1

Roman imperial coins as communication tool: “a telephone

message on a very poor line”
Antony Kropff1
Published on Academia.edu July 15 2024.
Roman Imperial coins were primarily currency, produced for the state’s
expenditure. The present consensus is that these coins were also a means of
communication, disseminating the emperor’s ideology, his virtues, his good
relation with the army and the benefits his rule brought to the empire. Coins
were part of the visual imagery (including inscriptions, statues and monumental
buildings) which the imperial authorities used to emphasize the authority of the
emperor.

Fig 1. Gallienus, AV Binio, 22mm, Rome mint, AD 262. GALLIENVS AVG,

rad. and cuir. bust r. FID MILITVM, Fides st. l., hldg. 2 signa, RIC V 39

Comprehensive and thorough research during the past decades has shown that
coin types were chosen deliberately and with care. The choice was motivated by
the individual ideology and values of the emperor for whom the coins were
struck, but also by external factors like the military and economic state of affairs
of the empire. The practical planning of the actual coin program was probably
the task of the secretary a rationibus.
Carefully selected coin types do not equal effective communication. I will argue
that the message which the imperial authorities wished to communicate through
the coins often did not get through to the target groups, which made Roman
imperial coins a less effective communication medium.
The genesis of the consensus
The value of Roman coins as a means of communication has been discussed for
many decades. Opinions diverged from “coins were used to disseminate
knowledge of current events and propaganda of various kinds -they were, in

1
All photos courtesy CNG.com
 2

short, the newspapers of the day.”2 Later A.H.M. Jones, the prominent 20th-
century British historian of classical antiquity attempted to swing the pendulum
of opinion to the other side of the scale: “If a modern analogy is to be sought for
the varying types and legends of Roman imperial coins it is perhaps to be found
in the similar variations in the postage stamps of many modern countries […]
No serious historian would use them as a clue which revealed changes of
government policy, even if other evidence was totally lacking”3 Jones was not
the only scholar to doubt the communication function of Roman coins.4 More
recently, Duncan-Jones doubted the communication value of Trajan’s topical
coins (coins dedicated to recent imperial accomplishments, like the Dacian
conquest). He argued that the main limitation of the ‘news’ motifs is their small
place in the emperor’s coinage as a whole. This would be difficult to explain if
the coinage was used as a serious information medium.5 Also, the distribution of
Trajan’s topical is quite remarkable, see for instance the coins with the ALIM.
ITAL. reverses, referring to Trajan’s distribution of alms and education to
certain groups of children in Italy. These topical coins would only have brought
news and have made sense in Italy. However, of the bronze coins of the types
RIC 459- 462, fourteen were found in Italy, four in the two Germania’s, four in
Gaul and no less than eight in British hoards, so more of the coins that only
made sense in Italy were found outside this province than inside, which does not
support pinpointed distribution.6
However, recent qualitative and quantitative research formed the basis of the
hypothesis that messages and ‘propaganda’ were communicated through coins.7
Quantitative research has shown that on the coin reverses, the deities which
were honoured or invoked, the imperial virtues and the benefits that the rule
brought, changed over time depending on the challenges the empire was facing
and on the ideology of the reigning emperor. Also, the authorities proved to be
able to supply coins with appropriate reverses to specific areas.8 Kemmers has
recently stated: “Since it is generally agreed that the question of whether coins
could be used to communicate messages no longer needs much discussion,
scholarship has now moved on to explore which messages were conveyed and
how.”9
2
Mattingly & Sydenham 1923: 22
3
Jones 1956: 15-16
4
Crawford 1983: 51-55; Wallace-Hadrill 1981: 318.
5
Duncan-Jones 2005: 470
6
Hobley 1998: 167, 226, 250, 350, 402.
7
Noreña 2001; Kemmers 2006; Hedlund 2008; Noreña 2011; Manders 2012; Elkins 2017
8
Kemmers 2006: 223-242
9
Kemmers 2019: 17
 3

