Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T22:50:59.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Carausius and Allectus — Rulers in Gaul?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

P. J. Casey
P. J. Casey
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, 46 Saddler Street, Durham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The episode of the usurpation of Carausius and Allectus has long attracted scholarly attention, not least because it is a light at the end of the long dark tunnel which comprises the history of Britain in the third century. The literary evidence for the period is comparatively abundant though it is of a tendentious nature. The extensive passage in the panegyric addressed to Maximian in 289 indicates the main events in the early part of the revolt whilst the panegyric presented to Constantius in 297, after his reconquest of the island, contains graphic details of the final defeat of Allectus. There is also a brief resumé of the reconquest in the panegyric composed in 310 for Constantius's son Constantine. Perhaps as important as these contemporary references to events is the silence of the panegyric of 291, addressed to Maximian, about affairs in Britain. These entirely laudatory sources are supplemented by the historians Aurelius Victor and Eutropius, both of whom wrote in the middle of the fourth century, and by Orosius who wrote in the early fifth. Medieval sources, which appear to add details of events not recorded in the ancient sources, are best ignored. In addition to these literary sources there is a body of archaeological data which is, at best, ambiguous as to significance and date. There is also a considerable body of numismatic material.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 8 , November 1977 , pp. 283 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © P. J. Casey 1977. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Mynors, R. A. B. (ed.), XII panegyrici latini (Oxford, 1964)Google Scholar, Pan. X (II).

2 Pan. VIII (V).

3 Pan. VI (VII).

4 Pan. XI (III).

5 Victor, Aurelius, De caesaribus (ed. Pichmayr, Fr.), 39, 20, 39.Google Scholar

6 Eutropius, , Historia (ed. Zangmeister, C.), No. 25, 2, 4, 6.Google Scholar

7 Orosius, , Historia contra paganos (ed. Ruehl, F.), lx, 21.Google Scholar

8 Carson, R. A. G., ‘The mints and coinage of Carausius and Allectus’, JBAA xxii (1959), 33 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. idem, ‘The sequence-marks on the coinage of Carausius and Allectus’, in Carson, R. A. G. (ed.), Mints, dies and currency: essays in memory of Albert Baldwin (1971).

9 Stukeley, W., The medallic history of Carausius (1757–9).Google Scholar

10 The attribution of the coins marked c has been the centre of considerable numismatic controversy. A particular ground for rejecting the location of this mint at Colchester is that so close to the mint at London it would be superfluous; but this ignores the proximity of the mints of Ostia and Rome in the early fourth century. Alternative sites have been proposed, with opinion divided between Calleva and Clausentum. An examination of the material from Clausentum in the Southampton Museum does nothing to reinforce the identification with that site though the recent discovery of an aureus of Carausius at Southampton emphasises the importance of the area then. (Shiel, N., Numismatic Circular lxxxiv, 7/8 (1976)Google Scholar. It is a particular pity that this coin has been given an erroneous provenance: the author has ascertained the correct one from the present owners and the British Museum.)

Calleva has produced a hoard of Carausian coins (Boon, G., Num. Chron. xx (1960), 241–52)Google Scholar. The hoard consists of seventeen coins of which 65 per cent are London issues and 35 per cent of the c mint. This is a high proportion of c coins though it does not match the proportions exhibited by. the Colchester Museum site-collection or of the Colchester Hoard (see TABLE 11, p. 288). Nor does it bear comparison with another find near Colchester in the fort at Bradwellon-Sea. From a collection of eighteen coins in the Colchester Museum picked up on the site, comprising issues of Carausius and Allectus, the ten identifiable specimens consists of 40 per cent London and 60 per cent c mint issues.

11 Shiel, N., Revue numismatique, 6 sér. xvi (1974), 163–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Carson, 1959.

13 Pan. VIII (V). 12.

14 Pan. X(II). 11/24.

15 Carson, 1959. Stated more firmly in Carson, 1971.

16 Site-collection and unpublished material by courtesy of J. Wacher.

17 Author's site catalogue.

18 Corder, P., The defences of the Roman fort at Malton (Leeds, 1930)Google Scholar.

19 Unpublished material by courtesy of C. Mahaney.

20 Num. Chron. 1949, 259.

21 Jack, G. H. ‘Excavations at Magna (Kenchester),’ Woolhope Nat. Field Club 1912–13 (1916), 157–240Google Scholar; Jack, G. H. and Hayter, A. G. K. ‘The Romano-British town of Magna: supplemental report’, Woolhope Nat. Field Club 1918–20, 97–122Google Scholar; Jack, G. H. and Hayter, A. G. K. ‘Excavations on the site of the Romano-British town of Magna’, Woolhope Nat. Field Club 1924–25.Google Scholar

22 Kenyon, K., Excavations at the Jewry Wall site, Leicester (1948).Google Scholar

23 Bushe-Fox, J. P., Excavations on the site of the Roman town of Wroxeter (1912–14)Google Scholar; Atkinson, D., Report on excavations at Wroxeter, 1923–27 (1942)Google Scholar; and unpublished material by courtesy of P. Barker and G. Webster.

