A Coin of Valentinian III from WroxeterAuthor(s): John CaseySource: Britannia, Vol. 5 (1974), pp. 383-386Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/525744 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 08:14

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 support@jstor.org.

.

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 193.142.30.32 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 08:14:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NOTES 383

devant-Nancy.45 In these three cases the cock stands to the right of Mercury, close to him but turned away.

If the Bradwell cockerel was part of a Mercury carving the angle at which the bird rests would seem to indicate that it leant against some object, quite possibly Mercury's leg; in that case it would have probably been gazing up into his face. Professor Toynbee estimates from the size of the bird that the complete sculpture would have stood about 45 cm high and she also suggests, from the treatment of the tail, that the cock stood at the end of the group.

If the view of the marble cockerel as a fragment of a Mercury group is accepted, it performed one of two roles in the life of the villa-dwellers. It may have been a purely decorative piece, like the Cupid-and-Psyche and Luna groups in marble from the Roman villa at Woodchester (Glos.),46 or the Bacchus from a grave at Spoonley Wood (Glos.),47 both of which were large and important sites. Alternatively, the sculpture may have had a genuinely religious significance, and if so may well have stood in a domestic shrine or lararium in the villa.48 The Italian marble of the carving would suggest a purely classical depiction of the god, a votive object intended for worship of the Graeco-Roman, rather than of the Romano-Celtic, version of Mercury.

The Bradwell sculpture is especially interesting since very few instances of marble (or indeed of any stone) religious figure-sculpture are known from Romano-British villas. There are, for instance, the marble sculptures mentioned above from Wood- chester and Spoonley Wood; the lost stone head of Ceres from Bignor (Sussex);49 the mother-goddesses/Mercury relief from Wellow (Somerset);so the figure of Atys from Froxfield (WVilts.).s' Perhaps the nearest parallel to our carving is the stone eagle from Cole's Hill, near Spoonley Wood (Glos.),52 which may well have had a religious associa- tion (with Jupiter or with an emperor in Jupiter's guise): but the treatment of the feathers there is far less naturalistic. From the towns there is nothing to compare closely with the Bradwell cockerel; the nearest parallel is the recently discovered (as yet un- published) fragment of a Purbeck marble bird, possibly an eagle, from Exeter,s3 and the recent find of a stone (?) eagle at Cirencester.54 In bronze, birds with similar treatment of plumage, etc. are known, for example, the eagle from Silchesterss and the fighting cock from London.56 There is also the exquisite miniature silver-gilt cockerel from Cirencester.s7 Thus the present discovery indicates the possibility of a certain distinction attaching to the Bradwell villa, which further excavation must investigate.

MIilton Keynes Development Corporation

45 Espirandieu no. 4696. 46 S. Lysons (i 797), An Account of the Roman Antiquities discovered at Woodchester in the County of Gloucester, pls. xxxvi-xxxx (British Museum).

47 British Museum (1922), Guide to the Antiquities of Roman Britain in the British Museum, 28, pl. in. 48A lararium has been suggested at the Roman villa at Bignor (plans at Bignor Villa Museum,

Sussex). S. E. Winbolt and G. Herbert (1934), The Roman Villa at Bignor. 49 A. L. F. Rivet (ed.) (1969), The Roman Villa in Britain, 154. so British Museum. A. L. F. Rivet (1969), loc. cit. (note 49), pl. 4.1 . 51 Ibid., pl. 4. I4- 52 Gloucester City Museum: JRS xlix (I959), 127, pl. xviii, fig. 6. 53 Photograph in Current Archaeology No. 39 (July 1973: vol. 4, no. 4), o106. Information from Professor

J. I. C. Toynbee, Lady (Aileen) Fox and Mr. Michael Griffiths. 54 Information from Professor J. NM. C. Toynbee. s5 G. C. Boon (1957), Roman Silchester, pl. xv. 56 British Museum. Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (1928), Roman London, pl.

LXVlI. 57JRS lviii (1968), 198, no. 136; pl. xvII, fig. 3.

