Catalog
See full images - free registration
Continue with Google - no registration!
or register with email
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!
Currency bar Ramo secco bar
| Issuer | Uncertain Etruscan mint |
|---|---|
| Year | 601 BC - 301 BC |
| Type | Standard circulation coin |
| 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 | 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 | Cast bronze currency bar of the Ramo secco type, displaying a schematically rendered dry branch motif in low relief at the center of the field. The branch is depicted as a bare, bifurcated form tapering to a pointed base, with minimal lateral projections suggesting stripped twigs. The surface exhibits the characteristic rough, uneven texture inherent to the primitive casting technique, with slight irregularities along the edges consistent with the manufacturing process. No legends, inscriptions, or additional decorative elements are present. |
|---|---|
| Obverse script | Log in to see details |
| Obverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Reverse description | Log in to see details |
| Reverse script | Log in to see details |
| Reverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Edge | Plain |
| Mint | Log in to see details |
| Mintage | Log in to see details |
| Additional information |
The ramo secco bars occupy a contested space in early Italian monetary history — whether they functioned as currency, proto-currency, or simply weighed bronze for trade settlement remains unresolved. Haeberlin's foundational work grouped them typologically, but attribution to a single Etruscan authority has never held up under scrutiny. Multiple production centers are likely.
The three-century date range reflects genuine uncertainty, not carelessness.