On the coins of Narbonensis with Iberian inscriptions

Hill, George Francis, Sir, 1867-1948
Numismatic Notes and Monographs
American Numismatic Society
New York
Worldcat Works




Open access edition funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities/Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Humanities Open Book Program.


Table of Contents




My excuse for taking up this difficult subject must be that the author of the work on Spanish coins 1 which, we had all hoped, would place before scholars the material for forming their conclusions, has drawn his frontier at the Pyrenees, and ignored the whole of the series in question. The archaeological evidence makes it abundantly clear that the ethnological frontier, at the period with which we are concerned, was north of Narbonne, perhaps even north of Béziers. A recent visit to this region allowed me to examine a certain number of local collections and obtain information which may be of service to students; although I cannot pretend to have completely solved any of the problems, it is at least something to be able to state them more precisely. 2

We have to deal with three or four series of coins which certainly belong to the district of Narbonensis, since they are always found there, and not to the south of the Pyrenees.


The most important and numerous of the series with which we are here concerned can be with certainty attributed to the people who, using the Iberian alphabet, inhabited the site of Montlaurès, a few kilometres to the N.W. of Narbonne; the name of the Roman foundation, Narbo , was certainly derived from them. 1 The inscription in Iberian which they bear is to be transcribed neronc, neroncn, neroncen or neronen, according to the various ways in which it is written. 2 The name of the place must have been Nero (the sound of the e may have inclined to a before the r, hence the Latin form Narbo 1 ). The attribution of the coins to Narbo is due to Boudard. 2 He transcribed the inscription Nedhena, connecting it with Nado, as he read the name in Avienus, Ora marit. 587. But the text really reads Naro, which Hudson corrected to Narbo. 3 De Saulcy first read nerenkn. Previous writers have usually spoken of the people represented by this inscription as the Nerenes or Nedenes. In view of what has been said above, it seems convenient to call them Neronenses.

The site occupied by the Neronenses was not however that of the Roman Narbo, but a little eminence about four km. N. by W. of Narbonne, which now bears the name of Montlaurès. It is the merit of Dr. Henri Rouzaud that the claim of this site to have preceded Narbo has been definitely established. 4 The statistics which he has been good enough to allow me to compile from the coins, which he and members of his family have collected on the site during constant visits extending over 25 years, are very significant. The coins of all sorts from the site in his possession now number 423 (reckoning fragments as whole coins). Of these no less than 128 are of the Neronenses. They represent all stages of development of this coinage, as we shall describe them later (i.e. the coins of better style, 42; those with the additional inscription tuis on the obverse, 26; and those, similar to the coins of better style in type, but of degenerate workmanship, 51; and the smaller denomination, with the hippocamp, 9). No other class of coins is represented in anything like the same numbers. Thus of the coins which are attributed below to Brigantio (?), there is only 1; of the Longostaletae, 40; of the coins of Kaiantolos and Bitouios with the lion (perhaps also a flan not struck), 27, and of the quadrans 1 of Kaiantolos with the boar, 3. There are no coins of Betarra (Béziers). Of Massalia there are 31 bronze coins; two silver drachms, and 13 obols ranging from the early period (types of the Trésor d'Auriol) to the third century. To these must be added the obols similar to the ordinary ones with M A between the spokes of a wheel, but having also a stylised bull's head on the reverse (Pl. VI, 1, 2): of this rarity 14 have been found at Montlaurès, though 2 are now lost. 1 Imitations of Rhoda and drachms and divisions of the monnaie à la croix, in all 99.

Passing over other coins found in small numbers, 2 I note that only one specimen (and that halved) of the very common asses of Augustus and Agrippa struck at Nemausus was found. Of the Roman Republican coins, there are 7½ asses, 1 semis, 8 smaller divisions; 15½ denarii and 3 quinarii. Of the Imperial bronze, down to Marcus Aurelius, there are only 4; of the Constantinian period, 6. The Middle Ages and later times are represented by 16 coins and jetons.

In contrast, although he has lived and collected so long at Narbonne, Dr. Rouzaud has only one coin of the Neronenses found in that town.

Further proof is not needed that the coins of the Neronenses were struck at Montlaurès. It is also fairly clear that the place was suppressed, doubtless as a part of the general policy of the Romans. The colony of Narbo was founded in 118 B.C.; if Montlaurès was not condemned then, it must have been later, when in 71 B.C., after the end of the Sertorian War, Pompeius reorganised the affairs of Spain, and set up his trophies on the Pyrenees. 1

We may then take 71 B.C. as the terminus ante quern for the coinage with which we are concerned. When did it begin? The style of the better specimens suggests some time in the first half of the second century B.C. The heaviest recorded specimen (that in the British Museum, here Pl. I, 1) weighs 20.68 grm. Almost all the other known specimens 2 belong to a lighter class, being what a Roman would call semuncial asses. There is evidence, into which I need not enter here, that the heavier bronze coins of the Indigetae of Emporiae (weighing from 26.70 to 24.12 grm.) were in circulation in the first half of the second century. The heavier Neronensian coins probably represent the same standard in a slightly degraded form. We may therefore regard our coins as having covered a period of about a century, say from 175 to 71 B.C.

Dr. Rouzaud divides his series from Montlaurès into three series:

(1) Obv. Veiled female head. In front, Iberian letters 1 .

Rev. Bull leaping r.; above, wreath; below, Iberian inscription neroncn.

(2) Obv. Veiled female head; in front Iberian inscription tuiš.

Rev. As preceding.

(3) Similar to first group, but of worse style.

Combining the evidence of Dr. Rouzaud's collection with coins seen elsewhere, I would propose the following classication :

1. Obv. Veiled female head r.; in front, Iberian letters (or eva).

Rev. Bull leaping r.; above, wreath; below, Iberian inscription neroncn.

Heavy group: recorded weight, 20.68 grm. British Museum. Pl. I, 1.

2. Similar types and inscriptions, but double letter ce for c occasionally.

Lighter group: weights ranging from 12.92 grm. (Paris 2451) to 6.42 grm. (Paris 2465) or, in imitations such as Paris 2481, as low as 5.05 grm. The style of these steadily degenerates. Varieties are shown in Pl. I, 2–4, from Paris, the Hague, and the British Museum.

3. Obv. Same type and letters, but the dress of the bust treated very elaborately.

Rev. Bull and wreath as usual, but inscription neroncen šo. Weights from 11.74 grm. to 5.92 grm. (B.M.).

The fine specimen from the Hague (Pl. I, 5) shows the peculiar treatment of the bust and dress. 1 The sixth letter of the inscription is sometimes read as an e but it is, I think, only the double letter for ce badly placed. On the letters šo see later, on the coinage of Selo.

4. Obv. Similar to group 2.

Rev. Bull and wreath as usual, but inscription neronc / pu .... Berlin, 368, 1877, Pl. I, 6.

