--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I've recently discovered a fact with so extensive consequences that I can't keep it out of my timeline
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/66239
> etc
>
> It is the fact that large amounts of silver denarii esp. from 80's
> BCE were deposited in Dacia. Here's the story:
>
>
>
> Michael H. Crawford
> Republican Denarii in Romania:
> The Suppression of Piracy and the Slave-Trade*
> The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 67 (1977),
> pp. 117-124
>
It seems though, that most modern researchers agree with Romanian researchers, against Crawford, that at least some of those Republican denarii are non-Roman imitations, cf.
http://rrimitations.ancients.info/
I bring the articles in full, since some of those sites have a tendency to disappear over tinme, as I discovered. I hope it's okay.
http://rrimitations.ancients.info/introduction.html
'Why Dacian?
An Introductory Essay
I've been a serious collector of Roman Republican denarii for some 25 years. (Well, I think I'm serious anyway; if others disagree, I won't insist.) While my interest in the "official" coins of the Roman State hasn't waned, more recently I've been focused on imitations of Republican denarii made by various "barbarous" peoples beyond the political control of Rome, but to a greater or lesser degree within her economic sphere of interest. I'm not the first to have made this transition; it seems in fact to be a common progression. But interest is one thing, systematic study is quite another. That has been lacking in recent years, especially in North America and Western Europe. Individual imitations of particularly outlandish style sometimes realize strong prices at auction, but cataloguers are mostly indifferent to the question of who actually made these coins. They seem content to describe them on general but undefined principles, as "Celtic", or more vaguely, as products of the Danube Basin. (Note that I'm discussing throughout this essay primarily good silver imitations; I see no reason why good silver imitations and plated coins necessarily have a common origin.) My article in the April, 2004 issue of The Celator was a preliminary attempt to address at least some of this confusion. I hope in this web site to clarify matters a bit more, if only by presenting a substantial sample of examples. As I'll argue below, there seems little doubt that only a minority of imitations are actually Celtic; most were almost certainly struck by Dacians.
The broader question of the circulation of Republican denarii in Dacia was the subject of a flurry of scholarly activity in Eastern Europe, especially Romania, some 25 years ago, culminating in the extended visit of Michael Crawford to Bucharest in the mid-70's and the somewhat acrimonious exchange of articles which this visit engendered. I won't attempt to more than quickly recapitulate the various arguments here. Very briefly, the consensus among Romanian numismatists was (and is) that most of the some 25,000 Republican denarii found in Romania, (roughly, ancient Dacia,) had in fact been produced there. Some of these are obvious imitations, no doubt minted locally, but many seem to be official Roman products. In the Romanian view, most of these are also Dacian. The Romanian scholars Constantin Preda and Maria Chitescu and others advanced various stylistic and statistical arguments in support of this position. Crawford rejected this, maintaining instead that the official-appearing denarii were just that, coins struck in Rome and exported to Dacia, perhaps mostly in conjunction with the slave trade.
The Romanian view was largely discredited, or at any rate not accepted, because it seemed part and parcel of Communist-era Romanian nationalism. The Ceausescu government, in its efforts to maintain a measure of independence from the Soviet Union, (dominated of course by Slavic Russia,) emphasized in its propaganda the direct descent of modern Romania from ancient Dacia and Rome. This was encapsulated in the evocative slogan "A centralized, unified Dacian State." A large local coinage would of course be a strong argument in favor of the existence of such a state. (I bravely plowed through a 1978 pseudo-biography of the Dacian king Burebista by I. H. Crisan, which essentially depicts that shadowy figure as the George Washington of his country.)
More recently, Kris Lockyear has subjected a large sampling of Republican coin hoards to sophisticated statistical analyses, which I'm unqualified to properly evaluate. His results seem to support the Romanian view that there are meaningful differences between the coins found in Romanian hoards and those from elsewhere in Europe. I don't question his methodology or its results, but it does occur to me that another conclusion might be possible, that shrewd Roman merchants and bankers systematically "dumped" their smaller, lighter denarii on unsuspecting "barbarians".
What all of these studies have in common is an emphasis on the economic development of Dacia, and the circulation within Dacia of Roman denarii and imitations of them. It occurred to me that no one was looking at the coins themselves, especially at those which obviously are imitations. In my naiveté, I hoped that a more numismatic approach to imitations might yield fruitful results. (I'm skewing my personal chronology here somewhat, in the interests of clarity. In fact, most of my awareness of the scholarly debate regarding Republican denarii in Dacia came after my initial investigation of imitations.) Might, for example, the legends on imitations of Republican denarii be meaningful? This is clearly the case with a well known series of imitations struck by the Eravisci, a Celtic tribe in Pannonia. (Fig.1) Many of these coins offer variable but unmistakable versions of the tribal name; others may reveal the names of tribal chiefs. Might other imitations contain a similar sort of code? (I'm not the only one tempted by this notion. The cataloguer of Lot 3 in CNG 67 tentatively attributes the coin to the Ausci, a Celtic tribe from the headlands of the Upper Danube, on the basis of a few letters of the reverse inscription. I'd love to accept this, at least as a working hypothesis; unfortunately though, I think it's only a guess, with no real basis whatsoever.)
