87

III ROMAN COIN HOARDS

A: ROMAN HOARDS FROM LANCASHIRE, MERSEYSIDE AND GREATER MANCHESTER

i) Hoards from Known Roman Sitesii) Hoards from Locations other than Known Roman Sitesiii) Collections of Coins of Uncertain Status

Note: Since the publication of the Second Supplement in 2000, the late Professor Anne Robertson’s monumental Inventory of Romano-British Coin Hoards has been published (in 2000) by the Royal Numismatic Society. Cross-references to this work will be given where appropriate, together with a Concordance between the present work and the new Inventory.

88

III.A ROMAN HOARDS FOUND IN LANCASHIRE

INDEX OF HOARDS

i) Hoards from known Roman Sites

1. Kirkham 1990, 131; 1995, 492. Lancaster (Bridge Lane) 1990, 133; 1995, 493. Lancaster (Church Street) 1990, 1334. (= 2) 1990, 1335. Lancaster (Thurnham Street) 1990, 1346. Lancaster (Vicarage Field) 1990, 1347. Lancaster (Mitre Yard) 1990, 134-58. Lancaster (Churchyard) 1990, 1359. Lancaster (Albert Square) 1990, 13510. Manchester (Castlefi eld) 1990, 135-611. Manchester (Trafford Street) 1990, 136-712. Manchester (Castlefi eld) 1990, 13713. Manchester (Unspecifi ed Location) 1990, 13814. Manchester (Quay Street) 1990, 13815. Manchester (Birchfi elds) 1990, 138-9; 2000, 13516. Manchester (Castlefi eld) 1990, 13917. Manchester (Knott Mill) 1990, 139-44; 2000, 13518. Ribchester (‘Barrack-Block’) 1990, 144-519. Ribchester (Elston Hall) 1990, 14520. Walton-le-Dale (Unspecifi ed Location) 1990, 14521. Wigan (Unspecifi ed Location) 1990, 14522. Wigan (Standish) 1990, 145-6; 1995, 4923. Wigan (Standish) 1990, 146-724. Wilderspool (Unspecifi ed Location) 1990, 14725. Lancaster (St George’s Quay) 1995, 49-5026. Ribchester (‘Bath-House Site’) 1995, 5027. Kirkham (Treales) 1995, 5028. Manchester (Great Jackson Street) 1995, 50-1; 2000, 13529. Lancaster (‘Near M6 Motorway’) 2000, 13530. Ribchester (Ribblesdale Mill)

ii) Hoards from Locations other than known Roman Sites

1. Ainsworth (Cockey Moor) 1990, 1482. Bickerstaffe 1990, 1483. Boothstown 1990, 148-94. Brindle 1990, 150; 2000, 1375. Burnley (Mereclough) 1990, 150-16. Burnley (Holme Tunnel) 1990, 1517. Burnley (Dyer Wood) 1990, 151; 2000, 1378. Chorley 1990, 151; 1995, 519. Clitheroe (Worsthorne) 1990, 151-3; 1995, 5110. Colne 1990, 15311. Colne (Greenfi eld) 1990, 15312. Colne (Emmett) 1990, 15313. Didsbury 1990, 15314. Eccleshill (Guide) 1990, 153

89

15. Fleetwood (Rossall) 1990, 153-4; 2000, 13716. Heapy (= 8) 1990, 154; 1995, 5117. Heywood (Hooley Bridge) 1990, 154-5; 2000, 13718. Hollinwood (Chamber Mill) 1990, 155-6; 1995, 5119. Knott End (Hackensall Hall) 1990, 156-8; 1995, 51; 2000, 13720. Leyland (Longton Moss) 1990, 15821. Littleborough 1990, 15822. Liverpool (Otterspool) 1990, 158-923. Myerscough Park 1990, 15924. Nelson (Catlow) 1990, 159; 1995, 51-225. Ormskirk (Lathom) 1990, 159-60; 1995,52; 2000,137 26. Preesall Hill 1990, 160-1; 1995, 52; 2000, 13727. Preston 1990, 16128. Rochdale (Castlemere) 1990, 161-229. Rochdale (Underwood) 1990, 162; 2000, 13730. Scarisbrick 1990, 16231. Southport (Halsall Moss) 1990, 16232. Southport (Crossens) 1990, 16233. Statham 1990, 162-334. Torbock/Tarbock 1990, 163-435. Tatham Fells 1990, 16436. Ulnes Walton 1990, 164-5; 2000, 13837. Waddington 1990, 165; 1995, 5238. Walmersley (Throstle Hill) 1990, 166; 2000, 13839. Whittle 1990, 16640. Worden 1990, 16741. Worsley 1990, 16742. Blackrod 1995, 5243. Borwick (Manor Farm) 1995, 52; 2000, 13844. Bowdon 1995, 52; 2000, 13845. Freckleton 1995, 5246. ‘Lancaster-area’ 1995, 52-347. Littleborough (Hollingworth Lake) 1995, 53; 2000, 138-948. Manchester (Denton) 1995, 53-449. Salford (Boothsbank Farm) 1995, 54; 2000, 13950. Stockport (Daw Bank) 1995, 5451. Worston 1995, 54; 2000, 13952. Lathom 2000, 139-4053. Garstang54. Warburton55. Aighton56. Fleetwood57. Liverpool (Otterspool)58. Preston (Frenchwood)59. ‘Lancashire’ (Unspecifi ed Location)60. Warton Sands (Carnforth)

iii) Collections of Coins of uncertain status

1. Affetside 1990, 168-92. Burnley (Chaffer’s Yard) 1990, 1693. Burnley (Shorey) 1990, 1694. Euxton 1990, 1695. Fleetwood (Rossall) 1990, 169-72

