Die Tetradrachmen­pragung von Syrakus

Ivy leaf under the horses 30.
Crane under the horse bellies 7.
Ball below the chin of the large head 73.

Charioteer winged 15, looking back 27, 54.
Female charioteer with burning torch in hand 30, 34, 20, 21, [43].
--- and looking back 31, 33.
Nike with palm branch in arm 15, 30–32.
--- with tablet 14.
Recumbent wheel under the horse feet 25.
Satyr head below the large head 48.
One rein torn loose and hanging 12, 14, 24, 25, 35.

The head facing forward 36, 37, 28, 29.
--- on the obverse 16–19, 28, 29.
--- with wreath of grain ears (Kora) 44.
--- of grain ears, poppy and oak leaf (Kora) 28, 29.
--- of reed leaves 73.
--- helmeted (Pallas Athena) 36, 37.

At the head of the entire series I would like to place the tetradrachms with the signature ΩIΩN on the ampyx, as well as those that are directly connected with these (1–5). This group consists of two obverses (1 and 2) and three reverses (1, 2 and 3), of which only one reverse 2 is signed. The obverses offer for the first time the quadriga galloping — apart from the previously mentioned isolated attempts.^[60] The horses' legs are arranged strictly parallel next to each other, only the left hind leg of the first horse is set somewhat backward. The horses' heads are also lined up next to each other and all at the same height. Nevertheless the chariot is depicted in side view, although in its representation too the three-quarter view presupposed by the position of the horses should have been expressed. The charioteer is fairly slender and not so disproportionately large in relation to the horses as on many of the immediately following obverse dies. He is formed somewhat precisely according to the law of frontality, with the head in side view, shoulders and chest however in front view. The difference of the two obverse dies 1 and 2 from each other is extremely slight, apart from the fact that 2 has two dolphins facing each other in the exergue, while the exergue in 1 is empty. In the treatment of the feathers on Nike's wings perhaps somewhat greater fineness in the detail work is to be found on 1, and noteworthy is that the charioteer on 2 holds a goad, on 1 not. The quadriga on 2 fills the available space more precisely: thereby the horses can be made somewhat larger in relation to the charioteer and Nike too has come to stand somewhat further from the charioteer and does not hold her branch right in his face; the charioteer is not bent forward as much as on 1. Despite the deviations, the style of both dies is the same in all essentials, as emerges especially from a comparison with other dies.

The three reverse dies (1, 2 and 3) that are connected with these obverse dies all show fairly the same type: the hair flows from the crown in wavy lines in all directions and is gathered in a chignon at the nape; from the forehead along the temples extend two (or at 3 one) strongly waved curls, which are perhaps to be understood as braids. At the forehead, at the ear and at the nape we find individual small curls in the manner as at Du Chastel V 49, as has already been emphasized. At the front of the head the hair is held together by an ampyx. In the eye the iris is visible and the bridge of the nose is somewhat deepened in the inner corner of the eye, whereby the eyeball becomes more arched. 1 and 2 also agree precisely in that the eyebrows are indicated by fine strokes, the lips are fairly short and thick and, what is especially noteworthy, have a raised seam at the edge, as also in bronze statues of this period^[61]. As stated, 2 bears the signature of Sosion, but judging by the style 1 also comes from the same hand. Everything that can be proven as characteristic of Sosion from the signed die also fits for 1. In addition come some more external features, which in themselves would not be convincing, but can be well used as reinforcing indicia. Such are the position of the surrounding dolphins as well as the distribution of the inscription among the spaces between the dolphins, which is absolutely the same on both dies. The forms of the letters are also the same, which is particularly significant with regard to the Y, since otherwise in this period in Syracuse the form V with variations still predominates, while Sosion uses the sharply marked form Y. Finally, the necklace consists of a cord with a pendant in front and six hanging pearls, while the closest predecessors had only a simple cord, usually with a pendant in front. This precise agreement both in the large and in the small, both in externals and in points that belong directly to the artist's personal style, makes the previously expressed supposition^[62] that this reverse die comes from Sosion's hand into certainty, insofar as it is at all possible to draw such conclusions from stylistic-critical grounds.

The question of whether the signed or the unsigned reverse die is the older can be answered with the help of the "state" ("État") of the dies^[63]. The obverse die 1 was first used with the reverse die 1, then with die 2, as emerges from the state of the die; for all specimens of 2 (obv. 1, rev. 2) show a damage on the back of the first horse, while 1 b still comes from the undamaged obverse die, and on 1 g the damage still consists of a very thin line. With regard to obverse die 2, the situation is reversed; this die was used in fairly undamaged condition (apart from a small crack at the front feet of the first horse downward) together with reverse die 2, as 3 a shows; still during the striking of 3, however, a damage arose on the back of the first horse (3 b). Apart from these damages, however, we find on this obverse die 2 at the striking of 4 still a crack under the belly of the horses and a smaller crack at the horses' mane, whereby it becomes evident that 4 is later than 3. Now it can still be proven that the reverse die 1 was used first with obverse die 1 and secondly with 2, for a damage under the chin is still quite small on 1 b, g, i, on 1 a it is already larger and just as large it is on 4. With regard to 2, on the other hand, the sequence of strikings cannot be determined so certainly, yet it seems to me upon careful examination that this reverse die too was used first with obverse die 1, then with 2; for I believe I perceive on 3 a and b above the upper dolphin a couple of tiny cracks that are still missing on 2 a and b; also the filling of the space between the lips with a rough mass probably stems from a damage (rust?) to the die, since it is missing on 2 a. The unsigned reverse die (1) would thus be older than the signed one. A general consideration also seems to confirm this, for it is more probable that the artist at first does not yet put his signature on the die, but then, when the new type and the new style found favor, added his name. It remains to be investigated later whether it is possible to determine Sosion's origin.

In connection with obverse die 2, a third reverse die (3) is still used (5), and indeed as the last, as the damages to obverse die 2 show: they are the same as on 4, but the one on the mane has become much larger. This reverse die is often attributed to Sosion^[64], partly probably because it has been brought into connection through coupling with the die that is signed by Sosion; in addition, however, the author of the catalog of the British Museum^[65] has read traces of the signature ΩΩN on the ampyx. That an erroneous reading exists here is taught by the comparison of this coin with the others that come from the same die: the ampyx on the London tetradrachm (5 d) is somewhat worn, but e.g., the specimens in Brussels (5 a) and Glasgow (5 b) show quite clearly that the ampyx is only decorated with a simple zigzag line. The type is, as already mentioned earlier, to be sure the same, but the style is completely foreign to the Sosion coins. The chignon at the nape is smaller and the hair is not only divided into large curls that emanate from the crown, but the curls are split with vigorous strokes, not as on the previous ones divided by light strokes that indicate the individual strands, and only one braid extends along the temple. The nose is more vigorous, the eye fairly coarsely executed with very distinct iris; likewise the ear seems to be larger, and instead of the hook-shaped ear ornament we see here the spiral-wound earring, which looks like a double one. It is not conceivable to attribute this die to Sosion, for during such a short time span as that which must necessarily have elapsed between the striking of 1–4 and 5, such a stylistic change would be impossible. On the other hand, it is completely clear that the artist is dependent on Sosion's manner.

The same types both for the obverse and for the reverse dies as this group has also the group 6–9, which is composed of two different obverses (3 and 4) and three reverse dies (4, 5 and 6); of them two reverses (4 and 5) bear the signature of Eumenes (ΕVΜΗΝΟV), while the third reverse and both obverses are unsigned. One obverse die (3) looks similar to obverse 2 down to the smallest details, only the reins of the horses are depicted differently. The charioteer namely holds in the extended right hand three rein strands, whose ends, as it seems, are fastened to the front edge of the chariot box, in the left hand likewise three rein strands, while on obverse 2 he holds all the reins in the left hand and with the right only grasps into the reins, for steering or restraining. The other obverse die (4) offers, as stated, the same type as 1–2, and adheres more closely perhaps to 1, thus in the size of the quadriga and of the charioteer, in the position of the latter and also in that the exergue is empty. The style, however, is different, has become coarser. This is particularly noticeable in the treatment of the charioteer, who is formed more stocky, with shaggy hair, but also the forms of the horses are less slender and the feathers of Nike's wings are not so finely executed. The two obverse dies cannot be attributed to one and the same artist, but rather it gives the impression that 3 probably comes from the same hand as 1 and 2, but not 4. Since all these dies are unsigned, it is not possible to assert with certainty that this artist was Sosion, even if it is fairly probable that the artist who carried through the new head type and the definitive breakthrough of the new style also introduced the new obverse type^[66]. Obverse die 4, on the other hand, could perhaps be a work of Eumenes, who would have imitated Sosion's type, as he, as we shall soon see, imitates his reverse type. The circumstance that 4 and 3 come from different hands and at least one of these dies is thus executed by a different artist than the reverse die with which it appears connected should not surprise us, for such certainly attested cases will occupy us often still.

The reverse dies of the group 6–9 also show the same type as 1–5, even if the style is not that of Sosion. The oldest of these dies is 4 (signature EVMHNOV on the ampyx), for it appears on some specimens, like 7 c, connected with obverse die 4, when this was still fairly undamaged; on most specimens of 7, however, a damage on the horses' backs already clearly emerges, and this damage is also perceptible on the specimens of 8 and 9. The hairstyle of the head on this die is quite of the same kind as on 1, only the chignon at the nape is somewhat larger. The face is more elongated, especially the nose is longer, and the lips are somewhat thinner. The eyeball does not protrude as vigorously, since the bridge of the nose does not have the same depression at the corner of the eye as at 1. The ear sits somewhat higher than on the Sosion tetradrachms, but gives the impression as if it sat much higher, because the face is so much longer and the position of the ear in relation to the mouth is thereby significantly shifted. This awakens the perception as if 4 were more archaic than 1 and 2, and this perception is also reinforced by the forms of the letters, which have not turned out so finely regular as on 1 and 2 and still have the older form V instead of Y, as well as by the fact that the position of the dolphins corresponds more precisely to that on the last tetradrachm of the transitional period^[67] than on 1 and 2. If I nevertheless in contrast to the older view^[68] have considered the Sosion group as the older, it is based precisely on the fact that I see in Sosion the innovator, in Eumenes here only the imitator, who has preserved more of the older elements. The forms of the letters attest to this, for still long after Sosion the old forms are mainly used; likewise Eumenes is not the inventor of the new quadriga type, for that obverse die that bears his complete signature (9) is much larger, much more clumsily executed than obverse die 4, which is connected with his reverse dies (4 and 5 on 7 and 8); such an enervation of style can hardly have taken place in an independent artist; on the other hand, it is possible that a weaker artist, when he closely follows a better model, as here Sosion's chariot side, can execute works that are significantly better than those that he creates independently.

The other reverse die of Eumenes in this group (5) (signed on the ampyx EVMHNO) is distinguished from the one just treated by the incomparably higher relief, which gives the head a swollen, somewhat blurred expression. Especially nose and mouth have become thicker and fleshier as well as the cheek, but in the detail treatment the similarity with 4 is still striking, as the nape hair especially shows, whose outermost thinner wavy line easily gives the impression as if there a strand stood out further from the rest of the hair, and thereby somewhat weakens the clear lifting of the relief from the image surface. On the other hand, this die adheres still more closely to 1 and 2, thus somewhat in the position of the dolphins and also in the forms of the letters, which are more vigorous and more regular than on 4; likewise the distribution of the inscription among the dolphins is clearly influenced by 1 and 2. These circumstances as well as the clumsy execution could make it credible that 5 were older than 4, if it did not rather emerge clearly from the state of the obverse die, as already stated, that 4 is older. How this coarsening is to be explained cannot be said.

The third reverse die (6), which is connected with obverse die 4 (9), is completely separated in style from the Eumenes dies and this difference emerges even more clearly since the head type, with the hair held together in front by the ampyx and taken up in a chignon at the nape, is quite the same. On the other hand, we must bring this die into very close connection with 3. We find the same manner in the treatment of the hair with vigorous emphasis of the strands in the curls, the same straight nose, if also even longer and more pointed. The ear too is formed in the same way, although the modeling is much more inartistic and formed almost only by the outer line and a couple of points in the interior, and the earring has the same form, differing from the others. In addition comes the fact that the same way in which the dolphins are grouped and the inscription distributed among them on both separates them from the remaining reverse dies otherwise belonging to the same group. In the treatment of the lips and the eye deviations are to be sure present, but it seems nevertheless as if these were partly based on careless striking of 9. Since both dies (3 and 6) are unsigned, we can only designate it as highly probable that both come from the hand of the same artist. This one is, as stated, neither Sosion nor Eumenes, but he adheres to Sosion, even if he is significantly weaker.

The activity of Sosion, who introduced the type of this group in Syracuse, is only demonstrable in this group; then he disappears again. Compared with his rival and successor Eumenes, as well as with the other contemporary die engravers in Syracuse, he has precedence both through finer conception and through incomparably greater technical skill.

As already mentioned, chronologically closest to group 1–9 stands group 10–17, which is composed of three obv. dies (5, 6 and 7) and five rev. dies (7, 8, 9, 10 and 11). The chronological order of these dies can only be established with certainty in part. Thus it is certain that 10 (5 + 7) is older than 11 (5 + 8) and 12 (5 + 9), because obv. die 5 has a crack across the hooves of the front legs of the horses as well as one across the reins during the striking of 11 and 12, both of which are still absent on 10. Likewise obv. die 7 was combined later with rev. die 11 (and 12) than with 9 and 10, since the flaw beside the right shoulder of the charioteer only appears on 17 (7 + 11) and 18 (7 + 12). It also seems to me that rev. die 10 shows a flaw between the neck and dolphin tail as well as one on the K of the legend during the striking of 16 (7 + 10), which are still absent during the striking of 14 (6 + 10). On the other hand, I cannot decide whether on rev. die 9 during the striking of 15 (7 + 9) there is really a flaw on the lip and on the upper eyelid that is absent during the striking of 12 (5 + 9) and 13 (6 + 9), or whether these cracks on the single known tetradrachm 15 a are only on the coin. Nevertheless, the order of the tetradrachms of this group can be determined to some extent, even if the sequence of all dies relative to one another is not established.

The obverses stand in part quite close to those already treated. The galloping horses are represented strictly parallel, both with regard to the heads and the legs, but otherwise they differ considerably from one another on the different dies. On the first die, 5, the parallelization is broken by the fact that there is a somewhat larger space between the outermost legs in the row and the middle ones; moreover, the fourth horse has broken out of the row and stretches its neck forward, so that the whole head becomes visible. But since this head has become too large in relation to the other heads closer to the viewer, this deviation from the otherwise symmetrical treatment does not have a particularly pleasing effect. The other die (6) offers a characteristic example of how the front legs of the horses have been arranged in a fan shape. The third die (7) also shows this, which is extremely weak in the treatment of the horse heads: the head of the first horse is quite small and set on a very short neck, which is probably due to the effort to leave sufficient room for all horse heads. On all these dies the horse heads are arranged in a stepped manner, such that the heads of the rear horses rise somewhat above the head of the front one, without any attention being paid to indicating this position perspectively in other respects, whereas in the first group (1–9) all horse heads were at the same height. Among these dies, the first (5) makes the impression of real, lively movement with the outstretched head of the last horse and the charioteer who bends forward grasping the reins. On the third die (7) a quietly standing crane is depicted under the bellies of the horses, which completely destroys the illusion of strong movement of the horses; it is only an accessory symbol of the same kind as the symbols in the exergue, which in this group consist of a shell (5) or a fish pursued by a dolphin (6 and 7). Up to now it has not yet been possible to find any really satisfactory explanations for these figures in the exergue, any more than for many other similar figures on the tetradrachms of Syracuse in this period. It would of course not be impossible that they could have references to historical and political events concerning Syracuse, just as the lion in the exergue of the Demareteion refers to the victory at Himera, the pistrix probably to the victory at Cumae, the olive branch perhaps to the alliance with Gela in the year 424.^[69] But it is equally possible that they could have only an administrative or financial-technical significance. Here it suffices to note that they in any case have no substantive relationship to the type itself.

The 5 rev. dies look extremely similar to one another in part; the differences between 10 and 11, for example, exist almost only in the curls of the lock tips. Only 7 seems to separate itself somewhat more from the others; thus the locks do not flutter freely from all sides, but are confined mainly to the back of the head, and only a couple of lock tips have become free at the front of the head; also the form of the lock curls seems to be somewhat different. Unfortunately, the single specimen is so worn that it cannot be concluded from it with certainty, and equally not whether any deviations in the facial features from the others can be established. In any case there seems to be no reason to deny this die to the artist who executed the other rev. dies in this group; and it can hardly be doubted that the others all come from one hand. On rev. 9 there are strokes between the neck cut and the dolphin that give the impression of an inscription. However, it is impossible to interpret these marks; to all appearances they are not traces of writing but only irregularities in the die. The artist thus remains unknown; it is not Eumenos, as has been claimed.^[70] As already emphasized,^[71] the artist in some points, such as in the position of the legend on 7, 10 and 11, reaches back to older motifs, and also the hair treatment seems in part to be direct further development of that on the last tetradrachm type of the transitional period;^[72] but as mentioned, this group does not directly follow this one, but rather the stylistic development already indicates that the Sosion group is to be inserted in between.

Also with regard to this group it cannot be said whether all three obv. dies have the same originator and whether they all stem from the same artist as the rev. dies. At least obv. die 7 gives the impression of being executed by a different die engraver than the other two (5 and 6).

The striking of this group seems to have proceeded at least partially at two different minting benches, for only thus can the rather complicated die couplings be explained.

This group is followed by group 18–24, which is already freed from the school of the transitional period. The transition between both groups is mediated by rev. die 12, which appears combined both with obv. die 7 (18) and with 8 (19), and indeed a small flaw above the first O in the ethnikon proves that 12 was used later with 8 than with 7.

This reverse, which bears a signature ΕVΜΗΝΟV in very small letters under the neck, half hidden by the raised edge of the neck cut, shows a new type that indeed leans on the type of Sosion but is still independently developed. The hair is gathered in a roll at the nape and drawn from the forehead along the temple in two long locks or braids to the ear, as already on 1–5. The ampyx, however, is missing. The treatment of the hair is completely the same as on 4 and 5, also the outermost, thin wavy line at the nape is executed, which gives the impression as if a strand stood out farther there from the rest of the hair, and likewise the little locks at the nape and at the ear are quite the same, only the long locks at the temple are more jagged. Lips and ear ornament are of the same form. On the other hand, the head is smaller and the face shorter and also otherwise better executed, partly because the ear has received a more correct place and does not sit so high. The artist has attempted in this die to create a lifelike image with the greatest possible precision and thereby already offers too much of a good thing in the eye, for he depicts not only the lashes of the upper eyelid in the inner corner of the eye, which is represented as a thick applied line, but also along the lower eyelid the lashes are indicated by small cross-strokes. The iris in the eye is especially emphasized, the eyebrows on the other hand are only weakly marked. In the precise representation of the eye, the artist has indeed only used beginnings that had already appeared earlier in the coinage of Syracuse with better skill, for both indication of the iris and of the lashes in the upper and lower eyelid occur already earlier.^[73] The forms of the letters are completely the same as on 4.

