The Confederate Coinage of the Arcadians in the Fifth Century B.C.

The date given for the beginning of the Arkadikon coinage has ranged within the bracket 520–480,11 but hitherto a firm dating has not been possible, because there has been no certainty about the identification of the first issues; for the most archaic-looking coin need not, of course, come at the head of the series.12

A date as late as 480 for the inception of the coinage must be ruled out, because it will be shown that Period II begins ca. 477 (pp. 4f.), so that there is insufficient room for Period I between 480 and 477, not only because of the number of dies involved (34 obverse and 29 reverse), but because of the development in style between the earliest and latest dies. At the other end of the bracket few would still maintain a 6th century date in view of the down-dating of the main coinages of Greece. The bracket, therefore, may be narrowed to ca. 500–490.

The heads of the goddess in Period I, at least those in sections 1 and 2 (Plate I), show a marked resemblance to those in Attic vasepainting of the decade 490–80. In black-figure there are the heads of the Athena Painter, e.g., the large head of Athena on the Dresden lekythos ZV 1700,13 on which there is the same shape of nose and chin as on several of the heads of Period I; or the seated Athena on Athens 1138,14 where the head is smaller, more dome-shaped, and with sharper features which come nearer the heads of section 1, particularly R. 6. Haspels15 dates the Athena Painter's developed stage, to which the above lekythoi belong, to the decade 490–80.

A style of head similar to that in sections 1 and 2 can be seen frequently on late archaic red-figure vases. R. 1 and R. 4 resemble the heads of the athletes on the Tarquinia calyx-krater and the Boston amphora by the Kleophrades Painter.16 Beazley dates the calyx-krater to the first decade of the 5th century, and the amphora later than the calyx-krater: R. 1 and R. 4 are the earliest dies of the Copenhagen Master who inaugurated the series. The profile of R. 8 can be matched with that of the Brygos Painter's maenad on the white-ground interior of the Munich cup;17 there is the same firm nose and rounded chin, but the maenad's eye is close to those of the earlier dies R. 1, R. 4 and R. 6, while that of R. 8 is wider. R. 6 may be compared with the Harrow Painter's girl on the Cambridge jug,18 or with the Oxford Nike by the Tithonus Painter,19 or with the girl in the Brussels cup by Onesimos,20 all vases of the decade 490–80.

Closely dated female heads on coins belonging to this period before the Demareteion are rare. The head of Athena on the Ionian Revolt electrum stater21 has its closest counterpart in the second reverse of section 3, R. 18 (Plate II), which may, as it is argued in that section, be as early as the dies of sections 1 and 2, and which derives its style from Corinth, but the stater seems earlier than dies of original style in sections 1 and 2. Certainly the reverses of sections 1 and 2 would not look out of place among the final reverses of Boehringer's Group II (510–485) of the Syracusan coins, nor for that matter would those of section 3.

The above comparanda do not establish a firm and close date for the beginning of the Arkadikon series, but they do indicate that a date nearer 490 than 500 will be more likely. Moreover, since the coinage will be shown to have been political in character (p. 18), it would seem unreasonable then not to accept a date of ca. 490 for the inception of the coinage, a date to which all the political considerations of Cleomenes and his Arcadian confederacy clearly point, as Professor Wallace postulated from a study of the historical evidence.22

The sequence of events in Herodotus VI, 49ff. leading up to this confederacy is as follows. When the emissaries of Darius arrived in Greece in the early summer of 491 to demand earth and water, Aegina submitted. Cleomenes made an abortive attempt to demand satisfaction of the Aeginetans, but in his absence from Sparta was slandered by his colleague in the kingship, Demaratus. On his return he allied himself with Leotychides, who prosecuted Demaratus questioning the legitimacy of the latter's birth. The Pythia, bribed by Cleomenes as his opponents alleged, pronounced Demaratus illegitimate, Demaratus was deposed, and Leotychides was made king. There followed Cleomenes' second visit to Aegina accompanied now by Leotychides, and Aeginetan hostages were deposited with the Athenians, but on the king's return to Sparta Cleomenes' sharp practice was discovered and he went into exile first to Thessaly and then to Arcadia. Here, probably in late 491 and 490, he attempted to form an anti-Spartan confederacy, calling together the leading Arcadians to Nonacris to swear allegiance by the Styx. The mention of Nonacris suggests that the centre of Cleomenes' activities was in the north of Arcadia.

It has usually been assumed that Cleomenes' attempt to form this confederacy was abortive, but the continuation of the Arkadikon coinage from ca. 490 implies not only its existence but also its survival. It is unlikely that Cleomenes would have had this success had not Arcadia already been hostile towards Sparta in the period before 480, for her hostility to Sparta was the reason why Hegestratos, the seer, had taken refuge there;23 Mantinea's contingent arrived late for Plataea, as did that of Elis,24 but whereas Elis' name appeared on the Serpent Column, that of Mantinea did not.25 Tegea arrived in time for the battle, but her claims for the honour of holding the left wing were not supported by Sparta; this might have been an unprejudiced decision, but it might be read as a deliberate slight on the part of Sparta against Tegea.26 Yet at Thermopylae27 Arcadia had been well represented, and if there was any resentment on the part of the Arcadians towards Sparta, it was not allowed seriously to interfere with the interests of the Greeks as a whole, and that some Arcadians took pride in the Greek achievement against the Persians is indicated, according to my interpretation, by the placing of a wreath of olive around the goddess' head on the reverse of a few of their coins, a practice which provides a date for the beginning of Period II and the end of Period I.

This wreath, consisting of three olive leaves similar to those on Athena's helmet on the Athenian "owls," appears above the stephane of the Arcadian goddess on the first few reverses, R. 30–33 (Plates II, III). The resemblance to the earliest three-leaved Athenas28 is further marked by the fact that the hair of the Arcadian goddess above her stephane is left quite smooth, so that she seems to be wearing Athena's helmet, and on the first die, R. 30, the queue is beaded, as is the hair of Athena down her neck; on the brow the hair of both is similar in arrangement and technique; and in general there is a close resemblance between the first Arcadian wreathed head (R. 30) and the early three-leaved Athenas. The second Arcadian reverse (R. 31) has more of the Arcadian style in it with its dolichocephalic long-necked physiognomy.29 Three leaves have been specified as being on the Arcadian heads: in the second die, R. 31, there certainly are three; but on the first, R. 30, three are visible, but a flaw hides that part of the head where a fourth leaf may possibly have been set: there is barely room for it, but if it were there, it only increases the connection between the reverses of this Period and the earliest wreathed "owls," on which four leaves appear on the helmet of the first few dies and then three become the rule.30

It seems certain that these Arcadian wreathed heads were cut under the influence of the Athenian. This imitation will have most point if the Arcadian dies were produced at a time not very long after, in fact as soon as possible after, the introduction of the wreathed "owls" in Athens, so that the wreath should commemorate the same event. Unfortunately the date of the introduction of the latter is still disputed. Seltman's conclusion that the wreath was introduced in commemoration of Marathon had been widely accepted until recently when first Sorge31 showed that Marathon could not have been fought during that particular phase of the moon which is represented on the reverse behind the owl. This objection to a 490 date for the wreathed "owls" has of course been countered by arguing that the moon has no connection with the time of the battle, but perhaps represents the power of Persia waning before that of Athens.32 But more recently C. M. Kraay 33 has produced most cogent reasons for a rearrangement of Seltman's grouping and for a downdating which should preclude a 490 date for the introduction of the wreathed "owls."

It is realised that some authorities34 are of the opinion that the leaves on Athena's helmet and on the head of this Arcadian goddess are purely decorative, for they are used not infrequently on Attic vases for female heads generally. This argument would have point if it had been proved that the three-leaved wreath for Athena's helmet was found on vases widely before its appearance on Athenian coins, and even then it would not disprove the theory that the wreathed "owls" reflect a specific event. Reference has already been made to the heads of Athena painted by the black-figure artist, the Athena Painter, who flourished in the decade 490–80. Haspels suspects and Beazley believes35 that the Athena Painter's work is an early phase of the Bowdoin Painter, who also paints large heads of Athena, but whereas the helmets of the Athena Painter have no wreaths, those of the Bowdoin Painter do. It has been pointed out by others36 that the wreathed heads of the Bowdoin Painter imitate the earliest "owls" with three-leaved helmets. The Bowdoin Painter began work in the Late Archaic period but his main activity belongs to the Early Classical period, and his Athena-head vases with the wreathed helmet are not among the earliest of his works and are not usually dated before 480. That this Athena-Bowdoin Painter drew Athena without the wreath before 480, but with the wreath after 480 seems significant, and if he was imitating the wreathed "owls," as most assume, it is unlikely then that the wreathed "owls" were introduced before 480.

If it is accepted that the wreathed Arkadikon issues were struck in imitation of the wreathed "owls," then the likelihood that ca. 479–8 was the date for the introduction of the wreathed "owls" is considerably increased; for the crowning with olive of the Arcadian goddess gains the greatest point if it refers to the same event as the wreathed "owls." Marathon was an Athenian victory, but Plataea or simply victory over the Persians in 479 was something that was common to Athens and Arcadia. In short, just as Syracuse was marking her victory over the Carthaginians at Himera by the issue of the Demareteion and smaller denominations with their city's goddess wreathed in olive, so the Athenians and the Arcadians added leaves of olive to the heads of their goddesses on their coins, both in large and smaller denominations, after the defeat of the Persians in 479.

Further, an examination of Boehringer's arrangement of the reverse dies immediately preceding the Demareteion at Syracuse37 and the obverse dies immediately preceding the three-leaved Athena heads at Athens 38 will reveal a marked resemblance in the treatment of the hair. In both, the regular method39 of treating the hair along the brow had been by the engraving of a fringe of diagonal lines. On the appearance of the Demareteion and the three-leaved Athenas there is a marked change; in both the hair along the brow is represented by horizontal waves following the brow and by a prominent loop over the temple, and the beginning of the wave on the far side of the brow can be distinguished. The art of the Demareteion is immeasurably superior, but it is difficult to deny that they are contemporary.

There is the same situation in the Arkadikon coinage. The goddesses of Period I have a fringe of hair along the brow and temple; the wreathed heads of Period II show, for the first time, waves of hair along the brow and a loop at the temple. The conclusion must be that these too are contemporary with the Demareteion and the early three-leaved Athenas.

Plataea was fought in the late summer of 479. It is unlikely that the new Athenian issues would have been circulating before 478, and perhaps 477 is a more likely date for the first appearance of their Arcadian counterparts, especially as the latter probably do not imitate the earliest wreathed Athenas, i.e., the small issue of those with four leaves.

The mint, then, which had produced the coins of Period I now began in ca. 477 the issue of the wreathed heads of the goddess. But side by side with these latter coins there have been distinguished two other contemporary divisions, which must, as it will be shown, represent the issues of two other mints. The mint problem now must be examined from the beginning.

A location for the Arkadikon mint was first seriously suggested by Imhoof-Blumer and this for Heraea in western Arcadia. To support his theory he used the following arguments:

• He thought that the Arkadikon series began when the early Heraean issues ceased; and that the late Heraean issues began again when the Arkadikon series ceased.
• He saw a resemblance between the early Heraean heads (Plate XIV, a-f) and a head of one of the Arkadikon series (R. 74, Plate VI); and a resemblance between the latest Arkadikon heads and the first of the late Heraean.

That the early Heraean series broke approximately at the same time that the Arkadikon series began cannot be disputed. It might, however, be argued that there was a gap between them, on the grounds that the Heraean had no real reverse type, but simply an incuse with an abbreviation of the ethnic, whereas the Arkadikon coinage from its inception had a developed reverse type. On the other hand, L. H. Jeffery has noted that part of the Heraean coinage could be dated from the letter forms as late as ca. 475,40 i.e., ca. 15 years after the Arkadikon coinage began. But even if it could be proved that the Heraean coinage broke off exactly at the same time that the Arkadikon began, it would not, of course, of itself follow that the Heraeans struck the coinage. It is true that the late Heraean issues began again about the time that the Arkadikon series ended, but several other Arcadian states also began coining on their own account at the same time.41 The only conclusion is that these states, Heraea included, felt the need of small silver now that the Arkadikon mint had closed down.

In connection with Imhoof-Blumer's second argument, the resemblance between one of the Heraean heads (Plate XIV, f), and the one Arkadikon head to which he refers, R. 74, is clear, but this Arkadikon head bears no stylistic relation whatsoever to any other Arkadikon head; it has a round incuse, whereas every other Arkadikon reverse has a square one; and the style of the obverse, O.86, with which it is linked, seems to be more advanced than the style of the head, and wherever the coin comes in the series, it can hardly come near the beginning, and, I suspect, may not have come from an official mint at all. Babelon, in trying to confirm Heraea as the mint of the Arkadikon coinage saw a resemblance between the same Heraean coin (f) and the Arkadikon, R. 25 (Plate II), a resemblance which to me does not seem to go beyond the fact that both heads have the krobylos hair-style. The differences are far more numerous: on (f) the hair along the brow and temple is rendered by larger beads than elsewhere on the head, the beads on R. 25 are of uniform size; the krobylos on (f) is not convincing, and the hair seems to emanate from behind the ear, on R. 25 it falls naturally from the back of the head; the tail-ends of the hair are quite differently rendered in each case; on (f) the headband is beaded, on R. 25 probably plain; the nose on R. 25 is much larger; cheeks on (f) much fatter, almost cherubic; truncations are completely different. On Plate XIV, a-f are illustrated the final obverses of the early Heraean issues in order to show that there are no resemblances between them and the earliest heads of Period I of the Arkadikon coinage. It cannot be denied, however, that there is a resemblance between the latest Arkadikon heads and those on the late 5th century Heraean coins, but no greater resemblance than one would expect from contemporary coins of the same area.

Babelon's theory that the Heraeans were the presidents of the Lycaean Games was presented without any evidence, but it has been accepted widely as a fact; yet when the fact that Mt. Lycaeus is in Parrhasian territory,42 not Heraean, is remembered in conjunction with the defeat of the Heraeans by other Arcadians ca. 500–480, the claims of Heraea to have been the mint of the earliest Arkadikon coinage look less convincing.

The evidence for this defeat was presented by Dr. Richter in the publication of a bronze spear butt inscribed ιερoς Tυνδαριδαιυς απ' Eραεον.43 in the Arcadian dialect and script. It is a dedication made by some Arcadians at their shrine of the Dioscuri in gratitude for their victory over the Heraeans. She dates it early in the 5th century, and with this date Dr. Jeffery concurs.44 Richter herself suggests that this defeat was the cause of the cessation of the Heraean coinage, and she believed that the Arkadikon coinage which followed was political, but that it had a religious background. She thinks that Cleitor might have inflicted the defeat, for Pausanias45 records that the Cleitorians dedicated a statue of Zeus as a tithe from the many cities they had reduced, and although the date of this Cleitorian statue is uncertain, Cleitor had a shrine of the Dioscuri, and it is interesting to note that Cleitor is not far removed from the point to which Cleomenes called the leaders of the Arcadians at the beginning of his intrigues ca. 490.

The problem of the mint is in fact more complicated than was imagined. According to this study one mint began coining in ca. 490. In the early seventies (Period II) this first mint was reinforced by two others for the duration of Periods II and III (ca. 477-ca. 460) and then the first mint and one of the additional mints ceased to operate, but the third continued (Periods IV and V) until ca. 418, although the output between ca. 460 and ca. 418 was considerably reduced. The grounds for the theory of this multiplicity of mints are as follows. After the end of Period I the series falls into three quite separate contemporary divisions:

1. The coins from this division come from the same mint which produced those of Period I, as is proved by die-links. After the end of Period I the dies of this division develop a distinctive provincial style, which has been termed "Arcadian." But although the"Arcadian" style occurs on most of the dies, the engravers largely depend on the other two mints for their designs.

2. A prolific group in which the goddess on the reverse wears her hair in a bun. There is a development from the profile face to the frontal and then to the threequarter view. With the exception of one half-drachma and one obol die the heads face right throughout the history of this mint: in the other divisions, 1 and 3, the orientation does not become stabilised until Period III, when the heads in 1 face right, and those of 3 face left. The style of the Zeus and of the goddess' head in this division 2 is very fine. The ethnic is usually written out in full.

3. The third division has at first a characteristic obverse with Zeus holding a thunderbolt in his left hand, and a sceptre in his right, while the eagle flies free in front of him; then the design of the other mints is adopted, in which Zeus has his sceptre in his left hand, while the eagle is near his extended right, and he has no thunderbolt. On the reverses the goddess frequently wears a saccos; these dies are often anepigraphic: later, the saccos is rare, and the ethnic becomes regular, almost always abbreviated to ARKA.

These three divisions with their independent styles develop contemporaneously. There is considerable die-linkage within each division, but there is, of course, no die-linkage between divisions. It might be argued that these divisions could be explained by the existence of three workshops in one city, but the regular style of each division differs so markedly one from the other that a wider separation than three workshops in one city must be postulated, and hereafter these three divisions are referred to as mints.

If it be accepted after an examination of the various issues that there were three mints striking the Arkadikon coinage for a period, the question arises as to their location. On an obverse, O.121 (Plate VIII), from the 2nd mint there is a unique representation of a standing Zeus holding a phiale or libation bowl in his hand. This figure must be identified as Zeus Meilichios, for the phiale is his symbol and attribute.46 Tegea is the only Arcadian state with known connections with Zeus Meilichios,47 and probably at the time when this die was being used (as will be shown below) was in alliance with Argos against Mycenae, and Argos was also a centre of Zeus Meilichios worship.48 This die points to Tegea as the home of the 2nd mint.

Further, it has been suggested that the frontal Gorgon's head was an important stage in the development towards the representation of the frontal and threequarter head of ordinary humans and deities.49 The frontal and threequarter head of the goddess is the chief characteristic of this mint in Period III, and in this respect this mint anticipates all other Greek coin-producing states. It is significant that Tegea later produced trihemiobols with the Gorgon's head as type,50 so that it can be assumed that the Gorgon's head was a familiar Tegean blazon, and might well have influenced the engravers working for the mint in taking the lead in introducing the frontal and three-quarter aspect of the goddess' head. Further evidence suggesting the appropriateness of Tegea as the location of the 2nd mint is added below in connection with the allocation of the 1st and 3rd mints. Granted the multiplicity of the mints and the political character of the coinage (cf. p. 18) it would have been surprising if Tegea had not been represented.

In the allocation of the 1st mint, which was the sole mint for about a dozen years, and then, after being reinforced by the 2nd and 3rd, stopped striking coins along with the 2nd mint ca. 460, a case may be made for Cleitor. Cleitor, as Richter suggested, probably defeated the Heraeans and may have put an end to the Heraean coinage ca. 500–480 (cf. pp. 9f.); Cleitor was in the north of Arcadia and near the focus of resistance under Cleomenes (pp. 3f.). In attempting to locate the workshops of the Arcadian bronzes Dr. Lamb 51 came to the conclusion that Tegea probably was the centre where the finest bronzes originated (the 2nd mint, attributed to Tegea, also produced the finest coins of the three mints), but she also considered it likely that more than one centre was at work in Arcadia, and recorded that bronzes were found at Cleitor and Lusoi in the north. Lusoi struck no coins at the end of the 5th century, when, on the cessation of the Arkadikon coinage, several Arcadian states found it necessary to coin on their own accounts; but Cleitor did,52 and Cleitor would seem to be a place, more cut off from contact with the classical schools of art, where the provincial "Arcadian" style, a characteristic of the 1st mint during Periods II and III (but not Period I) could have been strong.

If the arguments put forward on p. 18 for the political character of the coinage are accepted, the claims of Mantinea, one of the most powerful Arcadian states, for being the location of the 3rd mint cannot be overlooked. It is first necessary to see how the allocation of the 3rd mint to Mantinea fits the pattern of beginning to coin in the early seventies of the 5th century (along with the 2nd), but of continuing until ca. 418, after 1 and 2 had stopped ca. 460. The allocation could fit very well for the opening of this mint. An important event in the development of Mantinea was the synoikismos, brought about, as Strabo records,53 under the auspices of Argos; the synoikismos of Tegea Strabo mentions in the same sentence, and it could be understood from the Greek that Tegea's synoikismos too was assisted by the Argives, so that there would be some ground for believing that the synoikismoi were contemporary. There is no firm evidence for the date of either of these events: for the synoikismos of Mantinea a 6th century date has been suggested by Beloch ;54 Kahrstedt,55 the 6th or early 5th; Dunbabin56 connected the synoikismos of Mantinea with the first issues of her coinage with the bear type at the beginning of the 5th century; Busolt57 suggested a date soon after the Persian Wars; Andrewes,58 the late seventies of the 5th century; Meyer,59 the period of the Messenian Revolt; for the synoikismos of Tegea, though earlier dates are conjectured, Hiller von Gaertringen has suggested ca. 476.60 This latter date of the early seventies for the synoikismos both of Mantinea and Tegea has as much to commend it as any other date has, for Sparta was then occupied by post-Plataean operations against the Persians and beset by the humiliation of her withdrawal from the leadership, while Leotychides' flight to Tegea suggests that the Tegeans were hostile to Sparta at this very time.61 There seems also to have been some common ground between Mantinea and Argos, under whose auspices Mantinea's synoikismos took place, for Mantinea's forces arrived late for the battle of Plataea,62 and Argos kept aloof from all operations against the Persians. If the synoikismos of Mantinea and that of Tegea are set in the early seventies, they can be brought into relation with the opening up of the two new federal mints of the Arkadikon coinage, 2 at Tegea, 3 at Mantinea. Synoikismos in the two leading Arcadian states could not be achieved without the expenditure of sums of money, and the inauguration of a new federal mint in each of the newly organised states seems a proper and likely proceeding.63

The fact that the 3rd mint continued to strike the Arkadikon coinage when the other two mints has stopped in ca. 460 also fits the allocation of that mint to Mantinea, for in the sixties Mantinea was not out of favour with Sparta, had assisted her in the Messenian Revolt, and had not fought alongside the other Arcadians at Dipaea.64 If loyal Mantinea wished to continue striking the Arkadikon coinage, Sparta would not be expected to object. The cessation of the mints 1 and 2 may well have been voluntary because there was no need for three mints in view of the reduced demand; but Sparta after the suppression of the Messenian Revolt could have opposed the striking of the federal coins in mints which were operated by Arcadians who had been disloyal.