90

6. Garstang 1990, 1727. Heywood (Crimble Hall) 1990, 1728. Lancaster (Unspecifi ed Location) 1990, 1729. Lancaster (Vicarage) 1990, 172-310. ‘Lancaster-area’ 1990, 173-511. Lancaster (Aldcliffe) 1995, 5512. Littleborough 1990, 175; 2000, 14113. Manchester (Beaufort Street) 1990, 175-614. Manchester (Castlefi eld) 1990, 17615. Poulton-le-Fylde 1990, 17716. Preston 1990, 17717. Ribchester 1990, 17718. Ribchester (North Gate of Fort) 1990, 17719. Silverdale 1990, 17720. Stretford 1990, 17821. Wigan (Gas Works) 1990, 17822. Wigan (Various) 1990, 178; 2000, 14123. Eccles 1995, 5524. Atherton 1995, 5525. ‘Bentham-area’ 1995, 5526. ‘Bolton-area’ 1995, 5527. Castleshaw 1995, 5528. Cheadle (Cheadle Hulme Hall) 1995, 5629. Cheadle 1995, 5630. Manchester (Northenden) 1995, 5631. Sale 1995, 56; 2000, 14132. Todmorden 1995, 5633. Worston 1995, 56-7; 2000, 14134. Lancaster (Royal Infi rmary) 2000, 141-235. Manchester (Cheetham) 2000, 14236. Thornton (Windmill) 2000, 14237. Lancaster (Hornsea Pottery) 2000, 14238. Chorley 2000, 14339. Lytham 2000, 14340. Droylesden41. Fernyhalgh (Ladyewell Shrine)42. Whittington43. Capernwray44. Ribchester45. Lancaster (Marsh Lane)46. Manchester (Victoria Bridge)47. Manchester (River Medlock)48. Manchester (Bittern Pits)49. Garstang

91

III.A.i HOARDS FROM KNOWN ROMAN SITES

3. Lancaster (Church Street): It should be noted that Church Street is on the line of the Roman road leading out of the east gate of the Roman fort on Castle Hill, and was presumably a focal street of the extramural settlement.

6-7. Lancaster (Vicarage Field and Mitre Yard): Fresh interest centres on these two hoards, both of which contained coins of Carausius (plate 3.1), as a result of the recent discovery further north on Morecambe Bay of a hoard dominated by coins of Carausius and Allectus (III.B.ii, 27).

8. Lancaster (Churchyard): Baines (1868-70) adds that coins of Licinius, Diocletian, Maximian, Antoninus Pius, Domitian, Vespasian, Marcus Aurelius and Commodus were also present. This range is too large to represent a single hoard, although it seems reasonable to suppose that the group contained a hoard of late radiates and tetrarchic issues (Robertson 2000, no. 1019); since the reported fi ndspot was in the interior of the fort, the early coins could be casual losses that had become mixed with the hoard. Alternatively, since the early coins represent a coherent group from Vespasian to Commodus, they could have derived from another hoard found in the same area.

10. Manchester (Castlefi eld): In addition to the forty-four coins listed previously (1990, 135-6), a list compiled by the late Professor Anne Robertson (2000, no. 178) includes a further forty-two, which were issues of the fi rst or second centuries AD (one denarius, seven sestertii and thirty-four dupondii). The full list, as given by Robertson, is:

Republic 1 (Denarius)Nero 2 (Dupondii)Vespasian 3 (Dupondii)Titus (?) 1 (Dupondius)Vespasian or Titus 4 (Sestertii 2; dupondii 2)Domitian 5 (Sestertius 1; dupondii 4)Vespasian or Domitian 1 (Dupondius)Nerva 3 (Dupondii)First century AD 1 (Dupondius)Trajan 4 (Sestertii 2; dupondii 2)Hadrian 11 (Denarii 2; sestertii 2; dupondii 7)Trajan or Hadrian 1 (Dupondius)Antoninus Pius 5 (Sestertius 1; dupondii 4)Diva Faustina I 1 (Sestertius)Antonine period 4 (Sestertius 1; dupondii 3)First or second century AD 42 (Denarius 1; sestertii 7; dupondii 34)

This list excludes one radiate copy, probably of Gallienus, which was regarded as intrusive.

21. Wigan: A report of this hoard also appeared in the Preston Chronicle (20 May, 1837); this provides the same issuers’ names as those given in the report in the Liverpool Mercury (26 May, 1837), and indicates that the discovery was associated with some demolition-work.

23. Wigan (Standish): The members of the Severan dynasty represented in this, one of the largest Severan hoards recorded in the the North West, are shown in plate 3.2.

26. Ribchester: A hoard of aurei was conjectured to have been found in 1837 in the area of the fort bath-house (1995, 50). An aureus of Trajan (RIC 2 (Trajan), 93) was tentatively associated with it; however, a report in the Blackburn Standard (10 June, 1840) shows that this coin was,

92

in fact, found in 1840 in the river-bank, close to the school. The coin of Nero, of which there is an impression in the Harris Museum at Preston (1995, 50), was indeed found ‘not far from the river’ in January, 1837 (Blackburn Standard, 18 January, 1837); it was said at the time to have been in the possession of Mr Swarbrick of Preston.

It is understood that the two aurei in the Hart Collection at Blackburn Museum have been placed on long-term loan with Ribchester Museum (plates 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6); they consist of an issue each for Titus and Domitian as Caesars during the reign of their father, Vespasian (RIC 22 (Vespasian), 696 and 679). (Note: The original listing (1995, 50) gave an incorrect reference (in RIC 21) for the coin of Domitian).

30. Ribchester (Ribblesdale Mill): Fifty Roman coins were recovered in 2005 during building-work at Ribblesdale Mill; it seems likely, given the uniform nature of the condition of the coins that they constitute a hoard, or at least contain hoard-material. The group consists of a few issues of the fi rst and early third centuries, although the bulk of the coins are local copies of radiates of extremely poor quality, dating to the second half of the third century, and aes-issues of the fourth century.

