ROMAN COINS FROMNORTH-WEST ENGLAND

DAVID SHOTTER

2011

Roman Coins from North-West England:The Third Supplement

This volume is No. 5 in the New Series of Resource Papers published by theCentre for North-West Regional Studies at Lancaster University

Text and Illustrations Copyright © David Shotter and individual contributors where named.All rights reserved.

The moral rights of the author have been asserted.

Designed, typeset, printed and bound by Short Run Press, Exeter, Devon

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data. A catalogue recordfor this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978-1-86220-285-6

All rights reservedNo part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form

or by any means mechanical, electronic, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner or as expressly permitted by law.

Requests for the copyright owner’s written permission to reproduce any part of thispublication should be made of the copyright owner through theCentre for North-West Regional Studies, Lancaster University

Front cover illustrations: Hadrian’s Wall and the Vallum, looking to the east from Cawfi elds (Photograph: the late Professor Barri Jones); Denarius of Hadrian, depicting, on the reverse,

Moneta, the guardian of the Roman coin-system (Photograph: Dot Boughton)

Back cover illustration: Aes denominations of the Augustan money-system(From the top: sestertius, dupondius, as, semis, quadrans)

THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED TO

THE MEMORY

OF

BEN EDWARDS,

LANCASHIRE’S FIRST

COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGIST

AND A

VALUED FRIEND

ROMAN COINS FROM NORTH-WEST ENGLAND

Contents

List of Plates vii

Acknowledgements ix

Abbreviations xii

I Introduction 1

II Coins from Known Roman and Romano-British Sites 15

A. Lancashire, Merseyside and Greater Manchester 16B. Cumbria 24C. Cheshire and Adjacent Areas 55

III Roman Coin Hoards 87

A. Lancashire, Merseyside and Greater Manchester 87B. Cumbria 104C. Cheshire and Adjacent Areas 122Appendix: Hoard Concordance 143

IV Casual Finds of Roman Coins in North-West England 151

A. Lancashire, Merseyside and Greater Manchester 152B. Cumbria 166C. Cheshire and adjacent Areas 182

Bibliography 207

vii

LIST OF PLATES

1.1 Denarius, Marcus Antonius (obverse)1.2 Denarius, Octavian (reverse)1.3 Denarius, Galba (mint of Lyon; obverse)1.4 Denarius, Hadrian (obverse and reverse)1.5 Denarius, Marcus Antonius (reverse)1.6 Antoninianus, Philip I (obverse) 1.7 Denarius, Severus Alexander (obverse)1.8 Sestertii and radiate sestertius; hoard from Emneth (Cambridgeshire)1.9 Denarius, Julia Mamaea (obverse); Antoninianus, Gordian III (obverse)1.10 Antoninianus and radiate copy, Gallienus (obverses)1.11 Reformed radiate, Aurelian (obverse)1.12 Nummus, Maximian (obverse)1.13 Nummus, Maximian (reverse)1.14 Nummus, Constantinian (reverse: she-wolf and twins)1.15 Nummus, Constantius II (reverse: FEL TEMP REPARATIO: Falling Horseman)1.16 Nummus, Constantius II (reverse: FEL TEMP REPARATIO: Galley)1.17 Nummus, Constans (reverse: FEL TEMP REPARATIO: Hut)1.18 Nummus, Gratian (reverse: SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE)1.19 Denarius, Nerva (reverse: IVSTITIA)1.20 Denarius, Nerva (reverse: CONCORDIA EXERCITVVM)1.21 Denarius, Trajan (obverse: ‘early head’: COS II: AD 98)1.22 Denarius, Trajan (obverse: ‘early head’: COS IIII: AD 101)1.23 Denarius, Trajan (obverse: ‘mature head’: COS V: AD 103)

2.1 As, Nero (reverse)2.2 Nummus, Magnentius (obverse and reverse)2.3 Solidus, Valentinian II (obverse)2.4 Solidus, Valentinian II (reverse)2.5 Flavian ‘Hoard’, Carlisle2.6 Early denarii, Carlisle2.7 Anonymous quadrans, Carlisle2.8 Dupondius, Vespasian (obverse)2.9 Carlisle: Coin scatter near the fort’s headquarters building2.10 Denarius, Julia Mamaea (obverse)2.11 As copies, Claudius (obverse)2.12 As copies, Claudius (reverse)2.13 Denarius, Otho (obverse and reverse)

3.1 Lancaster, hoard of radiates, terminating with Carausius3.2 Standish hoard, Severan obverses3.3 Ribchester hoard: aureus of Titus (as Caesar: obverse)3.4 Ribchester hoard: aureus of Titus (as Caesar: reverse)3.5 Ribchester hoard: aureus of Domitian (as Caesar: obverse)3.6 Ribchester hoard: aureus of Domitian (as Caesar: reverse)3.7 Waddington hoard: denarius of Nerva (obverse)3.8 Waddington hoard: denarius of Hadrian (obverse and reverse)3.9 Waddington hoard: denarius of Sabina (obverse and reverse)3.10 Warburton hoard: denarius of D. Junius Silanus (reverse)3.11 Warburton hoard: denarius of Augustus (obverse and reverse)3.12 Beckfoot hoard: ‘columns’ of coins3.13 Combermere Abbey hoard: denarius of Domitian (obverse and reverse)

viii

3.14 Radiate, Gallienus (obverse)3.15 Radiates, Claudius II, Quintillus and Aurelian (obverses)3.16 Radiates, Postumus, Laelianus, Marius, Victorinus, Tetricus I (obverses)

