Hellenistic Portraits, McFadden 1951George H. McFadden

43 by Wace.

44 Walter's identification struck by Lysimachos, sighted [handwritten: was based on a coin] [handwritten: by Winter] Inhoof-Blumer with some reservation, considered 45 the portrait on the obverse to be a portrait of Lysimachos. Today, [handwritten: of] however, it is generally accepted to be a portrait of Alexander. If this identification of the coin portrait is correct 46 as we presume it is, then Wolters and Six are in agreement as to the identification of the marble head.

Six who examined the head in the Vatican noted rough 47 depressed surfaces between the brow and the temples. He traced these on two gaps originating over the brow on either side and terminating on the temple over the ear (Fig. ). He concluded that these gaps were once covered by ram horns and that this head accordingly was a portrait of Alexander the Great(Ammon). I have not seen the head but one hopes at least 48 that the restoration is not correct. Ram horns would indicate, of course, that it was a portrait of Alexander. I am, however, and kind of doubt whether we have no choice to explain the depressed rough surface in this way. If, however, we must restore the head with horns, they need not be ram horns. They might have been bull horns which would indicate the royal portrait, but not necessarily one of Alexander. Six, who was convinced that the portrait was of Alexander, substituted the tip of the nose which had been restored with another restoraction more to his own liking. He modelled his restoration after the nose of the coin portrait already referred to.