There was no sign of a container, although the presence of an as of Domitian and of two other (illegible) large-fl an coins suggests that these may have been used as stoppers, concealing the remainder of the coins in a narrow-necked fl agon. With a single exception – the coin of Claudius II – the radiate copies were issues of the rebel emperors of the Imperium Galliarum or the ‘British Empire’ of Carausius; see further below (on pp. 137ff) on a possible implication of the make-up of hoards of radiates and copies from the North West. Although the time-span of

3.1 Lancaster: a small hoard of radiates, terminating with Carausius (III.A.i, 7)

93

3.2 Wigan (Standish: III.A.i, 23): Issuers of the Severan dynasty (from Septimius Severus to Julia Mamaea)

3.3 Ribchester bath-house hoard of 1837 (III.A.i, 26); aureus (obverse) of Titus as Caesar (RIC 22 (Vespasian), 696 of AD 74).Photograph: Patrick Tostevin

3.4 Ribchester bath-house hoard of 1837 (III.A.i, 26); aureus (reverse) of Titus as Caesar (RIC 22 (Vespasian), 696 of AD 74).Photograph: Patrick Tostevin

94

the group is lengthy, it is by no means uncommon to fi nd hoards which consist of mixed issues of the third and fourth centuries. It may be assumed that radiate copies – even those of very poor quality – remained in circulation into the later years of the fourth century (Shotter 1978g, 49). It is worth noting that the presence of a coin of Claudius II may have resulted from the renewed interest in this emperor following the claim by the family of Constantius Chlorus to have descended from him.

The coins, particularly those of the third century, were badly corroded, and many of them showed signs of considerable wear; in most cases, the issuers could be identifi ed, although details of the reverses – and especially of mint-marks in the case of coins of the fourth century – could not be recovered. Six of the coins could not be identifi ed at all. The coins are:

Domitian 1 Æ (As) Septimius Severus 1 AR Maximinus I 1 AR (RIC 4 (Maximinus), 4) Claudius II 1 Æ Postumus 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Postumus), 318) Victorinus 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Victorinus), 90?)

Tetricus I 10 Æ (inc. RIC 5 (Tetricus I), 68, 82, 87, 106) Tetricus II 2 Æ Carausius 2 Æ (inc. RIC 5 (Carausius), 100?)

Constantinian Coins GLORIA EXERCITVS (2 std) 2 Æ (LRBC I. 48 (2)) She-Wolf and Twins 1 Æ (LRBC I. 51) Victory on Prow 1 Æ (LRBC I. 52) GLORIA EXERCITVS (1 std) 4 Æ (inc. LRBC I. 102, 132) VICTORIAE DD AVGGQ NN 1 Æ (LRBC I. 138?) Fausta 1 Æ (LRBC I. 27) Helena 1 Æ (LRBC I. 128) FEL TEMP REP (Horseman) 3 Æ (LRBC II. 458)

Valentinianic Coins GLORIA ROMANORVM 3 Æ SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE 6 Æ Illegible Valentinianic 1 Æ Totally illegible 6 Æ

3.5 Ribchester bath-house hoard of 1837 (III.A.i, 26); aureus (obverse) of Domitian as Caesar (RIC 22 (Vespasian), 679 of AD 75).Photograph: Patrick Tostevin

3.6 Ribchester bath-house hoard of 1837 (III.A.i, 26); aureus (reverse) of Domitian as Caesar (RIC 22 (Vespasian), 679 of AD 75).Photograph: Patrick Tostevin

95

III.A.ii HOARDS FROM LOCATIONS OTHER THAN KNOWN ROMAN SITES

2. Bickerstaffe: It is thought locally that this hoard of coins, about which virtually nothing is known, may have been deposited at Knowsley Hall.

4. Brindle: Local research by Mr John Priestley of Brindle points to the sand-pit from which these coins were recovered in 1934 as lying along Sandy Lane (the Leyland to Blackburn road).

15. Fleetwood (Rossall): The hoard was stated as early as 1840 to have consisted of ‘upwards of 300 denarii’ of early imperial issuing authorities (Preston Chronicle, 5 September, 1840). In the light of all the evidence, it seems safest to assume the accuracy of this (1990, 153f).

18. Hollinwood (Chamber Mill): A part-list of the coins in this hoard was published in LCAS 8 (1890), 156. In one case, a reverse type (of Venus) is given, which would suggest that the coin concerned was a sestertius (or an as) of Lucilla (RIC 3 (Marcus), 1771ff), or of Faustina II (RIC 3 (Marcus), 1686f); see 1990, 155f and 1995, 51.

Dr Alan Richardson has kindly passed on information on another source for this fi nd – James Middleton, The Old Road, published privately in Oldham by the author in 1920. The road concerned is Oldham Road, the turnpike which replaced the Roman road from Manchester to Castleshaw. The fi ndspot of the coins is described as having been half-a-mile from “Th’ Street”. According to Middleton’s eye-witness account, some coins were found by workmen which ‘looked like fl at pieces of iron’, followed by two handles and the remains of a wooden box which ‘crumbled into dust’. Although it is left somewhat unclear, it seems that, on discovery, the coins (numbering about 150) were not in the box. These coins ranged in date between AD 138 and 282, and included mostly aes-issues of Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, Caracalla, together with Faustina II and Crispina.

It has to be said that the date-range is on the long side for a true hoard, although the collection may have contained one or more hoard-elements. The box may have been a genuinely ancient loss, or may conceivably have represented a place of deposition for a collection of coins which had been made more recently. Evidently, before anyone of authority could intervene, the coins were sold by the workmen themselves for beer-money, although it is noted elsewhere that the mill-owners had some.

In 1938, the late Professor Anne Robertson examined twenty-four of the coins which had been deposited in Oldham Art Gallery and Museum; all of these were aes-issues of Constantine I, minted between AD 306 and 308. Robertson’s list of these (Robertson 2000, no. 1000) is as follows:

Mints London Lyon Trier

COMITI AVGG NN 2 CONCORD MILIT 2 MARTI CONSERVATORI 1 1 PRINCIPI IVVENTVTIS 4 SOLI INVICTO COMITI 5 5 4

(Note: James Middleton’s book is to be found in the Lancashire Record Offi ce at Preston)

96

23. Myerscough Park: In recent years, a number of coin-fi nds have been listed by the Portable Antiquities Scheme as deriving from Garstang, and with the same NGR which would place the fi nds in the vicinity of Myerscough Park. According to Watkin (1883, 231; Shotter 1990, 159), a hoard was found there in 1688, but had disappeared by the nineteenth century. The more recent fi nds, which currently number fourteen, are coins of different types and have a date-range extending from the late Republic to the mid-fourth century (see below in chapter IV.A, 1-4). Whilst these plainly cannot belong to a single hoard, it has been suggested that they might conceivably include material from the 1688 fi nd. (I am grateful to Terry Statham for this suggestion).

