Tag Archives: Witschonke

Some Greek and Roman overstrikes in the ANS Collection

While perusing the ever-surprising Richard B. Witchonke Collection at the ANS for its forthcoming published catalogue, I had the great luck to study a few overstruck coins with fairly unique features. This post represents a succinct attempt at describing at least part of the importance of these specimens.

In his Overstruck Greek Coins, David MacDonald defines overstruck coins as “coins that have been ‘recoined’ by striking them with new and different dies, whether by the original minting authority or by a different one, without having the original design completely removed beforehand.” Overstriking was usually preferred to recoining when limits in time or in the size of the coinage that needed to be produced made the expenses and the labor to melt and produce new flans unfeasible. Overstriking was done for a variety of reasons, ranging from eminently economic ones to (possibly) ideological. Overstruck coins are thus a powerful to investigate the complexities of coin circulation and production in the antiquity. Their historical importance has not escaped the attention of the scientific community and the necessity of a more systematic cataloging has lead to the creation of Greek Overstrikes Database (GOD), a still ongoing project under the scientific direction of the aforementioned D. MacDonald and François de Callataÿ. Of course, overstriking was not limited to the Greek world. Roman overstrikes have been studied as early as the mid- nineteenth century by the likes of Pierre Philippe Bourlier d’Ailly, Max Bahrfeldt, Ettore Gabrici, Charles Hersch, Rudi Thomsen, and Michael Crawford. Much more recently, Clive Stannard and Suzanne Frey-Kupper used overstrikes to study the circulation and production patterns of Central Italian mints and Andrew McCabe analyzed the Roman over Roman overstrikes on bronze and silver coins of the second and first century BC.

Figure 1. ANS 2015.20.2032.
Figure 1. ANS 2015.20.2032.

While several factors are usually at play, the necessity of altering the area of circulation of a certain coinage could be the main factor leading to overstriking in some cases, as shown by the Y. Touratsoglou and by the same MacDonald for the bronze civic coinage of Macedonia in the course of the second century BC. The necessity of broadening the circulation area and relieving local shortages of small change could also be the explanation for Fig. 1, an apparently Roman sextans struck over a Neapolitan bronze coin. In a forthcoming paper, Stannard convincingly attributes this coin to the newly discovered Second Punic War mint of Minturnae. Through overstrikes like the one presented in Fig. 1 the mint of Minturnae was “adapting” Neapolitan coinage to a larger circulation radius by adding on it Roman types. While the weight of these pseudo-Roman issues differed from the official Roman production, the types on them made them their value immediately recognizable to users.

Figure 2. ANS 2015.20.2393.
Figure 2. ANS 2015.20.2393.
Figure 3. Illyria, Apollonia. Silver drachm. Early second century BC. ΑΡΙΣΤΩΝ. Cow suckling calf left. In exergue, monogram AP/ ΑΠΟΛ - ΛΥ- ΣΗ - NOΣ. Double stellate pattern within double linear square with sides curved inwards. 3.13 g. SNG Cop. 387. Münzzentrum Rheinland 191, 3 June 2020, lot 32.
Figure 3. Illyria, Apollonia. Silver drachm. Early second century BC. ΑΡΙΣΤΩΝ. Cow suckling calf left. In exergue, monogram AP/ ΑΠΟΛ – ΛΥ- ΣΗ – NOΣ. Double stellate pattern within double linear square with sides curved inwards. 3.13 g. SNG Cop. 387. Münzzentrum Rheinland 191, 3 June 2020, lot 32.

Another factor leading to overstriking was wear. In same cases unofficial coins could be overstruck on obsolete coins, as in the case of a Dacian imitation of a denarius struck over a drachm from Apollonia (SNG Cop. 387) (Figs. 2–3) This coin, an imitation from Dacia of a denarius issued by L. Flaminius Chilo in 109/8 BC, shows on the obverse part of the legend [API] ΣΤΩΝ of the undertype. The vestigia of the name of the magistrate allow for the dating of the overstruck Apollonian drachm, which is dated to the early second century BC. The reverse of the coin clearly shows part of the undertype []ΝΟΣ. A combination of all the factors mentioned above (wear, scantiness of local coinages, and thus alteration of the original circulation area) could explain the massive presence of foreign and obsolete coins as undertypes for the bronze coins produced in the Roman world, as shown by Stannard and Frey-Kupper in a recent article.