This variety is very rare. There are none at Paris nor in Dr. Rouzaud's collection. A coin in the collection of the Société Archéologique of Béziers, which is said to read pu(r?)pcn in the exergue, appeared to me, when I saw it, to be quite illegible. Boudard is responsible for the reading ptrcn (he interprets the second letter as t), based on three incomplete coins; Zobel, on the few and bad specimens which he examined, noticed a gap between the second and third letters, and suggested purpcn. Consequently he associates these coins with those of the Longostaletes which certainly read purp. We shall discuss these below.

5. Obv. Veiled bust as usual, generally of very careless work; in front, inscription tuiš.

Rev. Bull and wreath as usual; inscription neroncen.

Weights: 12.34 grm. (Stockholm), and 11.75 (Paris 2493) down to 6.60 (London).

The Stockholm example (Pl. II, 1) shows the style well; the British Museum example (Pl. II, 2) shows a peculiar form of the ce sign. The reading neroncencen on Paris 2496 is a freak. One of Dr. Rouzaud's specimens seems to show the , (or eva) characteristic of the other groups, as well as the tuiš, on the obverse.

6. Obv. Male head r., wearing an animal's skin (?) head-dress; shoulders draped; in front, Iberian letters ecc.

Rev. Winged hippocamp r.; below, inscription neroncen.

Weights: 7.35 grm. (London) to 4.51 grm. (Paris 2447).

The head is recognized as that of Hercules in the Paris Catalogue, and a fine specimen in Dr. Rouzaud's collection (obv. on Pl. II, 3) makes it certain that the head-dress is an animal's skin. Yet it is not by any means an ordinary lion-skin that the head wears; the bands that seem to confine it are never found on ordinary heads of Hercules, nor do the lion's forefeet come down to be tied under the chin. The obverse from the British Museum here illustrated (Pl. II, 4) also shows the nostril and eye of the animal, and what appears to be a pointed ear, as of a dog or wolf; a second specimen (Pl. II, 5) shows the Iberian letters on the obverse.

The weight of the coins of this last group shows that they are to be regarded as semisses, if the others are asses.

These are all the coins which can with certainty be attributed to the predecessor of Roman Narbo.

As to the meaning of the types, we have no certainty. The veiled head has been called Diana by Delgado and Heiss; but to say that it is derived from the head of Artemis on the silver coins of Massalia is absurd. At Massalia she is not veiled, and here she has no bow or quiver. There is nothing to be said for Hübner's identification as Minerva, or for Boudard's description of it as a helmeted male head. It is equally unwarrantable to derive the bull from the bronze coins of Massalia; the attitude is quite different, and the fact that a wreath is seen above the bull at Massalia proves nothing, since that wreath is only one of a number of changing symbols. The bull is doubtless of native Iberian invention. As to the wreath, we see it as a standing accompaniment of the Pegasus on the coins of Emporiae. We do not know what it means there; but the engravers of our coins were doubtless familiar with the coins of Emporiae (a specimen from the Museo Arqueologico in Madrid is shown in Pl. II, 6), which circulated widely in Narbonensis, and may have adopted the symbol as a convenient space-filler. The hippocamp must have been familiar to the fishermen of the coast; the engraver's fancy has supplied it with wings. It is possible that the common type of the quadrantes of other Iberian mints such as Cese-Tarraco, which is generally called a half-Pegasus, may be a half-hippocamp. At Emporiae, on one variety of the Indigetan bronze, the complete hippocamp, wingless, occurs as the reverse type.

Another connexion with Emporiae is to be seen in the letters or eva which appear before the head on the obverse (cf. Pl. II, 6). The same two letters occur in the same position on the bronze asses of the Indigetai; and on one variety, but only one, they are accompanied by what have been taken to be the Roman numerals XV (Delgado, III, Pl. CXXXVI, nos. 206, 207; Catal. Lorichs, no. 1267). As a matter of fact the interpretation of the signs as Roman is not certain; the V is smaller than the X, and is connected by its left limb with the right-hand top arm of the X, so that the whole looks like a monogram of some kind. The Iberian letters Ivs or lus also occur in company with or eva on another coin of the Indigetai, and these too have been taken for numerals. It is obvious that if is equated, on the strength of the signs XV and of the fact that EI in Greek would have the same significance, with 15, then Ivs cannot be a numeral, since it also is found accompanying eǐ.

These letters , apart from the coins of the Indigetai and Neronenses, and certain other small groups of coins of Narbonensis, to be discussed below, are found also on one variety of the as of Saetabi. This can hardly be a case of mere imitation, since Saetabi was so far removed from Emporiae, and the styles of the coins of the two places are not like each other. 1 Further, just as on the Neronension coins we find on the as, and ecc on the semis, so too at Saetabi we find on one variety of the as, and cc (if the signs are rightly interpreted) on a semis. But, if cc is the mark of denomination of the semis, how is it that at Emporiae it does not occur? There, on one series, we find on the as, e on the semis, e followed by a horizontal dash on the quadrans, and š on the sextans.

Until further information is available, it is clear that we must leave this problem undecided.

