II FINDS OF COINS FROM KNOWN ROMAN SITES

Map 1 Roman Sites in North-West England

A COINS FROM ROMAN SITES IN LANCASHIRE, MERSEYSIDE AND GREATER MANCHESTER

1. Burrow-in-Lonsdale (1990, 13-14; 1995, 4)2. Kirkham (1990, 14; 1995, 4; 2000, 18)3. Lancaster (1990, 14-20; 1995, 4-6; 2000, 18-22)4. Manchester (1990, 20-29; 1995, 6-12; 2000, 22-24)5. Ribchester (1990, 30-36; 1995, 12-14; 2000, 24)6. Walton-le-Dale (1990, 36-40; 1995, 14-15; 2000, 24-26)7. Wigan (1990, 40-41; 1995, 15)8. Wilderspool (1990, 41-46; 1995, 15-17; 2000, 27)9. Castleshaw (1995, 17-19; 2000, 27-28)10. Burrow Heights (Lancaster) (2000, 28)11. Warburton12. Tarbock Island13. Quernmore

17

1. Burrow-in-Lonsdale: The papers of Anthony Moorhouse, who worked on the site in the early twentieth century, record the discovery of an unidentifi ed denarius (presumably in 1905). In addition, it is reported that an aes-medallion (or sestertius) of Vespasian (AD 77–8) was found in the fort-rampart in the late nineteenth century (Speight 1892, 285). Further, an additional coin from the excavations of 1947 (CW 2 48 (1948), 28) – a dupondius of Domitian – was overlooked in the original listing (1990, 13-14).

In 2000, a number of coins (listed in IV.A, 2, 3 and 4) were found in Burrow, and may have come from the vicinity of the fort:

Lucilla 1 Æ (As) Salonina 1 AR (RIC 5 (Salonina, sole reign), 13) Gallienus 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Gallienus, sole reign), 510) Constantine I 4 Æ (RIC 7 (Siscia), 148; LRBC I. 51(3)) Constantius II 1 Æ (LRBC II. 76)

2. Kirkham: Since 2002, nine coins have been reported through the PAS as having been found in the vicinity of the fort-site:

Vespasian 1 Æ (As) Trajan 2 AR (RIC 2 (Trajan), 216, 318) Hadrian 1 AR (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 271) Antoninus Pius 2 Æ (Sestertius; dupondius) Marcus Aurelius 1 Æ (Sestertius) Tetricus I 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Tetricus I), 126) Constantinian 1 Æ (VICTORIAE D D AVGGQ N N)

3. Lancaster: After completion of the listing in the Second Supplement (2000, 18-22), a further short excavation was undertaken by Oxford Archaeology North on the Mitchell’s Brewery Site on Church Street. Eight coins were recovered, one of which was a ‘copper denarius’ of Vespasian. This should be considered alongside a similar type of ‘coin’ of Commodus, which came from the 1992-campaign on the site (2000, 18). It would appear likely that these objects were votive in nature (cf. Shotter 1997, 133), and that they point to the possible presence of an adjacent religious site – or, perhaps, that such objects were manufactured at the property excavated on the Brewery site, which showed evidence of metal-working in a shop on the street-frontage. The eight coins recovered in 2000 were:

Vespasian 1 Æ (‘Denarius’) Domitian 1 Æ (Dupondius) Nerva 1 Æ (As) Trajan 1 Æ (As) Hadrian 1 Æ (Hill 1970, no. 327) Faustina I 1 Æ (RIC 3 (Antoninus), 1160) Divus Claudius 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Claudius II), 259ff) Tetricus I 1 Æ

In all, therefore, the Brewery-sites produced sixty-seven coins distributed chronologically as follows:

18

Table 2.1: Lancaster: Chronological Distribution of Coins from the Brewery Site

% % %I – – VIII 2 2.99 XV 4 5.97II – – IX 1 1.49 XVI 2 2.99III – – X 4 5.97 XVII 8 11.93 IV 10 14.93 XI 1 1.49 XVIII – –V 8 11.93 XII 1 1.49 XIX 2 2.99VI 2 2.99 XIII 18 26.87 XX – –VII 4 5.97 XIV – – XXI – –

Of the total of Roman coins from Lancaster, 39.55% of those of known provenance have come from the areas of extramural settlement; the percentage chronological distribution of these may be compared with that of the Brewery-coins, and the correlation is seen to be close:

Table 2.2: Lancaster: Percentage Chronological Distribution of Coins from the Civilian Settlement

Brewery All Brewery All Brewery AllI – 0.57 VIII 2.99 5.75 XV 5.97 4.03II – 0.57 IX 1.49 3.35 XVI 2.99 1.15III – 0.57 X 5.97 2.87 XVII 11.93 10.34IV 14.93 13.79 XI 1.49 0.57 XVIII – 0.57V 11.93 12.65 XII 1.49 1.15 XIX 2.99 2.30VI 2.99 4.61 XIII 26.87 22.99 XX – 0.57VII 5.97 9.20 XIV – 2.30 XXI – –

Excavations in 2002 by Oxford Archaeology North of a site behind the Judges’ Lodgings – that is, adjacent to the east gate of the Flavian fort – revealed rampart-material amongst which was a little-worn sestertius of Vespasian of AD 71 (RIC 22 (Vespasian), 1137). This fi nd adds strength to the proposition that the fort at Lancaster was initially established during the governorship of Quintus Petillius Cerialis. For a recent discussion of the chronology of Roman Lancaster, see Shotter 2001a.

Up to a dozen coins were recovered in 2002 from the north bank of the River Lune in the vicinity of Carlisle Bridge; there is no clear indication of the circumstances of loss, although the coins do not obviously appear to have represented the whole or part of a hoard. Two have been presented for examination – an as of Trajan (AD 98-102) and a ‘dejected Britannia’ as of Antoninus Pius (RIC 3 (Antoninus), 934 of AD 154-5); both were worn and damaged, evidently as a result of water-action. A few further coins have been reported in recent years from the south bank of the River Lune, including a denarius of Tiberius (AD 14-37), a sestertius of Hadrian (?), a worn sestertius of Commodus (AD 180-92), a small nummus of Constantine II (AD 330-40), and a nummus of Constans or Constantius II (LRBC II. 589/590 of AD 346-50).

It has recently been reported that the papers of James Stockdale (author of Annales Caermoelenses), which are held in the Record Offi ce at Barrow-in-Furness, contain a reference to the discovery in 1836 of a nummus of Constantine in the Churchyard at Cartmel. This location was later changed (in a marginal gloss) to the Churchyard at Lancaster. The coin is recorded as the ‘Victory on Prow’ type, minted at Arles (LRBC I. 356; Mike Hancox, pers. comm.). It should be noted that, in 1836, construction work on the Old Vicarage was on-going.

19

The total number of Roman coins recorded from Lancaster now stands at 442; the distribution of these is shown in the following table:

Table 2.3: Lancaster: Chronological Distribution of all Recorded Roman Coins

% % %I 6 1.36 VIII 22 4.98 XV 39 8.82II 4 0.90 IX 9 2.04 XVI 3 0.67III 6 1.36 X 11 2.49 XVII 75 16.97IV 38 8.60 XI 2 0.45 XVIII 14 3.17V 40 9.05 XII 8 1.81 XIX 18 4.07VI 16 3.62 XIII 76 17.19 XX 1 0.23VII 30 6.79 XIV 19 4.30 XXI 5 1.13

4. Manchester: An excavation conducted in 2003-04 in Barton Street by Manchester University Archaeological Unit yielded six coins, mostly in a poor condition:

Republic 1 AR (Crawford 1974, no. 544)Vespasian 1 Æ (Dupondius)Domitian 1 Æ (as RIC 22 (Domitian), 221)Nerva 1 Æ (RIC 2 (Nerva), 64/86)Antoninus Pius 2 Æ (Asses; inc.RIC 3 (Antoninus), 934)

These coins are listed and briefl y discussed in Gregory 2007, 140.

Excavations in 2009 on a site on Chester Road recovered one coin, which was thought to be a possible issue of the early fourth century (Norman Redhead, pers. comm.).

The total number of Roman coins recovered from Manchester now stands at 279; the distribution of these is shown in the following table:

Table 2.4: Manchester: Chronological Distribution of all Recorded Roman Coins

% % % I 11 3.94 VIII 6 2.15 XV 26 9.32 II 1 0.36 IX – – XVI 4 1.43 III 5 1.79 X 8 2.87 XVII 14 5.02 IV 57 20.43 XI 3 1.08 XVIII 7 2.51 V 33 11.83 XII 2 0.72 XIX 11 3.93 VI 25 8.96 XIII 37 13.26 XX 2 0.72 VII 17 6.09 XIV 8 2.87 XXI 2 0.72

5. Ribchester: A few coin-fi nds have been reported in recent years; these include a dupondius issued by Claudius I for his mother, Antonia, which was found evidently in the late 1960s or early 1970s (RIC 12 (Claudius), 104 of AD 50-4). Four coins have been reported to Ribchester Museum: a worn dupondius of Antoninus Pius (AD 138-61) was found in 2001 on the southern side of the River Ribble, adjacent to the village; a worn and corroded radiate copy (c. AD 270-80) was discovered amongst material from the excavations of 1989-90 conducted by the Lancaster University Archaeological Unit (now Oxford Archaeology North); it was not, of course, available to be included in the site-publication (Buxton and Howard-Davis 2000). The other two coins were denarii, found in 2003 on the southern side of the river Ribble – a Republican issue (Crawford

20

1974, no. 340,1 of 90 BC) and an issue of Marcus Aurelius as Caesar (RIC 3 (Antoninus), 470 or 475 of AD 156-8). In 2010, a further coin was reported through the Portable Antiquities Scheme – a broken, but little worn, antoninianus of Gordian III (RIC 4 (Gordian III), 153 of AD 243-4).

The total of Roman coins reported from Ribchester has now risen to 383, distributed chronologically as follows:

Table 2.5: Ribchester: Chronological Distribution of all Recorded Roman Coins

% % % I 16 4.18 VIII 10 2.61 XV 9 2.35 II 4 1.04 IX 5 1.31 XVI 1 0.26 III 8 2.09 X 7 1.83 XVII 28 7.31 IV 119 31.07 XI 1 0.26 XVIII 4 1.04 V 45 11.75 XII 2 0.52 XIX 5 1.31 VI 42 10.97 XIII 49 12.79 XX – – VII 26 6.79 XIV 2 0.52 XXI – –

Although relatively few coins have been reported from Ribchester in recent years, some comments on the overall chronological distribution are appropriate: the site has yielded a larger proportion of pre-Flavian coinage than other military sites in the North West. This, taken with its high level of Flavian coin-loss, is strongly suggestive of activity pre-dating the governorship of Agricola (Buxton and Howard-Davis 2000, 409f), although how early such activity should be placed is more diffi cult to determine. It must surely point at least to the governorship of Quintus Petillius Cerialis (AD 71-4). However, given Ribchester’s position on the River Ribble and its consequent access to the sea, it will probably, from an even earlier stage, have provided a convenient route via the Ribble/Aire corridor by which the Roman army could penetrate the Brigantian heartland; this will probably have been of especial value during the 50s and 60s, culminating in the rescue of Cartimandua in AD 69 (Shotter 1994; 2004b, 17ff). Thus, the site of Ribchester and the Ribble valley, although evidently not at that early stage ‘formalised’ with a fort, will probably have played a signifi cant rôle in the Roman effort to maintain stability amongst the Brigantes during the increasingly unstable pre-Flavian years.

Once established as a fort (presumably in c. AD 72–3), the site’s importance throughout the Flavian period (IV) is made clear by the large number of Flavian coins in the sample, outnumbering those of the Trajanic period (V) by a margin of 3:1; the all-round strength of Ribchester’s communications will have given the site a vital importance during the years of conquest and consolidation of the North West. However, whilst the volume of Flavian coin-loss undoubtedly points to Ribchester’s strength during the Flavian period, it should be borne in mind that the visible superiority of the coin-loss of period IV over that of period V may also refl ect a relative weakness in the coin-loss of period V itself. A possible reason for such a weakness in Trajanic coin-loss should perhaps be sought in the Hadrianic period (VI), when Trajanic coins would normally be expected to have provided a major element of circulating coinage. In other words, the relationship between IV and V may be signalling a temporary loss of or reduction in garrison-strength at Ribchester in the period of Hadrian’s reign, when the revised frontier-policy was having ‘knock-on’ effects on garrisons at other sites in northern Britain. However, whilst it has seemed plausible in the past to support such a hypothesis by citing the movements of Ala II Asturum in the late fi rst and early second centuries AD, it has been shown (Edwards 2000, 49; cf. Holder 1982, 107) that the precise identifi cation of the unit of Asturians at Ribchester is far from certain.

If there was a Hadrianic hiatus in the garrison-pattern at Ribchester, it would appear to have been shortlived, as periods VI to X show a more normal loss-profi le, presumably as a result

21

of the arrival of the Sarmatian cavalrymen in the later second century (Dio Cassius History of Rome 72.16). However, from the late second century, the volume of recorded coin-loss appears to fall away by comparison with that at other sites in the region, and it has been noted that most of the coins that have been recorded derive from sites within the known fort-area. However, that the coin-loss of periods X to XII is indicative of continued occupation, at least in the fort itself, is confi rmed by the number of inscriptions that survive from that period. It has, however, been conjectured that a factor (or factors) appears to have affected activity in the known area of extramural settlement (Olivier 1987; Buxton and Howard-Davis 2000, 420f). The nature of this is unclear, although some suggestions can be made: the area may have been re-used for another purpose – perhaps as a parade-ground (Edwards 2000, 49). Alternatively, it may simply have refl ected a declining importance of the fort, although the evidence for a veteran settlement at Ribchester might be thought to cast doubt on that; however, in the light of recent episodes of fl ooding in the village, it is possible that the extramural settlement had to be wholly or partly relocated, perhaps following an environmental problem.

Although coin-loss continues to be recorded through the second half of the third century until the mid-fourth, it is noticeably on a smaller scale – particularly in periods XIII and XVII – than at many other sites in the North West; further, coin-loss in periods XX and XXI, although never large at any north-western site, is non-existent at Ribchester, and even that of period XIX is slack (Shotter 1990, 30-3). The reasons for this require further research, although it may be simply that, in contrast to some other sites in the region, Ribchester did not maintain a military presence through to the close of the fourth century.

6. Walton-le-Dale: A damaged denarius of Vespasian has been reported as having been found in 2001; the legends could not be read, although the obverse head appeared to be of the early type (AD 69–71).

In 2005, a group of coins was reported, which had evidently been found by metal-detectorists in the area of the site excavated in 1996 by the then-Lancaster University Archaeological Unit, shortly after the close of those excavations; the seven coins were:

Nero 1 AR (RIC 12 (Nero), 60)Vespasian 1 Æ (As)Nerva 1 Æ (RIC 2 (Nerva), 98)Trajan 2 Æ (Sestertius; as of AD 98–102)Hadrian 1 Æ (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 586)Illegible 1 Æ (As)

7. Wigan: Four Roman coins were recovered during excavations on the Grand Arcade site, carried out in 2004 by Oxford Archaeology North. The site revealed elements of a Roman bath-house, although the question of possible military occupation within Wigan remains unresolved. It has, however, been suggested that timber buildings revealed in these and earlier excavations could have been elements of barrack-blocks (Ian Miller, pers. comm.). The coins found in 2004 were in a poor state of preservation, which in two cases precluded recovery of information beyond the identity of the issuer:

Quadrans 1 Æ (RIC 21 (Anon. Quad.), 32) Hadrian 2 Æ (As; dupondius – possibly RIC 2 (Hadrian), 604) Antoninus Pius 1 Æ (As)

The dating and indeed the rôle of the small pieces known as anonymous quadrantes (or tesserae) are not precisely understood, although it is assumed that they should be placed within a period

22

bounded by the reigns of Domitian and Antoninus Pius. At any rate, the quadrans (or quarter-as) will have played a diminishing part in the Roman money-system, as infl ation bit harder; it does not appear to have been minted or circulated much beyond the reign of Hadrian (see RIC 21, pp. 214f.).

For a discussion of the Roman coinage recovered over the years from locations within Wigan, see the forthcoming report of the excavations of 2004.

8. Wilderspool: For the coins from the excavations of 1993 (1995, 15-16), see now the full excavation-report (Rogers and Garner 2007, 69-70). For coins from nearby Stockton Heath, see below on p. 68.

9. Castleshaw: The discovery of three denarii in 1898 is noted in records held at Oldham Museum; the status of the coins is, however, unclear, and it is possible that they constitute the whole or part of a hoard. It is clear now that the coins were retained by one of the fi nders (F.W. Chadderton), and later given by him, with the rest of his collection, to the Tolson Museum at Huddersfi eld, where the coins are currently held. The three denarii can be identifi ed as follows:

Hadrian 1 RIC 2 (Hadrian), 77 Sabina 1 RIC 2 (Hadrian), 396 Lucius Verus 1 RIC 3 (Marcus), 561

Further details are recorded by Teasdill (1961). It should be noted, however, that the coin of Lucius Verus would be outside the chronological limits usually associated with this site; this may strengthen the case for proposing that the coins originated in a hoard, and raises the question as to whether any more of the denarii recorded from the site may have had a similar origin.

Regarding the coin-list published previously (1995, 17), it has been pointed out by Ken Booth (2001, 80ff) that the earlier records contain a reference to only one coin of Vespasian – a denarius found in 1898; the number of coins of Vespasian from these records should, therefore, be reduced from two to one. It appears, however, that this error was not passed into the site totals previously given (1995, 18), which included all of the denarii and which should remain as they are.

Those coins from Castleshaw that can still be traced are located in a number of museums in the North West: the three denarii found in 1898 (1995, 55) are, as stated above, in the Tolson Museum at Huddersfi eld; those from the excavations of 1908–11 and 1957–64 (1995, 17) are in The Manchester Museum, whilst those from 1985–6 are in Oldham Museum.

11. Warburton: It has been suggested that this was the location of a small military site, lying between Manchester and Wilderspool. However, an investigation in 2006 by Channel 4’s Time Team – the eventual programme was entitled No Stone Unturned (2007) – failed to uncover any evidence of military activity, although there were clear signs of early land-use. In spite of this, local metal-detectorists have in recent years recovered a number of fi bulae (‘brooches’) of the Roman period, of which one can be dated to c. AD 60, another to the fourth century, and a further seven to the late fi rst and early second centuries.

In addition, a number of Roman coins have been found in the area; these include ten early denarii, which were located scattered over a small area adjacent to the river Bollin, the course of which runs a little to the north of the site of the Time Team’s excavations. It seems likely that these coins should be regarded as the whole (or part) of a disturbed hoard; details of them will, therefore, be given below in III.A.ii, 54. Five other coins have also been found at various locations in the vicinity:

23

Vespasian 1 Æ (RIC 22 (Vespasian), 190/244) Domitian 1 Æ (Sestertius, AD 84–96) Trajan 1 Æ (Sestertius) Commodus 1 Æ (RIC 3 (Commodus), 325a)

The fi fth coin was an illegible sestertius.

The presence of these coins, together with the early denarii in the suggested hoard, points to the existence in the vicinity of a military site. Because of corrosion-products, the degree of wear on the sestertius of Vespasian is diffi cult to estimate, although it does not appear to have suffered much wear prior to loss. In view of this, it is likely to have been a loss of the AD 70s, indicating a military presence at least from the time of Agricola’s governorship, and perhaps from as early as that of Petillius Cerialis. The nearby presence of such an early hoard itself points to a fi nal deposition-date in the late fi rst century AD, because ‘old silver’ appears to have been recalled by the Emperor, Trajan, in c. AD 110 (Dio Cassius History of Rome 68.15, 3; Reece 1988, 94; see further above on p. 6).

12. Tarbock Island: Excavations in 2007 recovered nine late Roman aes coins from a site that was rural or commercial / industrial in nature:

Unassignable radiate copy (?) 1 ÆConstantine I 1 Æ (RIC 7 (London), 5)GLORIA EXERCITVS (1 std; copy) 1 ÆConstantius II 1 Æ (as LRBC I. 1064)FEL TEMP REPARATIO (Falling Horseman copies) 3 ÆValens 1 Æ (LRBC II. 97)Valentinianic GLORIA ROMANORVM copy 1 Æ

For a hoard from this area, see below III.A.ii, 34 (1990, 163-4); for sites, see Cowell and Philpott 2000, 66-164; Swan and Philpott 2000, 56-67).

13. Quernmore: There were evidently a number of small industrial sites in this area, situated at about three miles to the south east of Lancaster and engaged in the manufacture of pottery, bricks and tiles between the late fi rst century and the mid-second; to date, the sites have produced no coins (Leather and Webster 1988, 89-93), although Quernmore’s links with the fort at Lancaster have been amply demonstrated by the discovery at both Quernmore and Lancaster of bricks and tiles bearing the stamp of the Ala Sebosiana (Watkin 1883, 176-7; Shotter 1988, 213-4).

24

B COINS FROM ROMAN SITES IN CUMBRIA

1. Ambleside (1990, 48-9; 1995, 21)2. Beckfoot (1990, 49; 2000, 30)3. Bewcastle (1990, 49-50; 1995, 21-2)4. Birdoswald (1990, 50-2; 1995, 22-5; 2000, 30-2)5. Bowness-on-Solway (1990, 52)6. Brampton (Old Church) (1990, 53)7. Brough-under-Stainmore (1990, 53-5; 1995, 25; 2000, 32) 8. Brougham (1990, 55; 1995, 26; 2000, 32-3)9. Burgh-by-Sands (1990, 55; 1995, 26; 2000, 33)10. Burrow Walls (1990, 55)11. Caermote (1990, 55)12. Carlisle (1990, 55-77; 1995, 26-33; 2000, 33-4)13. Castlesteads (1990, 77-80; 1995, 33)14. Drumburgh (1990, 80; 1995, 34; 2000, 35)15. Hardknott (1990, 80-1; 1995, 34; 2000, 35)16. Kirkbride (1990, 81)17. Kirkby Thore (1990, 81-2; 1995, 34; 2000, 35)18. Low Borrow Bridge (1990, 82; 1995, 34; 2000, 35)19. Maiden Castle-on-Stainmore (1990, 83; 1995, 34)20. Maryport (1990, 83-7; 1995, 34-7; 2000, 35)21. Moresby (1990, 87; 1995, 37)22. Netherby (1990, 87; 2000, 35)23. Nether Denton (1990, 87-8)24. Old Carlisle (Red Dial) (1990, 88-9; 1995, 37-8; 2000, 35-7)25. Old Penrith (1990, 89-91; 1995, 38-9; 2000, 38)26. Papcastle (1990, 91-5; 1995, 39; 2000, 38-40)27. Ravenglass (1990, 95-6; 2000, 40)28. Stanwix (1990, 96-8; 1995, 40; 2000, 40)29. Watercrook (1990, 98-101; 1995, 40; 2000, 40)30. Milefortlets and Towers of the Coastal System (1990, 101-2; 1995, 41; 2000, 40-1)31. Milecastles and Turrets of Hadrian’s Wall (1990, 102-3; 1995, 41; 2000, 41)32. Blennerhasset (1995, 41)33. Troutbeck (1995, 41)34. Whitley Castle (1995, 41; 2000, 41)35. Cummersdale (2000, 41)36. Bowes (2000, 41-2)37. Scalesceugh

25

1. Beckfoot: Since the publication of the Second Supplement in 2000, a considerable number of coins have been reported, mostly from the beach, which has been shown by excavations conducted in 2007 by Oxford Archaeology North (OA North 2007) to have been adjacent to a cemetery-area, although it is possible that some of the material is derived from the known fort and its extramural settlement and from Milefortlet 15 of the coastal system (Bellhouse 1989, 38f). These new coins have been reported by a number of people, so that care has had to be exercised in order to avoid duplication. The following 101 coins appear to have derived from the vicinity of the cemetery-area since 2000; some of them were perhaps deposited with the burials in a ritual context – for example, the ‘copper denarius’ of Caracalla – as the fare to pay the ferryman for the journey across the river Styx; the Roman poet, Juvenal, paints a gloomy picture of what was in store for those who arrived at the river without the required fare (Satire 3, 264-7). For a full review of the cemetery-material, see Caruana 2004.