The coinage continued in this 3rd mint on a reduced scale until, on the stylistic evidence, soon after 420, and this date has been turned into the more precise 418 to fit the natural presumption that the cessation was due in some way to the battle of Mantinea in that year. In the course of the final phase of the coinage (Period V) the Mantineans had allied themselves to Sparta's enemies, and if Mantinea was the home of this 3rd mint, on her defeat by Sparta the suppression of the federal coinage would follow as a matter of course.

Although a Mantinea home for the 3rd mint fits the pattern well, it might be argued that because Mantinea struck coins of her own (with the bear type), she would not likely have struck the federal coins.65 This Mantinean coinage proper has not been studied in detail with reference to its die-links and its continuity, but there does seem to have been a distinct gap in it. The British Museum collection is representative of the coinage as a whole, and Gardner (BMC) divided its coins into two groups—those coins struck before 471, and those struck after 431. This gap coincides rather closely with the period of the striking of the Arkadikon coinage in the 3rd mint. It may well be that Mantinea struck her own rare coins with the bear type until ca. 477 when the 3rd Arkadikon mint opened under her authority, and then resumed her own specific coinage in the last quarter of the century when the mint closed. The difference in style of the letter forms alone on her bear coinage, between BMC pl. 34, 18–22 on the one hand and 24ff. on the other, is very marked and confirms Gardner's belief that the Mantinean coinage proper was not continuous.66

The case for the allocation of the three mints may be stronger for Tegea and Mantinea than for Cleitor, but the evidence to date warrants the use, through the rest of the work, of the attributions as allocated above; the Cleitor mint, the Tegea mint, and the Mantinea mint.

The Tegea mint and the Mantinea mint then open about the same time that the Cleitor mint begins issuing the wreathed heads.67 After a short period of issuing coins in brisk but not exceptional activity (represented by the first section of each mint) there follows in each mint a period of intense activity marked by a complex crossing of dies, use of dies long after the appearance of flaws, a reduction of weight in the Tegea and Mantinea mints, and an experiment with fixed dies in the Mantinea mint. To fix the date of the second section exactly to a year may not be possible, but if the first section began ca. 477, a date between 475 and 473 could be given to the beginning of section 2. There are two problems—why should the Arcadians find it necessary to open the two additional mints, and what was the cause of the increased mint activity as represented by section 2 of each mint ? The increase in the number of mints seems a deliberate action; the increase in mint activity in section 2 seems to reflect hurry and crisis; in fact these issues of section 2 may well represent payments to finance a military campaign.68

There is no definitely dated battle in this period involving Arcadians, but there is a passing reference by Herodotus (IX, 35, 2) to five victories of the Spartans won while Teisamenos was their seer; Plataea, Tegea against the Tegeans and the Argives, Dipaea against all the Arcadians except the Mantineans, Ithome (mss. Isthmus) and Tanagra. As Plataea, Ithome, and Tanagra are in correct chronological order, it is assumed that Tegea and Dipaea are as well, but there has been little evidence for dating either. Some authorities have placed both battles in the seventies, others have preferred the sixties, while others have placed Tegea in the seventies and Dipaea in the sixties.69 It is not unreasonable then to associate Tegea, the first of these battles, with the period of increased activity in the three mints, the beginning of which has been dated 475/3, while the fact that the increased activity occurs in all three mints suggests a united Arcadian front at this time.

To account for the opening up of the additional federal mints at Tegea and Mantinea, it might have been safest simply to assume an increasing demand for the coinage; but it has been suggested above that the synoikismoi of Mantinea and Tegea might be dated to ca. 477 and be the immediate cause for the opening up of the new mints. The theory, admittedly, is based on conjecture but the synoikismoi might also give a cause for the battle of Tegea. For it has been plausibly suggested70 that a synoikismos involved a change to a democratic form of government, in which case Sparta might well be expected to object, and when her protests were ignored, to send an army to demand satisfaction. In order to finance their campaign the Arcadians had hurriedly to increase the output of their federal mints, the results of which are seen in the second section of each mint. The Spartan army was directed on Tegea, where synoikismos had taken place, and the Tegeans were supported by the Argives, under whose auspices the synoikismos of Mantinea, and perhaps of Tegea as well (cf. p. 13) had been carried through. But although the campaign resulted in a victory for the Spartans, the victory was not decisive enough to annul the synoikismoi; at least, a democratic form of government was in power in Tegea not long after, and in Mantinea in ca. 421,71 the coinage of the three mints continued, and the Arcadians except the Mantineans were still resisting the Spartans in the following decade. Perhaps Simonides' fragment 122 (Diehl) reflects Tegea's position after the battle, the city was saved but at the cost of a defeat:

τῶνδε δι'ἀνθρώπων (Arcadians and Argives) ἀρετὰν οὐχ ἵκετο καπνὸς

αỉθέρα δαιομένας εὐρυχόρου Tεγέας, οἵ βούλοντο πόλιν μὲν (surely the city after its synoikismos?) ἐλευθερίᾳ τεθαλυῖαν

παισὶ λιπεῖν, αὐτοὶ δ'ἐν προμάχοισι θανεῖν.

An obvious objection to the reconstruction is that there is too long a gap between the crime and the punishment: if the synoikismoi took place in ca. 477, why did the Spartans wait until the second half of the seventies before reacting? The date of section 2 and Tegea might be as early as 475, in which case the gap is not remarkable, but it is possible that the change from oligarchy to democracy was not immediate after the synoikismos, and a certain dilatoriness on the part of Sparta after her humiliations in the early seventies is not unexpected. Part of this reconstruction is conjecture, but the opening up of two additional mints ca. 477, and the increased mint activity of not later than ca. 473 are facts which must be taken into account in the history of the period. A dating of the synoikismoi to the early seventies gives an occasion for the former and also a possible motive for the Spartan invasion of Arcadia;72 and Tegea, the first undated battle between 478 and 460 involving Arcadians, might well be connected with the latter.

A date of ca. 468 has been given to the beginning of Period III, and as there seems to be no interruption in the coinage between Periods II and III, ca. 468 has been adopted as the terminus of Period II.

Already at this stage a conclusion may be reached as to the character of the Arkadikon coinage. The period when the three mints were operating covers the two decades ca. 477–460, the period of the battles of Tegea and Dipaea and the Arcadian resistance to the Spartan hegemony.73 If the coinage had been religious in character, it would have been impossible to explain why two more mints in different parts of Arcadia were needed and why there should be a great increase in the volume of the coinage at this particular time, but if it is political in character, the increase in mints and coinage is what might be expected in view of the expense involved in the mobilisation of the Arcadian forces. The coinage consists largely of half-drachmas of Aeginetan weight, and that this was the soldier's daily allowance in the 5th century b.c. is proved by the terms of the treaty between Athenians, Argives, Mantineans and Eleans in 420, in which it was stipulated that the soldiers of one state going to the help of another should receive an Aeginetan half-drachma a day for supplies.74 It may be assumed that the allies had these Arkadikon half-drachmas in mind, because the smaller denominations of Elis- Olympia, Aegina, and Corinth are comparatively rare, and the Arkadikon coinage met a real need for small silver in the Peloponnese.75

If the Arkadikon coinage is examined for any light it can throw on the date of the Mycenaean campaign and the battle of Dipaea, it will be seen that in the Tegea mint there occurs near the beginning of the first section of Period III an obverse die, O.121 (Plate VIII) which shows a change in the position of Zeus and in his attributes. He is shown standing with a phiale or libation bowl in his left hand and the eagle at his right. It has already been suggested (p. 11) that this represents Zeus Meilichios (for the phiale is his symbol), and was used as evidence to show that the mint was Tegea, where alone in Arcadia the worship of Zeus Meilichios is known. However, since Zeus Meilichios was worshipped at Argos also,85 this coin might well reflect the co-operation between the Argives and the Tegeans in the Mycenaean campaign. A dating, therefore, for the beginning of this section becomes important for the dating of the campaign. Three items in the section provide a date and the conclusion in each case is the early sixties of the 5th century. The examination is as follows:

1. The standing Zeus, O.121, with his weight on his right leg and his left relaxed illustrates a development which is introduced into sculpture right at the end of the archaic period, but it represents an early stage in this development, for the shoulders are still quite straight and the right shoulder does not drop with the tense right leg, while the combination of the frontal chest and profile legs is harsh. If it is compared with the standing figure on the reverse of the Selinuntine tetradrachms, it will seem to be not later than those dies which Dr. Schwabacher has dated to ca. 467;86 and yet it is clearly more competent and advanced than the striding Zeus on the Elis-Olympian didrachm inscribed OΛVNГIKON, which Seltman dates to ca. 470.87

2. The threequarter heads of the goddess on some of the reverses of the Arkadikon coinage have already been dated by Jacobstahl 88 to the sixties of the 5th century and these have been allocated to Period III of the Tegea mint, of which the earliest occur in the section in which Zeus Meilichios appears, and the latest, with about 30 dies in between, in the final section of the mint, which ceases to operate ca. 460. It is logical to assume that, if Jacobstahl is right, the earliest threequarter heads must belong to the first half of the sixties.

3. The profile head, R. 108 (Plate VIII) may more easily be compared with both (a) coins and (b) vases: (a) First its relation to the Demareteion :89 R. 108 is clearly later, for the hair is less formalised, and an attempt has been made at profiling the eye, whereas the Demareteion's is still frontal, but it will not be considerably later, because the profiling is still at an early stage with the eye long and narrow, and the upper lid extending farther than the lower, and, most important, the engraver who copied this die in R. 109 still kept to a frontal eye.

In the coinage of Ainos the obverses of J. M. F. May's 90 earliest issues are earlier than R. 108, and it is not until his dies A. 7–9 are reached that there is a clear similarity with R. 108, where there is approximately the same stage of development of the eye: the shape and proportions of the head and features in A. 8 are particularly close to those of R. 108. His dies A. 7–9 are dated to the early sixties.

(b) A comparison with Attic vase-painting shows that the second quarter of the 5th century is the right period for the coin. In order to narrow the bracket, in relation to the work of the Early Classical artist, the Niobid Painter, (who worked in the decades 470–50), R. 108 comes nearest to the works of his early period, e.g., to the heads of the Leningrad fragments91 with their more angular fastidious style rather than to the broader, freer drawing of his middle period. In relation to the Pistoxenos Painter, who worked about 475–460, R. 108 is definitely later than his early works such as the Schwerin skyphos, on which the frontal eye is still employed on a profile face, close to his fragmentary cup in Taranto, and earlier than the painter's later work such as the London Aphrodite cup.92

The above evidence from coins and vases cannot prove a precise date for R. 108 and the other coins of section 1, but it does suggest that a date in the sixties is certainly right and that a date in the early sixties most likely, especially when it is remembered that the engraver of R. 109, who copied the die R. 108, cut a frontal eye for his goddess.

After sections 1 and 2 in the Tegea mint, which show an ordinary degree of mint activity (9 obverse, 10 reverse dies in 13 die combinations with 24 specimens), there follows a section in which there is a distinct change of tempo (3 obverse, 7 reverse dies in 11 die combinations with 22 specimens). If a similar activity can be observed in the other mints, it may be concluded that there was a sudden crisis in Arcadian affairs which demanded an increase in the output of the coinage. In the Cleitor mint the first two sections, which are contemporary with the first two sections of the Tegea mint, have a combined aggregate of 13 obverse, 13 reverse dies in 20 die combinations with 41 specimens, but the third section shows a much greater complexity of die-linkage (4 obverse, 5 reverse dies in 9 die combinations with 17 specimens), an activity which is comparable with that in the Tegea mint. In the Mantinea mint the first section has few die combinations to the number of dies (7 obverse, 3 reverse dies in 6 die combinations with 8 specimens), but this is followed by a section containing 4 obverse, 8 reverse dies in 12 die combinations with 38 specimens, so that in the Mantinea mint too the increased activity ensues after a period of normal activity.93

The only recorded crisis in Arcadian affairs which could be dated to the sixties (since Tegea has been allotted to ca. 475/3) was the battle of Dipaea, in which all the Arcadians except the Mantineans took part. It is therefore probable that this increased activity in all three mints reflects the battle of Dipaea. Now as Dipaea should come before 460, it follows that if the theory is correct, section 3 in the Cleitor and Tegea mints and section 2 in the Mantinea mint will have to belong to the sixties as well as section 1 of the Tegea mint (which was dated to the early sixties), and this dating of the latter sections is fully confirmed by a stylistic examination of the dies, for section 3 in the Cleitor mint, and section 2 in the Mantinea mint could not be dated later than the sixties, and, as it has been stated above, the threequarter heads of Tegea have been independently dated by Jacobstahl to the sixties.

Next to be considered is that part of the sixties to which the Dipaea sections belong. Clearly, in order to fit the two dozen odd dies each from the Cleitor mint and the Tegea mint, the Dipaea sections should belong to the latter part of the sixties, in fact to accommodate the numismatic evidence there should be as much time as possible in the sixties between the siege of Mycenae section and the Dipaea sections as the historical evidence will allow. If the siege of Mycenae is given Diodorus' date of 468, Dipaea should be dated to 463 or to 462.

For those who accept that the Mycenean siege begins after the Messenian Revolt the Arkadikon coinage provides evidence to suggest that the Revolt began in 469 and not in 465; for if the Revolt had begun in 465, to be followed by the Mycenean siege, which is reflected in Section 1 with its Zeus Meilichios die, it would have been impossible to condense all the coinage into a matter of two or three years. There is room for the coinage only if the Revolt is given its ten years as the literary evidence of Thucydides and the general tradition demand. This conclusion admittedly depends upon the correlation of the Zeus Meilichios die with Argos and the Mycenaean siege, but this is the only occasion in the whole of the series that the Zeus is changed in his position and attributes, so that it warrants the credit of some special significance.

Most authorities, through lack of evidence, have avoided conjecturing an incident which might have provoked the battle of Dipaea. It is unlikely that the provocation goes back to the previous decade and the battle of Tegea, for Sparta would hardly have waited until she could only put one line into the field (with some allowances for Isocrates rhetorical exaggeration) before taking punitive measures on the Arcadians. It is therefore unlikely that anything like a state of war existed between the Arcadians and the Spartans between the two battles; the Arcadians must have given the Spartans a fresh ground for complaint. It is possible that when the Spartans in their need during the Revolt appealed to their allies for help, the Arcadians, with the exception of the Mantineans, refused. As soon as the Messenian front was stabilised, the Spartans would immediately march into Arcadia to demand satisfaction. Hammond's contention that Dipaea must have taken place before the appeals for help, because she was not accompanied by her allies in the battle, does not seem to be sound. The allies, the Athenians included, had been called in because Sparta was in sore distress at home; the allies could not be expected to follow Sparta on a punitive expedition into Arcadia. If the rejection of the appeal was the cause of the battle, which of the appeals for help did the Arcadians reject, if it is assumed that Plutarch is right in distinguishing two appeals (Cim. 16, 8) and that the Arcadians were subject to the same appeals that were made to the Athenians ? The Dipaea expedition could not have taken place after the second appeal because by then Ithome was reduced, and Dipaea should precede this. It must then be after the first appeal; Hammond's date for this is 464, whereas Sealey prefers 468/7. Sealey's objection to the date of 464 on the grounds that Cimon, the leader of the Athenian help, was in the area of Thasos seems to have some weight; but there is no evidence that Cimon was present throughout the siege of Thasos; in fact, it seems unlikely that the commander-in-chief would remain on the spot for two years. If the rejection by the Arcadians of the first Spartan appeal was the cause of the battle, this first appeal would be expected to come not long before the battle of Dipaea, which has been set at 463/2.

If the above reconstruction of the cause of the battle of Dipaea is sound, it may explain a slight difference of timing between the increased activity of the Cleitor and Tegea mints on the one hand and that of Mantinea on the other. In the former the increased activity appears in section 3 after about a dozen obverse and a dozen reverse dies belonging to sections 1 and 2, but in the Mantinea mint the increased activity occurs in section 2 after a smaller number of dies, so that it seems to fall earlier. This earlier occurrence at Mantinea is to be expected in view of the fact that Mantinea did not reject the Spartan appeal for help, and would therefore need to increase her output of money in order to finance her expedition before the other mints, which, having refused to send help, would not need to increase their output until later when the Spartans had stabilised the situation which led to their appeal and were threatening to march into Arcadia to demand satisfaction.

In the Cleitor and Tegea mints there are a few more dies that have been placed later than the Dipaea section, which probably take the coinage down to ca. 460 or a little later when these two mints close down. After the Messenian Revolt had been put down, Sparta was better able to exert her authority, and only Mantinea, which had remained loyal, continued striking the Arkadikon Coinage.

End Notes

That it was the Mantinea mint which continued striking the Arkadikon coinage is substantiated both by die-links and by style (cf. p. 57), but the issues show a marked reduction when they are compared with those between ca. 477 and ca. 460.

The date of the end of Period III has been given to the beginning of Period IV, since no break can be detected in the coinage, but since it is suspected that a few of the issues attributed to Period IV were struck in the Mantinea mint before the end of Period III (i.e., while the other mints might have been striking the coins which have been allocated to Period III, section 4), the beginning of Period IV has been put tentatively at 462/0.

The dating of the individual sections of Period IV depends upon stylistic criteria. In an article94 on Corinthian coins in Copenhagen Dr. W. Schwabacher drew attention to the close resemblance be- tween the head on a Corinthian drachma (Plate XIV, h), and certain heads on Arkadikon half-drachmas; in particular he referred to the coin in the British Museum, which is our R. 186 (Plate XII) of section 5; but this latter coin is a copy of the much finer, R. 185,95 and though I would agree with his view (see n. 22) that R. 186 is not of the same artistic quality as the Corinthian coin, R. 185 is by no means inferior. He rightly rejects Ravel's date of ca. 430 for the Corinthian staters which correspond to the above mentioned drachma of Corinth and relating them to the style of Myron he gives them a date of ca. 440. This must be approximately the date of the beginning of section 5, which has R. 185 early in the first sequence of that section.

There is another outstanding half-drachma later in the same section, 189 (Plate XII), the reverse of which must be considered superior even to R. 185. It seems vividly to reflect and have something of the breadth and nobility of the Bologna head, which has been attributed as a copy of Pheidias' Lemnian Athena (Plate XIV, k-n).96 The original has been dated to the forties of the 5th century, and this accords well with a date of the thirties (late) for the coin. The remainder of the dies of section 5 may extend to ca. 428, the date of the beginning of Period V.

Section 4 of Period IV cannot be far separated in time from section 5, for the style of the first reverse, R. 180, is very close to that of the first reverse of section 5, while the corresponding obverses are just as close. If section 5 began ca. 440, a date of ca. 450/445–440 seems reasonable for section 4 and this bracket may further be reduced to ca. 446–440 in order to accommodate the historical evidence discussed below.

Thus sections 1–3 are left with the bracket 462/0–446, which fits well with the style of the "classical" dies and does not preclude the inclusion of the more provincial dies which are much harder to date closely.

The final victory which was gained by the Spartans while Teisamenos was their seer was Tanagra, probably fought in 457. This was the main campaign in the period ca. 460–446 in which Arcadians might have taken part. The allies of the Spartans at Tanagra are not specified by name either by Thucydides97 or on the inscription at Olympia 98 commemorating the battle, but a general levy of the Lacedaemonian League is usually assumed.99 The Arkadikon coinage may provide evidence on this point. In the first section there are two die combinations, 250–1, which are remarkable both for the relatively large number of coins surviving from them and for the gross flaws which exist on most specimens; they are not die-linked, but the reverses certainly belong together. In 250 the obverse continues in use even though the torso of Zeus is reduced to a mere skeleton. In 251, of the six surviving examples, five have the greater part of the goddess' hair, including the whole of the queue, covered by a flaw. The die R. 155 is also allowed to get into a deplorable state before being discarded. To allow dies, particularly obverse dies, to continue in use long after the appearance of flaws was not a usual feature of the Arkadikon mint except when working under stress, and their appearance here might well have been caused by such extenuating circumstances as the exigencies of the Tanagra campaign, but as the other mints have closed down there is no way of crosschecking as there was in Periods II and III, so that this conjecture should be regarded only as a possibility.

