Catalog
1 Uncia Right-turning
| Issuer | Uncertain city of Central Italy |
|---|---|
| Year | 301 BC - 201 BC |
| Type | Log in to see details |
| Value | Log in to see details |
| Currency | Log in to see details |
| Composition | Log in to see details |
| Weight | Log in to see details |
| Diameter | Log in to see details |
| Thickness | Log in to see details |
| Shape | Round (irregular) |
| Technique | Log in to see details |
| Orientation | Log in to see details |
| Engraver(s) | Log in to see details |
| In circulation to | Log in to see details |
| Reference(s) | Log in to see details |
| Obverse description | Plain field bearing a single pellet (dot) at center, serving as the value mark denoting one uncia, the twelfth part of the as. The flan is irregular and slightly convex, consistent with cast aes grave production. No legend or additional decorative elements are present. |
|---|---|
| Obverse script | Log in to see details |
| Obverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Reverse description | A right-turning swastika (tetraskelion) occupying the full field, with four arms of equal length extending from a central hub and bending clockwise at right angles. The design is boldly rendered in relief, characteristic of Central Italian aes grave casting of the third to second century BC. No legend or additional symbols are present. |
| Reverse script | Log in to see details |
| Reverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Edge | Log in to see details |
| Mint | Log in to see details |
| Mintage | Log in to see details |
| Additional information |
The attribution "uncertain city of Central Italy" is not evasiveness — it reflects a genuine scholarly impasse. Cast bronze coinage of this type circulated across a region where several communities, some never conclusively identified, operated short-lived mints during the Second Punic War period and the decades surrounding it. The right-turning variant is catalogued separately from its left-turning counterpart because ancient die orientation in cast series was deliberate, not accidental, though what administrative or workshop distinction it marked remains unresolved.
Haeberlin's foundational typology, still the baseline for aes grave scholarship, placed this piece among a cluster of issues he could not firmly anchor to a single issuer.