End Notes

Hübner, Mon. Lingu. Iber., Nummi no. 1, gives a nearly complete bibliography of earlier publications, to which however should be added: Muret-Chabouillet, Catal. des monn. gaul. de la Bibl. Nat., nos. 2444–98; Blanchet, Traité des monn. gaul., p. 276.
This is not the place to discuss the value of the various Iberian letters. I adopt the transliteration o for the Iberian H, after Gómez-Moreno in Homenaje a Menéndez Pidal iii (1925) p. 484. As to the termination cn or cen, it is a genitive plural: see Schuchardt, Iberische Deklination, p. 37.
Whether the b in Narbo points to a peculiar pronunciation of the H, is a question to be left to the philologists.
Numismatique ibérienne, pp. 237f.
Muret-Chabouillet have misread Boudard and assume that the MSS have Nado. See Schulten, Fontes Hispaniae Antiquae, I, pp. 71, 116.
Comptes Rendus, Acad, des Inscr., 1905, pp. 136, 213; 1907, p. 260; 1909, p. 981; 1916, pp. 399, 477, 480; Bulletin de la Commission Archéol. de Narbonne, VIII, 1905, pp. 489–521; IX, 1906, pp. 471–481; 1917, pp. 45–49 (sur les vases d'Arezzo trouvés à Narbonne).
Dr. Rouzaud has a fine specimen of this coin, found at Narbonne, showing the mark of value (three pellets) above the boar (Pl. V, 4).
There is one in the Bibliothèque Nationale, one at Montpellier (E. Bonnet, Médaiüer de la Société Archéol. de Montpellier, 1896, no. 69). M. Bonnet suggests that this may be an alliance-coin between Massalia and some other place, and Dr. Rouzaud is inclined to suggest that this place was Narbo, or rather its predecessor at Montlaurès.
Of bronze coins imported from Spain, there are 10 (chiefly asses) of the Indigetae of Emporiae, 1 of Osca, 1 of the Ilergetes (Iltrcescn), 2 of Cese-Tarraco, and 2 uncertain.
The latest pottery which Dr. Rouzaud has found in any quantity at Montlaurès is the so-called black Etrusco-Campanian ware; and the earliest which has been found in any quantity at Narbonne is of the same kind. The maker Rullius is represented at both places, at Montlaurès by the mark reading LVSIMACVS RVLLI (no type), at Narbo by the mark reading LICIN(I)VS RVLLI (type, lyre and club). See Oxé, Zur älteren Nomenklatur der römischen Sklaven in Rhein. Mus., LIX, 19C|4A p. 128, for the names; Mémoires de l'Acad. de Nimes, 1878 (1879), Pl. 13, 1 and la, for the form of the foot of the beakers. The mark of Rullius with the head of Minerva has been found also at Ensérune, but in upper strata which M. Mouret dates to the first cent. B.C. (Corpus Vasorum, France, fasc. 6, p. 6, and Pl. 21, nos. 11 and 12). M. Mouret's comparison of the head of Minerva with that on denarii of Servilius Rullius will not bear examination. On the evidence of the forms taken by the nomenclature of the slaves it seems clear that, the pottery of Rullius comes down fairly late in the first century B.C. (I have to thank my colleague Mr. F. N. Pryce for information on this point; and I reproduce here in Pl. VI, 9–11, from casts kindly supplied by Dr. Rouzaud, the three stamps of the potter in question.)
A sulphur-cast (of Mionnet's series) in the British Museum represents a coin very similar in style to that just mentioned, and perhaps from the same obverse die; but its weight I do not know for the original does not seem to be in the Paris cabinet.
According to Hubner's transliteration; probably, however, this Iberian I represents the syllable ba (as Gómez-Moreno) or va.
Mr. Robinson compares the uncertain North African coins in Muller, iii, p. 177, where however the engraving is inadequate.
It is this which rules out the suggestion, which had occurred to me, that (the latter sign frequently carries with it the vowel a, so that we might read eia) is an abbreviation in Iberian letters of the Latin name E(mpor)ia; cp. ho n as an abbreviation of ho(lsca)n on coins of Osca.


The existence of a place of this name is attested by certain coins corresponding to the asses of the Neronenses. Their style is distinctive, so that there can be no question of their being blundered Neronensian coins; but they bear the same type of the veiled female head, accompanied by the same mark eǐ; on the reverse is the charging bull accompanied by a wreath. But the inscription is clearly Šeloncen. In collections and catalogues they are usually found lurking among coins of the Neronensians. 1 The specimen from the Vidal Quadras y Ramon collection is illustrated in Pl. Ill, 1; the reverse of the Paris specimen in Pl. III, 2.

On the analogy of Neroncen-Nero we may assume Šeloncen-Selo. But no such name has come down in literary records.

The types show that there was a close connexion between the two places. Therefore it is not unreasonable to suggest that the letters šo which occur in the exergue of a certain group of coins of the Neronensians are an abbreviation of š(el)o. Such a method of abbreviation is easily paralleled in Greek inscriptions, e.g. Ϻ Ϻ for μ(νή)μ(ηs), I.G., XIV, 1829; ϴΚΧ for θ(∊oι̑s) κ(ατα)χ(θονίοιs), ibid., 1359; ϺΝimage for μ(η̑)ν(αs) γ', ibid., 1715. 1

End Notes

Hübner no. 12; Heiss, Pl. LXV, 4; Delgado, Pl. CXCIV, 4; Muret-Chabouillet nos. 2468–9; Catal. Vidal Quadras y Ramon no. 498. (I owe a cast of this to M. Bourgey.) M. Mouret has a good specimen found at Ensérune; there is another in the collection of the Société Archéologique de Béziers.


In connexion with the coins of Nero and Selo, we have to deal with certain issues which must have been produced in the same district, but for which no satisfactory attribution is forthcoming. Under Narbo one finds described the following coin:

Obv. Beardless head r., with short curly hair, between two dolphins; dotted border.

Rev. Bull running r.; above, wreath; below, broken down inscription image on exergual line; plain border. Æ 25 mm. 7.98 gm. Paris 2481, Heiss, Pl. LXV, 9. Delgado, Pl. CXCV, 9. Cp. Hübner, M. L. I., no. 15b. Here Pl. Ill, 3. Another (from the same dies?) is in the Ashmolean Museum, from the Marqués de Molins Collection, presented by Mr. W. H. Buckler.

Pujol (epigr. n. 193b) publishes another similar piece, in which the last three strokes of the inscription are wanting. The first sign is the same in both, although Hübner reproduces it on the Paris coin as a plain Ι (which he transliterates ǐ). I have very little doubt that we may regard the whole inscription as a barbarous attempt at neron. It occurs in almost exactly the same form on other coins at Paris (Nos. 2477, 2481), which have the usual obverse of the Neronenses. There is no need therefore, with Hübner and others, to put these coins in a special category. The obverse is evidently inspired by the Iberian head accompanied by dolphins which must have been familiar in the district from coins imported from the other side of the Pyrenees.

Closely allied to the last-mentioned group is another (Pl. III, 4, 5) which shows a semi-barbarous imitation of the Iberian horseman carrying a palm-branch on the reverse, in combination with the same two obverses, i.e. the veiled female head with the usual mark , and the male head between the dolphins. 1 The dolphins, it is true, have almost entirely disappeared, but there are slight traces of them on at least one specimen. These coins are represented in the collections at Paris, Nimes and Béziers, and are never, so far as we know, found in Spain, but only in the Narbonnaise. The best specimens of each type known to me are in the Maison Carrée at Nimes, and I illustrate these from casts which I owe to the kindness of M. Espérandieu. The inscription below the jinete was read ΝϺΥ by Boudard (who attributed the coins to Nemausus), Λ·Ϻ·V by the Paris cataloguers (who point out the baselessness of Boudard's attribution), and Λ·ϺΥ by Zobel and Hübner. Hübner, in accordance with his practice of transliterating everything, however barbarous, as if it were good Iberian, gives the equivalent of these signs as l.šu. A close examination of all the available specimens (casts of two from Nimes and six from Paris lie before me as I write) shows that the reading is image with possibly a faint stroke joining the second dot to the top of the next stroke. It seems clear that, according to our present lights, there is nothing to be made of the broken-down inscription; I can make no suggestion as to what Iberian inscription lies at the back of it.

End Notes

From a number of similar instances which I owe to Mr. M. N. Tod.
Boudard, Num. ibér., Pl. XXIX, 11, 13, 14; Heiss, Pl. LXVI, 2. Paris Catal. 2701–6. Hübner no. 10. Zobel in Mem. Num. Esp., v, pp. 219, nos. 23–25. Pujol, epigr. no. 196.