25. Ormskirk (Lathom): Information has come to light regarding the discovery of further denarii at the fi ndspot of the 1949 hoard (1990, 159-60; Num. Chron.6 8 (1948), 232). These coins consist of a denarius each of Galba, Otho, Domitian and Hadrian (fragmentary), together with three others of which identifi cations are not available. It is also reported that two rings and a ‘denarius-sized’ lead disc were found in the vicinity.

26. Preesall: Five radiates have been reported (see below in IV.A,3), which may have come from this hoard (III.A.ii, 26); they are:

Salonina 1 RIC 5 (joint reign), 5 Postumus 2 inc. RIC 5 (Postumus), 325 Victorinus 1 RIC 5 (Victorinus), 114 Tetricus I 1 RIC 5 (Tetricus I), 100

Local estimates have put the total of coins in this hoard as between 20 and 50; these volumes have now provided information on 20 coins that appear likely to have been part of it (1990, 160-1; 1995, 52; 2000, 137):

Gallienus 1 Salonina 2 RIC 5 (joint reign), 5 (2) Postumus 6 inc. RIC 5 (Postumus), 53ff, 93, 323, 325(2)

Victorinus 4 RIC 5 (Victorinus), 51, 114, 115, 118 Tetricus I 6 inc. RIC 5 (Tetricus I), 100, 121

Unassignable radiate copy 1

It would appear that the contents of the complete hoard will have been dominated by issues of rebel emperors of the Imperium Galliarum (see below on pp. 137ff).

34. Tarbock: It has been suggested that the hoard of denarii and aes-issues, found in 1838, may have represented a termination of the reign of Antoninus Pius, on the basis of a denarius of Marcus Aurelius as Caesar (1990, 163-4; Cowell and Philpott 2000, 178-9). In this case, the coin of Gordian III may be regarded as an intruder. This would be consistent with the observation (Cowell and Philpott 2000, 203) that the bulk of Roman coins found as casual losses in Merseyside belong to the fi rst and second centuries, and that fi nds of coins of the third and fourth centuries are relatively uncommon. It should also be noted that the production of roof-tiles for Legion XX has been recognised at Ochre Brook in this area (Cowell and Philpott 2000, 66-164; Swan and Philpott 2000, 56-67).

37. Waddington: Since their discovery in 1989, the thirty coins in this hoard have been acquired by the Lancashire County Museum Service; this has facilitated their cleaning and conservation, which in turn have provided an opportunity to make some refi nements to the original identifi cations, as follows (plates 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9):

97

Nero 1 RIC 12 (Nero), 60 Galba 1 RIC 12 (Galba), 167 Vitellius 1 RIC 12 (Vitellius), 107 Vespasian 2 RIC 22 (Vespasian), 29, 41 Titus 1 RIC 22 (Titus), 124 Domitian (as Caesar) 1 RIC 22 (Titus), 271 Domitian 1 RIC 22 (Domitian), 727 Nerva 2 RIC 2 (Nerva), 3, 18 Trajan 9 RIC 2 (Trajan), 11, 21, 22, 38, 41, 49, 96, 118, 119 Hadrian 9 RIC 2 (Hadrian), 48, 71, 78(2), 120, 127, 146, 256, 302 Sabina 2 RIC 2 (Hadrian), 391, 399a

49. Salford (Boothsbank Farm): The entry in the Greater Manchester HER records that approximately 1,070 coins were recovered by the Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit during construction-work at Boothsbank in 1989; the fi ndspot, which lies at about 1,500 metres east of the site of the Boothstown hoard of 1947 (III.A.ii, 3), is adjacent to Chat Moss, and close to the line of the Roman road from Manchester to Wigan; the coins, which were deposited in a shallow pit lined with straw (or possibly sacking), ranged in date from Gallienus to a pre-reform radiate of Diocletian, and included issues of Carausius and Allectus. It was suggested that the coins had been placed ‘in stacks, roughly 20-30 items high’, which had slipped and fused together into ‘three large lumps and a large number of loose items’. The fi nd and its circumstances were reported by Dr Michael Nevell in the Seaby Coin and Medal Bulletin 851 (for June 1990), 131-4. The coins are now in the keeping of the Salford Local Authority at Ordsall Hall Museum.

3.7 Waddington hoard (III.A.ii, 37); denarius (obverse) of Nerva (AD 97).Photograph: Dot Boughton

3.8 Waddington hoard (III.A.ii, 37); denarius of Hadrian, depicting Moneta (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 256 of AD 134–8).Photograph: Dot Boughton

3.9 Waddington hoard (III.A.ii, 37); denarius of Sabina, depicting Concordia, (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 399a of AD 129–30).Photograph: Dot Boughton

98

Although the fused portions of the hoard await separating and cleaning, examination at the time of the loose items (estimated at approximately 14% of the whole) revealed the following issuers: Gallienus, Claudius II, Quintillus, Victorinus, Tetricus I and II, Aurelian, Tacitus, Probus, Diocletian (a pre-reform radiate), Carausius and Allectus. It seems likely, therefore, that this is a second Allectus-hoard to have been reported from the North West (see also III.B.ii, 27). It is understood that the separation and cleaning of the coins will not be possible in the foreseeable future. However, when the hoard does become available for a full examination, it may be found that it contains a higher percentage of coins of ‘legitimist’ emperors than most of those that have been recorded in north-west England (see below on pp. 137ff).