4.1 Denarius (Nether Kellet), Faustina I (obverse and reverse)4.2 Denarius (Nether Kellet), Antoninus Pius (obverse and reverse)4.3 Denarius (Swanside), Marcus Aurelius as Caesar (obverse and reverse)4.4 Sestertius (Bolton area), Maximinus (obverse and reverse)4.5 Denarius (Garstang), Clodius Albinus (obverse and reverse)4.6 Nummus (Bolton area), Theodosius (obverse and reverse)4.7 Denarius, Faustina II (obverse)4.8 Radiate (Arnside), Allectus (obverse)4.9 Tetradrachms (Barrow-in-Furness), Diocletian (obverses)4.10 Denarius (Irthington), Septimius Severus (obverse and reverse)4.11 Nummus (Walney Island), Constantius II (obverse and reverse)4.12 Anonymous quadrans (Holmes Chapel), (obverse and reverse)4.13 Nummus (Marbury), Constantine I (reverse)4.14 Denarius (Stillington), Gaius Caligula (obverse and reverse)

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A compilation of this nature relies heavily on the readiness of a large number of people to provide information; I am, therefore, greatly indebted to the following for bringing items of information to my attention:

Richard Abdy (The British Museum)

Sue Ashworth (Lancashire County Museum Service)

James Balme

Janny Baxter (Finds Assistant, Portable Antiquities Scheme)

Simon Bean (formerly of National Museums on Merseyside)

Roger Bland (The British Museum, Portable Antiquities Scheme)

Ken Booth (Saddleworth Archaeological Trust)

Dot Boughton (Finds Liaison Offi cer, Portable Antiquities Scheme)

Mark Brennand (Senior Historic Environment Offi cer, Cumbria County Council)

Ray Buckingham

Stephen Bull (Lancashire County Museum Service)

Peter Carrington (Chester Archaeology)

Ian Caruana

Sidney Chapman (Penrith Museum)

Judith Clarke (Penrith Museum)

Matthew Constantine (formerly of Tullie House Museum, Carlisle)

Kevin Cootes

Ron Cowell (National Museums on Merseyside)

Heather Dowler (Lancaster City Museum)

†Ben Edwards (formerly County Archaeologist, Lancashire County Council)

Dan Elsworth (Greenlane Archaeology Ltd)

John Ferguson

Paul Flynn (University of Cumbria)

Sheppard Frere (formerly of the Institute of Archaeology, Oxford University)

Peter Frost-Pennington (Muncaster Castle)

Frank Giecco (North Pennines Archaeology Ltd)

Richard Gregory (formerly of the University of Manchester Archaeological Unit)

Mike Hancox

Laurence Hayes (of SLR Consulting)

John Hearle (Mellor Archaeological Trust)

Nick Herepath (formerly of National Museums on Merseyside)

Eric Higham

John Horne

Simon Hornshaw (Corpus Christi College, Preston)

Peter Iles (Specialist Advisor (Archaeology) for Lancashire County Council)

Clifford Jones

Terry Keefe (formerly of Lancaster University)

Lisa Keyes (formerly Finds Assistant, Portable Antiquities Scheme)

Jane Laskey (Senhouse Roman Museum, Maryport)

Mark Leah (Cheshire County Council)

x

Ted Lightbown

Alan Lupton (Oxford Archaeology, North)

Frances MacIntosh (formerly Finds Liaison Offi cer, Portable Antiquities Scheme)

David Mason (County Archaeologist, Durham County Council)

Ian Miller (Oxford Archaeology, North)

Sam Moorhead (The British Museum)

John Murray

Michael Nevell (of the University of Salford)

Rachel Newman (Oxford Archaeology, North)

Peter Noble (formerly of the University of Manchester Archaeological Unit)

Stuart Noon (Finds Liaison Offi cer, Portable Antiquities Scheme)

Vanessa Oakden (Finds Liaison Offi cer, Portable Antiquities Scheme)

Peter Ogilvie (Ordsall Hall Museum, Salford)

Moya O’Mullane (Grosvenor Museum, Chester)

Tim Padley (Tullie House Museum, Carlisle)

†Stephen Penney (The Salt Museum, Northwich)

Robert Philpott (National Museums on Merseyside)

Alison Plommer (Oxford Archaeology, North)

John Priestley

Norman Redhead (County Archaeologist for Greater Manchester)

David Reid (formerly Stockport Heritage Librarian)

Alan Richardson

Malcolm Ridley

Stephen Roberts

Dan Robinson (formerly of The Grosvenor Museum, Chester)

John Rumsby (Tolson Museum, Huddersfi eld)

Graham Ryan

Faye Simpson (formerly Finds Liaison Offi cer, Portable Antiquities Scheme)

Terry Statham

Tim Strickland (formerly of Gifford and Partners, Chester)

†Neil Thompson

Patrick Tostevin (Ribchester Roman Museum)

Will Walker (of Earthworks)

Margaret Ward

Peter Waring

Andrew White (formerly of Lancaster City Museums)

Matt Williams (of L-P Archaeology)

Tony Wilmott (English Heritage)

Angus Winchester (Lancaster University)

David Wood

John Zant (Oxford Archaeology, North)

xi

The present volume includes some illustrative material; some of this is reproduced by courtesy of a number of organisations to whom I am extremely grateful for their help and cooperation:

The Lancashire County Museum Service (plates 1.4, 1.19, 1.20, 1.21, 1.22, 1.23; 3.7, 3.8, 3.9)

Lancaster City Museum and Art Gallery (plate 3.1)

Oxford Archaeology North (plates 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9)

The Portable Antiquities Scheme (plates 1.6, 1.14, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18; 2.2, 2.13; 3.12, 3.13, 3.14; 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13, 4.14)

The Trustees of the British Museum (plates 1.3; 2.1)

The Trustees of Ribchester Roman Museum (plates 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6)

Tullie House Museum and Art Gallery, Carlisle (plates 2.3, 2.4)

The Vindolanda Trust (plates 1.1, 1.2, 1.7, 1.15; 2.10)

Wigan Heritage Services (plate 3.2)

The Wisbech and Fenland Museum (plates 1.8; 3.15, 3.16)

Individual photographers will be acknowledged in the text. I am also grateful to Lynn Wilman and Stephanie Lawton for the digitising of some of my own images.