The second obv. die (8), which was used for the striking of 19 with this rev. die, shows in the treatment of the quadriga still the same weak points that were to be noted in the previous one, both the strict parallelization of the horse heads and legs and the incorrect size relationships of the horse heads to one another, which become visible in a stepped manner one above the other, and the peculiar shortness of the neck of the first horse. Also the treatment of Nike offers the same errors as before: she is represented too large and flies too low, so that it almost appears as if she wants to give the charioteer the victory wreath that she carries, instead of really crowning him with it. The charioteer is also too large in relation to the horses. While on the obverses of the new style treated so far Nike has always had a branch or a garland in her hands, here she again carries the wreath with hanging ribbons, which she has carried more often than the branch on the coins of the earlier period. The whole style of this die gives the impression that it does not come from the same hand as dies 6 and 7, even though the corresponding points are indeed very numerous.

In the chronological sequence of the tetradrachms there now comes a rev. type (13) that on the one hand has clearly been influenced by the previous type — as well as by the type of Sosion, as the treatment of the hair especially shows. On the other hand, however, the eye is not represented in side view but in front view in a manner that was no longer used at the end of the previous period. Also the dolphins are larger than usual in this period. Besides all these moments, the circumstance also has the effect that the ethnikon is written retrograde and distributed around the head in the same way as on the older coins,^[74] that one would like to move the age of this die significantly before the beginning of the new style and see in it the prototype of the Sosion and older Eumenos type. But since the two obv. dies (8 unsigned, 9 by Eumenos) with which this die appears combined otherwise only appear together with rev. dies signed by Eumenos and Eukleidas, such a conception cannot be maintained. But also the style of this die, despite all archaic features, is basically the same as on the other coins of this period, so that we perhaps have to do here with a die that did not come from the hand of the new artists but derives from a die engraver in the mint who has already experienced part of the older development and now, although he has taken the new dies as a model, cannot completely free himself from the older direction. Thus the presence of such diverse elements in this type is most simply explained. For such a conscious reaching back to the older style on the part of the new artists, who otherwise so vigorously emphasize the peculiarity of the new direction even when they use and further develop older elements, cannot yet be imagined.

As mentioned, this die (13) appears first with the unsigned obv. die (8; 20), then with another obv. die, namely one that bears the signature ΕVΜΗΝΟV in the exergue (9; 21). The striking of coins from these two dies (21) occurred later than that of obv. die 8 with rev. die 13 (20), for 20 g, j and l still do not show the flaw of the rev. die on the back of the dolphin before the forehead, which is more or less clearly visible on the other specimens of 20 and on all specimens of 21, insofar as this part of the die is not "off the flan."

In style this die 9 strongly recalls die 8, but also with die 6 clear points of contact connect it. Yet 9 makes a significantly less pleasing impression than the obv. dies treated previously. The proportions of the individual horses to one another, which also earlier were often not correctly grasped and represented, diverge here even more. The horses are represented at a gallop, but it seems to the viewer as if they, with their front bodies raised somewhat above the horizontal position, rear up somewhat without actually moving forward. The necks are raised almost vertically and the whole has an unnatural effect, since the heads become visible more than half one above the other and somewhat before one another, yet the bodies are hidden by that of the first horse and all horses stand on the same ground line. If the conjecture that C. Jørgensen has expressed^[75] were correct, that traces of the meta are visible under the front legs, the position of the horses could perhaps be explained as influenced by the fact that they are just about to turn around the meta. But even on the best preserved specimens the "traces" are so weak and indeterminate that it is not possible for me to see anything in them other than a die crack, which is indeed to be found on all known specimens. By the position of the horses the upper part of the field is also strongly impaired and the space for Nike is significantly reduced. She is indeed formed somewhat smaller than before, but nevertheless almost completely fills the space that lies between the dotted border and the line formed by the horse heads, the right arm of the charioteer (which is stretched far forward to the horse necks), and the head of the charioteer (which touches the dotted border at the same height as the head of the outermost horse), so that Nike indeed touches the horse heads with her feet, the arm and face of the charioteer with her hands and the branch that she again carries instead of the wreath. The whole testifies to a certain inability of the artist to put into action the new idea of composing lively movement into the narrow space of the coin surface.

Besides with rev. die 13, this obv. die 9 also appears combined with three other rev. dies, namely 14, 15 and 16. The order in which these were used emerges with considerable certainty from the condition of obv. die (9), for the small flaws under the hooves of the front feet and before the hooves of the hind feet appear more strongly on 23 (9 + 15) than on 21 (9 + 13) and 22 (9 + 14), and on 24 (9 + 16) a new crack is added that extends obliquely backward from the hooves of the front feet. The two first-mentioned dies are by Eumenos, whose signature on 15 extends upward behind the head, on 14 is half under the neck cut and half behind the nape. Both also agree in characteristic points with the obv. die 12 signed by Eumenos, even though the heads are shaped differently. Especially in the treatment of the eye, the lips and also the hair, striking similarities are present. The lips are short and strong, somewhat protruding. The eye with the precisely drawn lashes is also the same on all these dies. But although the hair on 12 and 14 is held together in the same way, it nevertheless makes at first glance a quite different impression on 12 than on 14. It is much richer, much more voluminous, so that the face appears smaller, and in addition a multitude of very small locks emerge along the hairline at the temples as well as at the front of the head, which indeed enliven the whole but also cause the head not to offer the dignified impression that 12 gives. The little lock before the ear and that which, creeping out from the nape hair, hangs down over the neck, are on the other hand quite in the manner of 12. The nose, however, differs significantly from that on 12; it is shorter, with shorter wings, and forms a straighter line with the forehead, more in the manner of the so-called Greek profile. This die 14 seems to have been destroyed soon, for only two specimens from it are known, and both show die flaws on the dolphin under the neck. Instead of this die, 15 was taken into use, this too as mentioned from the hand of Eumenos. It recalls 12 more: eye, lips and hair treatment are similar, even though the hair is otherwise worn in a quite different and for Syracuse new manner. It is indeed likewise gathered in a roll at the nape, but the whole hair is held together by bands wound several times around the head, of which two crossing loops are visible; at the nape it is still evident that the band draws the hair together at two further points. But the way in which the individual strands are brought to view seems to be the same as in 12. The nose has at the bridge the same bend that is foreign to the Greek profile, but is otherwise somewhat shorter, whereby the head becomes somewhat shorter in the direction from the tip of the nose to the nape. The chin takes a middle position between 12 and 14; it namely has the same indentation under the lip as 14, but otherwise resembles in its roundness die 12.

With rev. die 16, which, as mentioned, appears combined last with obv. die 9 (24), a new die engraver enters into activity, as the signature EVKA
EIΔA on a diptych under the chin shows. In type this die is of the same kind as 13 and 14, but in the treatment a different artist makes himself clearly known. This already comes to light in the hair, for instead of the long locks that are drawn from the forehead to the ear, here the locks at the forehead and at the temples are combed upward and rolled into a roll in the same way as the nape hair; in this point 14 indeed takes a kind of middle position, but the whole manner of hair treatment on this rev. 16 is conspicuous and stands apart from the usual. The locks on the Eukleidas die are thinner and softer and the hair is full and rich. Also the very short little locks at the hairline before the ear and at the nape differ from the manner of Eumenos, for they are shorter and less wavy. Likewise lock tips have become free on the outer line of the head and become somewhat visible. Still more clearly the differently constituted style works on the other parts of the head. The profile line of forehead and nose is straight, only the tip of the nose projects a little. The lips are longer and thinner. But especially the eye is represented in a different way: the eyelids, on which the lashes are not worked out, give the impression as if they were somewhat swollen and not quite organically connected with the rest, but as if added later; the upper eyelid projects significantly further than the lower, whereby the front boundary line of the eye triangle assumes a much more oblique position than on 12, 14 and 15. A pearl necklace has taken the place of the simple cord. The dolphins are more finely executed. The ethnikon is written in larger, strong and beautiful letters, which are more modern, as the form Y proves, which was previously only to be found on the Sosion dies. Extremely noteworthy is the form of the ethnikon, YΡΑΚΟΙΟ instead of the otherwise usual VΡΑΚΟΙΟΝ or YΡΑΚΟΙΩΝ. Evans has interpreted this^[76] as a sign of the uncertainty that necessarily had to enter in the use of O and Ω at the time when the new Ionic alphabet was penetrating, and which Eukleidas tried to escape by choosing a form in which no doubt could arise as to which letter was to be chosen. This explanation is indeed not inconceivable, for we see, for example in Katane,^[77] the same change of forms taking place. Incidentally, the occurrence of this masculine adjective form on the coins of Syracuse shows that such an adjectival inscription need not stand in relation to the depicted deity, and thus the conception that Macdonald^[78] has most recently presented is the correct one, that the adjectival form of the ethnikon on coins presupposes a noun like νόμισμα, χαρακτήρ etc. It does not now seem credible that at the same place several such designations as νόμισμα, χαρακτήρ etc. would have been used side by side without further ado in the official terminology fundamental to the form of the ethnikon on the coins, but rather some special reason must be assumed if such fluctuations occur. Whether the mentioned Evansian explanation with regard to Eukleidas is correct can hardly be decided now, but in any case the circumstance also speaks for it that only he in Syracuse has used a masculine form, and this not on a single but on several rev. dies (16, 23, 35, 37). Also in the way he accommodates his signature, this artist shows something new. The signature is namely placed on an opened diptych that is located under the chin of the goddess, with extremely small letters; thus in this too he deviates from the custom of Eumenos, who usually sets it quite freely in the field and only on those dies that are influenced by Sosion (4, 5) displays the signature less openly. The custom of placing parts of the coin inscription on diptychs, tablets, half-unrolled scrolls etc., which we will encounter several more times in Syracuse, seems to have arisen around this time. In part the artists' names were indicated in this way, for which we have examples besides in Syracuse also in Katane and on a coin that is usually attributed to Himera; but also the ethnikon was placed in the same way, e.g. on some coins of Metapontum and later in Rome. The custom seems to have passed from the great art into the minor art, as one has recently attempted to demonstrate.^[79]

This rev. die (16) has been used together with several obv. dies, namely besides with 9 also with 10 and 11, and indeed with 9 earlier than with 10 and 11, as the flaw on the last of the ethnikon testifies, which is still absent on the specimens of 24 (9 + 16), but is perceptible on all specimens of 25 (10 + 16) and 30 (11 + 16), insofar as the end of the ethnikon has come onto the flan. It is more uncertain whether 16 was used earlier with 10 than with 11, but I believe I perceive on the photographic image of 30 c available to me on the rev. a small crack under the tail of the dolphin that is located before the chin, which is otherwise absent, and this would prove that the striking of 30 (11 + 16) took place after that of 25 (10 + 16). These two obv. dies (10, 11) bear the signature EV and are usually attributed to Eumenos, whether rightly seems to me questionable. Compared to die 9, which is signed with the complete name ΕVΜΗΝΟV, namely, great deviations are noticeable. The strict, rigid parallelization that is so characteristic in the representation of the horses on 9 is here mitigated, the legs are represented somewhat more bent, especially the hind legs, which on 10 make a somewhat too weak impression. The heads are all at the same height, and not only the head of the last horse is treated more freely, but also the others are, especially on 11, somewhat freed from parallelism. While this is a clear development, especially 10 otherwise makes an unexpectedly clumsy impression: the fairly large charioteer with his disproportionately thick head stands in no relation to the small horses; the way he grasps the reins with his right hand shows that the artist indeed had as a model a quadriga in the style of 9; but he did not think that the reins on the right side can well come to the height of the ears of the first horse if the last horse holds its head high as on 9, but that this is impossible if it holds its head at the same height as the others and moreover holds the muzzle straight down, not stretched forward, as is the case on 10. Also Nike with a taenia in her hands is clumsily executed. Obv. die 11 is already somewhat more successful. Although here too the horses are unusually small, they are otherwise significantly better executed, and especially noteworthy is that we have here for the first time a real attempt to leave the parallelization of the horse legs and thereby to achieve somewhat more variety and life. For while the hind legs of the other horses namely touch the ground strongly bent, one horse (which is not evident) makes a more vigorous jumping movement and braces the legs on the ground. Also otherwise die 11 is more pleasing than 10; the charioteer is indeed too long, but no longer so coarse, and also Nike, who holds a wreath, is more slender and finely represented. If the signature EV were not there, and it were not unbelievable that two different artists who worked at the same time would both have signed their works only with EV, one would attribute the two dies to different artists; for it is strange that an artist has executed two dies (which, as will be explained in more detail, are completely contemporaneous) so similar in the main type and yet so different in the whole style. That 10 has two dolphins facing each other in the exergue, 11 on the other hand a dolphin to the right pursuing a tuna, is in this case without significance, for the same figures in the exergue also recur on other dies and are evidently occasioned by other circumstances, not by the feeling of the artist, as has already been noted earlier.^[80] From the Eumenos die 9 these dies are separated not only by great external deviations but also by the whole style as it comes to light in the line drawing, and it therefore seems to me hardly possible to attribute these dies also to Eumenos.

Obv. die 10 has been used with five different rev. dies (besides 16 also 17, 18, 19 and 20), of which two (16 and 17) have also been combined with 11, while four (17, 18, 19 and 20) have also been used with a third obv. die (12) and one (20) also with a fourth (13). This circumstance alone points to a lively minting activity, and therefore it is difficult to establish the chronological order of these dies. After precise investigation I believe I can order them as follows: with 10 first 16, then 17 was used, after these 18 was taken into use; for while the obv. die during the striking of 25 (10 + 16) and 26 (10 + 17) has only a small crack above the horse head but is otherwise undamaged, during the striking of 27 (10 + 18) a new flaw arises before the front legs of the horses (27 c undamaged, the others damaged), as well as smaller cracks from the back of the first dolphin to the ground line and to the right of the ground line upward. We find the same flaws on the obv. die during the striking of 28 (10 + 19), but in addition a crack across the signature and the hind legs is added. With die 10 damaged in this way, rev. die 17 was taken into use once more (26 c) and then also rev. die 20 (29). That the striking of 29 (10 + 20) occurred later than that of 28 (10 + 19) is clear, because the obv. die indeed has no new clear cracks, but was otherwise in fairly bad condition during the striking and, as it seems, was somewhat corroded by oxide.^[81] — The chronological order of the rev. dies 16, 21, 22, 17 combined with obv. die 11, on the other hand, cannot be determined by such clear die flaws, only it seems that the crack behind the charioteer arose during the striking of 30 (11 + 16), since one specimen probably does not have this crack (30 b), while otherwise this crack is present everywhere. Thus 30 would probably be older than 31–33 (11 + 21, 22, 17); on the obv. of 33 h a point above the wing of Nike can possibly also be understood as a flaw, whereby it would be established that 33 (11 + 17) was the last striking with this obv. die.

The manifold relationships between the coins from obv. dies 10 and 11 make it highly probable that both dies were in use at the same time, that thus at that time work was being done at at least two minting benches in the mint of Syracuse; otherwise it would hardly be explicable how these couplings arose, for it does not seem to have been the custom to keep once-used dies unused for a long time. The question will still occupy us, for several of these dies have also been used with a third obv. die.

The three rev. dies 17, 18, 19 form a unified group that also closes together without the signature EV that is to be found on all three. The type is the one common to Eumenos (12 and 14) and Eukleidas (16), with the maiden's head to the left, whose hair is gathered in a roll at the nape and, as on 14 and 16, is also brushed upward at forehead and temples and rolled in a roll-like manner, without visible bands that held it together. The crown of the head, however, is very flat and formed in lower relief than the gathered hair. Also otherwise the head is formed in flatter relief than on the other tetradrachms already treated, perhaps with the exception of 9 (4 + 6). Especially characteristic for this group is the treatment of the lips, which are short and unnaturally drawn together. The nose is fairly pointed and its lower line curves strongly inward. Only on 18 is the eye more precisely articulated, with especially emphasized iris, the eyes on the other dies are empty. Among the common peculiarities also belongs the treatment of the ear, for here too they differ from the previous Eumenos and Eukleidas types and approach rather die 6; for although the ear on those dies is half hidden, one nevertheless sees that the inner lines in the ear are also here only indicated by one or a couple of points.

In order to treat this group completely, we must also draw head dies 21 and 22 into the investigation, for these too are signed with EV and also belong to this group stylistically. Especially 22 agrees completely with rev. dies 17–19, and indeed it is most similar to die 18; for example, only on these two are the small locks at the hairline along the temple indicated; noteworthy, however, is that on 22 the lashes are executed in the lower eyelid and the lips are formed somewhat fleshier. Things are somewhat different with die 21, where the line formed by forehead and nose goes more vertically and the direction of the line that can be drawn from the lips to the chin deviates less from that of the forehead and nose line, whereby the upper part of the head becomes disproportionately broad compared with the lower part. Yet there are so many stylistically similar points that this die too can be attributed without hesitation to the same artist as dies 17–19 and 22. The question of who this EV is we must leave open until we have examined one of the dies to be treated next.

Combined with obv. die 10 there also appears a rev. die (20) that already at first glance betrays a different hand. The head is fairly small and the hair is put into an opisthosphendone, whose bands are knotted in front. Moreover the hair is held together by an ampyx, which, like the sphendone, is decorated with stars. At the back of the head, however, rich locks swell out, while the locks that emerge at the temple under the ampyx are drawn upward over the bands of the sphendone. From the crown of the head the hair goes in all directions in soft, wavy locks, which are only indicated, not worked out more precisely, in quite a different manner than on the heads of the previous group. The forms of the face are rounder and softer, as especially the tip of the nose and lips show. Noteworthy is the indentation in the lower part of the upper lip, as well as the formation of the eye, which is smaller and whose lids and other surroundings are softer. Characteristic of the new style are also the forms of the letters in the ethnikon, which are large, strong and very symmetrical in contrast to the previous ones (the Sosion coins, as well as 3, 5 and 16 excepted), where the letters give the impression as if they were scratched into the die without greater precision. And yet precisely on this die there is an imprecision in the execution of the inscription, since the first has remained standing reversed as , while indeed earlier once a correction in the die is perceptible (on 19), but otherwise on the dies treated so far despite the often greater carelessness in the execution of the letters no errors occur in the inscription (the alternation of N and Λ cannot be considered an error, since evidently both forms were equally valid around this time).

