'Numismatics' more

CHAPTER 60 NUMISMATICS ANDREW MEADOWS The study of coins, medals ... esp. from an archaeological or historical perspective. Also: the collection of these as artefacts. (OED, s.v. Numismatics) 60.1. The Origins of Greek Numismatics The date of the beginning of Greek numismatic study is as difficult to pin down as that of coinage itself, and depends in part upon the definition one adopts of the discipline. Like many modern academic disciplines, numismatics can trace its origins back to the Italian Renaissance. Inevitably, this means that much of the focus of early collecting and study of coins was on Rome, but Greek coinage was dragged along on Italian coat-tails, and the methods used, in the early stages, were relatively similar. The poet and humanist Petrarch (1304-74) is often credited with the first critical numismatic studies (Babelon 2004: 61; Haskell 1993: 13). The leap in imagination that Petrarch made was to compare the written sources for the ancient world with the physical evidence of the coinage. That he could do so was, of course, a sign that basic numismatic work was already under way, in the form of the collecting of ancient coins. In fact, Petrarch's observations on numismatic material had little impact on the development of the discipline. But the collecting of coins in which Petrarch and a number of his wealthy and titled acquaintances partook numismatics 735 would fundamentally shape the pursuit of numismatic study for the following six centuries. During the fifteenth century there was an explosion of collecting, with many members of the royal houses and other nobility becoming fascinated by ancient coins. Jean, due de Berry (1340-1416), brother of the French king, Leonello D'Este of Ferrara (1407-50), Pope Paul II (1417-71), King Alfonso of Aragon (1442-58), and the famous traveller and scholar Cyriac of Ancona (C.1391-C.1455), among many others, all formed collections of coins during this period. Much of this collecting was spurred, no doubt, by nothing more than the need on the part of an increas- ingly civilized aristocracy to display its credentials. But certain collections, perhaps like that of Petrarch, do seem to have been formed with particular aims in mind, or at least to have led their owners along new intellectual paths of enquiry. The French antiquarian Guillaume Bude (1467-1540) apparently used his collection of Roman coins as the basis for his metrological study De Asse et Partibus Eius of 1514. On the whole, however, the earliest published efforts at bringing coinage to a broader audience were concerned less with the substance of coinage and more with its designs. Of foremost interest were the portraits that could be retrieved or imagined on ancient coins. First to bring this repertoire to a broad audience was the Ital- ian Andrea Fulvio (c.1470-1543) who published at Rome his Illustrium Imagines (Fulvio 1517)—a compendium of images of the Roman emperors and illustrious individuals, including Alexander the Great and Cleopatra. A generation later, in 1553, Guillaume Rouille would produce his similarly conceived and ambitiously titled Promptuaire des medailles des plus renommees personnes qui ont este depuis le commencement du monde. The work was a huge success, and was translated imme- diately into Latin, Spanish, and Italian. As far as the Greek world was concerned it was largely a fantasy. Numerous 'portraits' are identified or fabricated on the basis of misunderstood coins (Cunnally 1999: 101): Alexander the Great is represented by the head of Athena that appears on his gold coinage (Rouille 1553: 131). This fixation on the portrait is understandable in the context not only of the cabinets of curiosities in which coins were being kept across the continent, but also of the burgeoning interest in portraiture, for selfish reasons, on the part of the men who collected them. It is a fascination that still drives modern interest in ancient coins (e.g. Davis and Kraay 1973). But at the same time scholars were emerging who were alive to the possibili- ties that the other side of the coin offered too. Coins could provide a window into the ancient world and its inhabitants as valuable as that offered by texts and inscriptions. At the forefront of this new, more serious approach to the mater- ial were the Roman Fulvio Orsini (1529-1600), Antonio Agustin (1519-86), ulti- mately archbishop of Tarragona, the Venetian Sebastiano Erizzo (1525-85), and the Parmigiano Enea Vico (1523-67). Between these last two an argument broke out that gives some flavour of the primitive state of numismatic study in the 736 andrew meadows latter part of the sixteenth century. The matter at issue was quite simply the function of the objects that were routinely being described by the word 'medal' and its continental cognates. For Erizzo they were commemorative medals, mark- ing particular achievements. As such, the