Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Sulla80, post: 4579705, member: 99456&quot;]Thanks for the post <a href="https://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/view?pid=snr-003:1998:77#79" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/view?pid=snr-003:1998:77#79" rel="nofollow">on this 1998 Jörg Müller article</a>!&nbsp; While, for me, it falls short of being fully convincing that the series should be split into two groups and the first group shifted by ~5 years later, it does raise some good concerns and offers a reminder of how lightly supported by evidence some &quot;facts&quot; can be.</p><p><br /></p><p>Further reinforced by this interesting article relevant to dated Cistophori:</p><p>Rigsby, K. (1979). <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1087850" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1087850" rel="nofollow">The Era of the Province of Asia</a>. <i>Phoenix,</i> <i>33</i>(1), 39-47.</p><p><br /></p><p>Rigsby starts out clearly with : &quot;What is more disturbing about the era, is that in 134/3 the Province of Asia did not exist&quot;.&nbsp; He makes the case that 134/3 BC was a civic era related to the granting of freedom by Attalus III to Ephesus.</p><p>Although it is nicer as a red cloth bound book - Kleiner and Noe is also <a href="http://numismatics.org/digitallibrary/ark:/53695/nnan30795" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://numismatics.org/digitallibrary/ark:/53695/nnan30795" rel="nofollow">available online</a>, and easier to find in electronic form.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in