The numismatic chronicle and journal of the Royal Numismatic Society

CHKONOLOGY OP THE COINS OF CHIOS. 389
in weight of all the silver coins of this and the following
periods, it will be seen that this difference is in keeping
with the result shown by comparing the two leading
groups of'tetradrachms. It is true that my type No. 33
is only represented by two specimens, but their average
weight is fully maintained by Miss Baldwin's two
additional specimens (No. 57, p. 25, of her paper, the
first of these coins being a quite unusually heavy one).
It is very difficult even to guess at the probable order
of succession of the issues under discussion from a
consideration of style alone, every test that is applied
leading to a different and contradictory result. As to
their proper place in the series, I have been content
to be guided by the sequence usually observed among
Greek coins subject to the exceptions demanded by
and 45. It
the anepigraphic types Nos. 39, 39 a , 40,
will be agreed, I think, that Nos. 39-40 are later types
than No. 38, and that No. 45 is later than any of them.
There is a good deal to be said in favour of grouping
these drachms and hemidrachms with the tetradrachms
of class a, detailed below. One obvious advantage
arising therefrom would be the closer association that
such an arrangement would bring about between them
and the earlier class of drachms with names in full,
type No. 50. In fact, the evidently near relationship
of these two groups is perhaps the best argument for
assigning a later date to types Nos. 39-45 than that
suggested by their reverses.
It will be seen that Miss Baldwin unhesitatingly
pronounces in favour of a fourth-century origin for
these types (see pp. 47-8 and PI. v. 11-31 of her paper),
and she may be right, but I am leaving my arrangement
unaltered since I have already described it as