Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Assessment

I read the contribution with great interest. The text addresses a topic of undoubted relevance, often neglected in general overviews of Roman coinage. The author shows good command of the specialist literature and provides a clear picture of the phenomenon, accompanied by concrete examples that significantly enrich the discussion.

The work fits appropriately within the framework of an encyclopedic entry, offering the non‑specialist reader an accessible yet scientifically grounded overview. The overall structure is logical and the bibliography appears up to date and relevant. However, some aspects deserve particular attention during the revision stage in order to further enhance the overall quality of the contribution.

Initial definition and conceptual framework

The definition proposed in lines 6–9 constitutes a clear starting point, but it should be reinforced. The statement that the main function was not profit but the response to monetary shortages represents one of the most established interpretative theses, but it would deserve an explicit discussion of the historiographical debate. In fact, there are alternative or more nuanced interpretations concerning the motivations of the issuers, and an encyclopedic entry should account, albeit briefly, for this plurality of perspectives. I suggest reformulating this passage by explicitly acknowledging that this is the prevailing interpretation, while not being the only one put forward in the scholarship.

The distinction from counterfeiting (lines 17–18 and later in section 2) is correct and necessary, but the criterion of intentionality risks appearing too clear‑cut. In reality, the dividing line between “necessity” imitation and fraudulent counterfeiting is not always so well defined in the archaeological record, and it would be useful for the author to acknowledge this grey area in interpretation, while maintaining the fundamental conceptual distinction.

 

Structure and organization of the content

The “Genesis and History” section offers a useful historiographical reconstruction but tends to present the history of studies in a predominantly descriptive way. It might be helpful to integrate this narrative with a more explicit reflection on how methodological developments (from cataloguing to archaeological contextualisation) have actually refined our understanding of the phenomenon.

The “Theory” section raises some very interesting interpretative issues, but at times it does so in an overly assertive way. The claim that state authorities would have “tacitly accepted” these issues (lines 137–140) is a persuasive interpretative hypothesis but is not demonstrated. It would be better to present it as such, perhaps suggesting that the archaeological evidence for massive circulation makes this tolerance plausible, while acknowledging that there is no direct documentary confirmation.

Methodology of identification

The “Detection and Classification” section presents valuable and well‑chosen numismatic examples, but the methodology for identifying imitations remains implicit. It would be useful to spell out more clearly what the actual diagnostic criteria are: stylistic “crudity” is an important but subjective indicator; weight and module variations provide more objective data but require statistical comparison with official samples; metallographic analyses offer reliable results but are not always available. A brief discussion of these methodological aspects would strengthen the didactic value of the entry.

The images are well chosen and documented, although a more analytical commentary guiding the reader in the visual identification of diagnostic elements would be desirable. For instance, in figures 1 and 2, which specific stylistic features reveal the imitative nature? Is the fragmentary legend sufficient as a criterion?

Open historiographical issues

The manuscript addresses several relevant interpretative questions but tends to present them as settled. The debate on the degree of monetisation of the Roman Empire (lines 125–128) is mentioned but not developed, whereas precisely the phenomenon of imitations could constitute a significant argument in favour of widespread monetisation even among lower socio‑economic strata. This connection would deserve greater emphasis.

Similarly, the issue of the issuers (lines 133–140) is crucial but perhaps treated in an overly assertive manner. The author leans towards private issuers “tolerated” by the State, but there are interpretations that see a more active role of local or municipal authorities in some emission waves, especially those of the first century. A more articulated discussion of these alternative interpretations would enrich the contribution.

Formal and editorial aspects

The narrative is generally clear and effective, although there are occasional conceptual repetitions across sections. For example, the notion of “necessity money” is introduced in the definition, reiterated in the historiographical section, and taken up again in the theoretical section and in the conclusions. Better integration between sections could avoid these redundancies.

The bibliography is solid and up to date but shows some gaps. It would be worth looking also at the English‑language literature on the topic. Likewise, the most recent works on the issue of “small change” in Late Antiquity would merit inclusion.

Constructive suggestions

To improve the article, it would be advisable to:

Strengthen the interpretative and historiographical dimension, making more explicit the open debates and the different positions in the scholarly literature.

Better integrate the various sections, avoiding repetitions and creating a more coherent argumentative flow. The distinction between “Genesis and History” and “Theory” could be reconsidered, perhaps reserving the former for purely historiographical aspects and the latter for the articulation of open interpretative issues.

Make more explicit the methodological aspects of numismatic identification, which are a key element for understanding how scholars actually recognise imitations and how this recognition has changed over time.

Use more images within the discussion, turning them from simple illustrations into real case studies that guide the reader in applying the diagnostic criteria.

Recommendation

The article can in this reviewer’s opinion be published after minor revision. The contribution offers a good overview of an important numismatic phenomenon, presents an up‑to‑date bibliography, and makes use of well‑documented concrete examples. The comments provided mainly concern a strengthening of the interpretative and methodological dimensions of the work, which could make the entry even more complete and useful for the readership of the Encyclopedia. It is hoped that the author will be able to incorporate these suggestions without difficulty, given the disciplinary expertise that is clearly demonstrated

Author Response

I appreciate the comments made on the work and will now explain the changes that have been made.

