No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2015
CARAUSIUS, our British Emperor, has not been too badly served by commentators. He first attracted the wayward and erratic genius of Stukeley, (I) then, after a long C interval, the solid and devoted labours of Webb. (2) Of Stukeley little can be retained beyond a handful of brilliant guesses. Webb, on the other hand, has laid the foundations of a ‘ Corpus ’ of the coinage and has succeeded in stating most of the problems of the reign and solving many of them. But still there is room for a history of Carausius, in which the very scanty literary evidence shall be reinforced by the evidence of the coins, when the pure gold has been extracted from the masses of rough ore. There is perhaps not a very great deal to add to Webb's materials, but a great deal of sorting remains to be done. Included in his lists are many coins of a more or less barbarous character—ancient, but the product of no regular mint. Inside each mint, the order of mint-marks must be established and the types classified under them ; only so can we venture to interrogate the types for their meaning. Here is a task of great interest and promise for a young scholar. No disparagement of Webb's fine work is implied. Books as good as his ought to have progeny.
1 Medallic History of Carausius, 1757.
2 In Num. Chron. 1907, and vol. V 2, pp. 426 ff. of Mattingly and Sydenham, Roman Imperial Coinage (hereafter quoted simply as ‘Webb’).
3 Webb, p. 483, p. 216 : in n.1 he quotes from Stukeley CLA, but as unverified and doubtful. For Allectus, see Webb pp. 565 ff, no. 69, 79, 105, 108, etc.
4 Webb, p. 483, nos. 217-9.
5 All these coin-types can readily be checked in Webb’s lists. The argument from types must be used carefully. London has types of the army and many legions ; yet we have no reason to think it was a garrison town.
6 Or, as Webb, ‘Rationalis Summarum Rationum’. But Webb is certainly in error attributing the RSR coins to London, because the style is in some cases very similar.
Stukeley’s ‘Rutupii Signator Rogatorurn’, ‘distributor of bounties at Rutupiae’ condemns itself. Another suggestion, ‘Rutupiae Stativa Romana’, will not find many supporters. See Webb, p. 434.
7 Num. Chron. 1925, pp. 336 ff. Cf. Webb, p. 435.
8 Webb, pp. 516 ff.
9 Gold at 70 to the pound was struck by Diocletian in his early period. The 72nd of the gold pound is the famous piece of Constantine 1 and his successors—the ‘solidus’.
If the gold piece was struck at 72 to the pound and the silver at 84, 12 silver pieces would give a ratio of gold to silver 1 : 72/7 or 102/7 ths. 15 would give a ratio of nearly 1:13, 20 a ratio of 1 to just over 17. We are not sure of the ratio and can therefore only guess at the relation of the pieces to one another.
10 The weight was apparently over 60 grains ; individual specimens run as high as 78.
11 For some reason not yet explained the mark is rare at the c mint. Coins struck by Carausius for Diocletian and Maximian are without it. (Webb, pp. 553 ff, 555 ff).
12 Webb, pp. 448 ff. The great Blackmoor Hoard contained over 28,000 Gallic, etc., some 1200 odd Roman (post Aurelian), 545 of Carausius and 90 of Alkctus. No doubt many other hoards of Gallic coins belong to the same period, but do not chance to contain any coins of the British Emperors. The Linchmere Hoard consisted mainly of Carausius with something like half the number of Roman (post Aurelian) and hardly any Gallic.
13 Webb, pp. 563 f, 569.
14 Diocletian reduced by half. If Allectus did the same, his own Antoninianus would be one, not two, denarii. That is perhaps a possibility worth considering.
You have
Access