richard reece, roman coin survey from 14 sites

A Short Survey of the Roman Coins Found on Fourteen Sites in BritainAuthor(s): Richard ReeceSource: Britannia, Vol. 3 (1972), pp. 269-276Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/526030 .

Accessed: 11/08/2013 06:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Britannia.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 147.143.2.5 on Sun, 11 Aug 2013 06:55:11 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/526030?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


A Short Survey of the Roman Coins

Found on Fourteen Sites in Britain

By RICHARD REECE

IN the summary of the Roman coins published in the Fifth Richborough Report,' I made my first attempt at expressing the coin-finds from an archaeological site in a way that would facilitate comparison with other sites. Some problems and

errors of that method have already been dealt with in the Numismatic Chroniclez and need not be further discussed here. It was then already obvious that before the coins from one site could safely be evaluated, a background knowledge of the coinage of the Roman province or area in question was essential, together with a knowledge of the variation of coin-finds from area to area. This sample of site-finds from varied sites in England is offered as a fourth instalment of an examination of groups of coins stretching from Rome, through northern Italy and southern and northern France, to the British frontier. Lists of coins from northern Italy, southern France and northern France have been published in the Numismatic Chronicle.3 I hope that a comparison of the coins from these four areas will appear foll- owing the present survey, in the next volume of Britannia.

A minimum of argument will be found in the earliest publications as it has been reserved for the comparative study, leaving the regional reports as factual as possible. This scheme will be followed here, allowing only brief discussion of groups within Britain. Selection of the eighteen British groups included here is more random than balanced; but so is that of the foreign material. A more detailed, extensive and controlled study of the coin lists of British sites is being made by Mr. John Casey; we hope that our results will be complementary rather than divergent, but, while he is concerned with detail and variation within Britain, my main purpose is the production of a general overall picture for use in comparison with other provinces.

The groups selected for this summary are all from the lowland zone of the province of Britain. They are mostly from sites whose excavators have very kindly entrusted the coins to me for identification and report. The random nature of a list which includes towns large and small, two villas and a palace, two Saxon Shore forts, temples and rural settlements, may cause misgiving as being hopelessly disparate; I hope that the coherence of the results will justify such a range. A picture does in fact emerge of coin-loss on lowland British sites which, considering

I B. W. Cunliffe (ed.), Fifth Report on the Excavations of the Roman Fort at Richborough, Kent, London 1968, 200-217.

2 Numismatic Chronicle (NC) I967, o01-104. 3 Northern Italy: NC 1971, 167-79. Southern France: NC 1967, 91-105. Northern France: NC 1972,

159-65.

269



270 RICHARD REECE

the different histories of the main groups of coins, is satisfyingly uniform while showing extreme differences from coin-loss on the mainland of Europe. Thus an insular pattern can be seen to contrast with the metropolitan pattern already obtained in France and Italy.

The methods, ideas and inspiration for this survey spring from three sources: Dr. C. H. V. Sutherland's Coinage and Currency in Roman Britain (Oxford I937), his section on the coins in the Camulodunum report of Hawkes and Hull (Society of Antiquaries Research Report No. XIV), and Dr. Alison Ravetz's paper on 'Fourth century inflation' in NC for 1964-

The groups of coins selected are as follows: Canterbury: 1,845 coins, report in preparation, from the excavations of Prof. S. S.

Frere (1945-55) together with local finds listed by the late B. H. St. J. O'Neil, who also began the identification of the excavated coins. After his death the work was continued by Dr. C. M. Kraay at the Ashmolean Museum, and then passed to me for completion.

Chedworth: 305 coins published in the Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society (hereafter cited as TBGAS) 78, 1959 and 89, 197o, now in the museum of the villa in Gloucestershire. These are almost certainly the

majority of coins found in the original nineteenth-century excavation, though a few seem to have strayed.

Cirencester Excavations: 1,214 coins, unpublished, excavated between I96o and

1969 by Messrs. J. S. Wacher, P. D. C. Brown, and A. D. McWhirr for the Cirencester Excavation Committee. Prof. Donald Atkinson worked on the coins until his death in 1963, and I have continued the work from that date.