Figure 4. Rome. Bronze sextans. 215–212 BC. Head of Mercury, right. Prow, right; below, denominational mark (two pellets). Above, ROMA. 11.03 g. 26.5 mm. RRC 41/9. Hersch 1953, p. 51, n. 39d. ANS 2015.20.1791.
Figure 4. Rome. Bronze sextans. 215–212 BC. Head of Mercury, right. Prow, right; below, denominational mark (two pellets). Above, ROMA. 11.03 g. 26.5 mm. RRC 41/9. Hersch 1953, p. 51, n. 39d. ANS 2015.20.1791.

A change in the weight standard adopted by the issuing mint was also another reason leading to overstrikes, as illustrated by Fig. 4. This coin, a triental sextans (RRC 41/9) struck over a semilibral uncia (RRC 38/6) is dated to the years 215–212 BC and shows how the sudden decreases in weight standard that took place in the course of the Second Punic War could produce overstruck coins in massive amounts. Also, silver coins were likely to be overstruck if they differed from the weight standard adopted in the area they were circulating. Coins of similar weight standards were easier to overstrike, but there also was less need to do so. On the other hand, coins of heavier weight standard were reduced to a lighter weight standard by trimming the flan and then overstruck.

Figure 5. ANS 2015.20.1273.
Figure 5. ANS 2015.20.1273.
Figure 6. ANS 2015.20.2135.
Figure 6. ANS 2015.20.2135.

This is the case of Fig. 5. This coin, a cistophorus from Ephesus dated to 140–139 BC, has been struck over a Macedonian tetradrachm of First Meris (Fig. 6), issued after 168 BC, as suggested by the thunderbolt still visible on the reverse. This specimen has been included in a 2011 AJN article by de Callataÿ. Since the introduction of the reduced standard cistophoric tetradrachm under the king Eumenes II, the Attalid kingdom became a closed currency area (on substantiated objections to this point of view see this article by Andrew Meadows). Silver coins on different standards thus needed to be trimmed and overstruck in order to circulate freely. This overstruck coin opens a window over the complex monetary and political interactions in the Mediterranean in the second half of the second century BC. In de Callataÿ’s words, “at the end of the Attalid dominion, tetradrachms coming from the Northern Aegean area were chosen intentionally to issue some specific batches of cistophoric tetradrachms. This was not a random process, since there is no reason to believe that coins from the First Macedonian Meris or Thasos were particularly common at the border of the Asian Province. […] The question is: which power organized this movement of coinage? To my mind, the answer points in the Roman direction, even with Asia Minor still technically under Attalid rule.”

Figure 7. ANS 2015.20.2662.
Figure 7. ANS 2015.20.2662.
Figure 8. ANS 2015.20.2196.
Figure 8. ANS 2015.20.2196.

The convergence of Eastern Mediterranean monetary systems under Roman dominion is also shown by other two very interesting overstrikes. In Fig. 7, a silver tetradrachm from Thasus, dated to 90–75 BC, is struck over a Macedonian tetradrachm issued under the Roman quaestor Aesillas. Conversely, in Fig. 8 a Macedonian tetradrachm of Aesillas is struck over a Thasian one. The mutual overstrikes of Thasian and Macedonian tetradrachms shows that these two coinages were roughly ontemporary, but also that in the course of the first century BC the monetary systems of the Eastern provinces of Roman Empire became increasingly integrated.

Figure 9. ANS 2015.20.1037.
Figure 9. ANS 2015.20.1037.
Figure 10. ANS 2015.20.2145.
Figure 10. ANS 2015.20.2145.