This die 20, which is still undamaged during the striking of 29 (10 + 20), appears later with a small flaw on the neck combined with obv. dies 12 (38) and 13 (40), but with the former not as its first rev. die.

With obv. die 12 a completely new style is introduced in the treatment of the quadrigae. Already in the external type a great change is noticeable, for horses and racing chariot are both really represented in three-quarter view, while previously only by displacement of the horses was the appearance created as if the team were not seen completely in side view. The horses are formed in extremely lively movement, whereby the tendency toward representation of parallel lines becomes visible only in the necks and heads of the three front horses, which all appear arranged side by side, whereas the last horse with head raised high upward has moved forward before the others. The rigid parallelization of the legs has yielded to a picturesquely lively representation that does not shy away from letting the legs cross, without always considering whether everything agrees with reality, if only the impression of lively movement is gained. The tendency toward the picturesque that is characteristic of this obv. type also manifests itself in the fact that a rein of the fourth horse has broken off or slipped from the hand of the charioteer, now hangs to the ground and has wound itself around a front leg of the horse. The chariot is formed with significantly larger wheels than before and makes a lighter, more mobile impression. The quadriga seems to be driven by a woman, for the long hair of the charioteer is gathered in a topknot on top of the head and at least on some specimens the female breasts seem to be clear. By the strong movement her garment flutters far backward. As the quadriga together with charioteer is represented in three-quarter view, so also by the position of the wings of Nike it is indicated that she too is to be understood in three-quarter view, and indeed also she in three-quarter view from the front. In the exergue a loose, lying wheel is represented and on the ground line are signs that on especially well preserved specimens can be read as EYAINETO. Thus, as was to be expected, the new style is introduced by an artist previously unknown on Syracusan coins, who immediately shows that he stands significantly higher than the older artists, both as regards purely technical skill and in truly artistic talent.

This die 12 is first combined with rev. dies of the older style that have already been used with obv. die 10, namely 17, 18 and 19 and also, as already noted, with 20, but between dies 19 and 20 the new head die 23 has come into use, as emerges with unusual great clarity from the gradually arising and growing flaw of the obv. die. During the striking of 34 (12 + 17) and 35 (12 + 18) the die is undamaged, at 36 (12 + 19) a small crack from the elbow of Nike to the goad is perceptible. With the individual specimens of number 37 (12 + 23), which have come down to us in especially large number and were therefore probably also struck in larger number than usual, we can then follow the growth of the die flaws in all details: the crack develops upward across the face of Nike and also extends further downward, beside it a new crack arises along the charioteer, which then extends over the hindquarters of the horses, and these two cracks unite above and widen into a large pit in the die. In this condition obv. die 12 (after use with 23) was occasionally once combined with rev. die 20 (38) and finally, when the crack in the die already extended across the ground line to the dotted circle below, 19 was once more taken into use in combination with it (36 j).^[82]

Two of the rev. dies that appear combined with obv. die 12 do not belong to the group of EV dies, namely 20 and 23, of which 20 has already been presented more precisely. The other again, 23, belongs according to the whole type to the same group as 20, and only in the detail treatment are deviations to be noted. Thus on 23, for example, the ampyx is decorated with a swan and has a zigzag line on the lower edge. The eyebrow and the upper eyelid are less fleshy, but the eyelids give the impression as if they were added later. On the lower edge of the sphendone at the nape we read the artist's signature EYKΛEI; Eukleidas thus is the creator of this die. Characteristic for him is the form of the ethnikon, YPAKOIO, and also in the treatment of the eye and the lips, to emphasize the most obvious, we find undoubted points of contact with 16, which indeed comes from him.

While obv. die 12, which had already become actually unusable through the large flaw, was still used with rev. dies 20 (38) and again 19 (36 j), a new obv. die (13) was taken into use, and indeed first together with rev. die 23 (39), which now shows on all specimens the flaw on the dolphin before the chin that on 37 (12 + 23) was still in the process of arising and is to be found only on some specimens of 37 (such as e.g. 37 c e g l u cc, which also mostly already had the large flaw of the obv. die).^[83] Stylistically now this new obv. die (13) shows no traces of the fact that the already previously used, stylistically so far developed obv. die by Euainetos (12) had exerted influence; the type of 13 is rather quite the same as in 10 and 11, indeed the representation of the horses still weaker, for the hind legs are bent still more, whereby the horses sink closer to the ground, in a manner that is highly improbable for galloping horses. Nike offers, as on 11, the charioteer, who this time is represented with a pointed beard, a wreath. Not only in all more significant externals does the image of 13 agree with that on 10 and 11, but the whole manner in which everything is executed is so completely the same that one can without doubt attribute this unsigned die 13 to the artist of 10 and 11, thus to EV.

After rev. die 23 (39) had probably been rejected because of the die cracks mentioned above, for obv. die 13 rev. die 20 was once more taken into use (40), to then be replaced by a new rev. die (24; 41). This order of the dies is completely certain, since the obv. die during the striking of 39 (13 + 23) has only a very slight crack under the bellies of the horses, which is already somewhat clearer at 40 (13 + 20), but at 41 (13 + 24) is very strong and is accompanied by a crack across the reins and one behind the tail of the right dolphin in the exergue.^[84] The new rev. die (24), which was thus used during the last service of obv. die 13, is executed completely in the manner of dies 20 and 23 and shows on the belly of the dolphin before the chin in microscopic letters the signature EYAI, which is now understood by everyone as Euainetos. The correspondence with die 23 signed by Eukleidas is remarkably great and only through precise investigation can reliable characteristics for one and the other artist be obtained. v. Sallet^[85] would like to regard the sharp indentation that is visible on the lower part of the upper lip of the head as especially characteristic of Euainetos. But the same indentation is perceptible on the upper lip of the head by Eukleidas (23). On the other hand, the treatment of the nose and the eyes offers some distinguishing points. Thus the frontal angle above the eye on the head that Euainetos executed (24) projects somewhat, while the transition from forehead to temple on that of Eukleidas (23) is imperceptible. The nose of the maiden's head by Euainetos seems to be somewhat more pointed and the nostrils are not as completely executed as Eukleidas has done it. Perhaps something characteristic for the difference of the two artists is also to be found in the treatment of the neck, which in the Euainetos die (24) has double skin folds and seems to be somewhat softer and fleshier. Probably without significance is that Eukleidas has placed a swan on the ampyx, Euainetos on the other hand a dolphin, and also the other decoration of the headdress is somewhat different. On the other hand, in the form of the letters in the ethnikon a characteristic for the style of the two artists is to be found, for Eukleidas has fairly small and lightly scratched letters, which are nevertheless precisely and symmetrically formed, not as carelessly as e.g. those of Eumenos; Euainetos on the other hand has thick, strong letters of somewhat more varying size.

After we have determined the distinguishing features of dies 23 (Eukleidas) and 24 (Euainetos), die 20 must also be subjected to a precise comparison with these dies, since indeed all three have completely the same type. In doing so we see that the form of the nose and of the forehead above the eye agrees completely with that on rev. die 24 by Euainetos. Likewise the treatment of the small locks at the nape is the same, and the sphendone at the back of the head is of the same size as on 24 and thus somewhat smaller and less projecting than on 23. It is also not without significance that the letters in the ethnikon of 20 are similar to those on 24 in form and manner of execution, whereby the circumstance can be of weight that 20 begins with a reversed () and ends on ON, while 24 begins correctly and ends on ΩN. Since it is completely evidently proven by die cracks both on rev. die 20 itself and on obv. die 13 that 20 was in use earlier than rev. die 24, we cannot regard 20 as an unsigned imitation of the rev. die 24 signed by Euainetos, but must see in it the older die, which to all appearances is also older than the Eukleidas die 23. The points in which 20 agrees with 24 are indeed so characteristic that this die must come from Euainetos. This also agrees with the fact that with this die both a new type and a new style have been introduced into the coin series of Syracuse, which one will a priori rather attribute to a new artist than to one who has already been active earlier in Syracuse. Also the circumstance that 24 is unconditionally superior to die 20 in technical skill, since in the former everything is executed much more sharply and precisely, agrees well with the fact that 20 is an earlier work of Euainetos, who had not yet at that time attained the complete mastery of the technical means of expression that then comes to light so beautifully on 24.

In connection with rev. die 24 after obv. die 13 again a new obv. die (14) appears (42). It cannot be proven with complete certainty that this die 14 was used later than 13 with rev. die 24, since no changes are perceptible in the condition of the rev. die, but equally the opposite cannot be proven. As on 12, also on this die the quadriga is represented running to the right, not as otherwise always to the left, and also this time in three-quarter view, even though the chariot stands somewhat less obliquely to the viewer. The horses are represented in lively gallop, the first three with their heads parallel side by side, the fourth more freely and somewhat moved forward, which is substantively justified since its rein has also slipped from the hand of the charioteer on this die and hangs to the ground. The charioteer, who has a somewhat archaically formed head with pointed beard, is smaller, and the size relationship between him and the horses is more correct. He holds the reins taut and the horses do not rear up as much as on 12. Nike, who is unusually small, carries in her hands besides the wreath also a tablet with the inscription EYAIN
ETO. This inscription thus testifies that this die comes from the same artist as 12, and thereby only confirms the assumption to which a precise stylistic-critical investigation must lead: the horses offer the most striking proofs of this, for example besides in the external forms also in the strongly emphasized musculature on the neck and on the legs. More a curiosity is that on both dies the four horses have only seven hind legs. In the exergue we find again the two dolphins facing each other.

According to Evans^[86] and thereafter Hill^[87] and Forrer^[88] obv. die 14 would be the older and 12 the younger, and in this conception Forrer refers to Weil,^[89] who indeed does not say this outright but nevertheless seems to indicate this through the order in which he treats the two obv. dies, as well as through the judgment that he pronounces on the two. With the help of die couplings etc., however, we have proven that 12 is older than 14 and also the stylistic criteria do not speak against it. The image of a quadriga in the race is more unified on 14, on which the position of the charioteer and the way he holds the reins taut and directs his whole attention to the horses brings the seriousness of the moment before our eyes; on 12 on the other hand the female charioteer holds the reins with an almost slack hand, and while the horses rear up and the rein of the outermost has slipped loose, she looks calmly at the viewer without particularly concerning herself about the critical situation of the quadriga. The individual parts are successful, but such a rounded representation has not yet arisen at 12 as is the case on 14.

With 14 not only rev. die 24 by Euainetos has been in use, but also three other rev. dies, namely 25, 26 and 27, and indeed in this order, as emerges from the condition of obv. die (9). For during the striking of 43 (14 + 25) a small crack arises between the goad and the knees of Nike, which is absent on 42 (14 + 24) and still on some specimens of 43 (f i s) and is quite small on 43 t and w. This crack extends during the striking of 44 (14+26) already from the knees of Nike to the goad, and as is noticeable on 44 h, a new crack arises across the thighs of the horse hind legs. On all specimens of 45 (14 + 27) these two cracks are perceptible and the older has become still somewhat stronger.^[90]

Rev. die 25 has again taken up the type that is represented by 12, 17–19 and 21–22, thus the head whose hair is pinned up in a roll at the nape and is drawn upward at the forehead and the temple. 26 and 27 on the other hand have utilized elements from dies 20, 24 by Euainetos and 23 by Eukleidas, but with certain changes. Both show the hair as those do in sphendone and ampyx, which on both are decorated with stars and have a zigzag ornament on the lower edge of the ampyx. But both ampyx and sphendone are significantly broader, and the sphendone does not embrace the nape hair completely and almost like a sack, but is drawn more tightly around the head and leaves visible not only the small locks that have stolen out but also a strip of the hair at the nape. In this way a significantly smaller part of the crown hair is left uncovered, and the locks, whose longer and shorter tips swell out from the band, almost fill the whole free space at the top of the crown. The locks at the temple are drawn upward, but only over the ampyx, while the band of the sphendone at 27 is uncovered in its whole breadth and at 26 is only partially covered by the locks. The eyes are relatively long with especially marked iris, the eyelids are thick and as if added, not organically connected with the surrounding area. The lips are short and strong, only at 27 with the indentation on the lower part of the upper lip that we have noted on dies 20, 23, 24. All these dies (25–27), which have the ethnikon YPAKOIΩN, are signed with EVMENOV. Usually these dies are assigned to the same artist who executed the dies signed with EVMHNOV and to whom then also the dies with EV as well as the die to be treated later (28) with EVM are given. This conception is already expressed by v. Sallet^[91] and Head^[92] and is shared by Weil,^[93] who calls the artist Eumenos. Evans,^[94] who shares Weil's conception that the EVMHNOV tetradrachms represent the older manner of the same artist who later signed EVMENOV and whom he calls Eumenēs,^[95] then attempted to justify this conception more precisely; the inconsistency that, while the signature reads EVMHNOV, the ethnikon is written in the form VPAKOION, whereas later EVMENOV and YPAKOIΩN were written side by side, and that thus the new letters H and Ω were not taken into use at the same time by the artist, but H earlier and still in incorrect application, he explains by the fact that in the adoption of some new letters to those used since ancient times a certain uncertainty can initially prevail. This conception has been generally accepted and only Regling^[96] has asserted that EVMHNOV and EVMENOV designated different artists, an Eumēnos and an Eumenēs, without supporting this remark with other reasons than that no examples of erroneous use of H for E in the penetration of the Ionic alphabet have been proven for Sicily. And indeed the examples that Evans brings forward^[97] such as YΡΑΚΩΙΟΝ instead of YΡΑΚΟΙΩΝ on our obv. die 16 or ΗΡΜΕ and ΔΙΩΝYΩ on red-figured vases cannot be used as fully valid for our case, for the examples on the vases have nothing to do with Sicily and the example from Syracuse comes from a die by Phrygillos, to whom another error in the inscriptions has also been proven; he namely originally cut YΡΚΟ into the die on 18, and even though he subsequently corrected this error, we nevertheless see that the incorrectly applied Ω can also simply be a writing error. On the other hand, the spellings VΡΑΚΟΙΟΝ and ΕVΜΗΝΟV on the one hand, on the other hand YΡΑΚΟΙΩΝ and ΕVΜΕΝΟV are really consistently carried through. Lederer^[98] has recently joined Regling's conception. He justifies it somewhat more precisely with reference to the stylistic differentiation of the heads, without concealing how difficult it is to distribute similar dies to different artists on the basis of only stylistic differences. What the stylistic differences would be in this case, however, Lederer has not indicated; still less has he rejected the possibility that the stylistic differentiation could derive from the fact that the tetradrachms with ΕVΜΕΝΟV are younger and that in between Euainetos appeared with his new style, which Eukleidas immediately joined, and which could then indeed also have had influence on Eumenos (or Eumenes). An objection like this latter could of course not be refuted bindingly. The deviations in style, on the other hand, that are present between the two groups, are certain. Especially in the treatment of the eye and the lips I see on 25–27 a different hand than on 12, 14 and 15; likewise the forms of the dolphins on the ΕVΜΕΝΟV dies are very different from those of the ΕVΜΗΝΟV dies, and yet the dolphins are very characteristic for the different artists. The forms of the letters on 25–27 are remarkably uncertain and ugly (one need only look at the signatures or the beginning of the ethnikon on 26!) and indeed agree in this deficiency with those on the Eumenos tetradrachms, but the forms in themselves are nevertheless fundamentally different. — If therefore ΕVΜΗΝΟV and ΕVΜΕΝΟV do not designate the same artist, the question still remains how ΕV relates to these artists. As has already been explained, the ΕV rev. dies are mainly combined with obv. dies that likewise bear the signature ΕV, and thus must surely be attributed to the same artist. These obv. dies, however, separate themselves in turn fairly sharply from the obv. die that certainly comes from Eumenos (?), and can hardly come from the same artist Eumenos. But still greater is the difference between the rev. dies of ΕV and of Eumenos, which comes to light especially sharply in the treatment of the nose and lips as well as of the eye; and this difference also with regard to the rev. dies makes it still more improbable that ΕVΜΗΝΟV and ΕV could designate the same artist. Somewhat more difficult is the question with regard to ΕV and ΕVΜΕΝΟV, for both rev. die 21 and 22 show certain elements that recur on 25, thus on 21 the form of the nose, on 22 the small locks at the hairline along the temple. The formation of the eye on all ΕV dies, of the nose and the lips on most, on the other hand, is quite different from that on the ΕVΜΕΝΟV dies, likewise the form of the letters. Only 21 and 25 seem to me to stand fairly close to one another, but also with regard to these the indicated differences are perceptible. I therefore believe that we have in ΕV an artist whose complete name is unknown to us and will remain so, but who is artistically different from both Eumenos and Eumenes, although he stands fairly close to them.

In addition to the tetradrachm coinage with obverse die 14 and the reverse dies 24–27, another series of tetradrachms appears, partly struck simultaneously, namely 46–48 (obv. 15, rev. 28. 29, 26). On obverse die 15 we have, as always, a quadriga, this time also turned to the right as on the Euainetos obverses and rendered even more in three-quarter view. The horses, which rear up and are vigorously held back by the charioteer, as is evident from the position of the heads of the three rear horses, are arranged side by side in such a way that the neck and chest of all four horses become visible. The chariot is also rendered in consistently executed three-quarter view, whereby the front edge of the chariot box is more richly articulated than on the obverse dies of Euainetos (12. 14), on which the edge was also visible. The charioteer, who is naked and winged and thus intended to represent a genius, is naturally also formed in three-quarter view, and bends back somewhat in order to maintain his balance better and to have the horses more firmly in his hand; this posture has already been observed, for example, on obverse dies 7, 12 and 14, but it is nowhere executed as clearly as here. He holds in both hands the reins, whose ends hang down loosely, and looks sideways upward toward the Nike, who holds in her right hand the wreath with which she is just about to crown him, while in her left hand, leaning against her arm, she holds an elongated object. This object cannot be recognized on most specimens, it only looks as if the left arm were incorrectly drawn and disproportionately thick; but the very fact that she does not hold the wreath with both hands, as she always does otherwise (except on 14, on which she holds the wreath with one hand, but in the other the tablet with the artist's signature), but has the other hand free, suggests the thought that she is supposed to be holding something in her hand: on particularly good specimens it is really clear that the Nike has an object in her arm, whose upper tip apparently merges with the feathers of the wing. It cannot be a caduceus, as Weil^[99] — the only one who mentions anything about it — thinks. Rather it must be a palm branch or even an aplustre, for it looks very similar to the object that the Nike bears on the chariot side of the tetradrachms of Euarchidas (30–33) and which is usually seen as an aplustre. In the exergue we have a vividly executed Scylla from the right, on whose body two dog forelegs protrude. On her left shoulder she holds the trident and with her extended right hand she seems to grasp at a small fish swimming before her; behind her, above the long-winding tail of the sea monster, is a small dolphin. Before the Scylla is located the signature of the artist who, if he did not invent this new type, at least introduced it in Syracuse; unfortunately the name is given only in abbreviated form, ΕYΘ; since only this die can be attributed to him with certainty and no other trace of him can be found in Syracuse, only hypothetical expansions, such as Euthymos, can be proposed. Weil^[100] draws attention to the fact that the image in the exergue occurs in simpler form on contemporary coins of Akragas, while the quadriga is strikingly reminiscent of one of the latest tetradrachms of Selinus and concludes from this that Euth- came from western Sicily, probably from Akragas or Selinus. Evans^[101] on the other hand regards the appearance of the new type both in Syracuse and in Selinus as an influence from Cyrene and finds great similarity in the arrangement of the horses with that on the Cyrenaean staters of this time. However that may be — the question of where the various types originate will have to be treated separately — in any case the artist is an innovator^[102] among the die engravers of Syracuse and his appearance seems to have occurred around the time of some naval event worthy of remembrance. At least both the figures in the exergue and the attribute in Nike's hand point to such an explanation. We will approach the question more closely in the chronological fixing of the tetradrachms of this time, where we will also address Hill's conjecture,^[103] who sees in this die an allusion to the naval victory of the Syracusans over the Athenians in the year 425 B.C. in the strait of Messana.