Coins and communication

And yet, in this review I will propose to reopen the discussion, not to question
the intention to communicate by means of coin types, but to examine the
feasibility to deliver the coin messages to the targeted recipients and to make the
message understood. The word communication has its root in the Latin
verb communicare, which means 'to share' or 'to make common'. The
communication process has been formulated by Lasswell as a question: “Who
says what in which channel to whom with what effect?”10 Lasswell’s model is
still influential and as a linear concept useful for the analyses of conveying
messages through coin distribution, which is in in essence a linear process
without feedback loops of later communication models. Later critics added the
question ‘for what purpose’. The first half of Lasswell’s question has been
researched thoroughly, but ‘to whom with what effect’ has in my opinion not yet
been answered in a convincing way.
Lasswell’s ‘Who?’ can be answered by referring to the Roman mints as place of
production, under instructions of the tresviri monetales until the Severan period,
later of the secretary a rationibus11, assisted by the procurator monetae. The
emperor would not have played a very active role in the process, though the
general outline of the coin program was probably presented to the emperor for
approval. The ruler could ask for certain reverse types and he occasionally
vetoed an issue. Augustus would have suggested a coin issue with a Capricorn
reverse -his feigned birth constellation- and Nero asked for a cither player after
his return from Greece. Hadrian vetoed a coin issue with P(ater) P(atria) in the
coin legend.12
‘What’ is the message the coins conveyed and “Which channel” is the coin and
its distribution.
The communicated messages
Considering the scope of this review, I will not try to summarize the excellent
studies cited above but will focus on some key features.
The coin reverse show military representations (the emperor with soldiers,
captives, victory standards etc., see fig.1) deities, personifications of either the
benefits the emperor had brought (Pax, Felicitas, Concordia etc.) or of virtues
the emperor possessed (Pietas, Virtus etc.) and finally a group of reverses with a
mix of objects, accomplishments and events.
Looking closer at the virtues, the core virtues were Aequitas (fairness in legal
10
Lasswell 1948, 37-51
11
Claes 2014:163; Noreña 2012:250
12
Manders 2012: 30-31
 4

judgements, on coins rather the honest administration of the imperial mint, see
fig. 2), Pietas (fulfilling one’s responsibilities to whom one is bound, see fig. 3),
Virtus (manly courage, see fig. 4), Liberalitas (personal generosity, see fig 5)
and Providentia (the capacity to see and plan ahead, see fig. 6).13

Fig. 2. Nerva, AV Aureus, 18mm,
Rome mint, AD 97, RIC II, 13,
IMP NERVΛ CΛES ΛVG P M
TRP COS III P P, laureate head
right, ΛEQVITΛS ΛVGVST,
Aequitas st. l, holding scales
Fig. 3. Antoninus Pius, Æ Sestertius, 32mm, Rome
mint, AD 159-160, RIC III, 1031. ANTONINVS AVG
PIUS PP TR P XXIII, Laureate head right, PIETATI
AVG COS IIII S.C., Pietas standing, holding globe
Fig 4. Septimius Severus, AR
Denarius, 20mm, Rome mint, AD
200-201, RIC IV.I 171a, SEVERVS
AVG PART MAX Laureate head
right, VIRT AVGG Virtus standing
left, holding victory

Fig 5. Antoninus Pius, AR Fig, 6. Maximinus I. AR Denarius, 19mm, Rome mint,

Denarius, 17.5mm, Rome mint, A.D. 236-238, RIC IV,2, 20, MAXIMINVS PIVS AVG
A.D. 151-152, RIC III, 208, GERM Laureate, draped, and cuirassed bust right,
ANTONINVS AVG PIVS PP PROVIDENTIA AVG, Providentia standing left,
TR.P. XV, laureate head right, holding wand over globe
LIBERALITAS VII COS IIII,
Antoninus Pius, as Liberalitas,
standing l, holding account board
and roll

The desirable virtues of a ruler had been discussed by Greek authors, but did not
find expression on the coins of Greek city states or Hellenistic kingdoms, all
with very generic reverses. The personifications of these virtues gradually found
their way to the reverses of Roman imperial coins: Vespasian’s coins show two
virtues, Titus and Domitian both one, Nerva two, Trajan four, Hadrian nine and
Antoninus Pius ten.14 It seems that no emperor wanted to kowtow to the
predecessors. The display of virtues and benefits helped to legitimize the
emperor’s authority and power.15
Changes and shifts in the choice of virtues on coins have been detected, within
an emperor’s rule or within a given period. For instance: the virtues chosen by
or rather for Nerva demonstrated that his rule formed an antidote to the reign of
Domitian, who lacked the virtues the coins for Nerva propagated: Aequitas and
13
Noreña 2011: 59-62, 99-100; Manders 2012: 160
14
Noreña 2011: 349
15
Ibidem
 5