52. Lathom: For this group of coins, see Cowell and Philpott 2000, 202.

53. Garstang: A hoard of denarii is reported to have been found in 2003; no other details have been made available.

54. Warburton: As we have seen (above in II.A, 11), a number of Roman coins have in recent years been found by metal-detectorists in the vicinity of the village; amongst these have been ten early denarii (nine Republican, and one of Augustus). The coins were located, scattered over an area adjacent to the southern bank of the River Bollin, suggesting that they should probably be regarded as the whole (or part) of a hoard disturbed by generations of ploughing. Dio Cassius (History of Rome 68.15, 3) records that, in c. AD 110, the Emperor, Trajan, recalled ‘old silver’ for melting down. In view of Nero’s debasement of the silver coinage in AD 64, it is thought that Trajan’s measure was intended to apply to silver coins issued prior to the date of Nero’s debasement (Mac Dowell 1979, 133ff). Much of this was probably very worn by that time, in any case. It would seem likely that, whilst the occasional denarius might have escaped recall, most hoards containing such coins – and especially those with such a high proportion as the present one – are likely to have closed in the last years of the fi rst century, or in the fi rst quarter of the second. It is also worth adding that there is some ‘site-evidence’ for suggesting that such coins may have been used for legionary pay; the implications of this for a possible Roman site at Warburton could be considerable. The coins (plates 3.10 and 3.11), of which the earliest dates to 130 BC, are:

3.10 Warburton hoard (III.A.ii, 54); denarius of Decimus Junius Silanus (RRC 337, 3 of 91 BC).Photograph: James Balme

3.11 Warburton hoard (III.A.ii, 54); denarius of Augustus (RIC 12 (Augustus), 207 of 7–6 BC).Photograph: James Balme

99

Republic 9 inc. Crawford 257, 1; 282,4; 302,1; 337, 3; 352, 1b; 422,1b; 448, 3; 464, 4 Augustus 1 RIC 12 (Augustus), 207

The coins were adjudged to be Treasure at a Coroner’s Inquest in November 2010.

55. Aighton: A number of silver coins are said to have been found before 1816 in the area of the villages of Aighton, Bailey and Chargeley (near Ribchester); many were sent to the antiquarian, Ralph Thoresby, including denarii of Septimius Severus and Severus Alexander, together with an antoninianus of Trebonianus Gallus (Robertson 2000, no. 467). Robertson suggests that this report may be a duplication of the hoard recorded as found in c. 1720 on Tatham Fells (see III.A.ii, 35 in 1990, 164; Robertson 2000, no. 454).

56. Fleetwood: A hoard is reported to have been found in 1902 underneath the old Mount Pavilion; no details were recorded (Robertson 2000, no. 1755).

57. Liverpool (Otterspool): In what appears to have been a second multiple fi nd of Roman coins at Otterspool Creek in 1863, men working on the Liverpool to Manchester railway line evidently found some small copper coins, which were thought by some to be Northumbrian stycas, but which were judged by Henry Ecroyd Smith (HSLC 6 (1865-6), 199) to have been late Roman issues.

58. Preston (Frenchwood): In 1975/76, a hoard of late Roman coins was found; it appears that there were originally 186 coins, but just seventeen were said to have been obtained by the Harris Museum at Preston. Sixteen of these coins were recorded at the time, although recent enquiries have failed to locate any trace of the coins at the Museum:

Maxentius 1 Constantine I 5 Divus Constantinus 1 Constantine II (as Caesar) 2 Constantius II (as Caesar) 1 Victory on prow 4 Constantius II (as Augustus) 2 (FEL TEMP REPARATIO)

There was also a sestertius of Hadrian, which was regarded as an ‘intruder’, although it seems possible that the coins were originally placed in a narrow-necked fl agon, and the sestertius used as a ‘stopper’ (Robertson 2000, no. 1275).

59. Lancashire (Unspecifi ed Location): In 1790, at an unspecifi ed location in the county, approximately twenty denarii were discovered as a result of ploughing; the only issues about which any information was recorded were of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. Presumably, the hoard closed in the reigns of either Marcus Aurelius or Commodus (Minutes of the Society of Antiquaries 23 (1789-90), 481; Robertson 2000, no. 179).

60. Warton Sands (Carnforth): In 2010, a hoard of 30 radiates and copies was reported. The coins were in a generally poor condition – mostly very worn, some fragmentary, and the copies were of an extremely inferior standard. The dates of the prototypes of these coins ranged from the mid-250s to the 270s/280s. The coins were distributed between issuers in the following manner:

100

Gallienus 2 RIC 5 (joint reign), 156; (sole reign), 525 Claudius II 2 Reverses illegible Aurelian 1 RIC 5 (Aurelian), 135 Postumus 4 inc. RIC 5 (Postumus), 58, 64, 318 Victorinus 7 inc. RIC 5 (Victorinus), 61, 110, 118 Tetricus I 8 inc. RIC 5 (Tetricus I), 106, 148 Tetricus II 2 Reverses illegible Unassignable radiate copies 4

101

III.A, iii COLLECTIONS OF COINS OF UNCERTAIN STATUS

15. Poulton-le-Fylde: It should be noted that recent excavations by Oxford Archaeology North on a site close to the town have uncovered the remains of a Romano-British settlement (Britannia 40 (2009), 238).

27. Castleshaw: Further information on the three denarii found in 1898 (Hadrian, Sabina and Lucius Verus) is given above in II.A, 9.

40. Droylesden: I am grateful to Dr Alan Richardson (2004, 50) for bringing to my attention a reference to the discovery in c. 1840 of three Roman coins, which were previously listed (1990, 222) amongst ‘casual fi nds’. John Higson (1859, 30) notes the discovery, some seventeen years previously, during the making of a ‘deep ditch or trench amongst some knolls, or undulations, in order to reclaim a portion of the morass …. attached to the farm at the Castle’. When Higson wrote, the coins were in the possession of a Miss Piccope, a local resident. In addition to the three coins, fragments of coarse earthenware were found; these possibly belonged to a container for the coins, which might suggest that they should be regarded as the whole (or part) of a hoard.

The coins, which were evidently poorly preserved – not surprising, in view of the nature of the soil – were an issue each of :

Trajan 1 Æ (As) Antoninus Pius 1 Æ (Dupondius or as) Marcus Aurelius (as Caesar) 1 Æ (Dupondius or as, AD 145-60; possibly RIC 3 (Antoninus), 1293)

Bronze hoards of this type are not common, although an apparently similar collection was found at Rochdale (Castlemere: 1990, 161-2), also early in the nineteenth century.