Another group closely allied to the asses of the Neronenses comprises coins with the usual types of veiled female head (and letters eǐ) on the obverse, and bull accompanied by wreath on the reverse, which however bears the inscription pricatio or pricantio. There is, I think, no doubt about the reading; on the British Museum speci- men illustrated in Pl. III, 6, all the letters are clear except the ti, and that is certain from other specimens. 1 We may dismiss the readings which see an o in the second letter. The first may represent either þ or b; there was, as is well known, no special sign for b in Iberian. Similarly the sign used for ca may also represent ga. The sign following has almost universally been read as i. A close examination of all the specimens available to me shows that there is hardly the slightest foundation for reading it as anything but n. 2 It is of course only a question of a single small stroke, which turns an n into an i. The sixth letter is ti (on Gómez-Moreno system; t according to Hübner and others). The final letter appears to me to be o, but others read it as n. Both -atin and -ntin are possible Iberian terminations. We thus have the possibility of Brigatio or Brigantio. That is a Celtic name; but at the time when these coins were struck (2d–lst cent. B.C.), Iberians may well have been in occupation of a site which formerly belonged to the Celts.

Of the other interpretations we may mention Hübner's p(u)ricaitn; which is rightly rejected by Schuchardt. The coins are said to be frequent in the neighbourhood of Béziers, which has suggested, through the reading bricitze (Heiss), a very hazardous equation with some ancient form of the name of that place (which appears as Bήτappa, Baeterrae, Besara, etc.; see Ihm in Pauly-Wissowa, I, 2762f.).

The two forms, with and without n, are an illustration of anousυara. If the reading i is insisted on, we may assume alternative forms as in Brigetio-Bριγaiτιoν (Ptol.) and Bregentio-Brigantio on the Danube.

If we look for a place of this name in the region with which we are concerned, we must rule out the two places called Brigantium in Galicia (Betanzos) and in the Cottian Alps (Briançon); 1 they are too far away. I mention, however, as interesting in this connexion, the name of the vicus Brugetia, which was somewhere in the territory of Nemausus. 2 The comparatively good style of our coins, however, suggests an origin even nearer to Narbo than we can suppose Brugetia to have been. It is worthy of mention merely as showing that a name of this kind was possible in the district.

End Notes

See Boudard, Pl. XXIX, nos. 3, 5, 9; Heiss, p. 437, Pl. LXVI, 1; Delgado, iii, p. 468, Pl. CXCV; Robert, Numismatique de Languedoc, p. 516, Pl. IV, 21–23; Zobel in Mem. Num. Esp., V, p. 26, nos. 39–41; Pujol, epigr. nos. 191a–b; Paris Catal. nos. 2499–2506; E. Bonnet, Médailler de la Soc. Arch, de Montpellier, 1896, p. 16, no. 184; Hübner, no. 11. One (reading pricatio) is in the collection of Dr. Rouzaud at Narbonne, found at Montlaurès; another in the collection of the Soc. archéologique de Béziers.
Of the Montpellier specimen, which I have not been able to see, M. Bonnet writes that, although the fifth letter appears to be i, he cannot affirm that it is not an n.
See Schuchardt, Iber. Dekl., p. 41.
C. I. L., XII, 3362 and p. 346; now in the Musée Lapidaire at Nimes (Espérandieu, Le Musée Lapidaire de Nimes, Guide Sommaire, 1924, p. 19).


This tribe is not mentioned by any literary authority, and is known only from its coins, which are inscribed ΛΟΓΓΟΣΑΛΗΤƜΝ or ΛΟΓΓΟϹ - ΤΑΛΗΤƜΝ. 1 Both provenance and style indicate that the coins were struck somewhere in the neighbourhood of Narbonne and Béziers. Dr. Rouzaud possesses no less than 40 specimens (including fragments) found at Montlaurès. The chief varieties are:

1. Obv. Head of Hermes r., with formal curls, wearing winged diadem or hat, and sometimes torque with animal ornament; behind, caduceus.

Rev. Tripod-lebes; on r. and 1., variously arranged, ΛΟΓΓΟΣΑΛΗΤƜΝ(-ΩΝ) or ΛΟΓΓΟϹ -ΤΑΛΗΤƜΝ. Æ Weights from 17.37 to 7.18 grm. Pl. IV, 1–4.

2. Obv. Similar, but in front of head, ΒƜΚΙΟϹ or ΛΟΥΚΟΡΙΚΝΟϹ or ΛΟΥΚΟΤΙΚΝΟϹ.

Rev. Similar; inscription always ΛΟΓΓΟϹ -ΤΑΛΗΤƜΝ, and between the first part of the inscription and the tripod, four Iberian letters p u r p. Æ Weights 13.20 to 3.86 grm. Pl. IV, 5–7.

The earlier form of sigma (with splayed arms) is found on only a few specimens of the former variety. 1 The great majority of the specimens show the lunate sigma (e.g. Paris 2357, here Pl. IV, 4).

As to the interpretation of the inscriptions, there has been some dispute. Most of the views will be found set out by Muret-Chabouillet and Hübner. That which depends on dividing the legend into two parts, Longos and Taleton, the first being the name Longus, the second the genitive plural of the name of a tribe, may be dismissed without further consideration. There is now general agreement that the name represents a tribe of Aoγγoσταλη̑ται or Aoγγoσταλη̑τ∊s The names Bokios and Loukoriknos or Loukotiknos have a Celtic rather than an Iberian air. But the short Iberian inscription purp shows that these kings, if such they were, ruled in a place where Iberian was spoken. It is to be noted that on one small group of coins of the Neronenses we have the first two letters pu 2 associated with the main legend, in just the sartie way as the šo (which may as we have seen stand for Selo), and as the purp on the present coins are associated with their main legends. Whether this association means alliance or subordination it is not possible to decide.

The interpretation of purp (this transliteration may be regarded as correct, and all attempts to read it otherwise, as pirp or btrp—in connexion with Beterra—may be ignored) is quite uncertain. Of course the p may have been a b. Any connexion with Perpignan (Saulcy, Lenormant, Zobel, Heiss) is ruled out by the fact that Perpignan did not exist in antiquity. 1 It has also been suggested that there may be a connexion with Pyrene. This is not the place to enquire into the question of the situation of that city, which was in Sordiceni caespitis confinio, 2 i.e. between the Sordi and the Ceretes. It was, as Schulten says, the first port of Spain approached by the Massaliotes before they founded Rhoda and Emporiae. He thinks it is to be sought among the promontories of the Pyrenees at Cadaques, where there is not only a safe port but a way into the interior, which is lacking to the other ports on this coast. It is clear enough from Avienus that Pyrene was south of the Pyrenees. Therefore any attempt to identify it with Ensérune, the site near Béziers from the cemetery of which M. Mouret has excavated so remarkable a collection of antiquities, including imported Greek pottery from the sixth century downwards, will not bear examination. 1 If then there be a connexion between the names Pyrene and Purp—which seems not very likely, since the second p would remain unexplained—there is still no probability that the place, if it is a place, represented by purp is identical with the city of Pyrene.