Iustitia.16
The preference for certain virtues on the coin reverses changed over time.17
Aequitas was often chosen by Vespasian, Nerva and Trajan while Pietas held a
special appeal for Domitian, Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. Liberalitas was often
used as a reverse type by Commodus. And although Marcus Aurelius and
Severus Alexander had already used Providentia, this virtue, together with
Virtus, which was already used by Trajan and Commodus, became dominant in
the third century, especially from the reign of Valerian I onward, while Pietas
declined.
And of course, not only the preferred virtues changed. During the second
century the obverse often showed peaceful and serene togate portraits of the
emperors (Hadrian, Antoninus Pius) with the Graecophile philosopher’s beard
and wearing a laureate or radiate crown. Third century ‘soldier emperors’ often
wore their hair and beard as a short stubble and were shown cuirassed and
sometimes even helmeted.18 Even the deities changed: Jupiter was prominent for
a time but later declined on the reverses while Sol increased, most of all under
Aurelian and his immediate successors, with a return of Jupiter under the
diarchy and tetrarchy.19
But did the Romans notice all this? I will argue that while the obverses were
frequently noted, the reverses often were not, because dilution, distribution and
demographics prevented this.
Dilution
Frequent sizable transports of new coins from the Roman mint(s) to the often
remote provinces would have been expensive and fraught with danger.
Recurrent transports of new coins in bulk were not necessary. Until the
beginning of the third century, Roman coins remained in circulation for decades,
even up to a century. Old coins were levied as taxes, stayed in the province and
were used by the provincial procurator for the state’s expenditure. Circa 75%
went to the armies.20 The provincial fisci yearly balanced their accounts with the
central treasury in Rome and new coins were added to the circulation when
needed. Approximately 75-90% of the state’s payments consisted of old coins.21
The Beaurains hoard shows that during the late Roman empire, donativa for

16
Elkins 2017: 149-154
17
Noreña 2011: 69-100, 346-349; Manders 161-167
18
Hedlund 2008
19
Manders 2012:102-107
20
Duncan-Jones 1994: 45
21
Noreña 2011: 194, 256-257; Duncan-Jones 1994: 46, 111-112
 6

high (army) officials could be paid in new gold coins only.22 I have not found
conclusive evidence indicating that only new coins were used also for the usual
donativa.
To illustrate coin circulation during much of the second century I refer to the
Swaby hoard from Lincolnshire.23 This hoard of 178 denarii included six coins
for Mark Antony, coins for most of the rulers from Nero to Trajan and closed
with a coin for Hadrian. Many second century hoards, up to and including
Marcus Aurelius both in Britain and on the continent have a similar
composition.
A ‘hidden purse’ hoard, the best ‘snapshot’ of coin circulation after A.D. 260
from Ilston24 consists of eight coins for Gallienus, five for Claudius Gothicus,
one coin for Probus and 52 coins for the Gallic rulers/usurpers, together with 25
uncertain radiates. After checking the content of his purse, what could the owner
have told us about the virtues and accomplishments of Probus? He would not
have had a clue. In fact, all hoards, whatever their size, demonstrate that the
communication concerning the reigning emperor would have been diluted in
actual coin circulation to a homeopathic level. Kemmers and Noreña realized
this all too well and stated that although coins may not have been suitable for
specific communication in the short term, diluted as these were to the point of
disappearance, the cumulative effect of similar types produced for years and
years on end still disseminated imperial ideals across the Roman Empire. 25 In
my view, this would amount to no more than: ‘we are the subjects of an emperor
who pronounces his qualities on the coins’.
A different form of coin message dilution can be observed after A.D. 260 when
coin production multiplied. Between A.D. 238 and 274 coin production
increased to a sevenfold.26 The silver content of the antoniniani decreased
dramatically and prices were rising. ‘Good’ coins produced before Valerian’s
reign had been driven out of circulation by the ‘bad’ post-260 coins which
contained no more than 2-10% of silver. Any transaction required quite a
number of antoniniani and very few recipients would have taken the time for a
close coin inspection. Any communication by coin types became even more
improbable. An example of this type of dilution can be found in the Vught
hoards from The Netherlands.27 This hoard of 4778 antoniniani opens with nine
22
Bastien & Metzger 1977
23
Robertson 2000 : 32, hoard 165
24
Robertson: 185, hoard 764
25
Kemmers 2006: 206-207; Noreña 2011: 196-197
26
Callu 1969: 237, 286-287
27
Kropff 1987: 6
 7

