1.50.
• Geo. F. Hill. Notes on the Ancient Coinage of Hispania Citerior. 196 pp. 36 dble. pls. $4.00.
• Alan W. Hazelton. The Russian Imperial Orders. 1932. 102 pp. 20 pls. $3.00.
• O. Ravel. Corinthian Hoards (Corinth and Arta). 1932. 27 pp. 4 pls. $1.00.
• Jean B. Cammann. The Symbols on Staters of Corinthian Type (A Catalogue). 1932. 130 pp. 14 dble. pls. $3.00.
• Shirley H. Weber. An Egyptian Hoard of the Second Century A. D. 41 pp. 5 pls. 1932. $1.50.
• Alfred R. Bellinger. The Third and Fourth Dura Hoards. 1932. 85 pp. 20 pls. $1.50.
• Harrold E. Gillingham. South American Decorations and War Medals. 1932. 178 pp. 35 pls. $3.00.
• Wm. Campbell. Greek and Roman Plated Coins. 1933. 226 pp. 190+pls $3.50.
• E. T. Newell. The Fifth Dura Hoard. 1933. 14 pp. 2 pls. $1.00.
• D. H. Cox. The Tripolis Hoard. 1933. 61 pp. 8 pls. 2 maps. $1.50.
• E. T. Newell. Two Hoards from Minturno. 38 pp. 5 pls. $1.00.
• Howland Wood. The Gampola Larin Hoard. 1934. 84 pp. 10 dble. pls. $3.00.
• J. G. Milne. The Melos Hoard of 1907. 1934. 19 pp. 1 pl. $1.00.
• A. F. Pradeau. The Mexican Mints of Alamos and Hermosillo. 1934. 73 pp. illus. $1.50.
• E. T. Newell. A Hoard from Siphnos. 1934. 17 pp. illus. 50c.
• C. H. V. Sutherland. Romano-British Imitations of Bronze Coins of Claudius I. 1935. 35 pp. 8 dble. pls. $2.00.
• Harrold E. Gillingham. Ephemeral Decorations. 1935. 40 pp. 11 pls. $2.00.
• Sawyer McA. Mosser. A Bibliography of Byzantine Coin Hoards. 1935. 116 pp. $1.50.
• Edward T. Newell. Five Greek Bronze Coin Hoards. 1935. $2.00.