Of the recorded events of the history of the rest of the Period, ca. 446-ca. 428 (sections 4–5), in which the Arcadians were likely to have been implicated, the first is the invasion of Attica by Pleistoanax and the Spartan alliance,100 for which the upper end of the bracket of section 4 was adjusted. It is possible that the early issues of section 4 with the increased crossing of dies (3 obverse, 3 reverse dies in 6 die combinations) reflect the Peloponnesian invasion.

The Thirty Years Truce followed the invasion, and although the Spartan alliance contemplated intervening in the Samian siege of 440–39,101 no action was taken,102 and the Period continued to be one of peace for the Arcadians.

In this final Period, a short but interesting one, there is an unusually close resemblance between two of the Arkadikon heads, R. 202 and R. 205, and the head of the Nike on the Terina didrachm inscribed with the letter Φ, and attributed to the engraver Phrygillos (Plate XIV, 0-q).103 On the Terina didrachm and the two Arkadikon half-drachmas the hair flows in waves from the top of the head, forward down to the ampyx in three degrees, and backward to the roll in two degrees. All three have the hair in a roll of similar shape with the back contour line waved; Terina and R. 202 have fine hairs on the nape of the neck. On all, the eye, nose, and mouth have the same delicate sensitive shapes. That R. 202 and R. 205 have no pupil, whereas Terina has, may be accounted for by the difference in scale; and the same reason may account for the omission of decoration on the ampyx of R. 205 (the hair of R. 202 at this point above the brow is taken back in waves underneath the roll). The truncation is firmly marked by a rim, slightly concave, and oblique. Had the Arkadikon heads occurred on smaller denominations in the Terina series, they would undoubtedly have been attributed to the hand of Φ. If Φ and Phrygillos were one and the same then he travelled widely; Seltman thought he was an Athenian whose hand he could see at work perhaps at Sinope on the Black Sea,104 but Arcadia is much nearer home and one cannot expect to see three heads much closer in style than the Terinaean and the two Arcadian.

The resemblance to the Terina coin does not stop at the head. The seated Nike on the Terina reverse (Regling γγ) coupled with the Phrygillan head and usually attributed to Phrygillos as well shows a marked drawing back of the legs below the knees. O. 208, with which R. 205 is coupled (Plate XIII, 309), shows a similar marked drawing back of one leg, and Zeus has the same slender thighs which are a feature of the Nike. On O. 208 the triangular corner of the himation crossing the thighs is abandoned and replaced by two small curved folds on the far thigh, an arrangement which closely resembles that on the seated Nike.

Regling dates the Terina dies in question to ca. 425–420, and this must be the approximate bracket of Period V with a slight extension of a few years at either end to cover the earlier and later die combinations on either side of the two reverses in the distinctive Phrygillan style (ca. 428-ca. 418).

On the Arkadikon obverses a distinct change can be seen in the wings and tails of the eagles; the forward edge of the wing is rounded, and the tail too is more circular. Seltman has already compared the eagle on O. 208 with that on the Elean reverse die βτ,105 saying that the Arcadian imitates the Elean, but this particular style of eagle is rare at Olympia,106 and on the Arcadian is confined to Period V; and as both are very uneagle-like, it is far more likely, if there is imitation, that both are being influenced by a third coinage. On both the one Elean and on the Arcadian coins of the Period the eagles look like doves. It was about this time that Sicyon107 began issuing her didrachms with the chimaera and dove types. The doves bear a striking resemblance to the Arcadian eagles, and it is possible that the appearance in the Peloponnese of these didrachms with the dove type made itself felt on the Arcadian eagles.

Period V was one of considerable activity for the Arcadians. Apart from the Peloponnesian invasions of Attica, Mantineans saw service on the Acarnanian front in 426/5108 and must have been loyal to Sparta at least to this time. Nearer home, before the winter of 423/2 the Mantineans had expanded westward at the expense of the Parrhasians, and had established and garrisoned a fort at Cypsela;109 this was on the Laconian border and a threat to Tegea. In the same winter, during the period of the truce, the Mantineans and the Tegeans turned against each other and fought a battle at Laodoceion110 in the district of Oresthis. The allies of both sides took part: the allies of the Mantineans were presumably the Parrhasians, and of the Tegeans perhaps the Heraeans and the Maenalians.111 The action was indecisive, both sides claiming the victory. After the peace of Nicias in 421 Mantinea joined the Argive alliance,112 but Tegea remained loyal to Sparta. In the same year the Spartans answered the call of certain Parrhasians and made an expedition into their territory, gave the Parrhasians their independence and pulled down the fort of Cypsela; but the Mantineans withdrew apparently without suffering any disaster.113 In the following year the Athenians joined the alliance of the Argives, Mantineans and Eleans, and in the treaty114 it was stipulated that the infantry should receive a half-drachma of Aeginetan weight a day for supplies when in the field, and the trooper, one drachma. There followed a period of indecision on the part of Sparta until she was at last forced to take the field in company with the Tegeans and all the rest of the Arcadians who were allies of the Spartans; the rest of the allies mustered at Phlius.115 But when Agis made terms with the Argives, the allied force dispersed. Later, on the arrival of an Athenian force, the Mantineans and the Eleans persuaded the Argives to break the truce and attack Orchomenos because hostages had been deposited there by the Spartans. Orchomenos capitulated and gave up the hostages. The next victim was to be Tegea. When Tegea threatened to surrender to the Mantinean and allied forces, Sparta again took the field and apart from the Tegeans themselves, had the assistance of other Arcadians, the Heraeans and the Maenalians, who joined her at Tegea. On the Mantinean side apart from the Argives and the Athenians there were other Arcadians and also Cleonaeans and Ornates.116 The Spartans and their allies advanced on Mantinea and as a result of the Spartan victory near the city (418) the Mantineans were compelled, when the Argives had come to terms with the Spartans, to make an agreement themselves and to abandon their domination over other cities.117

On the evidence of the style of the final reverses it has been suggested that the Arkadikon coinage came to an end soon after 420. It is reasonable to suppose that the cessation is connected with the battle of Mantinea in 418. If the mint has been rightly located at Mantinea, then the suppression of the coinage after her defeat is not unexpected. Nor is it surprising to see in some of the final reverses the influence of the Athenian style (for even if in the dies R. 202 and 205 the hand of Phrygillos, who has been claimed as an Athenian,118 is disputed, their Athenian style can hardly be denied),119 for in this final phase of the coinage Mantinea was in alliance with Athens and Athenian engravers would have been more welcome in Mantinea than in any other Arcadian state.

Characteristics of section 3 and its relation to 1 and 2

The design of the obverses of section 3 conforms to that of sections 1 and 2. O. 27–31 are clearly imitations of the obverses of sections 1 and 2. But R. 17 (Zeus on reverse) and O. 24–6 present differences: in R. 17, apart from the reversal of the types, there is a greater play of drapery and the corner of the himation hanging below the seat is a feature of Period II;126 O. 24–5 have the legend AR; O. 26 has no legend, but is clearly by the same hand as O. 25: sections 1 and 2 show no obverses with legends. The eagles are rather carelessly cut (except O. 24) with only one wing shown and that above the body.

The heads of the goddess on O. 23, R. 18–21, and R. 24–5 have a style independent of that in sections 1 and 2; R. 18–21 bear a striking resemblance to the heads on Corinthian drachmas, e.g., R. 18–19 are very similar in style to the Corinthian drachma, BMC-Corinth, pl. 11,8, (Plate XIV, g). Not only is the style similar, but the Corinthian habit of setting the head slightly askew in the incuse square is also present on these Arkadikon half-drachmas; the similarity is so close that the possibility of the employment of Corinthian engravers cannot be overlooked. However, R. 23 is very clearly a good imitation of R. 7 in section 2, while R. 22 is a poor imitation of the style in sections 1 and 2. The form of the letters on the ethnic is also different. is regular (except where imitating 1 and 2) and occurs.

The position of the ethnic and the length of the abbreviation are not as stable in section 3 as in 1 and 2. On two occasions, O. 24–5, the ethnic occurs on the obverse (as well as on the reverse); some reverses have ARKA (R. 18 and R. 21), while others have AR: one pair of dies is anepigraphic and has the types reversed. It would be reasonable to conclude that, since such variations are more likely to occur at the beginning of a series than when the position of the ethnic and types have become stabilised, section 3 should come at the head of the series. But the whole of section 3 at any rate cannot be placed before sections 1 and 2, because the section 3 reverses, R. 22–3, are clearly imitations of reverses in section 1 and 2, as has already been stated, and these two reverses are connected by the obverse, O. 26, with the first part of section 3 which contains the unstable elements.127

1. It is only in this Period that the hair is regularly rendered by beaded lines, and that by engravers of the first rank.

2. It is only here that the hair is regularly arranged in a fringe of beaded lines along the brow and at the temple; elsewhere it is arranged in roughly horizontal waves (not beaded) running from the front of the head along the brow.128

3. The eye is regularly frontal, although this is a feature of Period II also.

4. The reverse die, R. 6, is recut in Period II and used with an obverse which has a throne with cross-stays and a swan's head backrest. This type of throne occurs only at the end of Period I on one die, O.16, but is a feature of Period II and the early part of Period III. The implication is that the backless type of throne with volutes and abacus, characteristic of Period I, preceded the type with cross-stays and backrest.

5. There is little attempt to portray the folds of drapery in this Period; the horizontal edge of the himation is shown at the waist, and at the end of the Period there is a vertical line representing a fold between the legs. In the following Period horizontal folds are shown below the waist as well, and a bunch of folds at the right thigh or, later, a tail of the himation over the thigh.

6. Only in this Period does the abbreviated ethnic sometimes occur on the obverse (0.24–5) and in one die combination (29) the types are reversed. These variations are more likely to occur at the beginning of a series than after details have become fully established.

7. The weight standard of the Period is higher than elsewhere in the series. Again this is a feature which is more likely to occur in the earliest Period.

8. Letter forms show archaic features.

The half-drachma obverses of this section present a uniform style; 0.36, 38, and 41 are by one hand, O. 37,39–40, and 43 by another. The proportions of Zeus are better than in Period I, and the area of the rectus abdominis above the waist is shown in threequarter view; the swelling of the iliac crest is given particular emphasis. A heavy fold of drapery runs along the right thigh, and in O. 39–41 further folds of drapery are attempted. The throne has a swan's head top to the backrest, and at the end of the section cross-stays are added to the legs, which in turn flare sharply outwards at the base. The eagle's two wings overlap, outstretched above the body, as in section 3 of Period I; in all cases it seems to be perched at Zeus' wrist. In O.40, in particular, the influence of Tegea, Period II, section 1 can be clearly seen. Several of these obverse dies are very similar and the possibility of 'hubbing' cannot be discounted.

The wreathed heads of the goddess have been described and discussed on pp. 4 ff.

The connection between this section 2 and the preceding one is maintained by several links. There is the obverse die, O. 40, which is common to both; O.38A and O.41A are recuts of dies used in section 1; while R. 6A is a recut of a die used in Period I. This frequent resort to the recutting of old dies may indicate a difficulty in finding engravers now that the two other mints had opened, but the extensive die-linkage also indicates great activity in the mint, an activity, which coinciding with that in the two other mints has been interpreted as reflecting the battle of Tegea (pp. 16f.).

The change of style in comparison with Period I, most apparent in the heads of the goddess, indicates a change of engravers; and as this style, attractive as it is at times, seems clearly more provincial, it is logical to assume that the mint found its engravers near home, so that here in Period II and later in Period III of the Cleitor mint there could be found, if anywhere, evidence of an Arcadian style. The chief characteristics of this Arcadian style are: an unusually large ear with pointed lobe; a beady eye with pupil standing out boldly in relief; upper lid sometimes thick and more prominent than the lower, but often both lids are weakly defined; long slender neck with a flat outline to the back of the queue; the letters of the ethnic often untidy, including a kappa with the arms cutting the upright at separate points. These characteristics will be seen more clearly in Period III of this mint, but R. 35, 37–9 and 41 are examples in this section: R. 40 seems to be archaistic. R. 35 with the goddess' hair done up in a bun shows the influence of the Tegea mint, where the bun hair style is the chief characteristic, but apart from this die the goddess' hair is always arranged in a queue.

The obverses are of a standard pattern first used at the end of section 1 and deriving from the Tegea mint—Zeus seated to left on a throne with a swan's head backrest and cross-stays on the legs. The drapery on Zeus' thigh becomes an exaggerated bunch.

In this Tegea mint, both in Period II and in Period III, the heads of the goddess, with one exception, face right and always have their hair tied up in a bun at the back of the head. This hair style is found on one or two dies in the mints at Cleitor and Mantinea in imitation, but in the Tegea mint it is the exclusive mode, and is retained when the head of the goddess is turned into the threequarter view in Period III. This characteristic is combined always with a competent standard of engraving to which at least one engraver, the Athens master, adds a style of sensitivity that is rarely equalled in the rest of the series. The Athens master has been so called after his die, R. 49, from which one of the best specimens preserved is at Athens. He was also responsible for establishing the design for the mint, for the first reverse, R. 47, is also from his hand. On his dies the hair is represented by lines, not beads, and is waved along the brow in a manner reminiscent of that on the Demareteion, which appeared only a short while before the first die of the Athens master. The binding of the goddess' hair into the bun reveals the delicate line of her neck, which is further emphasised by a necklace placed high. The engravers of the reverses on the whole favour an unabbreviated form of the ethnic; the Athens master, in neat script, at first tries ARK (R. 47), then ARKA (R. 48), finally the full ARKADIKON (R. 49). There is the same development in the size of the head: at first the miniature R. 47, then the larger R. 48, and finally the scale, which is most widely used in the mint, found on R. 49.

With the obverses there is at first the same experimenting with the scale. The very fine die O. 54 is on a miniature scale, O. 55 and 56 increase in size until O.57 reaches the scale which becomes standard. Zeus is always seated to the left and holds sceptre and eagle. The eagle is at first of the pattern used in Period I with one wing above its body, the other below, but in O. 57 both wings overlap above its body, a position which remains constant for the rest of the Period. Zeus' throne is not unlike that used in Period I, but it has a backrest, which in O. 54 is awkwardly fitted into the seat: there seems to be the same difficulty in the two following dies, but in O. 57 the back leg of the throne runs smoothly into the backrest, and the square void between the legs is neatly filled with the diagonal cross-stays. This pattern and scale remain constant for the rest of the Period, and greatly influence the obverses of the other mints. For example, in Period II of the Cleitor mint the diagonal cross-stays appear at the end of section 1 (O.40), and then remain constant in section 2. It might be argued that the imitation could be in the other direction, but the dies in the Tegea mint are superior in quality, and elsewhere the Cleitor mint derives inspiration from Tegea.

The development in scale and pattern both on obverse and reverse has helped to establish the order of the first issues of this mint, but R. 48 was still in use and still being copied in section 2. The date of section 1 is established by the very close relation of the dies by the Athens master and the Demareteion; there is no doubt that there must be only a year or two between them. Further, the very close similarity between O. 57 in the Tegea mint and O. 40 of the Cleitor mint, which is die-linked to the wreathed goddesses dating from 477 confirms the contemporaneity of the first sections of these two mints.

The Athens master continued to work during the period of this section and cut the charming die R. 52, and perhaps R. 53, while the obol die R. 61 is also from his hand. The other chief engraver of reverses working in the mint at this time has a more provincial but none the less interesting style, who may be called the Koppa master because he alone in the whole series uses a koppa and not a kappa in the second half of the ethnic. He made two half-drachma dies, one of standard scale (R. 54), and the other slightly smaller (R. 55); like the Athens master he also cut an obol die (R. 60). His style, involving an eye with a prominent eyeball protruding from an arched upper lid, and a large ear, suggests the Arcadian engraver, but his work is much less provincial than that appearing in the Cleitor mint. In his designs he follows the Athens master closely.

Among the obverses, most of which repeat the style of O.57 at the end of the previous section, there are two of outstanding quality, O. 59 and 60, which show two developments. In other obverses the folds of drapery were represented by horizontal lines below the waist, and diagonal lines between the legs, and a bunch of drapery at the right thigh, but O. 59 and 60 show a tail of the himation thrown over the lap and appearing below the level of the seat of the throne with a zigzag edge running back representing the folds in this tail. The second refinement concerns the structure of the throne; on O. 59 and 60 the rear leg of the throne is realistically rendered in the form of an animal's leg.

Section 2 is connected to section 1, apart from the style, by the die-link provided by R. 48. The style of the heads within section 2 is post-Demareteion, but the continued use of the frontal eye in dies of high quality confirms that the bulk of the section still belongs to the seventies. If section 1 began ca. 477, then a date soon after 475 for the beginning of 2 ought to allow sufficient time for the production of the coins in section 1. It has already been noted that section 2 shows much greater mint activity judging from the increased number of die combinations from almost the same number of dies that occurs in section 1, and it has been suggested that this activity (combined with a drop in weight) reflected a military campaign and that this campaign was Tegea, which numismatic evidence would thus date to the second half of the seventies.

The early obverses of the Mantinea mint in Period II show a characteristic representation of Zeus. He is seated to the left with his sceptre in his upraised right hand and a thunderbolt in his left on his lap. The eagle flies free towards him with wings extended. His himation covers his left shoulder, while his right is free. The throne has a high backrest ending in a swan's head. With one exception (O. 78) there are no cross-stays on thrones of this type. In front of the throne, in at least two dies, there is a footstool. This whole design is exclusive to the Mantinea mint at this time.

On the reverses the goddess usually has her hair done up in a closely meshed saccos,129 In sections 1 and 2 combined there are nine of these saccos heads, of which six are anepigraphic: no other halfdrachma reverses are anepigraphic at this time, and whether the anepigraphic dies have any special significance it is impossible to say, but they are sometimes die-linked with reverses which have the ethnic. Section 1 has two saccos heads, R. 62–3, but die-linked with the latter is R. 64, in which the hair of the goddess is done up in a bun in the Tegean style. This is a competent copy of the Athens master's second die in the Tegea mint (R. 48); there is the same simple way of binding the hair (the Athens master later made this more complicated [R. 52]), the same ear-ring, and the same disposition of the four letters of the ethnic (the Athens master later used the full ethnic).

The characteristic Mantinean obverse continues to be employed in this section (0.74–5, O. 78–9), but it is now die-linked with obverses (O. 76–7) which imitate the design used in the Tegea mint130 and in the Cleitor mint—the standard Zeus to left holding sceptre and eagle seated on a throne with cross-stays and backrest—a design which was less elaborate and easier to cut at a time when the mint was extremely active. Later, the effect of the fine Tegean obverses O. 59–60 was felt, for O. 80–1 in this Mantinea mint show a similar relaxed posture for Zeus as he bends forward slightly on his throne. Still later, an engraver of obverses was employed who imposed Mantinean features on the Tegean design: in O. 82–3 the eagle is allowed to fly freely in the field, as it was in the characteristic Mantinean design (and this remains a characteristic of the Mantinea mint hereafter), and the tail of Zeus' himation was allowed to fall below the level of the seat, again a practice in early Mantinean design (which was adopted by the Tegean engravers of O. 59–60), but the basic design for Zeus and his attributes remained the standard one of the Tegea mint. One feature this obverse engraver of Mantinea employed which was not repeated again was the introduction of a snake in the beak and talons of the eagle (O. 82), probably under the influence of the Elean coins.131

With the reverses the pattern is the same as in section 1—saccos heads characteristic of Mantinea combined with two imitations of Tegean bun heads: the first of these copies, R. 66, used with four different obverses, clearly derives from the developed style of the Athens master and is not unlike the version which was produced by the Koppa master in the Tegean mint, but there are distinct differences between the two, apart from the fact that the Mantinean bun head, R. 66, had kappa, not koppa as on the Tegean; the second Mantinean copy, R. 71, is a copy of a copy, for it derives from R. 66. The style is clearly coarser, but the engraver of R. 71 copies R. 66 line for line including a one-legged kappa. The line above the bun on R. 71 is interesting: on the original the Athens master had cut the iota at this point; the engraver of R. 66 mistakenly thought that this was the end of a hair band or at any rate made it part of the band and bun; the engraver of R. 71 did not understand the line as part of the band and cut it free, but he did not realise it was originally an iota because he dutifully copies the iota of R. 66 as well. These bun head copies of the Athens master's work in the Mantinea mint cannot of course compare with the originals, but such saccos heads as R. 62 and R. 69 have considerable charm and may be favourably compared with reverses of the other mints.

There are no die-links between the final section of Period II and Period III, but the "Arcadian" style characteristic of the latter part of Period II is maintained in this section 1. Of the obverses, O. 87 and O. 89 are coarse reproductions of the standard design in Period II. In O. 88 and O. 90–1 there is clear evidence of the influence of the two fine Tegean obverses O. 59–60 with the zigzag fold of drapery falling over the thighs in O. 88 and O. 90. O. 93 is exceptional in that it shows a statue base under the seated Zeus. This base is clear only in 138(d) (Plate VI) and consists of a beaded horizontal line, below which is an echinus-shaped member representing the top of the forward corner of the base. Perhaps the engraver had in mind an actual statue of Zeus.