coins for Valerianus I and includes 602 local imitations of coins for the Tetrici.
The sole reign of Gallienus is represented by 688 coins. I don’t think the owner
of the hoard took the trouble to ‘read’ the coin reverses with each payment
received before adding the coins to his total coin reserve, the future hoard.
Finally, I come to the proposed ‘targeted’ distribution of coin types to specific
areas and the effect dilution had on this pinpointed distributions. Fleur Kemmers
analyzed the coins produced for Vespasian in A.D. 70 and found that the Pax
type was overrepresented in western hoards, probably associated with the
Batavian revolt and the civil war the year before: peace would now rule.28 I have
reviewed one of the hoards which is presented by Kemmers to support her
hypothesis. In the Lawrence Weston hoard from Britain29 thirteen coins of
Vespasian from the A.D. 70 issue were found, eleven of which are of the Pax
type. This indeed indicates a targeted supply of coins, thought relevant for the
period and area. However, the total number of coins for Vespasian in the hoard
is 102 and the total content of the hoard is 598 coins. I noted a similar dilution of
the Pax message hoards from Britain and the continent which Kemmers
tabulated.30 So while the intention to spread the Pax message in the west seems
obvious, it is doubtful whether or not the owners of the hoards would have
noticed this intent. The same applies to the targeted supply of Victoria, Securitas
and Aequitas types produced in A.D. 70 to the Lower Rhine area31: the
dominance of this types among Vespasian’s coins minted in A.D. is undisputed,
but was the message still recognized in the context of the hoards? Hasswell’s “to
whom” can be answered by stating that while the coins reached many recipients,
the communication which the currency was designed to convey was lost on the
majority of the coin users.
Distribution and disruption
An important target group for the messages on coin reverses were the soldiers.
During the second half of the third century, the effectivity of the coin messages
was impeded by usurpations which disrupted the distribution of new coins. The
second obstacle to communication through coins was the fact, that the soldiers
received only a part of their stipendium in cash. During the reign of the Julio-
Claudian emperors the soldier’s pay was 225 denarii a year, raised to 300 d. by
Domitian in A.D. 84 and to 600 d. in A.D. 197 by Septimius Severus.
These payments were long thought to have been paid in full, but additional
28
Kemmers 2006: 221-222
29
Bland & Burnett 1983: 23-31
30
Kemmers 2006: 222, fig. 5.14
31
Kemmers 2014: 234
 8