I quickly discovered that most legends on imitations contain no independent content; they range from garbled but recognizable versions of the legends on the prototype to mere abstractions of writing such as VVVVV. (Fig.2) A few, such as Fig.'s 3 & 4, seem so clear and original that it's hard to believe they weren't attempts at conveying meaning. Perhaps someone with a deeper knowledge of tribal society in antiquity can discover that meaning, but I've had no success at all.
I also had hopes of being able to identify distinct groups of imitations. Ideally, I anticipated being able to identify various series of die-linked coins. This has successfully been accomplished with Eraviscan coins, as well as another group of coins, also from Pannonia, termed the "uninscribed series" in the British Museum Celtic catalogue. (Fig.5) Isolating groups this way would represent a clear advance, even if it remained uncertain where and when they were made, or by whom. But finding die links or die identities in the broader category of imitations has proven to be elusive. I've identified no more than a handful of such links, nowhere near enough to be of much use. This failure has been particularly frustrating. I've been diligently searching for imitations for some time now, and have access to over 300 coins, either in the "flesh" or in photos. Since these coins are scarce as a class, I believe this is a quite representative sample. I have no good explanation for my failure to find more interconnections. My best guess is that the dies simply didn't last very long and were discarded before very many coins were struck from them, but this idea is not at all satisfying or persuasive. It's been suggested that my sample isn't large enough; with that in mind, all I can do is soldier on looking for coins.
It might seem possible to isolate groups of imitations based on unambiguous similarities of style and fabric. It may indeed be the case that certain coins are the products of the same engraver (Fig.'s 6,7 & 8), but the similarity isn't so strong as to compel the identification. These criteria, especially style, are notoriously subjective. Even the Eraviscan coins, which are proven by hoard evidence and die links to be a single coinage, exhibit a discouraging variety of fabric and style. Only vague distinctions can really be made. It's reasonable, I think, to associate pieces like Fig.9 and Fig.10 with each other, and to distinguish both from a coin like this (Fig.11), although both 10 and 11 are derived from the same prototype struck by C. Naevius Balbus in 79 BC. The first two, well-made and of fine though not quite "official" style, are perhaps the products of a central minting authority; the last, very "barbarous" piece, might be a more local creation, the output of a sort of coinage cottage industry.
Until such time as the identification of groups based on die linkages is feasible, only knowledge of the findspots of imitations, whether hoards or isolated pieces, can truly advance our understanding. Unfortunately, such information is hard to come by, at least regarding coins in the market. But when I have been able to ascertain the source of coins in my collection, without exception they've turned out to have been found in Romania. I've indicated such coins in the catalogue on this site. The published hoard evidence reinforces this. To the best of my knowledge, all hoards of imitations of Republican denarii, and all mixed hoards of imitative and official pieces, have been found in Romania or in neighboring countries also within the Dacian sphere of influence.
It's probably an oversimplification to describe all imitations of Republican denarii (other than the two Pannonian groups) as Dacian. This is a very diverse class of coins, and may well reflect diverse origins. (The recent emergence on the European market of two types of silver Koson drachms is an interesting development. I'm among those who have questioned the authenticity of these pieces, but for now, I accept them as ancient.) Nonetheless, "Dacian" remains my fallback attribution for a new imitation, unless I see a cogent reason to describe it differently. At least this is a conscious choice, not a casual ascription, and I think it quite likely at least approximates the truth. The coins are found in Dacia, and nowhere else. The Dacians had a well-established affinity for Republican denarii, and used them in enormous numbers. No eastern Celtic group, so far as I know, had a similar predilection. The Dacian tribes coalesced from time to time into a sort of proto-state that may well have been capable of large scale, centralized minting operations. Again, to my knowledge no Celtic tribe or group of tribes in Eastern Europe or the Balkans achieved this level of political organization. That a particular imitation is Dacian can't yet be proven (although I still have hopes!), but there's virtually no reason at all to describe such a coin as "Celtic".
Phil Davis
Chicago
2004'
and
http://rrimitations.ancients.info/article.html
'Reprinted from May, 2004 issue of The Celator, Vol. 18, No.4. Other than the addition of one bibliography item, and the correction of a few typos, the version presented here is unchanged from what appeared in the magazine. (I've also added Class E, Group Iaa, Plated Imitations in Roman Style--Hybrids, to the catalogue, but not to the article.) I've presented it that way with some reluctance, because there have been some careful comments made which I eventually hope to address. In particular, a very astute collector and student of Republican coins both imitative and official, gently but firmly described the "Anomalous" category as "ludicrous". Certainly it bears a certain resemblance to Einstein's Cosmological Constant, a more or less arbitrary factor introduced into a theory to make it work. My only defense is that the "Anomalous-Light" notion seems to yield meaningful results. It's "Heavy" cousin, alas, may be on its way to the dustbin of history.
