Recent Discoveries of Tetrarchic Hoards from Roman Britain

[Victor]

https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/Recent-Discoveries-of-Tetrarchic-Hoards-from-Roman-Britain-and-their-Wider-Context-Paperback/p/49400

"This volume was prompted by the recent discovery in Britain of two large coin hoards dating from the first decade of the fourth century AD – Wold Newton and Rauceby. Coins of this early Tetrarchic period are relatively uncommon finds in Britain and elsewhere, due mainly to the brevity of their periods of issue followed by successive reductions in the weight of the coinage. The book also republishes the 1944 Fyfield hoard within the context of these more recent finds and contains preliminary reports on two very large hoards of coins of the same period that have been found in recent years in France (Juillac) and Spain (Tomares).The Tetrarchic system of rule (AD 293−c. 313) was initiated by the Roman Emperor Diocletian to stabilise the Roman Empire, with the rule of the western and eastern Empire being split between two senior emperors and their two junior colleagues. The transition from the third to fourth century AD is a pivotal phase in the history of Roman Britain, with Britain coming once again under the control of the Empire following periods of turbulence and usurper rule between AD 260−296. Under the Tetrarchy, Britain was subjected to the extensive monetary reforms undertaken by Diocletian which saw the introduction of the denomination now referred to as the nummus. The period is of particular interest to numismatists as during this time Roman coinage was minted in Britain at the mint of London. The volume therefore covers not just the hoards themselves, but also considers the wider significance of these hoards for Britain and the early fourth century monetary economy, particularly in the western empire."

[Heliodromus]

There's also a free PDF version available, which apparently only differs in having lower resolution photos (but OTOH, you can copy them, which is useful).

https://britishmuseum.iro.bl.uk/concern/books/c640c432-9184-49eb-9676-28f95b671655?locale=en

The BM's server seems to be overloaded, but I tried a few dozen times over a couple of days and was finally able to get it. Might be less load late at night, perhaps.

The images, while small, are still quite serviceable, such as attached one from the Tomares hoard.

There was one piece of info I wasn't aware of about the Rauceby hoard, which is that in the (limestone lined) pit the pot was buried in there was some burnt organic matter underneath the pot, which they are suggesting may have been some sort of (sacrificial) offering. The authors also note that the limestone blocks covering the pot were very similar to those lining the pit, suggesting it was buried all at once. I still find it hard to believe this was a votive offering though, as opposed to being buried for safekeeping, perhaps while the owner went off to war (never to return).

One thing I noticed about the BM's numbering scheme for the Rauceby coins is that they are numbered by type, not by specimen. When I bought my Rauceby coin (RIC 66 - London Constantine) I was told it was BM # 102, so was initially surprised that this report/book illustrates a different coin for # 102. I then realized that the hoard had 11 specimens of RIC 66 (!!) all listed as part of type/number 102. Quite a wide weight variation of ~2g among these 11 specimens, with mine the heaviest at 11.3g.

It's really a shame that the Rauceby finders chose to remove the coins ("for safety") from the pot rather than leaving it to the pros who would have recorded the different layers of coins in the pot, which would have helped confirm or refute the theory that the coins were all deposited at the same time.

[Victor]

I have 7 from the Rauceby hoard; but none were plate coins.

[Heliodromus]

Interesting - I wonder if they gave preference for plate coins to ones that the BM kept ?

There must be some plate coins out in the wild though, since they have photos of every catalog number, but the "BM registration number" table seems to show that they didn't keep a specimen of every type (lots of missing catalog type/numbers).

I like the way the BM handled this hoard - seems like a good example of the UK treasure law working the way it should. The BM got first dibs in filling gaps in their collection, but let the rest go even if they were rarer types - they didn't needlessly keep duplicates.

[Lech Stępniewski]

I like the way the BM handled this hoard

Agree. But it's to the shame of the BM that coins from Rauceby which are on market are nice cleaned and those on BM pages are still green, dirty and poorly readable.

And as for the "Recent Discoveries...", I checked few "unlisted variants" and sometimes this attribution is made on basis of very poor specimens. For example, PAS SUSS-FDB010 (mentioned as unlisted on p. 45) has in my opinion regular obverse legend IMP CONSTANTINVS P F AVG, not IMP CONSTANTINVS AVG. I would like to hear your opinion.

[Heliodromus]

Very hard to tell, especially since it's not even clear where the bust ends and therefore how much room is left for the tail end of the legend.

https://finds.org.uk/database/images/image/id/167780/recordtype/artefacts