Another very interesting case of overstrike is represented by Figs. 9–10. The first of these coins, issued by the Roman quaestor Gaius Publilius either after 168 BC either after 148 BC, is clearly struck over a Silenus/ D ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΩΝ issue. Given the high number of similarly overstruck coins, D. Macdonald suggested that the Silenus/ D ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΩΝ issues, characterized by the absence of the head of Rome on the obverse were issued after 148 BC, twenty years after the ones issued under Gaius Publilius, to highlight the independence of Macedonia, a Roman province by then. However, the overstruck coins presented in Fig. 10 suggest otherwise. While the undertype is not clearly recognizable, the letters still visible on the reverse suggest that this Silenus/ D ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΩΝ coin was struck over a specimen issued by the Roman quaestors, even if it not clear whether Fulcinnius or Publilius. This overstruck coin this invalidates the chronology proposed by Macdonald and suggests that the coinages issued by the Roman quaestors and the Silenus/ D ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΩΝ one were most likely contemporary, even if it is not clear whether they should be dated to 168 or 148 BC.

Figure 11. ANS 2015.20.2031.
Figure 11. ANS 2015.20.2031.
Figure 12. ANS 2015.20.2041.
Figure 12. ANS 2015.20.2041.

Lastly, overstrikes could shed some light on the financing of armies. The ones presented here (Figs. 11–12), Roman quadrantes struck respectively over Iero II’s and Carthage bronze coins, are a clear indication of the hasted production of Roman coinage in Sicily in the course of the Second Punic War. The most probable explanation for such haste was of course the necessity of paying the armies fighting at the time in the island.

In conclusion, the overstruck coins are important heuristic tools to better understand ancient monetary systems. In the specific, the ones included in the Richard B. Witschonke Collection at the American Numismatic  Society present in same cases unique characteristics which make them even more valuable to the historian and the numismatist.

Geto-Dacian Imitations of Roman Republican Denarii: Proto-Dacian State or Slave Trade?

Figure 1: Dacia, after 76 BC. Geto-Dacian imitation (hybrid). Silver denarius. Helmeted head of Mars right; S·C (retrograde) behind, star (*) below chin/ She-wolf standing right with paw raised. Above ROMA (retrograde). In exergue, FoATRIA (retrograde). 16.6 mm. 3.89 g. Davis A, II M58. After RRC 389/1c (O )/ 388/1 (R ). ANS 2015.20.2432 ex R. B. Witschonke Collection.
Figure 1: Dacia, after 76 BC. Geto-Dacian imitation (hybrid). Silver denarius. Helmeted head of Mars right; S·C (retrograde) behind, star (*) below chin/ She-wolf standing right with paw raised. Above ROMA (retrograde). In exergue, FoATRIA (retrograde). 16.6 mm. 3.89 g. Davis A, II M58. After RRC 389/1c (O )/ 388/1 (R ). ANS 2015.20.2432 ex R. B. Witschonke Collection.

The coin pictured in Figure 1 is only one of the 290 Geto-Dacian imitations of Roman Republican denarii included in the Richard B. Witschonke Collection at the American Numismatic Society (ANS 2015.20.2271–2560). No other private collection in the world could vaunt such a high number of Geto-Dacian imitations, with the only possible exception of the one once owned by Phillip Davis, which was partly sold in a Gemini Auction in 2012 (lots 583–767). The specimen presented here is a hybrid, as it reproduces the obverse type of L. Rustius (RRC 389/1, Fig. 2) and the reverse type of P. Satrienus (RRC 388/1, Fig. 3).

