A large number of types still remain which it is difficult to assign to any special god, hero, or myth, some of them possibly connected with Oriental cults. Among these are several heads, male and female, as Nos. 78, 79, 81 to 84; winged human figures, Nos. 58, 59, 61, and a winged lion-headed man, No. 57, possibly Fear (Þóßos). There are also several human figures, carrying the tunny, Nos. 86, 87, 88, 89; on the stater and hecta, No. 88, holding also a knife; carrying a helmet on No. 90, and holding a shield, Nos. 91, 92. Then again there are harpies, sphinxes, bulls, swine, and dogs, which it would be hazardous to allot, and which I prefer to leave to the ingenious speculation of persons more imaginative than myself.

The question arises with regard to the subjects on the staters which can be appropriated to gods or myths, whether they are derived from gods worshipped at Cyzicus and to local myths, or from gods and myths belonging more especially to other places. It is impossible to decide this question with any degree of certainty. But there can be no doubt whatever that Cyzicus adopted subjects belonging to cults foreign to her and placed them on her coinage. She appears to have followed this practice much more freely than did any other state; indeed, it is one almost peculiar to herself. For the reason of this we must probably look to the wide-spread commercial intercourse her citizens had with places where gods and cults prevailed, strange to herself, and in some cases strange even to Hellas itself. It may well have happened that persons of importance in the state, and connected, as magistrates, with the coinage, had intimate relations of one kind or another with foreign and even far-distant places. Such persons may have sought to distinguish that connection by placing upon the coinage of their own

city, types selected from coins of the states with which they were holding intercourse; or the state itself of Cyzicus may have wished to ingratiate itself or conciliate by such a process other states with which it was connected by trade or treaty. This appears to be illustrated by the subjects on some of the staters which have a direct reference to Athens, a state with which Cyzicus held the most intimate relations, even to the extent of being for many years, during the period of the electrum issue, under her hegemony. But Cyzicus carried the practice of placing on her coinage subjects connected with other states and their religions still farther. Many of the staters are direct copies of the coins of other places, the only difference between the two types being the introduction of the tunny upon the Cyzicenes. An examination of the plates will at once show the coins just referred to, but it may be useful to place them specifically before the reader in order that they may be the more readily distinguished.

The two staters, Nos. 9, 10, are identical in all essential points with well-known and common didrachms of Tarentum. Apollo holding a bow and watching the effect of the arrow he has just discharged, No. 18, occurs on a hemi-obol of Sicyon. Perhaps no one of the heads of Pallas can be regarded as a direct copy of her head on the money of Athens, but the head of Pan, No. 40, is so like that on the coins of Panticapæum, that the one must almost certainly have been taken from the other. The forepart of the human-headed bull, No. 51, might have come from the mint at Gela, but for the metal of which it is com

The head of Odysseus, No.

posed and the tunny upon it. 70, is an exact counterpart of that on a gold coin of Lampsacus, but it is difficult to say which is the prototype. The beautiful female head, No. 85, is a close copy

of one on a tetradrachm of Syracuse. The lioness devouring, No. 109, finds a counterpart in an archaic coin, of which many have been found in Italy and near Marseilles, but which is probably from the mint of Phocæa. The lion's scalp, No. 113, though differently treated, is similar to the ordinary type of Samos. The two bulls, Nos. 121 and 122, the one standing, the other butting, are so like to the same animal on the coins of Poseidonia and Thurium, that they cannot be regarded in any other light than as copies, and the same may be said of Pegasus, No. 127, in relation to Corinth. The sow, No. 136, is identical with one on an early electrum stater of the Asiatic standard of uncertain attribution, and the forepart of a winged boar, No. 137, is very like that on the coins of Clazomenæ. The Chimæra, No. 120, bears a strong resemblance to the same monster on an early electrum coin of the Phocaic standard, attributed by Mr. Head to Zeleia. The griffin, No. 144, must have been executed by an artist who had before him, in his mind's eye at least, the kindred creatures of Teos or Abdera, and the eagle, No. 151, is the same bird as that of Elis, while that on No. 153, is essentially one with the eagle on an electrum coin of the Asiatic standard, attributed to Abydos. Other coins might, perhaps, be added to this list, but those above referred to are the most evident copies.

The varied character and the large number of types on the electrum coinage of Cyzicus may, perhaps, be accounted for by the long period during which these coins were issued, and, no doubt, with some modifications, this was one cause of the diversity of types. Where the practice of placing a mark on the coin, to designate the magistrate under whose authority the coin was issued,

was in use, and when that practice had prevailed over a long period of time, it follows as a necessary consequence that the coins should present a large number of these distinguishing marks.

As a rule these marks were subordinate to the symbols forming the badge of the state, which usually occupied the most prominent position on the coin. At Cyzicus, however, a quite different custom prevailed; the magisterial device became there the principal subject on the coin, the badge of the state occupying a secondary position. In relation to the annual issue of coin-types at Cyzicus, M. Six has argued, 28 and with much force, that each type denotes the coin-issue for one year, under the authority and containing the distinctive mark of the magistrate in authority for that year. Mr. Head dissents from this opinion, and I think on just grounds. The art style of the coins is the best, indeed, almost the sole evidence we possess in regard to their date, for we have scarcely any help from history, and, in the absence of inscriptions, we have no aid from letter-forms. Judging, then, by their style, if we accept M. Six's theory we should, in my opinion, be compelled to compress far too large a number of different coins into a given period than would be possible if only a single type had been issued in each year. We may agree, I think, with Mr. Head that it is "more probable that several, perhaps numerous, types were in use at one and the same time." As the superabundance of coins of different types during a given period is one objection to M. Six's view, so the paucity of coins during other periods may also be urged against it. This, however, is a much less valid objection than the first, because we cannot tell how many types

28 Num. Chron. N.S., vol. xvii. p. 171.

which are now entirely lost to us may have been issued from the mint of Cyzicus.

When we come to the consideration of the time during which the electrum coinage of Cyzicus was in course of issue, we are left without any direct evidence from historical relation, and are, therefore, obliged in the main to judge from the coins themselves, their fabric and their art. At first sight they might appear, on account of their thick and lumpy appearance and the nature of the reverse, to be much earlier than they are. These features are, however, merely survivals, and, like the archaic head of Pallas on the later coins of Athens, were probably retained by Cyzicus on account of trade requirements. The incuse on the reverse was kept up at Cyzicus long after its use had ceased in all other places except at Phocæa, where it is equally found on the hecta of that state. That side of the coin must, therefore, be disregarded in the consideration of date, and the obverse with its typesubject must alone be our guide.

The stater, No. 1, already referred to, separates itself from all the other electrum coins of Cyzicus, not only by the difference of its reverse, but by the time of its issue. It is certainly much earlier than any of the electrum coins of what may be designated as the second series, and may be attributed to the first part of the sixth century B.C., if it is not as early as B.C. 600. It stands quite alone as the sole representative of the earliest coinage of the state. For a period of almost a century Cyzicus does not seem to have had any currency. The Lydian gold coinage during that time probably supplied the commercial requirements of the Greek states of Asia Minor. Cyzicus had not then attained the wealth and importance of which she afterwards became possessed.