I have the greatest respect for John
Casey.
It is true to say that we do not necessarily agree on certain aspects of
numismatics, archaeology and ancient
history but that leads to a healthy debate and stimulating conversations.
This book on
Carausius and
Allectus is excellent as being a readily accessible single volume
work that draws together both the archaeological and historical evidence for the reign of these usurpers. Although the
price tag is quite high it is much better presented and produced than the difficult to find "Episode of
Carausius and
Allectus" by Norman
Shiel (whose thesis John, I believe, supervised), although that book too is a very worthwhile read.
What I particularly like about this book are the extracts from the
contemporary or near
contemporary texts as well as how the reign of C and A was written about through
history (Geoffrey of Monmouth, Gildas etc as well as the beginnings of serious antiquarian study in the 18th century). Given my interest in this aspect I was very glad to find a copy of De Peyster's 19th century
work on
Carausius (many thanks to Lee Toone).
The arrangement of the
mint marks for the C and L mints presented in this book has recently been modified by Malcolm
Lyne (
Numismatic Chronicle 2003) but only the proposed dates of issue have changed slightly I think for the C
mint (working from memory here).
The
cross tabulation by
reverse legend does need some modification as I think that by the time you get over to
Allectus an erroneous entry or two has crept in. As the foreword to a new book that I have been asked to write, I am updating this presentation of
reverse types by
mintmark for the coins of
Carausius at least. This is some way off though yet.
I like the acceptance in this book that the
XXI marked
radiate coins (not just of
Carausius but all later "aureliani") are not two
denarius pieces but rather four
denarius pieces on the basis of an unpublished fragment of a known coinage
inscription. I have tried to do justice to the bicharactam
pecunia on my website but am missing a photo of the new piece of
inscription, I do at least have a copy of John's notes and certainly for post 300 AD but probably before the "aurelianus" should not be regarded as a
double denarius.
John's assertion that the silver content of Carausius' base coinage only really starts with the introduction of B/E//MLXXI on the coins a
London (plus the equivalent issue a the C
mint) can be shown to be incorrect now as I have a fully
silvered F/O//ML issue, that is, the issue preceding B/E//MLXXI (illustrated on the
gallery pages on this site).
Where John and I really differed at one stage is over the acceptance of the RSR marked coins as being official in base metal with
radiate portraits. He favoured that all such were unofficial but this is, to my mind, clearly not the case, particularly as there are
cross die links.
Where there is some doubt is over the very
rare base metal laureate issues as some are clearly
imitative and unofficial (viz the
Uberitas type in Casey's plates) while others are not.
Some
work on the series that John has done since the book is on the Arras medallions, in particular with regard to the ownership of the
hoard (most likely linked to the campaign to suppress the regime). The large
medallion from the
hoard of
Constantine illustrated in the book clearly shows graffito etched into the
reverse field when examined in the flesh, as it were, and records a personal name (that of the owner to prevent theft or aid theft detection?). This name is not always evident in the illustrations of the
medallion as the pictures are often derived from the Bourgey electrotypes of some of the most impressive medallions in the late 1920's/early 1930's. I only wish that my memory was better and I could remember this name. Given the length time that the Arras
hoard was put together it is probably the product of at least officer's
donativa and the graffito is only that of the last owner (a relative of the first?).
I know that this is a long post and people may be put off reading this but the bottom line is if you like that late third century this book is an essential read.
Regards,
Mauseus