Republic 3 AR (inc. Crawford 1974, no. 291,1 of 114/3 BC and 382, 1a of 79 BC)Nero 1 Æ (RIC 12 (Nero), 205ff)Vespasian 9 2AR (inc. RIC 22 (Vespasian), 4); 7Æ ( inc. RIC 22 (Vespasian), 271, 322/1202) Domitian 2 AR (RIC 22 (Domitian), 656, 739)Trajan 18 AR; 17 Æ (inc. RIC 2 (Trajan), 440, 503, 570, 621, 627 (?); also as of AD 98-102)Hadrian 8 AR (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 267); 7Æ (inc. RIC 2 (Hadrian), 551, 598, 656)Antoninus Pius 6 Æ (inc. RIC 3 (Antoninus), 706?, 930(2), 1211)Faustina I 3 AR (RIC 3 (Antoninus), 345); 2Æ (inc. RIC 3 (Antoninus), 1154ff)Marcus Aurelius (as Caesar) 2 ÆFaustina II 1 Æ (RIC 3 (Antoninus), 1398) (under Antoninus)Marcus Aurelius 3 Æ (RIC 3 (Marcus), 1109; two dupondii)Faustina II 2 Æ (inc. RIC 3 (Marcus), 1714)Commodus 1 Æ (Sestertius of AD 180-3)Clodius Albinus 1 AR (RIC 4 (Albinus), 8)Caracalla 1 Æ (‘Copper denarius’: RIC 4 (Caracalla), 13a)Gallienus 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Gallienus, sole reign), 481/Cunetio 1768)Claudius II 1 ÆVictorinus 2 Æ (RIC 5 (Victorinus), 114, 117/Cunetio 2518)Tetricus I 11 Æ (inc. RIC 5 (Tetricus I), 16(2), 100(?))Unassignable radiate copies 8 ÆCarausius 1 ÆConstantine I 1 Æ (SOLI INVICTO COMITI type)Constantinian 4 Æ (LRBC I. 51(2), 52, 58)Constans 1 Æ (LRBC II. 180)Valentinianic 1 Æ

Illegible 9 Æ (possibly including a ‘copper denarius’, two asses and three probable fourth-century fragments)

The coin of Nero is of interest because of its early date, and because it was not very worn; it might suggest the possible presence of an early military site in the area; also, this coin, which depicts Apollo Citharoedus (‘Lyre-Player’), Nero’s ‘favoured’ deity, on the reverse is the only Roman coin to receive a specifi c mention from a Classical source (Suetonius, Life of Nero 25;

26

plate 2.1). There is, in addition, a moderately-worn as of Hadrian, dated to AD 119-22, from Beckfoot Farm – presumably a vicus-location. In addition, in 2010, six radiates were found, scattered over a small area, in a fi eld to the north of the known fort (see also below, III.B.iii, 37); these coins consisted of Gallienus’ joint reign 1 (RIC 5 (joint reign), 311), Gallienus’ sole reign 1 (RIC 5 (sole reign), 245), Claudius II 1 (RIC 5 (Claudius II), 104), Victorinus 3 (RIC 5 (Victorinus), 57, 67, 114).

These coins bring the total of legible pieces recovered from Beckfoot to 116, distributed chronologically as follows:

Table 2.6: Beckfoot: Chronological Distribution of all Recorded Roman Coins

% % %I 5 4.31 VIII 5 4.31 XV 2 1.72II – – IX 1 0.86 XVI – –III 1 0.86 X 4 3.45 XVII 6 5.17IV 14 12.08 XI 1 0.86 XVIII 1 0.86V 21 18.11 XII 1 0.86 XIX 1 0.86VI 8 6.91 XIII 31 26.72 XX – –VII 12 10.34 XIV 2 1.72 XXI – –

This sample is suffi ciently large for some preliminary comments to be made; as stated above,

the majority of these coins have been recovered by metal-detectorists working on the beach and in other areas adjacent to the village, thus leaving it unclear from where, in what must have been a complex group of site-areas, they may have derived. On present evidence, therefore, comments will treat the coins as a homogeneous group. It is, however, worth noting that the recent (2007) excavation of an area of the cemetery by Oxford Archaeology North (OA North 2007) failed to reveal any coins and that, despite the assumed custom of providing the dead with the means to pay Charon, the ferryman, for the fi nal journey across the River Styx, coins have so far proved to be scarce on the sites of most Roman cemeteries in the North West (Cool 2004, 380f; Iles and Shotter 2009, 92).

Although a certain amount of pre-Flavian coinage has been recovered, much of this – particularly, the Republican denarii – would appear from the condition of the coins to have been losses of a considerably later point in time; however, it would be worth bearing in mind that the probable nature of early Roman campaigning in Cumbria would not rule out the possibility that troops may have operated on this part of the coast in early Flavian times – or even earlier. The relative strength of Republican denarii would not be inconsistent with a suggestion that men from Legion II Adiutrix, recently recruited from the fl eet at Ravenna and probably brought to Britain by Quintus

2.1 As, Nero, with the reverse type depicting Apollo (or ‘Nero-Apollo’) the Lyre-Player (RIC 12 (Nero), 205 of AD 62–8).

27

Petillius Cerialis, may have worked their way up the north-west coast from the Dee estuary to the Solway Firth as a part of joint operations by land and sea. The presence at Beckfoot of two aes-issues of Nero lends some weight to this suggestion.

The relationship between periods IV and V (Flavian and Trajanic) would seem, as at a number of other sites in the North West, to point to the likelihood that a permanent fort at Beckfoot should be seen as a part of the process of consolidating the conquest of the area; it should perhaps be said, however, that this would not rule out the possibility of an earlier fort in the vicinity, though not precisely on the known site.

Although the sample is too small for us to expect that all of its period-relationships are fully meaningful, it may be that the relationship between periods VI and VII carries a suggestion of some interruption of or diminution in full activity during the reign of Antoninus Pius, which was then resumed under his successor. The gradual decline in coin-loss evident through the periods of the second century is a phenomenon normally observed at north-western sites, and may refl ect an effect of economic and monetary factors, rather than of occupational trends.

Coin-loss in the fi rst half of the third century is within normal proportions for a sample of this size – a ‘surge’ in the Severan period (X), followed by decline in periods XI and XII. However, as is commonly observed, losses of coins of period XIII demonstrate a considerable peak – in this case, nearly 27%. It is worth noting here that recent fi nds from Beckfoot have included a hoard of more than 300 radiates and copies (III.B.i, 29) and a small ‘multiple casual loss’ of six radiates (III.B.iii, 37). Care must, as usual, be exercised in the interpretation of this, particularly as there are so few coins from periods XIV, XV and XVI (AD 275–330). Tetrarchic coinage seems to fi gure only rarely in site-samples in the North West, although the small ‘peak’ in XV may refl ect a resumption of ‘normal’ coin-activity in the early years of Constantine I. Nevertheless, it has become clear that, in the late third and early fourth centuries, earlier coinage (principally radiates and copies) must in Britain have continued to play a signifi cant part in contemporary commercial activity. It may also refl ect the effect of ‘Gresham’s Law’ – that bad coinage drives good coinage out of circulation – that is, into savings hoards (see above on pp. 8-9): reformed tetrarchic coinage, at fi rst at least, was larger, better produced and had a nominal silver-content. We should bear in mind that the North West has produced at least four major hoards of tetrarchic coinage – Lancaster Churchyard (III.A.i, 8; 1990, 135), Kirksteads (III.B.ii, 6 and 7; 1990, 193-6; 1995, 60) and Cliburn (Shaw Hall [III.B.ii, 2; 1990, 188-9; 1995, 60]).

Coin-loss at Beckfoot in the later Constantinian period and beyond again raises questions: although coinage of periods XX and XXI is never well represented on sites in the North West, there are usually a few surviving Valentinianic issues. Further, period XVII (AD 330-46) usually yields coin-loss on a scale comparable with that of XIII, much of it consisting of local copies of very variable quality. Not only is coinage of this period thinly represented at Beckfoot, but the coin-loss of the fourth century as a whole at the site stands in marked contrast to that at neighbouring Maryport (II.B, 20; 1990, 83-7; 1995, 34-7; 2000, 35). This may indicate that Beckfoot – or, at least, the known cemetery-area – saw diminishing activity in the fourth century, perhaps as the custom of cremation began to give way to inhumation, and that further cemetery-areas await recognition at Beckfoot.

There are, therefore, clearly questions raised by this coin-loss profi le which can be resolved only with the aid of further controlled excavation in the area.

3. Bewcastle: A coin has come to light amongst the papers of the late Professor Sir Ian Richmond. Although no accompanying letter survived, the coin was still in an envelope bearing the stamp of Tullie House Museum (Carlisle), and was posted to Richmond on 20 March, 1940. Enquiries at the Museum suggest that the coin is most likely to have come from material excavated at either Bewcastle, or possibly Stanwix, as it is understood that attention was being given in the

28

Museum at that time to material from both sites. The coin is a moderately-worn dupondius of Trajan (RIC 2 (Trajan), 676 of AD 114–7).

4. Birdoswald: The coins from the excavations of 1996-2000 are now published in full in the site report (Shotter 2009c, 371-5).

5. Bowness-on-Solway: Excavations in 1988 by Paul Austen (for English Heritage) outside the eastern end of the fort recovered four coins – a sestertius and a dupondius of Trajan, an as of Hadrian and a sestertius of Antoninus (Austen 2009). Further work in 2006 by Oxford Archaeology North yielded a very worn radiate copy of Claudius II (AD 268-70).

7. Brough-under-Stainmore: Information has been received of an aureus of Trajan; the coin was a ‘restored’ issue of Vespasian (RIC 2 (Trajan), 826ff; see Num. Chron.3 6 (1886), 266-7). A very worn sestertius of Trajan was reported in 2008 through the Portable Antiquities Scheme.

It is also worth noting that a quarter-stater of the Atrebatic leader, Tincommius, is said to have

been found at Brough (Cumbria HER 14931; Mack 1964, 41). There is no evidence as to the precise location of the fi ndspot, nor whether this may have been an ancient or more recent loss.

8. Brougham: The excavation at Brougham Castle conducted in 1997 by Carlisle Archaeology Ltd, in which coins of Crispus and Constantius II were recovered (2000, 33), has now been published by John Zant (CW 3 1 (2001), 31-7). The publication of the cemetery-site, excavated in 1966–7 by the late Dorothy Charlesworth (Cool 2004), indicates that four coins were recovered from the site – a dupondius of Domitian, a denarius each of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius, and an illegible aes-issue (p. 380f); it was concluded that ‘coins did not generally play a part in the interment ritual in this cemetery’.

In 2007–8, a long strip of land was excavated by Oxford Archaeology North, which ran from the

eastern cemetery, excavated in 1966-67 (Cool 2004), to the outside of the southern defences of the visible fort; this work recovered seventeen coins:

Trajan 1 Æ (Sestertius) Lucius Aelius 1 AR (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 432) Septimius Severus 2 AR (RIC 4 (Severus), 127, 144b) Julia Domna 2 AR (RIC 4 (Severus), 560, 561) Gordian III 1 Æ (RIC 4 (Gordian III), 309) Claudius II 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Claudius II), 71) Tetricus I 2 Æ (inc. RIC 5 (Tetricus I), 100) Tetricus II 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Tetricus II), 267) Unassignable radiate copies 3 Æ Magnentius 1 Æ (LRBC II. 66) Illegible 2 AR (possibly Severan denarii)

Of particular interest with regard to this group is the near-absence of coins earlier than AD 200; the sestertius of Trajan was very worn, and need not represent a loss much earlier than c. AD 200. Signifi cance may attach to the small group of Severan coins, mostly exhibiting little wear, especially in view of the evidence derived from the recently-published Langwathby milestone (Edwards and Shotter 2005); this suggests that the civitas Carvetiorum was established at about this time, perhaps on the initiative of the Emperor, Severus, himself, which may have refl ected the early importance of the Brougham-area to this tribal group (Edwards 2006), despite the fact that the Romanised ‘capital’ appears to have been placed at Carlisle. The presence of a radiate of Claudius II and six radiate copies, which were of extremely poor quality, shows that activity

29

was continuing through the third century, and presumably into the fourth. Despite the fact that no coins from this excavation came from the normally well-represented late Constantinian period (XVII), the presence of an issue of Magnentius (plate 2.2) carries activity of some kind into the middle of the fourth century at least; indeed, it would seem very likely that Brougham was the kind of location where activity would have been extended well beyond the close of the fourth century. Undoubtedly, post-excavation research will reveal the reason for the rather unusual chronological spread of this group of coins.

9. Burgh-by-Sands: An aureus of Galba has been recorded (R. Bland, pers. comm.). Excavations by the late Professor Barri Jones in the eastern vicus in 1980 and 1982 produced

six Roman coins which were evidently in a very poor state of preservation. The coins were examined by Professor Harold Mattingly, but have since disappeared. Mattingly recorded a sestertius and a dupondius of Hadrian, an unidentifi ed coin of Hadrian or Antoninus Pius, a dupondius of Antoninus Pius or Marcus Aurelius and a dupondius and another coin (denomination unspecifi ed) of Marcus Aurelius (possibly dated TR P XVIII – AD 163–4). See Breeze and Woolliscroft 2009, 35.

Seven coins were recorded in 2002 during evaluation-work by Oxford Archaeology North outside the east gate of the fort; as was the case with the coins recovered during the excavations of Professor Barri Jones, these were poorly preserved, and had a date-range spanning the period from Trajan to Marcus Aurelius:

Trajan 2 AR; Æ (sestertius) Antoninus Pius 4 AR; 3Æ (RIC 3 (Antoninus), 618, 934; sestertius) Marcus Aurelius 1 Æ (sestertius)

Most of these coins were badly worn, suggesting that their loss fell between the late second and early third centuries, thus tending to confi rm the dating of the fort-site proposed by Austen (1994, 53).

The total number of coins recorded from this site now stands at twenty-two:

Republic 1 AR Galba 1 AV Domitian 2 AR Trajan 3 1AR; 2Æ Hadrian 4 Æ Antoninus Pius 5 1AR; 4Æ Marcus Aurelius 4 Æ Faustina II 1 Æ Unasignable radiate copy 1 Æ

2.2 Nummus, Magnentius, from Barnsley, Gloucestershire, with reverse type, FELICITAS REIPVBLICE (LRBC II. 51 of AD 350–1).Photograph: Stuart Noon

30

It is possible that some, at least, of the earlier coins may derive from Milecastle 72.

12. Carlisle: The individual site-enumeration is continued from the Second Supplement:

l) A number of earlier reports of casual coin-fi nds in the City have come to light (R. Bland, pers. comm.):

Tiberius 1 AV (RIC 12 (Tiberius), 3) Nero 1 AV (RIC 12 (Nero), 44) Domitian 1 AV Faustina I 1 AV (RIC 3 (Antoninus), 349)

In addition, a few coins, found in the city, have been reported through the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS):

Hadrian 1 Æ (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 636) Marcus Aurelius 1 AR Julia Mamaea 1 AR

g) The Lanes: As stated in an earlier volume (1995, 27ff), it has always been planned to publish these extensive and important excavations in two volumes – the ‘Southern Lanes’, from which coins were recovered during the work on Old Grapes Lane, Lewthwaites Lane and Crown And Anchor Lane, and the ‘Northern Lanes’, from which coins were recovered during the work on Keays Lane, Laws Lane and Union Court. The ‘Southern Lanes’ report appeared in 2000, although it contained a summary report only of the Roman coins (McCarthy 2000, 93f). It was intended to report fully on the fi nds from these excavations in separate fascicules, which it is now planned to publish on-line in 2010. Since the closure of Carlisle Archaeology Ltd in 1999, post-excavation work on and publication of the ‘Northern Lanes’ has been in the care of Oxford Archaeology North (Zant, in preparation).

h) Scotch Street, 1988 (see 1990, 66): The importance of the solidus of Valentinian II which was found on this site (Keevil, Shotter and McCarthy 1989, 254-5; plates 2.3 and 2.4) is demonstrated by the fact that it was sealed by three levels of fl ooring. This would take the date of continuing repairs to the fl oor well into the fi fth century AD (Robert Collins, pers. comm.).

q) The Cathedral, 1985 (Sites CAT A, B, E and F): This work yielded eight radiate copies, all in poor condition and at least three of them very crude copies indeed (CW 2 8 (2008), 51-3). This perhaps strengthens the case for proposing that Carlisle, as the probable civitas-capital of the Carvetii (Edwards and Shotter 2005), was a centre for the copying of coins in the second half of the third century. The coins are:

Victorinus 3 Æ (inc. RIC 5 (Victorinus), 41, 71) Tetricus I 4 Æ (inc. RIC 5 (Tetricus I), 94, 98(2)) Unassignable radiate copy 1 Æ

The unassignable radiate copy was a ‘minim’, 8 mm in diameter.

r) Rickergate (Debenham’s site): Six coins were recovered during excavations in 1998; all were in a poor state of preservation, although preliminary examination suggested the following chronological distribution:

31

Flavian 1 Æ Commodus 1 Æ (RIC 3 (Commodus), 449) Unassignable radiate copy 1 Æ Constantinian (?) 1 Æ Fourth century 2 Æ

s) Castle Green: These excavations, which were conducted between 1998 and 2001, consisted of fi ve separate sites adjacent to the Castle and the Ring Road, of which the largest (Site 5) was situated on the southern fl ank of Castle Green itself. All of the individual sites were located within the area of the Roman auxiliary fort, of which the south gate and the southern ends of timber barracks were excavated in the 1970s and 1980s, fi rst by the late Dorothy Charlesworth and subsequently by the Carlisle Archaeology Unit (later Carlisle Archaeology Ltd). The area investigated in the most recent work was located in the centre of the fort, involving parts of the headquarters building (principia), the commander’s house (praetorium), a workshop-area (fabrica), and the northern ends of the barracks, of which the southern ends had been recognised in the work of the 1970s and 1980s. As in previous work on sites within the fort, large numbers of coins were recovered.(1990, 57-61). The full archaeological report of this work may be consulted in Zant 2009a, and the artefactual evidence in Howard-Davis 2009a and b.

Each of the fi ve sites yielded coins:

Site 1 Eleven coins (together with a ‘group’ of seven Flavian aes-issues). Site 2 Four coins Site 3 Two coins Site 4 Nine coins Site 5 510 coins (together with a ‘group’ of fi ve denarii found corroded in a column).

The two ‘groups’ will be treated separately below in chapter III, section B; the status of these coins is uncertain: although the seven coins from Site 1 probably represent a multiple casual loss (plate 2.5), the fi ve denarii are likely to have constituted the whole or a part of a hoard (plate 2.6). The fact that the latter ‘group’ consists of three republican, one Augustan and one Tiberian coin makes it likely that they indicate a legionary presence at an early stage of the fort’s development.

2.3 Solidus (obverse), Valentinian II, from Carlisle (RIC 9 (Trier), 90a of AD 388–92).Photograph: Guy Pawle

2.3 Solidus (reverse), Valentinian II, from Carlisle (RIC 9 (Trier), 90a ofAD 388–92).Photograph: Guy Pawle

32

2.5 Probable multiple loss of Flavian aes-issues (III.B.iii, 23) from Carlisle (Irishgate)

2.6 Group of early denarii (III.B.iii, 27) from Carlisle (Castle Green); the coins were originally found in a ‘column’

33

The coins are distributed chronologically as follows:

Site 1

Republic 1 AR (Crawford 1974, no. 540, 2) Galba 1 Æ (Sestertius) Vespasian 2 Æ (RIC 22 (Vespasian), 322, 1181) Titus (as Caesar) 1 Æ (RIC 22 (Vespasian), 1275) Domitian (as Caesar) 1 Æ (RIC 22 (Vespasian), 837) Trajan 1 AR (RIC 2 (Trajan), 125) Gallienus 2 Æ (inc. RIC 5 (Gallienus, sole reign), 297) Tetricus II 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Tetricus II), 247ff) Constantinian 1 Æ (LRBC 1. 109/111)

The presence in this group of a Republican denarius, a coin of Galba and two early coins (AD 71 and 72) of Vespasian provides added evidence for activity in the governorship of Quintus Petillius Cerialis. The chief early archaeological feature on the site was the western turf rampart of the fort.