search for specific circumstances of issue in known political events was a legitimate activity. For Vico these medals were in fact coins, the currency of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Vico, we might say, eventually won the argument, yet the legacy of the commemorative interpretation has never fully gone away. The symbolic interpretation of ancient coinage continues to vie with approaches that emphasize its function (see e.g. Meadows 2001), and much of the use made of numismatic evidence by histori- ans of the Greek world focuses on the depictions found on the coins (see e.g. Howgego, Heuchert, and Burnett 2005). That views such as those of Erizzo could still be held is testament above all to the sketchy knowledge of the scope of ancient coinage in the sixteenth cen- tury. This was particularly true in the area of Greek coinage, which was not so well endowed with portraiture, less readily available to the Renaissance schol- ars of the West, and thus far more poorly understood than the Roman. A full overview of the extent and nature of Greek coinage would have made it clear that the medallic interpretation could not explain all instances. But the creation of an overview was still two centuries in the future. In the meantime, although the collection of coins remained the pastime of kings, princes, and the nobil- ity, the locus of investigation into the nature of these ancient objects would begin to move into a more learned class. Wolfgang Lazius (1514-65), a doctor, was engaged to catalogue the imperial collection in Vienna. Louis Savot, the doctor of Louis XIII of France, produced in 1627 a Discours sur les medailles antiques. It was not long before physicians assumed a dominant role, and although most invalids of the period would have received far sounder advice from their doctors about their coins than about their digestions, it is tempting to speculate whether the medical training of so many numismatists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries may not have been at least partly responsible for the high standard of technical competence attained by this branch of scholarship. (Haskell 1993: 20) 60.2. The Emergence of a Discipline The domination of Rome in the interests of collectors and scholars would continue well into the eighteenth century. However, as the East continued to open up to western travellers, the seventeenth century saw continued collecting of material numismatics 737 from the Greek world, particularly by the royal collections in Paris and Vienna. It is thus no coincidence that the first major steps were taken towards the creation of a distinct discipline of Greek numismatics in these two cabinets. The two key figures in this development were Joseph Pellerin (1684-1782) and Joseph Eckhel (1737-98). Pellerin was a serious collector of Greek coins, and assembled a collection of some 35,000 specimens, which was bought by the French king Louis XV. In a series of volumes Pellerin published a description of these coins. The novelty of Pellerins undertaking lay in the organization he gave to his catalogues, dividing the material into coins of the kings in his first volume (Pellerin 1762) and of peoples and cities in the second (Pellerin 1763). Within the latter volume he abandoned the previous practice of simply listing the coins alphabetically by mint, and introduced instead a geographical arrangement adopted from Strabo, beginning with Europe, moving on to Asia, and finishing with Africa. In this way the scope of the field of Greek numismatics as well as the arrangement for describing it was established in the form in which the discipline is still broadly conceived. Greek numismatics still encompasses the coinage of the entire ancient world, excluding only Rome and northern ('Celtic') Europe. Yet, as the titles of Pellerins works (Receuil de medailles ... qui n'ont point encore etc publiees on qui sont peu connues) suggest, they were still a long way from being the overviews of the field that were desperately needed. A constant preoccupation with the writings of collectors before and after Pellerin were the rarities and coins difficult of attribution. The common issues, and those less attractive to collectors, tended to be ignored. It took a professional curator to break that mould. Joseph Eckhel had been appointed Keeper of the imperial coin cabinet in Vienna in 1774. In 1792 he published the first volume of what would become a complete survey of ancient numismatics. The Greek section (parts I-IV) of his great Doctrina Numorum Veterum took up the geographical arrangement pioneered by Pellerin and added a depth of treatment that marks this as a watershed in the history of Hellenic studies. The attempt to provide surveys of the material—more or less complete—became an important goal of Greek numismatics for the next century. In Italy, Domenico Sestini (1750-1832), who had travelled in the