Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Valentinian, post: 2445185, member: 44316&quot;]I am writing to bump this up to the top. Doug&#039;s Zeugma courtyard has &quot;perspective&quot;.&nbsp; The further parts of the courtyard rectangle are depicted closer together. His Nero &quot;temple of Janus&quot; pieces show two sides of a building without even an angle between them as we would see when viewed from an angle such that both sides could be seen, so they are not square-on, but do not not use more modern ideas of perspective. TIF&#039;s gorgeous Syracuse Agathokles piece shows a chariot from an angle (which is especially clear at the chariot), but does not show the decrease in size associated with distance from the viewer. </p><p><br /></p><p>Is decrease in size for things further from the viewer really so rare in ancient-coin images? </p><p>[ATTACH=full]510252[/ATTACH] </p><p>Trajan, struck 114-117 according to Butcher, at Seleucia Pieria in Syria.</p><p>24 mm. 11.46 grams.</p><p>This Trajan Roman provincial coin depicts a shrine with the sacred stone of Zeus Kasios. It is not square on, but at an angle to give an impression of depth, but does not use the modern &quot;vanishing point&quot; idea of expressing depth. The columns at the back are as far apart as the columns at the front. </p><p><br /></p><p>So, it is clear that some coins show objects at an angle (but we have not seen many examples here. I&#039;d like to see more). Do we not have more to show that exhibit decreasing size at greater distance? Is that really so very rare?[/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