Figure 2: Rome, 76 BC. Lucius Rustius. Silver Denarius. S·C X (crossed). Helmeted head of Minerva right. Border of dots / L·RVSTI - Ram right. Border of dots. 17 mm. 3.85 g. RRC 389/1. ANS 1937.158.133.
Figure 2: Rome, 76 BC. Lucius Rustius. Silver Denarius. S·C X (crossed). Helmeted head of Minerva right. Border of dots / L·RVSTI – Ram right. Border of dots. 17 mm. 3.85 g. RRC 389/1. ANS 1937.158.133.
Figure 3: Rome, 77 BC. Publius Satrienus. Silver Denarius.  Helmeted head of Roma right. Border of dots / ROMA P·SATRIE / NVS - She-wolf left. Border of dots. 19 mm. 3.84 g. RRC 388/1b. ANS 2002.46.374.
Figure 3: Rome, 77 BC. Publius Satrienus. Silver Denarius.  Helmeted head of Roma right. Border of dots / ROMA P·SATRIE / NVS – She-wolf left. Border of dots. 19 mm. 3.84 g. RRC 388/1b. ANS 2002.46.374.

This specimen was part of a large hoard of Roman Republican denarii found in Romania between 2001 and 2002, which consisted of approximately 5,000 Roman Republican denarii, a few Alexander the Great drachms (perhaps local imitations?), and nearly 100 Dacian imitations of Republican denarii (Figs. 4–5). The latest official coin was an issue of Octavian, RRC 540/2, struck in 36 BC.

Figure 4: The Dacian Kingdom around 100 AD, before Trajan’s conquest.
Figure 4: The Dacian Kingdom around 100 AD, before Trajan’s conquest.
Figure 5: The Danube God. Details from Trajan’s Column, Rome. The column was erected to celebrate the victory of the Emperor Trajan over the Dacian king Decebalus in 106 AD.
Figure 5: The Danube God. Details from Trajan’s Column, Rome. The column was erected to celebrate the victory of the Emperor Trajan over the Dacian king Decebalus in 106 AD.

The Republican imitations—including the one presented here—were removed from the hoard prior to its dispersal and were published by Phillip Davis. These imitations are usually referred to as Geto-Dacian because most 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. There are a few exceptions to this rule, such as the imitative coinage struck by the Pannonian tribe of the Eravisci. However, the Eraviscan style is quite distinctive, as made evident by the pictures (Figs. 6–7).

Fig. 6. Eraviscan imitation with the name of the tribe on the reverse. Pannonia, after 76 BC. Eravisci. Silver Denarius. Head of Juno Sospita right; behind, T. Border of dots / RAVISC (S retrograde): Sceptre with wreath, globe and rudder. Below, legend. Border of dots. 16 mm. 3.05 g. Davis B II.E7a. Freeman 11(8/c). After RRC 384/1 (O)/ 393/1 (R). ANS 2015.20.2362 ex R. B. Witschonke Collection.
Fig. 6. Eraviscan imitation with the name of the tribe on the reverse. Pannonia, after 76 BC. Eravisci. Silver Denarius. Head of Juno Sospita right; behind, T. Border of dots / RAVISC (S retrograde): Sceptre with wreath, globe and rudder. Below, legend. Border of dots. 16 mm. 3.05 g. Davis B II.E7a. Freeman 11(8/c). After RRC 384/1 (O)/ 393/1 (R). ANS 2015.20.2362 ex R. B. Witschonke Collection.
Fig. 7. Eraviscan imitation with the potential name of a chieftain on the reverse. Pannonia, after 76 BC. Eravisci. Silver denarius. Bust of Genius Populi Romani right, draped and hair tied with band, with scepter over shoulder. Border of dots / (DO)MISA: Horseman right, brandishing spear; below, legend. Border of dots. 16 mm. 3.35 g. Davis B II.E4. Freeman 7 (4/e). After RRC 393/1 (O)/ 361/1 (R). ANS 2015.20.2361 ex R. B. Witschonke Collection.
Fig. 7. Eraviscan imitation with the potential name of a chieftain on the reverse. Pannonia, after 76 BC. Eravisci. Silver denarius. Bust of Genius Populi Romani right, draped and hair tied with band, with scepter over shoulder. Border of dots / (DO)MISA: Horseman right, brandishing spear; below, legend. Border of dots. 16 mm. 3.35 g. Davis B II.E4. Freeman 7 (4/e). After RRC 393/1 (O)/ 361/1 (R). ANS 2015.20.2361 ex R. B. Witschonke Collection.

