|
|
 |
|
|
Some Light in a Dark Corner
Some Light in a Dark Corner It’s been said that all collectors of Roman Republican coins sooner or later discover an interest in the imitation of these coins by non-Romans in antiquity. I followed a typical trajectory. I’ve been a “serious” collector of Republican silver coins for longer than I care to remember; not quite ten years ago, it dawned on me that it was past time to learn something about the good-silver denarii imitations that cropped up from time to time, variously described in the numismatic trade as “barbarous,” “Celtic,” “Balkan” or “Danubian”… in other words, coins struck somewhere, by someone. These contentless evasions struck me as sloppy cataloging, but I took it for granted that solid information was available. It was simply a matter of figuring out where to look. I was astonished to discover how far that was from the case; how little really was known, at least in the numismatic “mainstream,” about these odd and compelling pieces, and, much worse, how much of what purported to be known was flat-out wrong. Full of hubris, I set out to set the record straight. That was the beginning of a decade of investigation. While knowledge of these coins in the trade was abysmal, and the situation in academic circles in America and western Europe was little better, in central and eastern Europe they have been the subject of serious study for a long time. In Romania and Bulgaria in particular, academic researchers have produced an invaluable series of papers: publishing locally found hoards of Republican denarii containing varying percentages of imitations, discussing the widespread, centuries-long phenomenon of imitative coinage in the Balkans, and firmly attributing most denarius-sized imitations of Roman types to the Dacians. These papers however were difficult to locate and fully utilize. Maria Chitescu’s groundbreaking full-length treatment of the subject, Numismatic Aspects of the History of the Dacian State, published by Oxford in English translation in 1981 as part of the BAR International Series, was little known, seldom cited, and almost impossible to find. I did finally locate - and diligently photocopy - a copy at a university library. Worlds opened up. Chitescu thoroughly examined all aspects of these coins: who made them, when and where they did it, and why. She introduced a valuable distinction between two broad classes of Dacian imitative coinage. The first class, “monetary copies,” includes coins which more or less faithfully, though sometimes imperfectly, reproduce the types and legends of their Republican prototype. The second class, “monetary imitations,” refers to coins which markedly diverge from their official 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 sometimes completely absent. For the most part, this copies/imitations distinction is maintained in my occasional comments in the text. Chitescu’s work is a landmark, but, regrettably, a seriously flawed one. For example, the plates are virtually unorganized, and include every denarius-sized imitation she knew of, including a few coins struck somewhat later by the Celtic Eraviscans, and others that are, in my view, official Roman issues. (See lot 763 in this catalogue for a selection of Eraviscan coins.) She died prematurely; I’ve no doubt that, had she lived, she would have refined her work herself. I took it on myself to try to continue her research. My first tentative effort appeared in the May, 2004 issue of The Celator, Vol. 18, No.4, available at: http://rrimitations.ancients.info/article.html. In it, I attempted to develop a system of classification of all ancient imitations of Republican denarii, those struck in good silver and plated ancient counterfeits alike. Although it has its own basic flaws, I think it retains some value as an organizational tool, and I’ve used it in the catalogue that follows. In its current form, somewhat expanded from the Celator article, the system is: CLASS A Geto-Dacian Group Ia Monetary Copies. Transfer dies from Republican denarii Group Iaa Monetary Copies. Hybrid 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 Iaa Plated Imitations in Roman Style -- Hybrids Group Ib Plated imitations in near-Roman style Group II Plated imitations in non-Roman style Discussion of these categories is found in the article. Celator citations in this sale catalogue are to coins illustrated in this article. The catalogue is arranged chronologically according to Crawford’s dating of the suggested prototype. In my opinion, in all cases there was an actual prototype at hand; i.e., the Dacians didn’t resort to the sort of copies of copies we sometimes encounter in Celtic imitations of the coins of Philip and Alexander. With this in mind, wherever possible I've assigned a given coin to a particular Republican moneyer, even if in fact some uncertainty remains. In the course of these investigations, I attempted to collect as many actual specimens as I could find. Sometimes these appeared in “mainstream” auctions and price lists; many others were found on eBay. I was fortunate to be able to obtain two groups of imitations, described in the catalogue as BH-I and BH-II. More information on the two group - and much else besides - is available on my website: http://rrimitations.ancients.info/index.html. “Website” followed by a number in this catalogue refers to their listing there. The site is vastly enriched by also including hundreds of imitations from the renowned RBW Collection, delineated there by + following the number. (Those pieces are not being offered in this auction.) The combined collections comprise by far the largest and most comprehensive group of this coinage ever assembled. Without false modesty, the best English-language treatment of Dacian imitations of Republican denarii other than Chitescu is my extended paper in Apulum XLIII, 2006, available as a pdf at: http://www.mnuai.ro/docs/apulum/articole/28_phil.davis_1_.pdf Coins illustrated in that paper and offered here are cited in the text. An important group of coins offered here as a single lot, lot 741, as well as the coins in BH-II, are published in Nemus 1-2, 2006, and again in Nemus 7-8, 2009. The former is available online at: http://www.enciclopedia-dacica.ro/nemvs/Dacian%20Imitations%20of%20Roman%20Republican%20Denarii.pdf Perhaps the most important coin in the collection, lot 665, is published with extensive discussion in Apulum XLVII. Utmost thanks to the many dealers and collectors who diligently pointed out “new” imitations as they appeared for sale, often in very obscure venues I never would have noticed on my own. Without the help of all of you, this collection would be far less comprehensive than I think it is. Friends have asked why I’ve decided to sell the collection. My interest in these fascinating coins hasn’t waned at all; hopefully, my “last” word on them lies well in the future. Lately however, I find myself wholly content to save digital images of new finds, rather than trying to win the coins themselves. It’s time to give other collectors the chance to enjoy these pieces, some of which are entirely without parallel in my experience. Finally, a word on grading. Grading is “technical,” based on wear alone. In particular, flaws resulting from faulty manufacturing such as decentering and areas of weak strike are so ubiquitous in these coins that no effort has been made to note them. Phillip Davis.
|
