It has long been recognized that the coinage issued by the Roman emperor Trajan (a.d. 98–117) is in urgent need of a comprehensive (re-)assessment, honouring modern standards of numismatic analysis. This emperor's reign not only witnessed the high water mark of Roman rule in ancient Europe and beyond, but produced an immense amount of coins; and rare epigraphic evidence from this period sheds light on the organization of the capital's mint. Woytek's study Die Reichsprägung des Kaisers Traianus can now fill the gap in scholarship, making amends for the lacunae left by what previously have served as standard reference works, both written by Harold Mattingly: volume II (Vespasian to Hadrian) of the Roman Imperial Coinage series (RIC), published in 1926, and, released ten years later, volume III (Nerva to Hadrian) of the series Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum (BMCRE), which was influenced in many respects by Strack's Untersuchungen zur römischen Reichsprägung des zweiten Jahrhunderts I. Die Reichsprägung zur Zeit des Traian (1931). These two works provide contrasting examples of numismatic study — that is, a catalogue of known coin-types versus a listing of all coin specimens kept in one individual collection. And yet these two volumes, along with the numismatic community more generally, could not cater for the specific situation of the period a.d. 103–112 (=COS V), failing to systematize, or even date, emissions from what is more than half of the emperor's entire reign — a major obstacle to the use of Trajan's coins by historians and archaeologists. Even a recent publication of the important holdings of the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris by P.-A. Besombes (Monnaies de l'empire romaine. IV Trajan (98–117 après J-C) in 2008 could not help to solve this problem.

The study under review here, in turn, now presents a convincing argument on how to tackle this previously seemingly insurmountable problem. W. presents an exemplary and elaborate survey of all known coins, with structured and transparent examinations of types, emissions, stylistic developments and chronology. The material covered in the discussion comprises the Imperial coins from the mint of metropolitan Rome, including the ‘metalla’ (coins restituted in the name of Trajan), mules (i.e. coin struck from two dies which did not belong to the same emission), medallions (including one-sided ones), and non-precious metal coins with Latin legend which circulated in Syria, and in addition potential fakes and other dubious pieces; excluded from the study are, however, cistophoric coins from Asia Minor, the bilingual coinage of Caesarea in Cappadocia and that of Dacian origin, incuse coins, and contemporary imitations. These have mostly been covered by W. in various journal articles.

W.'s chapter on the development of Trajan's portrait-type on coins, and in comparison with surviving sculpture in the round (55–67; 67–73), is sure to kindle debate among archaeologists. W. concentrates on facial contours and the rhythm of the lower line of the bust, along with physiognomic detail more generally, to establish his Types A–D (Type B is the most influential, and C–D are dependents). The insights he forges from the numismatic evidence fit our general understanding of Trajan's portrait in the round (for references see 67–73) — perhaps not actually surprising, given that W. H. Gross as early as 1940 had been heavily dependent on Strack's study. What is remarkable, however, is that W.'s arguments for the importance of taking into consideration the lower bust line — an indicator already recognised by previous scholars — reflects the sequence reached through the ‘traditional’ method of ‘lock counting’ in sculpture and sheds new light on the dependence of numismatic portraits on prototypes in the round. W. also argues for a.d. 105 (and not 108) as the start date for his Type B, which corresponds to the so-called ‘Decennalienbildnis’.

Published as Volume 14 of the Moneta Imperii Romani series (MIR), and in notable contrast to previous MIR instalments, this book presents a laudable example of how a numismatic study should be organized, with regard to both accessibility and presentation (the impressive catalogue comprises more than 23,600 single coins, serving as a basis for nearly 1,000 catalogue entries). The Classics community will be grateful for this corpus, which should provide a valuable resource for research in years to come.