Catalogus
Waarom registreren? Alleen om bots buiten ons catalogus te houden. Uw e-mail blijft privé — we delen het nooit en sturen u niets zonder uw toestemming. Dat garanderen wij u!
| Uitgever | Uncertain Etruscan mint |
|---|---|
| Jaar | 240 BC - 225 BC |
| Type | Log in om details te zien |
| Waarde | Log in om details te zien |
| Valuta | As (circa 301-201 BC) |
| Samenstelling | Log in om details te zien |
| Gewicht | Log in om details te zien |
| Diameter | Log in om details te zien |
| Dikte | Log in om details te zien |
| Vorm | Log in om details te zien |
| Techniek | Log in om details te zien |
| Oriëntatie | Log in om details te zien |
| Graveur(s) | Log in om details te zien |
| In omloop tot | Log in om details te zien |
| Referentie(s) | Log in om details te zien |
| Beschrijving voorzijde | Log in om details te zien |
|---|---|
| Schrift voorzijde | Log in om details te zien |
| Opschrift voorzijde | Log in om details te zien |
| Beschrijving keerzijde | A double-headed axe (bipennis or double axe) depicted in high relief at center, with the handle oriented vertically and the two symmetrical blades projecting laterally. Two pellets flank the axe head, serving as value marks indicative of the semis denomination. The design is boldly cast in the archaic Etruscan aes grave tradition, with a plain, unadorned field surrounding the central device. No legend or inscription is present. The flan is irregular and shows natural casting marks consistent with the period. |
| Schrift keerzijde | Log in om details te zien |
| Opschrift keerzijde | Log in om details te zien |
| Rand | Log in om details te zien |
| Muntplaats | Log in om details te zien |
| Oplage | ND (240 BC - 225 BC) - With V to left - ND (240 BC - 225 BC) - Without V to left - |
| Aanvullende informatie |
Etruscan bronze coinage of this weight class belongs to a minting tradition that operated largely outside Roman monetary authority, though by the mid-third century BC the pressure of Roman expansion was forcing northern Etruscan communities into increasingly dependent relationships with Rome. Pieces of this size and type were cast rather than struck — the technology of the Roman aes grave tradition — and the specific mint attribution remains disputed among specialists, with Haeberlin's groupings still serving as the foundational reference despite more than a century of subsequent scholarship.
The ICC#168 classification places this among a narrow group of semis issues whose production window likely closed as Roman monetary standardization absorbed or displaced local Etruscan casting operations entirely.