The reverses that appear connected with this obverse die 15 come from three different dies (28, 29, 26), of which the last, 26, had already been used with obverse die 14 (44). The obverse die (15) shows in the striking of 46 (15 + 28) a small crack beginning to form under Nike's left hand, which is still absent on some specimens (thus 46 r), as well as on some specimens small cracks above Nike's wing and from Scylla's neck to her tail (thus 46 q). These cracks are already somewhat larger in the striking of 47 (15 + 29), but in addition a long crack has appeared that extends over the third horse and traces of which are noticeable up to the edge of the flan; under the front feet of the horses a rough spot is furthermore perceptible, evidently as a result of rusting of the die, which becomes increasingly clear (cf. 47 j, m, with 47 d, e, g). This rough spot can be found on all specimens of 48 (15 + 26), and it seems to have expanded further.^[104] On the basis of the condition of the obverse die it thus becomes clear that the reverse dies were used in the order 28, 29, 26. The oldest of these, 28, shows the usual head, with the hair gathered fairly in the manner of 25 in a roll, but around the head is wound a wreath of barley ears, poppy, acorn and oak leaves, which only indistinctly allows the hair on the crown to shimmer through. Besides this unusual ornament, the goddess wears on the otherwise quite plain necklace a pendant in the form of a finely executed little lion's head, an ornament that is encountered on several tetradrachms from the transitional period.^[105] The nose is straight, the lips short and full, in the eye the iris is indicated as are the eyebrows. The ear, which is half covered by the hair, is extremely simple, executed only as if by a line and a dot, and the hook-shaped earring winds in the same way as the little curls on both sides of it. This die, which like the obverse die 15 connected with it represents an innovation, bears the signature ΕVΜ, which is usually interpreted as Eumenos^[106] or Eumenes,^[107] thus as the artist to whom the dies with ΕVΜΗΝΟV, ΕV and ΕVΜΕΝΟV are attributed. After we have distributed these dies among three different artists, even a superficial examination shows that neither Eumenos nor ΕV has anything to do with die 28. Regarding the relationship of ΕVΜ to ΕVΜΕΝΟV, the decision is more difficult. Apart from the wreath, which is not found on the dies otherwise signed by Eumenes, but which could nevertheless have been introduced on a particular, unknown to us, occasion, we find that the profile line is significantly straighter, and that the necklace is adorned with a particularly finely executed pendant. The epigraphic evidence does not clarify the matter further, for even if the forms of the letters are not completely identical with those on older dies, the deviations are too small to be used as evidence against the identification of ΕVΜ with Eumenes. Against the identity of the artists might speak, but by no means convincingly, that the obverse die of the new artist ΕVΘ has also been connected with another reverse die of a hitherto unknown artist, Phrygillos. The form of the signature, ΕVΜ instead of the longer ΕVΜΕΝΟV can again have no decisive significance against the identity, since the names of Euainetos, Eukleidas, Kimon also occur both abbreviated and complete.^[108] It seems to me in any case that the possibility exists that ΕVΜ could really designate Eumenes, although I do not dare to assert this with any certainty.

As mentioned, the ΕVΘ-die (15) is secondly connected with a reverse die (29) (47) that is signed by the artist Phrygillos (ΦΡYΓΙΛΛ
      Ο under the neck section).^[109] The type of the head is the same as on the preceding die, but the whole style has become different. Already in the arrangement of the hair and the wreath differences make themselves felt. The wreath is much simpler, one can distinguish all its components clearly and precisely, and it also does not cover the hair on the crown in the way as with ΕYΜ. The roll at the nape as well as the hair rolled up from the temples is not gathered up so high, whereby the hair on the crown is also left freer. In contrast to 28, the nose on 29 does not form a straight line with the forehead, but bends at the bridge of the nose, as on the older dies, while the nose itself is nevertheless straight. The tip of the nose is blunt. The lips are short and fairly full, but characteristic of this die is the greater width of the upper lip. Particularly characteristic of the new artist in relation to those previously treated is the treatment of the profile line and the lips, as well as the position of the eye, which lies deeper, so that the bridge of the nose is broader than on those previously treated, whereby it should be noted that the lashes on the upper eyelid are not indicated, as is usually the case, in the inner corner of the eye. The entire die clearly shows how strongly the artist still felt the influence of his predecessors in Syracuse, but also that from the beginning he asserts his own style in many points. To illustrate the uncertainty that still prevailed in Syracuse regarding orthography, attention may already be drawn to the fact that while Eum(,) writes VΡΑΚΟΙΩΝ, Phrygillos again uses the old spelling YΡΑΚΟΙΟΝ.

Besides the already known reverse die 26, which was first used with obverse die 14 (44), and afterwards, as the tiny die cracks before the nose and at the nape testify, was still used with 15 (48), whereby the at least relative contemporaneity of the two series 42–45 and 46–48 is proven, a fourth reverse die is brought into connection with this obverse die 15 in the literature. This is based, however, only on an illustration in Castellus (Torremuzza^[110]) and is not confirmed, as far as I know, by any existing coin. Weil^[111] believes he can attribute this die to Eumenos (thus probably according to my understanding Eumenes), while the arrangement in Forrer^[112] rather gives occasion for the view that he sees in this die a work of Phrygillos. As is well known, however, the illustrations in Castellus are generally so unreliable that it is impossible to build even reasonably certain conclusions on them, even less so when the illustration, as in this case, was also taken from the work of Paruta,^[113] which truly has no better reputation than that of Castellus. Even less can one establish die identities or differences on the basis of such illustrations, but must be glad if one can only ascertain with some probability which coin types the editor wants to represent. It thus seems probable that we have here a perhaps somewhat more than usually distorted illustration of a tetradrachm of 48.

As becomes clear from the preceding grouping of the coins, the obverse die of ΕVΘ (15) is not older than the obverse dies of Euainetos (12 and 14), as Hill^[114] still says, albeit hesitantly, but certainly younger than 12 and probably also somewhat younger than 14, even though the striking of the two groups 42–45 and 46–48, at least in part, took place simultaneously at two different coining tables.

From the die engraver Phrygillos, who executed the reverse die (29), there are three other signed head dies (16, 18, 19), which form a unified group (to which an unsigned one, 17, also belongs) and are also connected with each other through direct die linkages. All these dies represent the usual reverse type, i.e. the head of the nymph or goddess, but as clearly emerges from some specimens, such as 56 b and 54 a, here the head has been used as an obverse type, completely contrary to the usual practice of this time in Syracuse and also otherwise in Sicily. More precise reasons why the striking here deviated from the usual cannot be put forward; for the reason that perhaps the lower obverse die, fixed in the anvil, would be more resistant and therefore more suitable for the higher relief that the head requires in comparison with the chariot, makes no convincing impression in the case now occupying us. On the contrary, the quadrigas are in many respects precisely here of extremely fine workmanship in relatively high relief, which would have required the more protected position of the lower, thus the obverse die, just as much as the heads.

The obverse dies offer, as mentioned, the usual reverse type, the head from the left. The hair is gathered in the nape in a sphendone, which on dies 16 and 19 is star-decorated, on 18 unadorned; in front the hair is held together by an ampyx, on which the signature ΦΡY is more or less clearly readable. From the sphendone on 16 some curls emerge, and the curls at the temple are drawn upward, with the exception of some small curls, one of which before the ear is longer, and which, instead of winding as usual, are formed like screws. The ear ornament has the form of three pearls hanging from each other, of which the uppermost is the largest, the lowermost the smallest — thus here too a deviation from the previously known form is perceptible. The nose is straight, but nevertheless does not form a straight line with the forehead, but deviates somewhat at the bridge of the nose. The eye lies fairly deep, the iris is not indicated, and the lower eyelid ends disproportionately early. On 16 and 19 the eyebrow is strongly marked, but the lashes are not indicated at all. In the whole head a style characteristic of the artist is perceptible in the strong, full forms, which easily make a somewhat coarse impression, especially in less well-struck specimens.

We already said that these dies are attributed to Phrygillos, although the signature only reads ΦΡY. That this identification of the artists is justified is made evident by a comparative examination of dies 29 and 16, 18, 19. Apart from such externalities as the distribution of the ethnic partly between the dolphins, partly within the dolphin circle, wherein 29 has great and characteristic similarities with 16 and 19, the treatment of the nose and lips offers particularly great similarities, and also in the chin and in the eye there are similarities that, difficult to define as they are, nevertheless clearly reveal the same hand.

As characteristic of Phrygillos we must also regard a certain carelessness that is particularly perceptible in the execution of the ethnic. The circumstance that he, who usually writes YΡΑΚΟΙΟΝ, has written YΡΑΚΩΙΟΝ on 16, could indeed also be based on uncertainty in the use of the new letters, but to interpret it rather as carelessness is nevertheless obvious when we see how on 18 he first wrote YΡΚΟ, only to change this to YΡΑΚ, without however being able to completely erase the error.

To this group still belongs die 17, which unfortunately is known only in one specimen. The type deviates in the representation of the sphendone from those just treated, for here the upper edge of the sphendone forms an unbroken line from the nape to the forehead and the sphendone bands end in a knot; it is uncertain whether a special ampyx is present, or whether the headband of the sphendone has also been treated as an ampyx despite the knot. In style certain similarities with the Phrygillos coins are present, but on the other hand great deviations are also to be noted that cast doubt on whether this die is to be attributed to Phrygillos, e.g. in the treatment of the lips. As ear ornament the double ring known from ancient times is used, not the triple pearl ornament. Judging from the illustration^[115] (I have not succeeded in obtaining the original or a cast), the possibility cannot be simply dismissed that this piece is overstruck. Thus the knot of the sphendone gives the impression as if it did not belong to this die at all, and the dolphin, whose dorsal fin becomes visible under the neck section, also does not fit into the picture as it otherwise lies before us. At the back of the head it only looks like a double strike, but the other oddities can hardly be explained by a double strike. How they are to be explained, however, is not clear to me.

The reverses that are connected with the obverse dies just discussed have for their part the usual obverse type, the quadriga, and are five in number (30–34). Of these, four (30–33) form a unified, stylistically coherent group, as is already to be expected because as a result of the deviation from the usual arrangement of obverse and reverse, these chariot reverses cannot appear in connection with heads that are themselves worked as reverses. The quadrigas are from the left in three-quarter view and in lively movement, without however achieving the impression of rapid forward rushing. The horses look in all directions, the second horse on all dies raises its head straight upward, the first and third look backward on 30, 31, 32 and on 33 they hold their heads in front view, while the first horse on 34 looks straight ahead and only the third has turned its head. On several dies (except 34) the hind legs are formed as if the horses were vigorously held in check and therefore had sunk into their hind legs, without however this position being fully carried through. It is noteworthy that, although the hind legs and often something of the hindquarters of one of the horses, which becomes visible under the belly of the first horse, are executed with great precision, nevertheless only on 34 are the hind legs of all four horses represented. The forelegs are arranged in a lively and true-to-nature manner. On the chariot, which is represented in three-quarter view, stands on these dies a female charioteer instead of the usual male. She is everywhere too large, but on 31 and 32 has achieved a quite disproportionate size. On dies 31, 32 and 33 she looks at the viewer, and on 32 and 33 her face is surrounded by long, flowing curls. Of particular interest is the artistic treatment of the long garment with overlay and mantle, which are represented as fluttering in the wind. The charioteer holds, as usual, the reins in her left hand, but instead of the driving stick in her right hand she holds a burning torch. The Nike flying toward her holds not only the wreath in her right hand, but on all dies except 34 she also has in her extended left hand an object that has usually been explained as an aphlaston. This explanation does not seem to me completely secure, and I will return to it later. In the exergue on all is represented an ear of grain.

This whole group of reverse dies is attributed to the artist Euarchidas, since the correct reading of the signature on dies 31 and 33 has been found. Previously, as still in Weil^[116], it was read as EYΚΛΕΙΔΑ, then Salinas^[117] showed that this reading was based on incomplete and unclear coins, and the correct reading is EYΑΡΧΙΔΑ. Forrer^[118] offers in his work "Signatures des graveurs" under Eukleidas still the old, false reading, under Euarchidas the correct one and a complete exposition about the earlier false readings. — Now the question is to be answered, did Euarchidas also make those chariot dies of this group that are unsigned, or are they to be attributed to another? As mentioned, two (31 and 33) are signed by Euarchidas, but three (30, 32, 34) are unsigned. Regarding die 32 it can hardly be doubted that it comes from the hand of Euarchidas. Not only is the general position of the quadriga similar to that of dies 31 and 33, but the charioteer is completely of the same type, with richly fluttering garment, the head turned toward the viewer. Die 30 also does not deny its origin from Euarchidas; the position of the horses, which is so characteristic of his dies, is also found here. The hind legs are bent, so that a part of the hindquarters of three horses becomes visible — the hind legs of the fourth horse are not indicated at all; noteworthy, however, is that on this die the belly line of the second and third horses also becomes visible, while of the fourth horse again only head, chest and forelegs are indicated, and on this die it makes even more than on the others the impression as if the third and fourth horses were grown together, with one body and two front parts. The charioteer indeed looks at the Nike, not at the viewer, as on 31–33, but her garment shows in general the same style as the previously treated dies, and particularly noteworthy is that it, fluttering strongly in the wind, forms a bulge behind the head, as on the other dies attributed to Euarchidas. Matters are somewhat different with die 34. Already the treatment of the horses makes a different impression. The lively movement on the previous dies gives way here to a significantly calmer one, and the hind legs are arranged somewhat stiffly alongside each other, even if their position otherwise indicates rapid movement. But not only is the position changed, the cutting of the die has also become different, less fine and sharp. The deviations are relatively large; thus the charioteer has her hair clearly gathered in a roll, while the Euarchidas dies represent it fluttering in the wind, and her garment flutters in a somewhat different way and appears incomprehensibly long and wide at the bottom. The Nike for her part is small and thick and holds only the wreath with both hands. It is probably also significant that the two signed dies and those clearly to be attributed to Euarchidas 30 and 32 show no trace of the chariot box — the viewer may imagine as he will in what way the large charioteer can stand in the chariot that is drawn by the small horses. On 34 on the other hand one sees the chariot box. If therefore much is to be noted in common between dies 30–33 on the one hand and 34 on the other, it nevertheless seems, if not exactly impossible, at least not necessary to attribute this die to the same artist (Euarchidas) who executed those. Rather, 34 can be brought into connection with obverse dies 21, 22 etc., but only stylistically, not mechanically through die linkages. But before we proceed to these dies, the chronological order of the Phrygillos obverses and the reverses connected with them must still be discussed. It cannot be established with complete certainty in all points, but the relationship of most dies to each other is nevertheless clear. Obverse die 18 was first connected with reverse die 30 (51); already then small injuries are noticeable on it before the eye and under the chin. Besides these cracks, in the striking of 52 (18 + 31) a small crack has formed at the tail of the dolphin before the face. In the striking of 53 (18 + 32) the crack under the chin has become longer and sharper and a new crack runs from the pectoral fin of the dolphin behind the nape to the tail of the lower dolphin. On 54 (18 + 33) finally the obverse die has acquired two cracks at the tail of the dolphin behind the nape.^[119] Reverse die 33, which in the striking of 54a is still uninjured, shows in the striking of 54b and likewise of 55 (19 + 33) an injury under one of the forelegs of the fourth horse, thus 55 must be later than 54. Likewise 55 is again older than 56 (19 + 33), since obverse die 19 in the striking of 56 shows between the chin and the last O in the ethnic an injury that on 55 is significantly smaller. On the other hand, 49 (16 + 30) and 50 (17 + 30) are indeed connected with the rest of the group through linkages, but certain marks for their chronological relationship to 51, with which they both come from the same reverse die (30), are lacking.

The object that Nike holds in her hand on several dies of this group and which has been interpreted as an aphlaston, is explained as a symbol of some naval victory,^[120] and this victory is thought to be the great victory of the Syracusans over the Athenians in the year 413 B.C. Undoubtedly much speaks for this interpretation, but it is not certain; we postpone this point as well as the question of the entire chronology of these tetradrachms to the final section.

The type of the chariot side that first appears on the reverse dies of Euarchidas is used on some other dies as well, but with the difference that the aphlaston (?) is absent on these dies as on 34. Already this circumstance makes it probable that these dies are somewhat younger than those of Euarchidas; for the innovation in the type, the introduction of the female figure with burning torch as charioteer of the quadriga, seems to contain a reference to some historical event just as much as the introduction of the aphlaston (?) in Nike's hand, and if this is so, all this will probably refer to related events. That the aphlaston is then omitted while the charioteer with the torch is still retained, is probably most simply understood as a return to normal conditions, whereby the charioteer was still retained for a while for artistic reasons.

