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

Drachm Alexander III Type

Uitgever Uncertain Eastern European Celts
Jaar 200 BC - 1 BC
Type Log in om details te zien
Waarde Log in om details te zien
Valuta Drachm
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 Celticized head of Herakles facing right, wearing the Nemean lion skin headdress rendered in a stylized, abstracted manner characteristic of Celtic die-cutting. The facial features are boldly modelled with a prominent nose and rounded chin, derived from the prototype of Alexander III tetradrachms and drachms. The lion scalp is depicted with schematic paws and mane, filling much of the upper field. A beaded border frames the design around the coin's irregular flan.
Schrift voorzijde Log in om details te zien
Opschrift voorzijde Log in om details te zien
Beschrijving keerzijde Log in om details te zien
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 (200 BC - 1 BC)
Aanvullende informatie

Celtic imitations of Alexander's coinage were struck across a vast geographic arc for well over a century, but the eastern European issues — particularly those attributed to tribes in the middle Danube basin — represent the furthest ideological drift from their Macedonian prototype. By the time pieces like this were being struck, the original types had been in circulation long enough that local die-cutters were working from worn coins rather than official models, producing progressive stylistic abstraction that was functional rather than artistic ambition.

The Kostial and Göbl references place this within a recognizable typological cluster, but "uncertain" attribution here reflects genuine scholarly disagreement, not cataloging laziness.