Need help with Carausius attribution

This one's tricky. There are no mint or field marks whatsoever. Pax holds an olive branch and a cornucopiae. I can't find it in RIC or Sear. The reverse type is apparently the mirror image of RIC 927.

Anyone have a reference for this thing?

Post your Carausius coins!


Carausius, AD 286-293.
Roman billon antoninianus, 2.91 g, 21.2 mm, 3 h.
Uncertain British mint.
Obv: IMP CARAVSIVS P F AVG, radiate (draped and cuirassed?) bust, right.
Rev: PAX AVG, Pax standing left, holding olive branch and cornucopiae.
Refs: RIC --; RCV --.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

My guess is a typo. Pax regularly looks left. Of course many like mine make it hard to tell due to condition.

 

You have quite a subcollection of Carausius issues, @dougsmit !

It's not merely a typo in RIC and that RIC 927 has Pax standing right, but the cornucopia and olive branch are in the opposite hands as well. See this example from York Coins:



Compare mine, which is a mirror image:

 

this might be a case of the engraver forgetting to reverse Pax, though the legend was done properly.

 

Sorry, I am no help, @Roman Collector ...

CARAUSIUS


RI Carausius usurper in Britain CE 287–293 BI Ant 4.7g 24mm London radiate cuirassed - PAX AVG Pax stndg l branch scepter S—P RIC V 475


I wonder if this is a Carausius used bar of soap...

RI Carausius 287-293 AE22 London mint PAX

 

Of no help here, I'm afraid. I do have one that mystifies me... I suspect it's unofficial, based on the odd legends and the fact that Pax seems to be brandishing a turkey drumstick rather than an olive branch.

CARAUSIUS
AE Antoninianus. 2.4g, 19.8mm. Unofficial mint in Britain (?), circa AD 278-293. Apparently unpublished. O: IMP CARASIVS PA, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right. R: [...] I [...], Pax (?) standing left, holding olive branch and double cornucopiae; V in left field.

 

https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/587324

This is the closest I've found, although it has AV instead of AVG. Noted as a potential contemporary copy, but it could just as well be an early coin pre mint marks.

Might be worth emailing Sam Moorhead with the image and details to see if he has any other examples for his upcoming RIC update.

Nice coin.

 

Thanks for tracking that down! That's very close, indeed. Sending a message to Sam Moorhead now.

 

Sam Moorhead is unable to reply, probably due to COVID-19's effect on his job. I received an automated reply to my email:

"I am now on Furlough Leave from 4pm on Friday 17 April until at least May 31 2020 and until my return work emails to this account will be automatically deleted without being read."

 

Maybe not a typo. A point of confusion I have encountered is whether left/right is from the viewer’s perspective or the figure’s perspective. The viewer’s perspective appears to be the standard, but both occur and give mirroring descriptions.

 

Keep in mind what a chaotic time this was. It is not always possible to distinguish official from unofficial. Even at the time the distinction was probably meaningless.

 

Also, be clear about the difference between standing left and facing left. Standing refers to the orientation of the body, and there are many examples of a figure standing left and facing right.

 

In RIC, the descriptions are always:

1) When describing which way a figure or its head is facing, it is always relative to the viewer's perspective.
2) When describing objects in the figure's hands, it is always relative to the figure. If no specific left-hand/right-hand is stated, then the object in the right hand is stated, followed by the object in the left hand.

On this coin, for example, Pax would be described as "Pax standing facing, head left, holding olive branch in r. and cornucopiae in l." or simply, "Pax standing facing, head left, holding olive branch and cornucopiae."

 

Did you check Dane Kurth site ?

http://www.catbikes.ch/coinstuff/carausius.xls

 

Thanks for sharing that link.

Here are all the examples of Pax holding an olive branch and cornucopiae:



They all have mint/field marks except RIC 927, as previously noted, which is a mirror image to my reverse type.

 

RIC Vol 5, Part II was written nearly 90 years ago. Your coin is not listed there. However, there have been large numbers of new types discovered since publication of RIC by metal detectorists etc. I look forward to the update of RIC Vol 5, Part 2 which should greatly benefit from the contents of the Fromme Hoard and 90 years of published discoveries of new Carausius types.

I've checked what additional material I have laying around, and I don't find your precise type. With Sam Morehead being unreachable, you might try PM'ing Mauseus on Forvm. Good luck!

 

I tried contacting Mauseus on the other forum about my unique Carausius coin, but unfortunately never got a response. He has a superb collection of Carausius in his gallery.

 

Update:

I sent another e-mail to Sam Moorhead, who is back at work at the British Museum and on RIC. He kindly replied:

Dear [Roman Collector],

I hope you are as well as can be possible at the moment.

This coin is probably irregular, but I am including such pieces in an ‘Aberrant Type’ section because the line between official and irregular gets really blurred with Carausius. There are numerous types with PAX AVG which are not the standard branch and sceptre types. It is the tenth specimen I have recorded of such a piece. There were two in the Blackmoor Hoard (20440-1) and the BM, Ashmolean and Fitzwilliam all have examples, so yours is in good company!

I hope that this helps a bit. Thank you so much for sending the image. I have stored it away safely for comparison when I sweep through the plates for the catalogue. Covid and Lockdown has set me back a bit, but I am up and running again, hoping to complete the RIC next year.

Best wishes,

Sam

Dr Sam Moorhead
Portable Antiquities and Treasure
British Museum​

 

Thanks for the update. In general, not just for Carausius, I believe we need to take care not to write off things as aberrant and meaningless 'barbarous' just because they do not fit the scheme we have devised. An example of this came almost a hundred years ago when it was first suggested that some strange denarii of Septimius Severus matched the style of his Alexandrian tetradrachms and led to the recognition of the Alexandria mint denarii. The Carausius coins shown here are what I was calling a continental mint meaning nothing more than they were not like the C mint or London. I'm not sure how we are to tell a small issue authorized from the top for some special purpose from the work of prolific counterfeiters. Probably the best we can do is have what Dr. Morehead called an ‘Aberrant Type’ section and admitting we just don't know everything but are open to all possibilities.