Ottoman Empire and collected coins there, brought a traveller's experience to bear on the subject in his survey of 1797. Through his experience in purchasing coins in the East, Sestini was among the first to be able to bring the evidence of provenance to bear on the attribution of Greek coins to their places of production. In this sense, Sestini stands at the head of a tradition that would culminate in the discussions of coinage two centuries later by Louis Robert (1904-85). At the same time, the remarkable career of Theodore Edme Mionnet (1770-1842) was beginning in the post-revolution French national cabinet. From modest beginnings as a guide to collectors, Mionnet's Description de tnedailles antiques grew to a thirteen-volume reference work describing some 52,000 coins. Post-revolutionary not just in date, the enterprise had begun as a handlist to accompany sulphur casts of coins in the former royal collection, which Mionnet was now selling to the public. Physical 738 andrew meadows representations of coins that had previously been the province of the aristocracy were thereby available to a broader group of collectors. Both Ekhel and Mionnet had been associated with major state collections and, as such, stand at the beginning of the move towards the creation and use of such collections to provide reference tools to an academic community. The sec- ond half of the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries saw the development of national collections elsewhere in Europe. The British Museum was founded in 1753, and soon began the acquisition of a coin cabinet. In Berlin, the forma- tion of a national collection to rival those of other states was a self-conscious movement of the following century. The collection grew by concerted acquisition, and increased tenfold in the generation from 1840 to 1875 to rival the collections in London and Paris. Such huge collections gave rise to ambitious publication programmes. In London the great British Museum Catalogue was begun in 1873, while in 1887 Barclay Head (1844-1914), curator of Greek coins at the Museum, published the first edition of his Historia Numorum—the first, and to date only, attempt in any language to provide a survey of every ancient mint and authority in a single volume. In the Berlin cabinet the focus was on the corpus of Greek coinage: an attempt to describe all known types. Here, the period 1878 to 1894 saw the publication by J. Friedlaender, A. von Sallet, and H. Dressel of the first, and only, three volumes of the Beschreibutig der antiken Miinzcn, devoted to areas of Thrace, Macedonia, and Italy. But the project was overtaken by a bolder scheme proposed by Theodor Mommsen (1817-1903). At his behest, the Berlin Academy instigated a new corpus project which, under the general editorship of the Swiss F. Imhoof-Blumer (1838-1920), would produce five volumes, again beginning in northern Greece (Pick et al. 1898-1912 and von Fritze 1913), before plunging into an identity crisis under pressure from a radical new departure in the field of Greek numismatics (the die-study: see below). The French cabinet too would have its bold attempt to summarize the field in the form of the Traite des mommies grecques et romaines, conceived and largely written by E. Babelon (Babelon 1901-33). Ambi- tious, learned, and idiosyncratic, this grand work remains, like the Berlin corpus, unfinished. Meanwhile, a new watershed in the study of Greek coins had been marked in 1874 by the publication by Barclay Head of his conspectus of the coinage of Syracuse. Two features in particular stand out. The first is Head's explicit insistence on the need to examine the coinage of a city as a whole, by comparing issues in different metals (Head 1874:1-2): It appears to me that a great drawback to the usefulness of many catalogues is the method which has been generally adopted of keeping the metals apart; for, when gold, silver, and copper arc separately described, we lose sight of the minute links, such as monograms, symbols, etc., whereby I hope to he able to connect the issues in the different metals, and thus to fix the date of many coins which, for want of comparison with other pieces the date numismatics 739 of which is ascertained, have usually been massed together under the general heading of 'Autonomous, of Syracuse'. Head thus abandoned the categorization by metal that had dominated the lists produced by collectors, in the quest to provide more accurate dates for the material at hand. This is an important point to stress, since Head is often, rightly, identified as a master exponent of the technique of dating by artistic style. In his process of minutely comparing details of the control marks (apparently applied by the ancient mints' administrators) on the coins, Head also moved beyond the simple concentration on the style of the main design of the coin to consider the mechan- ics behind its production. His close examination of the coins would henceforth be helped by the second innovation introduced in this article: the illustration of coins by photographic reproduction. The fourteen plates that accompanied his text provided the reader with the opportunity for the first time to examine the objects themselves, rather than line drawings, and thus to have access to the material directly, rather than through the interpretation of an intermediary artist. 