Cirencester Museum: 6,6o6 coins, published in summary in TBGAS 87, I968, which belong to excavations carried out before I960, to chance finds made in the town, and to several local collections which were amalgamated when the museum was established in 1938. These were all identified by Prof. Donald Atkinson.

Fishbourne: 224 coins published in Research Report of the Society of Antiquaries, No. XXVI. I suggested in the published report that this group is highly unusual. It is included here to see whether the abnormality is obvious when the site is set against a wide background.

Henley Wood: 217 coins, unpublished, from Mr. E. Greenfield's excavation in

1964 of a rural and religious site near Yatton in Somerset. Coins from later excavations on the same site have not yet been identified.

Lullingstone: 327 coins, unpublished, from the excavation of the villa in Kent by Col. G. W. Meates. This group should form an interesting comparison with Chedworth.

Nettleton: 1,799 coins, report in press, from the excavation finished in I970 by Mr. W. J. Wedlake on a rural and religious settlement of military origin, on the Fosse Way in Wiltshire.

Portchester: 384 coins, unpublished, from Prof. B. W. Cunliffe's excavation of this Saxon Shore Fort, containing all the coins found up to the end of the I970 season.



ROMAN COINS FOUND ON FOURTEEN SITES IN BRITAIN 271

Sea Mills: 596 coins, published in TBGAS 85, 1966, being a summary of the finds from the site, housed in Bristol City Museum, but not including the coins from the excavations of 1965-66.

Thistleton: 323 coins, unpublished, from the rural and religious site in Rutland excavated by Mr. E. Greenfield.

Verulamium, Frere: 1,603 coins, report in preparation, from the excavations directed by Prof. S. S. Frere (1955-61).

Verulamium, Wheeler: 1,503 coins, published in Research Report of the Society of Antiquaries, No. XII, on the excavations of Sir Mortimer Wheeler (1930-34).

Verulamium, Theatre: 3,512 coins, unpublished in detail, from the excavation of the Theatre by Dr. K. M. Kenyon in 1932-34.

Verulamium, Lord Verulam: 2,368 coins, published in summary by H. Mattingly in NC for 1932, from a collection of chance finds from the site of Verulamium. The Earl of Verulam, the present owner of the collection, kindly allowed the coins to be worked over once more, in detail, so that a full list of references may be published in Prof. S. S. Frere's final report.

Wanborough: 1,735 coins, unpublished, from the excavations conducted by Mr. E. Greenfield, and latterly by Mr. J. S. Wacher, on the settlement on Ermin Street in Wiltshire. This includes all finds up to the end of the 1970 season.

Winchester: 792 coins, unpublished, from the excavations conducted by Mr. M. Biddle for the Winchester Excavation Committee since I961. This summary includes all coins up to the end of the 1969 season.

Richborough: 51,726 coins, summarized in the Fifth Richborough Report, are included mainly for reference, as this is the largest group of site-finds known. The coins of each group have been divided into twenty-one periods, based

on the phases in which the coins were minted: e.g. for the earlier periods, the reign of an emperor. The periods run as follows:

I up to A.D. 41 VIIa I6I-8o XII 294-317 IIa 41-54 VIIb I80-93 XIIIa 317-30 IIb 54-69 VIII 193-222 XIIIb 330-48 III 69-96 IXa 222-38 XIV 348-64 IV 96-117 IXb 238-59 XVa 364-78 V 117-38 X 259-75 XVb 378-88 VI 138-6 XI 275-94 XVI 388-402

Table I shows the material collected in categories of silver, large bronze (AE I, sestertii), medium bronze (dupondii, asses, folles, and other AE 2), and small bronze (subdivisions of the As, and, later, AE 3 and 4). Gold coins are so rare as excavated site-finds in Britain that they have not been included in the table. They occur at Cirencester Museum (period III (one), XI (one), XVa (one), XVb (one), XVI (one)), at Verulamium, Wheeler (XVa (one)), and at Richborough (XI(one), XIV (one), XVb (one), XVI (nine)). Table II shows the total coins in each group, for each period, expressed as a percentage of the total coins in that group.