research has meanwhile shown that 50-75% of the soldier’s pay was virtual pay,
deducted for equipment, food, clothing, boots, hay etc.32 A considerable part of
the remaining net pay was booked to the soldier’s account (depositum) only to
be paid upon discharge.33 Surprisingly small amounts of coins actually changed
hands on pay day. The stipendia were not the only remuneration for the soldiers.
Regularly, donativa (special payments in a lump sum) were rewarded, for
instance to celebrate a victory, at the emperor’s dies natalis, on the occasion of a
jubilee of his reign, etc. The donativa strengthened de bond of fides between the
emperor and the army and inspired their loyalty.34 I have not found any
indication that donativa were paid in new coins, with the exception of the
Beaurains gold hoard mentioned earlier.
Considering the fact that during the first two centuries, 75-90% of the coins in a
donativum had been in circulation when the emperor who was providing the
donativum commenced his reign, the chance that the soldiers could take note of
the emperor’s virtues and ideology on the basis of his coin types would have
been slight.
A regional and temporary problem affecting the distribution of coins was the
series of usurpations in the western part of the empire during the second half of
the third century. The usurpation of Postumus led to the Gallic Empire (A.D.
260-274) and later the usurpation of Carausius was followed by the emergence
of the British empire (A.D. 287-296). These usurpations caused an interruption
of the normal supply of coins for the lawful Roman emperors to the areas.
The temporary secession of the western provinces under the Gallic Empire (ad
260-274) changed coin circulation in the area. The coins for the legitimate
emperors Gallienus and Claudius Gothicus, prevailing in the coin circulation in
other parts of the Empire during that period, entered the coin circulation of the
northern part of the Gallic Empire (including Britain) in relatively limited
quantities. The coin circulation was dominated by the coins for the last rulers of
the Gallic Empire, Victorinus and father and son Tetricus, who represented
themselves as guardian of the Roman virtues, although the coins did not refer to
the legitimate Senate, but to the usurpers themselves.
After ad 274, local workshops produced large quantities of copies of these coins
of an even worse workmanship and without any intentionally added silver in the
alloy.35 The Gallic coins, including copies, usually comprise between 50 and
32
Kemmers, 2006: 146, 192; Wolters, 2000-2001: 581; Campbell, 1994: 23-24
33
Van Heesch, 2011: 321; Speidel, 2009: 360, 364; Van Heesch, 2007: 79-80
34
Hebblewhite 2017: 71, 79
35
Kropff 2005, p. 77; Ziegler 1983, pp. 40, 78
 9

90% of the hoards. After the defeat of the Tetrici by Aurelian in ad 274
additional coins had to be provided to the area. The aurelianianus produced
after Aurelian’s coin reform of ad 274 could not be supplied, because these
large, heavy, well produced argentiferous (5%) coins would, upon introduction
in this very debased coin pool, immediately have been hoarded or melted down.
After ad 274 the antoniniani for Gallienus and Claudius, minted between A.D.
260 and 270, entered western circulation on a larger scale, not to reach their
zenith before the end of the seventies and in the eighties of the third century. 36
By that time, long after Gallienus’ and Claudius’ deaths the messages
communicated by their coins were ‘yesterday’s papers’.
In Britain, the same phenomenon can be seen in the hoards closing with a coin
for the usurpers Carausius (A.D. 286-293) and Allectus (A.D. 293-296). In
many hoards closing with a coin for this usurpers, the coins for the legitimate
emperors (Diocletian and Maximian) are represented in very small numbers. 37
Other areas were confronted with a disruption of coin supply. The Severan
period is characterized by a diminished supply of bronze coins to the provinces
north of the Alps, while these coins are fairly common in the Mediterranean.38
In Northern Africa, we find a diminished coin supply after 270-271, when the
mint in Rome was temporarily closed after the revolt of the Mint workers, the
bellum monetariorum.39 A disruption of coin supply to present day Algeria (the
Roman province of Mauretania Caesariensis) has been noted, caused by turmoil
following the inroads of African tribes around A.D. 250.40
In conclusion I can say, that the temporary disruption of coin supply to certain
provinces or areas, also hampered the communication the coins might have
conveyed.

Demographics
Hopkins estimated, that 80-90% of the Roman population lived from subsistence
farming on a plot of circa 6 acres.41 Later Scheidel proposed that circa 30% of
these smallholders could obtain a production somewhat above subsistence
level.42 Although a substantial number of coins have been found in the
36
Chameroy 2011, p. 679-680; Kropff 2007, p. 79; van Heesch 1998, p. 139; Schulzki 1989, p. 51-52
37
Robertson 2000, hoard 856, 870 and 949
38
Kemmers 2009: 142
39
Callu 1974: 526
40
Hoyer 2018
41
Hopkins 1978
42
Scheidel 2006
 10

countryside43, most individual subsistence farmers seldom used coins. An

eventual production surplus was exchanged on a farmers market for products the
farmers could not make themselves, for instance a plough shear.
Of course, farmers and other illiterate members of Roman society did not belong
to the target groups of the messages conveyed by the coins. The demographic
structure of the Roman population is closely related to literacy. Goldsmith’s
estimate of the size of demographic groups is generally thought to be plausible. 44