60.3. Die-Study The advantage of seeing a photographic reproduction rather than a drawing is obvi- ous, and not confined to the study of coinage. But one crucial breakthrough, unique to the study of numismatic material, was now facilitated. Five years earlier, the English scholar E. H. Bunbury (1811-95) had published an observation that opened up a new avenue of approach. Comparing two coins of Lysimachus in his own collection, he noticed that while the reverse designs had different control marks and had thus been previously assigned to different mints in Thrace and Caria, the specimens with these controls in his collection had been struck from the same obverse die (Bunbury 1869: 5-6). He concluded that the coins must have been struck somewhat closer together geographically, as well as temporally. The great Imhoof- Blumer shortly afterwards made a similar observation in his study of the coinage of Acarnania, deducing this time that a shared obverse die indicated identical places of minting (Imhoof-Blumer 1878:3). A third important tool in the dating and locating of the production of ancient coinage, alongside style and control symbols, had been mastered. The reference to the dies used to produce ancient coins offered a further oppor- tunity. Ancient coins were produced by the process known as striking. That is to say: a blank piece of metal, or flan, was placed on a lower die (the obverse die), perhaps set in an anvil, while a second die (the reverse die), on the end of a punch, was placed on top and struck with a hammer. Since the dies themselves were hand-engraved, 740 andrew meadows no two were ever completely identical. Thus it was possible to determine, as Bun- bury and Imhoof-Blumer had shown, whether coins had been struck from the same die by comparing coins, or faithful reproductions of them, in close detail. Another feature of the hand-production of ancient coins allowed a further step to be taken. Obverse dies had a longer working life than reverse dies, probably as result of their protected position within an anvil. This being the case, it was possible to exploit this differential by examining which obverse dies were used in combination with which reverse dies, and thereby to establish a sequence of production at the mint. Figure 60.1 schematizes a sequence wherein an obverse die (A) survived in use with three reverse dies (a, b, c). When it broke, the third reverse die (c) was used with a second obverse die (B), which in turn survived it and went to be used with a fourth reverse die (d) before breaking, and so on. In theory, it was now possible to reconstruct the sequence of the production of coinage at a mint by scientific method, not simply on the basis of stylistic analysis. The first attempt to present the output of an individual mint in terms of a categorization of the dies used came in 1906 with the publication by K. Regling (1876-1935) of his monograph on the South Italian mint of Terina (Regling 1906). A constraint in the application of this method is immediately apparent, however. In the absence of sufficient surviving specimens of a particular coinage, the full range of dies used cannot be observed, and unbroken ideal sequences such as that illus- trated in figure 60.1 cannot be reconstructed. Regling, in fact, was unable to identify many die-links, but he had shown the way, and others duly followed. Four years later another German, P. Lederer (1872-1944) produced a die-study of Segesta, in 1925 W. Schwabacher (1897-1972) tackled Selinus, and two years later the American S. P. Noe (1885-1969) began his publication of the die-study of Metapontum. The medium reached what is often regarded as its apogee in the publication in 1929 by E. Boehringer (1897-1971) of his study of fifth-century bce Syracuse. It was not simply the quality of the scholarship and the fine production standards that distinguished this work, but also the fact that Boehringer had substantial quantities of material in terms of surviving coins with which to work. Fig. 60.1. Production sequence using obverse and reverse dies. numismatics 741 The development of the die-study in the early years of the twentieth century would have two important effects on the discipline of Greek numismatics as a whole. To begin with, classification by die presented a new challenge to the authors of the grand corpora and catalogues of Greek numismatic material begun at the end of the nineteenth century. A heated debate