Catalog
Why register? Just to keep bots out of our catalog. Your email stays private - we will never share it or send you anything uninvited. We guarantee you that!
| Issuer | Uncertain Punic mint |
|---|---|
| Year | 320 BC - 300 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 | 17.12 g |
| Diameter | Log in to see details |
| Thickness | Log in to see details |
| Shape | Log in to see details |
| 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 | Facing right, the wreathed head of the goddess Tanit is rendered in fine Sicilian style, her hair gathered beneath a wreath of grain leaves. She wears a triple-pendant earring and a pearl necklace, framing an elegantly modeled profile. Four dolphins are disposed around the field, symbolizing the maritime character of the Punic western Mediterranean world. |
|---|---|
| Obverse script | Log in to see details |
| Obverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Reverse description | A powerful horse's head faces left with a flowing, finely detailed mane cascading down the neck, rendered in high relief characteristic of Sicilian die-cutting. To the left stands a tall palm tree, the emblematic symbol of Carthage and Phoenician culture. In the lower exergual area, a Punic inscription reads in Neo-Punic characters, translating as 'People of the Camp' (Mahane or Camp mint), identifying the issuing civic or military authority. |
| 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 |
Punic Sicily in this period was a battleground for monetary influence as much as military control. Carthage used its Sicilian mints — Lilybaion and Entella among the most productive — to pay mercenary armies in the field, meaning these tetradrachms circulated less as trade currency and more as military payroll. The attribution to a single mint remains unresolved; Jenkins and Lewis identified the Group IV issues as a stylistic cluster without pinning down a precise workshop, and the debate has not definitively closed since their 1964 corpus.