35 Percentage of total coins in each group

\ /

Isolated 30o values

25

20

15

Isolated values

10

8

6

41 54 69 96 117 138 161 180 193 222 238 25 275.

9431 303 7•3 402

4 36+A.D.

3

I l.a

Ilb III IV V VI Vhla Vllb VIII IXa IXb X XI XII XIlla XIIIb XIV XVa XVb XVI Period

FIG. I. See p. 273.



TABLE I: The coinage from the sites, classified in categories and pe

Group Cirencester Cirencester -+ Canterbury Chedworth Excavations Museum Fishbourne Henley Woo

PeriodAR E iE2 E3-4 AR E&1 2 3-4 AR &i 2 3-4 AR zEi 2 3-4 AR E1i 2 3-4 ARN Io 2

I 1 - 3 -.

---- 2 - 3 2 36 1 22 - 8 - 2 . Ha - 211 ------ - 127 - 3 184 --- 66 --- I

IIb 2 - 5 - - - I - - I I1 1 6 6 32 -•-

3 14 III 3 x120 - - - 3 3 50 - 40 15 154 1 I 1- 34 -- - I IV 3 3 14 I - - I 7 11 - 17 26 52 - - 2 3 - - I -

V 2 8 8 -.--

-- 2 3 7 16 32 31 1 -I I 3 VI i 15 6 - - - 3 7 8 - 17 50 54 --- - - - - I VIIa 1 13 5 - 7 4 - 10 43 22 -•- 3 x -- -I VIIb -7 1 ----- ----- 422 2 - -- -- -

VIII20 I 2 - 2 - I -12 - - - 1044 I - 2 - - - 2 --

IXa 4 1 - - -- 3 -- - - 32 27 - - I - - - 2 - - IXb .------- ---- -- 51 31 5 - - - - --- X --- 514--- 46 --- 69 - 3- 790 - --

41 --- XI --- 265 --- 21--- 64 --- 509 - -- 31 --- XII --31 - -- 3 -• --25 - -555 - -- 3 - - XIIIa --- 30 --- 5 --- 25 --- 436 ----- ------ XIIIb

•-- 377 - - - 71- -- 255 - - - 1,3435 - - - 2 --

XIV -- 3x17 I - - 36 - 3 - 176 2 14 - 547 5 - - I - - - 13 XVa 1 - - 84 I - - 114 6 - - 141 6 - - 930 1 - -I XVb I-- --- -- 3

-- --- II 5-- 3 56 ----- ---

XVI --- 92 --- I --- 258 7-- 754 ----- -

TABLE I (continued)

Group Verulamium Verulamium Verulamium Verulamiun -+ Sea Mills Thistleton Frere Wheeler Theatre Verulam

Period AR EA1 2 3-4 AR E 2 3-4 AR i 2 3-4 AR Ei 2 3-4 AR i 2 3-4 AR 2i 2

I 4- 7 -.

---- 16 8 9 - 5-15 - -- 4 - 7- 6 IIa - 66 - -- - 1-46 - - 32 -- 3 -

-•-•17 IIb - - 25 I

- - I I 30 I I I 21 3 - I 3 - - - II

III - 3 24 - - I 8 - io 2 85 - 6 2 50 - 3 -12 - o10 3 43

IV - 2 - I 1 5 - 5 1o 025 - 3 6 21 - 5 7 15 - 5 o10 15 V - 2 3 - - I 3 - 7 12 II - 4 6 15 - - 8 19 - 6 13 18 VI - 2 I - I - 5 - 5 19 6 - - 17 18 - I 16 21 - 5 II 21 VIIa - 2 - - I I - - I 12 6 - 2 12 7 - - 5 4 - 6 13 14 VIIb -2- ---x - I 5- - I 61- - 1 2 3 - I 7 2 VIII 4 - -- 5 - - - 18 2 - - 25 - - - 12 x 1- - 32 x- IXa - - - - 4 - - - 15 1 - - 4 2 - 2 - - - 17 - -- IXb I - - - I - - -