Finally, but by no means least, I am happy to acknowledge the invaluable assistance that I have re-ceived from Drs Jean Turnbull and Sam Riches and Mrs Christine Wilkinson of the Centre for North-West Regional Studies at Lancaster University, and from my wife, Anne, in various aspects of the preparation of this book.

xii

ABBREVIATIONS

AA Archaeologia AelianaArch. Journ. Archaeological JournalBMC Coins of the Roman Empire in the British MuseumBrit. Num. Journ. British Numismatic JournalCAJ* Chester Archaeological JournalCARR Cumbria Archaeological Research ReportsCHRB Coin Hoards from Roman BritainCW Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological SocietyCrawford/RRC Crawford M.H., Roman Republican Coinage, Cambridge 1974GMAJ Greater Manchester Archaeological JournalGMAU Greater Manchester Archaeological UnitHSLC Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and CheshireILS Inscriptiones Latinae SelectaeJBAA Journal of the British Archaeological AssociationJCAHS* Journal of the Chester Archaeological and Historic SocietyJCAS* Journal of the Chester Archaeological SocietyJCNWAAS* Journal of the Chester and North Wales Antiquarian and Archaeological SocietyJCNWAS* Journal of the Chester and North Wales Archaeological SocietyJRS Journal of Roman StudiesLAJ Lancashire Archaeological JournalLCAS Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian SocietyLRBC Late Roman Bronze CoinageNum. Chron. Numismatic ChronicleNum. Circ. Numismatic CircularOA North Oxford Archaeology, NorthPAS Portable Antiquities SchemePSAN Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne PSAS Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of ScotlandRIB The Roman Inscriptions of BritainRIC The Roman Imperial CoinageTAFAC Tayside and Fife Archaeological CommitteeUMAU University of Manchester Archaeological UnitYAJ Yorkshire Archaeological JournalZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

(Note: Those abbreviations marked with an asterisk refer to the Journal of what is now the Chester Archaeological Society, published under earlier titles)

(Reference Note: Throughout this Third Supplement, the original compilation and the First Supplement and the Second Supplement will be referred to simply as 1990, 1995 and 2000 respectively).

No further entries have been made to these lists subsequent to the end of May 2010; later entries and revisions of some that are included here will appear in a future publication.

1

I INTRODUCTION

The decade that has passed since the publication of the Second Supplement has been one of considerable importance for the recording of numismatic and other archaeological and historical data in the North West. In the first place, the Portable Antiquities Scheme, which was introduced in 1997 and fully operational by 2003, has provided a channel through which finds of coins (and other objects) of all periods can be assessed and permanently recorded on a database held at the British Museum. This and the work of the locally-based Finds Liaison Officers have led to a growing confidence on the part of metal-detectorists in particular that their finds could be securely recorded and, most important, that thereby they would be contributing to a growing overall picture. The development has thus provided a structured way for metal-detectorists to play their own part in the process of archaeological and historical research; for whilst a single find might not mean a great deal on its own, it will represent a spot on a distribution-map to which other finds may in time be added, thus enhancing the potential significance of that findspot, and possibly pointing researchers to a previously unrecognised site (or sites). This, for example, has in recent years been happening around Kirkby Lonsdale – that is, in the hinterland of the Roman fort of Burrow-in-Lonsdale.

It is, therefore, true to say that we are now retaining for future researchers much information which would otherwise have been in danger of being lost without trace. That this scheme has proved to be a major success and a great new tool in the recording of the national heritage cannot be doubted by anyone, and it is to be hoped that it will go from strength to strength, and will be satisfactorily funded for the future. It needs also to be said that the past and present Finds Liaison Officers for the north-west counties have put a great deal of effort and time into ensuring the success of the scheme, particularly by developing good working-relationships with the local metal-detecting clubs. The tangible results of their work can be seen in the substantial growth of entries in the present volume, particularly in chapter IV.

A second important development during the last ten years has been the number of new publications related to the Roman archaeology of north-west England. From the numismatist’s viewpoint, a major new piece of work was the late Professor Anne Robertson’s Inventory of Romano-British Coin Hoards, which was published posthumously in 2000 by the Royal Numismatic Society. It contains the available information relating to almost two thousand coin hoards which have been found since records of such discoveries began to be made; chapter III of the present work contains a concordance, providing cross-references to Robertson’s compilation for hoards and other collections for which information is given in the four volumes of Roman Coins from North-West England. Two particular Romano-British hoards form the basis of a new reference publication produced in 2009 by the Department of Portable Antiquities and Treasure at the British Museum (Bland, Besly and Burnett 2009): these are the Cunetio (1978) and Normanby (1985) hoards (from southern England) which, between them, consisted of nearly 103,000 radiate coins of the third century.

Further important new numismatic publications are, first, the new edition of the Flavian section of volume 2 of The Roman Imperial Coinage (RIC 22) ; this has been completely revised by I.A. Carradice and T.V. Buttrey, and was published by Spink of London in 2007. This is now the major work of reference for coins of this period. It is understood that a number of the volumes in the first edition of The Roman Imperial Coinage are currently undergoing revision. Secondly, Roger Bland’s and Xavier Loriot’s major study, Roman and Byzantine Gold Coins Found in Britain and Ireland, was published in 2010 by the Royal Numismatic Society. Finally, a significant and accessible new analysis of Roman coinage in Roman Britain is Richard Reece’s The Coinage of Roman Britain, which was published by Tempus in 2002. All of these new books are playing crucial rôles in the processes of identification, referencing and research.

The decade has also seen the publication of a number of books relating to the Roman Archaeology of the North West. Work which will prove to be of seminal importance for many years to come is

2

provided in two volumes in particular, The Archaeology of North West England and Research and Archaeology in North West England; these were edited, in 2006–7, by Mark Brennand, the Senior Historic Environment Officer for Cumbria County Council as volumes 8 and 9 of Archaeology North West, and published by the Council for British Archaeology (North-West Region). Both volumes are ‘multi-period’, and consist of assessments of the present state of our knowledge (vol. 1) and of priorities for future work (vol. 2).