Dacian and Celtic Imitations of Republican Denarii
Perhaps no series of ancient coins is as consistently misunderstood, vaguely described, or incorrectly attributed, as are the so-called "Celtic" imitations of Roman Republican denarii. Even the placement of these coins in sale catalogues is erratic; sometimes they are found in the Celtic section, sometimes alongside official Republican coins, sometimes as a subsection at the end of a run of official coins. They're variously ascribed to Gaul, Pannonia, Dacia, or the "Danube River basin". This confusion is frustrating, considering how interesting and attractive many imitations are. The wild array of horses with extra or missing legs, flying charioteers, alien Roma heads, and gods on a stick, often clearly identified with legends like IOIOIV, is like nothing else in ancient numismatics. They've appealed to me in a general way for some time, but I only recently began to systematically acquire and examine them. It turns out that much of what I thought I knew about these imitations is wrong. They don't originate in Gaul, although there is a well-known series of smaller Gallic coins, the so-called quinarii, which often also derive from Roma head and chariot or other Republican types. These however are generally signed by the Gallic tribe that struck them, and are a different category of coin altogether. The majority of denarius-sized imitations of Republican coins aren't even Celtic.
In fact these coins were struck further east, in Hungary and the Balkans, more often by Geto-Dacians than by Celts. There is a considerable literature about them in the "source" countries, but much of it is difficult to obtain, and generally written in languages that are not well understood in Western Europe or the US. Numismatists, mostly in the Balkans, who have studied imitations, have often focused on the coins found in their home countries. I'm not aware of an attempt in any language to distinguish the various sorts of imitations. Certainly, there is no such classification in English. I've tried to address this in the system that follows. A true catalogue of these coins will probably never be feasible, as each die combination would require its own listing, but hopefully the following arrangement can at least provide a framework for looking at the diverse coins presently lumped into the catchall category "imitations."
CLASS A Geto-Dacian
Group Ia Monetary Copies. Transfer dies from Republican denarii
Group Ib Monetary Copies. New dies, faithful copies
Group II Monetary Imitations. New dies, derivative, crude and/or fanciful copies
Group III Hybrids.
CLASS B Pannonian
Group I Uninscribed Series
Group II Eraviscan
Group III Other Pannonian
CLASS C Other Balkan
Group I Serbian
Group II Bulgarian
Group III Other
CLASS D Anomalous
Group Ia Light; debased silver, thin flan, and/or unusual fabric
Group Ib Heavy; unusually large flan
CLASS E Ancient Forgeries
Group Ia Plated imitations in Roman style
Group Ib Plated imitations in near-Roman style
Group II Plated imitations in non-Roman style
Commentary:
Class A, Geto-Dacian. The Geto-Dacians were a Thracian people with a long tradition of coinage, initially comprising mostly imitations of Macedonian types. As economic contact between the expanding Geto-Dacian world and the expanding Roman Republic intensified, these earlier Macedonian-style tetradrachms were almost entirely replaced by massive numbers of Republican-style denarii. Some 25,000 denarii of Republican type have been found in Romania on present estimate, more than have survived anywhere outside Italy itself. How many of these denarii were official coins imported from Rome, and how many were produced locally, is very much an open question, as is their economic function. Michael Crawford has proposed, in "Republican denarii in Romania: the suppression of piracy and the slave trade", that these coins were utilized almost exclusively in said trade, but that notion has been universally rejected by Romanian numismatists, who consider them to be a true national coinage of the relatively developed Dacian proto-state. Whatever the ratio of official coins to imitations, there's no doubt that imitations were produced in Dacia in substantial numbers. Most of the good-silver, denarius-sized imitations of Republican types encountered today in the numismatic market, although typically described as "Celtic", are unquestionably Geto-Dacian, based on find-spots and patterns of circulation. Any Republican denarius was a potential model for a Dacian die engraver, but certain types, such as the coins of C. Vibius Pansa, Q. Antonius Balbus, and C. Naevius Balbus were particularly popular. Some imitations are serrate, generally but not always following the prototype in this; a few are partially serrate. In at least one case (see n.1, below), two coins are known from the same dies, one serrate, one not. The date the Dacian imitations were minted is uncertain, but the bulk of the Republican prototypes were struck within a narrow time band, roughly 90-70 BC, with a few at least as early as 148 BC. Plausibly allowing 15-30 years for the originals to reach Dacia gives an approximate date range of 75-40 BC for the imitations, if the few early pieces are disregarded as "strays" copied many years after they were minted. This corresponds closely with the reign of the great Dacian king Burebista, c.70-44 BC. (The imitation of Roman denarii in Dacia continued well into Imperial times, probably at a reduced rate, but the Augustan and later imitations won't be considered here.) The location of the mint or mints is uncertain; the finds are weighted towards Transylvania, but not overwhelmingly so.
