The numismatic chronicle and journal of the Royal ... - IndianCoins.org

PRIMITIAE HERACLIENSES. 187connexion between K and A is insisted upon, and statersof Heraclea and Metapontum are once more adduced topoint the probable identityof A with APIZTOZENOZ.But it seems that when the touchstone of theHeraclean coins is applied, the whole argument isshown to be worthless. On p. 72, note 91, B. M. Cat,Heraclea 28, 29 are quoted. Though used simply toillustrate the work of KAA, the passage occurs in themiddle of the KAA-API argument, and it shouldsurely have been pointed out that the obverses ofthese coins show neither K nor A, but in one caseA, K, and in the other A, Z (?),.Compare also3 &, 4 a, 6, d t e, h, and 5 a.Moreover, K-A occur on the earlier Tarentine coins,But at Heraclea KAA occursKAA-API on the later.on the coins with the earlier type of Herakles stranglingthe lion, while K comes on the later coins with Athenain a Corinthian helmet and the standing Herakles.Do such coins assist the K[AA]-A[PI] theory? Thesecoins with K are the commonest of the Heracleanstaters. I have met nearly forty specimens, and theyalways read not K-API but K-A0A, though rarelyA0A isgiven in the catalogues. Lastly, if the K coinswere assigned to a KAA workingc. 380 B. c., theHeraclean chronology would resolve itself into statersbefore c. 360 B.C. and those c. 300 B.C. and later. Therewould be very few coins to fill the intervening gap.The Heraclean coin with A0A suggests a furtherconsideration. Why is the work of this most prolificHeraclean artist assuming for the moment that hewas an artist not found at Tarentum ? Is itmerelyan accident that the artist who has left most work atHeraclea has left nothing at Tarentum ? That,assumingo 2