-The definition has been modified to clarify the difference between counterfeit coins and other types of coins.

-It has also been clarified that, although they are sometimes easy to distinguish in the archaeological record, at other times they are not.

-A paragraph has been added referring to advances in archaeological techniques and also to the importance of sites and the archaeological context of coins.

-In the methodology section, a paragraph has been added that briefly explains how to effectively identify a counterfeit coin.

-Similarly, through various nuances, some changes in the wording of sentences, and other elements, comments on the structure have been integrated, and a reference to the section on Genesis and History has been added to emphasize its descriptive nature. At the same time, elements have also been added to the section on theory.

-Only one consideration has not been developed, the debate on the monetization of the Roman Empire, as I believe that, in an article defining one topic, one should not delve into another that is very deep and very complicated, such as the monetization of the empire.

I am sure that, with the effective application of the considerations I have received, the article will be greatly improved.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses one of the most important and methodologically complex problems in the study of Roman coinage, namely the issue of definition in relation to imitative coinage. The choice of topic should be considered highly relevant, as the distinctions between imitation and imitative coinage, as well as between related concepts such as barbarische Prägung and Barbarisierung in the German scholarly tradition, are extremely subtle and often unclear. As a result, the terminology itself appears confusing and requires particularly precise and consistent definition.

However, despite the correct identification of the problem, the author does not fully disentangle it, but rather continues to follow an established scholarly tradition. This tradition, characteristic of Western European research in general, largely ignores the definition of imitative coinage in the Barbaricum, reducing it to a single, passing reference in the text. In this form, it remains unclear how a student, specialist, or archaeologist is expected to interpret the phrase “imitation of a Roman coin” when studying material either from within the territory of the Empire or from the Barbaricum. Without a clear contextual distinction, there is a serious risk of methodological and terminological confusion.

This problem, however, seems relatively easy to resolve. In particular, the author could clarify the scope of the study already at the level of the title. For example, changing it to Defining Imitative Coinage in the Roman Imperial Period on the Territory of the Empire would immediately remove most potential ambiguities and prevent confusion with imitative coinage in the Barbaricum, which has a different background, function, and research tradition.

Some reservations may also be raised regarding the historiographical overview. The author begins the history of research in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, whereas it would be advisable to note that J. H. Eckhel had already identified such coins as a distinct category. Referring to earlier stages of scholarly interest would strengthen the historiographical framework and better demonstrate the continuity of research on this subject.

The use of the term currency of necessity, most commonly associated with A. Kunisz, also requires further clarification. In much of the existing literature, this concept is most often applied to copies of Roman coins, that is, to counterfeit issues. In this respect, the author’s interpretation may be perceived as problematic. It would therefore be advisable to strengthen the argumentation by explicitly justifying the application of this concept to imitative, rather than counterfeit, coinage, even if only by adding one or two clarifying sentences.

Finally, a more in-depth engagement with barbarian imitative coinage would be desirable, supported by references to up-to-date scholarship, particularly from Germany, Denmark, and Poland. These research traditions are largely overlooked in the article, which limits its comparative and interpretative potential.

In conclusion, the article raises an important and timely issue and demonstrates a solid familiarity with Roman numismatic material. Nevertheless, it would benefit from clearer conceptual distinctions, a more precise definition of its analytical scope, and a broader engagement with relevant scholarship. Addressing these points would significantly enhance the methodological clarity and overall scholarly value of the study.

Author Response

I must thank you for your comments and revisions.

-First of all, I will change the title of the article to include your suggestion and thus avoid confusion from the outset.

-Similarly, a reference to Eckhel's work has been added to highlight the early detection of these specimens.

-The wording has been clarified to explain why imitation coins can be considered emergency coins.

-Finally, an explanation has been added as to why coin imitation is not mentioned in the barbaricum, and various citations have been added to highlight its existence.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The entry is quite informative, although essential. No major comments on my part; I just added a couple of minor suggestions to the attached pdf to avoid repetitions and for a smoother flow.

I found the entry on imitative coinage overall quite informative and well structured with appropriate references, in line with the research focus declared at the beginning by the Author. I could just suggest an additional article to provide further context to the imitative radiates distribution:

Perassi, C. "Antoniniani e imitazioni radiate dal territorio maltese". M. Asolati, B. Callegher, A. Saccocci (a cura di), Suadente nummo vetere. Scritti in onore di Giovanni Gorini, Padova 2016, 267-285. https://www.socnumit.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/PerassiC2016.AntoninianiMalta.pdf 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Firstly, allow me to thank you for your comments on the revised work.

-I have implemented all the minor suggestions, which I believe improve the wording of some sentences, and I have also considered it appropriate to add the quote you provided to illustrate the importance of imitation Antoninianus coins in Italian areas.