Volledige afbeeldingen bekijken — gratis registratie
Doorgaan met Google — het is gratis of registreer met e-mail

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!

1 Semis Wheel / Axe

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.

MISSCHIEN OOK INTERESSANT