A Coin -of Valentinian III from Wroxeter. Mr. John Casey writes: In an appendix to the second edition of his account of the excavations at Wroxeter in i86o, Thomas Wright published a list of the coins found on the site and then preserved in

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.32 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 08:14:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

384 NOTES

Shrewsbury Museum.58 Among the items listed is a coin which can be recognized as an issue of Valentinian III datable to 430 or later and which is, as such, the latest western imperial coin so far recovered in Britain.

The list used by Wright was compiled for him by Samuel Wood, of Shrewsbury, whose numismatic skill is attested both by the quality of the published list and by his manuscript catalogue still extant in the Museum. Unfortunately, the catalogue contains no reference to the coin under discussion nor are any of the coins in the catalogue recognizable in the present Museum collection. In general the published list is un- exceptional as a record of casual finds and shows a frequency of types and issues in the proportions that are characteristic of major Romano-British sites. There is, however, one considerable anomaly in the recording of no less than six specimens of a rare medallic coinage ofJulian the Apostate and Valentinian I devoted to the celebration of a festival of Isis. This series is otherwise represented in Britain by only a single specimen from Richborough.59

In the section of Wright's list devoted to bronze coins, and under the superscription 'Valentinianus A.D. 364 to A.D. 375' (i.e. Valentinian I), appears a coin which is des- cribed as having the reverse legend and type:

'VOTA PV. B The Praetorian Camp, beneath the Porta 0.' There is no correspondence between this description and any coin of the House of Valentinian, and the very circumstantial account precludes any confusion with other coins of the late Roman series featuring camp gates. Of these, those of the Constantinian period are of substantial module and of such familiarity to numismatists that confusion of legend and type is ruled out, whilst the small, and less easily read, issues of Magnus Maximus and Theodosius I read SPES ROMANORUM and SPES REPUBLICE respectively. The only coin that can be compared to the published description is a small bronze of Valentinian III:

Obv. DN VALENTINIANVS PF AVG

Rev. VOT PVB

A camp gate. In exerge RM or RPM.

Weight c. 1-35 gm. Diameter c. Io mm. This coin was issued in two varieties, one with towers surmounting the gate and the other without. In most cases the officina of the mint responsible for the production of the coin is designated by a letter above the gate.

The slight discrepancies between the description of the Wroxeter coin and that published above can be easily accounted for, especially since the voT PUB coinage is of very small size, very poorly struck and almost always produced from dies greater in diameter than the coin flan. A specimen with a complete obverse and reverse legend is a very great rarity. It is clear that Wright's cataloguer has mistaken one of the triangular turrets of the gate for the letter A and, adding this to voT, thus produced the reading VOTA; he has also read the upper part of the it or P in the mint-mark, which is rarely completely on the flan, as an o. This series of misreadings allows some precision in the exact identification of the type involved. Given that we have correctly deduced that the coin is of the turreted-gate variety and that there is no letter recorded that can be assigned to the officina identification symbol,60 we find that there is only one issue that appeared with the turrets and without the officina letter. The Wroxeter coin can be identified with LRBC 2, No. 855.61 To clinch the identification we have the fact that the original cataloguer listed the coin under Valentinian, albeit the wrong one, so that part, or all, of that name must have been visible on the obverse.

5s T. Wright, Uriconium: An Historical Account of the Ancient Roman City (1872), 451- 59J. P. Bushe-Fox, Second Report on the Excavation... at Richborough, 209, no. 8255. 60 The Rome mint operated in five oficinae-P(rima), S(ecunda), T(ertia), Q(uarta), = Quinta. 61 R. A. G. Carson and others, Late Roman Bronze Coinage, pt. 2 (1960).

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.32 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 08:14:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NOTES 385 The dating of the voT PUB series is a little uncertain, but it can probably be assigned

to either 430 or 435. In the former year Valentinian probably celebrated his decennalia and in the latter his third quinquennalia; either date would have been an appropriate occasion for the issue of coins recording imperial vows. A date in this period is supported by the obverse legend; Valentinian's earliest coins read DN PLA VALENTINIANUS PF AUG whilst the latest issues are very abbreviated and read DN VALEN AUG. Coins of the middle period of the reign bear the imperial title of intermediate length.