On the reverses too the "Arcadian" style prevails; but in this section it is possible to subdivide this style into several categories. First, and most primitive, is the long necked dolichocephalic head with the beady eye and heavy brow, and large pointed ear. R. 75–6 and R. 80 are good examples of this, and the style is matched by untidy lettering, including the K whose legs cut the upright at different points. Secondly, there is the much neater and more attractive hand visible in R. 77–9, in which the "Arcadian" element is betrayed only in the sharp eye and pointed ear. Between these two there is R. 81 a competent, but uninspired copy of R. 77. Finally, the attractive die, R. 82, would pass for "classical" were it not for the large, pointed, hollow ear. This latter head has the hair in a krobylos: in vase-painting this hair style dies out in the sixties of the 5th century,132 and this is the last occasion in which it appears in the Arkadikon series.

R. 77–9 and R. 82 are competent enough dies to warrant a conclusion as to date being drawn from them. They have semi-profiled eyes, and the early sixties seems the most reasonable date for the beginning of the section; it could hardly be earlier because R. 76 (of inferior style), which is fixed by die-linkage earlier than the R. 77–9 trio, has a definite profiled eye (as has R. 81). It may seem surprising that the profile eye occurs in less competent dies before it occurs in competent ones. The reason may partly be found in the way that the eye is treated as a whole in this "Arcadian" style: the pupil is bead-like and the eyelids often unemphasised; as soon as the practice of leaving the eyelids slightly open at the inner corner begins, the thin lids quickly shrink further. But in the case of R. 76 the plane of the cheek drops abruptly into the plane of the nose and mouth, creating a ridge running from the mouth to the centre of the eye; the right hand half of the eye, therefore, has to be removed or it would protrude over the plane of the nose, so that profiling here is produced quite incidentally. In the Mantinea mint the profile eye is slower to establish itself, and in Tegea the development is concealed by the adoption of the threequarter view.

The first reverse of section 2, R. 91, is another example of the long-necked "Arcadian" representation of the goddess with an eye which seems to be profiled. It is coupled with two obverses of poor design and execution, but at this stage, after a long run of very inferior Zeuses, the mint officials cease to employ the local smith to cut them an obverse, and R. 91 is then coupled with an obverse of new and powerful design—a seated Zeus facing front with the usual attributes of eagle and sceptre. This new engraver cut three halfdrachma obverses, O.103–5, and two obol dies, O.106–7, with the frontal Zeus and provided a splendid beginning for the improved obverses which follow in the mint to the end of the decade.

Die-linked with these obverses are two reverses, the first of which, R. 92, is cut in the same powerful style of the obverses, and reflects the bigness and nobility of early classical sculpture. The hair is taken simply along the brow, down the temple, back into a queue and held by a double band; eye is profiled and features firm and strong; from a slender thread around the neck there hangs a large pendent stone, the shape of it like a small pointed aryballos; the stone has a neck to which the thread is tied.133 An obol reverse is by the same hand (R. 94). The other half-drachma die in use in this section adopts the hair-style of the Tegea mint, but along the brow and over the temple the hair is combed down into a fringe, the eye is oblique and open at the inner corner; but the shape of the nose was spoiled (recutting?) before it had been long in use.

It is surprising to see in this Cleitor mint, which since ca. 477 had been decidedly provincial, the production of such fine dies, but there is no doubt of their attribution, for they are firmly fixed by die-links with the dies of typical "Arcadian" style.

The high standard of the obverse dies is maintained during the period of this section; in fact an engraver who had cut dies for the Mantinea mint in section 2 was employed to cut the first two dies, O.108–9, for this Cleitor mint; this is the only assumption that can be made from the close similarity between this pair of dies and those in the Mantinean mint. But this seems to be the only clear case of such a practice, and whereas in Mantinea, Period III the style of these obverses is carried on to the end of that Period and in fact into the next Period, in this section of the Cleitor mint the style is intrusive. Their design is clearcut—Zeus seated, facing left with a large eagle with wings outspread filling the triangle between his knees and head; the throne simple, with backrest, but no cross-stays. Apart from the half-drachma dies this engraver also cut an obol obverse (0.112).

These obverses are linked with a pair of dies by one engraver (O. 110–1), who also cut an obol obverse (O.113), with a different design—Zeus to right, his left arm held high with his sceptre and draped with his himation, his right holding a thunderbolt. These differ radically from the Zeus with the thunderbolt design of the Mantinea mint in Period II: apart from the advance in style, these Zeuses face right and the right hand holding the thunderbolt hangs down below the level of the throne's seat, while the eagle plays a much less important part in the design.

On the reverses the influence of the Mantinea mint is strong and the "Arcadian" style is absent from this section, but whereas the heads in the Mantinea mint all face left at this period, those of the Cleitor mint face right (as they did in the preceding sections) and whereas the Mantinea mint prefers the ethnic abbreviated to ARKA, the Cleitor mint on the whole prefers the unabbreviated form. The first reverse, R. 96, has rather an old-fashioned style, but R. 99 and 100 are more developed in a softer, more relaxed style with profile eyes.

The order in which sections 2 and 3 are placed is determined by the obols. The obol reverse, R. 94, was used in section 2 coupled with a frontal Zeus, the characteristic obverse of that section. In this section 3 the same reverse is used with the obverse O.112, which is by the same hand as the first half-drachma dies of the section, and then with O.113, which is by the same hand as the half-drachma dies O. 110–1: Zeus to right with thunderbolt. The flaws on R. 94 are clearly more advanced when used in this section 3, so that, as far as the obols go, the frontal Zeus precedes Zeus holding a thunderbolt. It seems logical to assume that the same pattern will prevail with the half-drachmas, and for that reason section 2 with the frontal Zeuses has been placed before section 3 with the Zeus holding thunderbolt motif.

Section 3 has a higher percentage of die-links to the combination and of specimens recorded to each die than any other section of the mint in the Period, and it has been suggested on p. 23 that it reflects the campaign of Dipaea, since an increased activity can be observed also in the Tegea mint and in the Mantinea mint, though the latter may be a little earlier.

The thunderbolt design of section 3 is dropped and Zeus returns to the usual left orientation, but the rather delicate style in low relief is continued. The reverses are disappointing. R. 101, from the first die combination (which is not fixed by linkage), carries on the style of section 3: the die-linked series which follows is headed by a reverse (R. 102) in heavy style with an over-emphasised sternomastoid which is allowed to affect the shape of the truncation (probably under the influence of the threequarter head dies of Tegea); the eye is clearly in profile. This is die-linked to a reverse, R. 103, which has a definite frontal eye. The reason for this stylistic paradox is that the engraver of the second die is copying a die from Period II in the Mantinea mint, R. 64 (Plate V); there is the same hair style, identical binding of hair, similar ear-rings, and the four letter abbreviation of the ethnic. It has been noted that R. 64 is itself a copy of the Athens master's die R. 48. It is clear that here and in many other cases an engraver has taken a circulating Arkadikon coin (in this case from another mint) and copied it closely, preferring to keep the frontal eye of the original, but he has his own way of cutting a rho, an angular one with a tail but no upright, which he reproduces on an obol he cut at the same time (R. 107). R. 104, which is linked by a common obverse, and R. 105, which is not, are probably in the same category of copies.

The mint was clearly less active during the period of this section and on the reverses at least employed no engravers of originality. The coinage contained in it should reach the end of the decade, but not much farther.

The order in which the four sections of Period III in this mint have been placed was determined as follows. Sections 2 and 3 form a central block with their own order fixed by the obol die-link (see sec. 3); section 1 with all its obverses deriving from Period II and its reverses in the "Arcadian" style, and with the style of obverses and reverses continuing into the head of section 2 clearly belonged before section 2; in section 4 the heavy sterno-mastoid and irregular truncation of R. 102 suggested a time after the threequarter heads of the Tegea mint (in which these traits are common) had become established, and the obverses in their style seemed clearly to follow the thunderbolt designs of section 3 and not precede them, so that there seemed no more likely place for section 4 than after section 3.

The juxtaposition of the final section of Period II in the Tegea mint and this section 1 of Period III is established firstly by the obol obverse O. 68 which was first used towards the end of II, and is now used again in this section with an advanced flaw coupled with the reverse R. III (182); this obol reverse was then used on a halfdrachma flan (177) with the main obverse of the section O.121, the standing Zeus. This obol reverse is by the same hand as the second half-drachma reverse, R. 109. Secondly, an obverse die, first used near the beginning of Period II (O. 55) was brought out of retirement in a poor state and used with an early threequarter head of the goddess, R. 113. O.123 seems to be in the same class as O. 55 (a discarded die brought back into use) but the occasion of its previous use cannot be located. This resuscitation of old dies, the use of an obol die on a half-drachma flan, and the fact that R. 109 continued to be used after the goddess had grown a beard from a flaw indicate that the mint was short of dies at this time, of reverse dies towards the beginning of the section and of obverse dies at the end.

Two of the dies of this section have been discussed on pp. 21ff.; O.121, the Zeus Meilichios, associating this section with the Mycenaean campaign, and R. 108 to help in the dating of both. It was there claimed that R. 109 was a copy of R. 108, the product of a second rate engraver who followed his model closely; the bun is almost covered by the hairband as on R. 108; there is the same shape of nose in an exaggerated form (perhaps due to a flaw); the tip of the nose well in advance of the jaw; the same position and form of letters (angular rho and triangular delta); the same finer hairs on the nape of the neck. But the copyist did not attempt the modelling of the neck or imitate the profile eye; but his goddess, for all that, did not deserve the indignity of the beard she is allowed to grow.

The next reverse, R. 110, shows a frontal head of the goddess, still with the bun hair style, the characteristic style of the Tegea mint, the bun placed on the side of the head in the same defiance of perspective as on the right-hand daughter of Peleus on the Villa Giulia painter's Cambridge hydria.134 The frontal head is followed by a threequarter head, R. 112. Agnes Baldwin Brett in her "Facing Heads on Greek Coins"135 had stipulated that in the development the frontal head preceded the threequarter, and this the die-sequence bears out. The frontal head is hardly attractive, and the first three-quarter head heavy in style, but the last threequarter head of the section (R. 114) is a great advance, the engraver of which continued to work in the period of the next section, and who may be called the Paris master after his die R. 114.

Section 2 is connected to section 1 by the style of the threequarter heads. For the engraver of the die R. 114 at the end of the last section, the Paris master, continued to cut dies for the mint during the period covered by this section; he was responsible for R. 117, R. 119, and the obol die, R. 122, perhaps also R. 121. One of his characteristics is the foreshortening of the bun in the threequarter view so that it is given an upswept appearance continuing the graceful line of the neck, while in the lower part of the neck he does not over-emphasise the sterno-mastoid as other engravers tend to do. In the work of the other engravers the style of R. 113 can be seen again in R. 118, and that of R. 112 in the obol die R. 120. These threequarter heads were circulating in Arcadia in the sixties of the 5th century (cf. p. 21) and this Arcadian goddess was the first to be represented successfully on Greek coins in this threequarter view, being preceded in fact only by crude satyrs, Dionysuses and Apollos, and various unidentified masks;136 and anticipating by more than a generation the well-known Sicilian heads, in whose company the Arcadian goddess of R. 119 would by no means be disgraced.

The characteristic obverse of this section and the two following is one which shows a back view of Zeus seated to right; in this section Zeus has bare buttocks, but in the last die of this section and in an obol die by the same hand, O.129 and O.132, and thereafter, he is covered from the waist down by his himation. The eagle is often larger than before in this mint with both its wings extended above its body, while the throne receives less emphasis—the swan's head disappears from the backrest and the cross-stays from the legs.

The juxtaposition of section 2 and section 3 is determined not only by the style, for threequarter heads still continue with competent, but less inspired versions of the Paris master's die while the back view of Zeus still remains the characteristic design for the obverses, but also by die-linkage. The obol reverse R. 121, which had been used in section 2 coupled with a naked Zeus, is now used (showing increased signs of wear) on half-drachma flans in this section 3 with two of the main obverses.

On p. 23 the increased mint activity of this section is interpreted as reflecting the campaign of Dipaea, but the activity does not seem to have extended to the obols, for whereas sections 1 and 2 have more than their share, there are no obol dies in the style of the halfdrachma dies of this section. It is possible that some of the obols attributed to the last section were actually struck during the period of this section, but there is only one pair of obol dies belonging to the next section. Probably, it was found that that there were sufficient obols already in circulation. It would be unwarranted to suggest that as early as this Tegea started to strike her own small silver,137 trihemiobols and smaller denominations, with her own type, the Gorgon's head.

The threequarter heads of the goddess and the back views of Zeus persist in this section with different engravers. On the obverses the first engraver (O.138–9) certainly gives a better rendering of the threequarter back view and curves the spinal furrow more successfully than his predecessors, while the horizontal position of the right arm gives greater vigour to the design, but the later engravers return to the less ambitious earlier style. The chief reverse engraver has a competent technique, but produces heavy, masculine types which are quite unsuited to the delicate bun hair style.

The coins of this section must have been struck right at the end of the sixties and in the early fifties of the 5th century.

The following die combinations, 216–20, present problems. 216 on its own would fit into section 3, for the obverse, O.145, shows a back view of Zeus, the characteristic design of Period III in the Tegea mint, and the reverse, R. 136, is similar in style to R. 124 and R. 128. But then this reverse is coupled with another obverse, O.146, which bears no relation to the Tegea mint: O. 146 in the next die combination (218) is coupled with a reverse, R. 137, which would not look out of place in the Mantinea mint. It is possible that in section 3 the activity of the mint was such that it accepted dies which did not comply with the usual designs and 217 and 218 could then come under this heading and be allocated to section 3. 219 is another hybrid, though it is not die-linked to the preceding, and must be related to section 4, because the reverse, R. 138, is obviously an imitation of the early section 4 reverses, but the obverse is not characteristic of the Tegea mint but rather of the Mantinea mint. It might be argued that since the Tegea mint was so conservative, contamination of the types would most likely happen when the mint was on its last legs, and this might be supported by the rather low weight of the existing specimens from 216–8, so that this section might be allocated to the fifties. However, the reverse, R. 137, with its frontal eye would look very out of place near the middle of the 5th century, and its proper place seems the sixties. It has been considered best to place them all in this section from which they can be extricated if further die-link evidence turns up. 220 is a very barbarous pair, but three specimens of it have been recorded.

The connection between this section and the final section of Period II in the Mantinea mint is determined by die-linkage; O. 81 is a common die. Further, the style of the obverses O. 82–83 in II, 2 is quite clearly continued in O.149–52; there is the same powerful torso with similar characteristic renderings, but the engraver of O.150–2 produced greater variation in the treatment of the eagle.

In the reverses, however, there is a definite change of style marked by delicate wavy lines for the rendering of the hair (one cannot escape the suspicion that the saccos, the characteristic of Period II has been abandoned so that the engraver may use to advantage his special skill in rendering the hair), the attempt at profiling the eye, the modelling of the neck, and the adoption of the abbreviation of the ethnic to ARKA with the letters set symmetrically in the square incuse. A pair of obols (226) shows a style identical with that of the half-drachmas.

A comparison of the head on R. 141 with that on R. 108, the first die of Tegea, III, 1, which was dated to ca. 468 will show a strong similarity: the development of the eye is at the same stage; in both, the hair is rendered by wavy lines; in both, for the first time in their respective mints, the neck is modelled successfully. The sections to which they belong should be contemporary. R. 77 in the first section of the Cleitor mint shows the same stage of development of the eye, but in a more provincial style, and the modelling of the neck is there delayed.

The heads of the goddess (with the exception of the doubtful R. 143) face left.

On the reverses the hair-style adopted in the first section of this Period is retained, i.e., the hair is taken along the brow, under the headband, and down onto the temple, then back under the band and into the queue with the mass of the hair. However, the method of rendering the hair is different; in section 1 the engraver had specialised in fine wavy lines; in section 2 the lines of the hair are much straighter and at first thicker. On the first new die of section 2, R. 145, the eye is still frontal, but the following die has the eye open at the inner corner (R. 146), and R. 150 has clearly reached a stage in the development of the eye in advance of any die in the mint; this is a fine head, which must be classed among the most attractive early classical coins. More coins have survived from the combination to which this reverse belongs (240) than from any other in the whole series. The four letter ethnic continues to be the standard abbreviation and the fully developed form of the rho P appears (cf. p. 54 for its appearance in the Tegea mint). The orientation of the head seems to have some significance, for all the heads again face left, while the heads in the Tegea and Cleitor mints face right, and there comes to mind an analogous distinction between mints which had an agreement138—Phocaean obverse heads face left, while Mytilenaean obverse heads face right.

The style of the obverses of section 2 closely resembles that of 1, but they show a better threequarter view of the torso, the proportions are more satisfactory, and the posture more relaxed.

Section 2 is connected to Period II by the ubiquitous reverse, R. 67, but there are no die-links between sections 1 and 2, although 1 is itself die-linked to Period II by O. 81. O. 81 is in good condition when it is used in III, 1, and there seems to have been no great lapse of time since its use in II, 2, but R. 67 is in a wretched state in III, 2 and gives the appearance of being a makeshift when the mint was short of a reverse. Further, the style of the obverses in section 2 is more advanced, and the reverses seem more strictly early classical with the simply engraved hair and more vertical nose-brow line than the somewhat fastidious style of section 1, and lead up in unbroken linkage to R. 150, the latest and the best in the Mantinea mint,

The increased activity of the mint during the period of this section, marked by high die-linkage and the use of dies with gross flaws (including the discarded die R. 67), has been interpreted as reflecting the campaign of Dipaea, but since there are fewer dies in this mint before the increased activity compared with those at Cleitor and Tegea, it may be assumed that the period of greater activity came a little earlier in the Mantinea mint. A reason for this is suggested on pp. 25f. In the other mints after the period of increased activity there is in each a fourth section of more normal working which has been allocated to the very end of the sixties and the beginning of the fifties. In this Mantinea mint there is no fourth section: it is possible that the early part of Period IV of Mantinea is contemporary with the two fourth sections of Cleitor and Tegea; on the other hand the number of specimens that have survived from section 2 of Mantinea is particularly large and may well indicate exceptionally large issues.

The design of the obverses of section 1 remains the same and can be traced back to late in Period II, but there is now development in the representation of the drapery, particularly in the diagonal folds below the knee. O.167 is a splendid die, representing the culmination of the development from the end of II: here the final harshness, the right hand held out with all the fingers extended stick-like, is removed, and the hand is shown in side perspective. On O. 165 and 167 the legs of the throne are "turned" with an hour-glass pattern at the foot. The remaining obverses of the section, O.168–71, are of similar design, but not of such high quality, and are probably copies of the preceding dies in the section.

On the reverses the fixed orientation of the head to the left was abandoned, probably on the closing of the other two mints. The first four reverses adopt a new hair style (the hair at the back of the head is rolled around the band) but the queue style returns in R. 155 and continues until section 4. Both hair-styles, however, are products of the same school, but R. 161 is in a different and more advanced part of that school. R. 162–5 must come from a different school altogether; apart from the incidental difference of hair-style (the use of binding or net), the eyes are more beady, the eyelids less distinct, and the neck less modelled. These characteristics can be confidently labelled "Arcadian," but the more refined "Arcadian" style of R. 162 and 164 is attractive. That this second half of the section with the change of style is connected with the first half (apart from the relation of the obverses) is proved by a die-linkage in the obols where a reverse, R. 175, in the more "classical" style is linked to R. 176, which shows the same traits as R. 162 and 164, while in section 4 among the half-drachmas also the "classical" dies are linked with the "Arcadian." Thus it can be seen that the engravers who would perhaps have worked for the Cleitor mint, had it been open (it was in the Cleitor mint that the style had been most prevalent), now contributed to the sole surviving mint at Mantinea.

Among the obols of section 1 there are two dies which merit special mention. The first obverse, O.73, which had been used already in II, 1, is evidence for proving that the coins of Period IV must belong to the Mantinea mint. The second die of interest is the reverse, R. 176, which has a symbol in the field—an olive (or laurel) leaf and berry behind the head of the goddess. This is the only case of the use of a symbol in the whole of the series. There are several interpretations which might be suggested for this symbol:

1. It might give a clue to the identity of the goddess, as the ear of corn would symbolise Demeter, but a leaf of olive (or laurel) is not associated with either of the two goddesses who have been suggested as the original for the Arkadikon goddess—Artemis and Despoina. If it had been a constant symbol of olive, it might have indicated that the goddess was Athena.

2. The laurel is Apollo's tree; but it is difficult, yet not impossible to work Apollo into an Arcadian context. Apollo had a temple in Mantinea (Pausanias VIII, 9,1), and Apollo was honoured by the Mantineans after a victory over Tegeans and other Arcadians in ca. 422.139 It might be thought to reflect the so-called Sacred War which Sparta fought for the Delphians in ca. 449, but there is no mention of Sparta's allies having taken part in the campaign.

3. But the leaf is more likely to represent olive. If the leaf could symbolise the victory olive wreath given as a prize at the Olympic Games, Kyniskos, the Mantinean boy boxer, whose statue was carved by Polycleitus, comes to mind, for the statue base with its inscription has been dated ca. 450, while a probable copy of this Kyniskos, the Westmacott athlete, belongs to this period,140 and this must be the approximate date of the obol with the leaf.