Although the backlog of publications of Roman sites in the North West remains considerable, it is satisfying that the last few years have seen the appearance of a number of significant site-reports; these include monographs reporting and analysing excavations at Burgh-by-Sands, Brougham, Carlisle, Chester, Heronbridge, Kirkham, Lancaster, Manchester, Mellor, Middlewich, Nantwich, Ribchester, Stainmore and Wilderspool, as well as of a number of multi-period rural and industrial sites in Merseyside (Philpott 2008).

In addition, some smaller sites have been reported in the annual volumes of the Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society and the Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society. The former of these Societies has also funded recent work at the site of Heronbridge to the south of Chester, which has been documented by the Society with remarkable speed in David Mason’s interim reports. Further, the latter Society, in 2009, added to its impressive collection of publication-outlets by launching a new series, entitled ‘Cumbria Archaeological Research Reports’ (CARR), which will offer an opportunity for the publication of excavation-reports of moderate size. The first of these is the report by David Breeze and David Woolliscroft of the excavations at the Hadrian’s Wall fort of Burgh-by-Sands, undertaken in the early 1980s by the late Professor Barri Jones; at the time of writing, this is shortly to be followed by reports on a number of sites in Carlisle, which have been excavated in recent years by Oxford Archaeology North. Further, the same organisation is currently preparing a report on work done by the former Carlisle Archaeology Ltd on a number of sites in the Lanes area of the city. In all, therefore, the recent record of and future prospects for the publication of work at Roman sites in north-west England are particularly encouraging.

The principal aim of the present compilation, as with its predecessors, is to record finds of Roman coins and, as far as possible, their contexts. As already noted, the success of the Portable Antiquities Scheme has led to a marked increase in the volume of finds being reported, although discretion is used in the matter of the amount of detail published here regarding findspots. All such information, however, appears on the PAS database, and so is available to researchers. Such discretion will be particularly obvious in the cases of hoards and casual finds; it is less necessary in the reporting of finds made at or near known Roman sites, since these are usually protected by Scheduled Monument legislation. As well as compilation, it is, of course, also essential that the data collected be put to use; this involves attempting to devise criteria for its use, as it goes without saying that the issue-date of an individual coin provides only a part of what a coin or group of coins can contribute to the understanding of a site or, indeed, a broader landscape. This involves assessment of wear (when such information is available) and relating it to the perceived circulation pattern of Roman coins. Further, by comparing coin-loss through denominations, we may be able to make some assessments and comparisons of the nature and quality of activity at a range of sites.

As in the earlier volumes, chapter II will contain new information from known Roman and Romano-British sites, whilst chapter III will contain new and updated information relating to groups of coins – hoards, multiple casual losses and other groups the status of which remains unclear. Chapter IV will consist of reports of individual finds of coins arranged in dated groups, together with fresh information relating to such finds that have been collected in the previous volumes. Each of these chapters will contain new discussion where this has become appropriate. The bibliography in the present volume will be consolidated for all four volumes. The main difference between this book and its predecessors will lie in the use of coin-illustrations, which has been made possible through the presence of these as part of the PAS database; indeed, I am particularly indebted to the North West’s Finds Liaison Officers

3

and their Assistants in the PAS (Dot Boughton, Frances MacIntosh, Stuart Noon, Vanessa Oakden, Janny Baxter and Lisa Keys) in the acquisition and use of these, and in their ever-generous sharing of information.

Finally, I should be grateful to receive any additional (or corrective) information from readers that relates to material that appears in the present book; this may be sent to me through the Centre for North-West Regional Studies, Fylde College, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YF.

A Note on the Roman Money-System

Although the previous volumes in this compilation have included information on the Roman money-system, it seems appropriate to repeat the essentials of it in the present context. From the early third century BC, the Roman Republic used money for a variety of purposes – advertising the power of the state, purchasing military assistance from neighbours in southern Italy in times of danger, as well as – increasingly – for internal commercial purposes (Reece 1970, 35ff; 2002, 13ff).

In the context of the coinage associated with Roman Britain, the very earliest coinage used by the Roman Republic need not detain us, since it is not found in Britain – in ancient contexts, at least. In the late third century BC, however, an important change was made, which was to form the basis of Roman currency into the third century AD: this was the introduction of the silver denarius. Ironically, in an important sense, this did not reflect the Republic’s growing power and authority: quite the opposite, in fact. By c. 211 BC, Rome was almost on her knees, when the Carthaginian general, Hannibal, marched his army across the Alps from Spain and into Italy; following a series of humiliating defeats, it appeared that the fall of Rome to the advancing Carthaginian was inevitable. In this situation, crisis-measures were called for: although the fledgling Roman money-system was based upon a bronze coin (the as), the copper that was used for coinage was now required for the manufacture of war-supplies. Thus, Rome was forced to bring her reserves of precious metal – particularly silver – into use for the coinage. The resulting coin, the denarius, was tariffed at ten asses, and carried a value mark, ‘X’, which was later – in the middle of the second century BC – raised to sixteen, although the original mark of value was retained. The purpose of this change was presumably to increase the value of money in circulation; as Reece notes (2002, 13), the only people who will have suffered from this were those who kept their savings in asses. The need to increase the amount of money in circulation was a reflection of the growing ‘magnetism’ of Rome itself, and of the growing responsibilities and interests of the Roman Republic in the context of an expanding Empire.

1.1 Denarius (obverse) of Marcus Antonius and Octavian (RRC 517, 2 of 41 BC).Photograph: Barbara Birley

1.2 Denarius (reverse) of Marcus Antonius and Octavian (RRC 517, 2 of 41 BC)Photograph: Barbara Birley

4

For the last century of the Republic, the coinage in circulation consisted almost exclusively of regular issues of denarii, with occasional issues of aurei, which tariffed at 25 denarii. All were generally minted in Rome, and were the responsibility of the three annual moneyers, tresviri monetales, or to give them their full title, tresviri auro argento aere flando feriundo, usually abbreviated to IIIviri AAAFF, who operated under the authority of the annually elected officials known as the quaestors. The tresviri generally ‘signed’ their work explicitly or through a monogram or other device. These coins commonly showed the goddess, Roma, or another deity, on the obverse (usually without a legend) and Victory driving a two- or four-horse chariot (biga or quadriga) on the reverse, with a legend identifying the moneyer responsible. In the later years of the Republic, however, prominent politicians, such as Sulla, Caesar, Pompey, Octavian and his rival, Marcus Antonius (plates 1.1 and 1.2), came to feature more frequently. The intrinsic value of these coins was high, which probably accounts, at least in part, for the fact that they remained in circulation into the second century AD, and are regularly found in north-west England both in hoards and as casual finds.