We do not, of course, know whether purp represents a place or something else. But if the reading pu(r)pcn or purcn recorded from certain coins of the Neronenses in private collections 2 is correct, that must be a genitive plural of an ethnic, of the familiar form. Another argument in favour of its being a place-name would be forthcoming if we could be certain of the soundness of the suggestion, made above, that the letters š o on other coins of the Neronenses represent a place Selo.

What is the period of this coinage of the Longostaletes? Here we have to take into consideration the definite datum, provided by M. Félix Mouret, 1 that the two coins of the Longostaletes obtained by him in the necropolis of Ensérune were found in two vases, figured one of them on Pl. 18, no. 2, the other on Pl. 19, no. 5, of his publication. 2 Now of these vases that on Pl. 18, no. 2 (described as of the Attico-I taliot style), may belong to the third century; but that on Pl. 19, no. 5, of Campanian style, is earlier, and certainly as early as the fourth century. 3

Unless we are to suppose that the craftsmanship of these obscure peoples of Narbonensis was much in advance of that of the Greeks from whom they borrowed their ideas of coinage, it is impossible to date any of the coins of the Longostaletes before the third century B.C. It is not reasonable to date them earlier than, for instance, the third century coins of Rhegium with the tripod reverse, which their own reverse recalls. The bronze coins of Massalia, with the tripod on the reverse, from which some have thought the tripod of the Longostaletes was derived, cannot reasonably be dated before 250. The coins of the Celtic rulers Rigantikos, Bitoukos, Kaiantolos seem to be more or less contemporary with or even earlier than those which we are considering; and a coin of Agathocles, of his last period (304–289 B.C.), was actually used as the blank for a coin of Kaiantolos. 1 I do not press the argument that the title βασιλ∊ύs, which these rulers use, was not employed by the successors of Alexander before 306 B.C., because we know that barbarians were independent of Greek usage in this respect, as the coins, for instance, of Geta, King of the Edonians, suffice to prove.

The form of the letter sigma in the inscription is unfortunately not of much service in dating the coins. 2 The sigma with splayed arms is found down to the first century B.C. The form Σ, with parallel arms, occurs as early as the fourth century, if certain coins of Sicyon are correctly dated, which is doubtful; 3 at any rate it is common from the third century onwards. The lunate sigma occurs on a coin of Cos which is thought to be earlier than 300 B.C.; on a coin of the Illyrian king Monunios, who is supposed to have reigned about 300 or 280 B.C.; at Tarentum in Evans's Eighth Period (272–235 B.C.) on four out of the forty varieties of coins belonging to that period; in the next period (235–228) on five out of the ten varieties; 1 on a coin of Seleucus II of Syria (246–226 B.C.) and in many other places before the end of the third century. Since the coins of Sicily are most likely, after those of Massalia (the dating of which is very uncertain), to furnish evidence bearing on our special point, we may note 2 that it occurs first at Agrigentum ca. 241–210 B.C.; at Agyrium after 241 B.C.; at Syracuse after 212 B.C. It is difficult to admit that it could have found its way to Narbonensis before the last quarter of the third century.

As to the form of the omega, the form ω, which is usual on these coins, is late; its occurrence on a coin of Antiochus II (261–241 B.C.) is exceptionally early. 3 It is not found in Sicily before the period of Roman dominion (Entella, Solus).

M. Blanchet, the writer who has most recently considered the date of the coins in question, has gone very thoroughly into the whole matter. He holds, like most of those who have preceded him, that the date of the coins of the Longostaletes is bound up with that of the coins bearing the names of the kings Bitovios (Bitoukos) (Pl. V, 5, 6), Amytos (Pl. V, 3), Kaiantolos (Pl. V, 1, 2, 4) and Rigantikos (Pl. V, 7). F. de Saulcy, Ch. Robert, and Amardel have all attributed these regal coins to Narbo. The types are similar to those of the coins bearing the name of Béziers (BHTAPPATIC), although the latter show a hand in front of the bust on the obverse, and are of a very degenerate style (Pl. IV, 8; in the British Museum, presented by Dr. Rouzaud); and the coins themselves are common in the collections of Narbonne and Béziers. M. Blanchet proceeds to the dating of these various groups of coins as follows:

He starts with the admission of Robert's suggestion that the quadrantes of Kaiantolos, with a boar on the reverse (Pl. V, 4), are copied from a coin of Phintias of Agrigentum (287–279). This seems to me unnecessary. Is it necessary, for instance, to explain the boar on the coins of Avenio by reference to Phintias? A great deal too much has been made of the filiation of quite ordinary types, such as bulls and boars, which could hardly be represented otherwise than they are. If the representations coincide exactly, we are told that one is copied from another. If, as in the case of the bull with a wreath above it at Massalia and on the coins of the Neronenses, the attitudes differ altogether, we are told that it does not matter. 1 Gibbon's remark, that "much learned trifling might be spared, if our antiquarians would condescend to reflect that similar manners will naturally be produced by similar situations," may with profit be applied to archaeology in general. However, we may admit without further question that the coins of Kaiantolos (Pl. V, 1, 2, 4) are later than those of Phintias. They have the four-legged sigma, like the earliest coins of the Longostaletes. The lion of all the coins of the kings concerned, and of Beterra, may, M. Blahchet says, well be imitated from coins of Syracuse attributed to Agathocles (317–289). The type of the tripod of the Longostaletes may come from bronzes of Agrigentum or of Massalia; but he finds that the style of the bronzes of Massalia with the tripod is inferior to that of the earliest bronzes of the Longostaletes. We must go to Sicily, he thinks, for the origin of this, as of the butting bull, which he holds was borrowed by Massalia from Sicily about the middle of the third century. Thus it follows that the types of the Longostaletes and of the Gaulish kings Kaiantolos, etc., must have been adopted successively in the course of the third century.

Of all the coins of the region, those of the Neronenses are the most numerous, and show the longest development (or degeneration). 1 The coins of the Longostaletes with the names Bokios and Loukotiknos and the Iberian inscription Purp are, he thinks, contemporary with the earliest of the Neronensian. The coins of the Longostaletes without the personal names in Greek, and also without the Iberian inscriptions, are earlier than the others. They show the fourlegged sigma, 2 like the coins of Kaiantolos; whereas the other coins of the Longostaletes, and those of the other kings, have the lunate sigma. The kings he ranges in the following order by style and legend: Kaiantolos, Amytos, Bitoukos, Bitovios, Rigantikos; they will be found in that order on our Plate V.

I gather, then, that M. Blanchet's view of the relative chronology of these coins may be expressed more or less by the following diagram, in which the coinages mentioned in the first row may be placed roughly about the middle of the third century.

Longostaletes without personal names Kaiantolos
Neronenses Longostaletes (Bokios and Loukotiknos) Amytos

The coins of Beterra, which are often very degenerate, might be added at the bottom of the third column.

If we accept the date of ca. 70 B.C. for the suppression of the oppidum of the Neronenses at Montlaurès, we may take it that their coinage stopped then, while the other coinages with which we are concerned had already come to an end some time before.