4. About this time Corinth had begun to set symbols in the field on the reverse of her staters, and, perhaps of closer relevance, the first symbol occurs in the field of Elean coins during Seltman's Group C, Series X, 95 (452–432)—a leaf, which Seltman calls an olive leaf. It is, therefore, most feasible that this leaf on the Arcadian obol is an isolated imitation of the new practice at Elis and Corinth.

These sections consist of two small die-sequences with one or two associated coins which do not conform to the designs in sections 1, 4 and 5, but which adopt partly the earlier designs of Tegea and partly those of Mantinea. Section 2 begins with an obverse which shows the influence of the thrones and long right arm of section 4 (and this fact must date the section); the reverse, R. 166, with which it is first coupled is very close to the first reverses of section 1, goddess with hair in roll. But then this reverse is coupled on an unpublished coin141 with the obverse, O.173, which shows a back view of Zeus in the manner of Tegea III. This O.173 is also coupled with a queue goddess, R. 167, inscribed with the full ethnic instead of the usual Period IV four letter abbreviation, and then with a bun goddess, R. 168, which is a clear copy of R. 103,142 a die used at the end of Cleitor III. Another back view of Zeus, O.174, probably a copy of R. 173, is coupled with a crude saccos goddess. In section 3 a three-quarter head, R. 170, is coupled with Zeuses which are in Period IV style and there is a die-link with a saccos goddess, R. 171, also of Period IV style.

It might be argued that there is no reason why a mint should not vary its designs, especially if those designs are familiar to the public, and this may be the answer for sections 2 and 3, but the weight of all the coins in section 3 and of one of those in 2 is very low, while it will be remembered that low weight was a feature of the other hybrid section, Tegea, III, 5 (p. 54). This fact suggests the possibility that these hybrid sections may have come from other than the Mantinea mint.

The first reverse of this section, R. 180, is in the same style as the reverses in the middle of section 1, but there is more assurance about the profiling of the eye and the rendering of the mouth, and the engraving of the hair is less stiff. In the ethnic the rho is no longer placed immediately under the chin, its position in section 1 and in the final section of Period III. With this fine die in "classical" style there is die-linked first a creditable reverse, in which the goddess has her hair bound up (R. 181), and then a reverse which is clearly in the "Arcadian" style (R. 182). The obverses with which these reverses are coupled also have the same grading: a "classical" version, O.185; a creditable die, O.186; and an "Arcadian" one, O.187. The engraver of O.185 cut a throne without a backrest, a design which had not been used regularly since Period I but which now comes back into fashion.

In section 5 no alteration is made in the design of the obverses, except that on one die, O.194, the two rear legs of the throne are shown in perspective. The thrones usually have no backs, but when they have, a knob replaces the earlier swan's head on the top.

The distinctive style which has been called "classical" (by comparison with the "Arcadian" style on such dies as R. 162–5 and R. 182) is seen in the two reverses of strong Corinthian influence, R. 185–6, and in the fine die, R. 189 (each discussed on p. 27.) which could have been cut by an Argive or an Athenian, but in R. 183 the "classical" style has the closest affinities with certain copies of Argive works usually attributed to Polycleitus. A comparison of R. 183 with copies of the head of the Doryphorus143 (Plate XIV, i-j) shows a very similar cast of feature; the proportions are close, as are the length and set of the nose, the form of the jaw, and the strong neck; it is easy to forget that one is looking at a female head on the coin. R. 180 of section 4, as has been stated above, is very close in style both to R. 183 and to the sculpture, and although the jaw is not so square and the neck less modelled, it clearly comes from the same school, perhaps even from the same hand as R. 183: and among earlier heads, R. 153, 155–60, 172 and 175 must be brought within this same group, while others come very close. Further, the style can be seen even in the final section of Mantinea III, in particular in the fine head, R. 150. That these heads, the main part of the reverses of this Period IV, must be associated with Argive art is also suggested by the form of the letter rho in the ethnic. In the Tegea mint the developed form P was seen before that mint came to an end (R. 117–8, 123, 127, etc.), but in the Mantinea mint from R. 150, even in Period IV R is still the usual form. Dr. Jeffery 144 notes that this latter type, R, was the normal type in Argos till the end of the century, whereas in most other places the form P was common by the middle of the 5th century.

A rare hair style appears on R. 183–4: the hair on the front part of the head is combed forward and tied in a bow on the forehead. This style also occurs on a bronze in Berlin,145 which Langlotz attributes to Cleonae. He also attributes to Cleonae two other bronzes which have this knot of hair on the brow, but it occurs elsewhere, e.g., on the Sunium Stephanophoros and on the Chatsworth Head.146

End Notes

1. O. 1: Zeus' hair in roll; sceptre off flan in (a). For description of obverses see p. 34.

R. 1: Goddess' hair in queue. By the Copenhagen master (see p. 35).

• 1 Copenhagen (SNG 164). → 3.04

2. O. 2: By same hand. Zeus' hair in krobylos; sceptre runs behind his 1. forearm; eagle off flan.

R. 2: hair in krobylos; planes of face awkward, jaw set in too high a plane.

• London (BMC Pelop. 7, pl. 31, 13) = IB, pl. 7, 10. ↙ 2.92

3. O. 3: Similar to O. 2, but on smaller scale.

R. 3: Similar to R. 2, but hair in queue; planes awkward.

• London (BMC Pelop. 9), perforated. ← 3.05

4. O. 4: Similar to O. 2; line of flesh under armpit.

R. 3: Same die.

• London (ex Weber 4283). ↖ 2.94
• Budapest.

Rev.: (b) lacks A at chin. Flaw under neck in both.

5. O. 4: Same die.

R. 2: Same die.

• 's Gravenhage (Van Rede Coll.) = Hirsch XIII, 2750 = Naville VII, 1282 = Schulman, Dec. 1926, 178. ↖ 3.01
• Hirsch XVI, 591.
• Obv.: slight flaws between knee and r. arm in both, also between arm and eagle's talons.
• Rev.: lower lid broken.

6. O. 4: Same die.

R. 4: Similar to R. 1 and by Copenhagen master.

• Boston (Cat. 1239). 2.87
• Obv.: flaw at r. elbow in addition.

7. O. 5: Similar.

R. 4: Same die.

• Berlin (ex Prokesch-Osten) = Weil, ZfN 1882, pl. II, 1 (drawing). ↙ 3.01
• Vienna. ↑ 2.8
• Obv.: flaw between 1. side and elbow in both.
• Rev.: flaw at lower lip in both; flaw at back of head in (b).

8. O. 6: Similar to O. 1, but stiffer.

R. 5: Similar to R. 1, but coarser; head larger.

• Robinson. ↓ 2.92
• Rev.: flaws behind and above head.

9. O. 7: Smaller, as in O. 3–5. Sceptre in front of forearm.

R. 6: Head more dome-shaped than on R. 1 and 4: frontal eye less narrow. Probably a later work of Copenhagen master.

• Oxford = Seltman, Greek Coins, pl. 13, 8. ↓ 2.93
• Obv.: what seems to be eagle's lowered head is 1. wing below body; what seems to be 1. wing in perspective is its neck; 1. wing on die filled in at striking.
• Cambridge (McClean 6920, pl. 234, 4). → 3.06
• Obv.: flaw between 1. hand and head, and at back of 1. knee.
• Rev.: flaws below neck, at back of head near rho, and at top of rho: eyelids almost filled in.

10. O. 7: Same die.

R. 3: Same die.

• Leningrad 10058. → 3.01
• Obv.: flaws as in 9(b).
• Rev.: neck flaw increased; small flaw below rho.

11. O. 8: Larger; eagle more prominent.

R. 6: Same die.

• Athens (on exhibition).
• Berry. ↖ 2.97
• Forbat. ↑ 2.96
• Cambridge (SNG 3831). ↓ 2.73
• Rev.: in all, flaws as in 9(b).

12. O. 8: Same die.

R. 7: Head in larger, coarser style; letters smaller.

• Gans 1959, 794 = Naville XII, 1570.
• 2 Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer) = IB, pl. 7, 9. → 2.93
• Obv.: flaw between thigh and r. elbow.
• Rev.: flaws on nose, and tail of queue; flaw below neck on all.

13. O. 9: Similar to smaller scale of O. 7.

R. 7: Same die.

• Athens 4476.
• Berlin (ex C. R. Fox). → 2.92
• Turin (Winterthur cast). 2.70
• Leningrad 10055. → 2.69

14. O. 10: Similar.

R. 7: Same die.

• London (ex Earle Fox). ↘ 2.96
• New York (ANS). →2.61 (worn)
• Obv.: flaws on nose and back of head on both; added flaw on 1. shoulder in (b).
• Rev.: flaws at queue and nose on both.

15. O.11: Better proportions; fold of drapery between legs.

R. 8: Similar to R. 7 but finer, and letters as in section 1. Finely beaded hair; necklace of round stones alternating with discs.

• Boston (Cat. 1240). 2.98

16. O. 12: Smaller and inferior to O.11.

R. 8: Same die.

• London (BMC Pelop. 10, pl. 31, 15). ↑ 2.8
• Lambros (Winterthur cast). 3.05
• New York (ANS). ↑ 2.83
• Hamburger, May 1929, 321. 3.0
• Rev.: slight flaw on tail of queue in all; 1. leg of alpha joins neck in (c).

17. O. 13: Similar to O. 11, but larger; posture more relaxed. Eagle has both wings above body.

R. 8: Same die.

• Berlin 28847. ↑ 2.93
• Rev.: flaws as in 16 (c).

18. O. 13: Same die.

R. 9: Smaller and in more advanced style. Hair in krobylos; beading not detectable.

• London (ex Oman). ← 3.08
• Obv.: flaw above and below r. forearm; beard has coalesced with r. shoulder.

19. O. 14: Similar to small Zeuses of O. 3–5, but larger head.

R. 10: Copy of R. 8.

• Rhousopoulos (Winterthur cast).
• Rev.: flaws on brow and on top of head.

20. O. 14: Same die.

R. 11: Close to R. 8; probably by same hand.

• Bourgey, June 1959, 383 = Naville XII, 1571. 2.96
• Hirsch XXV, 1373. 3.02
• Hopper = Münz. u. Med. List 199, 17. ↑ 2.8
• Kricheldorf, Oct. 1957, 251. 2.79
• Obv.: in (a) and (b) flaw on 1. of sceptre towards base; in (c) and (d) flaw on r. also.

21. O. 15: Finer and larger Zeus; good impression of threequarter view on torso.

R. 12: Similar to R. 8, but by different hand; truncation inclined.

• London (ex Weber 4282). ↙ 2.90
• Rev.: flaw above head and below neck.

22. O. 16: More vigorous style of Zeus. Throne with backrest and cross-stays as in Period II.

R. 12: Same die.

• Lambros 1884 (Winterthur cast). 2.93
• Rev.: flaw above head more extensive.

Obols of Sections 1 and 2

23. O. 17: Similar to O. 3.

R. 13: By same hand as R. 6.

• Copenhagen (SNG 180). ↑ 0.97

24. O. 18: Zeus too large for obol flan. Similar to O. 15.

R. 13: Same die.

• London (BMC Pelop. 8, pl. 31, 14) = IB, pl. 7, 11 (rev. only). ← 0.99
• Blackburn 6/15. ↑ 0.939
• Berlin (ex Prokesch-Osten). ↑ 0.94
• Rev.: flaws in front of eye and on top of head in all.

25.3 O. 19: Similar to O. 13.

R. 14: Similar to heads of section 2, but coarser. R

• Paris 251 = Babelon, Traité 1225, pl. 38,9. ← 0.98
• London (BMC Pelop. 12). ↘ 0.99
• Obv.: flaw on head.

26. O.20: Similar.

R. 15: Similar to large heads of section 2. A behind head; rho ? at chin.

• Berlin (ex v. Rauch), ← 0.87

27. O. 21: Zeus' r. arm extended horizontally is a posture found in Period II, but throne is characteristic of I.

R. 15: Same die (?); necklace recut (?).

• Copenhagen (SNG 183). ↓ 0.92

28. O. 22: Probably by same hand as O. 13.

R. 17: Probably by same hand as R. 9. [A]

• New York (ANS). ↗ 1.00

29. 4 O. 23: Head of goddess to r.; beaded hair in queue.

R. 17: Zeus seated to r. in incuse square; eagle at 1. hand sceptre in r. Similarity between Zeus' head and that of goddess suggests one engraver. Anepigraphic.

• London (BMC Pelop. 2, pl. 31, 11) = Babelon 1228, pl. 38, 12. f 2.96

30. O. 24: Zeus to 1.; below 1. elbow .

R. 18: Head to r., set askew in incuse; hair in krobylos.

• Münz. u. Med. List 199, 12 = Bourgey, June 1959, 384. 2.83
• Berlin 7659. ↖ 2.82
• Davis
• Naville XII, 1572 = Baranowsky IV, 609. 3.04
• Münz. u. Med. (in trade).
• London (ex Earle Fox). ↙ 2.99
• Obv.: flaws below Zeus' r. hand and above eagle from (d); in (f) also flaw between r. shoulder and eagle.
• Rev.: flaws below neck, above head, and between nose and rho in all; worse from (d).

(Half-drachmas cont.)

33. O. 26: By same hand as obol die O. 25, but no ethnic; Zeus again to r.

R. 21: Similar to R. 20.

• 5 Cambridge (McClean 6922, pl. 234, 6). ↑ 3.01
• London (BMC Pelop. 3). ↓ 2.96
• New York (ANS). ↙ 3.06
• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer). ↑ 2.88
• Rev.: flaw on head at base of kappa in (c), worse in (d).

34. O. 26: Same die.

R. 22: Head to 1., a poor copy of heads in section 1.

• Copenhagen (SNG 165). → 2.99
• Obv.: flaws at Zeus' hip, in front of knee, and between arm and eagle.
• Rev.: flaws below and behind neck.

35. O. 26: Same die.

R. 23: Head to 1.; a close copy of R. 7 in section 2 (cf. profile of face, hair, position and form of letters).

• Berlin 28847. ↙ 2.92
• Obv.: flaws worse.

36. O. 27: Zeus to 1., imitating dies of sections 1 and 2.

R. 23: Same die.

• London (BMC Pelop. 11). ← 3.05
• 6Leningrad. ← 2.70

37. O. 28: Another imitation of Zeuses in sections 1 and 2.

R. 23: Same die.

• Vienna. ↓ 2.6
• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer). ← 2.96
• Rev.: flaw above head in both.

38. O. 29: Similar.

R. 22: Same die.

• Münz. u. Med. VI, 696. 2.96
• Obv.: flaw between beard and shoulder.

39. O. 30: Similar, but finer.

R. 24: Head to r.; hair in krobylos held by double band. Rho (?) at chin; alpha (?) above brow.

• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer) = IB, pl. 7, 12. ↓ 2.895

40. O. 30: Same die.

R. 25: An imitation of Corinthian-style heads, R. 17–20. Hair in krobylos. At top r. ; bottom r. .

• Lambros (Winterthur cast). 2.85
• Leu (ex Jameson 1269) = Hirsch XIII, 2756. 2.80
• Ars Classica XVI, 1299 = Hirsch XVIII, 2416. 2.85
• Naville I, 1918. 2.88
• London (BMC Pelop. 5) = Babelon, Traité, pl. 38,8 (gives wrong ethnic). ↖ 2.76
• Cambridge (SNG 3835). ← 2.77
• Obv.: flaw on r. shoulder in all; flaw at 1. shoulder from (b); flaw at 1. elbow from (d).

End Notes

5	Grose misreads the as .
6	The coin is in such poor condition that it is impossible to be certain that the dies are the same.

45. O. 35: Zeus to 1. on throne with swan's head at top of backrest.

R. 30: Wreathed head of goddess to r. (see pp. 4ff.).

• Boston (Cat. 1244). 2.95
• New York (ANS). → 2.87
• Rev.: flaws on and above head, and below neck in both.

46. O. 36: Similar

R. 30: Same die.

• Paris 247 = Babelon 844, pl. 223, 16 (rev. only). ↗ 2.71
• London (ex Oman). ↓ 3.01
• Rev.: additional flaw between rho and upper lip.
• Münz. u. Med. List 249, 22. 2.89

47. O. 37: Similar; strands of hair fall down neck onto chest.

R. 31: Wreathed head to 1. of different style, incorporating some "Arcadian" features.

• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer) = Mainzer, ZfN 1926, pl. 6,9. → 2.98
• Rev.: slight flaws between initial alpha and rho, and at bottom of queue.

48. O. 38: Similar to O. 36.

R. 31: Same die.

• New York (ANS). ↗ 2.96
• Rev.: flaw between rho and alpha continues to head; another flaw between second alpha and delta.
• Paris 240 = Luynes 2308 = Babelon, Traité 842, pl. 223, 14 = IB 23, pl. 7, 17 (rev. only). ↑ 2.97
• London (ex Weber 4285). → 2.97
• Berlin 28686. ← 2.92
• Obv.: flaws at r. elbow and r. knee, slight in (b), worse in (c) and (d); chest damaged in (d).
• Rev.: slight flaw in front of lower lip in (c) and (d).

49. O.39: Similar.

R. 31: Same die.

• Vienna. → 2.93
• Obv.: flaws between eagle and shoulder, and behind neck.

50. O. 40: Similar, but larger; throne has cross-stays.

R. 31: Same die.

• Boston (Cat. 1245). 3.07
• Obv.: flaw in front of knee.
• Rev.: flaws at first alpha worse.

51. O. 41: Very close to O. 38 (perhaps a recutting of it).

R. 31: Same die.

• London 1BMC Pelop. 19, pl. 31, 18). ↓ 2.79
• Rev.: additional flaw on brow.

52. O. 42: Zeus to 1. on throne without back.

R. 32: Wreathed head of goddess to r. Letters on r. of head only, probably ARKA as in R. 30, of which this seems to be a copy.

• Athens 1892–3, K 30. ↑

54. O. 40: Same die (from section 1) recut.

R. 34: Similar to R. 30–1, but lacks wreath: hair above band smooth, as in R. 30–1.

• Cambridge (SNG 3832). ← 2.70
• Obv.: flaw at knee. Countermark (?) of uncertain design on 1. arm.
• *(b) Williams = Hamburger, June 1930, 261. ↓ 2.82
• Obv.: additional flaws between waist and r. elbow, and on tail of eagle. Countermark (?) at r. hand.
• Rev.: flaw under neck; minor flaw on top of head.

55. O. 38A: Probably same die (from section 1) recut, particularly the chest, which was damaged in 48(d).

R. 35: Head of goddess to r. with hair in bun; the design is of the Tegea mint, but the style is "Arcadian"—small eye, weakly defined lids, large ear, pinched nose, thin neck. RK[ADIK] ON

• 7Naville XV, 823 = Hess, March 1918, 610 = Merzbacher, Nov. 1909, 3018. 3.05

56. O. 41A: Same die, recut and modernised with cross-stays to throne.

R. 34: Same die.

• Berlin (ex Löbbecke). ↖ 2.93
• Obv.: flaw on wing of eagle.
• Rev.: flaws worse than in 54.

57. O. 44: Similar to O. 40.

R. 6A: Same die recut. Recutting chiefly concerned with the eye, which in R. 6 had almost disintegrated, the line of the nose, and tail of queue; flaw below neck partially removed, but small flaws at back of head and on top of rho left untouched.

• Boston (Cat. 1241). 3.04
• Berlin (ex Löbbecke) = Regling, MaK 178. ↗ 3.09
• Rev.: small flaw on back of head above the old one; upper eyelid breaking again. These flaws deteriorate in following.
• Copenhagen (SNG 166). ↓ 2.89
• Oxford. → 2.93
• Paris 253. ↓ 2.42

58. O. 44: Same die.

R. 6B: Either another recutting of 6A or a new die imitating it.

• Münz. u. Med. XIII, 1141. 2.97

59. O. 44: Same die.

R.34: Same die.

• London (ex Earle Fox). →2.60
• Rev.: flaws more developed than in 56(a).

60. O. 45: Zeus beardless, but otherwise similar.

R. 36: Similar to R. 34.

• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer). ↓ 2.885
• Rev.: flaw across and above head; another below neck.

61. O. 44: Same die.

R. 37: Head in "Arcadian" style—eye with thick lids not meeting at either corner.

• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer). ↓ 2.76

62. O. 46: Similar but by different hand; longer neck and more slender torso.

R. 37: Same die.

• Berlin (ex Löbbecke) = Lambros 1884 (Winterthur cast). ↑ 3.04
• Berlin (ex C. R. Fox). → 2.87
• Cambridge (SNG 3833). ↓ 2.89
• Berlin 259/1880. ↗ 3.05
• Münz. u. Med. List 199, 13.
• Paris 381 = Babelon, Traité 846, pl. 223, 18. 3.07
• Newcastle-upon-Tyne, ST 278. ↖ 2.75
• Rev.: flaw under neck from (e); die in poor state in (g).

63. O. 46: Same die.

R. 38: Similar, but coarser. Hair lined (not beaded) but forms a fringe on brow as in Period I. Ethnic almost illegible, but probably ARKADI.

