Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;cmezner, post: 3391255, member: 87809&quot;]@<a href="http://Justin Lee" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://Justin Lee" rel="nofollow">Justin Lee</a> When I was researching my Pentonkion the first date I found was: after 288 BC. Then I found in acsearch and wildwinds 220-200 BC, but&nbsp; at <a href="https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=search&amp;cat=0&amp;pos=151" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=search&amp;cat=0&amp;pos=151" rel="nofollow">https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=search&amp;cat=0&amp;pos=151</a></p><p>ithere is one dated 264-241 BC but another one at <a href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=search&amp;cat=0&amp;pos=330" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=search&amp;cat=0&amp;pos=330" rel="nofollow">http://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=search&amp;cat=0&amp;pos=330</a> dated 220-200 BC </p><p><br /></p><p>According to </p><p><font size="4"><b><a href="https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.279434/2015.279434.A-Study_djvu.txt" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.279434/2015.279434.A-Study_djvu.txt" rel="nofollow">Full text of &quot;A Study In The Coinage Of The Mamertines&quot;</a></b></font></p><p><a href="https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.279434/2015.279434.A-Study_djvu.txt" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.279434/2015.279434.A-Study_djvu.txt" rel="nofollow"></a></p><p><a href="https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.279434/2015.279434.A-Study_djvu.txt" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.279434/2015.279434.A-Study_djvu.txt" rel="nofollow">https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.279434/2015.279434.A-Study_djvu.txt</a></p><p><br /></p><p>on p.6 we can read that the Mamertines were able to maintain their position as an independent state up to the arrival of the Romans in 264 BC, thus at he outbreak of the first Punic War.</p><p><br /></p><p>on p. 14: Gardner divided the coins into 3 groups; first group comprising coins without any mark of value, second group coins with mark of value and 3rd group without mark of value but judging from the style belonging to a later period. Head follows the work of Gardner dividing the coins into two periods:</p><p>First period extending from the capture of Messana by the Mamertines about 282 BC to the fall of Syracuse about 210 BC and comprising coins without marks of value, and second period from about 210 BC consisting of coins with value marks. </p><p><br /></p><p>According to this reference and since it says that this classification has remained practically unchanged, I think that dating the type of coin ca. 220 - 200 BC follows&nbsp; Gardner and Head because it has marks of value. Coins minted around 264 - 241 BC should not have a mark of value.[/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