Site 2 Vespasian 1 Æ (As) Domitian 1 Æ (RIC 22 (Domitian), 550) Nerva 1 AR (RIC) 2 (Nerva), 2) Trajan 1 Æ (RIC 2 (Trajan), 461) Site 3

Vespasian 1 Æ (RIC 22 (Vespasian), 317) Domitian (as Caesar) 1 Æ (RIC 22 (Vespasian), 1290)

Site 4

Galba 1 Æ (RIC 12 (Galba), 493ff) Vespasian 5 Æ (inc.RIC 22 (Vespasian), 286, 322, 1191, 1237) Domitian (as Caesar) 1 Æ (RIC 22 (Vespasian), 1290) Domitian 1 Æ (As) Nerva 1 Æ (RIC 2 (Nerva), 83)

Site 5

Republic 4 AR (inc. Crawford 1974, no. 544(3)) Vespasian 24 2AR (RIC 22 (Vespasian), 4, 852; 22Æ (inc. RIC 22 (Vespasian), 286(3), 322(3), 1143, 1156, 1164, 1174, 1184, 1187(2), 1202) Titus (as Caesar) 3 Æ (RIC 22 (Vespasian), 1247, 1255, 1263) Domitian (as Caesar) 2 Æ (RIC 22 (Vespasian), 1053, 1290) Titus 1 AR (RIC 22 (Titus), 128) Domitian 6 Æ (inc. RIC 22 (Domitian), 465, 484, 498, 547, 550) Anonymous Quadrantes 1 Æ (RIC 21 (Anon. Quad.), 32; plate 2.7) Nerva 2 1AR (RIC 2 (Nerva), 2 etc); 1Æ (RIC 2 Nerva), 136) Trajan 8 2AR (inc. RIC 2 (Trajan), 343); 6Æ (inc. RIC 2 (Trajan),114ff, 394, 516, 560, 663)

34

Hadrian 4 1AR (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 309); 2Æ (inc. RIC 2 (Hadrian), 577, 637) Sabina 2 1AR (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 390); 1Æ (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 1030) Faustina I 1 Æ (RIC 3 (Antoninus), 1143) Marcus Aurelius (as Caesar) 1 Æ (As) Faustina II (under Antoninus Pius) 1 Æ (RIC 3 (Antoninus), 1408) Marcus Aurelius 2 Æ (Sestertii) Septimius Severus 2 AR (RIC 4 (Severus), 93; Hill 1977, no. 432) Geta 1 AR Elagabalus 1 AR Pupienus 1 AR (RIC 4 (Pupienus), 1) Valerian 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Valerian), 121) Gallienus 11 Æ (inc.RIC 5 (Gallienus, sole reign), 159, 179(2), 241, 256, 287, 585(2)) Claudius II 12 Æ (inc.RIC 5 (Claudius II), 14, 56, 66, 98(2), 101, 109, 186) Divus Claudius 11 Æ (RIC 5 (Claudius II), 259(8), 261, 265, 266) Postumus 1 Æ Victorinus 4 Æ (RIC 5 (Victorinus), 55(2), 67(2)) Tetricus I 35 Æ (inc. RIC 5 (Tetricus I), 52, 62, 68(3), 100, 110, 121(2), 129, 140(2)) Tetricus II 4 Æ (inc.RIC 5 (Tetricus II), 245, 247, 254) Unassignable radiate copies 37 Æ Carausius 11 Æ (inc.RIC 5 (Carausius), 98,100(2), 101(2)) Allectus 5 Æ (inc.RIC 5 (Allectus), 55(4)) Diocletian 2 Æ (inc.RIC 6 (Rome), 98a) Maximian 2 Æ (RIC 6 (London), 6b, 86) Constantius I 1 Æ Uncertain Tetrarchic 1 Æ Licinius I 2 Æ (RIC 6 (London), 131, 209) Constantinian i) AD 307–330 38 Æ (inc. RIC 7 (Arles), 25; (London), 4, 5(3),117, 152, 166(2), 199, 209, 220, 292; (Lyon), 1(4), 3, 42, 148; (Trier), 39, 77, 172, 213(3), 214, 249, 416, 854; LRBC I. 47) ii) AD 330–335 83 Æ (inc. LRBC I. 48(5), 49(5), 50(2), 51(8), 52(8), 53, 57, 60(2), 66, 71, 180, 181, 184(2), 185(5), 192, 203, 354, 356, 745) iii) AD 335–341 76 Æ (inc. LRBC I. 87(2), 89, 100, 102(3), 104, 105(2), 106, 120, 128, 132, 249, 251(2), 399, 430, 558, 1282) iv) AD 341–346 44 Æ (inc. LRBC I. 137(8), 138(17), 143, 153, 254, 272, 444)

35

(There were also four illegible Constantinian coins of the period, AD 330–346)

v) AD 346-364 23 Æ (inc. LRBC II. 25, 28, 40(3), 41, 196, 1117) Magnentius and Decentius 5 Æ (LRBC II. 8, 19, 48, 49, 432) Valentinianic i) GLORIA ROMANORVM 17 Æ (inc. LRBC II. 300(2), 479, 498, 513, 965) ii) SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE 9 Æ (inc. LRBC II. 490, 492, 501, 516, 533, 967) iii) GLORIA NOVI SAECVLI 1 Æ (LRBC II. 503) Theodosian 4 Æ (inc. RIC 9 (Trier), 97) (There were in addition ten illegible coins)

Although a full report on the coins from the Castle Green excavations appears in the Site Monographs (Shotter 2009d and e), some comments on this large group may be made here; fi rst the overall chronological distribution:

Table 2.7: Carlisle: Chronological Distribution of Roman Coins from Castle Green

% % % I 5 0.95 VIII 2 0.38 XV 45 8.56 II – – IX – – XVI 1 0.19 III 2 0.38 X 4 0.76 XVII 208 39.55 IV 51 9.70 XI – – XVIII 28 5.32 V 14 2.66 XII 2 0.38 XIX 17 3.23 VI 6 1.14 XIII 118 22.43 XX 3 0.57 VII 3 0.57 XIV 16 3.04 XXI 1 0.19 The total number of Roman coins recovered from the Castle Green sites is approximately of

the same order as those excavated in the southern end of the fort in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s (715; see 1990, 59-61 and 68; 1995, 30-32). However, the profi les of the two groups are markedly different:

2.7 Anonymous quadrans from Castle Green, Carlisle (RIC 21 (Anon. Quads), 32)

36

Table 2.8: Carlisle: Chronological Comparison of the Roman Coins recovered from Fort-sites

Periods Castle Green Sites (%) ‘Southern Fort’ Sites (%) I–IX 15.96 33.61 X–XIV 26.92 40.20 XV–XXI 57.12 26.19

Although, no doubt, a number of factors contributed to this, a major consideration is that the main site on Castle Green (Site 5) was concerned with an area in the central part of the fort, occupied mostly by the Headquarters and early workshops, where we might expect that smaller amounts of money were carried when the fort was in full use; by contrast, the ‘southern fort’ sites were characterised by the southern gateway-complex and the front ends of barracks. A further factor may be related to the nature of the excavation of the Castle Green site; for reasons of safety, the area excavated at the lowest – and thus, earliest – level was considerably smaller in extent than its equivalent in the ‘southern fort’ area, and smaller, too, than that concerned with the higher (later) levels. It should also be noted that, of the 526 legible coins from Castle Green, 326 derived from periods XIII (AD 259-275) and XVII (AD 330–346). Such exceptionally high fi gures have clearly exercised a ‘distorting effect’ on the percentage proportions of coins belonging to other periods and, indeed, pose an intriguing interpretative problem of their own.

Although Carlisle was once generally accepted as a foundation of Agricola’s governorship (AD 77–83), there has long been a suspicion that, in fact, it may have been established earlier – that is, in the governorship of Petillius Cerialis (AD 71–4; Shotter 2000b). The issue was fi nally resolved in favour of the earlier date as a result of dendrochronological analysis of timbers recovered in the excavations of 1973-84 on Annetwell Street, the site of the fort’s southern gateway-complex. As a result, it has been possible to propose a coin-profi le that might be used to identify such early occupation (Shotter 2000b; 2001b). Three criteria appear signifi cant – either singly or in combination: the presence of pre-Flavian coinage, particularly aes-issues, a strong dominance of Flavian coins over Trajanic and, amongst coins of Vespasian’s reign, a strong showing of issues of the early 70s, especially fresh issues of AD 71 (plate 2.8).

The group from Castle Green contains a number of Republican and early imperial denarii and two issues of Galba; Flavian issues strongly outnumber those of Nerva and Trajan – by a ratio of 3:1. Further, more than half of the coins issued between AD 69 and 81 belong to the years, AD 69–73. Whilst this assemblage does not totally satisfy all the criteria suggested above, it does provide further evidence that is supportive of an early Flavian advance at least as far as Carlisle; it should also be noted that the earlier excavations in the southern portion of the fort produced an assemblage of coins issued between AD 69 and 81, of which nearly 50% derived from the early years of Vespasian’s reign. Further, the fi ne state of preservation of many of these coins demonstrated that they had seen little wear prior to loss.

2.8 Dupondius, Vespasian, from Castle Green, Carlisle (RIC 22 (Vespasian), 1187 of AD 72)

37

Table 2.9: Carlisle: Chronological Distribution of Early Flavian Coins from the ‘Fort-sites’

Castle Green Sites ‘Southern Fort’ Sites % %

AD 69–73 51.16 46.55 74–76 4.65 2.59 77–79 20.93 28.45 79–81 2.33 0.86 (Undatable) 69–79 20.93 21.65

With regard to the Republican and early Imperial denarii, it has been shown (Reece 1988, 91) that they were offi cially withdrawn from circulation by Trajan in c. AD 110 (Dio Cassius History of Rome 68.15,3), but probably continued to circulate in Britain until the reign of Hadrian. As we have seen, only the denarii issued by Marcus Antonius appear to have avoided Trajan’s recall. These early coins do, however, perhaps suggest the presence of legionaries in the early Flavian phase of invasion.

It is also striking that coin-loss in the later fi rst century was so prolifi c; this may have been caused in part by the fact that a turf-and-timber fort will have had a predominance of non-metalled surfaces, which would have made the detection of lost coins much more fortuitous (Casey 1988, 40). Beyond this, it should be regarded as an indication of the signifi cance of Carlisle’s rôle at this early stage of conquest; it will have been a pivotal site in the west, not only for the conquest of Brigantian and Carvetian territory, but also for the further advance into Scotland (Shotter 2000b; 2009a; Woolliscroft and Hoffmann 2006). This importance has recently been emphasised by the indication that the main gate of the earliest fort at Newstead faced westwards – that is, towards Carlisle (R.F.J. Jones, pers. comm.); further, writing-tablets discovered at Carlisle (Tomlin 1998) demonstrate that the site was a hub of activity in the Flavian period – a base for forward movement and presumably providing winter-quarters for troops operating further north.

Again, the late Flavian coins from Castle Green – that is, of the reign of Domitian – show a chronological distribution similar to that from the ‘southern fort’ sites: a substantial majority of these are aes-issues of AD 86-87; whilst this to some extent mirrors issue-patterns, this was a period of change, the signifi cance of which in the history of Carlisle and the northern frontier-zone was momentous (Hobley 1989; Jones G.D.B. 1990). With changes in frontier-strategy we can be certain that Carlisle will, even if only temporarily, have seen an enlarged and varied military population. Further, the excavations have shown signifi cant refurbishment of the fort’s interior towards the end of Agricola’s tenure as governor (Zant 2009a, 109ff).

As at all sites in north-west England, coin-loss in the second century becomes harder to interpret: unsurprisingly, the history of the Carlisle-area is dominated by further developments and changes in frontier-policy, although many details of the effects of this remain unclear. Besides this, the second century appears to have been a time of growing uncertainty – militarily, socially and economically.

As we have seen (above on p. 6), the coinage itself mirrors this uncertainty, with the progressive debasement of the denarius and loss from circulation of the smaller aes-denominations, as infl ation rendered them increasingly redundant. By the close of the second century, the principal coins in normal usage were denarii, sestertii and dupondii. The loss of such higher-value coins may have prompted a more diligent search for their recovery; further, with the increase of

38

construction in stone and of metalled surfaces, the accidental loss of coins was probably more readily detectable.

Thus, in interpreting the coin-loss of the second century, we have to be alert to the working of economic factors. It may, for example, be that the peak of hoarding of denarii in the Antonine period, so often cited as evidence of military diffi culties – even ‘Brigantian revolts’ – may have had more to do with the decline in the quality of the coins and with people, as a consequence, attempting to safeguard the value of their savings by retaining earlier coins of higher intrinsic value. It should also be noted that, in north-west England, the second century generally shows a steady decline in recorded coin-loss from periods V (the reign of Trajan) to IX (the reign of Commodus). Whilst some sites – for example, Watercrook and Hardknott – certainly do exhibit erratic coin-loss through the second century, pointing presumably to erratic occupation-patterns, the steady decline in coin-loss is noted at sites which evidently enjoyed unbroken occupation through the period.

As we have seen, the sample from Castle Green shows coins of the Flavian period (IV) dominating the Trajanic (V) by approximately 3:1; whilst this undoubtedly refl ects the long period of accumulation of Flavian coins, it may also have been affected by factors within and beyond the Trajanic period itself. It has been shown (Jones G.D.B. 1990) that forts on the Stanegate witnessed changes and complex developments. This will certainly have involved reductions, if not actual losses, of garrisons on a temporary basis. Carlisle’s pattern of use may well have been more complex, particularly if the Stanegate was ‘re-routed’ to ‘by-pass’ Carlisle through Cummersdale (Shotter 2004b, 112); it should, however, be noted that, given the present state of our knowledge about Cummersdale, this must remain entirely speculative.

A further factor which may have acted to ‘depress’ the total Trajanic coin-loss may lie in events of the Hadrianic period, which would normally be expected to have seen substantial loss of coins of that emperor’s predecessor. The building of forts on Hadrian’s Wall may, in fact, have caused the movement of troops to Stanwix. It should, however, also be noted that the presence in the Carlisle-sample of some little-worn coins of Trajan’s later years may refl ect the diffi culties alluded to by Hadrian’s biographer (Scriptores Historiae Augustae Life of Hadrian 5,2) as causing concern at the opening of Hadrian’s reign in AD 117.

A number of military sites in the North West display sharply-depressed Hadrianic coin-loss samples (for example, Lancaster: Shotter 1993; 1995, 6). This may be connected with troop-loss associated with Antoninus Pius’ decision to advance again into Scotland and construct a new wall between the Forth and the Clyde; it remains unclear, however, whether Hadrian’s Wall lost its garrisons at this time or whether it was left in the hands of small caretaker-garrisons. The fact that most of the Hadrianic and Antonine coins exhibited a considerable degree of wear suggests that they should most likely be regarded as losses of the later years of the second century – if not, later. Indeed, the very paucity of coins of these periods poses rather more questions than answers, leaving the nature and density of activity in the fort at Carlisle during this period very uncertain.

Issues from the fi rst half of the third century are poorly represented – four Severan coins (period X), and one each of Pupienus and Valerian (periods XI and XII). Severan coins are rarely well-represented on north-west sites, and it is not uncommon for there to be a complete absence of coins of periods XI and XII. The low coin-loss in these periods need not, therefore, occasion special comment. In any case, the fact that the headquarters-building of the fort was rebuilt in stone in the Severan period indicates important activity and a time of change (RIB 3464; Zant 2009a, 267ff). A recently-discovered milestone from Langwathby, dated to AD 223 and mentioning the civitas Carvetiorum, suggests the possibility that, during his time in Britain (AD 209–211), Severus was responsible for initiating major changes in the North West, and at Carlisle in particular (Edwards and Shotter 2005).

39

From the middle of the third century, however, until the late fourth, coin-loss shows a sharp increase, providing in excess of eighty percent of the total sample, with two clear peaks in periods XIII and XVII. The third and fourth centuries were a time of fl uctuation, and often of great uncertainty: in particular, the changes brought about by the Severans to military and, as a consequence, to social organisation led to extreme economic problems. Especially dangerous was the ease with which men might ‘bid’ for imperial power and subsequently ‘print money’ to buy support for themselves. As we have seen, the money-system had already been in diffi culties at the turn of the second and third centuries, with the decline in the silver content of the denarius and the disappearance from circulation of the lower denominations in the system giving clear signals of developing infl ation, to which the introduction of the double-denarius and the double-sestertius represented a reaction; the same period saw both the disappearance of the denarius, after nearly fi ve hundred years of use, and the progressive debasement of the antoninianus to the point where, by the 260s, it was a small copper coin of poor quality, with the radiate head on the obverse side often providing the only reminder of the coin’s ‘prototype’.

It is clear that, in a situation of hyperinfl ation, the offi cial mints could not cope with the demand for coinage; the only way in which coinage could be produced on the unprecedented scale required was by having recourse to the local copying of radiates. The quality of these was variable, and at times execrable; the large number of these very poor coins, which are found on all sites excavated in Carlisle, coupled with the apparent importance of Roman Carlisle, points to the probability that there were copying-centres in the city. This suggestion is strengthened by the discovery in the excavation on Castle Green of what appear to have been two examples of forgers’ blank fl ans. Indeed, it is possible that the copying was being carried out within the fort-area. Six of the recorded coins of periods XII and XIII may be regarded as ‘regular’ issues, whilst 113 are copies of various levels of quality. Such fi gures correspond reasonably closely with the results from other sites in Carlisle: military and non-military sites in Carlisle have both produced approximately thirty-fi ve percent of their coin-loss from period XIII (Shotter 1990, 72f; Shotter in McCarthy 1990, 98ff).

The uncertainties of the mid-third century descended into anarchy and breakaway-movements: in AD 260, Postumus took the western provinces (including Britain) into the rebellion known as the Imperium Galliarum (‘Independent Empire of the Gauls’), which lasted until the removal of the Tetrici by the armies of the ‘legitimist’ Emperor, Aurelian, in AD 273. There is no doubt that this rebellion led to internal strife in provinces between ‘loyalists’ and ‘rebels’ (Shotter 2003; also below on pp. 137ff); this is sometimes refl ected in the distribution of issuers of the coinage: although thirty-seven coins of period XIII (31.09%) cannot be related to a particular prototype, of the remainder, thirty-seven (31.09%) are regular or irregular issues of ‘legitimist’ emperors and forty-fi ve (37.82%) of rebel-rulers. The strength of the rebels in the territory of the civitas Carvetiorum is well illustrated by the possible milestone of Postumus which was found at Frenchfi eld (Penrith; Edwards and Shotter 2005).

Although containing no regular coins of the period, AD 274-294, the sample does include sixteen of the ‘British rebels’, Carausius and Allectus (3.04%). Similarly poorly represented are pre-Constantinian tetrarchic issues; it is possible that, as the size and quality of these began to deteriorate after c. AD 303, many of the earlier tetrarchic coins found their way into savings-hoards, such as those from Kirksteads (Casey 1978; Shotter 1990, 193) and Cliburn (1990, 188f).

The second quarter of the fourth century, however, saw a further major increase in coin-loss; 49.05% of all the coins from the Castle Green excavations were issues of AD 324 and later, 39.55% consisting of regular issues and copies of period XVII (AD 330–346). Carlisle must at this stage have been assuming a plurality of rôles – as a civitas-capital (Higham and Jones 1985), as a garrison-town in the frontier-zone and as a fl ourishing market-centre for local communities.

40

Overall, Carlisle-sites have yielded 20.9% of their coin-samples for periods XVIII-XXI from military sites, and 30.98% from non-military sites (with respectively 14.29% and 18.84% from period XVII alone). The Castle Green sites, as we have shown, have produced notably higher proportions. The bulk of the coins of the third and fourth centuries have come from an area in and adjacent to the site of the principia of the fort, and along the via Praetoria to the south gate (plate 2.9). Whilst it might possibly be suggested that some of these coins could represent hoard-material, their distribution over so large an area and the fact that a similar locational distribution has been noted in excavations at the forts at Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Brickstock in Snape and Bidwell 2002, esp. p. 278) and Vindolanda (Andrew Birley, pers. comm.) appear to militate against such an interpretation. More likely, we are seeing the fort – and especially its principal buildings – assuming a function akin to that of an ‘emporium’, perhaps accompanied by a traditional Roman pastime – streetside gambling. This mirrors the evidently much closer relationship between military and civilian populations that has been noted in the context of the later years of the fort at Birdoswald (Wilmott 2001).

A strong showing continues into the Valentinianic period: as elsewhere in Carlisle, the wear sustained by several of these coins, together with a few issues of periods XX and XXI, indicates that local people continued to feel involved in the Romano-British way of life throughout the fourth and into the fi fth century – and longer still, if we can trust the evidence of Bede (Life of Cuthbert 27). Indeed, the coin-evidence from the Castle Green excavations (and especially Site 5) tends to point to the continuing strength and importance in the chief town of the Carvetii of the idea of being Romano-British.

t) Botchergate: Excavations were conducted in 2001 by Oxford Archaeology North on a site on the Roman street-frontage, which was initially funerary in nature, but then replaced by industrial structures. Nine coins were recovered:

2.9 Carlisle: plan of the scatter of late coins recovered from the area adjacent to the fort’s headquarters.Plan drawn by Adam Parsons

41

Trajan 5 1AR (RIC 2 (Trajan), 130); 4Æ (inc. RIC 2 (Trajan), 412) Hadrian 1 Æ (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 597) Constantinian i) AD 330–41) 3 Æ (inc. LRBC I.59)

The twenty-three coins from excavations conducted on Botchergate in 1999 by Carlisle Archaeology Ltd (2000, 33) have been examined, although the fact that they have not been cleaned or conserved has made detailed identifi cation diffi cult. There are twenty-two Roman coins (of which four are illegible asses) and one modern piece; basic identifi cations of the legible coins give the following chronological distribution:

Vespasian 5 2AR (inc.RIC 22 (Vespasian), 1368); 3Æ (Dupondius; 2 asses)) Trajan 8 Æ (inc. RIC 2 (Trajan), 414, 415, 461(?); 3 sestertii; 2 asses) Hadrian 2 Æ (Sestertius; dupondius) Tetricus I 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Tetricus I), 60) Unassignable radiate copies 2 Æ

u) Scotch Street: Excavations in 2003 by North Pennines Archaeology Ltd yielded 111 Roman coins as follows:

Nero 1 Æ (As) Vespasian 1 Æ (As) Domitian 1 Æ (As) Trajan 2 AR; Æ (Sestertius) Hadrian 2 Æ (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 678; sestertius) Antoninus Pius 6 2AR; Æ (RIC 3 (Antoninus), 917, 929; dupondius; as) Faustina I 1 Æ (RIC 3 (Antoninus), 1124) Commodus 2 Æ (RIC 3 (Commodus), 359; sestertius) Claudius II 2 Æ (inc. RIC 5 (Claudius), 100) Divus Claudius 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Claudius), 259) Tetricus I 5 Æ (inc. RIC 5 (Tetrici), 68, 98, 121(2)) Tetricus II 1 Æ Unassignable radiate copies 13 Æ Carausius 1 Æ Constantinian i) AD 307–324 4 Æ (inc. RIC 7 (London), 10) ii) AD 324–330 3 Æ (RIC 7 (London), 292; (Lyon), 210; LRBC I. 38) iii) AD 330–346 30 Æ (inc. LRBC I. 48(5), 51(2), 52, 87, 137(3), 190, 352, 669) iv) AD 346–364 4 Æ Magnentius 2 Æ (LRBC II. 19, 50) Valentinianic i) GLORIA ROMANORVM 9 Æ (inc. LRBC II. 279, 303, 498, 512, 531) ii) SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE 11 Æ (inc. LRBC II. 312, 348, 482, 483, 502(2), 527, 528)

42

iii) GLORIA NOVI SAECVLI 1 Æ (LRBC II. 503) iv) Illegible 5 Æ Theodosian 2 Æ (inc. as LRBC II. 1105) Completely illegible 1 Æ v) Excavations on King Street (Botchergate) in 2005 by North Pennines Archaeology Ltd

recovered three coins:

Republic 1 AR (Crawford 1974, no. 544) Vespasian (?) 1 Æ (Sestertius) Trajan 1 Æ (RIC 2 (Trajan), 463(?))

w) Excavations in 2002 of a site in Fisher Street, which revealed two kilns, yielded one coin – a sestertius of Trajan (RIC 2 (Trajan), 508 of AD 103-11; CW 3 8 (2008), 31).

The total number of Roman coins recorded from Carlisle is now 2,765, which are distributed chronologically as follows:

Table 2.10: Carlisle: Chronological Distribution of all Recorded Roman Coins

% % % I 50 1.81 VIII 34 1.23 XV 153 5.53 II 5 0.18 IX 14 0.52 XVI 18 0.65 III 21 0.76 X 51 1.84 XVII 540 19.53 IV 327 11.83 XI 26 0.94 XVIII 101 3.65 V 158 5.71 XII 17 0.61 XIX 163 5.90 VI 110 3.98 XIII 801 28.97 XX 7 0.25 VII 91 3.29 XIV 71 2.57 XXI 7 0.25

Whilst the addition of the most recently recorded coins does not materially affect the general understanding of the contribution of the coinage to our knowledge of chronology of occupation of Roman Carlisle, the distribution of coin-loss between military and non-military areas (1990, 71-5) can be usefully brought up to date; since the majority of the recorded coins derive from the excavations of recent years, their provenances are secure.

Table 2.11: Carlisle: Chronological Distribution of Roman Coins between Military and non-Military Areas

Military Areas Non-Military Areas 1249 coins 1299 coins Period No. % No. % I 22 1.76 11 0.85 II – – – – III 5 0.40 5 0.38 IV 182 14.57 94 7.24 V 60 4.80 71 5.47 VI 29 2.32 57 4.39 VII 17 1.36 61 4.70 VIII 12 0.96 13 1.00

43

IX 2 0.16 7 0.54 X 23 1.84 19 1.46 XI 4 0.32 13 1.00 XII 2 0.16 5 0.38 XIII 355 28.43 446 34.33 XIV 38 3.04 25 1.92 XV 82 6.57 54 4.16 XVI 4 0.32 16 1.23 XVII 299 23.94 238 18.32 XVIII 47 3.76 54 4.16 XIX 61 4.88 102 7.85 XX 3 0.25 4 0.31 XXI 2 0.16 4 0.31 Whilst there is a general similarity between the two groups, the greater strength of the military

sites during the Flavian period and their clear weakening during the second century stand out; the latter places emphasis on the uncertain character of activity during the second century, whilst refl ecting presumably the effect of the concentration of troops at Stanwix from the 120s. It is perhaps worth noting that there is suffi cient numismatic activity in the non-military sites during the fi rst century to support the suggestion that some troops may, during the Flavian period at least, have been billeted outside the fort itself (the late Vivien Swan, pers. comm.). Whilst military activity strengthens again during the third century, the matching distribution during the fourth points to a different kind of activity during the later years. The continuing strength of the non-military sites during the third and fourth centuries, in contrast to the decline often noticed elsewhere, may be a sign of the continuing signifi cance of Carlisle as a centre of high status (plates 2.3 and 2.4). It may be worth noting that the rather lower showing amongst the military sites of coins of period XVII and later may point to troops being paid, in part at least, in kind.