• New York (ANS). → 2.68

64. O. 46: Same die.

R. 39: Hair beaded and in style of Period I, but other details close to "Arcadian" style of R. 37.

• Paris 244 = Babelon, Traité, pl. 38, 11. ↙ 2.89
• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer). ←2.89
• Rev.: flaw at tip of nose worse in (b) than (a); (a) also lacks the flaws above head and below neck.

65. O. 46: Same die.

R. 40: Similar to last, but more archaistic, including the two large letters of Period I. The hair, and headband of gems are reminiscent of a bronze statuette in Athens (BSA 1925, pl. 25).

• Berlin (ex Prokesch-Osten). ↑ 2.915
• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer). ↗ 2.94
• Berlin (ex C. R. Fox). ← 2.80
• Obv.: die worn.
• Rev.: flaw above head in all and below neck from (b).

66. O. 47: An imitation probably of O. 40.

R. 41: A copy of R. 31 but lacking the wreath. R. 31 was linked with O. 40 (50) and it is this die-combination which the die-cutter has as a model.

• Lambros 1884 (Winterthur cast). 3.07

67. O. 48: Perhaps an imitation of O. 46 (but cf. O. 59).

R. 42: Perhaps an imitation of R. 40 with same position of letters.

• Hamburger, April 1933, 797. 2.22
• Obv.: lyre countermark.
• Rev.: flaw on head.

73. O. 54: Zeus to 1. on miniature scale. Hair in roll; two strands fall onto the chest. For throne cf. p. 41.

R. 47: Head to r.: for a description and discussion cf. p.41. The engraver used tools of at least two sizes; a thicker one for upper lid, eyebrow, hairband, and letters, and a finer one for lower lid and hair. RK

• London (BMC Pelop. 39, pl. 32, 5). ↙ 2.99
• Obv.: graffito
• Berlin (ex Löbbecke). ← 2.97

74. O. 55: Similar but inferior; hair in queue.

R. 47: Same die.

• Basel 1908, 1831. ↓
• Obv.: flaws between r. hand and knee, between r. biceps and side, and between 1. side and backrest.

75. O. 56: Similar, but larger.

R. 48: Similar, but larger. K R

• London (BMC Pelop. 38). ↘ 2.93
• Naville XII, 1575 = Lambros (Winterthur cast). 2.93

76. O. 57: Larger scale, style stiffer than O. 54 and threequarter view of chest not attempted. Throne has cross-stays, and backrest is a continuation of back leg.

R. 49: Similar; headband tied more convincingly. By same hand as R. 47–8.

• Athens IΔ 7 (found on Mt. Lycaeus) = Kourouniotes, Eph. Arch. 1904, 170, fig. 5, 1.
• Nanteuil 957 = Weber 4288 = Ciani, Dec. 1921, 67. 3.03
• Berlin 260/1880. ↑ 3.035
• Salton-Schlessinger List 29, 47. 2.83
• Sotheby, Feb. 1909, 581. 2.915
• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer). →2.715
• Berlin (ex v. Rauch). ↑ 2.94
• Hirsch XX, 344. 3.04
• Rev.: from (c) slight flaws between kappa and alpha, near delta and between second kappa and neck, which grow worse from (f): in (h) further flaw between omicron and nu.

77. O. 58: Similar; bunch of drapery does not extend so far on thigh; no strands of hair on chest.

R. 49: Same die.

• Münz. u. Med. List 116, 148.
• Rev.: flaws seem less developed than in 76(h).

78. O. 58: Same die.

R. 50: Similar, but probably copy of R. 49, and to 1. (change of orientation not unexpected in a copy). Note that the short line just above the bun in R. 49 represented an iota; here iota is farther 1. and the line perhaps is the tail of the band, but more likely copier has made a mistake.

• New York (ANS). → 2.93
• Berlin (ex Prokesch-Osten). ← 2.85
• Sotheby, Feb. 1909, 582.
• Rev.: in (a) and (b) there are flaws below neck and between rho and mouth: (c) has added flaws on back of bun and between second alpha and nose.

79. O. 57: Same die.

R. 50: Same die.

• Copenhagen, K. P. 2236/22 = Naville I, 1920 = Naville X, 604. 2.93
• Rev.: additional flaw above head.

80. O. 57: Same die.

R. 51: Poorer copy of R. 49 to r.

• Cambridge (SNG 3843). ↓ 2.76

81. O. 58: Same die; face, particularly beard recut.

R. 51: Same die.

• New York (ANS). ← 3.05
• Naville XV, 822 = Hirsch XXXII, 508. 3.00
• Rev.: flaw on face in both.

82. O. 59: Zeus to 1. showing advances in the drapery, and in structure of throne legs (cf. p. 42).

R. 52: Another head by the Athens master.

• Lambros 1884 (Winterthur cast). 3.07
• London (BMC Pelop. 36). → 2.93
• Münz. u. Med. (in trade).
• Jameson 1272 = Babelon, Traité 839, pl. 223, n. 2.89
• Rev.: flaw below neck in all; flaw on bun from (b).

83. O. 59: Same die.

R. 48: Same die; eye recut.

• New York (ANS) = Feuardent, Dec. 1919, 285. → 2.36
• Obv.: flaw at r. nipple.
• Rev.: flaw in front of neck.

84. O. 60: Another die of fine quality probably by same hand as O. 59. Here Zeus is not so long in the body and bends forward; heavier beard, and hair in queue.

R. 52: Same die.

• Berlin. ↓ 2.82
• Naville V, 2246. 2.98
• Salton-Schlessinger (in trade). 2.87
• Rev.: flaw on top of head in addition to those in 82.

85. O. 60: Same die.

R. 53: Similar to R. 52. /DIKON

• Naville VII, 1283 = Hirsch XVI, 592. 2.77
• Cambridge (SNG 3844). ↙ 2.68
• Glasgow = Macdonald II, pl. 39, 16. ↙ 2.68
• Rev.: flaw under neck in all.

85 bis O. 60: Same die.

R. 53bis: Close to R. 48. [A]

• Proschowsky
• Obv.: die in poor state.
• Rev.: flaws above head, below neck, on cheek and chin.

86. O. 59: Same die.

R. 53: Same die.

• Frankfurt 1022. 2.90
• Obv.: die wearing.
• Rev.: flaw below neck.

87. O. 61: Similar to O. 57–8 but more clumsy.

R. 54: Similar, but more provincial in style, a copy of the Athens master's design. Koppa in ethnic.

• Merzbacher, Nov. 1910, 580 = Hirsch XXV, 1383 = Photiades (Winterthur cast). 2.88

88. O. 61: Same die.

R. 55: Another die by the Koppa master, but on smaller scale. (no iota)

• Berlin 7/1887. ↓ 2.83

89. O. 62: Similar to preceding, but better proportioned.

R. 54: Same die.

• Cambridge (SNG 3841). ↗ 2.95
• Cambridge (SNG 3842). ↑ 2.42
• London (BMC Pelop. 30). ↙ 2.70
• Rev.: in (c) flaws below neck and on head.

90. O. 62: Same die.

R. 56: Closer to dies of Athens master.

• Copenhagen (SNG 176) = Hess, Jan. 1926, 291 = Egger, May 1912, 1145. ↓ 2.83
• Berlin (C. R. Fox). ↗ 2.88

Rev.: flaws above head and on bun in both; flaw in front of nose on (b).

91. O. 62: Same die.

R. 52: Same die.

• s'Gravenhage 4702. ↘ 3.00
• Obv.: foot of rear leg of throne flawed.
• Rev.: flaw above head, as well as on bun and below neck.

92. O. 62: Same die.

R. 53: Same die.

• Copenhagen (SNG 175) = Feuardent 1895, 1658.↑ 2.92
• Obv.: flaw at foot of throne worse.
• Rev.: additional flaw below chin, on, and near first alpha.

93. O. 62: Same die.

R. 55: Same die.

• Paris (Expo. 814) = IB, pl. 7, 22 = Babelon, Traité 1231, pl. 38, 15. ↙ 2.94
• Bourgey, June 1959, 387 = Florange-Ciani List 1, 401. 2.87
• Athens 1891, ZI 124. ↗
• Rev.: flaw below neck in all three.

94. O. 63: Similar; larger than O. 62, but not so clumsy as O. 61.

R. 54: Same die.

• Cambridge (McClean 6924, pl. 234, 8). ← 2.87
• Rev.: flaws on head and below neck.

95. O. 63: Same die.

R. 55: Same die.

• London (BMC Pelop. 31). ← 2.75
• Obv.: flaws on chest of eagle and in front of Zeus' legs.
• Rev.: flaw below neck.

96. O. 60: Same die.

R. 54: Same die.

• Berlin 28782. ↖ 2.76
• Obv.: flaws under cross-stays of throne.
• Rev.: die in poor state.

97. O. 64: Similar to O. 61–3.

R. 57: A competent copy of the Athens master's work in R. 47–8: the cutting of the eye with the thick upper lid and shorter thinner lower and beady pupil shows that an Arcadian engraver was at work.

• Münz. u. Med. (in trade).
• Obv.: face and beard flawed.
• Rev.: flaw under neck.

104. O. 70: Zeus seated to 1.: for attributes and throne characteristics cf. pp. 42ff.

R. 62: Head of goddess to r.; hair enclosed in saccos (cf. p. 43). Anepigraphic.

• Boston (Cat. 1242). 3.03
• Munich = IB, pl. 7, 4 = Overbeck, Griechische Kunstmythologie, II, pl. II, 2 (obv.). ↓ 3.041
• Berlin 8/1887. ↘ 3.04
• Hirsch XXV, 1372.
• New York (ANS). ↑ 2.64
• Oxford. → 2.70
• Obv.: flaw on head in (f).

105. O. 71: Similar, but lacking the precision of O. 70.

R. 63: Similar, but lacks the sensitivity of R. 62.

• Naville XII, 1574. 2.94
• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer) = IB, pl. 7, 5. ↘ 2.89
• Leningrad 10059. ↑ 2.79
• New York (Ward Coll.) = Hill, "Cat. of Ward Coll." no. 561. 2.92
• Berlin 1170/1910 = Hirsch XXIX, 571. → 2.96
• Obv.: flaw between eagle's upper wing and sceptre.
• Rev.: flaw under neck in all; (e) also has flaws under chin, on brow, and on loop of saccos.

106. O. 72: Similar, but Zeus' hair in long queue, and throne legs flare outwards at base.

R. 63: Same die.

• London (BMC Pelop. 25, pl. 31, 23). ← 2.87
• Rev.: flaws as in 104(e).

107. O. 71: Same die.

R. 64: Head to r. with hair in bun; a copy of R. 48 in the Tegeamint (cf.pp.43f.).

• Lambros (Winterthur cast). 2.90
• Hirsch XX, 346 = Hirsch XIII, 2767. 3.02
• Frankfurt 1021. ↑ 2.93
• Kricheldorf, May 1956, 1054. 2.56
• Obv.: die deteriorating along contour of Zeus' face and legs; in (c) die deteriorating along contour of face, arms, legs, back and sceptre, which is probably due to cleaning out, so that from the illustration it is difficult to see that the obverse is in fact the same as in 105, which has a different alignment on the plate. Rev.: flaw on kappa in all; flaw above head from (c).

109. O. 74: Characteristic Mantinean obverse.

R. 66: Head to r., hair in bun; a copy of the developed dies by the Athens master; this provincial copier produces a version resembling that of the Koppa master, but among differences there is the use of K.

• London (BMC Pelop. 34, pl. 32, 3), perforated. → 2.95
• Boston (Cat. 1249) = Regling, MaK 318 = Babelon, Traité 860, pl. 223, 32. 2.959
• Obv.: one leg of second kappa, faint in (a), fills in from (b); see R. 71 and p. 45.

110. O. 75: Similar to O. 74.

R. 66: Same die.

• Oxford. ←2.79
• Obv.: flaws between head and r. hand, and on face.
• Rev.: slight flaw near nu.
• Munich (in poor state). → 2.902

111. O.76: Zeus seated on throne with cross-stays—the design of the Tegea mint.

R. 67: Head in saccos to 1. on smaller scale. Anepigraphic.

• Münz. u. Med. List 199, 15. 2.81
• Obv.: slight flaw at junction of cross-stays.

112. O. 75: Same die.

R. 67: Same die.

• London (BMC Pelop. 27). → 2.67
• Oxford (in poor condition). →2.50
• 8Pozzi (sic Babelon, Traité 859, pl. 223, 31, but not in Naville).
• Obv.: flaw behind swan's head in addition to those in 110(a).
• Rev.: slight flaws in field in front of face; and flaw below neck in (c).

113. O. 76: Same die.

R. 66: Same die.

• Hirsch XIII, 2761. 2.65
• Obv.: flaw at cross-stays worse and contour deteriorating.
• Leningrad 10060. (In poor condition) ←2.80

114. O. 77: Similar to O. 76.

R. 67: Same die.

• Naville VII, 1281 = Photiades (Winterthur cast). 2.65
• Rev.: necklace cleaned out( ?) and the two beads on r. recut.

• Cambridge (SNG 3838), cut. ↖ 1.39
• New York (ANS) = Ratto, Nov. 1928, 485. → 2.69
• Rev.: necklace repaired again.
• 9Kricheldorf, Feb. 1957, 1198.
• Rev.: slight flaw at upper lip from (b); flaw below loop of saccos from (c).

115. O. 78: Characteristic Mantinean obverse, but throne has crossstays; die in too poor a state to assess quality; it continues in use with grossest flaws.

R. 66: Same die.

• Kricheldorf, Oct. 1957, 252. 2.95
• New York (ANS). ← 2.76
• Obv.: countermark behind Zeus.
• London (BMC Pelop. 34). → 2.62
• Paris 255. ← 2.82
• Berlin (ex Löbbecke) = Lambros (Winterthur cast). ← 2.88
• Obv.: by (c) back of throne and sceptre have disappeared; flaws behind back, at r. hand, and at knee.
• Rev.: flaws at back of neck from (b); flaws below neck and behind bun from (c).

116. O. 78: Same die.

R. 68: Saccos head; a poor copy of R. 67.

• Leningrad. →2.73

117. O. 79: Characteristic Mantinean Zeus.

R. 69: Characteristic Mantinean goddess in saccos. Anepigraphic.

• Berlin 347/1884.←2.83
• Münzhandl. Basel, March 1937, 321 = Schlessinger, Feb. 1935, 1022.

118. O. 79: Same die.

R. 70: Saccos head; a good copy of R. 69. Anepigraphic.

• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer) = Cahn, Griechische Münzen archaischer Zeit, 21. ↙ 2.89
• London (ex Weber 4289) = IB, pl. 7, 3 (obv.) = Imhoof-Blumer, Choix de monnaies grecques, pl. 11, 76. ← 2.75
• Bryn Mawr (Vermeule, NC 1956, pl. X, 109). → 2.83
• Hess, Feb. 1934, 373 = Ars Classica XVI, July 1933, 1300. 2.82
• Münz. u. Med. VIII, 832. 2.85

119. O. 80: Zeus to 1. on standard Tegean throne; reflects Tegean O. 60, but lacks the drapery.

R. 69: Same die.

• New York (ANS). ↓ 2.79

120. O. 81: Zeus to r. close to the preceding with standard throne.

R. 67: Same die.

• Williams. ↓ 2.72
• Berlin (ex Prokesch-Osten). →2.72
• Rev.: flaw below tassel worse; flaw in front of neck as well as below.

121. O. 80: Same die.

R. 67: Same die.

• New York (ANS). ↓ 2.66
• Grabow, July 1930, 426. 2.92
• Obv.: flaws between eagle's tail and Zeus' r. shoulder, and at his 1. shoulder.
• Rev.: in poor state.

122. O. 82: Zeus to 1. on standard throne. Eagle flies away from him with wings outspread (influence of the characteristic Mantinean) and is not perched at his wrist. Snake in the beak and talons of eagle.

R. 68: Same die.

• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer). ↑ 2.87
• Copenhagen (SNG 172). ↓ 2.88
• London (BMC Pelop. 29, pl. 32, 1) = IB, pl. 7, 25 = Gardner, Types of Greek Coins, pl. 3, 16 (rev.). ↓ 2.88
• Obv.: from (b) flaws below seat and on Zeus' queue; from (a) slight flaw on throne seat.

123. O. 83: By same hand as O. 82. No snake and no cross-stays to throne, but triangular corner of himation more prominent.

R. 71: Certainly a copy of R. 66, hair in Tegean bun (cf. p. 44).

• Berlin 28778. ← 2.81
• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer) = IB, pl. 7, 24. ←2.76
• Münz. u. Med. (in trade).
• Obv.: flaw behind the throne across sceptre in all.

124. O. 84: Characteristic Mantinean in inferior style.10

R. 72: Head to r., hair in saccos. Anepigraphic.

• London (BMC Pelop. 26). ← 2.87
• Williams. ↖ 2.88

125. O. 85: Zeus to r. in general style of characteristic Mantinean, but instead of a thunderbolt he holds an eagle with folded wings on his lap.

R. 73: Head in saccos. Anepigraphic.

• London (ex Lambros). ↑ 2.64

126. O. 86: Zeus to r. in the design of the Mantinean mint (less eagle), but the style is quite alien; cf. p. 9 for doubts about its authenticity.

R. 74: Head to left in alien style (cf. pp. 8ff.).

• Paris (Cat. de Luynes 2307) = Babelon, Traité 1230, pl. 38,13. ↗ 2.97

127. O. 87: Standard Period II design in provincial style; probably related to O. 41A.

R. 75: Long-necked head in "Arcadian" style; eye frontal.

• Copenhagen (SNG 174). ↑ 2.88
• London (BMC Pelop. 15) = IB, pl. 7, 15. ↙ 2.89
• Berlin 28686. ↗ 2.78
• Obv.: flaw developing in front of face from (b), and on cross-stays in (c).
• Rev.: flaw on delta in all.

128. O. 88: Similar. Zigzag fold of drapery over thigh; lowbacked throne with legs turned out at right angles.

R. 75: Same die.

• Athens 4477. →

129. O. 89: Similar to O. 87, but related to O. 44.

R. 76: Hair done in bun and covered by saccos; features "Arcadian;" eye profiled.

• Sotheby, July 1914, 10 = Ratto, April 1909, 3097. 3.01

130. O. 90: Similar, but more confident; heavy zigzag fold over thigh.

R. 76: Same die.

• Oxford. ←2.84
• London (BMC Pelop. 28, pl. 31, 24) = IB, pl. 6, 16 = Seltman, Greek Coins, pl. 13, 7. → 2.86

131. O. 91: Similar and still more competent; torso seems bare of drapery; eagle recalls Mantinean design.

R. 76: Same die.

• Berlin (ex Prokesch-Osten). ↙2.94
• Berlin (ex C. R. Fox). →2.91
• Rev.: slight flaw above omicron in both.

132. O. 91: Same die.

R. 77: Neat head in more refined "Arcadian" style; semi-profiled eye (cf. p. 47).

• London (ex Earle Fox). ↙2.97
• 133. O. 91: Same die.
• R. 78: By same hand; ear pointed.

• London (ex Lambros). ↗ 3.01
• Obv.: die more worn.

134. O. 92: Small and provincial; knobby knees.

R. 79: By same hand as R. 77–8.

• Naville V, 2245. 2.88
• Athens market.

135. O. 92: Same die.

R. 80: Long-necked head in "Arcadian" style; frontal eye.

• London (BMC Pelop. 16). ↑ 2.81
• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer). ↑ 2.96
• Obv.: cross-stays deteriorating from (a); in (b) flaw above Zeus' head and behind eagle.

136. O. 92: Same die.

R. 81: Neat head showing influence of R. 77–9; eye profiled.

• Munich. ↓ 2.903

Obv.: extension of earlier flaws across whole die.

137. O. 93: Long-haired Zeus on throne without cross-stays, but set on statue base (cf. pp. 46 ff.).

R. 81: Same die.

• Münz. u. Med. (in trade). = Kricheldorf, Nov. 1960, 119. 2.87

138. O. 93: Same die.

R. 82: Fine head with hair (done into krobylos) rendered in stippled fashion; for the krobylos cf. p. 46.

• Paris 246 = Babelon, Traité pl. 38, 14. → 2.79
• Stockholm (Smith Coll. 184) = Naville I, 1919 = Naville X, 603. ↙2.86
• Athens 4477a. ←
• Münz. u. Med. List 116, 150.
• Bourgey, June 1959, 385 = Svoronos, JIAN 1912, pl. Z, 37. 2.87
• Yale University. ↑ 2.86
• Obv.: flaws under r. hand and in front of r. knee in all.

139. O. 93: Same die.

R. 83: Poor copy of R. 82.

• Berlin (ex C. R. Fox), perforated. ↑ 2.88
• New York (Ward Coll.) = Hill, "Cat. of Ward Coll." 560 (rev.). 2.77

140. O. 94: Zeus' arms bent to right angle; Period I type throne.

R. 84: Imitation of R. 77–9.

• Naville I, 1924 = Babelon, Traité 847, pl. 223, 20. 2.66

The following coins have no real points of contact with the preceding or the following section. By their style they probably belong to the Cleitor mint and have been arbitrarily included here.

142. O. 96: Zeus seated on standard throne with his left leg covering front leg of throne, a position rare early in the series. R. 86: Head to r. in "Arcadian" style; hair above band smooth, of large beads below it; the four letters are illegible.