In 31 BC, Octavian defeated Antony and Cleopatra at the battle of Actium (off the western Greek coast), leaving the Roman world in his hands; after a century of intermittent civil strife, the restoration of stability was a vital necessity. Thus, Octavian, who in 27 BC was given the honorific name/title, Augustus, put in place a system of government which is often called the ‘Restored Republic’ because of the fact that it retained many features and practices of the ‘Old Republic’. In reality, however, it became increasingly clear that Augustus’ true legacy was, in effect, a dynastic monarchy, based upon his own family, the Julians, and that of his wife, Livia (the Claudians); the Julio-Claudian emperors comprised Augustus himself, Tiberius, Gaius (Caligula), Claudius and Nero, and lasted for a century until AD 68.

Amongst the many improvements, which Augustus brought to virtually every aspect of Roman life, was a radical enhancement of the coinage-system, consisting of a series of interrelated denominations in gold, silver, copper and orichalcum (an alloy of copper, lead and zinc). The latter, when fresh and uncorroded, have a yellow appearance which led many to refer to them as ‘brass’ (or occasionally, ‘gold’!!). The Augustan system was as follows:

aureus (gold) = 25 denariidenarius (silver) = 2 quinariiquinarius (silver) = 2 sestertiisestertius (orichalcum) = 2 dupondiidupondius (orichalcum) = 2 assesas (copper) = 2 semissessemis (copper) = 2 quadrantes (copper)

As we have seen in recent years in the case of our own currency, the smaller denominations have tended to play a diminishing part in commercial activities; similarly, by the time the Romans came to northern Britain in the second half of the first century AD, the semis and quadrans were rarely used and are consequently found only very occasionally. Nominally, the emperor himself controlled the issue of gold and silver coins, whilst leaving the lower denominations in the hands of the senate, a fiction maintained into the third century AD, and ‘advertised’ by the appearance of the letters, S C (senatus consulto or ‘by decree of the senate’), on the reverses of the base-metal coinage. In the reign of Augustus himself, some reality was given to this fiction by the fact that the names of the tresviri continued to appear on the lower denominations. The principal mints were in Rome and, from Nero’s time, in Lyon also, although in the first century AD there were other mints in use, too. Products of the Lyon mint are characterised by a ‘signature’ – a globe at the frontal point of the emperor’s neck (plate 1.3). The old eastern city-mints, however, produced their own imperial coinage, until they were integrated into an Empire-wide system by Diocletian in the late third century.

5

Amounts of coinage produced by the Julio-Claudian emperors varied; a particular case is that of Claudius; in his reign a crisis in coin-supply developed, which necessitated the supplementation of the coinage in circulation with local copying, presumably principally, though not exclusively, by the Roman army. Copies of Claudius’ aes-issues are commonly found in Britain, and their quality varies enormously. It is assumed that the quality of any coin perhaps depended upon whether it was a copy of a legitimate issue or of another copy (Sutherland 1937, 1-13). In north-west England, findspots of these coins tend to point to early military activity – that is, in the 50s and 60s – and the coins appear to have disappeared from use in the early years of the Flavian emperors (Vespasian, Titus and Domitian), who kept a far larger volume of current coinage in circulation.

Ultimately, like most things in Roman life, the integrity of the coinage was thought to be guarded and guaranteed by the gods, specifically Moneta or Juno Moneta (plate 1.4); she appears on the coinage with scales and cornucopiae as the symbols of her rôle. Some of the references to her on the coinage may well represent generalised commemorations; however, in some cases, these may have had specific applications; for example, it seems possible that Domitian’s Moneta-coins may refer to his decision to raise military pay, and there may be others which had a specific application which we are now unable to recognise. There was, however, no reference to Moneta on the coinage of Nero, who made the first significant adjustments to the Augustan system; this involved the devaluation of the aureus and debasement of the denarius, together with adjustments to the weights of the aes-coinage and the temporary issue of all of the aes-denominations in orichalcum (Mac Dowell 1979, 133ff). Since the purpose of the changes to the gold and silver coinage was plainly to get more coins from the same amount of bullion, the reforms were probably aimed at making it easier for Nero to pay the substantial bills resulting from the rebuilding of Rome following the disastrous fire of AD 64 and, in particular, from the construction of the emperor’s own extensive and extravagant new palace, the domus aurea (‘Golden House’).

1.3 Denarius (obverse) of Galba from the mint of Lyon

1.4 Denarius of Hadrian from the Waddington hoard, depicting Moneta on the reverse (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 256 of AD 134–8)Photograph:Dot Boughton

6

As mentioned above, the Flavian emperors greatly improved the supply of coinage by a regular combination of coins with general application and others with a specific point of reference. As a result, much of the coinage found in Flavian contexts is Flavian; apart from Republican issues, which were by then becoming quite worn, there tend to be few denarii pre-dating Nero’s reform and relatively little coinage dating from the civil war of AD 68-9. The next significant change is mentioned only by the third-century historian, Dio Cassius, who refers, in the context of his account of the events of AD 110, to Trajan’s recall

of ‘all the money that was badly worn’ for melting down and re-use (History of Rome 68.15,3). This appears to have applied to pre-reform denarii, which gradually disappeared from circulation in Britain over the following two decades. The attraction of such coins was, of course, that they were of a higher intrinsic value than Nero’s reformed denarii; their recall enabled Trajan to issue denarii at an improved level of purity, and to ‘re-issue’ a certain number of older (and presumably popular) coins. It appears that the only coins to have escaped this general recall were the denarii of Marcus Antonius; these, because of the mistaken view that they were badly debased (Pliny Natural History 33.132), remained in circulation, worn almost smooth by nearly three centuries of use (plate 1.5), until the demise of the denarius in the 240s.

