explanation. The genitive plural of the national name
is in fact, by far the commonest of all the known forms
of inscription on Greek coins. There can be no doubt that
often, possibly in the great majority of cases, the word to
be understood is apyiipiov or Hoppia, used in the collective
sense as on the money of Seuthes. That was inevitable
after the irapdmipiov ceased to be employed, or became
degraded to the level of a symbol (i). The view that
it is the name of the particular denomination (<rra-Yipetc.)
that ought to be supplied seems much less probable, in
spite of the familiar instance of AAE3ANAPEI0X on the
staters, and AAEHANAPEIA on the drachms, of Alexander
ofPherae. If the name of the particular denomination
had come into the question, it would surely have been
expressed, as it is on modern money and as it was in Roman
times at Byzantium, Melos, Ephesus and Rhodes, when
the legal standard was altered and AIAPAXMON and
APAXMH (on APAXMA) assumed a new significance. But
what of the original meaning of the genitive of the
national name? It cannot have differed from the original
meaning of the genitive of the place name, for «PAIET1QN
TO RAIMA furnishes an absolute parallel to the inscription
of Gortyna spoken of above, and in the very rare
TAPANTINGN HMI (2) it seems reasonable to suppose that
it is the type that is speaking, not the coin or the denomination.
We have still to say a word as to the adjectival forms
of inscription. For the most part, these are early. The
case is always the nominative singular, but it may be
either masculine, feminine or neuter. The feminine
occurs but seldom. The neuter is found much more
(1) See Coin T y p e s, p. 124.
(2 ) D r e s s e l , Berlin. Beschreib., p . 2 4 1 , n ° 8 p .
2 8 7 —
frequently than either of the other two. It is impossible
to account for this variation in gender by supposing
that the name of the denomination is understood. Tetra-
drachms and drachms of Rhegium, for instance, struck
in the fifth century hear PETINOS and PEFINON imT
partially, one form being fashionable at one period,
another at another (1). Nor can we accept Mr Head’s
suggestion that the adjective may agree « with the name
of the divinity whose figure is represented on the coins» (2),
for PHriNH meets us on a bronze piece in association
with a head of Apollo. The easiest solution of the puzzle
provided by the varying genders is to regard the adjective
as referring to the type or device. The actual word
that is understood might then be of any gender — tuto?
or^apaxxTip for the masculine; 'Ttppayi? for the feminine:
tyiipux, 7iapau7i|j.ov, Ttafpia, etc., for the neuter, This would
have the further advantage of bringing the adjectival
form of inscription into line with the individual name
and the place name, all alike alluding to the type rather
than to the coin or denomination. And some such reconciliation
is essential, for on the rare alliance coins of
Siris and Pyxus one city uses the nominative of the
adjective on the obverse, while the other uses the nominative
of the place name on the reverse.
I incline, then, to think that some word for « type »
must he understood with all feminine adjectives such as
PHTINH and SETEITAIA. and probably also with masculines
like YPIAN02, NQAAIOS, TAPANTINOE, AAINOS,
SIPINOS, PHUNOE, KAMAPINAIOS, KATANAIOE, VEON-
TINOS, EEAINONTIOS, XTPAKOSIOI, MA0YMNAIOS, etc.
Such a word would also suit well the characteristically
(1) B. M. C. I ta ly , pp. 373 f.
(2 ) Hist. Num., p. L x n i ,