Considered by itself, this complex of coinages might well seem to be dated between about 250 and 70 B.C. But it cannot be considered apart from the Iberian coinage with which it is manifestly connected. One has only to compare the male head on the obverse of the coins of Kaiantolos with that on Iberian coins such as those struck at Cese-Tarraco (Pl. IV, 9) to see that one is a copy of the other; nor can there be much doubt which is the original and which the copy. The Iberian type of curly-haired head is so characteristic that we cannot suppose it to have been independently invented in Gaul; the Gibbonian maxim quoted above does not apply here. Nor can it ever be admitted that the type which spread homogeneously over a vast area in Spain was copied from coins of a small issue made by obscure reguli in Narbonese Gaul. Therefore the coins of Kaiantolos are not earlier than the earliest Iberian coins with the familiar type of the curly-haired male head and the horseman reverse. There is a general agreement that these date at the earliest from about 218 B.C. We are therefore forced to bring the origin of the coinage of Narbonensis down by at least fifty years.

I confess that, as far as style is concerned, this later date is quite agreeable. It was generally to the "second–first century " that, on beginning the study of these coinages, I was inclined to date them, on grounds of style, and on the assumption that they followed instead of led the development in matters of coinage, when compared with their nearest neighbours among the Greeks. That was before I looked for any points that might be fixed by external evidence. Dr. Rouzaud's work at Montlaurès has furnished a terminus ante quem for one series, at any rate, which gives us no difficulty. M. Mouret's datum, on the other hand, is by no means so easy to digest. How long was the cemetery at Ensérune in Use? Is it likely that many fine vases would have been preserved for more than a century before they were used for burial? Considering how commonly fragile porcelain is treasured by us for a longer period than that, we can surely admit that the inhabitants of Ensérune kept their fine Greek vases, of solid construction, for one or even two hundred years, and did not use them as ossuaries as soon as they were imported. Until M. Mouret's excavation-notes are properly published—for the fascicule of the Corpus Vasorum is quite inadequate as an account of the groups in which pottery and other objects were found—we shall not be able to estimate the value of his discoveries as evidence for the dating of the coins. The assumption that the coins belong to the date of the origin (or even of the importation) of the vases in which they were stated to have been found leads us into difficulties so grave from a numismatic point of view that we are bound to reject it.

Coins of Sicily and Southern Italy found their way in quantities into Spain and Southern Gaul. It has been thought that the Iberian bronze coinage with the curly-haired head and the jinete was suggested by the spearman coins of Hiero II; and we have already mentioned various theories as to the prototypes of the coinages of Southern Gaul. This constant search for prototypes, which allows nothing to the originality of Spaniard or Gaul, has, as we have hinted, been much overdone. Still the general effect of the influx of quantities of foreign coins may be admitted. It might at least suggest the idea of a coinage of their own to the inhabitants. Imitative coinages in barbarous or semi-barbarous countries do not as a rule begin until the supply of imported coins begins to fail. At least we must allow the imported coins a long circulation before the necessity of supplementing them by a native coinage begins to be felt. Therefore, whether we admit that the peoples of Narbonensis actually copied foreign coins, or got from them merely the idea of a coinage of their own, whose types occasionally reflected foreign models, we may reasonably say that the native coinage was two or three generations behind that which inspired it. And thus the end of the third century or beginning of the second seems the most suitable date for the beginning of the bronze coinage in Narbonensis.

Where were the coins of the Celtic rulers without tribal or place-name, and the coins of the Longostaletes, struck? Amardel has collected statistics of the local frequency of these coins. They lead him to the conclusion that Narbo was the place where all the coins, those of the Longostaletes, those of the Celtic chiefs of the Volcae, and those with purely Iberian inscriptions (i.e. the Neronensian), were struck. Narbo, he thinks, may, like Emporiae, have comprised two cities, that of the Longostaletes, which was the older and has disappeared, and that of the Volcae, which was superseded by the Roman colony. The coinage of the Longostaletes perhaps began before that of the chiefs of the Volcae, and lasted to the beginning of the Roman domination. The purely Iberian coins succeeded those of the Volcae. "The language of the Iberians had superseded Greek in all the country. The appearance of an Iberian legend on the coins of the Longostaletes, which before then had been purely Greek in spite of the origin of that people, proves this. The foreign elements had been absorbed everywhere, the ancient nationality reappeared, the Iberian race remained predominant. The barbarous style of the last coins of the Gaulish chiefs, of the last coins of Riganticos, bears witness to the decline of the Hellenic civilisation and the decadence of the Volcae. The Iberians had regained their predominance." 1

The passage just quoted expresses admirably what seems to have been the course of events, but it is hardly possible to accept the attribution of all three series of coins to one and the same mint. The discoveries of Dr. Rouzaud leave no doubt as to the locality of the mint of the Neronenses. The filiation of the types of Beterra with those of the Gaulish chiefs affords a presumption that Beterra was the mint of the latter. Amardel finds that his statistics * are against such an attribution. Let us see what they come to:

Coll. Jallabert (formerly Narbonne) Musée de Narbonne anc. fonds Musée de Narbonne Legs Bonnet Coll. Donnadieu Béziers Col. L Bonnet Béziers Soc. arch. Béziers
Longostaletes 7 5 10 21 3
Gaulish Chiefs 5 3 3 21 8 3
Nero 18 14 14 56 34 12
Beterra 10 6 1

Compressing the six columns into two we have

Narbonne Collections Béziers Collections
Longostaletes 22 24
Gaulish Chiefs 11 32
Neronenses 46 102
Beterra 0 17

These details would require some modification now; in fact I found 4 coins of Beterra in the collection of the Société archéol. de Béziers. The 12 coins of the Neronenses in the same collection included one of Selo. There is also one of Brigantio.

The preponderance of the coins of the Neronenses is more marked at Béziers than at Narbonne; yet, in view of the facts revealed by Montlaurès, we should not be justified in attributing them to Béziers. The statistics seem to me to show no case for Narbo as against Beterra as the mint of the coins of the Longostaletes and the Gaulish chiefs. 1 The fact is, the statistics collected by Amardel are on too small a scale to be of service; they are not comparable with the observations of Rouzaud. One thing is clear, and that is that the coins of the Neronenses are generally distributed, and must have circulated widely, at Béziers as well as at Montlaurès. But they were produced at the latter place. If we went merely by Amardel's figures, we should assume that not only they, but also the coins of the two other groups, were produced at Béziers. Now add Dr. Rouzaud's figures to those of the Narbonne collections:

Narbonne Collections and Montlaurès Béziers Collections
Longostaletes 62 24
Gaulish Chiefs 41 32
Neronenses 174 102
Beterra 17

I.e., in the Narbonne and Montlaurès collections together, 59.2 of the coins are of the Longostaletes as compared with 100 of those of the Neronenses; at Béziers the proportion is 53.9 to 100. And that after 25 years of intensive collecting at Montlaurès, where the provenance of every coin is certain, whereas the indefatigable collectors of Béziers doubtless accumulated coins not found in their own parish.