The latest period of currency-supply in Roman Britain has been the subject of considerable re-assessment in the last decade and the results of these studies emphasize the isolation of the Wroxeter coin in the general numismatic record.62 The coinage of the House of Theodosius, as represented in Britain, falls into two parts distinguished by types and module. The first-period coinage from 378 to 388 is very scarce indeed, no doubt because the removal of troops from the island by Magnus Maximus took away that part of the population through whom new coin passed into general circulation. The second period, 388 to 402, saw the resumption of payments to the army and administration by the central government and small 2-gm bronze coins with the legends VICTORIA AUGG and SALUS REIPUBLICAE, issued from the Gallic mints until 395 and there- after from the Rome mint, are relatively common, especially on sites that produce late military equipment. In 402 the SALUS REIPUBLICAE coin was superseded, at Rome, by a new and slightly heavier type with the reverse legend URBS ROMA FELIX. This coin did not reach Britain, and this break in the supply of bronze coinage must date the end of imperial payments to the island; for the issue of petty currency was an integral part of the system employed by the imperial fiscal authorities63 for recovering the gold in which official salaries were paid. The reason for this cessation of payments may well have been an interruption in the supply system from Italy caused by the invasions of Alaric in 401 and Radagaisus in 405, rather than any insular problem. Whatever the cause, an hiatus in payments and the sense of isolation engendered in Britain would be a contributary factor in the events that led to the elevation of Constantine III as emperor in Britain in 406. After Constantine's defeat in Spain in 41 1, the supply of coin was not resumed. A few silver coins in the name of Honorius, and datable as late as 420, reached the south-east of England and just possibly (on the evidence of the occurence of such a coin in the Coleraine Hoard) the west or south-west.

The presence of a coin substantially later in date than those in the pattern outlined above is somewhat surprising for, although the site has recently produced evidence of extensive late or post-Roman structures, its coin distribution in the latest period is at variance with that of other Romano-British towns. At Wroxeter the coinage of the first Theodosian period is greater in volume than that of the second, and, whilst the numbers of coins involved in toto is very small, it does indicate that coin was probably not being officially supplied to Wroxeter in the final years of the fourth century. Why this should be is unclear but is almost certainly connected in some way with the military history of the district. Certainly sites with late military equipment are provided with late Theo- dosian coins and conversely one would expect major sites without such coins to be devoid of late army units. Possibly Maximus dismantled whatever western military command existed, and made some provision for the policing of Wales and the Wroxeter area outside the regular military framework of the diocese, and these arrangements persisted after his fall. Such arrangements may have involved the settlement of laeti who would be a non-coin-receiving population, rather than foederati who would certainly have received payment which one might expect to be represented archaeologically. If this speculation contains any element of truth it would place the Wroxeter coih in an

62 See especially J. P. C. Kent, 'Coin evidence for the abandonment of a frontier province', in E. Swoboda (ed.), Carnuntina (1956).

63J. P. C. Kent, 'Gold coinage in the later Roman empire', in R. A. G. Carson and C. H. V. Suther- land (eds.), Essays in Roman Coinage. .. (1956).

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.32 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 08:14:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

386 NOTES

essentially non-coin-using context. Equally puzzling is the agency of transmission of the coin, though the presence of St. Germanus in Britain at about the period of issue of the coin demonstrates one avenue of contact with the continent which was still open. It should be emphasized, however, that the VOT PUB coin is unlikely to have derived from Gaul since its circulation is restricted to Italy. On the whole it would seem that this single coin represents little more than a casual drift from the shrinking centre of the Empire to the fringes of an increasingly irrelevant former province.