The second century was clearly a period of growing anxiety in the Empire: not least amongst the concerns were economic difficulties (Reardon 1973). The principal signs are the progressive debasement of the denarius, which by the closing years of the century contained only 50% silver (or less; Boon 1974; 1988), and the gradual decline of the smaller of the aes-denominations. By the end of the century, the denarius and the sestertius were the principal coins in use. It may well have been this that led to an increased hoarding of denarii. By the end of the century, there were significant problems on the frontiers, which in their turn meant that a greater reliance had to be placed on an army which was both large and expensive to maintain. Secondly, the growth of competition for the position of emperor meant that ‘candidates’ had to ‘print’ money to buy and retain their supporters.

The first half of the third century saw the exacerbation of these problems: the Severan emperors, having achieved power by force, realised that force, widespread bribery and the promotion of the army’s interests represented the only routes to retaining it (Dio Cassius History of Rome 78.10, 4; Shotter 2003, 359ff). In its turn, this brought far greater pressure onto the Empire’s financial resources and, with it, a heightened prospect of instability and anarchy. Caracalla, the elder son of Septimius Severus, introduced a new (and inflationary) coin, which tariffed at two denarii. In just the same way that the dupondius, or ‘double-as’, had shown the emperor’s head on the obverse of the coin wearing the radiate (or sun) crown, so Caracalla’s new coin had the same device to indicate its ‘double’ status. In modern times, the coin has been called the antoninianus (derived from Antoninus, the name used by Caracalla following the Severans’ false claim to family-descent from the Antonine emperors of the second century); there is, however, no ancient evidence for the name of this coin. Needless to say, its status as a silver coin was purely nominal (plate 1.6).

Despite an attempt by Severus Alexander and his immediate successors to retain the denarius as a corner-stone of the money-system (plate 1.7), by the 240s the predominance of Caracalla’s new coin was complete. Nor was it long before Trajan Decius, best known for his persecution of the Christians, introduced another inflationary coin – the double sestertius, again with its ‘double’ status denoted by the radiate crown on the obverse side. Because of the fact that the new coin, apart from the radiate crown,

1.5 Denarius (very worn) of Marcus Antonius from Watercrook (RRC 544 of 31 BC)

7

1.6 Antoninianus of Philip I from Barnsley, Gloucestershire (RIC 4(Philip I), 44b of AD 244–7)Photograph: Stuart Noon

1.7 Denarius (obverse) of Severus Alexander(AD 228–31)Photograph: Barbara Birley

1.8 A small hoard from Emneth, Cambridgeshire, consisting of seven very worn second-century sestertii and a single double (radiate) sestertius of Postumus (second from the left, top row)

1.10 Antoninianus and copper radiate copy (obverses) of Gallienus

1.9 Denarius (obverse) of Julia Mamaea and antoninianus (obverse) of Gordian III

8

was virtually identical in appearance and weight to the ‘single’ sestertius, we see amongst coin-finds the re-appearance of considerable numbers of earlier sestertii, often worn almost smooth, which had clearly gained a new lease of life by their ability to be passed off at double their proper face-value (plate 1.8). By the later 250s, almost every pretence that the antoninianus was a silver coin had been lost, and it had become a copper radiate, sometimes with a silver wash, of variable size and quality (plates 1.9 and 1.10).

This ‘melt-down’, together with the growing vulnerability of the Empire’s frontiers, encouraged anarchy and breakaway movements, of which the most significant to affect Britain was the Imperium Galliarum (or ‘Independent Empire of the Gauls’), which lasted from AD 260 to 273. This movement produced its own coinage, which became the basis for the execrable copying which characterised the so-called ‘barbarous radiates’ (or ‘radiate copies’, as they are usually known these days). Many of these coins, which continued to be produced and used in Britain through the remainder of the third century and evidently beyond, were barely recognisable: the coins varied greatly in size, and were often poorly struck; obverse heads frequently bore little or no resemblance to any known imperial portraits; legends were scrappy, blundered, illiterate or sometimes absent altogether. The reverses of the coins clearly attempted to retain the common subject-matter of better radiates – deities and personified imperial ‘virtues’; these, however, were often reduced to unrecognisable ‘matchstick’ figures. Indeed, almost the only feature which distinguished these objects as Roman coins was the ever-prominent radiate crown on the obverse head.

It was as if the decline of the Roman Empire was already accelerating along a road to its inevitable collapse. However, the fall of the Imperium Galliarum in 273 heralded the beginnings of a recovery of sorts: Aurelian, ‘legitimate’ Emperor from AD 270 to 275, set about the restoration of the Empire’s territorial integrity, along with discipline at home. Amongst his reforms was the beginning of a restoration of Rome’s virtually worthless coinage; the huge sizes of many contemporary coin-hoards, often running into many thousands of coins, represent their own comment on the state of the economy, although it should be borne in mind that some of the larger ‘hoards’ may represent ‘official deposits’, perhaps of taxation money. This was, however, not a sign of increased wealth, but the result of hyper-inflation. Aurelian’s principal contribution to coinage-reform was to produce a radiate coin of greatly improved size and quality (plate 1.11); many of these were distinguished by the ‘mark’, XX.I, in the exergue and, although the meaning is not completely certain, many believe it to represent a ‘statement’ (using ‘X’, the ancient value-mark of the denarius) that one of the new coins represented two denarii, thus re-establishing a relationship with Caracalla’s antoninianus. These reformed radiates continued to form the basis of the official currency until AD 294, when Diocletian, dubbed ‘the greatest statesman of the Decline’, introduced reforms aimed at stabilising the Empire, its security and government and, included within the package, a radical reform of the Empire’s coinage-systems.