17. Kirkby Thore: Two older reports have come to light: fi rst, two denarii (one each of Julia Domna and Julia Mamaea) are recorded in the MS of the Rev. Thomas Machell (Carlisle Record Offi ce: vol.6, p. 209; plate 2.10); secondly, an aureus of Hadrian, found prior to 1911, has been recorded (R. Bland, pers. comm.).

Further, between 1995 and 2008, twenty-three coins, mostly denarii, were found in various locations around the village and are now in private ownership (with the exception of the sestertius of Marcus Aurelius, which is in the collection of Penrith Museum):

2.10 Denarius (obverse) of Julia Mamaea from Vindolanda.Photograph: Barbara Birley

44

Republic 2 AR (inc. Crawford 1974, no. 494, 42c) Vespasian 2 AR (inc. RIC 22 (Vespasian), 42) Trajan 2 AR Hadrian 1 AR (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 137) Lucius Aelius 1 AR (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 436) Antoninus Pius 1 AR (RIC 3 (Antoninus), 286(?)) Faustina I 2 AR (RIC 3 (Antoninus), 356ff, 382ff) Marcus Aurelius 1 Æ (RIC 3 (Marcus), 910) Commodus 1 AR Septimius Severus 2 AR (RIC 4 (Severus), 53, 141A) Julia Domna 1 AR (RIC 4 (Severus), 559) Caracalla 2 AR (RIC 4 (Caracalla), 80ff; 224) Elagabalus 2 AR (RIC 4 (Elagabalus), 32, 56) Severus Alexander 2 AR (RIC 4 (Alexander), 155, 187) Constantine I 1 Æ (LRBC I. 352)

Another group of ten coins were reported from the site in 1998:

Republic 1 AR (Crawford 1974, no. 544) Vespasian 2 AR (RIC 22 (Vespasian), 362, 545) Trajan 3 AR (RIC 2 (Trajan), 64, 67, 158) Hadrian 1 Æ (Sestertius) Sabina 1 AR Faustina I 1 AR Elagabalus 1 AR

A denarius of Trajan (RIC 2 (Trajan), 129), found in 1994 (1995, 34; 2000, 35), was in 2002 donated to Penrith Museum. It should perhaps be noted that the proportion of the recent fi nds that consist of denarii raises the possibility that hoard-material may be involved.

The chronological distribution of the 76 Roman coins from the site may be shown thus:

Table 2.12: Kirkby Thore: Chronological Distribution of all Recorded Roman Coins

% % % I 4 5.25 VIII 4 5.25 XV 1 1.32 II 3 3.94 IX 2 2.63 XVI – – III 1 1.32 X 13 17.12 XVII 1 1.32 IV 15 19.74 XI 3 3.95 XVIII – – V 8 10.53 XII – – XIX – – VI 12 15.79 XIII 1 1.32 XX – – VII 8 10.53 XIV – – XXI – –

Although the sample is on the small side, the principal points to emerge from this distribution are:1) The relative profi les of periods I-V (Shotter 2001b) would support the argument that this site

was established during the ‘northward push’ in the early 70s. In its turn, this makes it likely that part at least of the ‘eastern army’ crossed the Pennines to effect a rendezvous with their colleagues who had proceeded up the western fl ank of the Pennines from their bases in the north-west Midlands (Tacitus Life of Agricola 8, 2).

45

2) The strength of period X confi rms the attention paid to the Stainmore route during the Hadrianic and Severan periods, for which evidence exists in epigraphic form from Bowes (RIB 730; 739-740).

3) The paucity of coin-loss after the mid-third century stands in marked contrast to the record from most other military sites in north-west England.

18. Low Borrow Bridge: In 2001, twenty-two Roman and Greco-Roman imperial coins were donated to Penrith Museum; the group included a small hoard (or part-hoard) of fourteen Constantinian coins, together with eight other (probably unrelated) issues. Details of the hoard and the circumstances of discovery of all twenty-two coins are given below (in III.B.i, 24). Apart from one – a ‘coin’ of Augustus – the remaining seven coins are probably casual losses from the area of the fort and its extramural settlement, although it might be wise to exercise some caution over the Greco-Roman imperial issues (Shotter 2003a, 222-5).

The seven coins are:

Claudius 1 Æ (RIC 12 (Claudius), 100) Hadrian 2 Æ (Alexandrian drachmae; inc. Milne 1971, no. 891) Marcus Aurelius (as Caesar) 1 Æ (Sestertius) Severus Alexander 1 Æ (RIC 4 (Alexander), 635) Diocletian 1 Æ (Alexandrian tetradrachm) Maximian 1 Æ (Probably reduced GENIO POPVLI ROMANI type)

The as of Claudius merits a comment: copies of aes-issues of Claudius are relatively common as site-fi nds in Roman Britain, although they become more rare as one proceeds northwards. Indeed, in north-west England, they may be regarded as likely to be diagnostic of Roman military activity in the 50s and 60s, when Roman troops appear to have penetrated the area in an effort to keep the peace between Cartimandua and Venutius (Shotter 1994; 2000b; plate 2.11). Losses of such coins may have continued into the early 70s, after which time increasingly

2.11 Contemporary copies of asses of Claudius (obverses); the coin on the right, a very poor copy, was found in Barrow-in-Furness

2.12 Reverses of the coins in plate 2.11, showing a common Claudian type – Minerva with javelin and shield (RIC 12 (Claudius), 100)

46

abundant supplies of Flavian issues appear to have overtaken them (Shotter 2001b). The discovery of such a coin at Low Borrow Bridge indicates that, in all likelihood, the Roman army utilised the Lune valley route of penetration into the north of England (and beyond) in the years prior to Agricola’s governorship. The coin in the present group is a copy of relatively high quality (Sutherland 1937). Since the recording of these coins, another copy-as of Claudius has been reported through the PAS as having been found at Gateside (Shap; see below on p. 166).

As stated above, the new coins from Low Borrow Bridge listed in this volume form a donation to Penrith Museum; they were collected by Mr James Day, an engineer for the Tebay stretch of the railway which was constructed in the 1840s. The coins have remained in the possession of Mr Day’s family until the recent donation.

20. Maryport: Three denarii were previously assigned to the site of the fort itself (2000, 35); it now

appears that, in fact, these coins came from the extensive area of extramural settlement to the north of the fort (Biggins and Taylor 2004). In addition, this area has also yielded an illegible as and, in 2003, a very worn as of Vespasian, which was recovered close to the fi nd-spot of the ‘serpent-stone’ (Coulston 1997, 121-3). Three further badly-degraded Roman coins were recovered in 2010 from the vicinity of the fort and extramural settlement; these were two asses, probably of Vespasian, and a small aes-coin, probably a radiate copy.

Archaeological work on the Playing Field, adjacent to the south rampart of the fort in 2005 (Flynn 2006), yielded a badly corroded sestertius of Domitian and a very worn unassignable radiate copy (c. AD 280).

It is worth noting, in the context of the seventeen ‘forged denarii’ in the Netherhall Collection (but now lost; Shotter 1997b, 133), that a similar piece has now been reported from Beckfoot beach (see above in II.B, 2).

It seems likely that the aureus of Nero, which was included in J.B. Bailey’s lists of 1915 and 1926 (cited in Shotter 1990, 84; 1997b, 132), was the same coin that was reported by Hutchinson (1794, ii. 280) as having been found ‘upon the sea shore, within fl ood mark’ in c. 1741; this discovery had been reported by Thomas Routh of Carlisle in a letter to Roger Gale, dated 30 May, 1742; the coin was RIC 12 (Nero), 44.

22. Netherby: A moderately worn sestertius of Hadrian was found in 2004 (possibly RIC 2 (Hadrian), 636 of AD 125–8).

23. Nether Denton: The discovery of twelve coins was reported in 2007:

Republic 1 AR (Crawford 1974, no. 544) Vespasian 1 Æ (As) Domitian 1 Æ (As) Nerva 2 Æ (Asses; inc. RIC 2 (Nerva), 60) Trajan 4 Æ (Sestertius; dupondius (RIC 2 Trajan), 664); 2 asses (AD 98-102) Hadrian 3 Æ (Sestertius, as; RIC 2 (Hadrian), 770) These coins were evidently found in the vicinity of a beck; whilst this might point to a votive

character for their ‘deposition’, the nature of the loss could not be determined.

24. Old Carlisle: A denarius of Hadrian has been reported (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 228 of AD 134-8).

25. Old Penrith: A group of eleven coins, found in the vicinity of the fort and the Roman road since

47

the mid-1990s, has been presented for examination; this brings to 102 the number of Roman coins recorded for this site:

Domitian 1 AR Antoninus Pius 1 AR Commodus (as Caesar) 1 AR (RIC 3 (Marcus), 661ff) Commodus 1 Æ (Sestertius) Septimius Severus 1 AR Elagabalus 1 AR (RIC 4 (Elagabalus), 28) Tetricus I 2 Æ (inc. RIC 5 (Tetricus I), 76) Diocletian 1 Æ (RIC 6 (Trier), 515) Constantine I 2 Æ (inc. RIC 7 (Lyon), 15)

26. Papcastle: In 2003, a coin was reported which had been found some years ago: it is likely, given the condition of the coin, that it came from Papcastle, although there is a little doubt as to whether the correct fi ndspot might have been Old Carlisle. The coin is a radiate of Gallienus from the mint at Mediolanum (Milan; RIC 5 (Gallienus, sole reign), 465a). The obverse legend is a variant recorded for this mint – GALLIENVS P AVG. Five further, though badly preserved, coins consist of two sestertii of Trajan, a denarius of Antoninus Pius, a radiate copy of Tetricus I (probably RIC 5 (Tetricus I), 130ff, though with a badly blundered legend), and a small unassignable radiate copy. Two denarii were reported in 2004 – one of Trajan (RIC 2 (Trajan), 165ff of AD 103–11), the other (in a fragmentary condition) a memorial issue for Antoninus Pius (RIC 3 (Marcus), 436).

Excavations in 2004 by North Pennines Archaeology Ltd on a site in the interior of the fort produced 29 coins, which were in a uniformly poor condition:

Galba 1 AR (RIC 12 (Galba), 146) Vespasian 3 2AR; 1Æ (dupondius) Titus 1 AR (RIC 22 (Titus), 113) Trajan 1 Æ (RIC 2 (Trajan), 487) Hadrian 2 AR (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 153); Æ Marcus Aurelius 1 AR (RIC 3 (Marcus), 66) Septimius Severus 1 AR (AD 194-201) Victorinus 1 Æ Tetricus I 4 Æ (inc. RIC 5 (Tetricus I), 73, 85,110 (?)) Unassignable radiate copies 3 Æ Carausius 1 Æ Constantinian i) GLORIA EXERCITVS (2 std) 3 Æ (inc. LRBC I. 539) ii) She-wolf and twins 1 Æ (LRBC I. 58) iii) Victory on prow 1 Æ iv) GLORIA EXERCITVS (1 std) 1 Æ v) VICTORIAE D D AVGGQ N N 2 Æ vi) FEL TEMP REPARATIO 2 Æ (inc. LRBC II. 606)

48

Note: The denarii of Galba, Vespasian and Hadrian were found corroded together in a small ‘column’; the denarius of Titus was found very close by, and was probably part of the same group, which was perhaps originally wrapped in linen which has since perished. These fi ve coins might represent the whole or part of a hoard, or could equally well have been a multiple casual loss, rather like the denarii found in 1949 at the fort at Birdowald beneath collapsed rampart-material (1990, 201).

This is the largest group of coins to have been excavated from the fort-site itself; although the group is relatively small, a few observations may be made; we should note, however, that some of the trends evident in this new group are not obviously consistent with those detectable across the area as a whole; this is particularly true of coins of the second and early third centuries AD. This may point to movement across the area over time of the main focus-points of activity. It should also be borne in mind that the largest group of coins (91) came from the excavations of 1984, which were located within the extramural settlement.

First, leaving aside the fi ve possible ‘hoard-denarii’, there is little sign on the present site, at least, of permanent activity earlier than the fi rst quarter of the second century. Most of the earlier coins exhibit a considerable degree of wear; nor are they numerous. It might be reasonable on this basis to place the beginning of activity on this part of the site, at least, late in the reign of Trajan (AD 98–117). It may be, however, that earlier military activity was located elsewhere in the area, though presumably at no great distance from the present site. It should be noted that Papcastle has produced over the years a number of coins of periods II and III, which can point to pre-Flavian, presumably temporary, activity (Shotter 1994; 2001b).

Secondly, there are few coins of second-century date in the present sample; a decline in coin-loss, particularly through the second half of the century, is usual on sites in north-west England; the present sample, given its small size, may not be inconsistent with that.

Thirdly, coins of the fi rst half of the third century are not generally found in large numbers in the North West, and indeed are sometimes unrepresented. Too much should not be read into this at Papcastle; as with the paucity of coins of the later second century, the reasons may be largely monetary. By contrast, however, coins of the second half of the third century are strongly represented; the radiates, as often, are predominantly issues of emperors of the breakaway Imperium Galliarum (AD 260–73). Since most of the coins of this period from these excavations are copies of poor quality, it may be assumed that their manufacture and loss should be spread through the last quarter of the third century and the opening years of the fourth. This is made more likely by the presence of a single coin of the British rebel, Carausius.

Fourthly, coins of the House of Constantine are well represented and point to strong, perhaps renewed, activity at that time The recent excavations have produced two FEL TEMP REPARATIO issues (AD 346–64), which are now the latest Roman coins to have been reported from Papcastle (1990, 91ff). Thus, the complete absence of Valentinianic and later coins remains a notable feature.

The total of coins recorded for Papcastle has now reached 160, distributed chronologically as follows:

49

Table 2.13: Papcastle: Chronological Distribution of all Recorded Roman Coins

% % % I – – VIII 9 5.66 XV – – II 3 1.88 IX 1 0.63 XVI – – III 3 1.88 X 16 10.06 XVII 11 6.92 IV 28 17.61 XI 1 0.63 XVIII 2 1.26 V 22 13.84 XII 2 1.26 XIX – – VI 16 10.06 XIII 22 13.84 XX – – VII 22 13.21 XIV 2 1.26 XXI – –

The periodic fl uctuations of coin-loss, viewed by centuries, can be seen below (on pp. 80ff).

It should also be noted that the disastrous fl oods of November 2009 resulted in severe scouring of agricultural land on the southern side of the River Derwent. This is, at the time of writing, producing evidence of structures and artefacts of Roman date, including a number of coins. Many of these are badly damaged and corroded, rendering identifi cation diffi cult, and assessment of wear (and thus estimation of date-of-loss) impossible. The area is to be subject to a controlled excavation in August 2010, and an account of this and of the Roman coins from the site will be given in a future publication.

27. Ravenglass: A recent publication (Gerrard and Mills 2002) has listed a number of aes-coins which appear to have been found some years ago in the vicinity of the fort-site and of Muncaster Castle; unfortunately, coins from the two locations cannot now be distinguished. Twenty-fi ve coins are listed, ranging in date from the reign of Tiberius to that of Constantius II:

Tiberius 2 (RIC 12 (Tiberius), 34/36, 81) Gaius 2 (RIC 12 (Gaius), 38, 58) Claudius 1 (RIC 12 (Claudius), 100 (copy)) Galba 1 (RIC 12 (Galba), 375) Domitian 1 (RIC 22 (Domitian), 496(?)) Trajan 2 (RIC 2 (Trajan), 394, 482) Hadrian 1 (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 796) Antoninus Pius 1 (RIC 3 (Antoninus), 970) Faustina I 1 (RIC 3 (Antoninus), 1185) Lucius Verus 1 (RIC 3 (Marcus), 1392) Commodus 1 (RIC 3 (Commodus), 391) Septimius Severus 1 (RIC 4 (Severus), 741(?)) Severus Alexander 1 (RIC 4 (Alexander), 542/3) Julia Mamaea 1 (RIC 4 (Alexander), 706) Maximinus 1 (RIC 4 (Maximinus), 64) Philip I 1 (RIC 4 (Philip), 166) Gallienus 1 (RIC 5 (Gallienus, sole reign), 317) Aurelian 1 (RIC 5 (Aurelian), 80) Diocletian 1 (as RIC 6 (Trier), 137ff) Maxentius 1 (RIC 6 (Aquileia), 116) Constantine I 1 (RIC 7 (London), 284) Constantius II 1 (LRBC I.130)

50

Because of the fact that the fi nds are split between two areas, their full signifi cance is not easy to determine. It is possible, for example, that the ‘group’ could conceal hoard or votive material – or, of course, they could all represent casual losses of the Roman period. It is now clear that the settlement must have stretched eastwards from the fort for an unknown distance; not only are the tile- and pottery-kilns located at Muncaster (Bellhouse 1960; 1961), but some recent work at Muncaster Castle has revealed likely Roman building-material beneath the Castle (Peter Frost-Pennington, pers. comm.). In addition, the discovery of the solidus of Theodosius at the Castle-site (1990, 239; CW 2 91 (1991), 273) suggests the likelihood of late Roman activity above the coastal plain, perhaps in connection with late coastal defence (see further below in III.B.iii, 26).

Of considerable interest in the present group, however, is the inclusion of six pre-Flavian aes-issues (or 25 percent of this group). In general, the chronological distribution of the remainder of the coins is in line with that already established for Ravenglass (1990, 95); in particular, the low showing of Flavian and Trajanic issues seems to support the proposition of a late Hadrianic establishment of the known fort (Potter 1979), and the fact that its occupation continued, virtually unbroken, to a point late in the fourth century. Whilst the discovery of the Theodosian solidus pointed to the possibility of a late coastal watchtower at Muncaster, the present coins suggest that civilian settlement may have been extensive on the landward side of the fort.

The pre-Flavian coins, however, may indicate the possibility of a previously unrecognised phase of activity in the Ravenglass-area, presumably during the governorship of Vettius Bolanus or of Petillius Cerialis or (more likely) in pre-Flavian times. This may relate to a period when the Roman army was engaged in ‘search-and-destroy’ missions designed to keep the peace between the Brigantian leaders, Cartimandua and Venutius (Shotter 1994; 2000a and b). Alternatively, we may look further back into the earlier Julio-Claudian period, and perhaps see signs of commercial activity up the west coast prior to the Roman invasion. Such activity may have been centred on the obviously signifi cant ‘emporium-site’ at Meols (on the Wirral), where there is evidence of commercial activity stretching back into pre-Roman times (Griffi ths, Philpott and Egan 2007). Such early coins are found in coastal and estuarine locations from the Dee to the Solway (Shotter 2007), and for that reason their appearance at Ravenglass need not occasion surprise.

The near-absence of Flavian coins from Ravenglass may make it more likely that, in this case, these early coin-losses were the product of pre-Flavian military activity. As so often in these cases – for example, at Walton-le-Dale – there is no visible structural evidence to match the coins, although we should remember that the excavations at Ravenglass in the 1970s (Potter 1979, 14-18) revealed beneath the Hadrianic fort evidence (in the form of ditches) of an earlier evidently-military structure, possibly a fortlet, on an alignment different to that of the fort. Unfortunately, no dating evidence was recovered from this earlier phase, nor was it clear whether it pre-dated the fort by a short or a long period of time.

These coins remain in private possession. In view of the fact that so many of them are single issues of a number of emperors or their families, it may be wise to sound a cautionary note that this collection could have resulted from more recent collecting – that is, over the last two centuries.

More recently, an as of Nero (AD 64–8) has been reported as having been found close to the area of the excavations of the 1970s, conducted by Lancaster University.

The total of Roman coins found at Ravenglass now stands at sixty-six, distributed as follows:

51

Table 2.14: Ravenglass: Chronological Distribution of all Recorded Roman Coins

Period Coins up to 2000 ‘New group’ Total

I 2 4 6 II – 1 1 III 1 1 2 IV 1 1 2 V 4 2 6 VI 6 1 7 VII 2 3 5 VIII 4 1 5 IX – 1 1 X 1 – 1 XI 1 2 3 XII – 2 2 XIII 4 2 6 XIV – – – XV 1 3 4 XVI 1 – 1 XVII 5 1 6 XVIII 6 – 6 XIX 1 – 1 XX 1 – 1 XXI – – –

28. Stanwix: In 2004, a moderately-worn denarius of Severus Alexander was reported as having been found in Rickerby Park (RIC 4 (Alexander), 328ff; possibly 340). It has been suggested that the nine coins found in 1930 (1990, 97; Robertson 2000, no. 132A) should be regarded as a possible hoard (see below, III.B.i, 28).

The coins from the work on the site of Miles MacInnes Hall (1986) are now published in Caruana 2000 (pp. 59-62).

29. Watercrook: Two coins, evidently found some years ago, have been presented to Carlisle Museum and Art Gallery (Tullie House); they are a dupondius of Domitian (RIC 22 (Domitian), 479 of AD 86) and a sestertius of Hadrian (possibly [NILVS S C]; RIC 2 (Hadrian), 861ff of AD 134–8). In addition, a water-worn sestertius of Antoninus Pius has been reported as having been found ‘many years ago’ in the bank of the river Kent.

30. Coastal Milefortlets and Towers

a) Milefortlets

ii) Swarthy Hill (Milefortlet 21; Bellhouse 1989, 48; Shotter 1995, 41): The coins from the excavations by Percival Turnbull at this site in 1990-91 are now published on pp. 81-2 of the excavation-report (CW 2 98 (1998), 61-106).

iv) Beckfoot Beach (Milefortlet 15; Bellhouse 1989, 47f): It appears that the radiate copy of Tetricus I, originally assigned to Tower 13A (1995, 41), is in fact an issue of Tetricus II, which was found in the vicinity of Milefortlet 15 (CW 2 95 (1995), 276-8).

52

v) Sea Brows (Milefortlet 23; Bellhouse 1989, 49): Three denarii, wrongly assigned to the fort at Maryport (2000, 35), were in fact found in the vicinity of Milefortlet 23. The coins consist of an issue each of Domitian (RIC 22 (Domitian), 728 of AD 92), Trajan (AD 98-102) and Marcus Aurelius (as Caesar; RIC 3 (Antoninus), 479 of AD 158-9).

31. Milecastles and Turrets of Hadrian’s Wall

a) Milecastles

ix) Kirkland (Milecastle 78): A badly-damaged as of Hadrian was found during excavation of this site by Tony Wilmott in 2000 (Wilmott 2009b, 192).

b) Turrets

51a: During excavations in 1970, a radiate of Victorinus was recovered (RIC 5 (Victorinus), 112; Charlesworth 1973, 73).

34. Whitley Castle: The radiate of Maximian, found in the early 1980s (RIC 5 (Maximian), 388; 1995, 41) is in Tullie House Museum and Art Gallery, Carlisle.