24 Num. Chron. 1888, 163.Google Scholar

25 Num. Chron. 1956, 205–46.Google Scholar

26 Bathurst, W. H. and King, C. W., Roman antiquities at Lydney Park (1879)Google Scholar; Wheeler, R. E. M., Report on the excavations… in Lydney Park, Gloucestershire (1932).Google Scholar

27 Num. Chron. 1930, 165.Google Scholar

28 Boon, G., Bull. Board of Celtic Studies xxii, Pt 3 (1967), 291–310Google Scholar.

29 Site collection and author's excavations.

30 Unpublished material by courtesy of R. Reece.

31 Colchester Museum collection.

32 Num. Chron. 1930, 173–95.Google Scholar

33 P. J. Casey, forthcoming.

34 Num. Chron. 1925, 173.Google Scholar

35 Bushe-Fox, J. P., Excavation of the Roman fort at Richborough, Kent, i–iv (1926–49)Google Scholar; Cunliffe, B. W. (ed.), Fifth report on the excavation of the Roman fort at Richborough, Kent (1968).Google Scholar

36 Wheeler, R. E. M., Verulamium, a Belgic and two Roman cities (1943)Google Scholar; St. Albans and Herts. Archit. and Arch. Soc, 1953, 13–97.Google Scholar

37 Unpublished material by courtesy of R. Reece.

38 Giard, J.-B., ‘La monnaie locale en Gaule à la fin du IIIe siècle’, Jnl. des Savants, 1969, 5–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It may be said that it is the author's opinion that the unmarked mint is located at London. This will be fully discussed in the publication of the Croydon Hoard.

39 Shiel, N., op. cit. (note II)Google Scholar, demonstrates a die-linkage between an aureus bearing the mintmark RSR and an unmarked billon coin in the Little Orme's Head Hoard. On the grounds that all but one class of Carausian gold is struck at London it would seem, then, that the unmarked coins in base metal are produced in the same atelier.

40 Revue archéologique iii (1847), 532Google Scholar.

41 Aurelius Victor, xxxix, 39 and Eutropius, ix, 22.

42 Num. Chron. 1956, 205–46.Google Scholar

43 Boon, G.op. cit. (note 28).Google Scholar

44 Shiel, N., op. cit. (note 10)Google Scholar, cites the very close die-linkages between the surviving continental-style gold coins. This would seem to indicate a small issue of coins in a short period and may reinforce the argument that the gold represents a donative on the capture of Boulogne.

45 Num. Chron. 1907.Google Scholar

46 Frere, S. S., Britannia (2nd ed. (1974)), 381.Google Scholar

47 Num. Chron. 1907, 31.Google Scholar

48 RGK Num. Chron. 1890, 167.Google Scholar

49 RGK. Die Fundmünzen der romischen Zeit in Deutschland. Abt. iv. 36A. 127; RIC 101/303. The Allectan coin is identified as being RIC 66.

50 Bull archéologique 1928–29, 391.Google Scholar

51 Pan. VIII, 21.Google Scholar

52 RIC VI, Trier Nos. 87–89. I owe this point to the kindness of Dr. J. P. C. Kent.

53 General discussion in RIC VI. The date of 296 formerly accepted for this reform, coinciding as it does with the establishment of the diocesan system of mints, is still not entirely ruled out.

54 Metrology established by averaging the weight of eleven London quinarii and twelve Colchester quinarii and twelve London ‘antoniniani’ and thirteen Colchester ‘antoniniani’ in the British Museum collection. It is normal for fractions of the billon coinage to weigh somewhat more than the units.

55 Callu, J.-P., Bull. Soc. française de numismatique 27/8 (1972), 290–92Google Scholar; Sperber, D., Roman Palestine 200–400: money and prices (Tel Aviv, 1974)Google Scholar; Erim, K., Reynolds, J. and Crawford, M., ‘Diocletian's reform: a new inscription’, JRS, lxi, 171–7Google Scholar.

56 Mattingly, H., in Studies in Roman social and economic history in honour of A. C. Johnson (Princeton, 1951)Google Scholar.

57 A new hoard has come to light which includes a single specimen of the reformed coinage in an assemblage otherwise terminating with Allectus. The Chalcott (Wilts) Hoard includes a Trier issue, RIC 187a, which has been dated to 296. The rest of the hoard coins of continental origin date not later than 294, and there are no quinarii; so there may be a case for the revision of the date of the terminal coin. Information in advance of publication kindly furnished by K. Elkes.

58 Rev. Beige numismatique cii (1956), 68, No. 64Google Scholar.

59 Bastien, R. and Vasselle, F., Les trésors de Fresnoy-les-Roye (Somme), (Amiens, 1971)Google Scholar.

60 Rev. numismatique, 5th sér., vi (1954), 187–90Google Scholar: Allectus, RIC 105. Blanchet, A., Les trésors de monnaies romaines et les invasions germaniques en Gaule (Paris, 1900)Google Scholar.

61 Rev. des études anciennes, lxix (1967), 228–54Google Scholar.

62 Evans, , loc. cit. (note 48).Google Scholar

63 Pan VIII (V) 7/23.Google Scholar

64 Pan. X (II) 12.Google Scholar

65 Caesar, BG, V.1, V.2. The assumption that Maximian built his fleet only on the Moselle and the Rhine depends on the belief that Carausius already controlled the coast of Gaul. If, as this paper postulates, Carausius was still restricted to Britain at the time of the expedition of 290 there is no reason to limit the activities of the central empire to the northern rivers.

66 Julian, , Letter to the Athenians (ed. Wright, W. C.), 280 A.Google Scholar

67 Pan. VHI(V) 7/25.Google Scholar

68 Pan. VIII (V) 14/10.Google Scholar

69 Giard, J.-B., loc. cit. (note 38), No. 10.Google Scholar

70 Carson (1959), loc. cit. (note 8).