13 1 - 16- - - - 13- - - - 7 1 1

X - 60

-- - 31- --- 368 --- 611 --- 784 -- XI - 27 -i-- 16 --- 261 ---

331•--- 3xo ---

XII -- 6 - - - 2 - - - 13 -- - 12 - - - 42 - - - 26 XIIIa -- 23 - - - 3 - - - 42 - 15 - - - 149 - - XIIIb - 197 -- - 75 -- -- 256 - -- 7 --- - 952--- XIV - - 67 - - - 62 - 2 - 144 2 x i- 66 - - - 836 - - 2 - 20 XVa

• - 56 - 6-- 45 --- 96 1-- 62 --- 225 - -

XVb - 2 - 2 --- ------ 4 ----- ------ XVI 7 --- 47 1-- 35 -- 27 - -- 45 ---



ies and periods.

nley Wood Lullingstone Nettleton Portchester

EI 2 3-4 AR /EI 2 3-4 AR AX 2 3-4 AR Xi 2 3-4

3 - I - -- I -- 1 13

--- -- -- - 1- 3 - I -- - - - 1 -- 13

I- - - 2 2 - 1 1 2

-- 3 1 - 2 8 - I -- I 2 --4 5 - I - - I - - II 3

- -- -- -- ---- --

6.--2

-----------

-- I- -- 2

12-- -- I

-- --

-- 71 ---15 --- 150 --- 24 - - 19 - - -

17 --- III - - - 36

- - - 2 - - 12 - -- 38 -

- 5 - - 33 - --- 34 - - - 56 -- 77 --- 112 - -- 448 - - - 112

- 13 - - - - 218 I

I - 15 -

- - 19 - - - 37 I - - 506 - - - 53 ------ I ---- 14 - -- 3 -- 3 --- 20 - -- 202 --- - g

erulamium Verulam Wanborough Winchester Richborough

Ei 2 3-4 AR AEI 2 3-4 AR AEI 2 3-4 AR XAI 2 3-4

- 6 - 2 - 1 - I - - 64 4 113 3 - I7 ---9 -- 5 - 22 377 4 - II - I - 3 2 - 7 4 I29 2 3 43 - 7 2 27 1 - I - 34 19 333

10 15 - 3 9 12 -- - - 22 12 59

3 18 - 6 6 5 5 -- 12 26 38 11 21 -- 8 9 - I 2 2 - 29 28 55 -

[3 14 - I 7 6 I 5 I - 7 12 18 -

7 2 - 5 ..

3 9 2 I - -- 9 ----2--- -52 1 --

- -- 4 -- ------- 13 - - II - 4 --- 2-- - 39--

- - 505 - - - 199 - -- I86 - - - 4,759 -- 473 -

--- 183 -- - 188 -- - 4,099 - 26 -- - 15 - - 13 -- - 351 - -- 69 -- - 71 - - - 24 - - - 855 - - 574 - - - 469 - -

-- I60 -- - IO, 127 - 220 3 - - 129 - - - 51 - 35 -3,156 46 - - 159 -- - - 253 I -- - 55 28 - - 2,821 -- - -- 4 -- - 5 25 - 7 ,083 -- 48 - - - 268 --- 61 72 - -22,75o

[fate page * 7 2



TABLE II: The coins from each site as expressed percentages.