The mint of the Longostaletes and of the Gaulish chiefs must therefore for the present remain uncertain. Excavation may at any time reveal it. As to the dates of the coins, we may accept M. Blanchet's arrangement of the groups relatively to each other, placing the beginning of the coinage of the Longostaletes and of Kaiantolos at the very end of the third century, and bringing the latest coins of the Neronenses (to which we may add those of Selo and Brigantio as well as Beterra) down to about 70 B.C.

Whether Nero had a coinage earlier than that represented by the bronze coins with its name is a question that has to be considered in the light of Dr. Rouzaud's suggestion about the silver obols of Massaliote types. It is certainly remarkable that of these extremely rare coins, of which only 16 are known, 14 were found at Montlaurès. One of the latter is illustrated in Pl. VI, 2; the specimen in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Pl. VI, 1. I should regard them not as alliance coins with Massalia—alliances of this sort were probably much less common than it has been the fashion to suppose—but as mere imitations. The stylised bull's head which distinguishes these coins represents the animal whose complete figure appears on the later bronze. These obols correspond, in their way, to the imitations of Massaliote obols issued at Ilerda. 1

End Notes

Hübner no. 2b and 2c (for 2a see above, p. 7 ff.). To his bibliography add Muret-Chabouillet nos. 2350–99; H. de la Tour, Atlas, Pl. VI; G. Amardel in Bull, de la Comm. Arch, de Narbonne, 1893, pp. 328–54; 1894, pp. 13–36; 1895, pp. 549–64; Blanchet. Traité, pp. 272–8.
The four-line sigma is very rare on these coins. Paris no. 2350, described as bearing it, is so much worn that it is impossible to detect the form (Pl. IV, 2). 2355 (3355 in the Atlas) appears to have the early form with splayed arms (Pl. IV, 1). Both these appear to have Ω. A British Museum specimen has Σ with parallel arms, and, apparently, Ɯ (Pl. IV, 3).
Boudard, p. 246, Pl. XXVIII, 9, 10, published the coins which seem to indicate a longer inscription purcn. Heiss, p. 436 (after Saulcy and Boudard) completes it as parp(e)c(oe)n. Zobel (Mem. Num. Esp., V, p. 30) here reads pupcn and says that on the few examples, all badly preserved, that he has seen, there is a small gap between the second and third letter, so that the reading may perhaps be completed as pu(r)pcn. I have not been able to see any specimen showing more than the first two letters or any trace fo there having been a longer legend.
Philipon (Les Ibères, p. 184) with his usual inaccuracy accuses Hübner of translating Pur pcn by Perpinianum "sans méme se demander si Perpignan existait a l'époque où les Longostalètes battaient monnaie." Hübner merely quotes the opinion of Saulcy and Zobel. He himself says cautiously "nomen fortasse origine cohaeret cum urbis vetustae Pyrene ab Avieno dictae or. marit. v. 558 ss. et cum montibus Pyrenaeis."
Avienus, Ora maritima (ed. Schulten, Fontes Hisp. Ant., I, 1922), v. 568 and p. 115.
See F. Mouret, Des influences helléniques et tartessiennes sur le Languedoc Méditerranéen et le Roussillon aux temps préhistoriques. Bull. Soc. Archéol. de Béziers, 1929), pp. 21f.
See above, pp. 3–4.
In a letter to me dated 5 Dec. 1929.
Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum, France, fasc. 6, Collection Mouret (Fouilles d'Ensérune), Paris, no date (!).
Prof. J. D. Beazley writes: "the calyx-krater CV. Mouret, pl. 19, 5, belongs to the second half of the fourth century. It is Attic, as I pointed out in J. H. S., 1928, p. 127 ... : it can therefore be correlated with Attic r.f. calyx-kraters for shape: the r.f. calyx-krater s of this shape-stage are in the full Kerch style: the full Kerch style can be dated by the dated Panathenaic amphorae. Pl. 18, 2, I should call very late fourth or early third, but am not sure how late it might be in the third."
Muret-Chabouillet, no. 2424.
Hill, Handbook, p. 213.
B.M.C. Peloponnesus, Pl. 8, 21.
Evans, Horsemen of Tarentum, p. 184 note.
On the basis of Grose's Catalogue of the McClean Greek Coins, Vol. I.
Hill, Handbook, p. 214.
Blanchet, p. 276, note 7. I may note that if an origin is wanted for the Neronensian type it should be sought in the Iberian series, at Emporiae, where the bull and wreath occur as regular types of certain semisses, and where the wreath is the constant accompaniment of the Pegasus of the asses, not, as at Massalia, merely one of a number of changing symbols (Pl. II, 6).
He says (p. 277) that since they are the commonest, and also those of which the issue lasted longest, for we find numerous stages of deformation, we may conclude from this remark that they are the most recent. This seems to me to be logically elliptical; I take it that it means that since we find a number of stages of deformation, the issue must have lasted long, and the deformed types are the most recent.
This is not rigidly true; in the British Museum is one with the lunate sigma.
Bull. Comm. Arch, de Narbonne, 1895, pp. 563–4.
Bull, dela Comm. arch, de Narbonne 1892-3 pp. 344 ff.
Some strange things may be done with statistics. Amardel says that from the richness of private collections at Béziers we must not conclude that all these coins are commoner there than at Narbonne; this richness merely proves the indefatigable zeal of the collectors. And so on.


It remains to mention a few silver coins, which were certainly struck in Gaul, but bear Iberian inscriptions.

1. The small silver coins with the head of a nymph on the obverse, rev. wheel or cross (derived from Rhoda). The inscription on the reverse appears to be image acoequntin, 2 Pl. VI, 3. There can be no doubt of the Iberian character of the inscription. Doubtless the unblundered examples were struck much nearer the Spanish border than any of the places of provenance mentioned. The weight of the specimen from Saint-Etienne des Landes is given by Luneau as 3.60 grm.; that in the Paris cabinet is 3.45 grm. The two blundered specimens from Blaye (Pl. VI, 5, 6; Paris 3548–9) are on the other hand lighter (2.65 and 2.61 gm.). The weight of the heavier specimens agrees with that of the common monnaies à la croix, generally attributed to the Volcae Tectosages.

2. Another silver coin also derived from the Rhoda types is in the Paris Cabinet (Pl. VI, 4). It has the head of the nymph to r., on the rev. a cross cantonned with globules and letters which have been read image 1 The connexion with the coins just described is obvious. Its provenance is not known. Hübner, reading untga, compares the beginning of the Iberian form of the name of the Indigetai. Heiss's guess at Agde and other suggestions recorded in Muret-Chabouillet have no plausibility.