The question of the production and circulation of Republican denarii (and their imitations) in Dacia was the subject of  a very heated scholarly discussion in Eastern Europe, especially Romania, in the last quarter of the twentieth century, in connection to the Romanian nationalist claims put forward by the Communist Party after the 1960s.

Figure 8: Dacia, after 116 BC. Geto-Dacian copy. Q·CVRT X: Helmeted head of Roma, right; behind, denominational mark. Border of dots / M·SILA: Jupiter in quadriga, right, holding scepter in left hand and hurling thunderbolt with right hand. 18.3 mm. 4.3 g. Davis AIb C26. After RRC 285/2. ANS 2015.20.2306 ex R. B. Witschonke Collection.
Figure 8: Dacia, after 116 BC. Geto-Dacian copy. Q·CVRT X: Helmeted head of Roma, right; behind, denominational mark. Border of dots / M·SILA: Jupiter in quadriga, right, holding scepter in left hand and hurling thunderbolt with right hand. 18.3 mm. 4.3 g. Davis AIb C26. After RRC 285/2. ANS 2015.20.2306 ex R. B. Witschonke Collection.

Very briefly, the consensus among Romanian numismatists was (and is) that most of the Republican denarii found in Romania, (roughly, ancient Dacia,) had in fact been produced there. According to this theory, Dacian mints would have produced not only imitations, but also many specimens that seem to be official Roman products. Most famously, the Romanian scholar  Maria Chitescu, author of the groundbreaking Numismatic Aspects of the History of the Dacian State (originally published in Rumenian in 1981) advanced various stylistic and statistical arguments in support of this position, especially based on her study of the Poroschia Hoard (RRCH 436). Building upon the 49 coins that appear to be locally made copies of Roman prototypes, she created a distinction between faithful “copies” (Fig. 8), barely distinguishable from their Republican prototypes, and plus or minus barbarous interpretations of the Roman original, which she defines as “imitations” (Figs. 9–10).

Figure 9: Dacia, after 55 BC. Geto-Dacian imitation (hybrid). Silver denarius. Laureate head of Saturn left; T behind, VOS (retrograde)ISMOJ (retrograde)before / Warrior on horseback galloping right, thrusting spear downwards at kneeling enemy in Gallic helmet, who holds sword and shield; to lower left, another enemy warrior, kneeling right; Gallic helmet and shield to lower right, ΔCΛ above. In exergue, oPEPMΓ. 16 mm. 3.43 g. Davis A, II M356. After RRC 349/1c or 313/1 (O) / 429/ 1c (R). ANS 2015.20.2419 ex R. B. Witschonke Collection.
Figure 9: Dacia, after 55 BC. Geto-Dacian imitation (hybrid). Silver denarius. Laureate head of Saturn left; T behind, VOS (retrograde)ISMOJ (retrograde)before / Warrior on horseback galloping right, thrusting spear downwards at kneeling enemy in Gallic helmet, who holds sword and shield; to lower left, another enemy warrior, kneeling right; Gallic helmet and shield to lower right, ΔCΛ above. In exergue, oPEPMΓ. 16 mm. 3.43 g. Davis A, II M356. After RRC 349/1c or 313/1 (O) / 429/ 1c (R). ANS 2015.20.2419 ex R. B. Witschonke Collection.
Figure 10: Dacia, after 56 BC. Geto-Dacian imitation (hybrid). Silver denarius. Diademed and draped bust of Diana right, wearing cruciform earring, necklace of pendants, and her hair collected into a knot at back of head, which is decorated with jewels; lituus to left. Above, B / Victory (?) in biga right; + below and illegible legend in exergue. 16.7 g. 3.17 g. Davis A, II M355. After RRC 426 /1 (O).  ANS 2015.20.2420 ex R. B. Witschonke Collection.
Figure 10: Dacia, after 56 BC. Geto-Dacian imitation (hybrid). Silver denarius. Diademed and draped bust of Diana right, wearing cruciform earring, necklace of pendants, and her hair collected into a knot at back of head, which is decorated with jewels; lituus to left. Above, B / Victory (?) in biga right; + below and illegible legend in exergue. 16.7 g. 3.17 g. Davis A, II M355. After RRC 426 /1 (O).  ANS 2015.20.2420 ex R. B. Witschonke Collection.