• Hirsch XIII, 2748 = Rhousopoulos (Winterthur cast). 2.38

143. O. 97: Similar.

R. 87: Head with strong regular features more archaic than "Arcadian" in style.

• Munich. 2.792

147. O. 101: Similar to O. 93 in section 1. Backrest curves widely; no cross-stays.

R. 91: Long-necked head in "Arcadian" style. Eye probably profiled.

• Naville I, 1925 = Babelon, Traité 852, pl. 223, 23. 2.92
• Cambridge (SNG 3834). ← 2.95
• Obv.: large flaw running from face, through eagle to knee.

148. O. 102: Similar in style to O. 101, but no backrest.

R. 91: Same die.

• London (BMC Pelop. 13) = IB, pl. 7, 13 (rev.). ↘ 2.82
• Obv.: numerous flaws in field.
• Rev.: flaw at mouth.

149. O. 103: Frontal view of seated Zeus (cf. p. 47).

R. 91: Same die.

• Berlin (C. R. Fox). ↖ 2.78
• Rev.: lips probably recut; flaw above nostril.

150. O. 104: Similar to O.103, but knees higher.

R. 92: Fine head in high relief (cf. p. 48).

• 's Gravenhage 4703 = IB, pl. 7, 9 = Lambros, Ἀναγραφή, pl. 13,12. ↖ 2.75
• Rev.: all specimens have flaw below neck, but only this specimen is free from the flaw on head.
• Cambridge (McClean 6923, pl. 234, 7). ↖ 2.82
• Boston (Cat. 1250). 2.96
• New York (ANS). ↑ 2.99
• Naville V, 2243 = Ratto, April 1909, 3095. Regling, MaK 319. 2.86
• Pozzi (sic Babelon, Traité 853, pl. 223, 24 but not in Naville I).
• Rev.: major flaw on and above head; minor flaws on back of head and on queue from (b).

151. O. 105: Similar to two preceding: whole of 1. leg of throne visible; smaller eagle.

R. 93: Hair of goddess done in bun, but hair along brow in fringe.

• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer) = IB, pl. 7, 21. ↗ 2.97
• 12Hess, Dec. 1931, 497. 2.91

Rev.: the shape of nose changed slightly from concave (a) to a convex outline in (b) and after.

• New York (ANS). ↗2.93
• Copenhagen (SNG 177). ↗ 2.84
• London (BMC Pelop. 35, pl. 32, 4). ↖ 2.92
• Blackburn 6/16. ↓
• Rev.: flaw above head in (f).

152. O. 105: Same die.

R. 92: Same die.

• London (BMC Pelop. 14, pl. 31, 16). ↓ 2.94
• Obv.: die worn.
• Rev.: flaws worse than in 150.

155. O. 108: Zeus in profile seated 1. on throne with backrest but no cross-stays; eagle with extended wings flies away; design of Mantinean mint (cf. p. 48).

R. 96: Head in new style (non "Arcadian"), small and compact; frontal eye. ARK

• New York (ANS) = Hirsch XIV, 471. ↗ 2.96
• Jameson 1270 = Babelon, Traité 851, pl. 223, 22 = Hirsch XIII, 2755. 2.9
• Glasgow (Hunterian) = Macdonald II, pl. 39, 15. 2.94
• Obv.: countermark in form of lyre.
• Rev.: flaw below neck in all; slight flaw between ear and necklace in (a), more developed in (c); on (c) added flaw above head.

156. O. 109: Close to O. 108; differences are: 1. forearm straight upright, not inclined to head; r. forearm slanting slightly downwards out of horizontal; eagle's wings smaller.

R. 96: Same die.

• Berlin 4280. ← 2.89
• Rev.: flaw on neck worse than on 155(a) and (b), but less than on (c) and lacks the latter's flaw above head.

157. O. 109: Same die.

R. 97: Similar, but on larger scale.

• Münz. u. Med. (in trade) = Gans List 29, 7198.
• New York (ANS). → 2.81
• Rev.: flaw across hair slight in (a), extends across face in (b).

158. O. 108: Same die.

R. 98: Similar to and probably copy of R. 97. RK[A]/DIKO

• Photiades (Winterthur cast). 2.94
• Obv.: flaws behind and between legs of throne.

159. O. 108: Same die.

R. 99: Smaller head, slightly inclined; eye profiled, with upper lid longer than lower.

• Berlin 17357. ↘ 2.86
• Münz. u. Med. (in trade).

160. O. 108: Same die.

R. 100: Similar, but larger nose.

• Florange and Ciani, Feb. 1925, 471. 2.98

161. O. 110: Zeus to r. holding thunderbolt in r., sceptre in 1. with eagle above.

R. 100: Same die.

• Paris 245= Babelon, Traité 836, pl. 223, 8. ↗ 2.83
• New York (ANS). ← 2.82
• Rev.: flaw at the bottom of iota in (a) and (b).

162. O. 110: Same die.

R. 99: Same die.

• Berlin (ex Löbbecke). →2.82
• Hirsch XIX, 465. 2.9
• Rev.: slight flaw at chin on both.

163. O. 111: Similar, but sceptre passes behind the knees; footstool.

R. 99: Same die.

• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer). ↘ 2.91
• Boston (Cat. 1251). 2.79
• Copenhagen (SNG 173). ← 2.78
• New York (ANS), perforated. ← 2.93
• Dies now in poor condition.

166. O. 114: Zeus to 1.; legs and drapery covering front legs of throne; its backrest inclined sharply; small eagle; all in low relief (cf. O. 101).

R. 101: Similar to the heads in last section; eye profiled.

• Berlin (ex Prokesch-Osten). ↑ 2.775
• Basel 1908, 1830.

167. O. 115: Similar; backrest upright.

R. 102: Head in heavier style; sterno-mastoid overemphasised and affects shape of truncation; eye profiled. IKO[N]

• Cambridge (SNG 3836). ← 2.82

168. O. 115: Same die.

R. 103: Hair in bun; copy of R. 48 in Tegea II, 2 including its frontal eye. AKA

• Cambridge (SNG 3840). ← 2.83
• Oxford. ↖ 2.91
• Obv.: flaw between drapery and seat of throne in all; seat of throne fills in from forward end gradually from (b).
• London (BMC Pelop. 37). ↖ 2.90
• Weber 4286 = Naville IV, 607. 2.91
• Paris (Expo. 815) = Babelon, Traité, pl. 223, 10. ← 2.87
• Obv.: lyre countermark.
• Rev.: flaws above head and at chin from (c).

169.130. 116: Similar to O. 108–9 with larger eagle.

R. 103: Same die.

• Williams. ↖ 2.91
• Rev.: flaws worse.

170. O. 116: Same die.

R. 104: Features similar to R. 103, including prominent cheekbone under temple, slightly receding chin and eye, but hair in queue.

• Kricheldorf, May 1926, 1053. 2.70
• Paris 254 = Babelon, Traité, pl. 223, 17. ↖ 2.94
• Rev.: flaw below neck.

171. O. 117: Similar to O. 116, and probably by same hand.

R. 105: Similar; again with frontal eye; a heavy copy of Mantinea III, 2.

• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer). → 2.89

172. O. 118: Zeus to r.; the unusual orientation and the position of r. hand suggests O. 110–1 were the models.

R. 106: An "Arcadian" head to close the half-drachmas: the lidless eye, an oval rising out of a depression recalls the Arcadian statuette, Berlin 7644 (BSA 1925, pl. 25, 37).

• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer) = IB, pl. 7, 14. ← 2.46

174. O. 120: Zeus seated to 1.; standard design of mint.

R. 108: Head to r.; hair in bun (cf. p. 22 for discussion).

• Oxford. ← 2.96

175. O. 121: Standing Zeus, phiale in 1.; eagle in r. (cf. p. 21 for discussion).

R. 109: Copy of R. 108; eye frontal (cf. p. 51).

• Paris 250 = RN 1925, pl. II, 14. ↓ 2.91
• Berlin (ex C. R. Fox). ↖ 2.885
• Boston (Cat. 1243) = Babelon, Traité 858, pl. 223, 30 (obv.); pl. 223, 12 (rev.). Babelon mistakenly gives these two references to different coins. 2.94
• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer) = IB, pl. 7, 7. ↓ 2.90
• Mavrogordato = Svoronos, JIAN 1912, pl. Z, 38. 2.84
• Cambridge (SNG 3850). → 2.82
• Rev.: from (a) flaws on bun, chin, and between rho and koppa; from (c) flaws developing on nose and in front of chin; from (d)-(f) chin flaw gradually becomes a full beard.

176. O. 121: Same die.

R. 110: Frontal head of goddess; bun on r. K[ADIK]ON

• Paris (Luynes 2311) = Babelon, Traité 857, pl. 223, 29 = Brett, AJN 1909, pl. 9,9 (rev.). → 2.85
• London (BMC Pelop. 1, pl. 31, 10) = Babelon, Traité 1235, pl. 38,18 = IB, pl. 7, 6 = Lambros, Ἀναγραφή, pl. 13, 10 = Regling MaK 316. → 2.79
• Berlin (ex Prokesch-Osten). → 2.80
• Obv.: Zeus' 1. arm affected by flaws.

177. O. 121: Same die.

R. 111: Obol die used on half-drachma flan; by same hand as R. 109; see 182 for die in good condition.

• Cambridge (McClean 6925, pl. 234, 4). ← 2.91
• Obv.: flaw on arm worse; flaw on neck.
• Rev.: flaw on top of head; necklace recut.

178. O. 122: Zeus seated to 1. on throne with backrest, but no crossstays; 1. leg drawn back; rough die for this mint.

R. 110: Same die.

• Modena (Winterthur cast). 2.89

179. O. 122: Same die.

R. 112: Threequarter head of goddess to r.; tassel of hair-band showing above bun.

• Berlin 28847 = Regling, MaK 317. ↑ 2.87
• London (ex Oman) = Lambros (Winterthur cast).↗ 2.87
• Obv.: flaw between thigh and r. arm in both.
• Rev.: flaw under neck in (b).

180. O. 55: Same die (from Period II, 1).

R. 113: Similar; smaller.

• Paris 243 = Babelon, Traité 856, pl. 223, 28. ↙ 2.86
• Williams = Lockett, SNG 2515 = Naville 1, 1928 = Babelon, Traité, pl. 223, 27 (rev.) ↙ 2.89
• Obv.: die in very poor condition in both.
• Rev.: flaw on mouth in both.

181. O. 123: Zeus seated to 1. in style of Tegea II, 2; probably an old die recut.

R. 114: Threequarter head; eyes oblique; bun in threequarter perspective; by the Paris master.

• Paris (Expo. 816) = Babelon, Traité 1234, pl. 38, 17 = Brett, AJN 1909, pl. 9, 14 (rev.). ↑ 2.84
• Berlin (ex Dannenberg). ←2.78
• Obv.: flaw on beard in (a); in (b) also in front of and behind head.
• Rev.: flaw under neck in (a); in (b) also on chin and on nu.

185. O. 126: Back view of seated Zeus; buttocks bare.

R. 117: Threequarter head, similar to R. 114, and by the same hand (Paris master).

• London (acquired 1928). ← 2.88

186. O. 126: Same die.

R. 118: Similar to R. 113; closer to frontal.

• Naville XIII, 806 = Hirsch XIX, 466 = Brett, AJN 1909, pl. 9, 12 (rev.). 2.91

  Photo larger than actual.

• Athens 4480.
• Obv.: flaw above eagle.

187. O. 127: Similar.

R. 118: Same die.

• Münz. u. Med. List 116, 152 = Hirsch XXI, 2030 = Hamburger Nov. 1909, 772 = Brett, AJN 1909, pl. 9, 11. 3.0
• Photo reduced.

188. O. 128: Similar; O. 126–8 probably by same hand.

R. 117: Same die.

• Proschowsky = ? Coin Galleries, March 1956. ← 2.86

189. O. 129: Back view in different style; buttocks covered; rear leg of throne curves into form of animal's foot.

R. 119: Finest of Paris master's heads.

• Boston (Cat. 1248). 2.91
• Obv.: two countermarks of lyre, on face, and in front of head.
• Rev.: flaw below neck.

196. O. 135: Similar to O.126–8 but buttocks covered; Zeus leans slightly forward (upright in section 2).

R. 123: Threequarter head; bun at rightangles—not in three-quarter as with Paris master.

• Boston (Cat. 1247). 2.67
• Cambridge (McClean 6927, pl. 234, 11) = Hirsch XIII, 2768. 2.9
• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer) = Lambros Aναγραφή, pl. 13, 11. ↘ 2.96
• Naville XVII, 507 = Naville I, 1926 = Babelon, Traité, pl. 223,25 (obv.) and 26 (rev.). 3.01
• Hess, Feb. 1936, 1064 = Grabow, July 1930, 427. 2.86
• Paris (Luynes 2312) = Babelon, Traité 1233, pl. 38, 16. ↗ 2.75
• Naville I, 1927 = Babelon, Traité, pl. 223,26 (obv.), 27 (rev.). 2.82

197. O. 135: Same die.

R. 124: Similar.

• Athens (on exhibition).

198. O. 135: Same die.

R. 121: Same die (obol) used on half-drachma flan.

• Berlin (ex Ulrich Kohler). ↙ 2.85
• Berlin (ex Löbbecke). ↖ 2.76
• Rev.: it seems that all the obol specimens of this die precede the halfdrachma specimens.

199. O.135: Same die.

R. 125: Similar to R. 124 but smaller.

• Williams. → 2.999
• *(b) Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer). → 2.79
• Obv.: die in poor state.
• Rev.: flaw at chin, and bad flaw in front of face in both.

200. O. 136: Similar; 1. elbow close to body.

R. 123: Same die.

• Berlin 28686. ↖ 2.765

201. O. 137: Similar; sceptre not so close to throne and drapery higher around waist.

R. 123: Same die.

• New York (Ward Coll.) = Hill, "Cat. of Ward Coll." 559 = Brett, AJN 1909, pl. 9, 10 (rev.). 2.82
• London (BMC Pelop. 43). ↖ 2.93
• Rev.: flaw across hair and down face.

202. O. 137: Same die.

R. 124: Same die.

• Cambridge (SNG 3849). ← 2.87
• Jameson 1273 = Sotheby, April 1907, 174 = Brett, AJN 1909, pl. 9, 13 = Babelon, Traité 854, pl. 223, 25 (rev.) (Babelon gives to this rev. an alien obv., which is Pozzi 1926 [196d]) = Photiades (Winterthur cast). 2.96

203. O. 136: Same die.

R. 126: Similar to O. 123.

• London (BMC Pelop. 42, pl. 32, 6) = Gardner, Types of Greek Coins, pl. 3, 50 (rev.). ↖ 2.88

204. O. 136: Same die.

R. 127: Similar.

• Munich = Hirsch XIII, 2769. ↙ 2.927
• Münz. u. Med. List 116, 151.
• Obv.: too damaged for decision on die.
• Rev.: flaw under neck in both.

205. O. 136: Same die.

R. 121: Same die (obol again).

• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer). ↗ 2.835
• Obv.: flaw in front of leg in 204 and 205(a).
• Rev.: die in poor state.

206. O. 136: Same die.

R. 128: Similar to R. 124.

• Rhousopoulos (Winterthur cast). 2.90
• Obv.: die in bad state; leg of throne recut.

207. O. 138: Similar, but the new engraver gives a better three-quarter rendering of Zeus'back. His r. leg is drawn back behind the front leg of throne, and there is an awkwardness about the planes at this point.

R. 129: Similar, but more masculine; ends of hairband curl backwards.

• Vienna. → 2.89
• Copenhagen (Proschowsky). → 2.92

208. O. 139: Similar; r. arm horizontal; lower part of front leg of throne in lower plane than upper part.

R. 129: Same die.

• New York (ANS). ← 2.85
• Hirsch XXXI, 435. 2.81
• Berlin (ex C. R. Fox). ← 2.97

Rev.: flaws around bun; outline of neck at back has become straighter.

209. O. 139: Same die.

R. 130: Almost identical, but hair behind ear, band around bun, modelling of neck different; ethnic identical, including second kappa.

• Cambridge (SNG 3848). ↖ 2.88

Rev.: flaw under neck.

210. O. 139: Same die.

R. 131: Almost identical, but hair behind ear, arrangment of hairband and modelling of neck different from preceding two. Ethnic identical.14

• Schlessinger, Feb. 1935, 1024.
• Winterthur. 2.85
• Obv.: 1. arm filled in; die in bad state.

211. O. 140: Full back view, not so competent.

R. 131: Same die.

• London (ex Mavrogordato) = Hirsch XIV, 474 = Ratto, April 1909, 3096. ↘ 2.85
• Cambridge (SNG 3847), broken. ↑ 2.28

212. O. 141: Similar.

R. 132: Rounder head in threequarter view with smaller features.

• Berlin 319/1873. ↗ 2.90
• London (ex Lambros). ↘ 3.01
• Kricheldorf, May 1956, 1055. 2.85
• Weber 4287 = Naville IV, 609. 2.91
• Copenhagen (SNG 178). ↑ 2.93
• Rev.: flaw under neck and slight flaw at chin in all; flaw above head in (e).

213. O. 142: Similar.

R. 133: Similar.

• New York (ANS). ↘ 2.66

214. O.143: Similar.

R. 134: Similar to R. 129 etc.

• New York (ANS) = Ratto, April 1927, 1593. → 2.86

(of doubtful origin and position)

216. O.145: Back view of Zeus seated to r.

R. 136: Threequarter head similar to R. 124. O

• Bourgey, June 1959, 388. 2.62 (Now Spink).

217.15 O.146: Front view of Zeus to 1.; throne characteristic of Period I.

R. 136: Same die.

• Boston (Cat. 1246). 2.41
• Rev.: flaw above head.

218. O. 146: Same die.

R. 137: Profile head to 1.; hair arranged as in Mantinea III.

Frontal eye.

• Hirsch XXV, 1376. 2.85
• Hirsch XVI, 594. 2.75
• Athens 484. ↑
• Obv.: flaw in front of shoulder on (c).
• Rev.: flaw under neck in all three.

219. O. 147: Zeus in profile to 1. seen from front. Design of Mantinea III, but inferior style.

R. 138: Threequarter head to r.; close copy of R. 129–131.

• Munich. ↖ 2.66

220. O. 148: Crude seated Zeus to r.

R. 139: Barbarous imitation of the threequarter heads.

• Berlin (ex Prokesch-Osten). →2.82
• Vienna = Hirsch XIII, 2772 = Hirsch XXV, 1381 = Hirsch XXXI, 434. ↓ 2.77
• Copenhagen (SNG 179). ↑ 2.95
• Rev.: all have bad flaws above, below, and to r. of head.

221. O. 149: Similar to O. 83 in Mantinea 11, 2, but throne has cross-stays.

R. 140: Head to 1. by new engraver; hair, in fine wavy lines, taken along brow, down temple, and into queue; eye

open at inner corner; ear-ring of 5 stones, necklace of

larger ones.

• New York (ANS). ↗2.77
• Athens 1904–5, H 43.
• Obv.: flaws at 1. shoulder and above head in (b).
• Rev.: flaw between chin and alpha in (b).

221bis. O. 149bis: Similar but no cross-stays.

R. 140: Same die.

• Washington University.

222. O. 81: Same die (from II, 2).

R. 140: Same die.

• Cambridge (McClean 6921, pl. 234, 5) = Hirsch XIII, 2762. 2.80
• Obv.: flaw( ?) in front of legs.
• Rev.: flaw at chin extending onto face.

223. O. 150: Similar (no cross-stays), but eagle has both its wings above body at Zeus' wrist.

R. 141: Similar, but eye semi-profiled; upper eyelid extends farther than lower; jewelry as R. 140.

• London (BMC Pelop. 18) = IB, pl. 7, 26. ↘ 2.79

224. O. 151: Similar to and by same hand as O. 150; eagle with folded wings.

R. 141: Same die.

• Forbat. ← 2.84

225. O. 152: Similar, but throne has cross-stays; eagle's wings above body.

R. 141: Same die.

• London (ex Mavrogordato). ← 2.29

Rev.: flaws developing under chin and on nose.

230. O. 157: Zeus to 1., similar to those of section 1, but smaller and better proportioned; eagle flying away with wings extended.

R. 67: Same die.

• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer). ↗2.91
• Obv.: small flaw in front of knee.
• Rev.: die here in its worst state, after long life.

231. O. 157: Same die.

R. 145: Design as in section 1, but lines of hair thick and straight; nose-brow line straighter; eye frontal.

• Schlessinger, Feb. 1935, 1023. 2.7
• London (BMC Pelop. 22, pl. 31, 20). ↗ 2.96
• Bourgey, June 1959, 386 = Ratto, Oct. 1924, 77. 2.90
• Obv.: flaw at knee more pronounced.
• Rev.: flaws above head, below neck and across neck from (b).

232. O. 158: Similar; by same hand; sceptre farther from throne, drapery different at legs.

R. 145: Same die.

• New York (ANS). ← 2.69
• Berlin 1171/1910 = Hirsch XXIX, 371. ↙ 2.765
• Helbing XVII, 287 = Helbing, April, 1927, 1759. 2.85
• Munich. ← 2.786
• Copenhagen (Thorwaldsen 29). 2.86
• Copenhagen (SNG 168). ↑ 2.98
• Rev.: flaws worse and running across chin.