This type is found on two dies that are not worked as reverse dies like the Euarchidas dies, but are again as before obverse dies, namely 20 and 21, which however are only stylistically close to each other, without being connected with each other through direct linkage. Both dies are in many respects similar to die 34, particularly in the position of the horses; it is however on 20 treated somewhat more skillfully, especially as regards the hind legs, so that the horses seem to rush forward more. This impression of 20 is further strengthened by the position of the charioteer, who bends forward somewhat and stretches the torch far before her, in the manner as on 34. Also the size of the charioteer is on these dies better adapted to the horses, whereby the disproportion that on the chariot dies of the previous group has such a disturbing effect has been remedied. On 20 the garment of the charioteer is also similar to that on 34, while 21 approaches in this respect more die 30, also in that the garment of the charioteer forms a large bulge behind the head. Nike, although also fairly small on 20, is nevertheless not formed as small as on 34. On 21 her position is however not completely correctly adjusted, for she is represented as if she were holding the wreath right into the burning flame of the torch. Overall these dies make the impression as if they had not been copied directly from the certainly Euarchidean dies, but rather that 34, which perhaps does not come from Euarchidas, had served them as a model. The circumstance that these dies also have an ear of grain in the exergue like those of the previous group can prove nothing direct for the artistic relationship, for this ear of grain recurs on almost all following dies up to 87.

It cannot be determined with certainty which of these obverse dies (20, 21) is the older. Both stand equally close to the models, both are connected with reverse dies that represent more or less considerable innovations in the coinage in Syracuse. It seems to me however probable that 20 is somewhat older, mainly because on the only reverse die (35) that is connected with it, there is a closer connection to the older dies (57). This reverse die 35 is in many respects remarkable. The head is turned to the left with the hair in sphendone and ampyx. The sphendone, which is knotted in front and broad at the nape and looks more like a folded cloth, is decorated on the lower edge with a zigzag ornament (likewise the lower edge of the ampyx) and set with star-like arranged dots at the nape. From the sphendone curls emerge and the curls at the temple are brushed upward. The ornaments of the head include, as usual, necklace and earring, which this time is unusually magnificent and consists of a large ring to which 5 pearls hanging on cords or chains are attached. On the dolphin that lies before the chin of the maiden's head, on the best specimens stands the inscription ΕYΚΛΕΙ (first recognized in the Hirsch cat. 8, 991). Previously various assumptions have been expressed: thus for example in B. M. C. 161 this coin is reckoned to the group of Phrygillos, probably because of the relationship of the chariot sides; for these, which were previously attributed to Eukleidas through erroneous reading of the inscription on some dies, offer, as already emphasized earlier,^[121] grounds for an approximation of this coin to the Phrygillos coins, while their heads are not only different in type but also offer completely different style. As soon as through the discovery of the signature the authorship of Eukleidas became known, to which the form of the ethnic YΡΑΚΟΙΟ should already have drawn attention, it has been easy to find stylistic peculiarities that are characteristic of the Eukleidas dies. I would particularly draw attention to the quite obvious similarity in the treatment of the profile, both of the nose and of the lips, that prevails between dies 16 and 35 and has such a striking effect because the age difference is already fairly great and the Eukleidas dies lying in between do not offer such striking similarities, even if for example in the points in which reverse dies 23 and 24 differ from each other, the Eukleidas die 23 is similar to this die (35). On the other hand it must be admitted that in 35 something of the manner of Euainetos is also noticeable, though in my opinion mainly in the way the signature has been placed on the front dolphin, for that is not otherwise the habit of Eukleidas. Such an influence, however, especially in externalities, is not only to be expected but actually to be presupposed.

As mentioned, the tetradrachm group that was struck with obverse die 21 is perhaps somewhat younger than 57 (20 + 35), even if the possibility of partly simultaneous striking must be admitted, without however being able to be proven. Obverse die 21 is connected with five different reverse dies (36–40), of which the first 2 (36 and 37) offer something completely new in the coinage of Syracuse, while the others have taken up again an older type from the transitional period. The injuries on obverse die 21 allow the chronological order of the reverses to be established insofar as we can see with certainty that 36 (58) is the oldest; on one specimen (58 h) we find namely the ground line still without side cracks; otherwise it is more injured and these injuries become somewhat larger and more numerous in the striking of 60–62 (21 + 38–40). The order of dies 38, 39, 40 on the other hand cannot be determined with the help of the condition of 21.

The absolutely new thing in the coin series of Syracuse that is introduced with 36 and 37 consists in the fact that the female head is not formed as usual in profile, but from the front with a small turn to the left. The head is covered by a richly decorated helmet, under which rich curls flow on both sides of the face. The helmet is provided with a high crest, the side flaps, which are formed like wings, are raised, and on the front of the helmet as well as on the headband are rich palmette ornaments, between which stands the inscription EYK|ΛΕΙΔA or ΕY|Κ|ΛΕΙΔ. On 36 one sees at the ear the double earring so common in Syracuse, while the ear on 37 is completely covered by the curls. Both have at the neck a necklace of long drop-shaped pearls and in the middle between these a larger pendant in the form of a lion's head. As usual the head is surrounded by dolphins, one of which is represented as if emerging from the rich mass of curls. For Eukleidas, who thus introduced this type in Syracuse, it is also characteristic that on 37 the ethnic has the form YΡΑΚΟΙΟ; on 36 he has used the later general form YΡΑΚΟΙΩΝ.

Already through the turn of the head it becomes difficult to compare the style of these dies with those previously treated from the hand of Eukleidas. With 35 they are perhaps connected by the grouping of the dolphins, especially the way in which one is half hidden visible behind or under the head. As something generally characteristic of Eukleidas this cannot be regarded, but rather as an innovation that was precisely introduced by Eukleidas in his later period.

What is new about this type is now not only the representation of the head in frontal view, but also the helmet; we are thus dealing not with the usual goddess or nymph, but with Athena. Why the artist has abandoned the goddess familiar from ancient times cannot be said, and perhaps we will never be able to state the real reason with certainty. Nevertheless the dolphins are retained and we now stand before the remarkable combination between Athena and dolphins.

The circumstance that 37 offers YΡΑΚΟΙΟ, while 36 has YΡΑΚΟΙΩΝ, would authorize us, it seems, to regard 37 as the older die, and the stylistic examination seems to confirm this view. 37 is turned somewhat more to the left, and the left cheek rises higher, as this die is also otherwise more concavely formed to raise the facial relief than usual, whereby the coin becomes disproportionately thick on one side. Since however the injuries of the obverse die (21) prove with certainty that 36 was used before 37, those circumstances must be explained otherwise: either we must set up the hypothesis that 37 was first executed as an attempt, but was set aside as unsuccessful, only to be taken into use for a shorter time after all when 36 had become unusable. Or it would also be possible that Eukleidas took his model from outside, and in 36 adhered more closely to it, but in 37 worked somewhat more independently. The facial features on 36 make a somewhat coarser impression, but at the same time have a more lively expression. Both dies were unfortunately more or less injured in the striking of most coins, whereby the impression is somewhat disturbed: it turned out namely that for the high relief of a frontal head the upper die was not suitable — a sad experience that Kimon then took as a lesson for the Arethusa. On 37 a large injury runs right under the mouth across the face and disfigures it, but the small injuries on 36, which like cracks run from the nose over the lips and likewise from the helmet crest to the front helmet edge, have an even more significantly disturbing effect as soon as one examines the coins more closely. A large, gradually growing injury is perceptible at the left edge of 36.

The other group of reverses (38–40) that are connected with obverse die 21 (60–62) offers a head from the right with the hair gathered in a topknot on the crown. The type is clearly a resumption of a type of the transitional period^[122] (which is connected with an obverse with galloping quadriga), but naturally executed according to the stylistic taste and with the artistic ability of this newer time. As this head differs from those previously treated by its type, so a different taste also makes itself felt in the execution. Something new is also the ear ornament, which is formed by a ring thicker toward the bottom with three hanging drop-shaped pearls in the manner as on 35, though significantly simpler. Since these pearls on 38 and 40 only hang vertically when the head is held somewhat inclined forward, and the long neck thereby has such a bend as if the body to be connected to it were in horizontal position, Evans^[123] has expressed the conjecture that this head would be that of a flying Nike and represents an enlargement of the head of one of the flying Nikes above the quadrigas. Although the small Nike heads are in general not so clearly executed or at least struck that it would be possible in every case to establish how their hair is gathered and adorned, there are nevertheless enough cases where we can clearly distinguish how she wears her hair, and there we find really that on some dies she has the hair gathered in a topknot on the crown, even though she more often has a roll at the nape and sometimes the opisthosphendone is clear. Nike's hairstyle seems in many cases to be determined according to that of the maiden's head on the reverse^[124], without however this circumstance otherwise having given rise to the assumption that the maiden's head of the reverse should represent a Nike head. Already this seems to me to stand against Evans' conjecture, and in addition on 39 neither the position of the pendants on the earring nor the bend of the neck is the same, but the usual upright position of the head is to be presupposed, while the type is otherwise absolutely the same; thus a special explanation for the type with hair topknot appears excluded; rather we have here simply a resumption of the old type from the earlier period. Such resumptions of older types occur often. On Greek coins of later time one often finds not only resumed types but also attempts to imitate the older style. In our time, however, such attempts do not occur where the constant artistic development also makes itself felt in the die-cutting art; but we also know here in Syracuse cases of type repetition: the type of the decadrachms of Euainetos and of the tetradrachm 106 executed after these was taken into use again for tetradrachms in the time of Agathokles. The case is somewhat different for example in Athens, which tenaciously held fast to its old type and old style.

In the execution of dies 38, 39, 40 the observer immediately notices the different style. Dies 38 and 39 show in every respect the same hand, while in 40 something foreign has entered, which becomes all the more perceptible because the type is exactly the same. The whole makes in 40 a somewhat coarser but more vigorous impression; both in the treatment of the hair and that of the other details one misses the extraordinary fineness that appears so clearly in the two other dies (38, 39). But also the forms are different, the nose is longer and more vigorous, the chin less drawn in, also the lips and the eye differently formed, so that undoubtedly a different hand is present. As we will see later^[125], other dies (43, 44) can be assigned to this artist, which however stand stylistically higher and are to be dated somewhat later.

The connection of these unsigned reverses 38–40 with the same obverse die (21) with which dies 36 and 37 of Eukleidas are linked, raises the question whether those dies can also be attributed to Eukleidas. The answer must however be negative, for the style of dies 38 and 39 as well as that of 40 is foreign to that on the Eukleidas dies. Regarding 40 this is particularly clear, but also the fine cutting of dies 38 and 39 differs from the style of Eukleidas, for example very clearly in the execution of the eye and the eyebrows, likewise in the treatment of the nose and the lips, to emphasize only some striking points. Also the form of the letters, which on 38 and 39 are unusually large and beautiful, is not similar to the letters of Eukleidas.

After this group formed by 21 (58–62) I treat next some stylistically interesting, mostly unsigned groups that in the series of Syracusan tetradrachms have not received the attention that in my opinion is their due. This circumstance may find its explanation in the fact that interest in the coins of the flourishing period has concentrated mainly on the signed tetradrachms and the decadrachms, while the unsigned ones have remained more on the side^[126]. Of a single and unified group one can hardly speak, but the three groups into which these coins are distributed are all three (63–65, 68–72 and 73–77) connected with each other through die linkages and the two earlier ones also stylistically. In addition a couple of individual dies (66, 67) attach themselves to these groups.

Of these groups 63–65 will probably be the oldest. It consists of only one obverse die (22), which appears connected with three reverse dies (41–43). On the obverse die the quadriga is formed as usual at this time in three-quarter view, the horses gallop calmly, whereby the two rear horses are advanced somewhat further and more lively moved; the third has its head turned backward in three-quarter view. The hind legs are arranged rather stiffly parallel to each other. The charioteer holds the reins of three horses, but the reins of the first horse are attached to the edge of the chariot box formed in profile view, a custom that we have not seen before in this form on the coin dies; the others the charioteer holds. The workmanship is good, as can be seen for example from the heads of the first two horses.

Connected with this appears firstly a reverse die (41) that represents a large head from the right, whose hair is held together by sphendone and ampyx, of which the former is decorated with stars at the nape. The curls at the temples are combed upward, not very rich but finely executed. On the head the facial line most captures attention. The profile is almost purely "Greek", the lips are finely cut and have like a seam at the edge, as is also perceptible on bronze heads^[127]. The position of the dolphins also deserves to be particularly emphasized, because of the precise adaptation to the spatial relationships, which was particularly important here since the size of the head does not leave much space. The dolphins are relatively small, the two before the face are brought very close to it, of the two dolphins behind the head the lower emerges half from the nape corner, while the curve of the upper one follows the contour line of the sphendone. The neck section shows a doubly curved arch. At the eye particularly striking is the finely mediated transition from the cheek to the lower eyelid, while the eye itself is not formed without fault, as the form of the outer corner of the eye shows.

In close connection with this die (41) stands 42, not only because it was used with the same obverse die, but also stylistically. The head, from the right, is smaller and does not fill the space so exactly, but otherwise it agrees in the whole arrangement with 41; the headdress is the same, the arrangement of the hair likewise and the arrangement of the dolphins corresponds to that on 41, even if the dolphins are somewhat larger. As regards the finer correspondences, we see such in the forms of the curls for example immediately above the sphendone at the back of the head, likewise in the form of the nose and the lips. But particular attention deserves the formation of the eye. Namely only the lower half of the iris is visible, the upper is covered by the eyelid; the lower eyelid rises only insignificantly from the eye, but under the eyelid a larger thickening is perceptible, instead of the slight transition to the cheek that is so finely executed on 41, and the outer corner of the eye also stands out more sharply by this. These differences initially suggest the assumption of another artist for this die 42, and for this assumption speaks also the circumstance that in the nape corner a small K becomes visible, while 41 is completely unsigned. The stylistic correspondence with 41 seems to me however otherwise so great that I nevertheless believe I can perceive the same hand in the two dies, and thus also attribute 41 to the artist K, provided that K is really an artist's signature. This we must probably believe, for other inscriptions cannot be demonstrated on the coins of Syracuse in this time. Can we now say who this K was? According to the statement of Forrer^[128] Sambon attributes these coins to Kimon. We have however such characteristic examples of the style of Kimon and the heads in profile that he drew form such a strictly closed group that we cannot attribute these coins to him, whose style is quite different, only because on one of these a K is attached and Kimon also sometimes signs his decadrachms with a K^[129].

With obverse die 22 we find still a third reverse die connected, 43. This again shows a somewhat larger head from the right with sphendone and ampyx like those previously discussed, and also in the other arrangement it adheres to these, only that of the dolphins behind the nape the upper emerges half from the sphendone, the lower with the back turned inward fills the empty space in the nape corner. But the whole execution has become different. The curls that are brushed upward from the temple form a much richer mass, and likewise from the sphendone emerge thicker curls winding in richer curves, as well as the little curls at the hair edge are more numerous and more lively executed. The nose is longer and less straight, less "Greek", and the lips, especially the upper lip, seem to be somewhat more vigorous. Particularly interesting is the execution of the eye. The depression at the inner corner of the eye is larger and extends more downward, the iris is sharply marked and forms almost a surface seen from the side. Above the eye arches the strong upper eyelid and the outer corner of the eye stands out sharply from its surroundings. It is hardly possible to attribute this die to the same artist who executed 41 and 42, so clearly do stylistic peculiarities emerge here that are foreign to the other dies.

In what order these three reverse dies were used with obverse die 22 cannot be established with certainty, since the obverse die bears no particular injuries or wear marks. It is probable however that 41 is the oldest, for on it an injury on the cheek is noticeable on some specimens, which may well have contributed to this die being replaced by 42 or 43. On the other hand perhaps 43 is the last, because a different artist has been active on it. These conjectures however lack all certainty and could only be confirmed or overturned by die cracks and the like on 22.

To this group we must first attach a coin, namely 66 (23 + 44), which comes from an isolated die pair, but already judging from the obverse stands very close to group 63–65.

The quadriga on obverse die 23 is namely completely arranged and executed in the same way as on 22, as particularly the position of the horse heads and the position of the legs show. The position of the charioteer is indeed somewhat changed, the position of Nike likewise, and under the front feet of the horses the loosened rein of the fourth horse again hangs down to the ground. But also the technical execution is pretty much the same, only it seems that the same care has not been devoted to the hind legs as on 22, if this impression is not simply caused by the fact that the specimens known to me of 66 all have a somewhat worn obverse.

The reverse 44 for its part shows a completely new type. The head from the right wears the hair hanging down freely in long rich curls at the nape, from the forehead and the temple it is brushed upward and laid around a band, of which perhaps a piece is visible at the nape and which in any case also holds together the hair that falls from the crown to the nape, so that the curls can flow freely only at the nape. Connected with the band is an ear of grain that adorns the head. In the ear we see the old double earring. But even if this type is completely new for Syracuse, a couple of dies can be found that show a certain stylistic relationship, namely firstly 43, which, as has already been set forth, agrees with 41, 42 in type, but is stylistically different. The curls that are brushed upward from the temple wind both on 43 and on 44 with the same strong backward bends, the small curls at the temple extend in the same way on both along the hair edge, and the form of the double earring is in a striking way the same. The similarities in nose, lips, chin are also great, and even if in 43 the iris is more clearly marked in the eye, the execution of the eye is otherwise the same, as particularly the attachment of the upper eyelid immediately under the eyebrow and the forms of the eye corners show. That also the neck section, insofar as it is visible on 44, is of the same form, can on the other hand hardly be used as evidence for the relationship of these dies, for 52 also seems to have pretty much the same form. The first impression of these two dies 43 and 44 indeed reveals no closer relationship, for 43 is significantly more lively and vivid than 44, which is entirely rest and dignity, but as mentioned, the stylistic similarities in the details are so great that we can most simply explain them by the assumption of a common author for both dies. In this case 44 would probably be the later piece, in which the artist no longer felt so bound to his predecessors, but more independently executed his own idea.

For this view speaks also the second die (40) that is to be connected with 44 on the basis of stylistic similarities. As has already been set forth, despite the same type, which is foreign in the series of Syracusan tetradrachms of this time, on the one hand 38 and 39, on the other hand 40 cannot be attributed to the same artist because of the great deviations in style. Common with 44 and 43 on the other hand is on 40 besides the calm dignity that prevails in these and has found particularly good expression on 44, also the size of the heads, which differs from 38 and 39, and a multitude of details that are executed in the same way. In the first place the formation of the mouth and the chin on all three dies is very similar, with regard to 40 and 44 one could say that it is identical. Also the nose is formed in the same way, and in 40 and 44 the eyes are also completely alike, while admittedly 43 has to show a richer articulation in this point, even if the contour lines of the eye are the same. — Common indeed to the three dies 38–40 is that through the position of the head on 38, 39 and 40 the profile line is changed, as if to form an exact curved line from the front of the head to the neck corner; in 40 however the chin does not recede with it as in 38 and 39, only the direction of the forehead and to some extent of the nose adapts itself to the coin circle, and herein this die differs from 43 and 44. Since the hair on 40, 43, 44 is arranged in such different ways, it is difficult to discover similarities in the hair treatment; only the small curls at forehead and temple are attached on all similarly to the hair edge, not treated more freely as otherwise. The similarities that in dies 44 and 40 are then still expressed in the form of the letters seem to me so great that we may attribute the three dies 40, 43, 44 to the same artist. Thereby 40 makes the impression as if it were the oldest, the artist leans closely on 38 and 39, even more closely than he leans on 41 in 43, and his individuality does not yet emerge as clearly as in 43 and especially in die 44, which shows both his individuality and his ability fully developed. This development indeed agrees exactly with the chronological arrangement of these coins that I have presented as the probable one for other reasons.

