¹ In addition to Freeman's well-known work on Federal Government, we now have a more comprehensive and up-to-date account by Swoboda, (in Hermann's, Lehrbuch der griechischen Antiquitäten I ⁶. pt. 3, pp. 208–443)Google Scholar. Swoboda does not ignore the numismatic evidence, as Freeman did, but the scope of his work has not allowed him to discuss it in detail.

² Essay on Greek Federal Coinage (London, 1863).

³ See especially the articles by Weil on the coins of Arcadia, (Zeitschrift für Numismatik, ix. p. 19Google Scholarsqq., xxix. p. 139 sqq.), and by Babelon, (Revue Numismatique, 1913, pp. 457–485)Google Scholar, and Gardner, P. (J.H.S. 1913, pp. 147–188)Google Scholar on the money of the Delian Confederacy.

⁴ This definition is more comprehensive than that of Swoboda, who lays down the rule that a ‘federation’ in the strict sense of the word only includes those unions which created a federal franchise in addition to the municipal or tribal franchises (op. cit. pp. 208–9).

⁵ Head, , Historia Numorum (2nd ed.), pp. 328–334Google Scholar.

⁶ Head, pp. 412–418. Hill, , Historical Greek Coins, pp. 73–5Google Scholar. M. G. Clerk, Catalogue of the Coins of the Achaean League (with copious illustrations).

⁷ The local character of these magistrates has been demonstrated by Warren, pp. 45–8.

⁸ B. M. Catalogue, Peloponnesus, p. xxvii.

⁹ Head, pp. 291–2.

¹⁰ In the B. M. Catalogue for Thessaly, p. 10, the date assigned is 302–288 B.C. But the analogy of the adjacent Oetaeans suggests 400–344 B.C.

¹¹ Head, pp. 559–563.

¹² Head, pp. 334–5. Hill, pp. 115–7.

¹³ B. M. Catalogue, Thessaly, p. lvii. Hunter Catalogue, ii. pp. 30, 33.

¹⁴ For other instances of such συντέλєια, see Swoboda, pp. 348–350.

¹⁵ Head, pp. 341–2. Hill, pp. 89, 91–2.

^15bis Head, p. 573; Hill, pp. 62 ff. Strictly speaking, it is doubtful whether the ‘anti-Spartan’ combination of 394–387 B.C. should be included in the present review. As our sole knowledge of its existence is derived from coins, we have but little evidence of its political structure. In particular, we cannot make sure that the combination was a federation in the proper sense of the term, i.e. whether it possessed any common organs of government over and above the governments of the individual states. However, the ‘anti-Spartan’ coin types illustrate, if not a federation ready made, at any rate a federation in the making. On this ground they can fairly be included in our survey.

¹⁶ Head, pp. 444–450. Hill, pp. 72–3.

¹⁷ The beginning of this series, which is commonly placed at 490 B.C., has been thrown back by Weil, (Zeitsch. f. Num. xxix. p. 141)Google Scholar to 520 B.C. The large number of extant specimens and the diversity of their style indicate that the series was a long one.

¹⁸ Weil, (Zeitschr. f. Num. ix. p. 38)Google Scholar dates the series down to 300 B.C.

¹⁹ The inscriptions and which occur on some of these pieces, have been ingeniously explained by Head as referring to Possicrates and Theoxenus, two founders of Megalopolis. In this case we have an intrusion of a municipal legend on a federal coin.

²⁰ According to Head, this series commenced about 450–420 B.C. The B. M. Catalogue for Peloponnesus takes 431 B.C. as the starting point.

Heraea, whose earliest coins date back to 550 B.C., issued no money during the greater part of the fifth century B.C. Weil, (Zeitschr. f. Num. xxix. p. 144)Google Scholar, conjectures that this was due to a διοικισμός not otherwise recorded. Imhoof-Bloomer, (Monnaies grecques, p. 196)Google Scholar suggests more plausibly that in the fifth century Heraea was the seat of the federal mint, and used the federal coins for its local purposes.

²¹ See especially Gardner, P., J.H.S. 1913, pp. 147–188Google Scholar, and Babelon, , Revue Numismatique, 1913, pp. 457–485Google Scholar.

²² The time at which the Athenians conceived the deliberate policy of closing the mints of their allies is a matter of dispute. Babelon (p. 467 sqq.) would date this policy back to the beginning of the League. Weil, (Zeitschr. f. Num. xxviii. pp. 355–6)Google Scholar argues with some force that restrictive measures were not taken before 454 B.C., from which time the tribute of the allies came to be spent more and more in Athens.

²³ P. Gardner, loc. cit., and Head, pp. 524–5, 636–7.

²⁴ Head, pp. 343–355. Hill, pp. 69–71.

²⁵ In the B. M. Catalogue for Boeotia (p. xxxvi.) it is suggested that the shield presumably had its origin at Thebes. It certainly appears continuously on the coins of that town, even at a time (146–27 B.C.) when other Boeotian towns had adopted different types. But the same device was commonly used by the generality of the Boeotian towns, and was not discarded by these in the periods when the influence of Thebes in Boeptia was in abeyance (480–456 and 387–374 B.C.). The shield should therefore be regarded as a federal rather than a municipal symbol.

