This series of rare bronze coins raises problems of interpretation. It was assigned to Gaul by Sydenham (NG I9I7, p. 58) and to a date of c. 40-38 BC. But Grant, FITA, pp. 82-3, easily disproved this early date: Augustus's portrait indicates that these bronzes are post-Actian. It remains to determine the mint. The discovery of one specimen (5416/5) in the neighbourhood of Istanbul, and supposed stylistic similarities with Macedonian issues, led Grant to propose a Macedonian series ordered by M. Antonius Primus, proconsul of the province in 23 BC (FITA, pp. 83-4). This solution, however, seems highly implausible, and it is better to return to a Gallic mint for the following reasons: (I) the form of the prow with superstructure is paralleled at Copia (5I4-I5), Vienna (5I7) andArausio? (533); (2) a second provenance is now recorded: specimen 54I6/7 was bought in Lyon before I91O. Even if Grant did not see any of these coins among the 847 Augustan Gallic aes he examined in the south of France, the mere fact that three coins are in the P collection favours a Gallic origin; (3) the double-bevelled edge of the present series and the careful die-setting at twelve o'clock recall the C. I. V. issue (517). Therefore a Gallic mint is suggested here, and a date of c. 30-25 BC.Three unpublished analyses reveal that these coins are made of bronze (91% of copper+ 6% of tin and 3% of lead). The denomination struck was probably an as, but the series of Arausio (?) (533), which has exactly the same weight, is considered by Amandry as a dupondius (GENE, April-June 1986, pp. 21-34). A Gallic mint is favoured by RPC, but Richard Ashton points out some provenances that suggest Asia is also a possibility. Although 5416/7 was bought in Lyon, 5416/5 was found near Istanbul; two new specimens come from Turkey (12-13) and one other has a Balkan provenance (14).