I too am of the opinion that coins supposedly depicting Hannibal are more attributable to wishful thinking than to reality. During the 2nd Punic wars neither the
Romans nor the Carthagenians used images of actual persons on their coins. It seems most likely that about as close as you can get is "TIME OF HANNIBAL". It's only human nature to embelish and that's exactly the case with supposed images of Hannibal on coins. Not to mention it also embelishes the coin value. But, if a given coin was issued under
his authority and while he was
still living I think that should be enough.
I also have doubts about the AE
Spanish coinage attributed to Hannibal's nemisis
SCIPIO AFRICANUS.
In
Spain there appears to be three varieties of Punic coins supposedly depicting
Scipio: SNGCop 28, Muller 4 & 103 and
Burgos 425. No doubt there was a change in the coinage with a very different
portrait that seems to have occurred at the time of Scipio's conquest of the Carthagenians in
Spain. But the
portrait style bears a remarkable resemblance to
portraits found on local Barcids issues. It's just as possible this change in
portraits on Carthagenian issues was done by the local rulers as a statement of their simi-autonomous status signifying a change in
alliance. Yet there are claims of other Carthagenian
Spanish issues being attributed to the brother of Hannibal, Hasdrubal and even an inference of Hannibal's father, Hamilcar. These should also be taken with a grain of salt..
Also, consider the supposed
Scipio portrait on the
denarius of Cn.
Cornelius Blasio, Cn.112/111 B.C. (
Crawford 296/1.). This coin has been promoted as bearing the likness of
Scipio but there are too many other examples of a helmeted
Mars that look exactly the same for this to be anywhere near a valid claim. While the moneyer is Scipio's actual descendent this doesn't means it's a commerative to
his ancestor.