An estimated population during the first century A.D. is 55 million persons, to

be subdivided as follows.
Occupation % of population
Senatorial class 0,004
Knights (equites) 0,285
Municipal decuriones 2,562
Other rich persons 1,423
Praetorians and centurions 0,082
Ordinary soldiers 1,8
Labourers on average wage 7,6
Tradesmen 0,9
Farmers and farmhands, free or slave 85,4
The last three groups constitute 93,9% of the population and are supposed to
have been illiterate. The remaining 6,1% of the population would have been
literate and formed the actual target group of imperial communication or
‘propaganda’ on coins.
The ubiquitous graffiti and dipinti found in Pompeii suggest a higher level of
literacy, but election dipinti were painted by professionals and simple graffiti
(‘Marcus was here’) could have been scratched by an ‘intermediary’ group of
persons who were literate on a very low level: only names and frequently used
words were recognized and used.45 And the wealthy provincial town of Pompeii
is of course not indicative for the Roman Empire as a whole. Estimates of the
empire-wide literacy vary from 5-10%46 to (far) less than 20%.47 So much for the
literacy. But could the illiterate ‘read’ the reverse types, and recognize the
personified virtues? We can of course never be sure, but I do not believe that

43
Aarts 2000
44
Goldsmith 1984
45
Milnor 2014, 1-52
46
Harris 1989
47
Bowman 1991, 122
 11

illiterate persons had sufficient iconographic knowledge to be able to do this. 48

Jones quotes from John of Ephesus that even in the 6th century the familiar
personification of the city of Constantinople on coins was taken for an
Aphrodite figure by the general public.49 So late in time, in a Christian town! To
quote Casey: “Coin messages were like telephone messages on a very poor
line”.50 An often disconnected line, I would like to add.

Conclusion
Roman imperial coins were produced to provide funds for the state’s payments,
not in the least to the army. Roman coin types also conveyed messages: the
portrait of the emperor on the obverse while on the reverses deities, imperial
virtues, the benefits the ruler provided to the empire and his role as commander
in chief were highlighted. The obvious question is: were Roman coins only a
means of payment or did the coins also function as a means of communication?
This question has been discussed for many decades, with opinion varying from
“Roman imperial coins were the newspaper of the day” to “Roman coins had no
more communication value than the present day postage stamps”, both extremes
presented without much supporting research.
During the past quarter of a century, comprehensive and thorough research has
provided a solid basis for the current communis opinio: coins were a means of
payment and a communication tool. Research has demonstrated that ideology as
presented by coins changed over time, subject to the preferences of the emperor
and his secretary a rationibus and also to the military and economic condition of
the empire. ‘Soft’ virtues like pietas displayed during the first and second
century gave way to ‘hard’ virtues like virtus during the troubled third century
and likewise military and divine associations changed. The fact that coin types
were chosen with care and that the authorities could even decide to send coins
with messages appropriate for the area of destination can no longer be denied.
In this review I have argued that the intention to communicate messages through
coins is not enough to bring about effective communication. Research up to now
has been focused on the first half of Lasswell’s influential model of
communication: “Who says what in which channel” but the second half (“to
whom with what effect”) has received less attention.
Any form of communication by means of coins could only be absorbed when
the coins were received, recognized and ‘read’.
48
Contra Manders 2012: 30
49
Jones 1956: 15
50
Casey 1994: 12
 12

New coins for the legitimate emperors were received in limited quantities in an
area where distribution of new coins was interrupted by a successful usurpation
or troubles, as I have demonstrated. The western half of the empire hardly
received coins minted for the legitimate ruling emperors for many decades.
Not enough new coins to communicate messages would be received by the
soldiers, as a result of the many deductions for food, equipment and for the
discharge payment, deducted on the stipendia.
New coins with new messages had to be recognized by the recipient of a
payment, which consisted during the first two centuries for circa 90% of old
coins, which remained in circulation for many decades during the first and the
second century. After circa A.D. 250 this problem seems to be attenuated
because the silver content of silver coins was dramatically decreased and old
‘good’ coins were driven out of circulation by new ‘bad’ coins. However, as
coin production had by that time risen to a sevenfold, prices went up and any
transaction required many coins and individual messages on coins crowded each
other out and attention given to individual coins would have been reduced.
‘Reading’ a coin required literacy, which was low during the Roman empire.
The higher classes and the soldiers could read the coin legends but we cannot
assume a detailed iconographic knowledge in an empire where civilians mistook
the personification of their home town (Constantinople) for a figure of
Aphrodite.
Without wishing to detract from the impressive results of recent research in this
field, I doubt whether Roman imperial coins were an effective means of
communication.
In my opinion, the time has come to shift our attention from the sender of the
coins and the intended message to the ‘to whom’ and ‘with what effect’ in the
communication process involving coins.
Literature
Aarts, J.G. (2000) Coins or money. Exploring the monetization and functions of
Roman coinage in the Belgic Gaul and Lower Germany 50 BC - AD 450
(Amsterdam)
Bastien, P. & C. Metzger (1977) le Trésor de Beaurains (dit d’Arras) Weteren
Bland, R. & Andrew Burnett (eds.) The Normanby Hoard and other Roman coin
hoards (London 1988)
 13

Bowman, A.K. (1991) Literacy in the Roman empire: mass and mode, in: J.H.
Humphrey (ed.), Literacy in the Roman world. JRA, Suppl. 4 (Ann Arbor) 119-
131

Callu J.-P. (1969) La politique monétaire des Empereurs Romains de 238 á 311
(Paris)
Callu J.-P. (1974) Remarques sur le trésor de Thamusida III : les Divo Claudio
en Afrique du Nord Mélanges de l'école française de Rome 86-1, 523-547
Campbell, J.B. (1994) The Roman army 31 BC-AD 337: A sourcebook (London)
Casey P.J. Carausius and Allectus: the British usurpers, with translations of the
texts by R.S.O. Tomlin, London 1994.
Chameroy, J. (2011) Schatzfundhorizonte des späten 3. Jahrhunderts (276-294)
in den Nordwestprovinzen, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen
Zentralmuseums 58 (Mainz) 661-706.
Cheung, A (1998-1999) The political significance of Roman Imperial coin types
Schweizer Münzblätter Band 48-49 Heft 191, 53-61
Claes L. (2015) Coins with power? Imperial and local messages on the coinage
of the usurpers of the second half of the third century (AD 253 - 285) Jaarboek
voor Munt- en Penningkunde 102: 15-60.
Claes, L. (2015) Coins with power? Imperial and local messages on the coinage
of the usurpers of the second half of the third century (A.D. 253-285) JMP 102,
16-60.
Claes, L., 2014, A Note on the Coin Type Selection by the a rationibus,
Latomus 73, 163-173.
Crawford, M.H. (1983) Roman imperial coin types and the formation of public
opinion, in: C. N. L. Brooke, B. H. I. Stewart, J. G. Pollard and T. R. Volk (eds)
Studies in Numismatic Method Presented to Philip Grierson (Cambridge) 47-64
Duncan-Jones, R.P. (1994) Money and Government in the Roman Empire
(Cambridge)
Duncan-Jones, R.P. (2005) Implications of Roman Coinage: debates and
differences, Klio 87, 459-487.
Elkins, N.T. (2017) The Image of Political Power in the Reign of Nerva, AD 96-
98 (Oxford-New York)
 14

Goldsmith, R.W. (1984) An Estimate of the size and structure of the national
product of the early Roman Empire Review of Income and Wealth, International
Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 30(3) 263-288

Harris, W.V. (1989) Ancient Literacy. Cambridge

Hobley, A.S. (1998) An Examination of Roman Bronze Coin Distribution in the

Western Empire A.D. 81-192 BAR International Series 688 (Oxford)

Hebblewhite, M. (2017) The Emperor and the Army in the Later Roman Empire
A.D. 235-395 (London/New York)
Hedlund, R. (2008) “…achieved nothing worthy of memory” Coinage and
authority in the Roman empire c. AD 260–295 (Uppsala)

Hopkins, K. (1978) Conquerors and slaves (Cambridge)

Hoyer, D. (2018) An Overview of the Numismatic Evidence from Imperial
Roman Africa ISAW Papers 13 Institute for the Study of the Ancient
World (2018) https://dlib.nyu.edu/awdl/isaw/isaw-papers/13/ retrieved……
Jones, A.H.M. (1956) Numismatics and history, in: R.A.G. Carson and C.H.V.
Sutherland (eds.) Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly,
(Oxford) 13–33
Kemmers, F. (2006) Coins for a Legion. An Analysis of the coin finds from
Augustan legionary fortress and Flavian canabae legionis at Nijmegen Studien
zu Fundmünzen der Antike 21 (Mainz)
Kemmers, F. (2009) Sender or receiver? Contexts of coin supply and coin use,
in: H.-M. von Kaenel & F. Kemmers (eds.) Coins in Context I. New
perspectives for the interpretation of coin finds SFMA, band 23 (Mainz), 137-
156
Kemmers, F. (2014) Buying loyalty: targeted iconography and the distribution
of cash to the legions, in: M. Reddé (ed.) De l’or pour les braves ! Soldes,
armées et circulation monétaire dans le monde romain Scripta Antiqua 69, 229-
241 (Bordeaux-Paris)
Kemmers, F. (2019) The Functions and Use of Roman Coinage. An Overview
of 21st Century Scholarship Ancient History Issue 2.3 (Leiden/Boston) 1-82
 15

Kropff, A., 1987, A hoard of Third-century Roman coins from Vught. Jaarboek
voor Munt-en Penningkunde 74, 5-20.
Kropff, A., 2018, The Great Roman Currency Carrousel: secondary coin
movements at the end of the Third Century A.D.
https://www.academia.edu/37048814/The_Great_Roman_Currency_Carrousel_s
econdary_coin_movements_at_the_end_of_the_Third_Century_A.D (retrieved
June 30 2023).
Lasswell, H.D. (1948). The Structure and Function of Communication in
Society, in: Bryson, L. (ed.).The Communication of Ideas. New York: Harper,
37-51
Manders, E. (2012) Coining Images of Power. Patterns in the Representation of
Roman Emperors on Imperial Coinage, A.D. 193-284. Impact of Empire,
volume 15 (Leiden).
Mattingly, H. & Sydenham, E.A. (1923) The Roman Imperial Coinage Vol. I,
Augustus to Vitellius (London).
Milnor, K. (2014) Graffiti and the literary landscape in Roman Pompeii
(Oxford)
Noreña, C.F. (2011) Coins and Communication, in: M. Peachin (ed.), The
Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World (Oxford) 248-68.
Noreña, C.F., 2011, Imperial Ideals in the Roman West. Representation,
Circulation, Power. Cambridge.
Noreña. C. F. (2001) The Communication of the Emperor's Virtues The Journal
of Roman Studies, Vol. 91, 146-168
Robertson, A. S., 2000, An Inventory of Romano-British Coin Hoards, edited by
R. Hobbs and T.V. Buttrey, London.

Scheidel, W. (2006) Stratification, deprivation and quality of life, in: M. Atkins

& R. Osborne (ed.) Poverty in the Roman World (Cambridge) 40–59.
Speidel, M.A. (2009) Heer und Herrschaft im Römischen Reich der Hohen
Kaiserzeit (Stuttgart)
Schulzki, H.J. (1989) Die Fundmünzen der römischen Strassenstation
Flerzheim, Köln.
 16

van Heesch, J. (1998) De muntcirculatie tijdens de Romeinse tijd in het

noordwesten van Gallia Belgica (Brussel)
van Heesch, J. (2007) Some Aspects of Wage Payment and Coinage in Ancient
Rome, First to Third Centuries CE, in: J. Lucassen (ed.) Wages and Currency:
Global and Historical Comparisons, 77-96 (Bern-Berlin)
van Heesch, J. (2011) Quantifying Roman Imperial coinage, in: F. de Callataÿ
(ed.) Quantifying monetary supplies in Greco-Roman Times Pragmateiai 19,
311-328 (Bari)
Wallace-Hadrill,A. (1981)The Emperor and His Virtues Historia: Zeitschrift für
Alte Geschichte, Vol. 30, No. 3 (3rd Qtr., 1981) 298-323
Wolters, R. (2000-2001) Bronze, Silver or Gold? Coin finds and the pay of the
Roman army Zephyrus 53-54, 579-588
Ziegler. R., 1983, Der Schatzfund von Brauweiler, Köln and Bonn.