35. Cummersdale: A badly damaged sestertius of Antoninus Pius was reported in 2006.

36. Bowes: A group of 35 coins was recovered during excavations at the site between 1966 and 1970 (Frere and Fitts 2009; for the coins, see Shotter 2009b, 56-66):

Vespasian 1 Æ (As) Domitian 2 Æ (RIC 22 (Domitian), 526; dupondius) Antoninus Pius 3 2AR (inc. RIC 3 (Antoninus), 54; Æ (sestertius) Marcus Aurelius 1 Æ (Sestertius) Illegible, second century 1 Æ (Dupondius) Valerian 1 AR/Æ (RIC 5 (Valerian), 142c*) Gallienus 1 AR/Æ (RIC 5 (Gallienus, sole reign), 556*) Claudius II 2 Æ (inc RIC 5 (Claudius II), 18*) Divus Claudius 2 Æ (RIC 5 (Claudius II), 259, 259ff*) Quintillus 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Quintillus), 30) Postumus 1 AR/Æ (RIC 5 (Postumus), 288*) Victorinus 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Victorinus), 114*) Tetricus I 3 Æ (inc. RIC 5 (Tetricus I), 100*, 139ff) Unassignable radiate copies 2 Æ Carausius 2 Æ (inc. RIC 5 (Carausius), 98)

Constantinian i) – AD 330 Crispus 1 Æ (copy) ii) AD 330–46 GLORIA EXERCITVS (2 std) 2 Æ (LRBC I. 60, 193) GLORIA EXERCITVS (1 std) 2 Æ (inc. LRBC I. 242)

53

Facing Victories 1 Æ iii) 346–64 FEL TEMP REPARATIO (Falling Horseman) 2 Æ (copies) Valentinianic i) GLORIA ROMANORVM 1 Æ ii) SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE 1 Æ (LRBC II. 322) iii) Illegible 1 Æ

Notes: 1) Laboratory analysis showed that the damaged denarius of Antoninus Pius contained no

silver whatever, but consisted of tin, with some lead and copper; it is possible that this ‘coin’ was intended as a votive piece, although visually it appears genuine.

2) Seven of the radiates in the list have been marked with an asterisk; six of these – a coin each of Valerian, Gallienus, Claudius II, Postumus, Victorinus and Tetricus I – were found fused together in a column, as if they had been wrapped in a piece of linen. The coin of Divus Claudius was found at a point so close (horizontally and vertically) to the others as to suggest that it may have become separated from such a column. With the exception of the coin of Divus Claudius, these coins were either silvered or copper radiates of good quality, such as might, in a period of deteriorating coinage, have been retained because of their quality. However, it remains unclear from the circumstances of discovery whether these coins should be regarded as a multiple casual loss or as the whole or part of a hoard.

The coins from these excavations are now deposited in the Bowes Museum at Barnard Castle.

In addition to the small number of casual fi nds that have been recorded over the years (2000, 41), a further substantial group (of eighteen coins) is illustrated by the eighteenth-century antiquarian, William Hutchinson (1776, 4-6). Hutchinson writes of the ‘great number’ of Roman coins that had been found at Bowes, and that the eighteen that were illustrated by him had been passed to him by ‘the late Charles Lowe Whytell, Esq; who discovered them, in laying the foundations of a summer seat; and forming his garden ground near the old castle’. Although Hutchinson’s illustrations are of fair quality, the coin-legends are often incomplete, and no mint-marks are recorded for the fourth-century coins. His eighteen coins would appear to consist of the following:

Republic 1 AR (possibly Crawford 238, 1) Nero 1 Æ (RIC 12 (Nero), 301) Vespasian 1 Æ (RIC 22 (Vespasian), 317) Trajan 1 Æ (RIC 2 (Trajan), 508) Antoninus Pius 1 Æ (Sestertius) Faustina I 1 AR (RIC 3 (Antoninus), 344) Septimius Severus 1 AR (RIC 4 (Severus), 264a) Gallienus 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Gallienus, sole reign), 236?) Postumus 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Postumus), 78) Carausius 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Carausius), 98ff)

54

Constantinian i) - AD 330 2 Æ (as RIC 7 (London), 9ff; (Trier), 439) ii) AD 330-46 GLORIA EXERCITVS (2 std) 1 Æ She-wolf and twins 1 Æ Facing Victories 1 Æ iii) AD 346-64 FEL TEMP REPARATIO (Phoenix) 1 Æ Magnentius 1 Æ (as LRBC II. 5) Valentinian 1 Æ (as LRBC II. 78ff)

These coins, together with other antiquarian reports and the coins recovered more recently by the late Edward Judge of Kirk House (2000, 41f), bring the total recorded for the site of the fort at Bowes to 60; these are distributed chronologically as follows:

Table 2.15: Bowes: Chronological Distribution of all Recorded Roman Coins

% % % I 1 1.67 VIII 1 1.67 XV 2 3.33 II – – IX – – XVI 1 1.67 III 2 3.33 X 1 1.67 XVII 11 18.33 IV 4 6.67 XI – – XVIII 5 8.33 V 2 3.33 XII 1 1.67 XIX 4 6.67 VI – – XIII 17 28.33 XX – – VII 5 8.33 XIV 3 5.00 XXI – –

The sample is too small for detailed comment, although a few points may be made: fi rst, the presence of a republican denarius, two coins of Nero and at least one issue of AD 71 would suggest the likelihood that this site was active from the governorship of Petillius Cerialis. Secondly, the weakness of the Trajanic sample and the absence of coins of Hadrian perhaps points to a hiatus in the reign of Antoninus Pius, which might be explained by troop movements in connection with the Antonine reoccupation of southern Scotland. Beyond that, the strength of coins of the second half of the third century and of the fourth (together accounting for almost three-quarters of the total sample) indicates the strong continuation of activity into the latest years of the fourth century – unsurprising in view of the site’s strategic position at the eastern end of Stainmore.

37. Scalesceugh: This tile-manufacturing site to the south of Carlisle has evidently produced a hoard of aurei, including two coins of Nero (III.B.iii, 12; see 1990, 207 and 1995, 62 for references). Sestertii of Hadrian (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 763?; CW 2 94 (1994), 291ff) and of Antoninus Pius (CW 2 73 (1973), 87) have also been recorded. For the site itself, see Richardson 1973.

55

C COINS FROM ROMAN SITES IN CHESHIRE AND ADJACENT AREAS

1. Brough-on-Noe (2000, 45)2. Chester (2000, 45-87)3. Chesterton (2000, 87)4. Eaton-by-Tarporley (2000, 87)5. Halton (2000, 87)6. Heronbridge (2000, 88-9)7. Holditch (2000, 89)8. Holt (2000, 89-95)9. Ince (2000, 96)10. Littlechester (2000, 96-9)11. Melandra Castle (2000, 99-100)12. Mellor (2000, 100)13. Meols (2000, 100-1)14. Middlewich (2000, 101-7)15. Nantwich (2000, 108)16. Northwich (2000, 108)17. Poulton Abbey (2000, 108)18. Saltney (2000, 108-9)19. Whitchurch (2000, 109-10)20. Irby21. Farndon22. Stockton Heath 23. Landican

56

1. Chester: The individual site-enumeration will continue from the second Supplement (2000).

In the previous account of Roman coins found in Chester (2000, 45-87), some duplications and errors occurred (Roger Bland, pers. comm.):

i) The aureus of Vespasian, found at Chester Castle (2000, 50), should be RIC 22 (Vespasian), 512; the aureus of Vespasian (2000, 74) should be deleted.

ii) The aureus of Titus, cited from Handbridge (2000, 223), is to be identifi ed with that listed under Chester (2000, 50; RIC 22 (Vespasian), 971).

iii) The aureus of Vitellius, found at Newgate/Pepper Street in 1965 (2000, 64), should be identifi ed as RIC 12 (Vitellius), 5; that on 2000, 74 should be deleted as a duplication.

iv) Two aurei of Carausius were reported as having been found in the vicinity of Chester prior to 1881; they include RIC 5 (Carausius), 621.

ii) Site Groups

t) Some of the coins from the Fortress baths (2000, 64-5), as identifi ed by Dr Glenys Lloyd-Morgan, are now published in Mason 2005, 100.

rr) Sedan House, 1989: Three coins were recorded:

Antoninus Pius 1 Æ (RIC 3 (Antoninus), 685) Postumus (?) 1 Æ Unassignable radiate copy 1 Æ

ss) Chester Castle: In 2001-02, twenty-six coins were recorded as having been found in the vicinity of the Castle:

Trajan 1 Æ (RIC 2 (Trajan), 661) Faustina I (?) 1 Æ (Sestertius) Illegible, fi rst/ second centuries 4 Æ (Sestertius; 3 asses) Divus Claudius 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Claudius II), 256ff) Unassignable radiate copy 1 Æ Carausius 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Carausius), 248ff)

Constantinian i) AD 307–24) 2 Æ ii) AD 324–30 1 Æ (as LRBC I. 18) iii) AD 330–46 6 Æ (as LRBC I. 51, 99, 717, 860, 1060, 1067) Gallus 1 Æ (LRBC II. 27) Valens 2 Æ (as LRBC II. 92, 93) Gratian 2 Æ (as LRBC II. 150(2)) Valentinian III (?) 1 Æ (as LRBC II. 867)

Illegible 2 Æ (fourth century)

57

tt) 25 Bridge Street, 2001: Thirty-one coins were recovered in the excavations; they were identifi ed by Dr Peter Guest of Cardiff University as follows:

Domitian 2 Æ (Sestertius; dupondius) Trajan 1 Æ (Dupondius) Hadrian 1 Æ (Sestertius) Faustina I 2 AR (RIC 3 (Antoninus), 344, 373) Lucilla 1 Æ (RIC 3 (Marcus), 1759) Julia Domna 1 AR (RIC 4 (Severus), 572) Caracalla 1 AR (RIC 4 (Caracalla), 54/64f) Victorinus 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Victorinus), 67?) Unassignable radiate copies 3 Æ

Constantinian i) SOLI INVICTO COMITI 1 Æ ii) VICTORIAE LAETAE PRINC PERP 1 Æ iii) GLORIA EXERCITVS (2 stds) 2 Æ (One of these coins had been halved) iv) She-wolf and twins 2 Æ (inc. LRBC I. 200) v) GLORIA EXERCITVS (1 std) 1 Æ vi) PIETAS ROMANA 1 Æ vii) VICTORIAE DD AVGGQ NN 2 Æ (inc. LRBC I. 139)

Valentinianic SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE 1 Æ

Illegible (third/fourth centuries) 7 Æ

uu) The Amphitheatre, 2000-06: Forty-two Roman coins (of which forty were legible) were

recovered from the north-west quadrant of the amphitheatre (Wilmott 2008, 138-43):

Claudius 2 Æ (inc. RIC 12 (Claudius), 100) Nero 2 Æ (RIC 12 (Nero), 522, 605) Otho 1 AR (type as RIC 12 (Otho), 20*) Vespasian 16 4 AR (inc. RIC 22 (Vespasian), 356); 12 Æ (inc. RIC 22 (Vespasian), 287, 301, 302, 313, 1169, 1195) Domitian 9 Æ (inc. RIC 22 (Domitian), 383, 385, 390, 478, 535(2), 753) Nerva 1 Æ (RIC 2 (Nerva), 98) Trajan 2 Æ (RIC 2 (Trajan), 392, 434) Hadrian 2 Æ (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 579(2)) Sabina 1 Æ (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 1023) Julia Sohaemias 1 AR (RIC 4 (Elagabalus), 241) Divus Claudius 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Claudius II), 259) Tetricus I 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Tetricus I), 136) Constantius II 1 Æ (LRBC 1. 958)

There were two illegible coins, of which one was a denarius, the other possibly an aes-issue of the fourth century. The group will be published and discussed in the forthcoming site monograph.

58

*Note: The second edition of RIC 1 lists only an aureus of this type; a denarius was originally listed by Mattingly (BMC (Otho), 9; RIC 11 (Otho), 6), although it was regarded by some as false; there seems, however, now no reason to doubt the authenticity of the coin (see Giard 1998, p. 69; no. 25; I am grateful to Dr Sam Moorhead of the Department of Coins and Medals at The British Museum for this reference). There are now two further examples noted of this denarius – a fi nd reported to the Portable Antiquities Scheme (from Shenley, Hertfordshire; plate 2.12) and a coin recovered in 2009 during excavations at the Roman fort at Binchester (Co. Durham; David Mason and Philippa Walton, pers. comm.)

In some ways, this sample is more striking for its gaps than for the coins which it contains – in particular, the low showing, in this part of the amphitheatre at least, of post-Flavian coins, the absence of coins between the Hadrianic and Severan periods and the near-absence of issues later than the Severan period. As many of the Roman coins were recovered from post-Roman levels, the vagaries of the Roman coin sample itself must certainly be regarded as an indication of activities that disturbed the later Roman deposits. Nonetheless, whilst this sample may be of little help in understanding the development of the amphitheatre in the later Roman period, it does serve to illuminate its likely early development. The strength of pre-Flavian and Flavian coins leaves little doubt that the earliest amphitheatre must have been constructed at an early stage in the life of Roman Chester, and that its enlargement followed relatively quickly. It is worth noting that earlier excavations (Shotter 2000, 56), although yielding more coins of the third century, were similarly thin on issues of the second and the fourth centuries.

vv) Former Police HQ site: This site, excavated by Earthworks in 2009, yielded four coins:

Nero 1 Æ (RIC 12 (Nero), 456) Vespasian 1 AR (RIC 22 (Vespasian), 360) Julia Domna 1 AR Geta 1 AR (Hill 1977, no.685)

iii) Casual Finds

Republic 1 AR (Crawford 1974, no. 337, 3) These fi nds bring the total number of Roman coins recorded from Chester to 2,124, distributed

chronologically as follows:

2.13 Denarius of Otho from Shenley, Hertfordshire, showing on the reverse Ceres with cornucopiae and corn-ears (RIC 11 (Otho), 6); the coin was at one time thought to be false.Photograph by Julian Watters

59

Table 2.16: Chester: Chronological Distribution of all Recorded Roman Coins

% % % I 43 2.07 VIII 45 2.12 XV 131 6.16 II 7 0.33 IX 22 1.04 XVI 16 0.76 III 31 1.46 X 100 4.71 XVII 264 12.42 IV 345 16.24 XI 24 1.13 XVIII 77 3.62 V 143 6.73 XII 56 2.64 XIX 87 4.09 VI 95 4.47 XIII 456 21.46 XX 2 0.09 VII 114 5.36 XIV 64 3.01 XXI 2 0.09

6. Heronbridge: Excavations by the Chester Archaeological Society in 2002 on this industrial and harbour site, lying adjacent to both the river Dee and the Roman road running south from Chester, yielded one possible Roman coin, whilst a denarius of Trajan (RIC 2 (Trajan), 349 of AD 114–7) was found in 2003. In addition, a sestertius of Hadrian (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 561 of AD 119–22) was reported to the Grosvenor Museum at Chester in 2003. In 2005, a radiate copy of Tetricus I was donated.

Note: In the Second Supplement (2000, 88), reference was made to two coins – one each

of Trajan and Hadrian – found in the vicinity of Watling Street; the source of this information was incorrectly given; it should have been credited to W.J. Williams, ‘The Watling Street at Heronbridge’, JCAS 30 (1933), 55.

10. Littlechester: For a discussion of the site and its implications, see Brassington 1982.

A series of excavations and watching briefs were conducted on the site between 1986 and 1990 (Langley and Drage 2000); forty-six Roman coins were recovered during this work:

Domitian (as Caesar) 1 Æ (As) Domitian 2 Æ (Asses) Nerva 2 Æ (Asses) Trajan 2 AR (inc. RIC 2 (Trajan), 267) Hadrian 5 2AR (inc. RIC 2 (Hadrian), 110); 3Æ (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 617, 633; sestertius) Antoninus Pius 5 Æ (RIC 3 (Antoninus), 656, 934(2); as, sestertius) Marcus Aurelius 1 Æ (as BMC 1506) Commodus 1 AR (RIC 3 (Commodus), 208) Illegible (fi rst/second century) 2 AR; Æ (sestertius) Septimius Severus 1 AR Caracalla 1 AR (RIC 4 (Caracalla), 100) Philip I 1 AR (RIC 4 (Philip), 4) Claudius II 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Claudius II), 34) Divus Claudius 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Claudius II), 261) Postumus 1 Æ (Elmer 1941, 125) Victorinus 3 Æ (Elmer 1941, 683(3)) Tetricus I 3 Æ (inc. Elmer 1941, no. 771) Tetricus II 4 Æ (inc. Elmer 1941, no. 773) Unassignable radiate copies 6 Æ

60

Constantinian FEL TEMP REPARATIO (‘Falling Horseman’ type) 2 Æ

Illegible (third/fourth centuries) 1 Æ

The Treasure Annual Report, 2005-06 (no. 1142) provides a list of twenty-two Roman coins (by period), which had been reported, but which had been judged to be site-fi nds rather than hoard-material:

Trajan 1 AR Radiates and copies 11 Æ

Constantinian i) AD 347–8 2 Æ ii) AD 354–61 2 Æ

Valentinianic i) AD 364–78 5 Æ ii) AD 378–83 1 Æ

Table 2.17: Littlechester: Chronological Distribution of all (248) Roman Coins (up to 1990)

Period Early Finds 1986–90 Total %

I 1 – 1 0.40 II 3 – 3 1.21 III 2 – 2 0.81 IV 9 3 12 4.84 V 6 4 10 4.03 VI 7 5 12 4.84 VII 6 5 11 4.44 VIII 2 1 3 1.21 IX – 1 1 0.40 X 9 2 11 4.44 XI 1 – – 0.40 XII 4 1 5 2.02 XIII 48 19 67 27.02 XIV 15 – 15 6.05 XV 26 – 26 10.48 XVI 4 – 4 1.61 XVII 50 – 50 20.16 XVIII 5 2 7 2.82 XIX 7 – 7 2.82 XX – – – XXI – – –

Illegible coins of the fi rst/second centuries 2 Illegible coins of the third/fourth centuries 1

61

12. Mellor (Stockport): The excavations of 2002 on this multi-period site produced four coins, and metal-detectorists on an adjacent site reported two more:

Vespasian 2 AR (RIC 22 (Vespasian), 360); Æ (RIC 22

(Vespasian), 582) Faustina II 1 Æ (RIC 3 (Marcus), 1702) Claudius II 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Claudius II), 32) Illegible 2 Æ (one of the fi rst/second centuries, the other of the fourth)

An unidentifi ed aes-coin from the site is recorded in Stockport Heritage Library.

13. Meols: A large amount of material of many periods (from prehistoric to medieval) was recorded from this site in the nineteenth century by the Rev. A. Hume (1863); amongst this was a large collection of Roman coins. The nature of the fi nds suggests that the site might best be categorised as an ‘emporium’. The 115 Roman coins have recently been listed by Simon Bean in a new assessment of the site (Griffi ths, Philpott and Egan 2007, 296-303):

Republican 1 AR (Crawford 1974, no. 342, 4a) Augustus 4 Æ (RIC 12 (Augustus), 382, 432, 435, 471) Claudius 6 Æ (inc. RIC 12 (Claudius), 97(2), 100) Nero 5 Æ (inc. RIC 12 (Nero), 108, 117/120) Galba 2 Æ (inc. RIC 12 (Galba), 273) Vitellius 1 Æ Vespasian 7 3AR (inc. RIC 22 (Vespasian), 545(2?)); 4Æ (inc. RIC 22 (Vespasian), 1174, 1240) Titus (as Caesar) 1 Æ (RIC 22 (Vespasian), 1273) Domitian 1 Æ (as RIC 22 (Domitian), 287) Trajan 4 AR (RIC 2 (Trajan), 364); 3Æ (RIC 2 (Trajan),485, 515, 658) Hadrian 2 AR (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 223); Æ Antoninus Pius 5 Æ (inc. RIC 3 (Antoninus), 930, 1292) Faustina I 2 Æ (inc. RIC 3 (Antoninus), 1298a) Marcus Aurelius 1 Æ Faustina II 2 Æ Lucilla 1 Æ (RIC 3 (Marcus), 1741/2) Commodus (?) 1 Æ Crispina 1 Æ Caracalla 1 AR (RIC 4 (Caracalla), 54) Elagabalus 1 AR (RIC 4 (Elagabalus), 187A) Gordian III 1 Æ (RIC 4 (Gordian III), 309) Herennius Etruscus 1 AR (RIC 4 (Decius), 149) Gallienus 5 Æ (inc. RIC 5 (Gallienus, sole reign), 163, 229, 230, 501) Claudius II 8 Æ (inc. RIC 5 (Claudius II), 32, 171(2)) Divus Claudius 2 Æ (RIC 5 (Claudius II), 266(2)) Postumus 3 Æ (inc. RIC 5 (Postumus), 64) Victorinus 4 Æ (inc. RIC 5 (Victorinus), 75) Tetricus I 4 Æ (inc. RIC 5 (Tetricus I), 100) Tetricus II 2 Æ Unassignable radiate copy 1 Æ Probus 1 Æ Carausius 2 Æ (RIC 5 (Carausius), 104/106)

62

Constantinian i) VICTORIAE LAETAE… 1 Æ ii) PROVIDENTIAE AVGG 2 Æ iii) GLORIA EXERCITVS (2s) 8 Æ (inc. RIC 7 (Trier), 518/9; (Antioch), 86) iv) She-wolf and twins 3 Æ v) GLORIA EXERCITVS (1s) 1 Æ vi) Facing Victories 3 Æ (RIC 8 (Trier), 195/6) Illegible 2 Æ

Magnentius 1 Æ Decentius 1 Æ (Copy of FEL TEMP REPARATIO –Falling horseman type) Valentinianic i) SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE 3 Æ (inc. RIC 9 (Aquileia), 9b/12b/18a) ii) RESTITVTOR REIPVBLICAE 1 Æ Illegible 1 Æ

Magnus Maximus 1 AR (RIC 9 (Trier), 84)

Illegible (fourth century) 4 Æ

(Note: This list should be used in conjunction with the catalogue of Simon Bean; this not only provides sources of information for most of the coins, but also highlights the many diffi culties in the way of precise identifi cations).

The 111 legible coins recorded from Meols are distributed chronologically as follows:

Table 2.18: Meols: Chronological Distribution of all Recorded Roman Coins

% % % I 5 4.50 VIII 4 3.60 XV 1 0.90 II 6 5.41 IX 2 1.80 XVI 2 1.80 III 8 7.21 X 2 1.80 XVII 17 15.33 IV 9 8.11 XI – – XVIII 2 1.80 V 4 3.60 XII 2 1.80 XIX 5 4.50 VI 2 1.80 XIII 29 26.13 XX 1 0.90 VII 7 6.31 XIV 3 2.70 XXI – –

This distribution has been closely analysed by Simon Bean (2007, 337ff); as he shows, in many respects, this distribution is very similar to those at many Roman sites in north-west England, especially from the Flavian period onwards – the 2.5:1 superiority of Flavian over Trajanic coin-loss, the Hadrianic ‘dip’ and the steady decline in coin-loss through the Antonine period to the close of the second century. The third and fourth centuries also follow a familiar pattern, with high peaks in periods XIII and XVII, although the fourth century, despite its small peak in XIX, is

63

rather light, especially in the earlier years of the century. Even so, the peak in XIX, small though it is, mirrors the coin-loss in this period at other sites. As Bean has pointed out, although there are elements of similarity in chronological distribution with a number of north-western sites, the closest parallel for Meols is provided by Chester, although it has to be borne in mind that coin-loss at Chester is on a far larger scale than at Meols; however, the similarities perhaps serve to emphasise the continuing importance of Meols in the military history of the Roman North West, and especially during the processes of conquest and consolidation in the fi rst and second centuries.

One area, however, in which that similarity seems to be less marked lies in the coin-loss at Meols for periods I to III; although it is perfectly possible that such early coins – including aes-issues – could have reached the site in the wake of the Roman conquest in the 70s, the fact that excavated areas of Roman military sites in north-west England have not generally produced pre-Flavian aes in such abundance makes it appear much more likely that some, at least, of such coins were reaching Meols prior to the conquest, perhaps in the course of the pre-conquest military activities during the 50s and 60s, which were aimed at anti-Roman elements amongst the Brigantes, and perhaps also in the course of commercial transactions.

Finally, there is a report of cremation urns and coins having been found when a bridge was constructed across the railway near Meols Station (Wirral Journal 3 (1986), 12-15).