Ca Ch C.E. C.M. Fi H.W. Lu Ne Po S.M. Th V.F. V.W. V.I

I 3 6 I6 i 4-6 - - .2 I2I 13 Ha *7 - 2'4 1'5 29 '5 '3 *8 - I 1 3 3-0 2*I IIb *4 '3 1i1 i 7 7-6 - *3 - 4'5 -

2"2 1.8 III 1-4 .6 4'5 3-2 15 '5 '3 "7

- 4'5 2'7 60o 3-8 IV 1-3 - 1.6 1-5 2'2 '5 1.2 .3 -

"5 2"I 2*5 2.0 V *9 -

0I 13 I-8 - I 2 "5 -

"8 I"2 I8 1-7

VI I2 *3 1-5 19 * 5 '9 '5 - 5 1I8 19 2-3 1. VIIa i -

1• o 1.2 1-8 *5 .3 .8 - *3 .6 I.4 1.4 VIIb *5 - - 5 '4 5 - 1 - .3 '3 '4 '5

VIII 12 *9 io 1.8 .8 i.o *6 .6 - •

7 1.5 1.2 1'7 IXa *3 '3 -2 "9

'4 i*o - *3 - - 1.2 1*o *4

IXb 6 - I 14 - 1- '9 '7 '3 '2 *3 *9 i.I X 28 15 5'5 12 I8 33 4'5 8-3 6-8 Io 9"5

23 41 21 XI 13 6-8 5-2 7-8 I4 9 5- 6.1 Io 4-6 4-8 16 22 8-1 XII 1.7 1.o 2o0 .8 1-4 - .6 .7 ii i *6 .8 .8 1- XIIIa 1-6 1-6 20o 6-8 - 2-4 o10 9 I6 3'9 '9 2-6 I1o

4'" XIIIb 18 24 21 22 .8

35 32 25 31 33 21 16 4'7 27 XIV 17 I2 12 8-5 '4 6 21 12 4-6 II 19 9 4'4 24 XVa 4'7 38 I 14

"4 9 II 28 15

9"4 14 6

4"3 6-

XVb *I o * *9 I - - •*3

.8 "9 "3

3 6 - *3 -

XVI 5-0o 3 2I -I - I"4 6"o

II 2-5 1-2 14 212 18 In

Values less than one have been corrected to the first place of decimals; values less than 0.05 have been ex than o.9 have been expressed to two significant figures.

TABLE III: The coinage of Periods X-XI (A.D. 259-94) in detail.

- -

.-4.41

C C I 4) 1 C 404~(~ .- ~

Canterbury 76 5 104 2 1 - 14 - 53 1- 189 70 - 5 - - Chedworth 5 - 15 - - - 2 - 3 - 17 4 -- Cirencester Excavations 7 2 I6 I - - 9 27 6 I - Cirencester Museum "13

I9 77 3 7 - 38 - 8I - 247 105 6 2 17 3 -

Fishbourne 8 - - 9 - - 3 - 14 6 - - - Henley Wood 12 4 ' I- - - - - 14 - 24 6 - - 2 -

Lullingstone I - 6 - - - I 2 2 - 5 - Nettleton 22 2 34 -

• - 7 i 16 - 58 io

I -• Portchester 8 - 5 1 - - - - 1- 5 4 ---

Sea Mills 5 1 1 x 1 - I8 15 7 - - 3 Thistleton 6 - 8 - 1 - 81- 6 2 - - - Verulamium, Frere 56 7 46 5 3 - 13 x 64 xI 133 39 - - 3 x - Verulamium, Wheeler 90 4 131 6 1 - 27 - 72 - 80 oo100 2 - 2 iI - Verulamium, Theatre 105 Io I84 5 I I 22 96 - 227 I43 2 - 3 - Verulamium, Verulam 55 6 4I I 2 - 15 - 28 I 194 62 2 - 4 -

Wanborough 27 5 45 1 2 - 8 - 25 - 67 9 I - 7 - - Winchester 22 2 40 2 4 - 26 - 75 15 - - 2 - - Richborough 509 26 1,232 24 22 2 67 2 510 2 1,772 586 23 1 47 2 4 1



