The numismatic chronicle and journal of the Royal Numismatic Society

362 J. MAVKOGORDATO.
belonging to the archaic and transitional periods.
Altogether Miss Baldwin's catalogue provides a storehouse
compared with which the information collected
by Mionnet and Kofod Whitte, to whom I have alluded
as pioneers in our particular line of inquiry, presents
little more than an academic interest.
Reference to Miss Baldwin's work will accordingly
be found below wherever it seems worth while to
draw attention to the fresh evidence supplied by her,
and wherever it has become necessary for me to alter
my original views in consequence of the force of her
arguments. As a matter of fact, our conclusions with
regard to the period now under review are in agreement
on all major points, but it may have been noticed
that we differ in one or two important particulars
connected with the archaic period. As the present
seems a fitting occasion on which to refer to these
I propose to do so now as briefly as possible.
Miss Baldwin contends, very justifiably from her
point of view, that the earliest electrum staters that
we possess should not be dated earlier than 550 B.C.
I prefer to follow the authorities who think that no
electrum coins were struck by the Greek states during
their subjection to Persia. In consequence of this,
and of my bias in favour of the precocity of Ionic
art, it will be found that my types Nos. 3 and 5-7 are
dated earlier than Miss Baldwin's more independent
standpoint allows by about fifty years on the average.
In arranging these issues I placed type No. 5 before
No. 6 chiefly on the strength of what I took to be its more
primitive incuse square.
Miss Baldwin reverses this
order, and her arguments, based on the style of the
coins (Nos. 3-6 of her PL i), whatever may
be the