Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Sulla80, post: 4982874, member: 99456&quot;]Yes, Crawford says &quot;There are no grounds for supposing that the obverse of 1 bears a portrait of P Scipio Africanus (contr <a href="http://Verlagsgruppe AG Previous Item | Next Item Stable URL https://www.jstor.org/stable/24812877" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://Verlagsgruppe AG Previous Item | Next Item Stable URL https://www.jstor.org/stable/24812877" rel="nofollow">M L Vollenweider</a>).&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>Vollenweider offers several arguments based on portraits, dieties (signature trio of Scipio), and time periods (parallel between battle with Jugurtha and battle of Zama), that the image is based on portraits from the time of the Asian campaign, 190 BC, in which Scipio was portrayed like a Greek strategist with a helmet.&nbsp; Her conclusion in 1958 before Crawford: &quot;there is no longer any doubt that the two coin series and the ring portrait reflect one and the same personality, namely Scipio Africanus.&quot;&nbsp; Mattingly,&nbsp; Robinson, and Scullard all had their doubts about Scipio, and a potential Blasio relative was another suggestion.</p><p><br /></p><p>To remove any doubt, I could switch to this coin for Mars:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1197158[/ATTACH]</p><p><b>Edit:</b> Re-reading the RRC entry - there is a fairly extensive discussion of the arguments from Vollenweider and an argument for Mars on the obverse of Cr. 296/1.[/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