Officially, all the old copper coinage was swept away, which perhaps may help to explain some of the large hoards of radiates and copies which were put aside, presumably as of little further use. In their place, new copper coins, containing a small percentage of silver, were introduced, with the largest at approximately the size of the Augustan as. Again, we do not know what name was given to these new coins in antiquity, although in modern times the names, nummus and follis, have both been used. The old Greek city-mints in the east were now brought firmly within the Empire’s coining-system, and all mints throughout the Empire produced the new coinage, bearing in the exergue an identification of the particular mint of origin, with the reverse legend, GENIO POPVLI ROMANI, universally used on the largest of the three (plates 1.12 and 1.13). With the division of the Empire into four parts, each ruled by one of the tetrarchs (Diocletian, Maximian, Constantius Chlorus and Galerius), the coins carried on the obverse side the head of one of these men. The portraiture is noticeably harder than that of earlier Roman coins. At the same time, improved gold and silver coins were introduced, the former at 60 coins per pound of bullion, the latter at 96. The relationship between these new coins remains unclear, although Richard Reece (2002, 26f) has suggested that they were all ‘measured’ against the denarius; thus the three silvered copper coins represented 2, 5 and 25 denarii, whilst the silver coin stood at 100 and the gold coin at 1200 denarii. One odd feature of the coinage of this period is its relative rarity as

9

site-finds on Roman sites in the North West; it appears to indicate that either supplies were poor or that, because of the uncertain economic situation, people appreciated the stability that the new coinage seemed to symbolise, and saved rather than used it. It is worth noting that the North West has produced a number of large hoards of these tetrarchic coins (see below on pp. 27 and 135). It is possible also that there was some residual sympathy for the old coinage; indeed, it may be that it was a persistence in the production of radiates and copies that caused the London mint to be closed down by Constantine in the 320s.

In Britain, from AD 286/7 until 296, a new movement appeared, headed first by Carausius and followed by Allectus. The intention of Carausius was probably not rebellion in the first instance: in 285, Diocletian had divided the imperial responsibility into two geographical spheres, eastern and western. Diocletian himself retained control of the former, whilst he delegated the latter to Maximian; Carausius clearly felt that there was no reason why a further division should not take place, and issued a coin bearing three heads on the obverse, with the legend, CARAVSIVS ET FRATRES SVI (‘Carausius and his Brothers’). The failure of Diocletian and Maximian to recognise Carausius as their brother left the latter, ipso facto, in a state of rebellion. As is clear from Carausius’ coinage, he proceeded to present himself in a decidedly ‘Messianic’ light (RIC 5 (Carausius), 216). His and Allectus’ coinage essentially followed the pattern of the reformed radiates that had been in use since the reign of Aurelian, until the victory of Constantius Chlorus (Maximian’s ‘junior’, or Caesar) over Allectus in 296, graphically recorded on the Arras medallion, returned Britain to a state of legitimacy.

Diocletian’s reform of the coinage represented a brave attempt at a restoration of order out of chaos; however, the reality was less auspicious. The publication in 301 of an ‘Edict of Maximum Prices’ shows that inflation was still a problem and, making matters worse, this regulation of prices failed to take into proper account the soaring price of transportation. The same year saw the appearance of a new reverse-type on the copper coinage, with a legend containing the words, SACRA MONET AVGG ET

1.11 Reformed radiate (obverse) of Aurelian.

1.12 Nummus (obverse) of Maximian from Silverdale (RIC 6 (Ticinum), 29b of AD 295–6)

1.13 Nummus (reverse: GENIO POPVLI ROMANI) of Maximian from Silverdale (RIC 6 (Ticinum), 29b of AD 295–6)

10

CAESS NOSTR – a clear indication, it seems, that heaven was being invoked to stabilise a financial system with which human agencies were thus confessing themselves unable to cope. By the end of the first decade of the fourth century, the size of the large copper coin had slipped to the extent that the legend had to be shortened to GENIO POP ROM, and the two smaller copper issues had fallen from use. Gold now appeared at a revised weight of 72 per pound of bullion, whilst the silver coinage disappeared altogether; all of this was a sure sign that the inflation, with which the Edict of Maximum Prices was intended to deal, had not abated.

Through the remainder of the fourth century, coinage in three metals was maintained, although silver issues were particularly rare until c. 360; the copper coins which, until the 360s, continued to contain a small silver content, commemorated events, such as the founding of Constantinople, and carried a variety of themes relating to Roman tradition and current victory and military glory; all were intended to reassure (plate 1.14). The size of these coins varied considerably and in a way that presumably points to denominational differences. Although the coins of the 330s and 340s are amongst the commonest on Roman sites in Britain, the fact that there was much local copying of them suggests that supplies did not always meet demand, and that inflation remained a problem. We should also bear in mind that the death of Constantine in 337 ushered in a period of considerable upheaval, as the descendants of the dead emperor jockeyed for position.

1.14 Constantinian nummus from Barnsley, Gloucestershire, showing (obverse) the helmeted head of Roma and (reverse) the she-wolf and twins (LRBC I. 58 of AD 330–5.Photograph: Stuart Noon

1.15 Nummus of Constantius II, with the reverse type, FEL TEMP REPARATIO (falling horseman), from Vindolanda (LRBC II. 70 of AD 353).Photograph: Barbara Birley

1.16 Nummus of Constantius II, with the reverse type, FEL TEMP REPARATIO (galley), from Walney Island (LRBC II. 40 of AD 346–50).Photograph: Dot Boughton

1.17 Nummus of Constans, with reverse type, FEL TEMP REPARATIO (hut), from Barnsley, Gloucestershire (LRBC II. 181 of AD 346–50).Photograph: Stuart Noon

11

The 1,100th anniversary of Rome in AD 348 precipitated a renewed propaganda effort on the coinage: a new set of coins on large flans was issued, all carrying the legend, FEL TEMP REPARATIO (‘happy days are here again’); the reverse types augmented the verbal message – captives being dragged from their huts, the slaying of the enemy in battle, the bond between the emperor and Victoria and, perhaps as an ‘insurance policy’, the phoenix – presumably to indicate that, in the event of calamity, Rome would rise again from the ashes (plates 1.15, 1.16 and 1.17). Coins of improved size continued under the rebels, Magnentius and Decentius (AD 351-3), and under Julian, the last survivor of Constantine’s extended family. The coins of the former pair appealed specifically to Christian communities, whilst Julian, having witnessed the brutal activities of Constantius II carried out in the name of the new Faith, preferred to make his appeal to reasonable-minded pagans, of whom there must still have been many to make this a worthwhile exercise.