ensued in Germany as to the feasibility of recording within the scope of the Berlin corpus not just the types of all known coins, but the dies also. To most it seemed an unpractically large undertaking. Yet the desirability of revealing the full history of a mint through the die-study was widely recognized. The way forward was clearly to conduct such studies on a smaller scale, yet this raised an important question about the future of corpus projects. This would be taken up in the de facto successor to the Berlin corpus, Griechisches Miinzwerk, which from 1956 undertook to publish a systematic series of die-studies of mints as a continuation of the existing volumes of the corpus. It was, by the 1930s, clear that the building-blocks for the creation of an overview of Greek coinage were to be die-studies, not individual specimens, or even the descriptions of rich collections of specimens. In 1927 the Catalogue of the British Museum collection of Greek coins ground to a halt, with twenty-nine volumes published and only Spain, Carthage, and North Africa left to go. E. S. G. Robin- son (1887-1976), the author of the last volume, turned his attention instead to the task of publishing collections not with a view to creating monumental cat- alogues, but rather with the aim of providing the basic information about indi- vidual specimens, including photographic images, as quickly as possible to those who needed them for their die-studies. As Robinson himself would put it in his preface: The study of ancient, and particularly Greek, coins is now entering upon a new phase and must employ new methods. Most extant coins of outstanding importance, historically or otherwise, have been adequately published and discussed; and the general outlines have been laid down once for all. It remains to fill in the detail with the greatest richness possible. This can only be done through intensive work upon special periods and issues, in which large numbers of similar coins, common as well as scarce, are studied for minor varieties, and rigid chronological sequences are established on the evidence of die-identities. (Robinson 1931) The catalogue raisonee was now dead. The professional presentation of numismatic material in collections now focused on the position of individual coins within the series of production of ancient authorities. The Sylloge Nummorutn Graecorum (SNG) series founded by Robinson under the auspices of the British Academy began the task of cataloguing, in the simplest possible format, the major public and private collections within the United Kingdom. Prior to World War II, the United Kingdom remained the only country to adopt such an approach, but dur- ing the 1940s the royal collection of Denmark began the process of publishing 742 andrew meadows Sylloges of its collection. Completed eventually in 1979 (a supplement appeared in 2002), the Copenhagen collection remains the only one to have been pub- lished thus in its entirety. Nonetheless, numerous other countries have set up SNG projects, formally or informally. To date, volumes have been produced devoted to collections in Germany, Italy, the United States, France, Sweden, Hungary, Aus- tria, Greece, Switzerland, Finland, Spain, Israel, Poland, Slovenia, and Turkey. For the twenty-first century the future of this project is clearly digital. The UK SNG project is again leading the way, with the first web database of published col- lections (www.sylloge-nummorum-graecorum.org), now containing some 25,000 records. The progress of the Sylloge project has been too slow, and too few of the major national collections have been included (digitally or in print) for it to have had the revolutionary effect for which Robinson hoped. Nonetheless, the die-study has continued to be the focus for much numismatic research. This has had the advan- tage of clarifying the chronology, both relative and absolute, of many coinages. It also holds out the prospect of the absolute and relative quantification of the monetary production of many ancient city-states, since the process of producing a die-study can reveal the total number of dies (or a statistical approximation thereof) produced by a city's mint in a given period. By comparing the numbers of dies used per annum in different cities, relative rates of production can be estimated. Two use- ful surveys summarizing the results of existing die-studies have been produced by F. de Callatay (1997 and 2003). By multiplying the numbers of dies used by a figure for the average number of coins produced per dies, it might also be possible to define mint output in absolute quantities of coin. However, there has been dis- agreement among numismatists about both the appropriate 'average' figure to use, and indeed the possibility of estimating an average (see De Callatay 1995). Perhaps as a result of this uncertainty, much of what can be deduced about the quantity of coinage produced at different places and different times in the Greek world has yet to be fully assimilated into mainstream historical discourse. 