Groups Ia, Ib, Monetary Copies. The term "monetary copies" was coined by Maria Chitescu in "Numismatic Aspects of the History of the Dacian State." She includes within this term both dies mechanically transferred from actual coins and newly engraved dies that reproduce accurately, although not always perfectly, their Republican prototypes, but it seems desirable to more clearly distinguish the two. Examples of both types of die were included in the remarkable hoard of dies found at Tilisca, Romania, in 1961. The British Museum catalogue, for example, notes that most of the Tilisca dies were faithful copies, and "in some cases dies appear to have been made from actual Roman coins." Crawford, in "Imitation of Roman Republican Denarii in Dacia," has identified an example of this phenomenon, a die match between a coin in the Maccarese hoard (Cr-382/1, illustrated on pl. LXV of "Roman Republican Coinage"), and one of the Tilisca dies. The Tilisca die would have produced a coin in shallower relief than the Maccarese specimen, from which Crawford concludes that the die was transferred from a worn original. There are further complications in certain Romanian denarii hoards, including one Augustan-era hoard found in Breaza which consists in part of cast forgeries of Republican coins, accurate even to various bankers' marks on the originals. Crawford calls these coins "horrifying." Some other complex problems can't be addressed here, such as Chitescu's assertion that all the monetary copies can be detected by their slight but consistent reduction in diameter and weight relative to official Republican coins, and their relative lack of bankers' marks. The five examples of this group described below average 3.71 grams.
Group II, Monetary Imitations. The term "monetary imitations" was also coined by Chitescu. It refers to coins which markedly diverge from their Republican prototypes. The designs are more or less fanciful, stylized or "barbarous," often with mismatched obverse and reverse types; the legends are also more or less garbled, or completely absent. Usually the prototypes can still be determined with reasonable certainty, but in extreme cases can only be guessed at. The eleven coins of this group described below average 3.74 grams.
Group III, Hybrids. "Hybrid" may be a surprising description in a series in which a mismatch of obverse and reverse types is typical, but at least one coin exists which is a true hybrid, struck from dies not intended to be used together. This coin combines an obverse of Group Ia, mechanically transferred from an "official" coin of L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi, with a reverse of group II. It seems likely that the obverse die was an earlier one reused later. See n. 17, below, for further discussion of this piece.
Class B, Pannonian. The bulk of imitative Republican denarii are sometimes considered Pannonian. Michaela Kostial's catalogue of the Lanz Collection describes most of the imitations in the collection as "ungarische Gruppe", generally with a parenthetical interrogative. This seems to be an echo of Robert Forrer's 1908 work, "Keltische Numismatik." Only Class B coins however can be assigned with confidence to Hungary.
Group I, Uninscribed Series. This is a compact, closely die-linked body of coins, described in the BM catalogue as the "uninscribed series" (BM 252-260.) "Uninscribed" seems an inapt term, as most of these coins do in fact bear legends; presumably it is used here in the sense of "unsigned," to distinguish them from the later, signed Eraviscan coins. The uninscribed series is relatively well known, being also included in De la Tour's Atlas. The BM catalogue treats these coins as very typical of the imitations in general, but in fact, while they are common enough in public collections like that of the BM, which contains a number of examples apparently from a single hoard, or of the Biblioteque Nationale, they are quite scarce in the marketplace. The Budapest National Museum contains some 150 examples of these coins, reinforcing their attribution to Hungary. The 13 coins of this group in the BM average 3.77 grams, with an unusually wide variation, from 2.79 to 4.59 grams.
Group II, Eraviscan. The Eravisci were a Celtic tribe living in the area of modern Budapest. From roughly 50 BC until perhaps 20 BC, they struck a well-known, thoroughly catalogued series of coins derived from Republican originals. These coins form a tightly die-linked, readily identifiable group, although occasionally other imitations have been described as "Eraviscan." Rob Freeman has published a preliminary die study of the Eraviscan coins in "Essays Hirsch," and extensive runs of them are found in the BM catalogue, Gunther Dembski's catalogue of the Vienna Celtic cabinet, and elsewhere. Many of these coins bear the legend RAVIS or other variations on the tribal name; others, die-linked with the RAVIS pieces, bear legends such as DOMISA which are apparently names of tribal chieftains. They are consistently lightweight relative to their prototypes, the specimens in Freeman's hoard averaging around 3.25 grams. These coins are the only imitative denarii with an unquestioned claim to the appellation "Celtic." The "uninscribed series" coins may well prove also to be Eraviscan, or at any rate Celtic, an earlier manifestation of the same coinage tradition, but that's no more than a reasonable surmise on present evidence.
Group III, Other Pannonian. There are hints of other Pannonian imitations beyond the two series described above, but no coins have been firmly identified as such.
Class C, Other Balkan. Likewise, there are hints of imitative coinages beyond those of Dacia and Pannonia. These peripheral coinages, if they exist, may well be associated with the expansion of the Dacian state under Burebista around 50 BC, as the notion of coinage, or the need for it, spread in tandem with the advancing Dacian armies.