The dynasty of Valentinian (364-378) represents the last period of coherent supplies of coinage reaching Britain; the copper contained two principal types – GLORIA ROMANORVM (soldier and captive) and SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE (Victory proffering a wreath; plate 1.18) – together with a third (GLORIA NOVI SAECVLI), which was issued specifically in the name of Valentinian’s young son, Gratian. Gold (solidus) and silver (siliqua) continued in production; the silver coinage now carried in its mint-marks the letters PS (pusulatum), to indicate that the silver was refined; the gold coinage was issued only in the name of the imperial ‘cabinet’ (comitatus), and carried the mark, COMOB, where OB indicated refined gold (obryzium) issued on the authority of the Comes Sacrarum Largitionum (‘Count of the Sacred Donations’), the fourth-century equivalent of an officer who, in earlier days, would have enjoyed the rather less pretentious title of Procurator. Beyond this point, some copper coins continued to reach Britain into the earliest years of the fifth century; their themes continued to be encouraging whilst their condition told a rather different story; the state’s principal concern now seems to have lain with bullion, with copper coinage playing a mere token rôle.

As the coherence of the administration weakened in the later fourth century, we may assume that elements of the army became progressively independent of an overall command-structure, that money to pay them arrived erratically (if at all), and that tax-collection was increasingly intermittent. In such

1.18 Nummus of Gratian, with reverse type SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE, from York (LRBC II. 533 of AD 375–8).Photograph: Stuart Noon

1.19 Denarius of Nerva from the Waddington hoard, with the reverse type, IVSTITIA AVGVST (RIC 2 (Nerva), 18 ofAD 97).Photograph: Dot Boughton

1.20 Denarius of Nerva from the Waddington hoard, with the reverse type, CONCORDIA EXERCITVVM (RIC 2 (Nerva), 3 of AD 96).Photograph: Dot Boughton

12

circumstances, individual communities will have become more important than the larger administrative structures, as appears to be the evidence derived from such sites as Birdoswald on Hadrian’s Wall (Wilmott and Wilson 2000; Wilmott 2001). In this way, money in the form of coinage became far less significant than the bargaining power that individual groups had at their disposal; in short, bullion and ‘wealth in kind’ will have come to ‘talk much more loudly’ than a token coinage of copper.

In conclusion, we have seen how the coinage can provide important clues to an understanding of events and trends in Roman imperial history; perhaps few periods are as intriguing in this respect as that which followed the murder of the Emperor Domitian in AD 96. The coinage of Nerva’s brief reign (AD 96–8; Shotter 1983b, 215ff) and of Trajan’s early years throws significant light on the reality of power-politics – in contrast to the rather bland picture provided by the Classical sources, especially the Younger Pliny’s Panegyric of Trajan.

Nerva’s reign is seen as the dawn of a new age of liberty after the ‘tyranny’ of Domitian (Tacitus Life of Agricola 3,1); in reality, however, it was a period fraught with tension, as those who had loathed Domitian – principally members of the senate – welcomed this return of freedom, whilst others, who evidently regarded Domitian as a generous patron (such as members of the army), were angry at his murder. This tension came close to anarchy; as Catius Fronto, one of the consuls of AD 96, is on record as observing: ‘It was bad to have an emperor under whom nobody was permitted to do anything, but worse to have one under whom everybody is permitted to do everything’ (Dio Cassius History of Rome 68.1, 3). The elderly Nerva might have struggled to keep a hold on order and stability, as can be seen from his denarius commemorating IVSTITIA (‘justice’; plate 1.19), but he eventually found himself unequal to military pressure, particularly that exerted by Trajan, who was then one of Rome’s commanders of the powerful Rhine legions (Bennett 1997, 45ff). The reality of this again emerges clearly on Nerva’s coinage, with the repeated appearance of CONCORDIA EXERCITVVM (‘the harmony of the armies’; plate 1.20) – a legend born more of desperation than of expectation.

1.21 Denarius of Trajan from the Waddington hoard, with early-style obverse head (AD 98).Photograph: Dot Boughton

1.22 Denarius of Trajan from the Waddington hoard, with early-style obverse head (AD 101).Photograph: Dot Boughton

1.23 Denarius of Trajan from the Waddington hoard, with ‘mature’-style obverse head (AD 103).Photograph: Dot Boughton

13

Nerva’s only option, if he was to avoid military rebellion, was to adopt Trajan as his son and successor: Trajan’s ‘helping hand’ begins increasingly to take on the appearance of an ultimatum – ‘make me your successor, or face the consequences’. This parlous reality of Nerva’s situation again stands out with a denarius of AD 97, commemorating PAX AVGVSTI (‘Augustan peace’); the reverse of the coin depicts the togate figure of Nerva shaking the hand of a figure in military dress; this military figure might be the war god, Mars, or a soldier – or could it be Trajan? It should be remembered, in considering the significance of this coin, that the normal reverse type for ‘Peace’ is a female personification holding an olive-branch.

Trajan’s early coinage not only includes NERVA prominently in the imperial nomenclature, but also depicts an imperial portrait with distinct reminiscences of Nerva – a physical resemblance which was gradually to become less noticeable during the early years of the new reign. Thus, in both direct and subtle ways, the coinage of Nerva and Trajan appears to carry a powerful corrective to the blandishments of the Classical sources (plates 1.21, 1.22 and 1.23).