.W. V.T. V.V. Wa Wi Ri

1-3 I *5 .2 .1 *5 2*1 .*1 *7

"5 "6 I.O ?i8 .2 *4 '3 '2 '5 3-8

"4 2-2 2-I 1.3 .8

2.0 *7 1.2 I.4 *1 *3 1-7 '7 1-4 "7 1*2 *3 2-3 I'I I4 1*I *5 '3

'I4 "2 I*2 *8 *8 *3

.5 *3 *5 '3 '3 1-7 *4 1-4 '5 '2 '2

*4 '3 . 7 *2 2 .1 I'I *4 *5 .2 2 "I

I 21 20 12 23 9'2 2 8-8 19 II 23 7'9

?8 I 2 I"o

*9 1-6 *7 I10 4'2 2'7 4"2 3"0

1-6 4'7 27 22 27 20 20 4'4 24 9 7'5 6-4 6-4 4'3 6-3 6 15 6-9 5-6

3 - *1 2 .6 2-4 i.8 I-3

I.9 16 7'7 44

re been expressed as o.I; values greater

letail.

- 2 -- -- -- 66 13 178 779

. -. .. 4 5 I1 67 - I. - - - 19 2 41 133

2 2 --1 - 1 169 73 235 1,299 -.-. 5 25 72 - - - - - 15 9o

. . . . . . 6 6 5 32

x---- ----- 1-- 8 89 261

- 28 1 6 60 - - - - - 6 2 15 87

.. I 15 47 59 Io i88 629

- I -- - - 144 i8 162 942 - - - - - 72 21 211 1,094

S 2 - - - 75 23 367 978 - - - - - 36 2 136 382

---- ----- 25 4 157 374 4 1 II 20 7 3 1,324 292 2,364 8,858




The values shown in Table II may be plotted in a diagram such as FIG. I. The solid black areas show the region in which most values lie, while 'tails' show the few separated values which complete the 'normal' range. A few isolated values, e.g. Fishbourne in the fourth century, are shown as black dots. Thus in Period VIII most values lie between zero and one per cent, though a few values lie between one and two per cent; in Period XIIIa, most values lie between one and five per cent, while a few values continue up to eleven per cent. This is a subjective picture, but this is probably inevitable when a range of values (Table II) is presented as a simplified diagram.

In the surveys of France and Italy special attention was given to the radiate period of coinage from 259 to 294 (Periods X and XI) because this is one of the few occasions in which the coinage of the western Provinces was not uniform. The Gallic Empire (producing coins mainly of Postumus, Victorinus, and Tetricus I and II) and the British Empire (producing coins of Carausius and Allectus) caused areas in Western Europe to diverge from the general pattern of coinage issued by the mints in Italy. The production of barbarous copies of radiate coins, especially abundant in Britain, seems to fill the period between the Gallic and British Empires when very little regular coinage was entering the country. Table III shows the relevant coins in the same nineteen groups; the absence of central Emperors after Claudius II, and the concentration of northern issues, needs no further comment.

The overall picture which emerges (FIG. I) for the eighteen groups selected is satisfyingly uniform. It seems most unlikely that selection of eighteen further different sites, more or less at random, would produce a different picture, so that it is fairly safe to regard this diagram as approximating to the lowland British pattern of site-finds. Inclusion of more groups and sites in these Tables might lead to an extension of some of the limits, or it might provide further isolated values, but the probability is that most added values will lie nearer the mean than the limit. The diagram quantifies the fact which all excavators have long taken for granted, that the majority of coins (c. 8o per cent) found on any British site con- tinuously occupied in the Roman period belong to the years 259 to 402. Within these years the periods 259-94 and 330-6o are especially prolific. This emphasis on the coinage of the fourth century, though a commonplace in Britain, needs to be recorded in detail because it happens rarely in other provinces of Western Europe, and poses many problems of interpretation which will be dealt with fully in Part 2 of this study, the comparison of Italy, France and Britain.4

The problem of barbarous or irregular copies of third- and fourth-century issues has not so far been mentioned in this survey. Although barbarous radiate copies also occur in the north of France and Germany, this problem seems mainly to concern Britain, which also seems to be the only western province given to large-scale imitation of coins in the fourth century. Barbarous radiate copies have been isolated from the British groups as far as possible, and are shown in a separate class in Table III. As they were presumably needed after 274, when the supply from nearby mints ceased, they have been included in Period XI (275-94).

4 To appear in Britannia iv.



274 RICHARD REECE

Comparison of coins from published sources, and personal inspection spread over several years, must be a poor substitute for rigorous objective distinction between regular coins and their imitations. At present this unsatisfactory state of affairs can be noted, but not, unfortunately, remedied.

Absence of agreed criteria for judging between regular issues and copies in the fourth century means that present attempts to distinguish the two types must be doomed to failure. The easiest period to divide is that of 348-64 which includes the Reverse of a soldier spearing a fallen horseman and the legend Fel Temp Reparatio; here the barbarous copy is usually obvious and the regular coin stands out in sharp contradistinction. But between 330 and 348 I suspect that only the tip of an important iceberg of copying has so far been noticed. There are many coins of Constantine the Great and his sons showing two soldiers holding two standards (or one), complete with mint mark and fully legible legend which, to my mind, fall far short of the weight, diameter and technical standard always achieved by the regular mints. This is also true of the Urbs Roma (Wolf and Twins) and Constantinopolis (Victory on Prow) issues. With these high standards in mind I now tend to class up to thirty per cent of Constantinian coins of the years 330-48 as copies. Others, and myself in the past, have not been so critical, and have labelled as copies only the barbarous, rather than the purely inefficient products. In this critical quagmire I judge the subject unprofitable or misleading to pursue, and I have left it on one side in this survey in the hopes of resolving it by study of the prolific Richborough material at a date in the near future. It seems possible that such study might suggest the involvement of the army in the production of these copies.

Three points must be emphasized. First, the recognition of local copies is predominantly a British problem, and affects very few continental collections. Second, if copies could be recognized, and if they were, for some reason, eliminated from our lists before comparative study, even then the relative distribution of coins in Britain between the earlier and later periods would be little affected. Third, since these matters of distinction and definition are so troublesome to experienced numismatists today, people who have critically handled infinitely more coins than the average Romano-Briton, they are probably irrelevant to the face value and normal use of bronze coins in the Roman shop.

Finally it is permissible to make a few comparisons of groups within the English survey. Fishbourne was included in the list to see whether the method would note its known oddity. This has been most successful. If diagrams similar to FIG. I are drawn separately for silver, sestertii, and small bronze, there are 48 values which could be recorded; in 14 cases the Fishbourne value lies within the 'normal' spread of values, in another 28 cases Fishbourne has no coins of the period and denomination in question, and in 6 cases the Fishbourne value is considerably and individually aberrant. Portchester has no coins before 238, has a rise from Period X to Period XI (shared only by Lullingstone), and abnormal values in Periods XII and XIIIa. These unusual features no doubt give an indication of the history of the site and should be duly explained by the current campaign of excavation. Two villas, Chedworth and Lullingstone, have few early




coins, so few indeed that on purely numismatic grounds one would question the substance of early occupation. In both cases, however, the archaeological record is quite definite about flourishing second-century occupation, and the case of Fishbourne, where the great majority of coins preceded the palatial occupation, acts as suitable antidote to numismatic doubt. The moral seems to be simple and obvious: that individual rural sites are most unlikely to produce enough coins struck and lost before 250 to make possible reliable comment on their early establishment and activity. This moral, enunciated on the basis of only two villas and a palace holds good for many other villa sites, as well as for the multitude of lower-class farmsteads where early coins are almost unknown.

For ease of discussion the remaining sites have been divided so that Winchester is thought of as the smallest town and Wanborough as the largest rural settlement. Further superficial classification seems unprofitable in this context. It is worth

noting that an obvious category of settlement, the village, is missing from this

survey, and the omission may be important in itself. The idea of a Romano-British

village with a coin list running to hundreds of coins may be a contradiction in terms. Sea Mills, Nettleton and Wanborough all share the general British pattern of eighty or more per cent of coins belonging to the third and fourth centuries, but they also have a series running unbroken from the conquest to the third

century. This continuity of coin-loss, if this is what it is, seems to be a safer guide to continuity of activity on the site than would be discontinuous peaks of finds from separate dates. Even here there are problems, for third-century hoards of sestertii in Britain show that the currency of the first half of the third century consisted largely of worn coins from Domitian to Commodus and Septimius Severus. Considerable activity between c. 200 and 250 on any site could scatter enough earlier coins to mask a gap in occupation of even a century. It is therefore only when all coins from a site are published in their full archaeological context that we shall be able to interpret such evidence in a reliable way.

A full discussion of the relationships of the different groups from Verulamium is best left for the Verulamium report. It is only necessary to say here that there is no evidence to allow any suggestion of discounting Lord Verulam's collection on the grounds of possible collector's contamination. With the many opportunities which a stately home has offered for additions from the Grand Tour, or selection of the better coins for a Cabinet, it is extremely gratifying that they shine forth as uncontaminated site-finds. There are three possibilities: first, that the method is so insensitive and unreliable that such contamination has not been detected-this I doubt when the known eccentricities of Fishbourne and Portchester make themselves so obvious; second, that such contamination did not take place-which is probably too good to be true; third, that the scale of contaminations has been so small, compared with the bulk of site finds, that it is irrelevant since it has never influenced values by as much as 0o3 per cent. At Cirencester, similar qualms have been expressed on the validity of the large museum collection. Where these qualms are justified, as in the sestertii from 222 to 238 (no doubt imported for their portraits) the results are obvious; where the results are not obvious, the qualms are not justified.



276 RICHARD REECE

Comparison of the four towns-Winchester, Canterbury, Verulamium and Cirencester-shows four individual patterns of coin loss which differ one from another within a full adherence to the moods and volumes of the British background. Thus when the background falls progressively from Period XIIIb, through XIV to XVa, all but Winchester fall in the same way, but Cirencester shows a main fall in the first step (XIIIb to XIV), whereas Canterbury saves its fall until the second step (XIV to XVa). These points are self-evident when the table of percentages is compared with the background provided by FIG. I.

It may be felt that by stopping short of an interpretation and explanation of these patterns of coin-loss I am failing in my most obvious duty. There are two factors which make me determined to avoid speculation for the present. The material must first be discussed in relation to the patterns which have been built up for Italy and France, and this, as already mentioned, will be done in Part 2 of this study. The material must also be understood. At present such understanding is very fragmentary, for there are so few sites in which the coins have so far been studied in their archaeological contexts. The example of the early third-century use of sestertii has been given; a second example from the fourth century has further unwelcome implications. It is a fact that most hoards of copper coins deposited around 400 contain up to two per cent of coins struck between 330 and 348, still in recognizable condition. Thus at least one coin in every hundred lost in 4oo00 bears a 'date' of seventy years earlier. When this coin is found by itself there is the one in a hundred chance that its real date of loss is 40oo and not, as would usually be judged, around 340-50. There is a higher likelihood that the coin was lost about 390, because still more were available then to be lost; higher again in 380, and so on. Not until we have studied several sequences of fourth-century coin- losses may we suggest what any one individual coin may mean, and this in turn will affect our understanding of the background picture, for its dates at present reflect when the coins were struck, not when they were lost.

The future is not so black as this recital of difficulties would suggest, for, once the need for the archaeological study of coin-losses is accepted, every new site published will add something to our knowledge of coin-use or its absence. A body of knowledge is building up, and the rate of growth should accelerate.

I am very grateful to the excavators and owners of the groups for the oppor- tunity to work on these coins; in no case should my numismatic misconceptions be taken as reflecting, or prejudging, their archaeological opinions. To them, and to my other friends and colleagues who have provided many facts and much discussion, I give my best thanks.

Institute of Archaeology, University of London



richard reece, roman coin survey from 14 sites

Documents