Department of Archaeology, University of Durham

Some recent finds of Late Roman Buckles. Mrs. Sonia Hawkes writes: In March 1972 a decorated bronze buckle-plate was picked up from 'the surface of the Roman fort at Greta Bridge' in the North Riding of Yorkshire (Fio. 3, I).64 It is a fine example of the Type I which has been much written about in recent years,65 and which is considered to have been produced by Romano-British workshops during the second half of the fourth century. The fort and its vicus are at present ill explored66 and this plate, though a surface find, may be regarded as a precious indication of late occupation. It is a front-plate only, length

7"35 cm, width 1-6 cm, competently engraved with four

cross-hatched lozenges, which haye punched circlets at their angles, and bordered by simple angular punch work. Though now incomplete and slightly damaged, it shows little sign of original wear. Type I buckle-plates with stylistically similar geometric ornament have been found at nearby Catterick67 and at several sites further south.68 This is not the only new find of its type. From a late Roman pit on a site at Red Lodge, Ducklington, Oxon.,69 has come a battered fragment which, despite its slovenly and uncharacteristic zig-zag ornament, is likely to have been part of another Type I plate (FIG. 3, 2). Such plates, long and narrow, made of doubled sheet metal, were attached to small D-shaped buckles with confronted dolphin-heads (Type IA) which, on the best- made examples, generally had crests in the form of horse-heads (Type IB). To the already lengthy list of Type IB buckle-loops we may now add one in Stroud Museum,70 found in 197 on the surface of Site 15 in the field called Lower Chessalls at Kingscote, Gloucs.7 Here there was an extensive Roman settlement which had remained in occu- pation until at least the end of the fourth century. The buckle (FIG. 3, 3) must once have

closely resembled one from another and similar Gloucestershire site, at Wycomb7Z dolphins with buffer-jaws, circlet-eyes on well-moulded heads, a line of punched arcs at the base of each horse-head-but as well as plough damage, it shows much original wear, especially on the left side. A broken perforation through the remains of the right

64 Information from the finder by courtesy of Mrs. S. Thubron. The object, sent to Oxford in March 1973 for study and drawing (by Mrs. Marion Cox), has now been returned to the finder, Mr. E. W. Lloyd, by permission of whom it is published here.

65 S. C. Hawkes and G. C. Dunning, Medieval Archaeol. v (1961), 1-70 but esp. 21 iff. and Catalogue 41 ff-.; 43-4 Bericht der Ri6misch-Germanischen Kommission (1962-3), 155-231 but esp. 18 1 ff. and Catalogue 204 ff. S. C. Hawkes in A. C. C. Brodribb, A. R. Hands and D. R. Walker, Excavations at Shakenoak i (1968), 96-1oi, and Shakenoak iii (1972), 74-7; Trans. Birmingham Warwickshire Archaeol. Soc. lxxxv (I972), 145-59.

66 B. R. Hartley in R. M. Butler (ed.), Soldier and Civilian in Roman Yorkshire (1971), 58; cf. p. 413 below. 67 M. Pocock, Yorkshire Archaeol. J. xliii (197i), 187, pl. I; Hawkes, op. cit. (1972), 146, fig. 1,4-. 68 From Dorchester-on-Thames, Cirencester, Duston, Silchester and especially Popham, Hants., cf.

Hawkes and Dunning, op. cit. (1961), 47, 50, figs. I,I4 and 15, n-q. 69 Information from Mr. M. Aston of the Oxford City and County Museum. The site is being excavated

by Mr. G. Williams and the Witney Archaeological Group, by whose permission it is published here. The drawing (by Mr. M. Rouillard) is based on a Museum photograph and a sketch by Mr. Williams.

70 Reg. no. 71.421. It is published here by permission of the Museum's Committee. I am much indebted to the Curator, Mr. L. F. J. Walrond, for sending a detailed description and drawing on which that published (by M. Rouillard) is based.

71 B. N. Eagles and V. G. Swan, Trans. Bristol & Gloucestershire Archaeol. Soc. xci (1972), 6o ff. 72 Hawkes, op. cit. (note 65) (1972), 146, fig. I,3.

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.32 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 08:14:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions