Following the successful reign of Septimius Severus, which concluded in A. D. 211, the
remainder of the third century can be generalized as politically and economically
unstable. Between the conclusion of the reign of Severus' son Caracalla in 217 and the
accession of the Tetrarchy of Diocletian, Maximian, Galerius, and Constantius Chlorus in
the last few years of the century, there were fifty revolts or usurpations of imperial
power. Twenty-five of the usurpers minted coins that are extant. There are several
explanations to the significant increase in coinage issued by leaders of rebellions.1
The decentralization of the Roman minting system contributed to the large variety of
extant coins from the many coups of the era. Unlike the first or second centuries, in
which coins were struck at one or two imperial mints, there may have been up to a dozen
mints in operation at any particular time in the third century, granting usurpers access
to minting facilities that would have otherwise been unavailable in the provinces.2 New mints tended to arise in regions of current
military campaigns since transporting vast numbers of coins across the empire from the
central mint in Rome was both time-consuming and insecure. Bourne suggests that the
provincial mints may have served as an incentive to contemplate revolt, as success of
the revolt was dependent on the loyalty of the army, i. e., dependent on the guarantee
of monetary reward. Thus, the capture of a mint was essential in reimbursing the
military for its support of the insurrection.3 More
significant than the decentralization of the Roman minting system was the accompanying
debasement of silver coinage.
The deterioration of imperial coinage was typical of the third century, beginning during
the reign of Caracalla and lasting through the monetary reforms imposed by Diocletian in
294-295. Throughout the century, gold pieces fluctuated in weight and silver became
significantly debased (most often with copper), which ostensibly eliminated the capital
value of bronze coinage. Ultimately, the bronze currency was done away with. Caracalla
introduced the successor to the silver denarius—the antoninianus—which was tariffed as a
double denarius. Obverse portraits featured emperors wearing radiate crowns rather than
laurel wreaths, which was to imply a greater value and importance of the coin. Despite
this, Caracalla's antoniniani were billon consisting of only 50 percent silver at only
one and a half times the weight of a denarius. As a result, denarii were hoarded, thus
removing them from circulation.4 This in turn
forced increased production and further debasement of coins, a phase of inflation that
would be compounded with instability along the Roman frontiers that would lead to an
almost constant state of military campaigning over the course of the third century. This
crisis would come to a head in 260 with the death of the emperor Valerian at the hands
of the Persians, when the most serious phase of the unraveling of Roman rule throughout
the empire would ensue.
The death of Valerian sent a shock through the Roman world. Although many emperors had
been murdered during their reign, none had been killed at the hand of an enemy. Rome's
barbarian adversaries sensed an opportunity to take advantage of Roman frontiers that
were left in a disarrayed, weakened state and pushed into numerous territories. The
Alamanni broke through the Upper German and Raetian limes
while the Franks pushed into Lower Germany and Belgica. Some Franks even made it as far
as the province of Africa. Revolts occurred in Gaul, Spain, and in the Balkan
The Alamanni proceeded to push into Italy in the absence of Valerian's son and
now-emperor Gallienus, who had been putting down a revolt on the Danube. The invasion of
the Alamanni prompted Gallienus to return at once, where he defeated them at the Battle
of Milan in mid-summer 260. This victory was followed by further revolt on the Danube
and in Egypt. Accordingly, when Marcus Cassianius Latinius Postumus revolted on the
Rhine, Gallienus was unable to act.6
Postumus, likely an equestrian who had advanced from a lower rank,7 was declared emperor by his army in the autumn of
260 following a series of actions designed to wedge his army's loyalty from Gallienus
and the imperial administration in Gaul.8 Postumus
intercepted a barbarian war party laden with loot from its incursions into Roman
territory and distributed the wealth among his troops. The eighteen year old Saloninus,
son and co-emperor of Gallienus, and his prefect and protector, Silvanus, demanded the
return of the loot. Postumus agreed to the demand, knowing that his troops would object.
Drinkwater points out that although Postumus revolted following the death of Valerian,
he did not do so because of the humiliation of the Roman Empire by the Persians, but
because of his disagreement with Silvanus over the handling of German war parties.
Drinkwater suggests that Silvanus wanted the raiders stopped upon entry into Roman
territory, but Postumus thought it best to intercept the raiders as they were returning
to the frontier with their booty, knowing that his troops fought more vigorously when
the promise of payment could be made. After Postumus was bestowed with the title of
Augustus by his army, he laid siege to Saloninus and Silvanus in Cologne, and the city
was quickly taken. Postumus became the sole ruler in a breakaway Gallic Empire which
included Gaul, the German provinces, Britain, and the Iberian peninsula.9
Postumus ruled his empire until late 268 or early 269.10 Although Gallienus twice attempted to regain the
lost provinces, he was never successful in doing so. Postumus' several successors ruled
until 275 when Aurelian finally brought the Gallic regime to a close.11 Postumus and his successors never attempted to
expand the boundaries of their empire to the south or east. Thus after Gallienus' first
attempts at regaining the territory, he never again attempted to reunite the Gallic with
the Central Empire; he faced greater and more pressing threats on the Danube and in the
In his eight years as Augustus of the Gallic Empire, Postumus issued a very wide variety
of coin-types with a style that continued to evolve over the course of his principate.
In the early years of his reign, he issued coins to commemorate his success in the
rebellion against Gallienus, adopting the title “Restorer of the Gauls.” He and his
successors adopted the Roman administrative system, complete with Roman offices and
titles. Drinkwater points out that it was a concern of his regime to be seen as more
than a military despotism. Accordingly, many coins espouse Roman civil virtues.12 While Postumus did attempt to make his empire
mimic the structure of the Central Empire, there are a number of differences that one
can see between the two, particularly with respect to coinage.
Back to top
A general trend of the debasement of silver emerged in the first century B.C., but its
impact would not be fully felt for another three centuries. The farther a coin was
minted from Rome, the less likely the people were to know or check the fineness of their
coins. Accordingly, debasement always began in the provinces. Even in the early first
century B.C., provincial coinage might only be 80-90% fine. This figure of 80% would
remain nearly constant through the first, second, and early third centuries A.D., up
until the introduction of the antoninianus.13
In the decades following the introduction of the antoninianus by Caracalla, the currency
was plunged into a constant state of degradation due to its overproduction in times of
military conquest. Moreover, the state could no longer hide the debasement, and people
began to realize the depreciated value of their coins. Both the weight and silver
content degraded over time, furthering inflation to an even greater degree.
As mentioned previously, Caracalla's antoniniani were 50% silver (50% “fine”) and weighed
approximately 5 grams. By the start of the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus in 253,
the coin fell to 35% at 3 grams. By 260, Gallienus' mint at Trier was producing
antoniniani at 20% fine and 3 grams. Upon Postumus' assumption of control over the mint,
the fineness fell to 15%, but the weight of the coin rose to 3.5 grams. From this point
until 268, antoniniani minted in the Gallic Empire tended to have a higher silver
content than their counterparts in the Central Empire as documented below.14
Throughout the reign of Postumus, except for his final year, the Gallic antoninianus
maintained the same weight and fineness of his initial series.15 During this time, Gallienus' antoninianus
consistently declined until his death in 268 to 3% silver at 2.75 grams. The decline
continued further under Gallienus' successor, Claudius II, to less than 1% fine at 2
grams. This severe phase of debasement can be explained by a constant struggle by the
Roman Empire to secure practically its entire eastern and northern border. The Gallic
Empire—after the first few years of warring with the Germans and defending itself from
the armies of Gallienus—enjoyed relative stability.16
This stable condition would change with the onset of the year 268, when Postumus was
faced with the prospect of another campaign against the Germans and growing tension with
his army. Production of antoniniani was increased irrespective to the supply of silver,
and the fineness of the currency dropped to 8% at about 3 grams apiece.17 Gallic antoniniani fared poorly from this point
onward; they had fallen to less than a half of one percent fine under Tetricus II, the
final emperor of the regime, in 274. Tetricus II began the process of a currency
reformation in the final months of his reign, which would marginally increase the value
of the coin, but the sun had already set on the Gallic Empire.18
The antoninianus fared better under Postumus than it did Gallienus, but ultimately the
currency had become equally debased and worthless—even to the point that the state
itself became reluctant to accept it in taxes.19
Similar to the antoniniani, the aurei were stronger in the early years of the Gallic
than Central Empire, and, similarly still, the value of the aurei fell precipitously
after 268.20 It is apparent that Postumus retained
a higher standard of currency throughout most of his rule than Gallienus was able to,
and he did so using the same principal mint. The location of this mint, though, has been
a point of debate among numismatists for most of the 20th century.
From studying the style of Postumus' coins, it is apparent that there were no fewer than
two mints in operation in the Gallic Empire. It is clear that one of the mints resided
in Cologne (Coloniae Agrippinae), as exhibited by coins from the later years of
Postumus' reign issued with the mint marks of C | A, C.C.A.A., and COL CL AGRIP. Earlier
scholars Voetter and Webb presumed that this shift occurred sometime after the fifth
consulship of Postumus, or about A. D. 264.21
Mattingly believed that the move occurred, at the latest, in 266.22 Later numismatists found there to be a four year
gap between Postumus' third and fourth consulships (from 263 to 266), and the year in
which the fifth consulship fell—and the opening of the Cologne mint—was thereby adjusted
to 268. The earlier numismatists suggested that this shift had originated in Lyon
(Lugdunum), a mint that they had presumed to have been reopened by Gallienus after more
than a century of dormancy.23 The Lyon mint is
known to have been in operation under Aurelian, since coins struck there in his name
bore the mint mark of “L,” but it is impossible to know for certain that this mint was
resurrected by Gallienus. There is simply no evidence to suggest its operation between
the first century A. D. and the 270's.24 Georg
Elmer suggested in 1941 that, based on epigraphic evidence, Trier (Treviri) had been the
original Gallic mint. An inscription believed to be contemporary to the Gallic regime
places a mint here based on a tile of Procurator Monetae Treviricae assigned to an
individual with an unknown name, but it is impossible to know for certain whether the
minting operations do indeed belong to the reign of Postumus.25 Despite this, the argument for the Trier mint is
strengthened by a logistical argument. Trier was a favored center of Gallienus for
campaign; it was a major city located close to the Franks at the north and Alamanni to
the south, but far enough from the frontier to offer greater protection for the royal
family than Cologne could.26 Unfortunately, none of
the coins minted in Trier bear mint marks which inarguably confirm the theory, but Besly
and Bland, Drinkwater, and Bourne all seem comfortable enough with historical and
epigraphic evidence to unambiguously assign Trier as the primary minting city of the
The publication of the Cunetio Hoard by Besly and Bland allowed for a significant
adjustment of the Trier-Cologne timeline after the exhaustive study of a wide range of
Gallic coins. It was found that there had not been a move of the primary mint from Trier
to Cologne, but, rather, that Cologne had been the site of a secondary mint which
produced coins contemporary to those minted in Trier. The COL CL AGRIP COS IIII and
C.C.A.A. COS IIII legends identify these Cologne-minted coins with the fourth consular
year of Postumus—268. Meanwhile, the COS IIII coin-type with a style that is identical
to its predecessors minted at Trier—but stylistically dissimilar to those minted at
Cologne—denotes a continuation of minting activities at Postumus' primary mint.28 Ergo, analysis of the Cunetio Hoard allowed
numismatists to identify Trier as the primary mint, active from 260 to 273 and Cologne
as the secondary mint, active from 268-273, but Trier produced the vast majority of
Postumus' coins. Further study of the Cunetio Hoard would lead Besly and Bland to
identify a third Gallic mint.
It seems that in the fourth tribunician year (262-3) of his reign, Postumus had departed
his capital city to fight the Germans. The minting of aurei at Trier may have ceased in
the emperor's absence, but this presumption is debatable.29 The introduction of a large series of Moneta Augusti coin-types suggests that a field mint was
established for the efficient distribution of military wages while on campaign. It is
apparent that Postumus prevailed over the Germans in late 263; aurei which commemorated
the victory and bestowed upon him the title of Germanicus Maximus were issued. Despite
the apparent return of Postumus to his capital city, the continuation of the Moneta Augusti coin-type indicates that the field mint
continued in operation several years further.30
Curiously, a fourth mint issuing coinage in the name of Postumus arose in 268, although
the Gallic Empire never expanded to include this territory. The coins, sometimes minted
with the mark “M” for Mediolanum (modern Milan), were stylistically congruent with the
latest series of Gallienus coins minted there. An explanation was offered by A. Alföldi
in 1927 and was endorsed by all of the scholars who would follow him.31
Under Gallienus, Milan had been fortified as a large cavalry base designed to protect
Italy from invasion from the north, but the base was close enough to the Danubian
frontier that the cavalry force could be readily dispatched there when necessary. In
268, the cavalry commander, Aureolus, revolted against Gallienus. Gallienus quickly laid
siege to the city to quell the insurrection, but was assassinated. Since Aureolus struck
few coins proclaiming himself Augustus, it seems likely—according to Alföldi's
theory—that he instead threw in his lot for Postumus. Legends espousing the ideals and
virtues of cavalrymen—Pax Equitum, Concordia Equitum, and Virtus Equitum—regularly
appear on these coins. Postumus was either unable or unwilling to exploit this gesture,
and Aureolus was ultimately defeated by Claudius II, successor to Gallienus. Drinkwater
notes that a single extant coin proclaiming Aureolus as Augustus is suggestive of his
realization of his isolation in the waning days of the rebellion in Milan.32
In summation of the arguments regarding the placement of the numerous Gallic mints, Trier
can be accepted as the primary mint, operating through the reigns of Postumus and his
successors. The Cologne mint was founded in 268 and continued at least through 273,
minting concurrently with the one at Trier. In 263, Postumus established a field mint
during his campaign against the Germans which minted a small selection of coin-types
until 265, and in 268, Aureolus minted coins in the name of Postumus at Milan. Figure 1
(to be added to website) may help one visualize the organization of Gallic mints. While
Besly, Bland, Drinkwater, and Bourne all subscribe to this arrangement, Drinkwater
points out that “the tentative and fragile character of the reconstruction cannot be
over-emphasized.”33 Like the Gallic mints, the
style of Postumus' coins has also been debated among numismatists.
Description of portraiture in the study of Roman numismatics tends to be laced with
subjectivity. This is noticeable in several descriptions of the style of Postumus'
coins. An early portrait of Postumus shows a long head, with smooth hair and beard and a
profile that lacks a sharp angle between the nose and brow that is found on his later
coins. The Roman Imperial Coinage (RIC) suggests “the face is that of a gentleman.” By about the fourth year
of his reign, the portrait is replaced by that of a “burly man” of “plebeian
appearance,” with rough hair and beard, full cheeks, and a projecting nose forming a
sharp facial angle, constituting what is “no doubt his true portrait.”34 Drinkwater, having studied Postumus in greater
depth than the authors of the RIC, interprets this later
style in a different light.
Drinkwater finds that the style of the Gallic coins is “unquestionably superb,” and some
pieces are “among the best that the ancient world ever produced.” Gallienus, a
descendant of four generations of senatorial families, each of whom carried on the
Antonine cultural and civil traditions from the previous century,35 had a firm interest in Greek culture. During his
joint reign with Valerian, he established a mint on the Danube that employed Greek
die-cutters. These artisans were brought to the western mint of Trier, but stayed after
the usurpation of Postumus. The upper and middle classes of Romanized Gaul had by this
point in history accepted Roman art. According to Strong, the Gallic coins were notably
“more Roman than the Roman.” Furthermore, Drinkwater asserts that the mints of Milan and
Rome were producing an artistically inferior product during the same period.36
The die-cutters would have been experts in imperial conventions dating back to Augustus,
but particularly of the Antonine and Severan eras, both of which were heavily influenced
by Greek artistic standards. Some of the sestertii of Postumus contain the letters SC,
for Senatus Consulto, which earlier historians interpreted
as evidence for a Gallic senate, but rather the moneyers included these letters simply
because they were accustomed to Roman issues. Drinkwater suggests that the curling locks
and beard on the later coins of Postumus and his successors except for Marius (depicted
with the closely-cropped hair common to soldier-emperors) are representative of the
philosopher-emperors of the preceding century.37
Mathew suggests that a new world emerged out of an attempt to recreate an old one. This
can be seen in the bulk of currency issued at both the Gallic and Central mints between
260 and 268. Postumus' coins abound with depictions of a wide variety of conceptual
personifications and deities.Securitas, Perpetuitas, Vbique Pax, Concordia, and Pacator are a
handful of inscriptions that convey a more pleasant existence in what was a tumultuous
and volatile world. Of the divinities represented on his coins, none is featured more
prominently than Hercules. Drinkwater concludes that this must be of the emperor's own
accord; since the late second century, Hercules had attracted a large number of devotees
among the army.38 The depiction of deities by
Postumus was “respectable.” Postumus rarely allowed himself to be represented as a
divinity, which can be seen as an indication of the emperor's attempt at appealing to
the widest audience possible in a heated political atmosphere.39 There is, however, a bust of Hercules in the
jugate position which looks remarkably like the emperor.40 Nonetheless, Postumus' treatment of divine images
is in stark contrast to that of Gallienus, who constantly presented himself as numerous
other deities during his reign.41
In their publication of the Cunetio Hoard, Besly and Bland refrained from using
subjective adjectives that relate portrait style with social status or personality
In The Cunetio Treasure, the coins of Postumus minted in
Trier are broken down into seven series from 260-269. Of these, several are divided
further into multiple phases, but several series are not. The differentiation of series
is strongly tied to an evolution of style, but changes in the fineness of billon are
also taken into account. This section of the paper provides a brief overview of these
series as well as the coins in the University of Virginia Art Museum that can be
attributed to them. The museum has in its possession more than three hundred coins from
the Oliver's Orchard Hoards, three hoard of more than six thousand third century coins
found near Colchester, England at the ancient site of Camulodunum. Of the museum's
coins, forty-one belong to Postumus, and only one of those is yet unidentifiable. The
other forty can be narrowed down to between one and several identification numbers from
Besly and Bland's The Cunetio Treasure.42
Besly and Bland assign the first series of Gallic coinage to the years 260-261 and divide
it into three phases. The first phase features a crude portrait and occasionally
contains an obverse legend with the misspellings “Postumius” or “Postimus”. It is
suggested that minting in the name of Postumus went forth with oral instruction directly
following the success of his revolt against Gallienus; the engravers must have spelled
his name as they heard it pronounced. The second and third phases see an obverse legend
that is shorter than that of the first, IMP C POSTVMVS P.F.AVG, abbreviated between the
P(IVS), F(ELIX), and the AVG(VSTVS). This legend would be the most common found on
antoniniani, though the punctuation marks would eventually be phased out.43
The style of the second phase is described as “proto-Postumus.” The portraits are tall
and thin with a dome skull. The University of Virginia Art Museum has three such coins
from this phase (see table below for further information). While the punctuation marks
have worn off, the portrait style, reverse legends, and iconography are unmistakable.
Two reverses feature the Victoria Augusti type, and one
features the Herculean Virtus Augusti type. The message is
triumphal, coincidental with Postumus' victory in the Gallic revolt. The third and final
phase of the first series is characterized by smaller, more naturalistic heads with
thick necks The phase was marked by a cruder period of portraiture, but a finer style
would emerge with the next series.44 There are no
examples of this phase in the museum.
The second series falls in the year 262. Heads were rounder with a short neck and pointed
nose. The aforementioned punctuation between P, F, and AVG disappears, and the style
becomes neater.45 A Iovi
Propagnatori, Hercules Pacifero, and two coins
ascribed to the emperor's third consular year are in the museum's collection.
The third series (263-265) is divided into two phases. The first features a portrait
style that is similar to the preceding series, but with the second phase came the
portrait that would serve as the quintessential portrait of Postumus. The hair is curly
at the temples and forehead. The portrait would briefly become quite crude, but one of
fine quality would with very curly hair would emerge and serve as the typical portrait
of the emperor through the year 267.46 The emperor
went on campaign against the Germans early during this series, and thus the Moneta Augusti coin-type falls within it. Fifteen such coins
are in the museum's collection. Following his subsequent victory over the Germans, one
begins to see fewer overtly militaristic coin-types—such as Felicitas Augusti and Providentia Augusti.47
Series four spans 266-267. The hair is curly at the temples and forehead. The museum
contains five coins from this era (although only two unique types). There is one coin
with a legend dedicated to Salus, the Roman goddess of health. A common issue in this
period, it was most likely minted to commemorate Postumus' recovery from an illness that
had incapacitated him nearly to the point of the collapse of his administration.48 The other coin-type (for which there are four
copies) is that of the Saeculi Felicitas.
The portraiture of the remaining three series remains constant. The fifth and sixth
series were issued during the fourth consular year of Postumus, or 268. The distinction
between these two series is not one of an evolution of style, but rather a change in the
fineness of his antoniniani. Midway through the year, his regime faced a financial
crisis which forced an increased production of coinage, forcing debasement of the
currency from 15% fine to 8%. In its remaining six years, the Gallic Empire was never
able to recover from its economic woes. Debasement continued through 269, the year of
the final series of coins minted in the name of Postumus at Trier. All of the coins of
this series except PACATOR ORBIS are dated, with legends correlating with the start of
his fifth consulship.49
Of the thirty identifiable coins of Postumus in the selection from the Oliver's Orchard
Hoards in the University of Virginia Art Museum, one is from Cologne, and three were
minted by Aureolus during his coup at Milan. The coin from Cologne is a IOVI VICTORI
reverse type from the year 268 or 269, and the Milanese coins are Pax Equitum, Virtus Equitum, and Concordia Equitum types, each minted in 268. The table below
is a breakdown of the thirty coins and their associated bibliographic reference numbers.