Group I, Serbian. A hoard in the Belgrade National Museum, consisting solely of imitations (fifteen coins), was published by Petar Popoviac in 1974. Popoviac presumes it was a local find. These coins are light, averaging 3.21 grams, with a wide variation from 2.25 to 3.69 grams. Suggestively, most of them form a die-linked sequence (a specimen from one pair of dies is also in the Budapest Museum.) It seems quite likely that these coins were not only found in Serbia, but that they hadn't traveled very far from the place they were struck. If there were coins struck in Serbia from dies not represented in the Belgrade hoard, I see no way at present to distinguish them from Dacian imitations.
Group II, Bulgarian. Imitations have also been found in some quantity in Bulgaria, mostly of Dacian style and fabric. If there was an independent tradition of imitations in Bulgaria, the coins have yet to be clearly identified.
Group III, Other Balkan. The BM catalogue illustrates, but regrettably omits in the text, certain coins of distinctive style, crisp strike, and broad flan, BM 285-289, pl. XII. Richard Abdy of the BM has kindly provided weights for these pieces, which range widely from 2.67 to 4.47 grams, averaging 3.74 grams, but the BM has no information as to provenance. These coins, examples of some of which have also appeared in trade, may form an independent group, of unknown origin.
Class D, Anomalous. Certain imitations seem distinct from any of the preceding classes. They are either very heavy or very light. Although of good silver, they visually stand out from the rest, and are difficult to plausibly place into any of the main sequences. Chitescu obliquely confirms this distinction, opting to simply disregard weights of less than 3.0 grams or more than 4.5 grams as artifacts of wear or faulty recording. This can't be the entire explanation, as I have in my collection coins, accurately weighed, past either extreme. I've labeled these "anomalous" as a stopgap description, until new evidence or new insights allow them to be more properly placed. Perhaps some of these may prove to be among the elusive Class C coins. (Note that Class D is not defined entirely by weight. A few pieces, slightly to either side of the arbitrary range 3.00-4.50 grams, but otherwise of typical Dacian fabric and style, have been placed, with some hesitation, in Class A.)
Group 1a, Light. The single coin described below is a very thin serrated piece, possibly of debased silver, although clearly not plated. It weighs only 2.62 grams.
Group 1b, Heavy. The single coin described below is of distinctive style, struck in high relief on a large, thick flan. It weighs 4.82g.
Class E, Ancient Forgeries. Plated denarii are sometimes described as "Celtic imitations." There's no real justification for this, but neither is the matter of fourrées as simple as I initially believed. I've had to completely rethink the subject, as some inconvenient facts popped up to muddy a perfectly good theory.
Group Ia, Roman Style. These are straightforward ancient forgeries, of purely official style. (The notion, still sometimes encountered, that some plated coins are official products of the Rome mint, is obsolete and can be disregarded. I think it is possible that some plated Imperatorial denarii, struck in silver-strapped traveling mints, are "official" within the context of those mints.) They are often hybrids, but the obverse and reverse generally date to within a few years of each other. Whether they are struck from new dies transferred from actual coins, or are the "after hours" products of mintworkers using official dies, or both, is a matter of some controversy, but in either case, they are generally assumed to have been produced by Romans. The situation is in fact somewhat more complex. Chitescu describes a small hoard found in Bozieni, Romania, in 1965, in a Geto-Dacian settlement. Much of this hoard consists of plated Republican or legionary denarii, some of them broken, of impeccable Roman style. The hoard is relatively late, ending in a single coin of Vespasian, also plated. She describes it as a forger's stock, and assumes it was produced locally. This must be the case, as two fragments of coins of M. Volteius in the hoard were struck from identical dies. At least one other small hoard consists solely of plated coins. But the largest and most typical of the Romanian hoards of Republican denarii contain very few plated specimens, or none, while fourrées are frequently encountered among Dacian imitations of Imperial denarii. The imitation of Republican types in Dacia continued sporadically long after the production of the prototypes, and most or all of the plated "Republican" coins produced there may well be the products of Imperial times, as enterprising Dacians acquired an unfortunate sort of sophistication. Despite occasional ambiguity, the bulk of Republican plated coins encountered today are no doubt the products of forgers working within the Empire.
Group Ib, Near-Roman Style. There is an interesting series of plated coins, which mimic "official" style closely, without however quite duplicating it. The differences are difficult to quantify, but are clear enough to anyone familiar with the originals. The obverse and reverse of these coins are generally correctly matched; the legends are never badly blundered, but are sometimes abbreviated or imprecise. The coins of this group are often described as "Celtic" or "barbarous," but I believe they are simply ancient forgeries, struck from new dies produced by inexpert engravers. There is no evidence to suggest that they were struck by non-Romans, or outside the borders of the Empire, but the caveats pertaining to Group Ia apply here also.
Group II, Non-Roman Style. Plated coins exist, in some quantity, of an unmistakably non-Roman style. These can be as fanciful and bizarre as the most outlandish good silver imitations. To my mind, these coins are completely mysterious. As far as I know, they have never been systematically examined. It is impossible to believe that they were produced by Romans. If one accepts the assumption that all plated coins were intended to deceive the recipient, for the profit of the producer, these "barbarous" plated pieces can only have been the product of non-Roman counterfeiters. Die links between these coins and good silver imitations would explain a lot, but I'm unaware of any such links, and I doubt if any exist. To my eye, these coins, though certainly "barbarous," are very different in fabric and style from any of the known good silver imitations.
