Anonymous, circa 280-250 BC. Aes Signatum (Bronze, 89x60 mm, 453.95 g, 12 h), fragment of a currency bar, Rome. Grain ear.
Rev. Tripod. Crawford 6/1. HN Italy 258. ICC 16. RBW -. Thurlow & Vecchi AS17. Extremely rare. Somewhat rough
, otherwise, very fine.
From a European collection, formed before 2005.
Aes signatum (Latin for 'marked bronze') refers to standardized bronze bars cast in rectangular form and decorated with motifs directly incorporated during the casting process. These bars represent a transitional stage in the evolution of early Italic currency - positioned between amorphous metal lumps (
aes rude), weight-standardized cast bars (
aes formatum), and later cast bronze coins (
aes grave).
Unlike Greek coinage, which was primarily based on silver and gold, the early Roman and Italic monetary systems were founded on bronze. The
aes signatum helped standardize payments by introducing a visual and physical format that indicated weight and authority. The designs - often depictions of animals, weapons, or ritual symbols - were cast into the bars themselves, lending them official status and likely signifying value and trust.
The earliest known
aes signatum bars appeared in Etruria in the 7th century BCE. Roman production began in the 4th century BC, with typical bars weighing around 5
librae (approximately 1.2 kg). Because of their weight, these bars were impractical for everyday small-scale trade. They functioned mainly in larger transactions or as a store of value.
Over time, these cast bars were replaced in the late 3rd century BC by the round, cast bronze coins known as
aes grave. This shift marked the formalization of coinage in Rome, which culminated in the adoption of the silver denarius system around 211 BC.
Today, complete examples of aes signatum are extremely rare. Owing to their large size, they were seldom lost but often melted down for reuse. Furthermore, because of their substantial weight, these bars were unsuitable for small daily transactions. When smaller sums were required, bars were deliberately broken, which explains why most surviving examples are incomplete. As a result, most finds consist of broken fragments - like our specimen - likely reflecting intentional division in antiquity to facilitate smaller payments.