This classification is usefully reproduced by P. Davis in his website and in subsequent publications, but has been quite recently criticized by B. Woytek, because “although clear at the extremes, this distinction becomes somewhat blurred in the middle and hence, it can be difficult to apply.”

Going back to the function of these coins, it becomes evident that they were not counterfeits. A definitive proof of the non-fraudulent nature of the Geto-Dacian imitations is offered by the fact that they often contain more silver by weight than their Republican models. Their production and circulation in Dacia was intended to balance a shortfall, real or perceived, in the supply of circulating coinage in Dacia, much as the Spanish imitations of Roman asses in the second and first century BC or the production of small change by the so-called Italian pseudo-mints in the first century BC. Their production would have been therefore connected to the monetary needs of a region that—while not subject to Rome—was already integrated in its monetary system.

In Chitescu’s view, faithful “copies” of Roman Republican denarii could be considered as “official” issues of the proto-Dacian state, whose uncertain historical origins were usually connected to king Burebista, a mysterious historical figure mentioned by Strabo (Geographica 7.3.5, 7.3.11, and 16.2.39), Jordanes (Getica 67) and in one inscription concerning an emissary of this king sent to Dionysopolis (modern Balcic in Bulgaria) in 48 BC, where Burebista is described as the “first and the greatest king of Thrace” (Fig. 11). In more nuanced tones, the existence of a proto-Dacian state in the first century BC connected to the king Burebista is still championed in Rumenian academia (Fig. 12).

Figure 11: Poster of the 1980 movie Burebista, directed by G. Vitanidis and starring G. Constantin. The movie celebrated the life of Dacian war-leader Burebista who ruled between 80–44 BC and founded a strong Dacian Kingdom despite considerable pressure from the neighboring Celtic warlords and the Greek cities of the Black Sea coast.
Figure 11: Poster of the 1980 movie Burebista, directed by G. Vitanidis and starring G. Constantin. The movie celebrated the life of Dacian war-leader Burebista who ruled between 80–44 BC and founded a strong Dacian Kingdom despite considerable pressure from the neighboring Celtic warlords and the Greek cities of the Black Sea coast.
Figure 12: Walls from the fortress of Blidaru (Hunedoara County, Romania), built in the first century BC, possibly during Burebista's reign.
Figure 12: Walls from the fortress of Blidaru (Hunedoara County, Romania), built in the first century BC, possibly during Burebista’s reign.

While the hypothesis of a proto-Dacian state could seem a convincing explanation for the massive production and circulation of Roman Republican imitations, it did not provide an answer for the massive presence of Roman official denarii in the region, which were circulating together with local “copies” and “imitations.” Because of this integrated circulation, Michael Crawford rejected Chitescu’s hypothesis of local “copies” of Roman official coinage as currency of the proto-Dacian state, arguing 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 absence of hoards including Roman denarii—whether official or imitations—convinced Crawford that the import of Roman coinage and its subsequent imitations were related to a specific historical moment. According to him, the territory of Dacia—precisely because it was not yet incorporated in the Roman Empire—represented an alternative source of slave supply for Rome and Italy after 67 BC, when Pompey’s victory over the pirates put an end to the slave-raiding organized by them.  Roman official denarii were then used as means of payment for slaves, possibly sold by local aristocrats. The high rate of wear of the Roman denarii prior to the 70s BC in Romanian hoards could thus be explained by the fact that they were imported to the Dacian region en masse between the 60s and the 50s BC.