Only with hesitation have I inserted 67 (24 + 45) here behind 66. Both regarding chronology and also stylistically this tetradrachm offers great difficulties, and the only known specimen drew the attention of researchers to itself early on. Both the obverse and the reverse stand completely isolated in the series of tetradrachms of Syracuse. On the obverse the quadriga, which is formed in three-quarter view, forms a densely crowded group that is represented as extremely agitated with horses that restlessly rear up and are not ready to continue rushing and the charioteer, who bends far forward to bring the unruly animals back under control with the driving stick, whereby one rein of the fourth horse has slipped from his hand. Such a lively arrangement of the quadriga does not occur on the coins of Syracuse treated so far, but it does in Katane, among others on the tetradrachm die that Euainetos executed and signed for this city^[130]. On this die the movement of the horses is better motivated, for the meta is indicated around which the quadriga is just turning, whereby naturally the apparent disorder and unrest of the horses is completely comprehensible; for this turn around the meta is indeed the most exciting moment of the race, as its description is also so popular with the poets. Nike on this die is again unusually small, as on 34, even if not so disproportionately thick. The subsidiary type in the exergue is a bull sunk to his knees, which a lion grabs and bites in the neck. — Equally foreign the reverse strikes us. The head from the left is large and fills almost the entire space. The dolphins, which, only three, are grouped around the neck, are quite small; also the inscription is unusually small and curiously retrograde. The hair is held together with a band, of which a piece is visible above the forehead, but otherwise it is covered by the curls that at forehead and temple are brushed upward in a broad, dense mass; at the nape the abundance of curls flutters out backward. The facial forms are soft and rounded. At the eye the upper eyelid extends significantly further forward than the lower, without thereby creating such an oblique front line of the eye as for example on 50, since the outer edge of the iris is not drawn so far outward, but more in the manner as on 44 is formed. Also otherwise individual points of contact with 66 (23 + 44) occur, thus in the treatment of the neck, in the curls at the nape and in the lips. These correspondences unfortunately do not suffice to see in the artist who executed 66 also the creator of 67, for the deviations are too great, especially when we also include in the comparison the two other reverse dies (40 and 43) of the unknown artist of 44. The profile line is different, for the chin recedes somewhat, somewhat as on 38, 39, and the nose lies in a straight line with the forehead. The softness of the forms, which is particularly clearly perceptible also in the treatment of the nose, is also foreign to both 44 and 40 and 43. If we thus could still find certain direct points of reference and comparison for the obverse, albeit not in Syracuse but in neighboring Katane, this is not possible regarding the reverse, which bears the signature IM (or MI). Poole^[131], who first drew attention to this tetradrachm, wanted to see in it an example of the looser Ionian art practice, in contrast to the tauter, more vigorous, Attic and Doric. For the assertion that the artist came from the Greek East or at least had his training from there, the group in the exergue of the obverse is also brought into the field, which indeed agrees with the well-known coin type of Tarsus and Acanthus (cf. further below). Head^[132] on the other hand also leaves open the possibility that the stylistic difference could be based on this piece being perhaps ten or twenty years younger than the other signed coins of Syracuse. A comparison with the coins of the Ionian cities of Asia Minor from the end of the fifth and the beginning of the fourth century does not really speak for Poole's view, without however being able simply to reject his hypothesis on the basis of such a comparison. This question will still occupy us. In any case it is not possible to find direct relationships between the other tetradrachms of this time in Syracuse and this piece. On the other hand there is a hemidrachm of Syracuse that has on the head side the signature IM, on the chariot side the signature KIM in the exergue^[133]. Since Kimon on some decadrachms signs KIM, on others again KIMΩN^[134], it is extremely probable that this chariot side also comes from him. The signature on the head side again can hardly designate anyone other than the maker of 45 (67); thus a point of reference for the placement of this tetradrachm in the series of Syracusan tetradrachms would be gained. If I have inserted it precisely here, behind 66, it was done because of the similarities that exist in the style of this tetradrachm with 66, and which in my opinion nevertheless presuppose a certain contemporaneity.

With group 63–65 (22 + 41–43) (regarding 66 and 67 cf. pp. 165–170), reverse die 42 (68 A) connects a larger group that consists of 68–72 and that is connected with others through rather complicated die linkages. But even without the linkage 68 A which became known to me only during printing, I had already brought these groups close together because of their stylistic similarity. From the condition of 42 it cannot be concluded whether this die was first connected with obverse die 22 (64) and only then with 25 (68 A), whether thus group 63–65 is older than 68–72. With this obverse die 25 five further reverse dies (46–50) are then connected. Obverse 25 offers like 22 the quadriga in three-quarter view, the horses gallop calmly, whereby the two rear horses are nevertheless advanced somewhat further and more lively moved; the third horse looks backward in three-quarter view. The hind legs are arranged rather stiffly parallel to each other, yet this schematism appears less clearly here since on the ground under and partly between the hind feet of the horses lies a loose wheel. As on 22, here too the reins of the first horse are attached to the front edge of the chariot box, the others the charioteer holds in both hands, except the outer rein of the fourth horse, which has slipped loose and hangs freely to the ground. The rear wheel is visible between the horse legs; thus the artist does not want to allude with the lying wheel to a misfortune of the represented quadriga, but only to enliven his picture through a characteristic example from the race track. Otherwise the similarity with 22 is strikingly great — I only draw attention also to the formation of the heads of the horses —, so great that the same hand may be thought of, for the deviations are not so significant that they could be decisive against the great stylistic similarities.

With this obverse die 25 we find a series of reverse dies (46–50) connected, whose chronological order cannot be established quite certainly. A small injury of 25 on the ground line, where the lying wheel is located, only proves that 71 (25 + 49), and 72 (25 + 50) were struck later than 68–70, and indeed 71 before 72, for the injury of 25 extends on 72 to below the ground line, while on 71 it is only just perceptible at the point of contact of the wheel with the ground line. On the other hand it still seems unclear to me whether the circumstance that the face of the charioteer, as also often the wreath of Nike, on good specimens of nos. 68–70 is effaced, but on the obverse of 68 b (25 + 46) otherwise disfigured by double strike is clearly struck, really points to an injury in the die that would have arisen after the striking of 68 and thus would prove that 68 is older than 68 A (25 + 42), 69 (25 + 47) and 70 (25 + 48).

Of the reverse dies 47 shows very great similarity with 41, the whole arrangement is completely the same, even if everything stands in opposite direction, since 41 is represented from the right, 47 on the other hand from the left. The hair is held together in the same way with sphendone and ampyx, and the curls wind and emerge in complete agreement with 41; only the sphendone is not star-decorated, but bears on the lower nape band a zigzag ornament. Also the position of the dolphins behind the head has become somewhat different, the upper emerges half from the sphendone, while the lower, with the back turned inward, in its characteristic curve helps to fill the empty triangle behind the nape. The correspondences of the heads extend to the forms of the individual curls and of the eye. On the other hand the formation of the upper lip is different and likewise the nose, which runs just as straight from the forehead as on 41, but gives the impression that the bridge of the nose is unusually thick and vigorous. Despite these deviations the stylistic relationship of the two dies seems to me so great that I consider their origin from one and the same hand possible.

Even more striking is the similarity of these two dies (41 and 47) when one compares them with one of the other dies that are connected with 25, namely with 46. The position and size of the head is the same as on 47, and the general arrangement of the hair corresponds to it also, only the sphendone is decorated with stars as on 41 and the zigzag ornament is missing. As great as the similarity is in general, the impression is quite different, which results from the execution of the detail. Also the dolphins are arranged in a different way, namely three one after another downward rather unsightly before the face and only one behind the nape; the necklace here is simple (without pearls). The whole face is different, executed in a somewhat larger manner, as the profile line shows, with prominent lips; the eye, which is not more precisely executed, confirms this impression. It seems that we are dealing here with a somewhat older die engraver, for he also still writes YΡΑΚΟΙOΝ, while otherwise the spelling with Ω has already prevailed.

Beside these two heads we find a smaller one on 48. Here too the hair is gathered in the same way as on the two previous ones, the form of the sphendone decorated with star-like dot arrangements at the nape is however somewhat changed; it is less bag-like, and on the lower edge of its headband is a zigzag ornament. The little curls at the temples are very rich, and the curls at the nape are reminiscent of corkscrews. In the ear we see a quite unique ear ornament, a little knob to which hangs a ring, and to this is again attached a bar with three pendants. The individual elements of this ear ornament are well known, also in Syracuse, where they were partly already to be found earlier, partly appear around this time — I only remind of 35 —; but we do not otherwise find the earring so richly articulated here. Under the head we see also a small satyr head from the right, which, notwithstanding its smallness, is very finely executed. In the large head some elements are perceptible that are reminiscent of Euainetos' die 24, not only a certain something in the general arrangement, but also for example the forms of the curls. The fineness of Euainetos the die engraver does not achieve however, as the thick lips and the eye show, which looks as if formed from a dot between two rather abruptly set-on edges. A particular difficulty with this die is posed by the explanation of the satyr head. So far we found on the coins of Syracuse in this time only in the exergue of the obverse various, though seldom changing, subsidiary types, whose meaning however has not yet been able to be established. Of subsidiary types in the field I know only the ivy leaf on obverse 30 and the crane on obverse 7. In addition Bunbury catalogue 455 (not illustrated) mentions a stork head that is located on the reverse behind the head, but which is not to be found on the tetradrachms known to me^[135]. So far it has not succeeded in finding a generally recognized explanation for these subsidiary types; for the attempts to set their appearance and their change in connection with historical events have only succeeded in some cases, while many subsidiary types are of such a nature that their explanation in this way hardly seems possible. We stand here initially before a non liquet.

Finally, as mentioned, in connection with the obverse die 25, the reverse dies 49 and 50 appear, which are very close to each other, but in clear contrast to those previously discussed. On 49 the head is seen from the left, as with those just discussed, and the hair is also enclosed by ampyx and sphendone. This looks as if it were only a net, for the forms of the individual hair curls are (of which traces were already noticeable on 46 and 48) clearly visible in the sphendone at the neck; more precise examination shows, however, that it is a normal sphendone, which is made of unusually thin and fine material and densely covered with stars. The uncovered part of the hair is considerably larger than on the preceding dies. The profile line is strong, for the nose projects somewhat more and the lips are also considerably more strongly modeled. The whole facial surface is more animated, the cheek slopes already at the line that can be drawn from the outer end of the lower eyelid to the nostril, so that the nose forms a unified surface separated from the cheek. The line that arises from the inner end of the upper eyelid to that of the lower through the foreshortening in the profile position of the eye is sharply marked and runs in a fairly vertical direction, while on 47, for example, this line neither emerges so clearly nor has this direction. Somewhat more similarity in these points is to be found with 48, but even this is not significant enough to draw any conclusions about the relationship, for the style on 49 is also entirely different from 48. On 49 we find a clear striving for decorative elaboration of the individual forms as far as possible, without destroying the truth to nature in the image of the nymph's head, as the small curls at the temple show particularly clearly. Instead of the double earring we see in the ear the ornament with pendants, which we first found on 35, then on 38–40 and 48; here on 49, however, it is simplified insofar as the crossbar to which the three pendants are attached is fastened directly to the ear by a hook not shown. Also characteristic for the artist is the way he has grouped the dolphins around the head, with one emerging halfway under the neck section, and the apparently thick and indistinct form of the dolphin before the chin, which is at least partly due to the fact that it lies more on its back and turns its belly toward the viewer, as well as the fine execution of the pectoral fins of the other dolphins, which contrasts strangely with this. He has signed this die APME^[136], thus he was called Parmenion, Parmenides or something similar.

Not only in the whole type does 50 show the greatest agreement with 49, but also with respect to a whole series of details. Particularly characteristic is the form of the small curls at the forehead and at the neck, as well as the clumsy form of the dolphin before the chin, which here has probably arisen only through imitation, since the position of the dolphin is not clearly indicated as on 49, but rather it appears as if it were depicted in side view. The pectoral fins of the other dolphins are as finely executed as on 49. Also in the execution of the lips and the nose 50 is very similar to die 49. The eye, however, is formed somewhat differently, for the line from the inner end of the upper eyelid to the lower stands at an angle not only to the direction of the nose, but also to the vertical line of the face, while on 49 it runs fairly vertically; otherwise, however, this part of the face is modeled in the same way. 49 bears a pearl necklace, while 50 has only a simple cord on the neck. It seems, however, that no doubt is possible that this die also comes from APME like 49. Evans^[137] also believes he can read on a specimen that was formerly in his collection, now in the beautiful collection of Jameson in Paris, the letters AP on the neck. According to the cast of this specimen, which has been made available to me through the kindness of Jameson, as well as according to the specimens of 73 (26 + 50) in the Münzkabinett in Berlin, whose reverse comes from this very die, it has not been possible for me to establish this reading; the possibility, however, that at least a stands on the neck must be conceded. The place for the signature that Evans believes he has found would be new for Syracuse, but by no means impossible, since Euainetos in Kamarina on didrachms^[138] has placed his signature in this way.

Connected with this reverse die (50), another obverse die (26) occurs (73), which, judging by the increasing oxidation of the reverse die, which is particularly clearly perceptible under the neck section, was used later than 25. In the treatment of the horses there is a certain similarity with 25, but greater variety is introduced in their position by the fact that the second horse braces its hind feet on the ground to spring, while the others gallop in the usual manner. The division of the quadriga into two thus also finds expression in the hind feet. The chariot box is in three-quarter view, the driver, who assumes the same position as on 25, also holds the reins of the first horse. Overall the die makes the impression as if it came from the same hand as 25, but against this speaks the strange bow-shaped object that lies at the feet of the first two horses, and can hardly be explained otherwise than as a misunderstood rudiment of the lying wheel that occupies this place on 25; also the strange splitting of the ground line and the relationship of the quadriga to the ground line does not seem to be able to come from the same artist who executed 25, for on 26 the rear horses distance themselves from the ground line in a completely incomprehensible way, while their distance from the ground line on 25 is justified by the position of the front horses.

The artist who made the other reverse die (51) that is connected with 26 besides 50, has closely followed the image of 50 as far as was possible for him. The headdress and the arrangement of the hair are the same, the earring likewise, and also the characteristic position of the dolphins recurs here. The execution, however, has become different. The strands of hair that go from the crown in all directions are all uniform, without the usual division into curls being indicated, the curls that wind upward from the temple are longer and more individually executed, and the sphendone at the neck shows the same ornamentation, but not the fine indication of the curls hidden in it. The same stylistic deviations are also perceptible on nose, lips and eye, the face has become longer, since the space between eye and nostril is longer, and the characteristic formation of the transition from the cheek to the nose is also missing here. Insignificant, of course, is the circumstance that the pearl necklace reappears here. — From the condition of 26 it cannot be concluded whether 73 (26 + 50) or 74 (26 + 51) was struck first; I have therefore placed 73 first, since in such cases it is probably more likely that first one die is replaced, thus here the obverse die, than that both would have been newly acquired.

This die, like the later to be discussed 57, Evans^[139] also attributes to the artist APME; for even if they are unsigned, they agree so precisely in style and type with 49 and 50 that they must come from the same hand. In my opinion, however, these dies can hardly have been executed by APME, for as has just been explained, only the type is the same, but the style is different.

Forrer^[140] for his part, who completely shares Evans's view regarding dies 51 and 57, says that 47 and 48 also come from the hand of "Parmenion," even if they have not been listed among his works in the Catalogue of the British Museum. In the treatment of the coins of Kimon, however, he has pointed to the possibility that these very head dies 47 and 48 as well as 41, 42 and 52 might perhaps have to be attributed to Kimon and only the chariot dies to them come from "Parmenion." That the head dies 47, 48 do not come from APME seems certain to me on the basis of the completely different style. How it stands with the chariot dies is again a hardly solvable question, since these chariot dies are all unsigned; but it is not very probable that APME executed them, because on the one hand they are stylistically fairly close to 21, and on the other hand this style appears on the obverse dies considerably earlier than APME executed the reverse dies 49 and 50; rather this style is indeed contemporary with the reverse dies 41 and 46, and could therefore more readily be attributed to the artist who executed these dies. As difficult as it is to assign obverse and reverse dies to one and the same artist on purely stylistic grounds, it seems to me nevertheless in this case that the cut of the obverse dies 22 and 25 stands incomparably closer to the reverse dies 41 and 47 than to the reverse dies of APME 49 and 50, and that therefore Forrer's conjecture regarding the attribution of those chariots to APME is also not stylistically justified.

Alongside this series (68–74) runs another, which appears connected with it through double die couplings, and which consists of one obverse die (27) with three reverse dies (46, 52 and 49) (75–77). The obverse die has the quadriga from the left galloping calmly in the usual manner, but somewhat more compressed than on those previously discussed; the third horse looks backward in three-quarter view. The horse bodies and necks are unusually thick, the heads of the two front ones fairly small. The hind legs are closely lined up, with those of the two rear horses unnaturally softly formed. The reins of the first horse are again fastened to the edge of the chariot box seen in side view, one rein of the fourth horse has come loose and hangs on the ground; the driver holds the others and the driving rod in his left hand, while he raises his right with widely spread fingers, as if to greet the Nike. This movement, which perhaps is meant to characterize the relationship of the victor to Nike, makes the impression as if the arm movement of the torch-bearing female driver on 30, 21 and other dies had served as a model, and it is noteworthy that the driver on 27 has turned his head toward the viewer, as on the chariot sides 31–33. Also noteworthy on the chariot is the form of the front wheel, whose spokes are not straight but curved and form with the rim a figure like an 8, as was already the case on 20, 21 and to some extent on 31 and 33. The whole image is very unsatisfactory, partly because of the shortness and thickness of the first horse and the disproportionate size of the driver, partly because of the clumsy execution.

