when any part of the neck above the collar-bone is shown. The
present article follows custom in the use of the terms bust and
head. When the neck is clothed, the bust is said to be draped.
24. A bust or head is either facing, usually three-quarter face, or in profile, in which latter case it is described as to right or to left. Two busts may be placed in various relative positions, as jugate or confronted.
25. A bust wearing a laurel-wreath is said to be laureate.
26. A bust bound with a regal fillet (diadem) is called diademed.
27. A bust wearing a crown with rays is said to be radiate.
28. An object in the field of a coin which is neither a letter nor a monogram is usually called a symbol. This term is, however, only applicable when such an object is evidently the badge of a town or individual. The term adjunct, which is sometimes employed instead of symbol, is manifestly incorrect.
29. A mint-mark is a difference placed by the authorities of the mint upon all money struck by them, or upon each new die or separate issue.
30. A coin is said to be “over-struck” or “re-struck” when it has been struck on an older coin, of which the types are not altogether obliterated.
31. A double-struck coin is one in which the die or dies have shifted so as to cause a double impression.
32. A coin which presents two obverse types, or two reverse types, or of which the types of the obverse and reverse do not correspond, is called a mule; it is the result of mistake or caprice.
Arrangement of Coins.—No uniform system has as yet been applied to the arrangement of all coins. It is usual to separate them into the three great classes of ancient coins (comprising Greek and Roman), medieval and modern, and Oriental coins. The details of these classes have been differently treated, both generally and specially. The arrangement of the Greek series has been first geographical, under countries and towns, and then chronological, for a further division; that of the Roman series, chronological, without reference to geography; that of the medieval and modern, the same as the Greek; and that of the Oriental, like the Greek, but unsystematically—a treatment inadmissible except in the case of a single empire. Then, again, some numismatists have separated each denomination or each metal, or have separated the denominations of one metal and not of another. There has been no general and comprehensive system, constructed upon reasonable principles, and applicable to every branch of this complicated science. Without laying down a system of rules, or criticizing former modes of arrangement, we offer the following as a classification which is uniform without being servile.
1. Greek Coins.—All coins of Greeks, or barbarians who adopted Greek money, struck before the Roman rule or under it, but without imperial effigies. The countries and their provinces are placed in a geographical order from west to east, according to the system of Eckhel, with the cities in alphabetical order under the provinces, and the kings in chronological order. The civic coins usually precede the regal, as being the more important. The coins are further arranged chronologically, the civic commencing with the oldest and ending with those bearing the effigies of Roman emperors. The gold coins of each period take precedence of the silver and the silver of the copper. The larger denominations in each metal are placed before the smaller. Coins of the same denomination and period are arranged in the alphabetical order of the magistrates' names, or the letters, &c., that they bear.
2. Roman Coins.—All coins issued by the Roman commonwealth and empire, whether struck at Rome or in the provinces. The arrangement is chronological, or, where this is better, under geographical divisions.
3. Medieval and Modern Coins of Europe.—All coins issued by Christian European states, their branches and colonies, from the fall of the empire of the West to the present day. This class is arranged in a geographical and chronological order, as similar as possible to that of the Greek class, with the important exception of the Byzantine coins and the coins following Byzantine systems, which occupy the first place. The reason for this deviation is that the Byzantine money may be regarded not only as the principal source of medieval coinage but as the most complete and important medieval series, extending as it does without a break throughout the middle ages. The regal coins usually precede the civic ones, as being the more important. The medals of each nation should be arranged in two series: (1) medals of rulers, according to their dates; (2) medals of private persons, as far as possible according to the artists.
4. Oriental Coins.—All coins bearing inscriptions in Eastern languages, excepting those of the Jews, Phoenicians and Carthaginians, which are classed with the Greek coins from their close connexion with them. These coins should be arranged under the following divisions: Ancient Persian, Arab, Modern Persian, Indian, Chinese and coins of the Far East.
This method of arrangement will be found to be as uniform as it can be made, without being absolutely mechanical. It differs in some important particulars from most or all of those which have previously obtained; but these very differences are the result of the consideration of a complete collection, and have therefore an inductive origin. A general uniformity is no slight gain, and may well reconcile us to some partial defects.
I. Greek Coins
There are some matters relating to Greek coins in general which may be properly considered before they are described in geographical order. These are their general character, the chief denominations, with the different talents of which they were the divisions, their devices and inscriptions, their art, and the mode of striking.
The period during which Greek coins were issued was probably not much less than a thousand years, commencing about the beginning of the 7th century B.C. and generally ending at the death of Gallienus (A.D. 268). If classed with reference only to their form, fabric, and general appearance they are of three principal types—the archaic Greek, the ordinary Greek, and the Graeco-Roman. The coins of the first class are of silver, electrum and sometimes gold. They are thick lumps of an irregular round form, bearing on the obverse a device, with in some cases an accompanying inscription, and on the reverse a square or oblong incuse stamp (quadratum incusum), usually divided in a rude manner. The coins of the second class are of gold, electrum, silver and bronze. They are much thinner than those of the preceding class, and usually have a convex obverse and a slightly concave or flat reverse. The obverse ordinarily bears a head in bold relief. The coins of the third class are, with very few exceptions, of bronze. They are flat and broad, but thin, and generally have on the obverse the portrait of a Roman emperor. Many Greek cities, however, during the empire issued quasi-autonomous coins bearing the head of some deity or personification. Greek coins thus fall mainly into the classes of autonomous, quasi-autonomous and imperial. The coinage of Roman colonies in Greek as in other lands is usually distinguished by Latin inscriptions.
Since Greek coinage originated in Asia Minor, the coins were adjusted to the weight-systems there in use, and these go back to a Babylonian origin. But it is possible that some of the standard of Greece proper had a native origin. The unit of weight in the East was the shekel (siglos). This was 160 of the manah (mina, mna), and this 160 of the talent (talanton). Monetary Systems. This scale the Greeks modified, in that, starting from the siglos as unit, they invented a money-mina of 50 sigli, with a money-talent of 60 minae or 3000 sigli. The siglos-units (and corresponding standards) chiefly employed in Asia Minor were the following (the relation between gold and silver at the time of the invention of these units seems to have been 1313:1):—
Thus one gold shekel was the equivalent of 15 Phoenician or 10 Babylonian silver shekels. Side by side with this system was another in which the weights were exactly double of those just given; a shekel of the heavier system might be regarded as a double shekel of the lighter. Various Babylonian weights are extant, dating from 2000 B.C. downwards, which prove the existence of minae of the two systems. The gold shekel standard was almost invariably used for gold coins, sometimes also for electrum. The Babylonian and Phoenician standards were also sometimes used for gold or electrum as well as silver. A weight more or less approaching that of the gold shekel or its multiples seems to have been usual all over the civilized world in Greek times; e.g. the Phocaean standard of 16·52 g. was but a modification of it. But for silver in Greece proper, from a very early period, the following standards prevailed: the Aeginetic (unit, didrachm or stater, of 12·6 g.) and the Euboic-Attic (stater of 8·72 g.), with its modification the Corinthian. The Euboic-Attic standard attained enormous importance owing to the spread of Athenian trade and the adoption of the weight by Alexander of Macedon. It was used for both gold and silver. The Corinthian standard differed only in its divisional system, the stater being divided into thirds instead of halves. From it were derived some of the standards in use among the Greeks of S. Italy. Other standards of more local importance were: the Campanian, used in a large part of S. Italy (didrachm originally of 7·41 g., afterwards reduced), and perhaps derived from