14. Middlewich: Since the publication of the Second Supplement in 2000, a number of coin-fi nds have been reported:

Republic 4 AR (Crawford 1974, nos 231,1; 344, 1a; 494, 23; 544) Titus 1 Æ (As) Trajan 5 3AR (RIC 2 (Trajan), 9, 228, 269); 2Æ (sestertii) Hadrian 1 AR (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 290) Faustina II 1 AR (RIC 3 (Antoninus), 509) Marcus Aurelius 1 AR (RIC 3 (Marcus), 314) Commodus 1 Æ (Sestertius) Excavations conducted by Earthworks in 2001-02 in a fi eld to the north of the town recovered

twenty-one coins (Williams and Reid 2008, 37-40):

Nero 1 Æ (RIC 12 (Nero), 77) Vespasian 5 Æ (inc. RIC 22 (Vespasian), 317) Domitian 2 Æ (Asses) Nerva 1 Æ (RIC 2 (Nerva), 51) Trajan 2 Æ (RIC 2 (Trajan), 543, 676) Hadrian 2 Æ (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 600) Marcus Aurelius 1 Æ (Sestertius) Unassignable radiates and copies 4 Æ Constantinian 3 Æ (inc. RIC 7 (Trier), 41; as LRBC I. 99)

Excavations in 2005 at Buckley’s Field (Middlewich Community Dig, supervised by SLR Consulting) retrieved eight Roman coins (see report at:

http://www.middlewich-heritage.org.uk/the-fi nds/mnu-coins.html):

64

Nero 1 Æ (Dupondius) Vespasian 2 Æ (Dupondii) Domitian (as Caesar) 1 Æ (As) Hadrian 1 AR (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 118) Marcus Aurelius 1 AR (RIC 3 (Marcus), 436) Constantius II 1 Æ (as LRBC I. 49) Magnentius 1 Æ (LRBC II. 49)

This group is too small for comment, although the paucity of coins of the third and fourth centuries continues to be a feature; further, the coin of Magnentius is the latest yet to have been recorded from Middlewich.

This brings the total of Roman coins found in the Middlewich area to 139:

Table 2.19: Middlewich: Chronological Distribution of all Recorded Roman Coins % % % I 14 10.07 VIII 13 9.35 XV 1 0.71 II – – IX 4 2.88 XVI – – III 3 2.16 X 4 2.88 XVII 5 3.60 IV 24 17.27 XI 3 2.16 XVIII 1 0.71 V 33 23.74 XII 5 3.60 XIX – – VI 14 10.07 XIII 7 5.04 XX – – VII 8 5.76 XIV – – XXI – –

There are some striking features in this assemblage: fi rst, the high showing of Republican coins and the presence of two Neronian issues suggests military activity from late in Nero’s reign and into the early years of the Flavian period. This was then followed by some slackness in the Flavian sample – particularly in late Flavian coins – which might point to temporary demilitarisation, with a resumption of activity in the late years of the fi rst century, which appears to have been strongly maintained into the fi rst half of the third century. The strength of denarii, and particularly of Republican issues, might point to the presence, in the early days of military occupation, of legionary troops.

It would appear probable that the revived strength of the coin-sample from the late fi rst century was linked more with developing industrial activity, especially in salt-working. However, this strength in the second and early third centuries contrasts strongly with the sharp decline in coin-loss from the mid-third century onwards. There are very few coins later than AD 250, and it is particularly notable that coins of periods XIII and XVII, which normally represent high proportions of site-samples in the North West, are virtually absent at Middlewich. This phenomenon has also been observed at the industrial sites of Holt, Wilderspool and Walton-le-Dale (respectively 2000, 89ff, 1995, 15ff and 2000, 24ff). It must indicate either that the former principal activities were in decline at Middlewich, or that their location had been moved; however, the presence of the coin of Magnentius would seem to point to continuing activity – presumably on a reduced scale – elsewhere in the area.

15. Nantwich: A number of recent Roman coin-fi nds have been recorded:

Domitian 1 AR (RIC 22 (Domitian), 691) Trajan 1 AR Marcus Aurelius 1 Æ (Sestertius) Faustina II 1 Æ (RIC 3 (Marcus), 1645) Claudius II 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Claudius II), 53)

65

Excavations were conducted in 2002 at a Roman industrial (salt) site at Kingsley Fields (Welsh Row) by the University of Manchester Archaeological Unit; preliminary examination of the Roman coins revealed 34, of which 26 were legible; for full identifi cations and assessment of wear these would have required cleaning. Unfortunately, this did not prove possible. The following, therefore, are the preliminary identifi cations:

Trajan 5 1AR; 4Æ (inc. RIC 2 (Trajan), 619; two further sestertii and an as) Hadrian 1 Æ (Sestertius) Antoninus Pius 5 1AR; 4Æ (two sestertii and two dupondii/asses) Faustina I 3 Æ (Sestertius; dupondius/as; as) Marcus Aurelius 1 Æ (Sestertius) Lucius Verus 1 Æ (Sestertius) Faustina II 3 Æ (inc. RIC 3 (Marcus), 1641; sestertius; dupondius) Commodus (as Caesar) 2 AR; Æ (RIC 3 (Marcus), 1524) Commodus (as Augustus) 2 Æ (inc. RIC 3 (Commodus), 368a; dupondius) Tetricus I 1 Æ Unassignable radiate copy 1 Æ Constantinian 1 Æ (‘Facing Victories’ type)

Illegible 8 Æ

Further coins, found by metal-detectorists, were reported at the time of the excavations of 2002:

Otho 1 AR (RIC 12 (Otho), 8) Vespasian 1 AR (RIC 22 (Vespasian), 545?) Domitian 1 AR (RIC 22 (Domitian), 451) Nerva 1 AR (RIC 2 (Nerva), 25) Trajan 1 Æ (RIC 2 (Trajan), 667) Hadrian 1 AR (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 146ff) Antoninus Pius 3 AR (RIC 3 (Antoninus), 282?); 2Æ (sestertii; inc. RIC 3 (Antoninus), 778) Faustina II (under Antoninus Pius) 1 Æ (RIC 3 (Antoninus), 1377) Marcus Aurelius 1 Æ (as RIC 3 (Marcus), 964) Commodus 1 AR Crispina 1 AR (RIC 3 (Commodus), 278) Plautilla 1 AR (RIC 4 (Caracalla), 363a) Unassignable radiate copy 1 Æ Constantinian 1 Æ (as LRBC I. 52)

This brings to 55 the total of legible coins recorded from the Nantwich area – 26 from the excavations of 2002 and 29 casual fi nds; these can be shown in the following table:

66

Table 2.20: Nantwich: Chronological Distribution of all Recorded Roman Coins

Excavations of 2002 Casual Finds Period No. % Period No. % I – – I – – II – – II – – III – – III – – IV – – IV 5 17.24 V 5 19.23 V 4 13.79 VI 1 3.85 VI 2 6.90 VII 8 30.77 VII 5 17.24 VIII 7 26.92 VIII 4 13.79 IX 2 7.69 IX 3 10.34 X – – X 2 6.90 XI – – XI – – XII – – XII – – XIII 2 7.69 XIII 1 3.45 XIV – – XIV – – XV – – XV 2 6.90 XVI – – XVI – – XVII 1 3.85 XVII 1 3.45 XVIII – – XVIII – – XIX – – XIX – – XX – – XX – – XXI – – XXI – –

A few points may be made on this assemblage:

1) The profi les of the coins from the excavations of 2002 and of the casual coin-fi nds correlate closely in their date-ranges, with the chief strength of both lying in the second century, followed by a sharp decline in the third and fourth centuries. The denominational constituents of the two groups, however, show a marked divergence, with the coins from the excavation consisting principally of aes-denominations, whilst those found over the area as a whole contain a much higher proportion of denarii, respectively three denarii out of 26 coins (11.5%) and 15 denarii out of 29 coins (51.7%). This may refl ect the presence not only of those involved in industrial activity, but also a military element which was perhaps concerned with commercial aspects of the site or possibly with ‘policing’ operations there.

2) The overall date-range of the two groups is strongly reminiscent in certain respects of that noted at other industrial sites in the region – that is, beginning in the late years of the fi rst century or early in the second, fl ourishing through the second century, with a sharp decline – although clearly not complete abandonment; see, for example, Webster 1975 – in the third and fourth centuries. It is particularly striking how low the coin-loss falls in periods XIII and XVII, which generally on north-western sites generate respectively in excess of 20% and 10% of site-totals. This perhaps points to the possibility that, at some stage, presumably early in the third century, there was a substantial reorganisation of military supply.

3) Little indication is given by the earlier coins from Nantwich that there was a military establishment in the Flavian period; the excavations produced no coins earlier than the Trajanic period, whilst the casual fi nds yielded only two coins from the late 60s and 70s, together with two of Domitian. These coins, which were not recorded as fresh, could well have remained in circulation into the last years of the fi rst century and the early part of the

67

second. It would not seem reasonable, therefore, to propose a military presence of any signifi cant kind until, at least, the end of the fi rst century AD.

4) The coins of the second century provide a striking picture in a number of ways: fi rst, 41 coins out of the site-total of 55 (74.5%) are of second-century date. No other site in north-west England replicates such a statistic, which serves only to show how limited in chronological terms the main period of activity at Nantwich was. Secondly, it is normal to see a steady period-by-period decline in coin-loss from the reign of Trajan through to that of Commodus. This is usually explained with reference to the growing problem of infl ation through the century (see above on p.6). Thirdly, it is particularly unusual to fi nd coins of Commodus’ reign so well represented – possibly signifi cant on a site in the vicinity of and involved in the supplies to Chester, since this was the period when the governor, Ulpius Marcellus, was actively campaigning in Britain (Birley 2005, 162ff).

5) Finally, despite this strong showing of coins of the second century, it will be noted that amongst the coins both from the excavation and the casual fi nds, issues of Hadrian are particularly poorly represented. This phenomenon has been noted at other sites in the region (1990, 118f); since the coins of an emperor continued to circulate strongly in the reign of his successor, this shortage of Hadrianic coins may refl ect the troop-movements that accompanied Antoninus’ decision to mount a temporary re-occupation of southern Scotland, thus producing at some sites a short fall in coin-loss during the 140s and 150s.

16. Northwich: A coin of Domitian has been reported (type and date unspecifi ed).

20. Irby: This rural site was active from late Prehistoric times, through the Romano-British period and into the medieval (Philpott and Adams 1999; Cowell and Philpott 2000, 202); its excavation in the late 1980s and early 1990s saw the recovery of six coins and a fragment of a seventh, ranging in date from Tetricus I to the middle of the fourth century; these were identifi ed by Dr Simon Bean (Philpott and Adams, 2010, 153-4):

Tetricus I 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Tetricus I), 126/127)

Constantinian i) AD 316–320 3 Æ (RIC 7 (London), 89, 158; (Trier), 266) ii) AD 330–361 2 Æ (LRBC I. 71; Falling Horseman copy)

Illegible (third/fourth century) 1 Æ This represents a considerable assemblage for a rural site in north-west England, in part

refl ecting the fact that increasingly sophisticated methods of site recognition are enhancing the body of such sites that are available for excavation and study. Incidentally, the proliferation of knowledge of rural sites in the North West is helping to provide substance to Tacitus’ assertion that the Brigantes were the ‘most populous’ tribe in Britain (Life of Agricola 17,1). However, when we are dealing with such small numbers of coins (compared with what is found on the major Roman and Romano-British sites in the North West), the difference between the presence and absence of casual coin-loss may be due to mere chance, and we should perhaps exercise caution before reading too much into positive or negative coin-evidence.

It is clear, for example, that the value of individual coins in the later third and fourth centuries was considerably lower than it had been in the fi rst and second centuries. As Simon Bean points out in his report on the present coins, the relatively fresh condition of most of them suggests that they were lost soon after their dates of issue. Nevertheless, there is evidence (Shotter 1978g)

68

that radiates and copies are frequently to be found circulating alongside current coins in mid- to late fourth-century contexts.

There would not, of course, have been much cause for coinage to be used – and, therefore, lost – on rural sites themselves; we can readily imagine that farmers and manufacturers, when ‘at home’, will have kept their coins in a safe place – that is, in what would be designated a hoard if not collected – simply adding coins to or removing them from their savings as business dictated. Their only occasion to spend (or, indeed, receive) money will have been when they made the journey to market to do business; it will, therefore, have been there that they will most likely have mislaid coins. Hence, an absence or near-absence of coins on individual rural sites need not surprise us. In any case, the coins recorded here represent merely ‘small change’; their loss may not have led to an over-zealous search.

21. Farndon: In 2003, a collection of Roman coins from this site was made available for study; in addition to two coins that were too worn to permit identifi cation (a sestertius and a dupondius), there were a further seven:

Trajan 1 AR Hadrian 1 Æ (Quadrans?) Tetricus II (?) 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Tetricus II), 270) Probus 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Probus), 736) Constantinian 3 Æ (as RIC 7 (Trier), 461; LRBC 1. 132, 836)

It should be noted that Farndon lies just across the river Dee from Holt (II.C, 8; 2000, 89-95), and that a Roman military site has been postulated there (Jones G.D.B. 1991).

22. Stockton Heath: This industrial site has usually been regarded as one with Wilderspool (II.A, 8), which historically, before 1974, was included in Lancashire. For a variety of reasons, however, it is not now possible to attempt with any confi dence an accurate distinction in the coin-record between the two sites, and it is likely that some of the coins listed under Wilderspool in earlier volumes (1990, 41ff; 1995, 15f; 2000, 27), in fact, derived from Stockton Heath.

Prior to the excavations of 2007, two coins only were specifi cally given provenances from Stockton Heath – a denarius from the excavations of Thomas May (Thompson 1965, 79), and a damaged sestertius of Nerva, which was found in the 1960s or 1970s during building-work at the Primary School, and reported to the Portable Antiquities Scheme in 2007.

Seven coins were recovered in excavations at the Primary School in 2007:

Titus 1 Æ (Dupondius) Trajan 3 1AR (RIC 2 (Trajan), 119); 2Æ (RIC 2 (Trajan), 466, 534) Claudius II 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Claudius II), 82) Tetricus I 2 Æ

These coins broadly refl ect the date-range of those from recent excavations at Wilderspool (Hinchliffe and Williams 1992, 89 and 152-5; Rogers and Garner 2007, 69-70), and show that the principal period of activity at Stockton Heath, as at Wilderspool, lay between the late fi rst century AD and the mid-second. Also, however, as at Wilderspool, there is evidence that activity continued, albeit on a much-reduced scale, through to the late third century and probably into the fourth.

69

For a discussion of the Roman coins from the site, see Shotter 2006b, 46-8 (in Dodd 2006).

23. Landican (Birkenhead): Although there is as yet no known Roman site in the area of this ancient township, a number of Roman and medieval coins have been found over an extended area; the 47 Roman coins range in date from the reign of the Emperor, Tiberius, through to the later years of the fourth century. The assemblage also includes one fragmentary and illegible piece which may be a tetradrachm from Alexandria of the middle years of the third century. It should also be noted that the coin of Gratian and a pierced Valentinianic nummus were found at nearby Woodchurch. The coins:

Tiberius 1 Æ (RIC 12 (Tiberius), 80/81) Nero 1 Æ (RIC 12 (Nero), 538) Trajan 1 AR (RIC 2 (Trajan), 114?) Antoninus Pius 1 Æ (RIC 3 (Antoninus), 780) Gallienus 3 Æ (inc. RIC 5 (Gallienus, sole reign), 184) Claudius II 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Claudius II), 89) Divus Claudius 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Claudius II), 256ff) Postumus 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Postumus), 66) Tetricus I 5 Æ Unassignable radiate copies 9 Æ

Constantinian (AD 307–64) i) PROVIDENTIAE AVGG 1 Æ (LRBC I. 811) ii) Victory on Prow 1 Æ (LRBC I. 185) iii) GLORIA EXERCITVS (2s) 1 Æ (as LRBC I. 50) iv) GLORIA EXERCITVS (1s) 2 Æ (inc. LRBC I. 779?) v) Facing Victories 2 Æ vi) FEL TEMP REPARATIO 2 Æ (Falling Horseman type)

Valentinianic (AD 364–78) i) GLORIA ROMANORVM 2 Æ (inc. LRBC II. 279) ii) SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE 4 Æ (inc. LRBC II. 285, 1015, 1722) iii) GLORIA NOVI SAECVLI 1 Æ (LRBC II. 503) iv) Illegible 3 Æ

Theodosian 3 Æ

Illegible 1 Æ (Undatable, but possibly an Alexandrian tetradrachm of the third century)

It should be noted that a sestertius of Antoninus Pius had been found in the area in 1935 (Kevin Cootes, pers. comm.); the total of legible coins is, therefore, 47, chronologically distributed as follows:

70

Table 2.21: Landican: Chronological Distribution of Roman Coins reported from the Area

I 1 VIII – XV – II – IX – XVI 1 III 1 X – XVII 6 IV – XI – XVIII 2 V 1 XII – XIX 10 VI – XIII 20 XX 3 VII 2 XIV – XXI –

This is quite an unusual assemblage for a Roman or Romano-British site in north-west England, in that it lacks any reasonably fresh coins earlier in date than the mid-second century AD. Indeed, as with some other sites in Merseyside (Cowell and Philpott 2000), the real strength of this group lies in the volume of coin-loss between the mid-third century and the middle to later years of the fourth; especially striking is the ‘peak’ to be noted in coins of the Valentinianic period.

The proximity of Landican to the multi-period ‘emporium’ site at Meols (Griffi ths, Philpott and Egan 2007) and the fact that, like Meols, it has produced medieval artefacts as well as Roman prompt the suggestion that Landican may have been in some way associated with Meols, at least in function. It may be that in the latter part of the Roman administration of Britain, with the emphasis on coastal defence and commercialism, Landican grew in signifi cance; this suggestion receives some support from the fact that two of the fourth-century coins were minted in the eastern part of the Empire. Further, we should not in this context ignore the presence of a very damaged piece, which may have been a third-century Alexandrian tetradrachm. Indeed, the generally poor condition of these later coins perhaps prevents us from seeing this point more fi rmly supported.

However, the nature of activities at Landican continues to resist proper diagnosis, as fi nds of other material (especially pottery) have been meagre, and there is no sign as yet of any structural evidence. For the moment, then, the site may be best served, in view of the physical extent of space over which the fi nds have been made by its description as a possible ‘Romano-British Settlement’, which saw its heyday between c. AD 250 and the later years of the fourth century. The volume of coinage would also suggest that, as with other sites on Merseyside (Swan and Philpott 2000), that at Landican was somehow linked into the ‘military market’ – hardly surprising in view of the proximity of the legionary fortress and its extramural settlement at Chester.

The presence of some earlier coins also merits a comment, especially one as early as the reign of the Emperor, Tiberius (AD 14-37); such early coins are relatively rare fi nds in north-west England. Whilst it is known that Meols has also produced early Roman imperial coins, it would be hazardous in the extreme to base early occupation at Landican on such coins. The small number of coins of the fi rst two centuries AD is perhaps, at present at least, best seen within the context of military activities between Chester and Meols, which must have been commonplace in the early years of Roman occupation – especially in view of the strong probability that combined operations by land and sea were characteristic of those years (Shotter 2004b, 17ff).

71

DISCUSSION

The Roman Conquest of the North West

Nothing in the new coin-evidence from known Roman and Romano-British sites that is included in the present volume appears to contradict the main hypothesis proposed in the Second Supplement (2000) – namely that the coin-loss evidence from Roman military sites in north-west England can be seen to confi rm the evidence of dendrochronology to the effect that, as Tacitus implies (Life of Agricola 17, 1), the initial conquest of the North West was essentially the achievement of Quintus Petillius Cerialis (AD 71–4). In the course of this, an effort was made to isolate numismatic criteria that might be helpful in identifying military sites that could be considered as possibly pre-Agricolan in origin (Shotter 2001b). However, the nature of recently-published and on-going work is providing us with more information regarding activity at extramural sites outside the Roman forts and at Romano-British sites in the hinterland of the forts. As a result of this, we can begin to see a context in which the Roman army rapidly assumed the rôle of a ‘police-force’, which ensured law and order in the area as a whole, thus facilitating a peaceful process in which local people could go about their business without hindrance. The army also, of course, with its broad range of requirements did a great deal to stimulate a ‘market-economy’ in which local people could become involved, and from which they could benefi t. This, too, must have facilitated the spread of Romanisation in the North West – at least, to those with some means.

* * *

An arrangement between Rome and Cartimandua of the Brigantes was evidently made in AD 43 or soon after, perhaps built on a relationship that already existed: the mandu-element in Cartimandua’s name recalling that of Mandubracius of the Trinovantes who, in the quarrel between his dynasty and that of Cassivellaunus, had been supported by Julius Caesar (On the Gallic War 5. 20-22). If, however, Cunobelinus, who eventually asserted his supremacy over Trinovantian territory, was a descendant of Cassivellaunus, it would appear that Caesar’s ‘settlement’ of the Trinovantes was only temporary, and that Mandubracius’ family soon lost its inheritance in south-east England – this time, permanently. In such circumstances, it can be readily imagined that remnants of the ousted dynasty would have looked for new territory – and perhaps found it in the North East (the ‘Brigantian heartland’), where the quality and quantity of the agricultural land was such that could support their aspirations (Richmond 1954). It could thus be envisaged that Cartimandua herself may have been a descendant of this southern dynasty. Such a hypothesis would go some way to explaining the evidence for a leaning towards Mediterranean material culture which was discerned in the artefactual assemblage from the large oppidum at Stanwick – arguably Cartimandua’s principal site – on the eastern approaches to the Stainmore Pass (Turnbull 1984). This would have the effect of placing Cartimandua fi rmly within that Romanising culture that is now widely recognised as having developed amongst the aristocracies of many of the tribes of southern England in the late pre-Roman Iron Age (Bean 2000; Clarke and Fulford 2001), and would also explain why, at the time of the Claudian conquest, the Roman authorities turned to Cartimandua when they sought to ensure the neutrality, at least, of the large tribe that occupied the territory which lay on the northern fl ank of the Romans’ westward advance through the north midlands and into Wales.

That not all Brigantians were equally happy with the policy of cooperation with the conqueror, however, seems to be an inference to be drawn from Cartimandua’s marriage-alliance with Venutius, which was perhaps part of the ‘deal’ with Rome. We cannot be certain of the status of Venutius, although it is a plausible suggestion that he may have been the leading fi gure of an important group in the North West, which controlled territory in the sensitive area of what is now the town of Penrith and its hinterland (Edwards 2006); this was probably the group in the Eden valley which, in the Roman period, was to re-emerge as the Carvetii (Higham and Jones 1985), and which perhaps enjoyed relationships with some who lived in what is now southern Scotland. This might explain why, following the fi nal breakdown in relations between Cartimandua and Venutius in AD 69, the Roman governor, Marcus Vettius Bolanus, appears to have been operating – and achieving success – in Scotland (Statius Silvae 5. 2, 140-9; Shotter

72

2002). Indeed, it seems likely that increasing tensions affected the relationship between Cartimandua and Venutius almost from the outset.

A signifi cant point in the deterioration was evidently reached in AD 50, as Caratacus, the son of Cunobelinus, prepared to make his last stand against Rome, evidently in mid-Wales (Jones 1990a); he appealed to Cartimandua for sanctuary, but was refused. For those who had never been totally happy with the idea of an alliance with Rome, this was probably a step too far. An indication of the pressure that may have been brought to bear on Cartimandua to support the ‘British cause’ may be found in a hoard of Celtic gold coins – mainly issues of Cunobelinus – which was found in 1998 at Silsden in west Yorkshire, not far from the site of the oppidum of Barwick-in-Elmet, which may have been another of Cartimandua’s centres (Edwards and Dennis 2006). Tacitus indicates – although, unfortunately, with no great precision (Annals 12. 40) – that Roman troops had to be deployed in Brigantian territory in the ensuing years, in an attempt to keep the peace between Cartimandua and Venutius. This may well have been a diffi cult task, especially if, as seems possible, the two British leaders ‘faced each other’ across the Stainmore Pass – Cartimandua at Stanwick, and Venutius at Clifton Dykes (near Penrith; Edwards 2006). However, serious though this situation was, it does not appear, at fi rst at least, to have merited the introduction of Roman troops into the region on a permanent basis; rather, the Roman response seems to have been more akin to what the Americans in Vietnam used to describe as ‘search-and-destroy’ missions.

In the North West, the accumulating coin-evidence – particularly the distribution of pre-Flavian aes, and especially genuine and copied issues of Claudius – points to these missions as having consisted of coordinated operations by land and sea. In addition to those fi nds discussed previously, the present volume includes new or newly-published reports of such coins from Huntington (IV.C,1), Meols (II.C,13), Liverpool (IV.A,1), Garstang (IV.A,1), Low Borrow Bridge (II.B,18), Ravenglass (II.B,27), Great Urswick (IV.B,1) and Shap (IV.B.1; see also below on pp. 199ff).

In the years following the suppression of Boudica’s rebellion in the south, the Roman government in Britain appears to have been of extremely variable quality (Tacitus Life of Agricola 16, 3-5; Shotter 2002), bordering at times on laxity. This and the distraction of Roman troops in the civil war that, in AD 68, precipitated and followed the end of the reign of Nero (Shotter 2008, 153ff) provoked a deeper crisis in northern Britain. The simmering dispute between Cartimandua and Venutius now fl ared into open warfare (Tacitus Histories 3. 45). The details are sparse, apart from the basic fact that, at some time in AD 69, Cartimandua was driven from power, and had to be rescued by Roman troops. If it is a correct assumption that Cartimandua’s principal centre was at Stanwick and Venutius’ at Clifton Dykes, then it would appear likely that Venutius successfully attacked his former wife across the Stainmore Pass, presumably with the help of supporters from what is now Scotland. This was the fi nal breakdown of the arrangement that Rome had made with the Brigantes; as Tacitus succinctly put it, ‘Venutius won the kingdom, whilst we were left with a war to fi ght’. That war, of course, was, during the 70s, to bring Brigantian territory formally into the province of Britannia.

Affairs in Britain, therefore, required a strong hand; they also provided an opportunity which the new emperor, Vespasian, recently triumphant in Rome’s civil war, was especially ready to grasp. Coming from a family that had not achieved senatorial status prior to his own generation, Vespasian was seen by some as lacking the background widely regarded as imperative for the exercise of supreme power; it was an important tradition in Rome that the aristocracy – of which Vespasian was not by birth a member – brought to government generations of knowledge and experience and, through them, authority and prestige (auctoritas). Lacking such a background, Vespasian had to attempt to create confi dence in his ability to shoulder the business of governing Rome and the Empire; we are told by Tacitus (Histories 4. 81; see also Suetonius Life of the Deifi ed Vespasian 7,2 and Dio Cassius History of Rome 66. 8,1) that, early on, Vespasian was associated with ‘healing-miracles’ in Alexandria – clearly an attempt to win by ‘spin’ the auctoritas that his birth appeared to deny him. The principal cornerstone of aristocratic glory had always been success on the battlefi eld; the confused and potentially dangerous situation in Britain after 69 not only provided Vespasian with the chance to win military success, but also allowed him to present himself as the emperor who restored dignity and respect for tradition to the government of Rome

73

after the episode of Nero’s reign and the chaos that followed it. In Britain, he could best demonstrate this by bringing to completion the ‘British project’ begun by Nero’s predecessor, Claudius, under whom Vespasian had, of course, served in AD 43 as commander of legion II Augusta (Shotter 2004a), and for whom the new emperor clearly entertained considerable respect.

Thus, in all probability, was born Vespasian’s ‘British project’, which looked to complete the conquest of mainland Britain and, perhaps, of Ireland also (Robinson 1999). Although no surviving source specifi cally mentions a scheme as ambitious as this, there are a few clues in the literary and archaeological records. First, Tacitus (Life of Agricola 17, 1) describes the new reign as a period of ‘great generals, magnifi cent armies and a demoralised enemy’; this certainly sounds like a prelude to activities of some consequence. Later, and in contrast, when Tacitus describes Agricola’s fi fth campaign of AD 81, he recalls Agricola’s remarks about a possible conquest of Ireland (Life of Agricola 24, 3) in what can best be called an ‘air of wistful nostalgia’ – as of a policy whose time had now passed: Vespasian, it should be recalled, had died two years previously. It should also be noted that a number of Classical writers of the late fi rst century AD leave little doubt that Roman armies were penetrating Scotland during the early-70s AD (Birley 1953, 10-19; Breeze 2009, 5-7; Shotter 2000, 114ff; 2009, 15) – a possibility greatly strengthened by the dating by dendrochronology of the earliest Roman fort at Carlisle to AD 72/3 (Shotter 2000a), and by the fact that the earliest fort at Newstead faced west – that is, towards Carlisle (R.F.J. Jones, pers. comm.).

The numismatic evidence needs also to be taken seriously: the potential importance of fi nds of pre-Flavian aes-issues has already been mentioned, alongside the strength of aes-coins from early in Vespasian’s reign (especially those of AD 71; Shotter 2001b). One or both of these criteria have been noted on a number of Roman sites between the Tyne-Solway gap and the river Tay, as well as at sites on the route north in north-west England – for example, Middlewich, Walton-le-Dale, Ribchester, Lancaster, Low Borrow Bridge, as well as Carlisle. This is not to argue that a wholesale Roman invasion of Scotland was launched in the early 70s; undoubtedly, in many cases, the earliest levels at Roman sites are properly dated to the governorship of Agricola in the late 70s and early 80s; Elginhaugh, which has recently been completely excavated (Hanson 2007), provides an obvious example, although there seems to be little justifi cation for regarding the chronology of Elginhaugh as providing a rigid template for Roman intervention in what is now Scotland (Woolliscroft, forthcoming). It is more than likely, as the Roman poet, Papinius Statius (Silvae 5. 2, 140-9) seems to imply, that chasing down Venutius and his allies, in the wake of the rebellion of 69, took Roman armies into Scotland as early as the governorship of Marcus Vettius Bolanus (AD 69–71; Birley A.R. 2005, 57-62) – a man for whom Tacitus evidently had little time (Life of Agricola 8, 1 and 16, 5), but who, on his retirement from what was clearly regarded as a successful command in Britain, was rewarded by Vespasian with elevation to the patriciate, the highest level of Roman nobility.

From the base, therefore, of re-established stability in northern Britain, it seems that the Roman invasion of the north was carried forward with some vigour under Bolanus’ successor, Quintus Petillius Cerialis (AD 71-4); the evident extension of this into Scotland (Shotter 2009a) perhaps had three related aims – to prevent former supporters of Venutius from gaining sanctuary there, to secure agreements with the tribes of the east coast to supply the Roman army with grain, and to offer security, especially to those living beyond the Forth, from their inland neighbours. This, indeed, may provide an explanation for the decision, perhaps at this early stage, to begin work on a ‘frontier’ (limes) stretching from the Forth to the Tay – the Gask Ridge (Woolliscroft and Hoffmann 2006).

Vespasian’s own intentions also bear examination: as noted above, military success was a commodity of immense value to him in the early years of his reign. In particular, he will have seen Britain as a ‘piece of unfi nished business’, where there was glory to be won, and where he could link his reputation to that of Claudius, his old commander. It is also clear from the scale of his building-programme in Rome that he appreciated the powerful bond between building and imperial success. The bond that existed between Vespasian and Claudius’ memory is perhaps best evidenced by the new emperor’s decision to bring to completion the construction of the Claudianum on the Caelian Hill in Rome (Suetonius The Life

74

of the Deifi ed Claudius 9, 1); the building of this temple to the Deifi ed Claudius had been undertaken initially by Claudius’ widow, Agrippina, but abandoned after her death in AD 59, when her son, Nero, decided that he required the site for a part of his extravagant palace, the domus aurea (‘Golden House’; Shotter 2008, 116).

Two known major buildings in Britain – the Temple of the Deifi ed Claudius at Colchester (Fishwick 1972) and the ‘Monument’ at Richborough (Strong 1968) – also serve to demonstrate the link that Vespasian emphasised between himself and Claudius (Shotter 2004a). One of the principal targets in Boudica’s rebellion in AD 60 had been the Imperial Cult centre at Colchester (Tacitus Annals 12. 31, 6): although Tacitus appears to assume that this originally took the form of a substantial temple, in the Classical style, dedicated to Claudius, this has been doubted in more recent times. It is now thought more likely that the Imperial Cult centre destroyed by Boudica’s rebels may have taken the rather simpler form of an altar, perhaps similar to that at Lyon (RIC 12 (Augustus), 229ff), and that it was due to Vespasian that, in the post-Neronian restoration, its replacement took the more imposing form of the temple dedicated to Divus Claudius. Again, the Roman invasion force of AD 43 had made its principal landfall at Richborough; this fact was commemorated by the construction in the centre of the fort there of a large four-way (quadrifons) arch, which evidently stood to a height of approximately 30 metres. Although little is known for certain about the form and precise construction-date of this monument, it seems at least plausible to suggest that it was Vespasian who planned this ‘gateway to Britannia’, in order both to honour the conqueror of Britain and to proclaim that he was intent on fi nishing what Claudius had started, by completing the conquest and leading the enlarged province of Britannia towards a fully Romanised condition.

One further piece of building-evidence should be considered – the enigmatic ‘Elliptical Building’, which it was planned to construct at the heart of the legionary fortress at Chester (Mason 2000). Discussion of this building has been made especially diffi cult by the fact that, in the event, it did not proceed beyond the foundation-stage. Whilst the purpose of the building is by no means clear, it appears from its lay-out that it may have been intended as a potent and visible image representing the power of Rome and its emperor. The fact that it was to have been built at Chester, in the fortress which was to house the former sailors of the Ravenna fl eet, who now made up Legion II Adiutrix, perhaps points to the possibility that Vespasian meant to suggest that the purpose of his newly-founded dynasty was indeed to complete the conquest of mainland Britain and that of Ireland also, and then to divide the whole area into two provinces, with Chester as the central place of a northern province, which linked Britain and Ireland. Nor should it be overlooked that the embracing by these former sailors of Vespasian’s cause in the civil war of AD 69 (Tacitus Histories 3. 12) had been a decisive moment in the new emperor’s victory over Vitellius. In this way, the ‘Elliptical Building’ may have been intended to play a similar symbolic rôle in linking this ‘northern province’ fi rmly to the fortunes of the Flavian dynasty, as did the Richborough ‘Monument’ in the case of its southern counterpart.

This, then, may have been the substance of Vespasian’s ‘British project’, a scheme which would commemorate Claudius and bring glory and prestige to a new emperor who was, in the early 70s, in evident need of these. It was at one time assumed that this phase of conquest proceeded solely via Chester, Northwich, Manchester and along the Pennine foothills to Ribchester and Burrow-in-Lonsdale, from where the valleys of the Lune and Eden rivers were followed to Carlisle. In more recent years, however, we have come to appreciate, particularly through documentary evidence provided by the writing-tablets which have been recovered from such sites as Carlisle and Vindolanda, that the Roman army was used with much greater fl exibility than was at one time appreciated. Thus, whilst the route from Chester to Carlisle, described above, was certainly a crucial artery in the conquest and long-term occupation of the North West, the initial conquest of the area was possibly achieved in a rather more complex fashion. It needs, however, to be emphasised that the ‘model of conquest’ suggested here is not intended to imply that sites, such as Wilderspool and Walton-le-Dale, as they have been characterised in recent excavations, belong to an early phase of conquest (Wild 2002; see further below). These sites are of an infrastructural nature and clearly belong to the period of consolidation that followed the decision in the late 80s to abandon earlier Flavian gains in what is now Scotland, and concentrate on building a province south of the Tyne-Solway gap. There is, however, a case, particularly

75

on the evidence of casual coin-loss, for suggesting that in the vicinity of such sites, earlier military sites of some kind – most likely, campaign-camps – may await discovery. The current understanding of the development of the coastal military site at Kirkham (on the estuary of the River Ribble; Howard-Davis and Buxton 2000) would appear to lend some support to such an hypothesis.

The presence of part, at least, of legion II Adiutrix once again allowed ‘combined operations’ to be mounted – by land and sea. Thus, army groups could be sent overland from such bases as Wroxeter and Little Chester, and could work in concert with troops who had been embarked perhaps in the estuary of the River Dee or, possibly, at Meols (Griffi ths, Philpott and Egan 2007), and who could work into the interior of the North West through disembarkation in the region’s broad river-estuaries. Thus, part of the army, at least, probably advanced through the lowlands of Cheshire (Chester, Middlewich, Wilderspool and perhaps Walton-le-Dale), following a ‘coastal route’ to Lancaster and the River Lune, from where that river provided a route of penetration to the north. Along the way, rendezvous could have been effected with the sea-borne troops at such sites as Kirkham on the northern side of the Ribble estuary, thus achieving what must have been for the leaders of British resistance a demoralising sense of Roman ubiquity (Tacitus Life of Agricola 25, 2). Finds of pre-Flavian aes-coins around the northern coastal regions of Morecambe Bay and at sites such as Ravenglass, as well as signs of early Roman activity at Blennerhasset (Evans and Scull 1990), make a strong case for suggesting that sea-borne troops continued their work around the coast as far as the Solway estuary, whilst their ‘land-based’ colleagues proceeded northwards to Carlisle, presumably sending out detachments into areas fl anking the Lune/Eden corridor. We continue to be hampered in our ability to understand these events fully by the lack of surviving evidence relating to the chronology, and even the locations, of relevant campaigning-camps (Welfare and Swan 1995). It is, however, to be hoped that a recently-recognised camp in the vicinity of Castlerigg Stone Circle (near Keswick) may in time assist in bringing greater certainty to the chronology of the early stages of the Roman penetration of the Lake District.

That Roman troops advanced, under the command of Gnaeus Julius Agricola (AD 77–83), from Carlisle and Corbridge to secure the occupation of southern and eastern Scotland as far north as the Moray Firth is not open to doubt; nor is the fact that, by AD 87, most of this territory had been abandoned – and, with it, so fi nally had the Scottish and Irish elements of Vespasian’s ambitious ‘British project’. Conditions in central Europe were changing signifi cantly and rapidly during the 70s and 80s; in particular, developing threats along the Rhine and Danube Rivers had led, in 80, to the withdrawal of detachments from the legions in Britain (ILS 1025 and 9200), although on what scale is not clear. Seven years later, legion II Adiutrix, the fi rst garrison of the fortress at Chester, was also withdrawn to central Europe. The consequent redeployments of troops included a replacement legion at Chester – XX Valeria Victrix, part of which had been at the new fortress of Inchtuthil in northern Scotland, which the evidence of coin-loss shows to have been fi nally abandoned in AD 87 (Hobley 1989; David Woolliscroft, pers. comm.). Britain’s legionary force was possibly by this time at no more than two-thirds of the strength that it had enjoyed in the early 70s.

Although it may not have been to everyone’s taste, it had become clear that the time had now come to consolidate what had been won in the early Flavian years; Tacitus (Histories I.2, 1), for example, shows that he regarded what happened in Britain during the reign of Domitian (AD 81–96) as a ‘sell-out’ of Rome’s interests in the province and, perhaps particularly, of Agricola’s achievements; Tacitus’ wording may, indeed, have been deliberately chosen to mock the claim to complete conquest represented by the Richborough Monument (Shotter 2004a). It is clear, however, that the consolidation that occupied the period from the late 80s to the reign of Hadrian was in no way undertaken half-heartedly. Already, communications in northern England had been strengthened by the establishment of trans-Pennine link-roads – through Castleshaw and Bainbridge and across the Stainmore Pass (Vyner 2001). However, perhaps the most signifi cant of these trans-Pennine routes was the road which, since medieval times, has been known as ‘The Stanegate’, and which linked Carlisle with Corbridge, meriting the description of Roman Britain’s fi rst east-west frontier. This road may have existed from the 70s, but its signifi cance changed and grew with the decision in AD 87 to abandon most of the Flavian sites in Scotland; it was this which effectively made the Stanegate into a frontier, with a series of major forts along its length,

76

such as Vindolanda, and with some intervening fortlets and towers. Such features gave the Stanegate the character of a typical Roman frontier of the late fi rst century AD; its principal purpose must surely have been to facilitate the policing of movement in the area, and to effect a means of separating certain of the northern tribes from each other.

Evidence accumulated from a number of Roman military sites in the North West has served to show that they were not all, as was once thought, established during the earlier forward thrusts carried out under the auspices of Vespasian, but that some belonged to the later years of the fi rst and early years of the second centuries. The evidence of coin-loss has made a contribution to this changing perception: it is clear that, at some sites, recorded coin-loss of the Flavian period (IV) is considerably in excess of that of the Trajanic period (V), whilst at other sites the reverse is true. This surely provides an initial means of separating sites that were established during the earlier Flavian advance from those of the period of consolidation. A study of sites in the North West shows that, employing this criterion, the following may be considered as certain or probable late or post-Flavian establishments: Ambleside (II.B, 1), Hardknott (II.B, 15), Ravenglass (II.B, 27), Maryport (II.B, 20), Watercrook (II.B, 29), Old Carlisle (II.B, 24), Old Penrith (II.B, 25) and Papcastle (II.B, 26), although it has to be recognised that few of these have seen extensive excavation of the interiors of the forts or more broadly-based surveys to establish the nature of the wider Roman landscape.

It has, however, to be borne in mind that, at some of these sites, excavations have been confi ned largely to areas of extramural settlement; further, in some cases, there may be earlier sites, yet to be recognised, in adjacent areas that have not been sampled. In addition to these military sites, major non-military complexes should be included as belonging to the period of consolidation – Middlewich (II.C, 14), Nantwich (II.C, 15), Wilderspool (II.A, 8), Walton-le-Dale (II.A, 6) and possibly Wigan also (II.A, 7). All of this would suggest that much of the Lake District was not brought into the full policing-network until the period of consolidation, and that that period also saw the establishment of infrastructural sites which, on present evidence, appear to have been worked principally by people of local origin – an opportunity to practise their crafts in an organised environment which provided good access to potential markets. In this way, local people were drawn for profi t into the business of supplying the Roman army and its dependent communities; the presence of the army in the North West, therefore, helped to create the conditions for the development in the area of a market-economy – a key component of Romanisation. It should also be borne in mind that the proximity of Meols (II.C, 13) to sites such as Wilderspool, as well as the uninterrupted coin-loss at the former site, points to the likelihood that manufacturing and commercial activity in the North West was not aimed solely at local markets; indeed, Wilderspool products have been recognised as far north as the Antonine Wall (Hinchliffe and Williams 1992, 129).

The implications of coin-loss during the second century become rather more diffi cult to assess, as the stability of the Roman world came to be less assured (Reardon 1973); the problems are visible in the declining physical appearance and metallic integrity of the coinage. On the ground, we should again take note of the fact that coins of low denomination, such as the quadrans, the semis and the as, appear less frequently as site-fi nds, and that, by the close of the century, lost coinage is made up principally of denarii and sestertii, the former of which was becoming more seriously debased. Indeed, as noted above, it may have been economic rather than political and military uncertainties that led to the frequently-noted peak of hoarding during the Antonine period (Robertson 1988, 29). We should, however, bear in mind the fact that there were military diffi culties in the north in the late second century (Dio Cassius History of Rome 73, 8) which, in the early 180s, brought the robust Ulpius Marcellus to Britain as governor (Birley 2005, 162-70) and, in the fi rst decade of the third century, the Emperor, Septimius Severus, himself.

Nonetheless, the evidence of coin-loss is able to contribute to aspects of our understanding of the development of frontier-policy during the second century; for example, we have already noted the heavy predominance of Flavian coin-loss (IV) over that of the Trajanic period (V) at Ribchester. To some extent, it has been suggested, this was due to the fact that Ribchester was one of those sites that saw Roman troops very early in the Flavian period; it is possible, however, that an additional factor may have been at work to depress Trajanic coin-loss. Assuming that a considerable amount of coinage of one

77

emperor was probably in circulation during his successor’s reign, it is likely that another explanation of depressed Trajanic coin-loss should be sought in the reign of Hadrian. In this case, the drastic Hadrianic revision of frontier-policy in Britain presumably required the depletion or even the complete removal of garrisons – even if only on a temporary basis – from forts in the hinterland. In the case of Ribchester, although the early garrison sequence is imperfectly understood (Holder 1982, 107 and 110; Edwards 2000, 49), it seems possible that the fort at some stage in Hadrian’s reign lost the whole or part of its garrison for service elsewhere.

Similarly, a depressed Hadrianic coin-loss (VI) may well point to garrison-loss or reduction during the reign of Antoninus Pius. This phenomenon has been noted in the case of Lancaster (Shotter 1976); if the Ala Gallorum Sebosiana were already in garrison at the fort in the early years of the second century, then its appearance on a recently-discovered tombstone inscription from Carberry (Inveresk; Britannia 39 (2008), 372-4) would suggest the temporary secondment of at least a part of the unit to the northern frontier in the mid-second century. It is worth noting that a number of the forts on Hadrian’s Wall also exhibit depressed Hadrianic coin-samples; the loss of garrisons from Hadrian’s Wall in the Antonine period was suggested many years ago on the basis of studies of the samian pottery from both frontier walls (Hartley 1972), thus weakening the argument that the two walls may have been held contemporaneously.

The late second and early third centuries were clearly a period of change in Roman Britain, particularly in the north. We have already noted episodes of clearly vigorous military campaigning, and new developments in the civil administration with the granting of civitas-status to the Carvetii. It is also clear that changes were being made in the area of military supply: most of the infrastructural sites established in the North West late in the fi rst and early in the second century appear to have fl ourished during the second century, but to have declined in signifi cance from the early third; coin-loss at these sites dwindles, although not to a point that suggests total abandonment. Some of them seem to have continued, though on a much smaller scale than previously. It must be assumed that production of some supplies at least was moved either to other sites, or perhaps to other parts of the same sites which have not so far been recognised. A clear example is provided by bricks used in repairing the bath-house at Lancaster, evidently in the third century (RIB 605): whereas initial supplies appear to have come from the kilns at neighbouring Quernmore, chemical analysis of the bricks and tiles used in the repairs shows them to have come from a completely different, but as yet unidentifi ed, source (Shotter and Wellburn 1975; Shotter 1983a).

As has been shown (above on p.6), the problem of growing infl ation became clearer still as the third century wore on; by the middle of the century, the antoninianus had become a plain copper coin of variable size and quality, which, as infl ation bit more deeply and as the offi cial coin-supply struggled to keep pace with demand, was supplemented by large numbers of local copies, often of appalling execution. The Empire’s economic problems were at this time further magnifi ed by secessionism – the ultimate product of the unbounded prominence in the administration given to the army by members of the Severan dynasty. A growing number of ‘would-be’ emperors found it necessary to ‘print money’ to win and retain supporters to their causes.

Of these secessionist movements, the most serious to involve Britain was the Imperium Galliarum (‘The Independent Empire of the Gauls’), which was inaugurated in AD 260 in the western provinces by Postumus. For thirteen years, Britain and the other western provinces were ruled by rebel-emperors, who were supported by their own civil and military administration and who issued a separate coinage. Of this, the best was that issued by Postumus himself, which was often of good size and quality, with a good range of reverse-types, and which communicated a sense of stability by the fact that much of it, early on at least, was silvered. In the latter years, under Victorinus and the Tetrici, the decline was dramatic, and the local copying of coins appears to have reached an unprecedented peak. There is much about this episode that remains unclear – even how many secessionist rulers there were: a recent discovery in a hoard from Oxfordshire was a coin of the virtually unknown (and short-lived) Domitian II, who evidently ousted the thoroughly uncongenial Victorinus. The coinage of these later Gallic rebels was often of very

78

poor quality, with illiterate (and sometimes no) legends, and with obverse portraits that were barely recognisable, except for the ever-present and prominent radiate crown; reverses were characterised by ‘matchstick fi gures’ which were also frequently beyond recognition, except for the ‘accessories’ that they carried – for example, the olive-branch (PAX) and the palm-branch (HILARITAS).

In 273–4, however, the Gallic rebellion was fi nally ended, with the ‘legitimist’ Emperor, Aurelian, re-asserting his authority over the whole Empire. He and his immediate successors in the later 270s and early 280s issued a coinage which represented an improvement in terms of size and quality of production. The rarity as site-fi nds in Britain of coins of these ‘post-rebellion’ emperors, however, suggests that, in the years following the collapse of the Imperium Galliarum, the coinage continued to be dominated by the old ‘rebel-coinage’, which presumably, to judge from its volume, was still being made locally. Military sites in the North West generally show in their coin-loss samples some 20% to 30% of coins of the Gallic rebels; the occasional much lower proportions provide a sure sign of sites which were inactive or operating at a reduced level during the 270s and 280s.

The fi nal years of the third century were marked by yet more signs of change: in the Empire as a whole, Diocletian, who came to power in AD 284, recognising the diffi culty of holding the Empire together under a single ruler, made the decision in 285 to share power with Maximian, effectively dividing the Empire administratively into eastern and western halves. An immediate effect of this was to encourage, rather than to dampen down, overweening ambition and the urge to secessionism: in 286, Carausius, whose power-base appears to have lain in Britain and western Gaul, ‘claimed’ that the Empire should be further divided, as is shown by his coin-issue bearing on the obverse three imperial heads inside the legend, CARAVSIVS ET FRATRES SVI (‘Carausius and his Brothers’), and by his portrayal of himself on his coinage in a positively Messianic fashion. The fact that Diocletian and Maximian refused to accept Carausius as their ‘brother’ left the latter in a state of rebellion in Britain, a situation which continued until Carausius’ murder in 293, and for a further three years under his murderer and successor, Allectus. This may, however, have been no bad thing for Britain, as these two set about strengthening coastal defence in the British provinces (Casey 1994), and there is now some evidence to suggest that the north-west coast may have benefi ted from this (Shotter 2010). The discovery in the North West of a milestone dedicated to Carausius (RIB 2291 from Carlisle) and of two Allectus hoards (III.A.ii, 49 and III. B.ii, 27) certainly suggests that the writ of this rebellion extended effectively into the north.

Then, in 294, Diocletian introduced far more wide-ranging reforms, which were designed to enhance stability for the Empire and security for himself (Williams 1985). For the present purpose, it is suffi cient to say that the Empire was now divided into four (the Tetrarchy), to be ruled by two Augusti (Diocletian and Maximian) and two ‘junior’ fi gures (Caesares: Constantius Chlorus and Galerius). This was accompanied by major administrative reforms in the provinces and reorganisation in the army; Diocletian’s intention with these reforms was evidently to gain greater security for himself by fragmenting the imperial command-structures. The other major item of the ‘recovery-programme’ was, as we have seen, a complete reform of the coinage-system, in which the old discredited money (radiates and copies) was to be swept away, together with the ‘independent’ products of the eastern city-mints, and replaced by new coins (see above on pp.7-8), the ancient names for which are not known. These, and his other measures, have earned for Diocletian in modern times the description, ‘The Greatest Statesman of the Decline’ – deserved in the sense that he was effectively setting out to repeat the great effort at stabilising the Empire in a manner not dissimilar to that which Augustus Caesar had inaugurated over three centuries previously.

In Britain, although we fi nd plentiful evidence of the circulation of the coinage of Carausius and Allectus (together with older radiates and copies), the new coinage of the Tetrarchs, which was minted in London after the defeat of Allectus by Constantius in AD 296, appears only rarely as casual losses on Roman sites in the North West. Instead, although presumably outlawed, much of the old money appears to have remained in circulation (and perhaps even, unoffi cially of course, in production). Some ‘encouragement’ to this process may have been provided by the false claim of the family of Constantius to descent from the ‘legitimist’ Emperor, Claudius II (AD 268–70). As we have seen, the success of the new coinage and the economic reforms was, however, short-lived, as, by the early years of the fourth century, we

79

see a new reverse from some mints, SACRA MONET AVGG ET CAESS NOSTR, the implication of which appears to be an appeal for divine intervention to protect a money-system that was slipping out of human control. Thereafter, the coinage was subject to greater fl uctuation in supply, size and quality: the later Constantinian period (AD 330–60) saw a series of mainly small fl an aes-coins, with the re-appearance of large-scale local copying, although, as we have seen, some emperors and rebels put effort into the production of more eye-catching propagandist pieces.

Our knowledge of events of the fourth century, as they affected the North West, is limited: we know that in c. AD 315 Constantine I assumed the titles, Britannicus Maximus (ILS 8942), but to what they precisely related is less clear. It has also been suggested that ADVENTVS (‘arrival’) coins, issued by the London mint, may have referred to visits to Britain by Constantine in the early years of his reign, although the purposes of such visits, if they took place, are unknown. It is, however, possible that this could be linked to the closure of the London mint in the 320s and indicates perhaps some residual support in Britain for Carausius and Allectus to which the central government objected. Britain itself, already divided into two provinces by Septimius Severus early in the third century was now further subdivided into four; the name of at least one of these (Flavia Caesariensis) points to a powerful connection with Constantine’s family; further, it is known that Constantine’s father, Constantius I, campaigned in Britain on at least two occasions – in AD 296, when he defeated Allectus, and again ten years later when, as Augustus, he is said to have led a campaign against the Picts (Mann 1969, no. 188). It also appears that this fi rst decade of the fourth century was associated with rebuilding and refurbishing in the frontier area (RIB 1912), as if it was being brought to a higher state of readiness after a relatively peaceful period. The forts, with the new style of ‘chalet-barracks’, appear to point to changing social conditions – as if they were being effectively transformed into ‘villages’.

We are also told about a visit made to Britain by Constantine’s son, Constans, in the middle of the winter of AD 342–3 (Mann 1969, no. 192); although no reason for the visit is given, it is made clear that such a journey at that time of year was unusual. Two possible reasons suggest themselves: fi rst, following the death of Constantine I in AD 337, the Empire was divided between his three sons, Constantine II, Constans and Constantius II; Britain and Gaul came under the control of Constantine II who, in 340, launched a military attack against his brother, Constans, in Italy. Constantine II was defeated and killed, and Britain passed to Constans. It may be that this course of events led to instability in Britain, particularly if Constantine II had taken troops from Britain with him to Italy. Under such circumstances, Constans may have found it necessary to make such a visit. Alternatively, the problem could have been connected with external threats: amongst the peoples said to be threatening Britain in the fourth century were the Scotti (from Ireland) and the Dicalydonae, evidently the successors of the Caledonii of earlier years and part of the group who came to be referred to as the ‘Picts’, or ‘painted people’. These two tribal names place fourth-century pressures very fi rmly in the North West, and it may be that the catastrophic so-called ‘conspiracy of the barbarians’ of AD 367 was less a sudden event than the culmination of a lengthy and developing period of instability.

Diocletian and Constantine also introduced major military reforms, which represented the fi rst major overhaul of the Augustan system: henceforth, the army was to consist of two principal groupings – the comitatenses and the limitanei. The former were the best troops from the legions and auxiliary cavalry units who were now organised into mobile fi eld armies which were closely connected, both physically and in terms of loyalty, with the imperial personages of the day. The limitanei were generally the less impressive troops who remained in garrison in individual provinces; these presumably will have consisted largely of auxiliary infantry units and the irregular formations, generally called numeri (infantry) and cunei (cavalry). It is also likely that military service in Britain was made hereditary, and it appears also that the Roman army in Britain was paid increasingly in kind (the annona militaris; Casey 1988, 50-2). Such changes, together with the movements of troops to deal with the problems of the fourth century in Britain, and perhaps also a changing rôle for the forts themselves, will have led to considerable fl uctuations in coin-loss at the principal military sites, and the need to interpret these fl uctuations with considerable caution.

80

The last supplies of Roman coins in bulk to the British provinces came in the 360s and 370s, under the rulers of the House of Valentinian – Valentinian I himself, Valens and Gratian – although copies of these, too, were rife in order presumably to maintain an adequate coin-supply. Locally, Romano-British life will have continued, as has been shown by the large scatters of Roman coins recovered around the central buildings of Roman forts at sites as widely spread as Newcastle upon Tyne (Bidwell and Snape 2002), Vindolanda and Carlisle (Zant 2009a, 463). However, beyond this period, we see the clear signs of a central authority in decline – not sudden, but patchy, with taxes collected intermittently and the civil and military authorities losing any semblance of coherence. Roman soldiers remained in their forts, but more as local militias under their individual warlords (formerly Roman commanders), operating ‘protection-rackets’ in return presumably for food-supplies from those who inhabited their hinterlands. The North West was in transition: whilst Romano-British culture was certainly not an object of local contempt, as was once imagined, it was gradually – and at different rates in different places – becoming subject to change. There were obviously many who were desperate to hold onto the old certainties; the solidus of Valentinian II, found in a bath-house in Carlisle (Keevil, McCarthy and Shotter 1989; plates 2.3 and 2.4), bears witness to this. However, as the Severan historian, Dio Cassius, had written of German tribesmen in the age of Augustus, the Romano-British were once again ‘becoming different without knowing it’.

Appendix

Table 2.22: Percentage Chronological Distribution of Coins at Roman Sites in North-West England

Carlisle Chester Lancaster Ribchester Manchester Littlechester (2765) (2124) (442) (383) (279) (248)

I 1.81 2.07 1.36 4.18 3.94 0.40 II 0.18 0.33 0.90 1.04 0.36 1.21III 0.76 1.46 1.36 2.09 1.79 0.81IV 11.84 16.24 8.60 31.07 20.43 4.84V 5.68 6.73 9.05 11.75 11.83 4.03VI 3.95 4.47 3.62 10.97 8.96 4.84VII 3.29 5.36 6.79 6.79 6.09 4.44VIII 1.23 2.12 4.98 2.61 2.15 1.21IX 0.51 1.04 2.04 1.31 – 0.40X 1.85 4.71 2.49 1.83 2.87 4.44XI 0.91 1.13 0.45 0.26 1.08 0.40XII 0.62 2.64 1.81 0.52 0.72 2.02XIII 29.00 21.46 17.19 12.79 13.26 27.02XIV 2.57 3.01 4.30 0.52 2.87 6.05XV 5.54 6.16 8.82 2.35 9.32 10.48XVI 0.65 0.76 0.67 0.26 1.43 1.61XVII 9.55 12.42 16.97 7.31 5.02 20.16XVIII 3.66 3.62 3.17 1.04 2.51 2.82XIX 5.90 4.09 4.07 1.31 3.93 2.82XX 0.25 0.09 0.23 – 0.72 –XXI 0.25 0.09 1.13 – 0.72 –

81

Birdoswald Wilderspool Papcastle Walton-le-Dale Maryport Middlewich (239) (182) (160) (158) (143) (139)

I 0.42 4.39 – 1.27 2.10 10.07II – – 1.88 1.90 – –III – 1.65 1.88 2.53 2.10 2.16IV 2.93 20.88 17.50 32.91 8.39 17.27V 8.37 40.11 13.74 25.32 11.19 23.74VI 7.11 14.84 10.00 15.82 6.29 10.07VII 6.69 7.14 13.74 8.23 8.39 5.76VIII 3.77 2.20 5.63 3.80 4.20 9.35IX 1.67 1.65 0.63 0.63 – 2.88X 5.44 1.65 10.00 2.53 3.50 2.88XI 1.26 – 0.63 0.63 0.70 2.16XII 1.26 – 1.25 – 1.40 3.60XIII 23.85 1.65 13.74 3.80 17.48 5.04XIV 0.42 0.55 1.25 – 1.40 –XV 5.44 2.74 – – 6.99 0.71XVI 2.09 0.55 – – 1.40 –XVII 14.22 – 6.88 0.63 13.29 3.60XVIII 6.28 – 1.25 – 7.69 0.71XIX 7.11 – – – 0.70 –XX – – – – – –XXI 1.67 – – – 2.79 –

Watercrook Meols Beckfoot Old Penrith (119) (111) (110) (108)

I 3.36 4.50 4.55 0.93II – 5.41 – –III 0.84 7.21 1.82 0.93IV 16.81 8.11 11.81 12.96V 20.17 3.60 18.18 10.19VI 9.24 1.80 7.27 10.19VII 8.40 6.31 11.81 13.89VIII 1.68 3.60 4.55 5.56IX – 1.80 0.91 5.56X 3.36 1.80 3.64 12.96XI 0.84 – 0.91 1.84XII – 1.80 0.91 0.93XIII 31.10 26.13 22.73 13.89XIV 0.84 2.70 1.82 1.84XV 1.68 0.90 1.82 5.56XVI – 1.80 – –XVII – 15.33 5.45 1.84XVIII – 1.80 0.91 0.93XIX 1.68 4.50 0.91 –XX – 0.90 – –XXI – – – –

82

Table 2.23: Percentage Coin-loss Distribution by Centuries (Samples of 100+)

Periods I-IV V-IX X-XIV XV-XXI

Carlisle (2765) 14.59 14.66 34.95 35.80Chester (2124) 15.70 19.72 32.95 27.23Lancaster (442) 12.22 26.48 26.24 35.06Ribchester (382) 38.38 33.43 15.92 12.27Manchester (279) 26.52 29.03 20.80 23.65Littlechester (248) 7.26 14.92 39.93 37.89Birdoswald (239) 3.35 27.61 32.23 36.81Wilderspool (182) 26.92 65.94 3.85 3.29Papcastle (160) 21.37 43.40 27.05 8.18Walton-le-Dale (158) 38.61 53.80 6.96 0.63Maryport (143) 12.59 30.07 24.48 32.86Middlewich (139) 29.50 51.80 13.68 5.02Watercrook (119) 21.01 39.49 36.14 3.36Meols (111) 25.23 17.11 32.43 25.23Beckfoot (110) 18.18 42.72 30.01 9.09Old Penrith (108) 14.82 45.39 31.46 8.33

Table 2.24: Dates of the Latest Recorded Coins from Sites in North-West England

a) Cheshire and Neighbouring Areas

Period

I –II –III –IV NorthwichV –VI HolditchVII –VIII –IX –X –XI –XII –XIII Mellor, Stockton HeathXIV –XV PoultonXVI –XVII Farndon, Heronbridge, NantwichXVIII Eaton-by-Tarporley, Irby, MiddlewichXIX Brough-on-Noe, Littlechester, Saltney, WhitchurchXX Landican, Melandra, MeolsXXI Chester, Holt

No information: Chesterton, Halton, Ince

83

b) Lancashire

Period

I –II –III –IV –V –VI –VII –VIII CastleshawIX WarburtonX –XI –XII –XIII Burrow HeightsXIV –XV WiganXVI WilderspoolXVII Kirkham, Walton-le-DaleXVIII Burrow-in-LonsdaleXIX Ribchester, Tarbock IslandXX –XXI Lancaster, Manchester

No information: Quernmore

c) Cumbria

Period

I –II –III –IV –V –VI Nether DentonVII CummersdaleVIII Burgh-by-SandsIX –X –XI –XII NetherbyXIII Brampton, KirkbrideXIV Whitley CastleXV Bewcastle, Low Borrow Bridge, Milecastles/Turrets of Hadrian’s WallXVI –XVII Kirkby Thore, MoresbyXVIII Brougham, Drumburgh, Old Carlisle, Old Penrith, Papcastle, StanwixXIX Ambleside, Beckfoot, Bowes, Bowness-on-Solway, Cumberland Coast Sites, Hardknott, Maiden Castle-on-Stainmore, Ravenglass, Watercrook

84

XX Brough-under-StainmoreXXI Birdoswald, Carlisle, Castlesteads, Maryport

No information: Blennerhasset, Burrow Walls, Caermote, Troutbeck

Table 2.25: Dates of Latest Recorded Roman Coins from Sites in the North West

Period Cheshire Lancashire Cumbria Totals %

I – – – – –II – – – – –III – – – – –IV 1 – – 1 1.56V – – – – –VI 1 – 1 2 3.13VII – – 1 1 1.56VIII – 1 1 2 3.13IX – 1 – 1 1.56X – – – – –XI – – – – –XII – – 1 1 1.56XIII 2 1 2 5 7.81XIV – – 1 1 1.56XV 1 1 3 5 7.81XVI – 1 – 1 1.56XVII 3 2 2 7 10.94XVIII 3 1 6 10 15.63XIX 4 2 9 15 23.44XX 3 – 1 4 6.25XXI 2 2 4 8 12.50

64

No information 3 1 4 8

In viewing fi gures of this nature, certain limitations need to be noted: fi rst, the site-totals represent a combining of information from different types of source – for example, antiquarian accounts, museum records, published excavation reports, reports of metal-detectorists, the latter of which are now channelled mostly through the Finds Liaison Offi cers of the Portable Antiquities Scheme. Over the years, these – not surprisingly – have achieved different levels of accuracy not simply in terms of the identifi cation of the coins, but also with regard to the precise locations of their fi ndspots. Secondly, it is now much more readily appreciated that different parts of the same site may exhibit different occupation-profi les; in its most simplistic form, this means that Roman forts may – and usually do – exhibit chronologies that are different from those of their adjacent extramural settlements. Thirdly, site-development is now recognised as something far more complex than was once the case: the used areas of known sites may over time have been moved around quite signifi cantly, even if over a relatively restricted area; further, the use to which any particular area was put may also have changed. Nothing has demonstrated this more forcefully than the developing understanding of the physical complexities of the site at Vindolanda.

We should also bear in mind, especially in view of the latter point, that, in percentage terms, the areas of individual Roman sites in the North West that have been sampled by excavation remain exceedingly small; thus total coin-samples may be less than reliable as a basis for long-term predictions about a

85

site’s nature, location and chronology over a period of more than three-and-a-half centuries. Finally, many of the coins listed in these volumes have been recorded without any indication provided of the degree of wear that they had suffered prior to loss. In view of the length of time, as can be seen from the contents of hoards, that Roman coins might remain in circulation, their recorded dates-of-issue may well bear little or no relation to their dates-of-loss; estimation of the degree of wear undergone by a coin has to be regarded, at best, as an extremely subjective exercise.

Despite these limitations, some points emerge from Table 2.23, in which coin-loss samples of 100 or more recorded coins are compared for their chronological distribution through each of the fi rst, second, third and fourth centuries. There are some striking divergencies: in the case of fourth-century coin-loss, for example, we see that Beckfoot, Middlewich, Old Penrith, Papcastle, Ribchester, Walton-le-Dale, Watercrook and Wilderspool fall well below the rest. This group includes the two obvious non-military sites of Walton-le-Dale and Wilderspool, which have a period of principal activity which extends from the late fi rst to the early third centuries, followed by a sharp decline, although evidently not to the point of complete abandonment. This suggests that, early in the third century, a radical reorganisation of manufacturing and supply would seem to have occurred. Middlewich, which appears to have been established initially as a military site, became concerned principally with salt production and seems to have suffered a similar decline – at least in the areas that have been sampled. Most of the coins from Beckfoot have been recovered from the beach as a result of erosion of the low cliff. If this area was, as is suspected, adjacent to a cremation cemetery, then the decline in coin-loss, which affects the fourth century but evidently not the third, may have been due to a change in custom from cremation to inhumation and possibly, as a consequence, a move to a fresh cemetery area. The remaining four sites may simply have seen reduced military activity in the second half of the fourth century; it should, however, be noted that, in the case of Ribchester, there appears to be no evidence from the known area of extramural settlement of coin-loss later than the late second century. It may be that this part of the site suffered a mishap – perhaps of an environmental nature – and was rebuilt elsewhere in the vicinity. In contrast, fourth-century coin-loss at Birdoswald, Carlisle, Lancaster, Littlechester and Maryport seems to be above the ‘norm’, presumably pointing, as is now clear in the cases of the fi rst three at least, to extended survival of activity beyond the fourth century.

Third-century coin-loss is normally heavy at sites in north-west England, principally due to the very large numbers of radiates and copies of the second half of the century. Particularly low samples of such coins have, however, been noted at Walton-le-Dale and Wilderspool, as also at Holt, another important manufacturing site in the later fi rst and second centuries. Middlewich, too, appears to share in this decline, strengthening the view that the types of activity for which these sites were originally noted were subject to major reorganisation.

For obvious reasons, the fi rst and second centuries represented a period of great, and sometimes fast-moving, changes, with conquest and consolidation followed by the vicissitudes of frontier-policy. This is also the period of greatest longevity in the circulation of Roman coins. The rôle of coin-loss in the elucidation of the early stages of the process of conquest has already been discussed (see above on pp. 71ff). However, by the time of Agricola’s governorship (AD 77–83; Campbell 1986) Vespasian’s improvements to the coin-supply had ensured that most of the aes-coinage reaching Britain to pay the army consisted of issues of the Flavians; the aes-coins recovered from the short-lived legionary fortress at Inchtuthil (Perthshire), for example, consisted almost exclusively of Flavian issues (Robertson 1985, 283-5; David Woolliscroft, pers. comm.). It is also worth noting that very little pre-Flavian aes has appeared in excavated groups of the mid- to late Flavian period.

Subsequently, continuing regular minting ensured that adequate supplies of new coins were available; sites established for the fi rst time in the period of consolidation (c. AD 87–120) generally show an excess of Trajanic coins over Flavian, although, as is shown by Birdoswald, Flavian coins remained a signifi cant component of circulating money beyond Trajan’s reign. Indeed, the fact that the coins of an emperor continued to circulate freely in the reign(s) of his successor(s) helps us to track the possible movements of garrisons in the years of changing frontier policy. A number of sites, for example, exhibit

86

unusually low showings of Hadrianic coins; the explanation for this should probably be sought in the reign of Antoninus Pius rather than in that of Hadrian himself. Indeed, this phenomenon supports the contention (Hartley 1972) that Hadrian’s Wall itself, together with some auxiliary forts further south, was not held in any strength during the Antonine advance into southern Scotland. One striking case in the second century is that of Carlisle; it has the lowest proportion of second-century coins of any of the sites mentioned above. There is no obvious explanation for this, unless it is due to the removal of troops northwards to Stanwix; even so, this sits uncomfortably with the fact that, early in the third century, Carlisle was evidently regarded as suffi ciently successful to be raised to the status of central place in the civitas Carvetiorum. Since a considerable proportion of the coins in the Carlisle-sample derive from excavations within the fort-area, it may be that excavation has not as yet encountered the most important second-century non-military sites in the city.

Finally, as we have seen, some progress has also been made in recent years in locating Romano-British settlement sites, whether of an agricultural or industrial nature. Coin-loss is not extensive on such sites; as has been observed (Robert Philpott, pers. comm.), those who lived and worked at these sites would probably have had little use for coinage whilst ‘at home’, whereas their principal coin-losses will have occurred on their visits to market in the larger centres. It is also emerging, however, that some such sites appear to have been more closely involved than others in the Romano-British economy; for example, a number of the ‘native’ sites sampled in Merseyside have produced clear signs of artefactual contact with the Roman army (Cowell and Philpott 2000; also above, II.A, 12), as do the cave-sites of west Yorkshire (Dearne and Lord 1998). In contrast, recent excavations at Barker House Farm on the site of Lancaster University have produced evidence of activity in the Romano-British period, but no obvious sign of artefactual engagement with the Roman army, despite the fact that the site is approximately 4 kms south of the Roman fort at Lancaster, and closely adjacent to the Roman road from Lancaster to the south (OA North 2004). Might this mean that local people were left with a choice as to how far they engaged with the imperial power? If so, it appears to argue for more diversity of attitude and circumstance amongst the local population, and a far more tolerant attitude on the Roman side than has traditionally been assumed. It also points to the existence in the North West of a prospering entrepreneurial class amongst the Romano-British.