41. Fernyhalgh (Ladyewell Shrine): A number of coins have been found in recent years in the vicinity of an ancient shrine, which is now sacred to the Blessed Virgin Mary. The status of these six coins is unclear, but the group consists of issues of the late third and fourth centuries:

Maximian 1 Æ (Tetradrachm: Milne 4855) Constantine I 3 Æ (RIC 7 (Trier), 75; LRBC I. 50, 95) Constantius II 1 Æ (LRBC I. 137) Gratian 1 Æ (LRBC II. 377)

Whilst the fi ndspots of these coins were scattered around the area, two of the coins of Constantine I (LRBC I. 50 and 95) and that of Constantius II were found together, prompting the suggestion that they might have been part of a hoard, or perhaps, given the nature of the location, a ritual deposit. As a whole, the coins suggest the likelihood of the presence in the late third and fourth centuries of an agricultural site. On the other hand, the present existence of a shrine to the Blessed Virgin Mary may suggest that the site of these fi nds had a religious or ritualistic signifi cance in antiquity.

42. Whittington: There is a report that, some years ago, a hoard of approximately thirty denarii was found in this area by metal-detectorists. The hoard is thought to have contained at least one issue of Septimius Severus. The coins are now believed to be in Australia.

43. Capernwray: In 2008, a group of ten aes-coins of Vespasian was reported; the coins were mostly poorly preserved, but were probably not very worn at the time of deposition/loss. From the circumstances of the fi nd, it is not possible to determine whether the coins should be regarded

102

as a hoard, or as a multiple casual loss (similar to that from Carlisle (Irishgate); see III.B.iii, 23 in 2000, 155). There was no sign of a container. The coins are:

Sestertii 3 inc.RIC 22 (Vespasian), as 159, as 190 Dupondii 1 RIC 22 (Vespasian), as 268 Asses 6 inc. RIC 22 (Vespasian), 302(2), 1164

The total amount involved would have represented twenty asses, perhaps slightly inclining towards the interpretation of the group as a multiple casual loss (see Contrebis 32 (2008-09), 21-2).

This group of coins has been acquired by Lancaster City Museum.

44. Ribchester: In the late nineteenth century, a solidus of Gratian (RIC 9 (Trier), 13a; Edwards 2000, 52f) was found in the garden of the Rectory; it is listed as a casual fi nd in the original compendium (1990, 33). In 2008, however, information came to light (Ian Caruana, pers. comm.) regarding a solidus of Valens (RIC 9 (Rome), 2c), which a resident of nearby Longridge had inherited from his father, who died in 1947. It was said that the coin was found locally, probably in the late nineteenth century. Although certainty regarding the fi ndspot and status of this coin is probably now beyond us, it remains a possibility that a late Roman gold hoard, which included these coins of Valens and Gratian, was unearthed in Ribchester at that time.

45. Lancaster (Marsh Lane): In 1849, during work on the junction of the North-Western and Carlisle railways, an iron spearhead was found, together with ‘a number of Roman coins’. The spearhead came into the hands of the local antiquarian and collector, Thomas Dalzell, whilst the coins ‘were dispersed’ (Watkin 1883, 185). The presence of the spearhead suggests the possibility that this group of material may have been votive in nature.

46. Manchester (Victoria Bridge): In 1828, a number of aes-coins were found on the Manchester side of the river Irwell; six of these found their way into a private collection (Watkin 1883, 123):

Constantine I 2 Crispus 1 Constantius II (as Caesar) 2 Victory on prow 1

47. Manchester (River Medlock): In 1777, a number of coins were found on the banks of the river Medlock (Baines and Fairbairn 1868, 268); no details of the coins survive.

48. Manchester (Bittern Pits): In 1829, seven aes-coins were recovered which, it was thought, might have been part of a hoard (Bruton 1909, 27f); the coins were:

Domitian 1 RIC 22 (Domitian), 479 Trajan 1 Sestertius Antoninus Pius 1 Sestertius First/second centuries 4 Dupondii

49. Garstang: A metal-detecting rally, organised in 2008, retrieved a number of Roman coins, mostly third-century radiates and fourth-century nummi. These were found by a number of the participants, although evidently from a relatively restricted area, prompting the suggestion that they may derive from a spread hoard. There were fi fteen coins in all, two of which were very late for north-west England; indeed, the group is suggestive of those found in some of the watchtowers of the Yorkshire coast (Shotter 1999a). These coins were found with two earlier issues – a worn copy of an aes-issue of Octavian (Crawford 1974, 535,1 of 38 BC) and a worn

103

as of Hadrian (see below in IV.A, 2). An alternative explanation for the group might be that there is a previously unknown Roman or Romano-British site in the vicinity, or that the coins formed part of a votive deposit. The coins are:

Salonina 1 RIC 5 (Gallienus, sole reign), 32 Claudius II 1 RIC 5 (Claudius II), 53

Constantinian GLORIA EXERCITVS (2s) 3 LRBC I. 48(2), 67 GLORIA EXERCITVS (1s) 1 Facing Victories 1 FEL TEMP REPARATIO (Falling Horseman) 3 inc. LRBC II. 72, 547 FEL TEMP REPARATIO (Galley) 1 LRBC II. 40 Valentinianic SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE 1

Theodosius 1 LRBC II. 2378-81 Honorius 1 LRBC II. 2223

Illegible 1

It should be noted that the copy of the aes-issue of Octavian, referred to above, has been identifi ed by the Department of Coins and Medals at The British Museum, and is a particularly rare fi nd in the context of north-west England; this may enhance the case for the status of the group as a votive deposit.