Illustrations.
All coins are in the author's collection, and all photography is by Aaron Berk. The photos are arranged according to the preceding classification. Not all categories are represented by illustrations. Although I've suggested a possible prototype or prototypes for each coin, some of these are speculative.
Class A Group Ib, Geto-Dacian Monetary Copies.
1. Types of Q. Antonius Balbus, after 82 BC; cf. Lanz 106, 10 (same dies, serrate), cf. Cr-364/1d; 4.33g. Faithful copy, but not serrate. Reverse horses have six legs in front, eight in back. I know of no parallel to this case of serrate and plain edge coins struck from the same dies. The obverse die of the present coin shows evidence of reengraving or repair. Perhaps an old pair of dies was found and reused, with no serrate prototype at hand?
2. Types of C. Mamilius Limetanus, after 82 BC; cf. Cr-362/1; 3.29g. Obverse double struck; V under Mercury's chin, no letter behind; otherwise, slightly stylized but faithful copy; poorly engraved but accurate reverse legend.
3. Types of C. Naevius Balbus, after 79 BC; cf. Cr-382/1b; 3.80g, serrate. Head of Venus left, otherwise very faithful copy.
4. Same types; 3.68g, serrate. Head of Venus right, faithful copy, somewhat stylized.
5. Types of P. Satriena, after 77 BC; cf. Cr-388/1b; 3.45g. Close copy, Mars' hair and helmet slightly stylized, reverse legend P. PATRI. Obverse not a match for known control XVI die.
Class A Group II, Geto-Dacian Monetary Imitations.
6. Types of L. Antestius Gragulus, after 136 BC; cf. Cr-238/1; 3.63g. Types correct but quite stylized, legend badly garbled and apparently meaningless.
7. Types of P. Laeca?, after 104 BC?; cf. Cr-301/1; 3.54g. Barbarous Roma head, X both behind and before; remarkably barbarous and opaque reverse scene, with no legend other than X and large retrograde C. The identification of the prototype as Cr-301 is barely more than a guess.
8. Obverse type of Publius Calpurnius or L. Minucius, reverse type of C. Vibius Pansa, after 90 BC; cf. Cr-247/1 or Cr-248/1, obverse; cf. Cr-342, reverse; 3.75g. Barbarous Roma head, seemingly mounted on a stick, with hair like three snakes; reverse slightly stylized but faithful copy, with accurate legends.
9. Types of C. Vibius Pansa, after 90 BC; cf. Cr-342/4; 3.51g. Stylized head of Apollo, remnants of inappropriate SC behind; reverse sketchy and double struck, with meaningless legends.
10. Types of L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi, after 90 BC; cf. Cr-340/1; 3.64g. Very barbarous head of Apollo, barbarous horseman, garbled and apparently meaningless legends. Possibly debased silver.
11. Obverse type of C. Vibius Pansa?, reverse type of C. Norbanus, after 83 BC; Chitescu 112 (same dies), cf. Chitescu 204 (same obverse die), cf. Cr-342, obverse, cf. Cr-357/1, reverse; 3.45g, Barbarous head of Apollo, meaningless legend before; sketchy but accurate reverse.
12. Obverse type of Pub. Crepusius, reverse type of various moneyers, after 82 BC; cf. Cr-361/1, obverse, cf. Cr-282, reverse; 4.62g, serrate. Somewhat stylized head of Apollo; somewhat stylized warrior in biga, remnants of legend below.
13. Obverse type of C. Annius with L. Fabius Hispaniensis, reverse type of Q. Titius, after 81 BC; cf. Cr-366/1c, obverse, cf. Cr-341, reverse; 3.70g. Stylized bust of Anna Perenna, scales under chin misinterpreted as XXI; long, apparently meaningless legend behind; slightly stylized Pegasus on reverse. The reverse shows clear signs of being overstruck, possibly on an earlier imitation. This coin is placed in this group with little confidence. Its style and fabric do not seem Dacian. It was found in a Balkan hoard of Flavian date. The preservation of this coin is more consistent with denarii of Augustus and Tiberius in that hoard than it is with Republican pieces in the same hoard, most of which were quite worn. The date suggested here for this coin may well be 100 years too early.
14. Types of C. Naevius Balbus, after 79 BC; cf. Cr-382/1; 3.51g, serrate. Both sides very sketchy; remnants of SC behind Venus' head, no other legend.
15. Obverse type of C. Naevius Balbus, reverse type of P. Furius Crasipes, after 79 BC; cf. Cr-382/1, obverse, cf. Cr-356/1, reverse; 3.62g. Stylized head of Venus, remnants of SC behind; stylized chair, blundered but recognizable legend below.