60.4. Hoards The development of the mint- and die-study gave impetus to the growth of another branch of Greek numismatics: the study of hoards. Hoards—groups of coins buried or deposited together in antiquity—had been known and published since the eight- eenth century (Kinns 1990), but played little part in the development of the disci- pline before the late nineteenth century. They offer two possibilities to the modern scholar. When enough hoard evidence can be gathered, then there is the possibility numismatics 743 of reconstructing ancient patterns of coin circulation. Sadly, the lack, even now, of an adequate body of material, and the unevenness of distribution of what is known, has prevented this form of analysis from being pursued as successfully as it has in Roman numismatics, where the hoard evidence is better suited to the task. The principal use of coin hoards to Greek numismatists has been in the establishment of chronologies for coinages. Coin hoards can provide a snapshot of the coins in circulation at the moment of their deposit, and thus allow the chronologies of the different mints included within any hoard to be compared against one another. Where an absolute date of deposit for a hoard can be established by independent means, whether by archaeological or historical context, or through the inclusion of coins of known date, then absolute dates can be assigned to the coinages included. When a mint- or die-study exists for those coinages and provides a relative chronol- ogy, then the occurrence of coins in a hoard of known date enables fixed dates to be inserted within that relative chronology. It was in America that work began to systematize the use of hoard evidence. Fol- lowing a methodological essay published in 1920, S. P. Noe produced the first survey of known Greek coin hoards in 1925, with an enlarged second edition appearing in 1937. This was further superseded by the appearance of the Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards (Thompson, Morkholm, and Kraay 1973), now further supplemented by the periodical Coin Hoards, founded by Martin Price (i939~95) in 1975- It is a sad fact, however, that through a mixture of unenlightened nationalist antiquities laws and individual greed, many Greek hoards now pass into commerce without being adequately recorded. 60.5. The Future The combination, since the beginning of the twentieth century, of wider publication of specimens, detailed mint- and die-studies, and the rigorous application of hoard and archaeological evidence, has resulted in a far clearer picture of the origins and development of Greek coinage from its beginnings in the late seventh or early sixth century bce through to its demise in the reign of Tacitus (275-6 ce). A number of surveys of the history of coinage of these periods now exist to guide the non-expert. While minor changes will doubtless be required by the appearance of new die- studies and new hoards, surveys such as those of Kraay (1976), Morkholm (1991), Crawford (1985), Carradice and Price (1988), and Butcher (1988) provide a summary of the results of two generations and more of solid, scientific advance unlikely now to be revised in their broad historical lines. There also now exist excellent surveys of the discipline's older and more recent history in the form of Babelon 744 andrew meadows (2004), Morkholm (1980a and b, and 1984) and the superb multi-authored Surveys of Numismatic Research, published by the International Numismatic Commission. Work on the detail remains a priority: many mints still do not have adequate studies devoted to them. Type-corpora and surveys are also badly needed, to provide overviews of Greek coinage in its entirety. The Berlin corpus was never finished, and the volumes that were published are now a century old. Similarly dated is the second edition of Head's remarkable Historia Numorum. One volume of a third edition has now been published (Rutter et al. 2001), but much more work remains to be done. Work has also begun on the establishment of a type corpus of the Greek coinage of the imperial period. Roman Provincial Coinage, an ambitious project to cover the entire phenomenon, now has three printed volumes (i-ii: Burnett, Amandry, and Ripolles 1992-5; vii: Spoerri Butcher 2006), and more are in preparation. Most significantly, the fourth volume has been published online (http://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/). The future of endeavours such as this is undoubtedly digital. References Babelon, E. 1901-33. Traite des monnaies grecques et romaincs. 4 vols. Paris. -2004. Ancient Numismatics and its History: Including a Critical Review of the Literature. Trans. E. Saville. London. Boehringer, E. 1929. Die Munzen von Syrakus. Berlin. Bud£, G. 1514. De Asse et Partibus Eius. Paris. Bunbury, E. H. 1869. 