3. The unique silver coin in the British Museum (Pl. VI, 7). Obv. Head of Roma r. in winged helmet; behind, X. Rev. Dioscuri riding r.; below, Iberian inscr. iece. 2.62 grm. 2

The inscription iece has been connected by Zobel with the Iacetani; but laca is well represented by a quite different class of pure Iberian coins, and style and weight point to some place north of the Pyrenees. Nor does there seem to be any reason for connecting it, as Pujol does, with the purely Iberian coins reading iešo. Vives describes it as a Gaulish imitation in which are mingled Roman and Spanish elements. The lettering is perfectly good, and was done by someone who understood Iberian, not by a mere Gaulish imitator. The types are imitated from a Roman denarius of the second century B.C. The weight however is that of the Massalian victoriatus of the same period.

The reading of the inscription on an imitation of a Massalian coin, as gǐrekǐ (Hübner 15e), libeci (Saussaye, p. 92), etc., etc., is quite uncertain, especially in view of the fact that we cannot be sure that the inscription is Iberian at all. 1 A specimen from the Bööcke collection (Pl. VI, 8) has long lain (and will for the present continue to lie) among the imitations of Massalia in the British Museum; on it image is to be read.



End Notes

Paris 539 = Heiss, Pl. IX, 2; Vidal Quadras y Ramon no. 323 = Heiss, Pl. IX, 3. Vives (I, pp. 14–16) is unduly sceptical about these coins of Ilerda.
Ch. Robert, Numismatique de la province de Languedoc, p. 488, Pl. III, 19. Zobel, Mem. Num. Esp., V, p. 221. Pujol, Epigr. no. 190. Hübner no. 15a. Rev. Num., 1901, p. 311, Pl. VIII, 134 (from Saint-Etienne des Landes, Dordogne). Blanchet, Traité, I, p. 284, fig. 148. Cp. also Muret-Chabouillet, nos. 3548–9. The more or less blundered specimens were found at Blaye (Gironde), Limogne (Aveyron).
Hübner no. 15g, with bibliography, to which add Muret-Chabouillet 3558; Atlas, Pl. X; Blanchet, Traité, p. 283.
From Dr. Nott's Sale, 1842. Zobel (Mem. Num. Esp., V), p. 20, no. 3, and p. 221. Pujol, epigr. no. 112 and p. 343. Hübner no. 15c. Vives, Prol., p. xlix.
There are three similar drachms in the Newell Collection with the inscription clearly reading image (cuts below). Two of these coins are said to have come from a large hoard of cognate pieces unearthed "somewhere in the Po Valley", and the third was purchased from a dealer in Germany. It seems almost certain that they can have nothing to do with southwestern France. R. Forrer, Keltische Numismatik der Rhein -und Donaulande, pp. 85–89, assigns them together with similar pieces, to the Maritime Alps.

End Notes

A. Vives y Escudero, La Moneda Hispanica, Madrid, 1926.
I have pleasure in recording my indebtedness to the archaeologists of the towns that I visited, who gave me access to the various collections. M. Jean Babelon and my other colleagues of the Cabinet des Médailles at Paris have, as usual, been generous in providing casts and answering enquiries, At Nimes, M. Espérandieu allowed me to study the collection in the Maison Carrée and most kindly introduced me to various other sources of information. M. Félix Mouret showed me the remarkable results of his excavations at Ensérune, and with Dr. Cavalié, M. Cambon and other members of the Archaeological Society of Béziers enabled me to study the collections in that Society's Museum and in the Mus eum of the town. Above all, I have to thank Dr. Henri Rouzaud, the distinguished citizen of Narbonne, who during the last quarter of a century has done so much to throw light on the local archaeology and, what is even more important (if only his example were always followed !), to indicate the lines on which scientific exploration should be conducted.




















Numismatic Notes and Monographs

  • Sydney P. Noe. Coin Hoards. 1921. 47 pp. 6 pls. 50c.
  • Howland Wood. The Mexican Revolutionary Coinage. 1913–1916. 1921. 44 pp. 26 pls. $2.00.
  • Agnes Baldwin. Five Roman Gold Medallions. 1921. 103 pp. 8 pls. $1.50.
  • Sydney P. Noe. Medallic Work of A. A. Weinman. 1921. 31 pp. 17 pls. $1.00.
  • Gilbert S. Perez. The Mint of the Philippine Islands. 1921. 8 pp. 4 pls. 50c.
  • David Eugene Smith, LL.D. Computing Jetons. 1921. 70 pp. 25 pls. $1.50.
  • Edward T. Newell. The First Seleucid Coinage of Tyre. 1921. 40 pp. 8 pls. $1.00.
  • Howland Wood. Gold Dollars of 1858. 1922. 7 pp. 2 pls. 50c.
  • R. B. Whitehead. Pre-Mohammedan Coinage of N. W. India. 1922. 56 pp. 15 pls. $2.00.
  • George F. Hill. Attambelos I of Characene. 1922. 12 pp. 3 pls. $1.00.
  • M. P. Vlasto. Taras Oikistes (A Contribution to Tarentine Numismatics). 1922. 234 pp. 13 pls. $3.50.
  • Howland Wood. Commemorative Coinage of United States. 1922. 63 pp. 7 pls. $1.50.
  • Agnes Baldwin. Six Roman Bronze Medallions. 1923. 39 pp. 6 pls. $1.50.
  • Howland Wood. Tegucigalpa Coinage of 1823. 1923. 16 pp. 2 pls. 50c.
  • Edward T. Newell. Alexander Hoards—II. Demanhur Hoard. 1923. 162 pp. 8 pls. $2.50.
  • Harrold E. Gillingham. Italian Orders of Chivalry and Medals of Honour. 1923. 146 pp. 34 pls. $2.00.
  • Edward T. Newell. Alexander Hoards—III. Andritsaena. 1924. 39 pp. 6 pls. $1.00.
  • C. T. Seltman. A Hoard from Side. 1924. 20 pp. 3 pls. $1.00.
  • R. B. Seager. A Cretan Coin Hoard. 1924. 55 pp. 12 pls. $2.00.
  • Samuel R. Milbank. The Coinage of Aegina. 1925. 66 pp. 5 pls. $2.00.
  • Sydney P. Noe. A Bibliography of Greek Coin Hoards. 1925. 275 pp. $2.50.
  • Edward T. Newell. Mithradates of Parthia and Hyspaosines of Characene. 1925. 18 pp. 2 pls. 50c.
  • Sydney P. Noe. The Mende (Kaliandra) Hoard. 1926. 73 pp. 10 pls. $2.00.
  • Agnes Baldwin. Four Medallions from the Arras Hoard. 1926. 36 pp. 4 pls. $1.50.
  • H. Alexander Parsons. The Earliest Coins of Norway. 1926. 41 pp. 50c.
  • Edward T. Newell. Some Unpublished Coins of Eastern Dynasts. 1926. 21 pp. 2 pls. 50c.
  • Harrold E. Gillingham. Spanish Orders of Chivalry and Decorations of Honour. 1926. 165 pp. 40 pls. $3.00.
  • 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. 1927. 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 plates. $1.50.
  • Allen B. West. Fifth and Fourth Century Gold Coins from the Thracian Coast. 1929. 183 pp. 16 plates. $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. 17 pp. 2 pls. 50c.