16. Types of L. Rutilius Flaccus, after 77 BC; cf. Cr-387/1; 4.18g. Stylized Roma head; stylized Victory in "biga" with added third horse (not truly a "triga"); rear legs of horses' total five; remnants of correct legend below.
Class A Group III, Geto-Dacian Hybrids.
17. Obverse type of L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi, reverse type of L. Papius, after 79 BC; cf. Cr-340/1, obverse, cf. Cr-384/1, reverse; 3.53g, serrate. Obverse mechanically transferred from known control XXXVI die (cf. Banti 44/21 for an example); while "exact", it illustrates the softness expected from a casting process. Reverse depicts a stylized Pegasus, possibly double-struck, apparently a misunderstood griffin copied from an original of L. Papius; legend is blundered, but recognizable as that of L. Papius (not however as that of Q. Titius.) I know of no parallel to this combination of obverse and reverse dies manufactured via different processes, probably at different times.
Class B Group I, Pannonian, Uninscribed Series.
18. Types of C. Coelius Caldus, after 104 BC; BM-258 (same dies), DLT-1072, cf. Cr-318/1; 4.07g. Very stylized Roma head; stylized horses with "flying" driver, meaningless legend below.
Class B Group II, Pannonian, Eraviscan.
19. Types of C. Postumius, after 74 BC; Freeman 17/P (same dies), Chitescu 173 (same dies), cf. Cr-394/1; 2.87g. Both sides somewhat stylized, remnants of correct legend on reverse. Unusual surface with droplets and depressions implying casting, but a "wrapped" edge seam more consistent with a plated piece. The author knows two other examples of these dies, averaging 3.31g and with normal surfaces. Another piece, also of the same dies, but weighing 3.56g, is illustrated in Chitescu, pl. X, 173. It has a similar surface to the present coin. The first two are apparently Eraviscan imitations; the latter two are possibly contemporary forgeries of that Eraviscan prototype, but even the prototype differs from other Eraviscan coins in many ways.
Class D Group Ia, Anomalous. Light.
20. Types of C. Poblicius, after 80 BC; cf. Cr-380/1; 2.62g, serrate. Barbarous bust of Roma left, blundered legend before, traces behind; very barbarous Hercules and lion, blundered legend behind.
Class D Group Ib, Anomalous, Heavy.
21. Types of Gar, Ogvl, Ver, after 86 BC; cf. Cr-350A; 4.82g. Somewhat stylized head of Apollo; somewhat stylized quadriga, front legs of horses total four, rear legs seven; meaningless legend below.
Class E Group 1b, Plated Forgeries, Near-Roman Style.
22. Types of C. Piso L. Frugi, after 67 BC; cf. Cr-480/1b, cf. Hersh 339; 2.83g. Apollo head in near-official style, degraded symbol behind; horseman in slightly sketchy style, degraded symbol above, slightly degraded legend below.
Class E Group II, Plated Forgeries, Non-Roman Style.
23. Types of M. Tullius, after 120 BC; cf. Cr-280/1; 3.54g. Somewhat sketchy, stylized head of Roma, blundered legend behind; sketchy, stylized quadriga left, retrograde but otherwise correct legend below.
24. Obverse type of L. Cassius Caecianus, reverse type of Q. Antonius Balbus, after 82 BC; cf. Cr-321/1, obverse, cf. Cr-364/1, reverse; 1.53g. Barbarous bust of Ceres, blundered legend behind; accurate reverse of slightly sketchy style, with correct legend. The resemblance of the obverse of this coin to the Hungarian "uninscribed" pieces is probably coincidental.
Bibliography
Allen, D., Catalogue of Celtic Coins in the British Museum I, London, 1987.
Chitescu, M., "Copii si imitatii de denari romani republicani in Dacia", Memoria Antiquitatis III, 1971.
Chitescu, M., Numismatic Aspects of the History of the Dacian State, Oxford, 1981.
Chitescu, M., "The Poroschia Hoard (District of Teleorman) and Some Problems Relative to the Geto-Dacian Coins of Roman Republican Type", Studii si Cercetari de Numismatica VII, 1980 (translation and notes by H. Bartlett Wells.)
Crawford, M., Coinage & Money under the Roman Republic, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1985.
Crawford, M., "Imitation of Roman Republican denarii in Dacia", Studii si Cercetari de Numismatica VII, 1980.
Crawford, M., "Republican denarii in Romania: the suppression of piracy and the slave trade", Journal of Roman Studies LXVII, 1977.
Crawford, M., Roman Republican Coinage, Cambridge, 1974
Crisan, I. H., Burebista and his Time, Bucharest, 1978.
De la Tour, H., Atlas de Monnaies Gauloises, Paris, 1898 (Reprinted).
Dembski, G., Munzen der Kelten, Vienna, 1998.
Depeyrot, G. & Moisil, D., Les tresors de deniers anterieurs a Trajan en Roumanie, Wetteren, 2003.
Forrer, R., Keltische Numismatik, Strasbourg, 1908 (Reprinted).