The reverse dies that appear connected with this obverse die 27 were 46, 52 and 49, and indeed in this order; for at the striking of 75 (27 + 46) the obverse die was still completely undamaged, except at the edge of the wheel circle, while already at the striking of 76 (27 + 52) tiny die cracks are perceptible across the driving rod and above the horse's back and the wheel circle is more destroyed, and at the striking of 77 (27 + 49) the damage to the driving rod has become larger and a large crack arises across the head of the second horse^[141]. The first of these reverse dies, 46, appears, as already said, also connected with the obverse die 25 (68), and this coupling is the earlier one, as the dot between the lips proves, which on the reverse of 68a is still faint, on 68 b and 75 is larger and stronger. The reverse die 52, which was taken into use after 46 in connection with 27 (76), corresponds in type to the reverse dies 41 and 47, but the head is considerably smaller. Both the headdress with the star-decorated sphendone, whose lower band at the neck bears a zigzag ornament as on 47, as well as the ear ornament and also the form of the eye and the lips as well as, it seems, the nose is particularly very similar to the reverse die 41, only the position of the dolphins deviates from this. Also in the arrangement of the curls there are deviations, but in any case this die must be brought very close to 41, even if it will hardly be possible to attribute it to the same artist.

As has already been explained, the last reverse die (49) that was connected with this obverse die 27 (77) appears, like 46, also connected with the obverse die 25 (71). It is not possible, however, on the basis of the condition of 49 to decide with certainty whether the striking of 71 (25 + 49) or 77 (27 + 49) is the older. Be that as it may, it is clear that the series 75–77 was not struck after 68–74, but that during the time when the series 68–74 was being struck at one coining table, work was also being done at another coining table at least temporarily. This best explains the coupling of the reverse die 46 with the obverse die 27, while the obverse die 25, with which 46 had first been connected, was still being used further with several reverse dies, and likewise later the connection of the reverse die 49 with both 25 and 27.

Usually the obverse die 27 is also given to APME, and this attribution seems at first natural, for of the couplings with the obverse die 27, 27 + 49 (77) is by far the most frequent (we know 16 specimens of it) and already because of the signature APME the best known, while 75 is known only in three specimens, 76 in only one. From the condition of this obverse die 27, however, it is clear that precisely the signed piece 77 was struck last. This already weakens the usual assumption, and in addition there is a certain something in the style of the obverse die that does not agree with the style of APME, but rather harmonizes in its somewhat coarse and clumsy execution with the style of the reverse die 46. It seems to me therefore probable that this die 27 must also be denied to APME.

The classification of these groups (63–77) immediately after the group in which the Athena head of Eukleidas appears (58–62) does not agree with the usual view, which places some of these tetradrachms at the end of the entire tetradrachm coinage. Thus Holm^[142] would like to regard as the youngest tetradrachms, which already fall into the reign of Dionysios, precisely 62, 77, 67, 70 and 66 (i.e., Head, Syracuse VI 1–5), while Evans^[143] counts 77 among the latest and Hill^[144] indeed 77 among the latest, but 63 to a somewhat older time, even before 58–62. Of these, Holm has retained the correct arrangement of the coins that Head had already brought in his fundamental orderings of the Syracusan coins, whereby the group 58–62 and the groups 63–65 etc. are placed close to each other. That these two groups may not be separated by others is clear from the style of the dies, while the groups that I regard as the later ones are considerably more foreign. In externals the obverse dies differ from each other, the torch-bearing female driver is again replaced by an ordinary driver, but the strange position of the driver on 27 (75–77), where he raises his hand toward the Nike, and his head position still seem to preserve a reminiscence of the position on 30 and others, which also speaks for the placement of these groups precisely after the Pallas and "Nike" head group. The head dies differ even more externally from each other. Nevertheless I believe myself justified on the basis of style in bringing these groups close together. One can clearly distinguish the personal style of the artists on these dies, even if there are cases where the artist has followed his predecessors so closely that this own style is hardly recognizable anymore, and although even when he maintains it unshakably, there are often traces of a certain similarity present, which speak perhaps even more for relative contemporaneity than for influence. This I see in this case in the precise and fine, but at the same time strong execution, which is so characteristic of both the Phrygillos dies and the dies of groups 63–65 and 68–72.

Also the ear of grain in the exergue, which is common to these groups, is in my opinion proof of this connection. There have indeed been cases among the dies treated earlier where the same secondary symbol in the exergue has been used at different times with interruptions by other symbols. Thus we find, for example, the two dolphins facing each other on Sosion coins (on 2 and 3), then again in the ΕV group (on 10), on 13 and still used by Euainetos (on 14), likewise the fish fleeing before the dolphin on 6, 7 and on 11, which quite certainly were not struck immediately one after another. These symbols, however, occur only sporadically — only in the Sosion group do the two dolphins appear on two (albeit closely related) obverse dies —, while here the same symbol occurs on several entire series of dies, in which the dies in each separate group quite certainly belong close together. If we wanted to tear these groups apart by inserting other groups between the Phrygillos group and the other groups or between 58–62 and 63–77, then again a group would have to be inserted in between that forms a complete unity both stylistically and through the symbol, the dolphin, in the exergue. The occurrence of the ear of grain in the exergue would not be binding proof of the connection of these dies if it were stylistically difficult to understand; here, however, where the style has led to the same result, the ear of grain contributes to strengthening the cohesion.

We now come to the best-known tetradrachms of Syracuse, namely the famous Arethusa heads of Kimon (78–81 with dies 28, 29 and 53, 54), which in many respects occupy an exceptional position. Eukleidas deserved the credit for having first brought a head in frontal view (36, 37): here too we have two different dies with the head from the front, but otherwise there are not exactly many similarities between the two types. There a Pallas head with strong facial features, covered by a richly decorated helmet, here again a face with finely cut features, the head uncovered, the hair floating freely in long curls held together at the front of the head by an ampyx. These dies, which bear the signature ΚΙΜΩΝ on the ampyx, show in everything the activity of an artist who, as far as we can now see, had not previously worked for Syracuse on tetradrachm dies. Already in this do these coins deviate from the customary manner in Syracuse, that they, like the previously discussed group of Phrygillos and Euarchidas (49–56), place the head on the obverse, the quadriga on the reverse. To Kimon therefore belongs the progress of having recognized, beyond Eukleidas, that for a frontal head the obverse is the right place. The two obverse dies (28, 29) with the frontal head differ in small details from each other, in the fall of the curls, in the length of the visible part of the ampyx, in the position of the surrounding dolphins. Also the treatment of the eyes is somewhat different, for on 28 they are more protruding and thereby as well as through sharp delimitation of the individual parts they make a somewhat hard impression, while the eyes on 29 lie somewhat deeper; since they are thereby shaded, they seem to be more softly executed, and the individual parts are also not so sharply cut. The mouth is somewhat larger on 28 and the corners of the mouth are executed with greater clarity and sharp transition, on 29 they are softer. Their great significance for the determination of the nymph or goddess depicted on the usual tetradrachms, these dies have in the circumstance that above the head and still outside the circle of pearls the name ΑΡΕΘΟΑ can be read. Thereby it is established that the nymph Arethusa is depicted on Syracusan coins, although this does not yet establish without further ado whether the heads are all to be understood as those of Arethusa or whether perhaps here or there another deity may be depicted. More on this question later, here the reference suffices.

The quadrigas of the reverse (53, 54) show, like the heads, a new hand and a new spirit. On 54 we see the horses galloping calmly, only the fourth braces its hind feet into the ground and rears up. The driver, who firmly holds the reins, looks backward in three-quarter view and in the wind his hair flutters far out to the left of his face. Nike strides in an unusual manner, as on the archaic coins^[145], over the horse heads toward the driver, instead of hovering outstretched as usual. Before the horses' feet lies on the ground an overturned pillar^[146], which perhaps is meant to designate the finish line on the racetrack that this quadriga has reached first. Then the backward glance of the driver finds its simple explanation in the pleasure of seeing how far back the other participants in the race still are. The work on this die is very fine and precise, as can be seen especially on the driver and on the Nike. The other reverse die (53) shows the quadriga in extremely lively movement, the horses rear up violently, so that the bellies of the rear ones become visible under those of the front horses, and the driver, deeply bent and in greatest tension, pulls the reins taut on the left and lets them loose on the right, extending his right hand with the driving rod far out. A difficult left turn on the racetrack is depicted. On this die Nike flies toward the driver again in the usual hovering position. Only this die 53 is signed, and indeed it bears the name ΚΙΜΩΝ on the broad ground line. On 54, on the other hand, no signature is to be found, for the small strokes visible on the overturned pillar cannot be recognized as letters (but see p. 184 note 2). If we nevertheless attribute it to Kimon, it happens first because no more precise stylistic analogies, but only vague similarities are to be found among the other quadrigas. Then the style seems to agree well with that of the obverse, while the stylistic similarities between the signed (53) and the unsigned reverse 54 are not exactly decisive. Also with the chariot sides of the decadrachms of Kimon the signed die 53 shows considerably greater similarities than 54, but here one can hardly take into account the stylistic development in Kimon's manner between the execution of the Arethusa heads and the decadrachms; for it does not seem possible to me to concede that the striking of these two groups, which are stylistically so different in many ways, took place almost at the same time, with an interval of at most a couple of years, as Evans^[147] seeks to establish. This belongs, however, to the question of the absolute chronology of the Syracusan coins of the flourishing period and thus to the conclusion.

In what order, then, were 78–81 struck? We can see that 80 (29 + 53) was struck before 81 (29 + 54), for the obverse die 29 has at the striking of 81 at the transition from chin to neck a small crack, which is still missing on 80, and already at the striking of 80 a damage arises to the dorsal fin of the dolphin to the left of the head, which then recurs on 81. Likewise it is clear that 81 (29 + 54) was struck before 79 (28 + 54), for while on all specimens of 79 that allow it to be recognized, there is a crack behind the driver on the reverse 54, this crack is missing on 81 b, c, h, j and is only to be found on 81 f, g. The sequence 80–81–79 would thus be established, but the position of 78 (28 + 53) in the series presents difficulties. The obverse die 28 shows both at the striking of 78 and of 79 on some specimens (e.g. 78 b, g, h, 79 e) a damage that extends from the dolphin to the left of the head to the edge of the die (or of the flan), while other specimens (e.g. 78 e, 79 a, d) are undamaged; it cannot therefore be said with which reverse die this obverse die 28 was first connected; it (28) has been used alternately now with one, now with the other, then again with one, so work was being done at two coining tables simultaneously. The same result is offered to us by the reverse die 53, for this appears undamaged both with the obverse die 28 (e.g. 78 e) and with die 29 (e.g. 80 b), but on other specimens of both 78 and 80 we find a small crack from the back of the first horse upward and one at the rear wheel; yet it seems to me possible that the damages in the reverse die 53 arose at the striking of 80, for 80 e has only the damage at the wheel, but not yet that on the horse's back; I cannot assert this with certainty, however, for 78 a also seems to be damaged in this way, but unfortunately this specimen is somewhat disfigured by double striking and also otherwise not in good condition, so that my conclusions are uncertain. The question, therefore, which dies are the older, cannot be answered on the basis of the condition of the dies. The general stylistic examination makes it probable, given the artistic progress that 28 represents compared to 29, that 28 is the older. On the obverse 29 one can moreover read to the left of the head close to the circle of pearls about ΙΩ and on some specimens (like 81 f) something like a very indistinct N, but the I is formed from the lower edge of the snout of that dolphin whose head is visible only between the curls, and the and Ω are also connected with the curl tips. It thus appears as if Kimon on this die first wanted to place the ethnic according to the custom hitherto followed in Syracuse of bringing the ethnic on the head side (i.e. usually the reverse), but then abandoned this intention and put the ethnic on the reverse die (the chariot side), but could not completely erase the traces of his first attempt on the head side. When the head with its widely fluttering curls so completely fills the whole field as is the case on these dies, it is much more natural to put the ethnic on the chariot side, where it has more room and also becomes clearer. These traces of an ethnic on the obverse likewise speak for 29 being the older obverse die, 28, where no such traces are to be found, the younger. Of the reverse dies 53 seems older than 54. As a Syracusan model for the lively movement of the quadriga on 53, the obverse die 24 (67) can perhaps be named, if it is really older; in any case, however, we find in neighboring Katane on tetradrachms^[148] quadrigas depicted in similar movement, as has already been emphasized with regard to 67, even if the agreements are not so great that we would necessarily have to presuppose direct influences in one direction or the other. The reverse 54 then already approaches more closely the previously discussed Syracusan quadrigas, even if it still looks foreign, especially with regard to the position of Nike, which has its analogue again in Katane^[149].

The classification of this group (78–81) after the groups 63–77, with which it is connected by no couplings, is done on the one hand on the basis of the ear of grain in the exergue, which is common to these, and which, as I have already emphasized, probably designates a closed coinage period, even if we cannot say what the ear of grain and the other symbols really mean to designate; on the other hand, however, because in some groups to be discussed later certain influences of these coins can be observed.

The tetradrachms to be discussed next after the "Arethusa" coins follow in part closely certain predecessors, but a change in style is noticeable, which can first be observed in the quadrigas. The earlier arrangement of bringing the quadrigas on the obverse, the heads on the reverse, has now been taken up again. First comes the group 82–85, which consists of two obverses (30 and 31) and three reverses (55–57). The quadriga on 30 and 31 is depicted in calm gallop, the first and third horses look back with their heads in three-quarter view. The legs are meant to indicate lively movement, but in the execution there prevails a strange stiffness; especially the forelegs are stiff and unnatural, and also the way the feet and hooves are depicted deviates clearly from the earlier manner. Characteristic for the artist seem to be the short, rounded ears of the horses. Also the bearded driver is treated in a peculiar way, there is something archaic in the whole stiff posture as he stands there in his garment broadly belted at the body, which flutters in the wind. Nike is fairly large, but otherwise treated in the usual manner. In the exergue is again the ear of grain. The two obverse dies are extremely similar to each other and the differences consist, apart from the ivy leaf that is placed only on 30 under the horses, mainly in the fact that the driver on 30 holds the driving rod obliquely in his right hand, on 31 however almost horizontally and in his left hand; the ground line, which on 30 is double, shrinks together on 31, whereby the doubling becomes less clear. The whole shows that the artist is considerably weaker than his immediate predecessors, but does not content himself with mechanically imitating them, but wants to offer something of his own.

The reverse dies that were connected with these two obverse dies are 55, 56 and 57, and the striking occurred in the following order: 82 (30 + 55), 83 (30 + 56), 84 (31 + 56), 85 (31 + 57). At the striking of 83, namely, 30 shows on the back of the horses and from the ground line downward greater damages than at the striking of 82; the reverse 56 has on 84 traces of a die crack before the nose, which is still missing on 83, and traces of greater damages under the neck than on 83. The obverse (31) is fairly indistinct on all specimens of 85, but it still seems that the obverse die had greater and more damages at the striking of 85 than of 84.

On the reverse die 55 we have the usual head from the left, whose hair is held together by a broad, star-decorated band; this band is probably meant to represent a sphendone, whose frontal band is unusually broad, while it is relatively narrow at the neck. The curls at the temple are, as always with the types with sphendone, pulled upward, otherwise the sphendone holds the hair well together, only at the back of the head are a few very small curls visible. The style of this head is new in the series of Syracusan tetradrachms, but by no means outstanding.

The reverse die 56 takes up the type of Eukleidas from 23 and of Euainetos from 20 and 24, with the hair held together by ampyx and sphendone. As the position of the dolphins shows, however, it follows most closely 41, even if the ear ornament is the newer one (crossbar with three pendants as on 38–40). The style, however, has become different, the lines, for example those of the nose and the lips, are thinner, the vivacious image has faded. The whole treatment, especially of the eye, but also of the profile, offers such characteristic and unmistakable similarities with 55 that we are justified in regarding this die as having come from the hand of the same artist.

The third of these reverse dies (57) is attributed by Evans^[150] to APME because of the extraordinarily great similarity that exists between this and the reverse die (51) likewise given by Evans to Parme. In the discussion of 51 I have brought forward the reasons why it does not seem possible to me to agree with Evans in the attribution to APME, the attribution of 57 to APME thus falls away; the attribution to the same artist as 51 remains, for the two reverse dies actually agree fairly well in style, only that the execution on 57 is unconditionally finer and more perfect than on 51.

This whole group clearly stands under the influence of the great groups 63–77, for not only the reverses 56 and 57 have their closest models there, but also the obverses stand close to these like a weak copy to a good original.

Stylistically connected with this group, without being able to be proven through direct die couplings as immediately following it, appears the group 86–87, which comes from one obverse die (32) and two reverse dies (58 and 59). 32 is to a high degree similar to the obverse dies 30 and 31. In the representation of the quadriga the same stiffness is present and also the strange way of depicting the lower legs and the hooves recurs here, likewise the rounded form of the horse ears. Only the third horse looks back and the necks of the two rear horses look almost as if grown together, while their bodies are not indicated at all, although the hind legs of the horses are complete in number. The bearded driver also stands here strangely stiff, looking up at Nike, somewhat bent and the arms stiffly extended; and although the chariot wheels and also the chariot box are correctly depicted in three-quarter view, the driver stands exactly in side view. The whole style is the same as on 30 and 31 and all three dies will thus probably be attributable to the same artist. The type, however, leans even somewhat closer to 22, thus in the arrangement of the horse heads, also in the position of the driver.

The first reverse die (58) that appears connected with this obverse die offers again a work of Eukleidas (signed ΕYΚΛΕΙ on a small scroll under the neck), the second (59) is unsigned and somewhat younger, as the more sharply emerging small cracks in the obverse die, e.g. behind the neck of the first horse and across the driving rod, testify to it. The first die shows a head that in type is similar to the head of Eukleidas on 23, but also to the type of 41. The hair is, as also on 56, taken up in the same way as on the older dies 23, 20, 24 with sphendone and ampyx and also the ornamentation of these as well as the way the hair is otherwise arranged is the same. The style, however, is so changed in this head that without the clear signature on the scroll under the head one would hardly come to the idea of attributing this die to Eukleidas. The head is somewhat larger, the features are stronger without the somewhat affected fineness of 23, and the eye is more widely opened with better executed lids, but without indication of the eyelashes. It stands closest perhaps to the Athena head (36) both in the stronger features and with regard to the form of the double earring, which indeed also occurs otherwise often on the tetradrachms of Syracuse from this time instead of the hook-shaped one. And also in the ethnic this die agrees only with 36 among the Eukleidas dies discussed so far.

