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

232 J. MAVROGOKDATO.of the large bronze pieces of type No. 70, so similar tothe small type No. 71, by the absence of any namescommon to these two bronze types and the silver oneand by the occurrence of the prow symbol onNo. 69,the obverse of the only bronze issue that bears thesame name as one of the drachms. This is type No. 73,which, as already pointed out, is of later style thanNo. 71, although the drachm with the same magistrate'sname, AEkMoZ, isamong the earliest issues of typehowever. I amNo. 69. Since this ispure hypothesis,not pressing the point, as in the somewhat similar caseof types Nos. 56-7 of Period VIII, but am giving thedrachms the precedence in the usual manner.Another almost inevitable consequence of this separationaccording to style of coins that are such nearcontemporaries is that a few of the magistrates' namesare almost certain to occur in both periods. This willbe found to be the case, and I look upon the fournames noted below under this head as those of menwho held office both before and after their banishmentby Mithradates. The same remarks might of coursebe applied to the symbols, several of which, like theaplustre, caps and stars of the Dioscuri, and the headdressof Isis, will be recognized here. But theprobability of identity in these cases is not so great, atany rate not where the objects of fairly frequentoccurrence, like the aplustre, are concerned.No. 69. The issues of this group of drachms with thenames APTEMIAHPoZ, AEkMoZ, andZkYMNoZseem to be the earliest.[PI. IX. 1.]The style of the Sphinx is not bad, and recalls thatof type No. 57 (Period VIII), rather than that of anyvariety of the later type, No. 66, which might have