1956–1957

4.

This I think covers your suggestions and is countered only by one : you write the introduction. The only remarks I would like to include, in a hypothetical introduction are : ¹ The importance of the work lies only in showing what coins were found at Curium. ^② That they are quantities samples, rather than ^not an indication of rise and fall of prosperity and of size of population. ^③ The new attributions are tentative with little evidence beyond provenance. ^④ And some place, that "Kourion" is the same as "Curium" the form used by Hill and Babelon and other numismatists writing about the coins (Six is one, but few people have dealt with them; how about P.W?, I don't remember.)

I spoke about how correct Svoronos was in most of his attributions. That is unnecessary. The ^high proportion of large Roman bronze is notable, but have no idea what it means or whether it would hold if another area were dug - may be they come largely from the theatre (?) and there's an explaination there. To mention or not to mention^? that the coins are largely local in Gk. times is as expected, the p- high proportion of imports in Roman times even when there was a Cypriote mint probably means that the local output was small, why (?) copper mines there, comment (?).

When one doesn't know the answer and hasn't even an informed guess is it worth mentioning things? I was in doubt whether to include comment on # 153, 4 coins of Cyzicus, with only KY (obviously from finds spot to be read as Cyprus). It's just queer. Shall I omit? I had really hoped for a lot of blue pencil - not be urged to write more. I thought I'd already said too much.

Think it over, Hannah.