²⁶ On the federal character of the magistrates named on these coins, see Hill, pp. 70–71.

²⁷ In 456–446 and 386–374 B.C. the Boeotian League ceased to exist for political purposes. It is probable that it remained in being as a sacral union.

²⁸ Head, pp. 203–214. Hill, pp. 66–7.

²⁹ The variety in the types of the fourth century pieces suggests that their issue extended over the whole period of the League's existence (Hill, pp. 66–7. Wroth, , Numismatic Chronicle, 1897, p. 100)Google Scholar.

³⁰ B. M. Catalogue, Macedonia, p. 87. This solitary piece does not suffice to show that the Chalcidian League was really a unitary state under the control of Olynthus (so Freeman, , Federal Government, p. 152Google Scholarsqq.). All the rest of the numismatic evidence supports the contention of Swoboda (op. cit. p. 215, n. 10), that the League was a genuine federation.

³¹ Head, pp. 871–2.

³² Head, pp. 319–325.

³³ Head, pp. 355–365.

³⁴ Gardner, P., J.H.S. 1911, pp. 151–160Google Scholar; 1913, p. 105. ‘Ionia’ is here taken in its wide sense as the Greek fringe of Asia Minor.

³⁵ Hunter Catalogue, i. pp. 131, 86–88, 80–81. [Head remarks (p. 67) that the Heracles diobols of the fourth century struck at Tarentum and Heraclea, which are identical in type, should be regarded as federal rather than local issues.—G.F.H.]

³⁶ Head, pp. 336–7.

³⁷ Head, pp. 688–698.

³⁸ Seven other Lycian towns struck local pieces alone, and issued no money of federal type. These towns, however, were not included in the Lycian League.

³⁹ Head, pp. 300–301.

⁴⁰ Head, pp. 479–493.

⁴¹ Head, pp. 392–3.

⁴² Head, p. 304.

⁴³ Head, pp. 338–343. Hill, pp. 89–91.

⁴⁴ On the beginnings of Phocian coinage, see Earle-Fox, (Num. Chron. 1908, p. 81)Google Scholar, who gives good reasons for dating the earliest known pieces to 450 rather than to 550 B.C.

⁴⁵ It has been conjectured that gold coins must also have been struck at this time, in view of the large quantities of gold which the Phocians looted at Delphi. But no coins are extant.

⁴⁶ For the date of the League's reconstitution, see Swoboda, p. 321, n. 10.

⁴⁷ Head, pp. 290–312.

⁴⁸ E.g. the Acarnanians, Achaeans, Arcadians, Chalcidians, Epirotes, Euboeans, Locrians, Lycians, Phocians and Thessalians.

⁴⁹ So in Australia, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Switzerland, and the United States of America. The gold currency of Germany offers a partial exception to the general rule, for on the reverse face the heads of rulers other than the German Emperor, e.g. the kings of Bavaria and Saxony, appear.

A much closer parallel to the chaos of Greek federal coinage is to be found in the postage stamps of modern federations. Switzerland and the United States have established a federal monopoly of stamps. Australia and Austria-Hungary issue no federal stamps, but have standardised the issues of the constituent states. In Germany there is a concurrent emission of federal stamps and of one local issue (Bavaria).

⁵⁰ Note the stress laid on equality between state and state in Polybius' encomium on the Achaean League (ii. 38. 8): οὐδενὶ γὰρ οὐδὲν ὑπολειπομένη πλεονέκτημα τῶν ὲξ ὰρχῆς ὑπολειπομένη πλεονέκτημα τῶν ὲξ ὰρχῆς μένοις, ταχέως καθικνεῖτο τῆς προκειμένης ἐπι βολῆς, δύο συνέργοις χρωμένη τοῖς ὶσχυροτάτοις ίσότητι καὶ φιλανθρωπίᾳ

⁵¹ Babelon, pp. 464–6.

⁵² A general decree of prohibition against concurrent mints was passed in 415 B.C. (see esp. Weil, , Zeitschr. f. Num. xxv. p. 52)Google Scholar. It was preceded by other such measures, which Babelon (p. 467 sqq.) would date back to the early days of the League.

⁵³ Tarn, , Antigonos Gonatas, pp. 76–9Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ J.H.S. 1815, pp. 184–6.

⁵⁵ Marshall, , The Second Athenian Confederacy, pp. 50–53Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Wilhelm, , Attische Urkunden (Sitzungsberichte der k. Akad. der Wissenschaften in Wien, 1911)Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Warren (p. 58) has suggested that the high degree of centralisation which we find in the Aetolian League is due to the fact that its constituent states were village communities which lacked the desire for autonomy so prevalent among Greek towns. But the Aetolian League, as remodelled at the end of the fourth century, was constructed not out of tribes but out of city-states of the standard type. See Swoboda, op. cit. pp. 330–332.

⁵⁸ If the fifth-century coin with Olynthian type and legend is not merely agonistic, it can only represent a transitory league which was formed by the Chalcidians before their admission into the Delian League or, more probably, during the revolt of 433/2 B.C., when Olynthus brought about a συνοι κισμὁς of Chalcidian communities (Thuc. i. 58).