In 2008 Kris Lockyear subjected a large sampling of Republican coin hoards to sophisticated statistical analyses that led to the conclusion that Roman Republican denarii were systematically imported to Dacia between 75 and 65 BC, possibly with a second peak in the 40s BC. He also found substantial differences in composition between the coins found in Romanian hoards and those from elsewhere in Europe, which seem to hint at a local production of the Romanian copies and imitations. To the same conclusions arrived in 2012 the team lead by Woytek, whose metallurgical analyses show that there is distinct similarity in the bullion used in the Geto-Dacian imitation of denarii. In sum, the results of the metallurgical analyses pursued in autonomous ways and with different methodologies by K. Lockyear and B. Woytek play well with the idea that Geto-Dacian imitations were produced locally, as once suggested by M. Chitescu.

However, M. Chitescu argued for a centralized production of Dacian denarii (i.e., copies of official Roman denarii), which would represent the currency in use in Burebista’s state. If this were the case, we should expect a relevant number of die-links, as for the official Roman production. However, no significant die-links have been identified in Geto-Dacian imitations up to this moment, with the partial exception (which actually proves the rule) of a short die-linked sequence published by P. Davis (Figs. 13–14).

Figure 13: Dacia, after 79 BC. Geto-Dacian imitation. Silver denarius. Head of Juno Sospita right, wearing goat's skin; two flutes behind / Griffin leaping left, blundered pan pipes below. 17.5 mm. 3.73 g. Davis A, II M336. After RRC 384/1. ANS 2015.20.2441 ex R. B. Witschonke Collection. Obverse die O1, reverse die R1 in sequence. Part of a die sequence illustrated in Davis 2008.
Figure 13: Dacia, after 79 BC. Geto-Dacian imitation. Silver denarius. Head of Juno Sospita right, wearing goat’s skin; two flutes behind / Griffin leaping left, blundered pan pipes below. 17.5 mm. 3.73 g. Davis A, II M336. After RRC 384/1. ANS 2015.20.2441 ex R. B. Witschonke Collection. Obverse die O1, reverse die R1 in sequence. Part of a die sequence illustrated in Davis 2008.
Figure 14: Dacia, after 79 BC. Geto-Dacian imitation (hybrid). Silver denarius. Helmeted head of Roma, right ; behind, X. Border of dots / Griffin leaping left, blundered pan pipes below. 16.9 mm. 3.38 g. Davis A, II M337. After RRC 384/1 (R ), S 773 (R ). ANS 2015.20.2440 ex R. B. Witschonke Collection. Obverse die O2, reverse die R1 in sequence. Part of a die sequence illustrated in Davis 2008.
Figure 14: Dacia, after 79 BC. Geto-Dacian imitation (hybrid). Silver denarius. Helmeted head of Roma, right ; behind, X. Border of dots / Griffin leaping left, blundered pan pipes below. 16.9 mm. 3.38 g. Davis A, II M337. After RRC 384/1 (R ), S 773 (R ). ANS 2015.20.2440 ex R. B. Witschonke Collection. Obverse die O2, reverse die R1 in sequence. Part of a die sequence illustrated in Davis 2008.

At first sight, the absence of die-linked sequences—even for the more faithful copies—and the heterogeneity in styles suggest a high degree of decentralization in the production that seem irreconcilable with the role of these coins as official currency of Burebista’s state. However, further numismatic discoveries could radically change the picture.

In sum, the present state of studies suggest that Daco-Getan imitations of Roman Republican official coinage were indeed produced in Dacia and were related to the steady influx of official Roman Republican denarii which took place in the course of the first half of the first century BC.

This influx was probably related to slave trade and could have happened under the auspices of the Dacian proto-state, but no final conclusion could be drawn on this. However, the widespread and integrated circulation of official and non-official Roman Republican denarii in a region that was not part of the Roman Empire is yet another sign of far-fetching power of Roman coinage in the first century BC.