233. O. 158: Same die.

R. 146: Similar, but smaller and eyelids open at inner corner.

• Berlin (ex Löbbecke). ↓ 2.81
• Obv.: flaws on chest and head.

234. O. 157: Same die.

R. 146: Same die.

• Newcastle-upon-Tyne (S.T. 277).
• Obv.: flaw at knee worse.

235. O. 158: Same die.

R. 147: Similar, but inferior; copy of R. 146 with frontal eye.

• Oxford. ↖ 2.79
• Kraay. ↖ 2.81
• Obv.: die in poor condition in both.
• Rev.: major flaw on and above head; another at chin.

236. O. 157: Same die.

R. 147: Same die.

• Vienna. ↓ 2.9
• Obv.: die deteriorating.
• Rev.: flaw at chin extended across face.

237. O.159: Similar, but 1. arm higher; posture more relaxed; eagle horizontal.

R. 148: Similar to R. 146; eye semi-profiled.

• Boston (Cat. 1252). 2.77
• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer).→2.995
• Berlin (ex von Gansauge). ↑ 2.91
• Münz. u. Med. VI, 697. 2.86
• de Nanteuil (pl. 58, 96) = Sotheby, Feb. 1884, 259 = Weber 4284 = Naville IV, 608. ↘ 3.01
• Obv.: in all, small flaw above eagle's tail; on (b) and (c) defect on Zeus' chest, but it is repaired.
• Rev.: flaw above head and at inner corner of eye in all.

238. O.159: Same die.

R. 146: Same die.

• 's Gravenhage 4704. ↘ 2.8
• Robinson. ↓ 2.81
• New York (ANS). ← 2.80
• Berlin (ex Prokesch-Osten). → 2.86
• Obv.: in all flaw between 1. biceps and 1. wrist; flaw at r. thumb and diagonal flaw across 1. of torso from (d).

239. O. 159: Same die.

R. 149: Similar, but inferior.

• Naville I, 1923. 2.81

240. O. 159: Same die.

R. 150: Superb head in same design; eye profiled.

• Glasgow (Hunterian) = Macdonald, p. 156, 2. 2.96
• Winterthur. ← 2.82
• Athens (on exhibition).
• Münz. u. Med. List 199, 19 = Lockett, SNG 2512 = Hirsch XXII, 232 = Naville I, 1922 = Babelon, Traité, pl. 223, 19 = ? G. Hirsch, Dec. 1959, 232. ↑ 2.83
• Blackburn (6/14) = Sotheby, May 1916, 382.
• New York (ANS). ↑ 2.78
• London (BMC Pelop. 17, pl. 31. 17). ↑ 2.92
• Leningrad 10056. ←2.71
• Paris 248. ↖ 2.92
• Turin (Museo Civico 22685). 2.54
• Copenhagen (Thorwaldsen 28). 2.87
• Berlin (ex Prokesch-Osten). ↗ 2.77
• Obv.: gradual deterioration in state of die, particularly near 1. arm.
• Rev.: small flaw on top of head in all except (a); flaw below neck on (k) and (1).

241. O. 160: Similar.

R. 151: Similar but by different hand; eye profiled but narrower than R. 150.

• Copenhagen (SNG 167). ↓ 2.90
• Rev.: flaw under neck.

242. O. 150: Same die (from III, 1.).

R. 151bis: Head to r.; hair in roll, its disposition identical with that of R. 152; eye profiled; neck recut and shortened in process.

• Yale University. →2.33
• Obv.: die worn; slight flaw behind head.
• Rev.: flaw below neck.

242bis. O. 161: Similar to obverses of III, 2—Zeus to 1. on throne with swan's head backrest; no cross-stays; pointed fold of drapery over thigh; eagle flies away with extended wings.

R. 152: Similar to last; disposition of letters identical; eyeball more prominent than in last; style inferior to that of R. 150

• London (ex Oman). ↙ 2.92
• Jameson 1271 = Sotheby, April 1907, 173. 2.86

243. O. 161: Same die.

A A

R. 153: Similar, but finer.

• New York (ANS). ↘ 2.85
• Berlin (ex C. R. Fox). ↓ 2.85
• Obv.: flaw between r. forearm and thigh.

244. O. 162: Similar.

R. 153: Same die.

• Boston (Cat. 1254). 2.90
• London (ex Armitage). ↗ 2.70
• Athens (on exhibition).
• Copenhagen (SNG 170). → 2.75
• Rev.: flaws below neck, on roll and across hair from (a); from (c) flaws across brow and mouth.

245. O. 162: Same die.

R. 154: Similar.

• Münz. u. Med. List 199, 20 = Lockett, SNG 2514 = Naville I, 1929 = Babelon, Traité 861, pl. 223, 33. 2.82
• Gans 1959, 793 = Naville XII, 1573. 2.66
• Williams = Glendining, Sept. 1962, 117. ↖
• Rev.: flaw below neck in all; across jaw and on back of head in (c).

246. O. 162: Same die.

R. 155: Head to 1.; hair in queue.

• Berlin (ex Löbbecke). ↙2.91
• Berlin 37/1886. ↙ 2.81
• Obv.: die wearing.

247. O. 161: Same die.

R. 155: Same die.

• Copenhagen (SNG 169) = Lambros (Winterthur cast) = Hirsch XXI, 2026 = Hamburger XI (1909), 771. → 2.89
• Munich. ↗ 2.94
• Obv.: flaw as in 243.
• Rev.: flaws under neck, through mouth and across face; worse in (b) than in (a).

248. O. 161: Same die.

R. 156: Similar to R. 155, but eyelids shorter, and rho under chin

• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer) = IB, pl. 7, 27. ← 2.85
• Obv.: flaw as in 247.

249. O. 163: Similar; (a) resembles O.164 when that is in poor state.

R. 157: Head to 1. in saccos; profile eye; features similar to those of R. 155–6.

• Leningrad 10057. ← 2.80
• Obv.: Zeus' 1. arm and contour of torso filling in.

250. O. 164: Similar. Zeus has moustache and short beard.

R. 158: Head to r. similar to R. 155–6, but nose larger; hair in queue.

• Hirsch XIV, 472.
• Hamburger, June 1930, 260.
• Budapest.
• London (ex Brookes). ↑ 2.89
• Obv.: from (b) contours of design disappear and Zeus becomes a skeleton.
• Rev.: in (b)-(d) flaws on nose and near back of hairband.

251. O. 165: Similar to O. 161–2; legs of throne "turned" with hour-glass type feet.

R. 159: Similar to R. 158; no ear-ring.

• Münz. u. Med. X, 283. 2.79
• Naville V. 2244. 2.92
• Naville VII, 1284. 2.88
• Boston (Cat. 1253). 2.83
• New York (ANS). 2.82
• Berlin 28686. ↑ 2.83
• Rev.: all have flaw below neck; from (b) flaw on back of head; from (e) flaw in front of nose.

252. O. 166: Similar.

R. 160: Similar to R. 159.

• Athens 486. ↑ 5

253. O. 167: Similar to O. 161–2, but more closely observed.

R. 161: Fine head to r.; hair in queue.

• Berlin 319/1877. ↑ 2.75
• Munich = Hirsch XIII, 2759. ↑ 2.825
• Warren Coll. (Regling, 944). 2.84

254. O. 168: Similar, probably copy of O. 167.

R. 162: Head to r.; hair done up in bun and tied, but not in style of Tegea; lids of profiled eye barely visible.

• Blackburn 6/17.

255. O. 169: Close to O. 168.

R. 163: Head to r. in "Arcadian" style; profile, beady eye with indistinct lids.

• Cambridge (McClean 6926, pl. 234, 10) = Hirsch XIII, 2764. → 2.83

256. O. 170: Similar.

R. 164: Similar to R. 162, but to 1. AP

• London (BMC Pelop. 46, pl. 32, 9). ↙ 2.55

257. O. 171: Similar to O. 166.

R. 165: Similar to R. 162, to. r.

• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer). → 2.82
• New York (ANS). ↖ 2.79

258. O. 172: Zeus on throne with legs "turned" in an hour-glass pattern, with knobs at junction of seat and legs and on top of backrest (cf. O. 186); long r. arm.

R. 166: Very similar to R. 152; head to r.; hair in roll.

• Forbat = Hamburger, April 1933, 798 = Münz. u. Med. VI, 698. ↗ 2.90

259. O. 173: Back view of Zeus to r. in style of late Tegea III.

R. 167: Head to r.; hair in queue; head longer than in Mantinean style; ethnic unabbreviated. [ARKADI]KON

• Munich = IB, 43, pl. 8, 2. ↓ 2.79

260. O. 173: Same die.

R. 168: Head to r.; hair in bun; imitation of R. 103 (Cleitor) but with profile eye. APK

• New York (ANS). → 2.90
• Rev.: flaws at chin and at back of bun.

261. O. 174: Back view of Zeus, copy of O. 173.

R. 169: Head to r. in saccos; poor style.

• New York (ANS). → 2.34
• Obv.: flaws on eagle's tail and below Zeus' r. arm.
• Rev.: flaws above and on head, and below neck.

262. O. 175: Crude Zeus in design of Period II.

R. 169: Same die.

• Athens 485.

263. O. 176: Zeus to 1.; die worn; leg of throne "turned."

R. 170: Threequarter head to r.; style more developed than in Tegea III. I∆/

• Frankfurt 1023. ↘ 2.48
• Rev.: flaw on and above head.

264. O. 177: Similar to obverses of Period IV.

R. 170: Same die.

• London (BMC Pelop. 41). ← 2.688
• Rev.: flaw below neck as well.

265. O. 177: Same die.

R. 171: Profile head to 1.; hair in saccos; similar to R. 157, but with firmer chin.

• Münz. u. Med. List 199, 21. 2.44
• Rev.: flaw on and above head.

266. O. 178: Similar to O. 177; this throne has cross-stays and knob on backrest; throne on O. 177 obscure.

R. 172: Similar to R. 158–9.

• Berlin 1172/1910 = Hirsch XXIX, 571. → 2.215
• Rev.: flaw under neck; slight flaw on hair.

275. O. 185: Zeus to 1. on throne without backrest; eagle with both wings above body.

R. 180: Fine head to r.; hair in roll.

• Berlin (ex Prokesch-Osten) = IB, pl. 7, 6 = Weil, ZfN 1882, pl. 2, 3 = Seltman, Greek Coins, pl. 15, 13 = Seltman, Olympia, pl. 8, 9. t 2.83

276. O. 186: Less vigorous. Throne has backrest with knob on top matching knobs at junction of legs and seat.

R. 180: Same die.

• Berlin 36/1886. ← 2.48

277. O. 186: Same die.

R. 181: Head to r. in different style. Hair held by band.

• New York (ANS). ↘ 2.80
• Obv.: flaw above 1. shoulder.

278. O. 187: Old-fashioned style of Zeus in Period II design.

R. 182: Head to r. in "Arcadian" style; eyelids in form of two crescents, their concave sides facing on either side of a beady pupil. RK

• Glasgow (Coates Coll. 3133).
• Münz. u. Med. List 116, 149 = Rosenberg, July 1932, 504 = Hirsch XXV, 1380 = Photiades (Winterthur cast). 2.87
• Lockett (SNG 2513). ↙ 2.72
• Obv.: flaw above 1. shoulder in all.
• Rev.: flaw across face extending to rho in all.

279. O. 186: Same die.

R. 182: Same die.

• Helbing, April 1927, 1758. 2.87
• Obv.: flaws worse.

280. O. 187: Same die.

R. 181: Same die.

• Helbing, April 1927, 1760. 2.8

281. O. 188: Similar to O.185; backless throne with pellet below the small abacus at top of front leg.

R. 183: Fine head to left similar to R. 180 (for hair cf. p. 62).

• Boston (Cat. 1253) = Regling, MaK 453 = Regling, Warren 946. 2.93
• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer). ↓ 2.80 (Rev. = Plate XIV, j)
• Paris (Luynes 2310) = Babelon, Traité 862, pl. 223, 34. ↑ 2.95
• Rev.: major flaw below neck and minor on first alpha and top of head on (c).

282. O. 189: Probably similar, but in too poor a state for certain identification.

R. 184: Similar; same hair-style.

• Tübingen 55.B5. ← 2.27
• Rev.: flaw below neck; mouth damaged.

283. O. 188: Same die.

R. 185: Similar, but more feminine; fine hair lines on nape; no knot (cf. p. 27).

• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer). ← 2.78
• Paris 382(?) = Babelon, Traité 863, pl. 223, 36.
• Berlin (ex C. R. Fox). ← 2.95
• Obv.: flaw in front of knee in (a), worse from (b).
• Rev.: from (b) shape of nose is coarsened, flaw on back of head from (c).

284. O. 190: Similar, but inferior; r. arm long and thin.

R. 185: Same die.

• New York (ANS) = Grabow, July 1930, 426. ← 2.93
• Rev.: flaw on back of head as in 283(c), but alpha and kappa recut.

285. O. 190: Same die.

R. 186: Similar, but spoiled by flaw on cheek near mouth which fills in lips.

• Copenhagen (SNG 171). ↑ 2.70
• London (BMC Pelop. 24, pl. 31, 22). ↗ 2.87
• Obv.: (a) is in poor state and I am not certain of that die identification; probably (b) is recut.

285 bis. O.190: Same die.

R. 186 bis: Headof goddess to r. The hair, cut in fine wavy lines, is taken along the brow and into a queue with a prominent tail. The ear-ring has the form of a cross.

• Williams.
• Obv.: die now in poor state.
• Rev.: small flaw on top 1. of head.

286. O. 191: Similar to and perhaps by same hand as O. 188; 1. leg completely covers front leg of throne.

R. 186: Same die.

• Athens 1904–5, I 8 = Kourouniotes, Eph. Arch. 1904, 170, fig. 5, 2.
• Berry (SNG 858). ↖ 2.91
• Cambridge (SNG 3845). ↙2.91
• Proschowsky. ↘2.72.
• Rev.: flaws on top of head and on back of head from (b).

287. O. 191: Same die.

R. 187: Head to 1.; hair in saccos.

• Münzhandl. Basel, 8, 322 = Hirsch XX, 345. 2.9

288. O. 192: Similar to O. 186.

R. 188: Head to r.; hair held by band; features similar to those of R. 185.

• Ex Imhoof-Blumer (Cast at Winterthur). 2.77

289. O.193: Similar to O.185, but finer; backrest with knob.

R. 189: Head to r.; hair in roll (cf. p. 27).

• Brussels (Hirsch Coll. 1373). ↖ 2.85 (Plate XIV, m-n)
• Merzbacher, Nov. 1909, 3020 = Lambros (Winterthur cast) = G. Hirsch, June 1963, 412. 2.76 (Plate XIV, k)

290. O. 194: Similar, but inferior, probably an imitation of O.193, but far rear leg of throne shown in perspective; heads of Zeus and eagle too large.

R. 190: Head to 1., showing influence of R. 189; hair combed along brow and under the roll as in Period V.

• Stockholm (Hedenborg Coll.). ↖ 2.87
• 's Gravenhage 1957–636. ↑ 2.87
• Paris 256a. ← 2.87
• Rev.: all have major flaw above head and minor on eye; (b) has flaw under chin which extends across face in (c).

291. O.194: Same die.

R. 191: Smaller head to r. lacking nobility of preceding dies.

• New York (ANS). → 2.90
• Ciani, Nov. 1935, 150. 2.90

292. O. 195: Zeus to 1. in different style; cross-stays and swan's head top to backrest—not visible in (b); torso in high relief.

R. 192: Head to r.; hair in bun; full ethnic.

• Paris (Luynes 2309) = Babelon, Traité 837, pl. 223, 9. → 2.89
• New York (ANS) = Hirsch XVIII, 2417. ↑ 3.01
• Kricheldorf, Oct. 1955, 388. 2.29( ?)
• Rev.: all have flaws above and below head.

293. O. 196: A tall, stiff and angular Zeus on throne with low back.

R. 193: Competent copy of R. 190.

• Paris (Expo. 817). ↗ 2.35
• Naville I, 1930. 2.55

294. O. 197: Similar, but eagle flying towards not away from Zeus; throne of Period I type.

R. 194: Head to r.; hair in bun. Anepigraphic.

• Berlin 7660. ↑ 2.93

295.17 O.198: Similar to O. 196–7, but cruder.

R. 195: Head to r. in crude style.

• Basel 1908. 1832. 2.30

The following plated coins of barbarous style are clearly influenced by the dies of IV and V.

313. O. 210: Zeus to 1. on throne without back.

R. 206: Head to 1.; hair in band; style provincial rather than barbarous; copy of R. 162.

• London (BMC Pelop. 23). ↑ 2.279

314. O. 211: Similar.

R. 207: Barbarous head to 1.; hair in roll. A(?)

• London (BMC Pelop. 47). ↘ 2.39

End Notes

315. O. 212: Head of Zeus to 1.; hair in queue; prominent beard.

R. 208: Head of Hermes to r. in cap; hair in queue; coarse style. A[R]

• Paris 252 = Babelon, Traité 1226, pl. 38, 10. ↗ 0.39
• *(b) Berlin 512/1909 = Hirsch XXV, 1379. 0.44

316. O. 213: Similar

R. 209: Similar, but no ethnic visible.

• Berlin = Babelon, Traité, pl. 228, 2 = Imhoof-Blumer, NZ 1878, 160, 5; pl. 1, 24. ←0.37

317. O. 214: Head of Zeus to r.; short hair.

R. 210: Similar.

• New York (ANS). ↓ 0.43

318. O. 215: Similar, but to 1.; hair in roll.

R. 211: Similar, but cap more pointed.

• Williams. ← 0.396

319. O. 216: Similar.

R. 212: Similar.

• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer) = Imhoof-Blumer, NC 1895, pl. X, 6 = Babelon, Traité, pl. 228, 4. ↓ 0.50

320. O. 217: Similar.

R. 213: Similar.

• Berlin (ex Imhoof-Blumer) = Imhoof-Blumer, NZ 1878, 159, 4; pl. 1, 23 = Babelon, Traité, pl. 228, 3. ← 0.51

In order to facilitate reference it should be noted that the typical features of a section or mint are printed in italics in the précis; thus a goddess with her hair done in a bun is most likely to come from the Tegea mint and a type C Zeus is confined to Mantinea II. Where a feature is typical of, though not necessarily exclusive to a section or mint, reference to that section is indicated in the key.

Obverse

• Zeus A — Zeus seated to left, with sceptre in left hand, and right hand extended for eagle.
• Zeus B — Back view of Zeus seated to right, with sceptre in left hand, and right extended for eagle (Tegea III).
• Zeus C — Zeus seated to left, with thunderbolt in left hand, and sceptre in right (Mantinea II).
• Zeus D — Zeus seated to right with thunderbolt in right hand, and sceptre in left (Cleitor III, 3).
• Throne A — Throne with no backrest and no cross-stays (Period I when accompanied by archaic style; IV, 4–5 and V with developed style).
• Throne B — Throne with backrest usually ending in a swan's head top, but no cross-stays.
• Throne C — Throne with backrest usually ending in a swan's head and with cross-stays.
• Throne D — Throne with knobs at junction of legs and seat (IV, 4–5).

Reverse

• r — right.
• 1 — left.
• Q — Hair done in a queue.
• K — Hair done in a krobylos (Periods I and II).
• R — Hair done in a roll (Periods IV-V).
• bun — Hair done in a bun at the back of the head (Tegea II—III).
• saccos — Hair covered by a head-dress.
• hair beaded — A technique characteristic of Period I.
• laced — Hair held by a band passing several times around the head; this style is combined with the bun in the Tegea mint, but there the bun is the outstanding feature and the lacing is not noted; in Period IV the hair is laced without a bun or with an insignificant bun (Period IV, 1 and 4).
• (1), (2) — The figure indicates the number of times that the form is found within the section and is used only in the case of rarities.
• ARKA/DIKON — The ethnic may be found unabbreviated or sometimes abbreviated to the left of the oblique line. More than one oblique line would indicate the possibility of more than one abbreviation.

PERIOD I

In no other Period is there such a large percentage of coins weighing 3.0 and over.

PERIOD II

In Period II the Cleitor mint, which had struck the coins of Period I, maintained a similar weight pattern during section 1, but if the overall pattern of Period II is taken into account in the individual mints there is little difference between Cleitor and Tegea. Mantinea's average weight is the lightest. In all mints there is a marked reduction in section 2, the period of greater activity.

PERIOD III

This Period shows the same relation between the mints, with best value at Cleitor, then Tegea and Mantinea again showing a greater percentage of its coins than the other mints below the overall average. In Periods I and II the greatest number of coins fell in the 2.9 range, but in Period III these fell in the 2.8 range and there was less chance of getting a coin of 3.0 or over.

PERIOD IV

When Mantinea was the sole mint she seems to have continued with the same weight pattern that was seen in her mint in Period III, for there is a large percentage of low weight coins. One fact which does not come out in the table is that in section 5 there seems to have been an attempt to improve the weight standard.

obols

Mantinea struck too few obols in Periods II and III for tabulation. In this denomination Tegea maintained a better weight standard than Cleitor.

DIE-LINKAGE