Freeman, R., "A Group of Eraviscan Denarii", Coins of Macedonia and Rome: Essays in Honor of Charles Hersh, London, 1998.
Kostial, M., Kelten im Osten, Sammlung Lanz, Munich, 1997.
Lockyear, K., "Coins, Copies and Kernels - a Note on the Potential of Kernel Density Estimates", CAA 97, Birmingham, 1997.
Lockyear, K., "Dmax based cluster analysis and the supply of coinage to Iron Age Dacia", Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 28, Leiden, 1996.
Lockyear, K., "The supply of Roman Republican denarii to Romania", Studii si Cercetari de Numismatica XI, 1995.
Mihailescu-Birliba, V, La Monnaie Romaine Chez Les Daces Orientaux, Bucharest, 1980.
Paunov, E. & Prokopov, I., An Inventory of Roman Republican Coin Hoards and Coins from Bulgaria, Milan, 2002.
Popoviac, P., "Hoard of Imitations of Roman Republican Denarii from the Belgrade National Museum", Numizmatikai Kozlony, 1974.
Preda, C., Monedele geto-dacilor, Bucharest, 1973.
Wells, H., "Roman Republican Denarii in Dacia - A Review", SAN Journal XI, 3, 1980.
Winkler, J., "Tezaurul de Monede Romane Republicane de la Satu-Nou (Reg. Oradea)", Studii si Cercetari de Numismatica I, 1957. '
Now the question is, who minted these imitation coins? Obviously someone with too much silver and too little coin, my first suspect are the Cilician Pirates.
R. Bugoi, B. Constantinescu, F. Constantin, D. Catana, D. Plostinaru, A. Sasianu
Archaeometrical studies of Greek and Roman silver coins
Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, Vol. 242, No, 3 (1999) 777-781
analyzes some of these coins
'Results and discussion
181 silver coins were analyzed in order to classify them into originals, copies and imitations. All coins had been struck between 60 and 48 BC, a very intense period of Roman civil wars. After completion of those analyses, the coins could be grouped into several categories, taking into account their chemical composition.
The results are presented in Tables 1, 2, 3, each table containing the compositions for the same type of coins. The values represent concentrations corresponding to those layers analyzed by XRF and PIXE. For these silver coins, excepting samples with higher copper content, the results are also relevant for bulk composition.8
Regarding the first group of Thasian tetradrachmae (16 pieces), they appear similar in composition to the so-called Celtic imitations, e.g., the pieces found in Slovenia and Austria, reported by Smit et al.3 They were high quality minted coins (Table 1).
The coins from the second group (12 pieces) appeared to be deliberately alloyed with copper (0.7-5%). The low concentration of copper may show that the alloying was done for hardening and not for debasement reasons. Traces of Hg could indicate the use of an amalgamation procedure for silver metallurgy, but additional evidence of this is necessary.
A "fingerprint" of the third group of Thasian tetradrachmae (8 pieces) is the bromine. The presence of this element in silver coins is mentioned in the literature only in one case, in which bromine is linked to marine spray, because the hoard was found near the seacoast.9 In our study, the coins were found in a region, which is far away from the Black Sea coast (approx. 100 km). Taking into account the presence of bromine in silver ore from some Transylvania mines Rodna (embolite - Ag(CI Br) and bromargirite - AgBr) and supposing an imperfect procedure of refinement (see also high Cu and Pb contents), these coins could be attributed to local Barbarian (Dacian) workshops. To confirm this hypothesis, further archaeological studies are necessary, e.g., an analysis of a silver jewelry definitely attributed to local craftsmen from this period.
...
Regarding Roman denarii (Table 3), the coins can be grouped into two main categories. The first group (11 pieces) represents the originals (high silver content), probably coined in Ilyria.
The bromine content of the second group (4 pieces) led us to the conclusion that they were minted using local (Transylvania) ores (Fig. 2).'
And my conclusion is that they were minted near a seashore, by pirates wanting to buy Slaves from the Dacians.
Note
Jordanes, Getica XI (67)
(written approx. 551 CE)
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/texts/jordgeti.html
'Then when Buruista was king of the Goths, Dicineus came to Gothia at the time when Sulla [consul first time 88 BCE - retired 81 BCE] ruled the Romans. Buruista received Dicineus and gave him almost royal power. It was by his advice the Goths ravaged the lands of the Germans, which the Franks now possess.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Frankish_Empire_481_to_814-en.svg
Which means the Dacians may have passed on Germanic POWs as slaves to whoever wanted to buy them (pirates). Selling your neighbour as usual would not have been something Burebista would want to promote.
This might be where the Germani in Spartacus' army came from. In the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Mithridatic_War (88 - 84 BCE)
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Mithridatic_War (83 - 81 BCE)
the slave port of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panticapaeon
in the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosporan_Kingdom
would have been inaccessible to the Romans, and the Latin colonization of devastated formerly hostile Italic territory after the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_War_%2891%E2%80%9388_BC%29
would have demanded the acquisition of slaves in large numbers
Torsten