104

B: ROMAN HOARDS FROM CUMBRIA

i) Hoards from Known Roman Sitesii) Hoards from Locations other than Known Roman Sitesiii) Collections of Coins of Uncertain Status

105

III.B ROMAN HOARDS FOUND IN CUMBRIA

INDEX OF HOARDS

i) Hoards from Known Roman Sites

1. Ambleside (Gilbert Scar) 1990, 1792. Beckfoot 1990, 1793. Bewcastle (Black Lyne) 1990, 1794. Birdoswald (‘Barrack-block’) 1990, 179-815. Bowness-on-Solway 1990, 1816. Brampton 1990, 1817. Brougham (Ninekirks) 1990, 181-28. Brougham (Castle Farm) 1990, 1829. Brough-under-Stainmore 1990, 18310. Burgh-by-Sands 1990, 18311. Carlisle (‘Road to Newcastle’; = ii, 10) 1990, 18312. Carlisle (North British Engine Sheds) 1990, 183-4; 2000, 15013. Carlisle (New Markets) 1990, 18414. Carlisle (Fisher Street) 1990, 18415. Carlisle (Gallows Hill) 1990, 184-516. Carlisle (St Cuthbert’s Church) 1990, 18517. Kirkby Thore (Newbiggin Hall) 1990, 185-618. Maiden Castle-on-Stainmore 1990, 18619. Old Carlisle 1990, 18620. Old Carlisle 1990, 186-7; 2000, 15021. Carlisle (Unspecifi ed Location) 1995, 5922. Ambleside 2000, 15023. Old Carlisle24. Low Borrow Bridge25. Old Penrith26. Beckfoot27. Bewcastle (Kirk Beck)28. Stanwix29. Maryport-area

ii) Hoards from Locations other than Known Roman Sites

1. Braystones 1990, 1882. Cliburn (Shaw Hall) 1990, 188-9; 1995, 603. Docker Moor 1990, 1904. Great Strickland 1990, 190-2; 1995, 605. Kirkby Stephen 1990, 192; 1995, 606. Kirksteads 1990, 1937. Kirksteads 1990, 193-6; 1995, 608. Mallerstang Edge (Sleddle Mouth) 1990, 197; 2000, 1519. Millom (Castle) 1990, 19810. Newbiggin Hall (= i,11; to be deleted) 1990, 19811. Scratchmore Scar 1990, 19812. Shap (The Brinns) 1990, 198-913. Silloth 1990, 199; 1995, 6014. Upper Holker 1990, 199-20015. Barnscar 1995, 60

106

16. Kendal (Hellsfell) 1995, 60; 2000, 15117. Penrith (Hackthorpe) 1995, 60-1; 2000, 151-218. Cartmel 2000, 15219. Whinfell Beacon 2000, 15220. Wreay 2000, 15221. Distington22. Fremington23. Ulverston24. Armathwaite (Castle)25. Alston26. Killington Hall27. Morecambe Bay (North of Carnforth) 28. Eden Valley

iii) Collections of Coins of Uncertain Status

1. Birdoswald (‘East Gate’) 1990, 2012. Brough-under-Stainmore 1990, 201; 2000, 1533. Hardknott 1990, 201-24. Kendal 1990, 202-35. Kirkby Thore (Troutbeck Bridge) 1990, 203-56. Kirksteads (Cobble Hall) 1990, 205; 1995, 627. Maryport 1990, 205; 1995, 628. Muncaster (Castle) 1990, 206; 1995, 629. Nether Denton 1990, 20610. Old Penrith 1990, 20611. Ravenglass 1990, 20612. Scalesceugh 1990, 207; 1995, 6213. Stanwix 1990, 207; 2000, 15414. Upper Allithwaite 1990, 207; 2000, 15415. Bewcastle (‘Sacellum’) 1995, 6216. Carlisle (‘Subway’) 1995, 6217. Levens 1995, 62; 2000, 15418. Maryport (Mote Hill) 1995, 6219. Burneside 1995, 62-320. Isel-area 2000, 15421. Ainstable 2000, 15522. Scathwaite (to be deleted) 2000, 15523. Carlisle (Irish Gate) 2000, 15524. Kendal (Hellsfell) 2000, 15525. Distington (Kelmore Hills)26. Muncaster27. Carlisle (Castle Green)28. Papcastle29. Whitehaven30 Sizergh (Castle)31. Furness32. Hincaster33. Milnthorpe34. Denton Foot35. Carlisle (‘Roman Cemetery’)36. Bowes37. Beckfoot

107

III.B, i HOARDS FROM KNOWN ROMAN SITES

6. Brampton: A list is on record of coins from this hoard which were purchased at the time by a Mr Robert Bell; the issuers mentioned were Trajan Decius, Trebonianus Gallus, Volusian, Valerian, Gallienus, Salonina, Valerian II, Saloninus, Claudius II, Quintillus, Postumus, Marius, Victorinus, Tetricus I and II, Aurelian, Tacitus and Florian. It seems that a denarius of Caracalla was also amongst Mr Bell’s purchases. In the report of this hoard in the original compendium (1990, 181), mention was made of a sestertius of Antoninus; this was possibly a misunderstanding of the coin of Caracalla which will, almost certainly, have contained ANTONINVS in the obverse legend.

7. Brougham (Ninekirks): This hoard, which was formerly in private ownership, has now been donated to Penrith Museum. The group, which was evidently originally identifi ed by the late Professor Eric Birley, now consists of twenty-three coins:

Claudius II 1 Æ Divus Claudius 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Claudius II), 261) Victorinus 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Victorinus), 112/114) Tetricus I 12 Æ (RIC 5 (Tetricus I), 76, 82, 100(6), 110, 121, 148)

Tetricus II 4 Æ (inc. RIC 5 (Tetricus II), 248, 277, 280)Unassignable radiate copies 4

10. Burgh-by-Sands (Beaumont/Kirkandrews): This large hoard is reported by Robertson (2000, no. 1720) as having been found between 1819 and 1823 during the cutting of the canal from Carlisle to the Solway (now the Carlisle and Silloth railway). No other details survive (CW 1 8 (1887), 380).

11. Carlisle (‘Military Road to Newcastle’): This hoard was reported in The Annual Register (1762), 102; it was found in 1762 in a ford in the river Petteral, and was said to have consisted of as many as 700 coins. One report says that every reverse was different; evidently many of the coins were as ‘small as farthings’ and many others ‘as large as crown-pieces’ (Minutes of the Society of Antiquaries 9 (1762–5), 174). It has become evident that, in the original compilation, this hoard was a duplication of that entered as III.B.ii, 10. There remains some inconsistency between this report and the list of sixty-four recorded coins.