The accession number of the unidentifiable coin is 1991.17.244, but the style of the coin
may lead one to conclude that it was minted in the latter years of Postumus' reign.
While the museum's collection of coins ascribed to Postumus is relatively small, it is
broad enough to encompass all seven series minted in Trier from 260-269, including ten
coins from the field mint, three from Milan, and one from Cologne. An in-depth study of
the nuances of the many die-cutters cannot be conducted, but one can generally see the
evolution of imperial portraiture and the relation of reverse images and legends to
corresponding historical events during his tenure as Augustus. Accordingly, the
University of Virginia Art Museum's coins of Postumus may serve as a splendid
introduction to his coinage.
Bourne (2001), p. 3.
Bourne (2001), p. 10.
Drinkwater (1987), p. 132, 155; Bourne (2001), p. 25; Kropff and Van der Vin (2003),
Drinkwater (1987), p. 23; Bourne (2001), p. 11.
Drinkwater (1987), p. 24.
Bourne suggests that Postumus must have been a Romanized German or Gaul from a lower
rank who had advanced to the equestrian rank, transforming a Roman nomen into a
cognomen in order to derive Cassianius from Cassius—a standard practice in the
Romanization process; p. 16.
The date of Valerian's death and Postumus' usurpation were a matter of debate among
early 20th century numismatists. The year was originally thought to be 259, but 260
was later confirmed with corroborating evidence from the Alexandrian mint.
Drinkwater (1974), pp. 294-5.
Drinkwater (1987), pp. 25-27.
Bourne assigns Postumus' fifth (and final) consulship to the year 268 (pg. 22), while
Drinkwater, Besly, and Bland assign it to 269, when Postumus returned to his capital
at Trier January 1 to celebrate his decennalia. Drinkwater (1987), p. 34; Besly and
Bland (1983), p. 53.
Bourne (2001), p. 13.
Drinkwater (1987), pp. 27-28.
Pense (1992), p. 218.
Ibid., 219-220; Drinkwater (1987), p. 154-5.
Forgeries can be distinguished from official coins by their metallic composition.
Forgeries were about 2.4% fine, or about a sixth of the silver content of coins
minted at Trier or the field mint through 268. An analysis of the Mers-les- Bains
and Rocquencourt hoards indicates a higher level of tin and lead or zinc in
forgeries. The presense of lead suggests the recasting of older objects. Deraisme,
et. al. (2006), p. 471.
Drinkwater (1987), p. 155.
Drinkwater (1987), p. 155; Besly and Bland (1983), 58.
Williams (1985), p. 116-7.
Drinkwater (1987), pp. 156-7.
Drinkwater (1987), pp. 143-5.
Mattingly (1921), p. 260.
Bourne (2001), p. 25.
Bourne (2001), p. 27.
Besly and Bland (1983) , p. 56; Drinkwater (1987), p. 146; Bourne (2001), p. 31.
Besly and Bland (1983), p. 56; Bourne (2001), p. 29.
Drinkwater suggests that minting of aurei ceased (p. 170), but Bland points out that
aurei were minted in Antioch for Claudius II despite the lack of evidence he ever
visited Syria during his reign; Bland (1988), p. 259.
Drinkwater (1987), p. 170.
Ibid., p. 145.
Ibid., p. 145-6.
Ibid., p. 147.
RIC Vol. 5.2, p. 328.
Mathew (1943), p. 66.
Drinkwater (1987), pp. 157-8; Strong (1976), p. 165.
Drinkwater (1987), p. 160.
Ibid., p. 162.
Shotter (1979), p. 53.
Paul (1999), p. 134.
De Blois (1976), p. 158.
Most of these thirty coins can be pinpointed to an identification number, but a
handful of the coins have stylistic details that are too ambiguous to be precisely
identified, but still can be accurately narrowed down to two or three possibilities.
Despite this, the multiple possibilities fall within the same series of one another,
and thus the same dates.
Besly and Bland (1983), p. 40.
Ibid., p. 44.
Ibid., p. 45.
Ibid., p. 49.
Ibid., p. 237-8; Drinkwater (1987), p. 170.
Drinkwater (1987), p. 171; Besly and Bland (1983), p. 50.
Besly and Bland (1983), p. 52-3.
The Oliver's Orchard Hoard was discovered near Colchester, England (ancient Camulodunum) in 1983.
Three hundred and two coins were acquired in 1991 from a cross section of 1,025 coins belonging to the Worldwide Treasure Bureau.