'On Some Unpublished Coins of Lysimachus.' Numismatic Chronicle, 9:1-18. Burnett, A. M., Amandry, M., and Ripolles, P. R. 1992-5. Roman Provincial Coinage, vol. 1: From the Death of Caesar to the Death ofVitellius (44 BC-AD 69); vol. 2: From Vespasian to Domitian (AD 69-96). London. Butcher, K. 1988. Roman Provincial Coins: An Introduction to the 'Greek Imperials'. London. De Cai.latay, E1995. 'Calculating Ancient Coin Production: Seeking a Balance.' Numismatic Chronicle, 155: 289-311. -1997. Recueil quantitatif des emissions monetaires hellenistiques. Wetteren. -2003. Recueil quantitatif des emissions monetaires archai'ques et classiques. Wetteren. Carradice, L A. and Price, M. J. 1988. Coinage in the Greek World. London. Crawford, M. H. 1985. Coinage and Money Under the Roman Republic: Italy and the Mediterranean Economy. London. Cunnally, j. 1999. Images of the Illustrious: The Numismatic Presence in the Renaissance. Princeton. Davis, N. M. and Kraay, C. M. 1973. The Hellenistic Kingdoms: Portrait Coins and History. London. Eckhel, J. H. 1792-8. Doctrina Numorum Veterum. Vols. 1-4 (covering Greek coinage). Leipzig. numismatics 745 Friedi.af.nder, J., von Sai.i.et, A., and Dressel, H. 1878-94. Beschreibung der antiken Munzen. 3 vols. Berlin. Fulvio, A. 1517. Illustrium Imagines. Rome. Haskell, E 1993. History and its Images: Art and the Interpretation of the Past. New Haven. Head, B. V. 1874. 'On the Chronological Sequence of the Coins of Syracuse." Numismatic Chronicle, 14:1-80. -1887. Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek Numismatics. Oxford. (Enlarged edition, Oxford, 1911.) Howgego, C. J., Heuchert, V., and Burnett, A. M. eds. 2005. Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces. Oxford. Imhoof-Blumer, F. 1878. 'Die Munzen Akarnaniens.' Numismatische Zeitschrift, 10: 3-180. Kinns, P. 1990. 'Two Eighteenth-Century Studies of Greek Coin Hoards: Bayer and Pellerin.' In Medals and Coins from Bude to Mommsen. 101-14. M. H. Crawford, C. R. Ligota, and J. B. Trapp eds. London. Kraay, C. M. 1976. Archaic and Classical Greek Coins. London. Ledere, P. 1910. Die Tetradrachmenpragung von Segesta. Munich. Meadows, A. R. 2001. 'Money, Freedom and Empire in the Hellenistic World.' In Money and its Uses in the Ancient Greek World. 53-63. A. R. Meadows and K. Shipton eds. Oxford. Mionnet, T. E. 1806-37. Description de medailles antiques, grecques et romaines. 15 vols. With two additional volumes of plates. Paris. Morkholm, O. 1980a. 'A History of the Study of Greek Numismatics. I: c. 1760-1835. The Foundations.' Nordisk Numismatisk Arsskrift (1979-80), 5-14. -1980/). 'A History of the Study of Greek Numismatics. II. c. 1835-1870. The Period of Consolidation.' Nordisk Numismatisk Arsskrift (1979-80), 15-21. -1984. A History of the Study of Greek Numismatics. III. c. 1870-1940. The Scientific Organization.' Nordisk Numismatisk Arsskrift (1982), 7-26. -1991. Early Hellenistic Coinage: From the Accession of Alexander to the Peace of Apamea (336-188 B.C.). Cambridge. Noe, S. P. 1920. Coin Hoards. (Numismatic Notes and Monographs, 1.) New York. -1925. A Bibliography of Greek Coin Hoards. (Numismatic Notes at id Monographs, 25.) New York. (2nd edn. - Numismatic Notes and Monographs, 78. New York, 1937.) -1927-31. The Coinage of Metapontum. (Numismatic Notes and Monographs, 32 and 47.) New York. Pellerin, j. 1762. Receuil de medailles de wis, qui n'ont point encore ete publiies ou qui sont peu connues. Paris. -1763. Receuil de medailles de peuples et de villes, qui n'ont point encore ete publiies ou qui sont peu connues. Paris. Pick, B., Gaebler, H., Munzer, R, Regling, K., and Strack, M. L. 1898-1912. Die antiken Munzen Nord-Griechenlands. 3 vols, in 4. Berlin. Regling, K. 1906. Terina. Berlin. Robinson, E. S. G. 1931. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum (Great Britain), vol. Li: The Collec- tion ofCapt. E. G. Spencer-Churchill, M.C, ofNorthwickPark; The Salting Collection in the Victoria and Albert Museum. London. Rouille, G. 1553. Promptuaire des medailles des plus renommees personnes qui out este depuis le commencement du monde. Lyons. Rutter, N. K. et al. eds. 2001. Historia Numorum: Italy. London. Savot, L. 1627. Discours surles medailles antiques. Paris. 746 andrew meadows Schwabacher, W. 1925. 'Die Tetradrachmenpragung von Selinunt.' Mitteilungen der Bay- erischen Numismatischen Gescllschaft, 43:1-89. Sestini, D. 1797. Classes generates geographicae mimismaticae; sen, Monetae urbium, populo- rum et regum. Leipzig. Spoerri Butcher, M. 2006. Roman Provincial Coinage, vol. 7: Gordian I-Gordian III (238-244 AD), Province of Asia. London. Thompson, M., Morkholm, 0., and Kraay, C. M. eds. 1973. An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards. New York. von Fritze, H. 1913. Die antiken Miinzen Mysiens. L^nter Leitung von F. Imhoof-Blumer. Berlin.