The reverse die 59, which was then connected with the obverse die 32, is in all essentials copied after the reverse die 58, but precisely thereby one sees clearly the difference of hands. 59 is more delicate, one might say executed with more uncertain strokes. Especially the treatment of the mouth shows unequivocally the hand of another artist; the upper lip looks as if attached later, and in the corner of the mouth a depression is indicated that is not only bounded on the lower lip as on 58, but extends to close to the nostril. On the other hand, no agreements can be found between this die and those signed by Eukleidas that would be characteristic of Eukleidas. But the agreements with 55 and 56 are very clear, thus in the treatment of the curls, e.g. in the way the last temple curl draws itself backward over the sphendone. Also in the representation of the profile, the lips and the eye similarities are perceptible, thus precisely in the points in which 59 differs from the Eukleidas die 58. It therefore seems to me that sufficient reason is present to attribute this die to the creator of dies 55 and 56, an artist who is not Eukleidas, as is so often asserted in the catalogues.

These two groups 82–85 and 86–87 seem to me fairly contemporary, and it is difficult to decide whether one or the other is older or whether they were perhaps struck alongside each other. With regard to both, the threads that connect them with the earlier ones are clear. On the one hand the Eukleidas already known through several dies appears again (58), on the other hand the unknown die cutter who, following APME, executed the reverse die 51, has also made the reverse die 57. Both groups show clear influences from the groups 63–77, which are fairly equally strong in both, so that this too can hardly decide for the priority of one or the other group.

The relationship of these two groups (82–85, 86–87) to the following large group (88–104, in the exergue of the obverse dolphin) only testifies that they stand very close to each other in time, but can no more than their relationship to the predecessors lead to a certain result about their mutual age. On the one hand, namely, the group 88–104 is introduced by 88, whose reverse die (60) comes from Eukleidas and shows his style at the same stage of development as on die 58. On the other hand, however, the group 82–85 (30–31 + 55–57) is connected through a direct die coupling with this group, for the reverse die 57 appears once in connection with the obverse die 34 (95), which is otherwise only connected with reverse dies of the group 88–104. As will be explained in more detail later, however, this coupling does not belong at the beginning of the group 88–104, but approximately in its middle. Therefore it could seem as if the whole group 82–85 were contemporary with the older coins of that group 88–104 and thus somewhat younger than 86–87; but it cannot be said with certainty, for the possibility exists that the reverse die 57 after the striking of 85 was preserved for some time and then for some reason taken into use again with 34 (95), even if in this case nothing clarifying this question can be concluded from the condition of the die. For the contemporaneity of groups 86–87 with 82–85 and against the contemporaneity of 82–85 with the older ones of 88–104, however, speaks the circumstance that both the obverse die 32 and 30 and 31 have the ear of grain in the exergue, while the obverse dies of group 88–104 (33–35) have a dolphin, for these symbols in the exergue seem to me to comprise temporally limited groups.

The large connected group 88–104, in which we see three obverse dies (33–35) and twelve reverse dies (60–71) used (besides the reverse die 57, which connects it with those previously discussed), offers an extremely unified picture, for the connection between the dies is not only proven through die couplings, but also without these one would have strung these dies together because of the unified type. On the obverse (33–35) we have the arrangement of horses already appearing on die 30, in the modification of 32, whereby the two front horses look forward, the last likewise, but the third looks back; the two rear horses are advanced further and the division of the team into two is sharply marked, perhaps most on 35. Noteworthy is the resumption of the custom of contour doubling with regard to the horse legs, for on 34 and 35 the two rear horses have received only two distinct hind legs, whose feet touch the ground line, while on 33 all four hind legs of the two rear horses are depicted, but the two front ones must make do with only two hind legs; the missing legs are indicated everywhere by thin lines (doubled contours). The artist of course does not want to simply omit some hind legs, but also does not want to depict all individually, probably because he, who does not command the means of expression as well as several of his predecessors, does not succeed in doing this in pleasing form. For otherwise there are considerable weaknesses in the artistic execution to be observed on these obverse dies, over which the great precision cannot deceive, with which the artist has executed a series of details. Least pleasing is die 33, which shows the driver in a strangely crooked posture, the garment fluttering in an unusual way; he holds the reins quite loosely in his hand and is completely distracted from everything else by the sight of the approaching Nike. 35 is better succeeded in that Nike is moved somewhat higher; the driver looks, it seems, in three-quarter view at the viewer, and the reins are distributed on his two hands; the second horse looks upward and one rein of the fourth horse has slipped loose and hangs on the ground. The clearest impression of real movement is made by 34, for here the driver, as his position indicates, is completely absorbed in his activity, while admittedly the horses are depicted in the same manner as on 33 and 35 and only again the position of the head of the second horse is different. It is quite possible that 33 does not come from the same artist as 34 and 35, for some peculiarities on 33, such as the round form of the horse ears and the posture of the heads of the two first horses as well as the garment of the driver fluttering in parallel heavy folds are not to be found on 34 and 35. Also Nike is more slenderly formed on 34 and 35 and better placed. In part 33 has these peculiarities in common with 32, thus for example the form of the horse ears and the horse heads, and otherwise the style is fairly similar; but the similarities are not yet so great that one could conclude with some certainty on common authorship of 32 and 33. Also the two other obverse dies (34, 35) offer great similarities with 32, even if not as great as 33 offered. On many specimens of 35 it seems as if Nike had a very long neck, and on this neck not really a head, but only the skull with the hair sat; this, however, is only due to incomplete striking and cannot even, as more precise comparison shows, be used for the chronology of the reverse dies connected with 35.

As said, with these three obverse dies twelve (or thirteen, including the earlier die 57) reverse dies have been used. All these new dies show the same type, namely a head from the left, whose hair is wound with a broad band, but otherwise floats freely upward. The exact chronological sequence of all individual reverse dies cannot be established without further ado, but the basic outline of the order, namely the succession of the obverse dies, is nevertheless fixed. Through the condition of those reverse dies that are connected with two obverse dies, it is namely clear that 33 was first taken into use, then 34 and finally 35; for at the striking of 93 (34 + 64) damages are noticeable on the reverse die both under the chin and at the neck, which on some specimens of 92 (33 + 64) (thus 92 f and g) are partly completely missing, partly considerably smaller, and likewise on the reverse of 102 (35 + 69) small cracks are to be seen under the neck section, which are still missing on 69 at the striking of 100 (34 + 69), and on the reverse die 70 at the striking of 103 (35 + 70) there is a damage before the forehead, which also shifts the forehead line somewhat, which is not yet to be found on 101 (34 + 70).^[151]

The obverse die 33 appears in connection with five reverse dies, namely 60–64. The oldest of these is 60, as the condition of the obverse die shows; for while it later shows a multitude of small cracks, there are some specimens of 88 (33 + 60) that still come from the undamaged obverse die, e.g. 88 c; 88 f shows only a couple of insignificant damages under the hind legs of the horses, while e.g. 88 i and l have on the obverse a whole series of small strokes, whose number is fairly constant and only gradually grows. (About 88 b see p. 196.) After the reverse die 60, 61 was taken into use (89), for on one specimen (89 i) a damage is missing that starts from the neck of the first horse, and which is to be found on most specimens of 89, as well as on 90–92 (33 + 62–64). Noteworthy also is that the reverse die 60 was taken into use again at least once after the striking of 89 (33 + 61), for on 88 b (33 + 60) the damage behind the horse neck is present. The order of use of the other reverse dies (62–64) with the obverse die 33 cannot be established on the basis of the condition of the die.

The oldest of these reverse dies (60) bears the signature of Eukleidas (ΕYΚΛΕΙ) on an opened scroll under the head. The hair is pulled upward, the curl tips flutter freely in the wind, but it still appears as if the curls were held together somehow at the top of the crown, although no band is visible there. Also this arrangement of the hair in comparison to that on the other dies of this group, in which the whole hair floats completely freely upward, shows in my opinion that we have here the prototype, which somewhat follows the older tetradrachms (cf. 7–11), and from which the hair arrangement then developed further. The broad band, which lies double at the back of the head, is decorated with stars, and above it are, as usual, the curls at the temple brushed upward. In the ear is the traditional double ring. The stylistic connection of this die with the reverse die 58 signed in the same way is unmistakable and particularly clear in the execution of the eye, the nose, the lips and the chin. It is clear that no long time can have elapsed between the execution of both dies.

Entirely in the manner of this die is 61 worked, not only in the whole type, but also with regard to details, such as the position of the dolphins around the head. In the treatment, however, it is noticeable that the curls at the top of the head already float completely freely upward. The possibility must be conceded that this die can still come from the hand of Eukleidas, although a more precise examination nevertheless shows that in the whole execution a somewhat different spirit is to be found. The forms seem to have become sharper, especially around eye and mouth the expression is different.

If with this die (61) some uncertainty could still prevail whether Eukleidas executed it, this possibility is excluded with those now to be discussed. As said, the type remains the same, only with minor variations in the position of the surrounding dolphins, in the form of the head band and of course also in the lines of the individual waving curls; but thereby the overall impression is not impaired. In connection with the obverse die 33 there occur, as already said, the reverse dies 62, 63, 64, even if it is not certain whether the chronological sequence is this, for the damages of the obverse die 33 in the form of numerous strokes it already shows on 89 (33 + 61), indeed partly on 88 (33 + 60). These strangely numerous parallel strokes, moreover, make the impression as if they were not all die damages, but partly based on some error that was committed in the treatment of the flan during striking. All these three heads (on 62–64) have the band at the neck laid double, but without any ornamentation, the nose is thin and fairly pointed, the lips are likewise thin and sharply cut, the eye is relatively small and not much of the eyeball is visible between the lids (especially on 62). The surrounding dolphins are arranged in a somewhat different way: the two dolphins before the forehead and the face seem not to swim away from the head as on 60 and 61, but toward the head. In the treatment of the hair a certain schematization is perceptible, e.g. in the curls before the ear, and especially 63 shows strangely stiff wave lines in the large curls. The whole manner of these dies is somewhat mechanical; the die cutter has had his model (60) and worked fairly mechanically according to it, thereby this dryness has arisen in the image.

The reverse die 64 appears furthermore connected with the obverse die 34 (93), and indeed it forms the transition to the series that appears in connection with 34, as the obverse die 34 still undamaged at 93 (34 + 64) proves. While then 34 was still fairly new and still unused, the old dies 57 (95) and 62 (94) were used with it; but then the obverse die 34 was still used with the new reverse dies 65–70 (96–101), and probably in this order, as the gradually arising damages on the horse's back and under the feet and also the corrosion of the obverse die 34 seem to show. All these reverses show in broad outline the same style as those just discussed, and in the detail treatment only the usual small deviations are to be found, whereby e.g. with regard to the band 66 follows more closely 64, while 65, 67, 68, 70 form in this respect their own group. 65 and 67 are also otherwise somewhat more finely and softly executed than 64 and 66; the nose is not so thin, the lines are fuller and the upper line of the upper lip not so sharply emphasized; the eye, however, is still just as imprecisely and schematically executed. We will hardly have a different die cutter before us in 65–68, 70 than hitherto. This is rather to be presupposed with 69, for here to the greater softness of the forms is added the richer elaboration of the head band, which at the neck somewhat puffs up and makes the impression as if it were not drawn as tightly as on the other dies. In agreement with this we also see the hair formed more fully, partly more approximated to 60 and 61, partly, as the curl at the neck shows, in a somewhat more independent manner.

Now it seems that precisely 69 was used only for a very short time for striking 100 together with the obverse die 34, to then be connected with 35 (102), while still for the simultaneous striking of tetradrachms with the old obverse die 34 (101) a new reverse die, namely 70, was produced. The noteworthy thing about this, however, is that the new obverse die 35 is also not entirely of the same style as 33 and 34, even if with completely the same type, as we saw on p. 194, the differences are not great. Nevertheless on 35 too a striving for more life is to be seen; thus the die cutter has, as has already been emphasized, taken up again the old motif of the loosened rein.

After 34 and 60 had become unusable, 70 was first used with 35 for striking 103 and then replaced by 71, as the damage above the right hand of the driver on 35 shows, which on 104 (35 + 71) is larger and clearer than on 102 and 103. The die 71 also forms the head band narrow and simple at the neck, but otherwise remains completely with the old and also seems purely stylistically to belong to the same group as 66, 70 and others.

This whole group discussed here shows with complete clarity how alongside the great artists who were active in the mint of Syracuse, a series of less significant die cutters worked, who then repeated the types created by the recognized masters, only with less success. Here the strong, full form-giving of Eukleidas is flattened into a dry schematism, and the impression of life that 60 gives, the later ones cannot even approximately achieve. In this respect this group forms a very characteristic counterpart to 25–33, where we also found a series of weaker reverse dies (17–19, 21, 22) that took up the type of Eumenos and Eukleidas (12, 16), but executed it with a certain dryness. It must be conceded, however, that if the achievement of the greater artists were not there for comparison, we would probably find these reverse dies rather tolerable. — A Punic imitation of the group 88–104 shows a meander as ground line for the quadriga and two ears of grain behind the head, whose ampyx bears a K^[152]; it will occupy us later.

Chronologically close to this group of tetradrachms that have on the obverse in the exergue the one large dolphin, 105 (36 + 72) will be to be placed, already because of the great similarity of the obverses, which is not limited only to the dolphin in the exergue and to the general external arrangement, but is perceptible in the whole style. The die was already disfigured at the striking of the specimens known to us by a multitude of small cracks, and these damages are perhaps to blame for the unpleasant impression of this coin. Yet this bad impression is not based only on this, but also on stylistic defects: the two rear horses, which are advanced further, look as if they consisted only of the front parts, and the two associated hind legs do not seem organically connected with them. Also the hind legs of the second horse are not well drawn, but moved much too close to the forelegs. Better succeeded are the Nike and the driver, as far as one can judge from the coins that are also unclear in technical execution. In comparison with the obverse dies discussed earlier, first those of the group 88–104 (33–35), this die is artistically extremely weak and must, even if similarities in style with the obverse dies 34 and 35 are present, be attributed to a poor imitator.

The reverse die 72, on the other hand, stands completely isolated among the tetradrachms of Syracuse with regard to type and its style also seems foreign. The head, whose hair at the neck is held together by a net and at the front of the head has an ampyx and whose ear ornament is a double pearl, shows such great agreement with the head dies that Kimon executed for the decadrachm coinage in Syracuse, that it has been designated by researchers without hesitation as a work of Kimon^[153]. That this die was executed after a decadrachm of Kimon is completely certain, so precisely are all characteristics in type imitated. The form of the net at the neck is the same, so also the short, broad ampyx, the ornament in the ear and on the neck, the position of the dolphins and the inscription; but also the forms of the individual small curls recur here, as well as the high relief. And indeed this die agrees best with that decadrachm type of Kimon that Evans has designated as the second type^[154]. Yet it seems to me that in the reduction of the head the details have not been executed correspondingly more finely, but have often turned out strangely coarse; thus for example nose and lips and the eye together with the surrounding area are formed more harshly than on the decadrachms. We know what fine and precise work Kimon has done for the dies of the tetradrachms in Syracuse. Likewise both the large decadrachms and the small gold staters of Kimon show a fineness of execution adapted to the size of the image. Now if it were also conceivable that Kimon for a tetradrachm die would have slavishly imitated the type he had created for the decadrachms, the difference in execution makes the viewer pause, but no less also the connection of this reverse die with such a weak obverse die, which for its part is also an imitation, but has nothing at all to do with the Kimonian chariot dies. Evans^[155] indeed considers the chariot side type (36) coupled with 72 to be somewhat older than that connected with the coins with the frontal head (78–81); but I showed that this is not so, but that this chariot side type 36 is later and even an artistically weak imitation after 33–35. Regling^[156] reads on the ampyx of 72 K, and this could speak for the authorship of Kimon, for some of his decadrachms bear precisely this signature, while on others the signature is more complete. But the sign does not seem to me necessarily certainly a K, but rather a star, and moreover it must be remembered that 42 has a K at the neck (the K is erroneously missing above in the description), without our being able to attribute this die to Kimon; and if this is really only an imitation after the decadrachms, why could the signature not also be imitated exactly or in the somewhat altered form of a star? The question of how this tetradrachm is actually to be classified in the series of tetradrachms of Syracuse is made more difficult by the fact that both obverse and reverse stand isolated and are not brought into direct connection with others through any couplings. The solution will probably be that we have here a relatively late striking, whereby the artist has taken the model of his reverse from the famous decadrachms, which then still circulated. With the obverse he follows the last larger tetradrachm coinage, but already the strange weakness of the obverse die suggests that at that time the striking of tetradrachms occurred only exceptionally, and not only had the artistic creative power of the die cutters disappeared, but also the tradition was broken off, which in the earlier vigorous activity of the mint contributed strongly to the elevation of the works of the more insignificant artists, even when they followed their immediate predecessors closely.

The same explanation also applies to the last of our tetradrachms, 106 (37 + 73). On the obverse (37) we have a calmly galloping quadriga, which is depicted somewhat schematically in its calm movement with all heads in almost the same position; the second and fourth horses brace their hind feet into the ground, the other two really gallop; the charioteer in the chariot box seen in three-quarter view bends far forward and extends the driving rod almost horizontally over the horse heads. On the reverse is a head from the left, the hair at the neck taken up and decorated with rich, winding curls, in which reed leaves are interwoven. The agreement with the decadrachm type of Euainetos^[157] is completely clear, and this tetradrachm stands closest to the type with dot in the neck angle^[158], as here too a dot appears in the same place. In the whole structure the tetradrachms struck under Agathocles^[159] are similar to this tetradrachm, at least so it seems to me, and yet it is clear that these are later, but ours is struck not too long after the imitated decadrachm. Is this tetradrachm now executed by Euainetos himself? I do not think so. As precisely as the die cutter seeks to imitate the decadrachm types, he nevertheless forgets that they are also really to be adapted to the size of the tetradrachm flan, and the execution of the face therefore becomes somewhat coarse, as for example the nose clearly shows. With the tetradrachms of Syracuse signed by Euainetos and his coins of Kamarina and Katane there is stylistically no real similarity present, and also the decadrachms signed by Euainetos himself show a different style, more similar to his other coins. We will thus also have here only one of the last tetradrachm strikings of Dionysios before us, from the time when he had discontinued the regular striking of tetradrachms and only now and then struck such. With precise comparison of the reverse of 105 (72) and 106 (73) there is thereby a certain stylistic similarity to be found, which shows itself in the execution of the nose, partly also of the eye and in the forms of the smaller curls and curlettes, insofar as they are not taken directly from the models. That they both would be due to the same die cutter cannot be asserted, but in any case the two stand very close to each other temporally and stylistically.

These two coins form the conclusion of the long series of tetradrachms from the flourishing period of Syracuse, and only after a longer pause, under Agathocles, was the striking of tetradrachms resumed for a short time. With these, which follow in type precisely the decadrachm type of Euainetos and thus nevertheless form a kind of continuation of the type on 106, we no longer concern ourselves, since they already belong to another art period.