23. Old Carlisle: In 2000, a scattered hoard was discovered in an area of the extramural settlement; it consisted of a single aureus and seventeen poorly-preserved denarii. The aureus was awarded by the Coroner to the fi nder, and it is understood that this coin was subsequently sold; its present whereabouts are unknown. The seventeen denarii, which were declared Treasure, are now held at Carlisle Museum and Art Gallery. Mixed hoards of aurei and denarii are not common in north-west England (1990, 209), although another, which was found at Ulverston in 1534, is reported below (III.B.ii, 23). The aureus was an issue of Titus (under Vespasian; RIC 22 (Vespasian), 971 of AD 77–8); the denarii are as follows:

Marcus Antonius 1 Crawford 1974, no. 544Domitian 1 RIC 22 (Domitian), 58Trajan 1 as RIC 2 (Trajan), 270Hadrian 2 inc. RIC 2 (Hadrian), 245Sabina 2 inc. RIC 2 (Hadrian), 410Antoninus Pius 1Faustina I 1Marcus Aurelius 2 inc. RIC 3 (Marcus), 248

108

Lucilla (?) 1Antonine Empress 1Julia Domna 2 RIC 4 (Severus), 538, 551Caracalla (?) 1Illegible 1

It is possible that four denarii, which were recorded as found in 1999, should also be added to this hoard:

Nero 1 RIC 12 (Nero), 68 Vespasian 1 Septimius Severus 1 Julia Domna 1 RIC 4 (Severus), 643

It is worth noting that, in this Severan hoard, there are no recorded coins prior to Nero’s coinage-reform of AD 64, with the single exception of a denarius of Marcus Antonius (Reece 1988, 91ff), a type which commonly remained in circulation into the third century.

24. Low Borrow Bridge: In 2001, Penrith Museum received as a donation twenty-two Roman and Greco-Roman Imperial coins, which had been found in the vicinity of Low Borrow Bridge, during the construction in the 1840s of the Lancaster to Carlisle railway. The donor is the great-granddaughter of Mr James Day, the engineer for the Tebay/Shap section of the line; he evidently purchased the coins from the workmen who had found them, and they have remained in his family to the present day; during this time, however, they may have attracted ‘intrusive pieces’.

One of the coins appears to be a recent forgery, perhaps of the seventeenth or eighteenth century; the remainder fall into three obvious groups:

a) Fourteen aes-coins of the House of Constantine (AD 330-41)b) Four aes-coins from Romec) Three Greco-Roman coins

Group a) will be discussed in the present section; groups b) and c) are detailed above in II.B, 18 (Shotter 2003a). The fourteen Constantinian coins are:

Arles Mint 5 LRBC I. 352(2), 354, 359, 388 Trier Mint 4 LRBC I. 52 (copy), 60, 67, 100 Lyon Mint 3 LRBC I. 181, 185, 198 Aquileia Mint 1 LRBC I. 650 Heraclea Mint 1 LRBC I. 903

Although these coins may represent only a part of a hoard, their uniformly fresh condition suggests that the termination-date should not be placed much later than c. AD 340. Despite the fact that hoard-terminations at this time in north-west England are relatively uncommon (Shotter 1990, 208), we should bear in mind that this was a disturbed period in the Empire: the death of Constantine I in 337 was followed by a period of murderous jockeying for position amongst his sons and nephews and their supporters. Britain was in the sphere of administration that had fallen to Constantine II, though in 340 he was killed by forces supporting his brother, Constans. Further, we learn that, in the winter of AD 342-3, Constans came to Britain himself: the time of year suggests an emergency of some kind, which could have been connected with internal tensions related to the aftermath of the death of Constantine II. It should be noted that this group of coins, although small in number, contains no issues of Constans. Alternatively, there may have been external threats to Britain; it is generally recognised now that the traumatic

109

‘conspiracy of the barbarians’ of AD 367 was a culmination of diffi culties rather than a sudden and totally-unexpected manifestation (Ammianus Marcellinus 20.1,1; Johnson 1980, 93f).

25. Old Penrith: A small hoard (or part-hoard) of denarii was found in the 1990s near the line of the Roman road leading northwards to Carlisle. There were nine coins, ranging in date from AD 141 to 222; there was no sign of a container, and the coins, when found, were scattered over a small area:

Faustina I (deifi ed) 1 RIC 3 (Antoninus), 356ff Commodus 1 RIC 3 (Commodus), 54ff Crispina 1 RIC 3 (Commodus), 283 Septimius Severus 2 RIC 4 (Severus), 266, 458 Julia Domna 2 inc. RIC 4 (Severus), 539a Plautilla 1 RIC 4 (Caracalla), 363a Julia Sohaemias 1 RIC 4 (Elagabalus), 241

The hoard, which terminated with the coin of Julia Sohaemias, would appear to have been made up principally of late Antonine and early to mid-Severan issues; hoards of this period are not commonly reported in north-west England: of the nearly three hundred hoards (or part-hoards) reported from the north-west counties, only thirteen are terminations of the Severan period (see below on p. 133f). This may refl ect a declining confi dence in the integrity of the money-system.

26. Beckfoot: In 2005, a group of twenty-one coins was found to the east of the site of the fort (Shotter 2006); eighteen of the coins were poorly-preserved and badly-made radiate copies, as follows:

Divus Claudius 2 RIC 5 (Claudius II), 259ff(2) Tetricus I 4 inc.RIC 5 (Tetricus I), 68ff, 140ff Tetricus II 1

Unassignable radiate copies 11

It appears, in view of the fact that groups of two and three coins were fused together in ‘columns’, that the coins may have been deposited in a linen wrapping. In addition, three further coins were present:

Commodus 1 AR (RIC 3 (Commodus), 36) Gallienus 1 Æ Constantius II (as Augustus) 1 Æ (as LRBC I. 100)

Whilst there would be no diffi culty in including the coins of Gallienus and Constantius II in the putative hoard, the denarius of Commodus would certainly not have been usable money in the mid-fourth century. It may, therefore, be safest to assume that a hoard consisted of the eighteen radiate copies, whilst the other three coins were perhaps casual losses found in the vicinity, which would be better included amongst those coins listed above, in II.B, 2.

27. Bewcastle (Kirk Beck): There is a report that, at some time prior to 1922, a hoard of coins was found in Kirk Beck; it is said that the hoard was dispersed and ‘left no trace behind’ (CW 2 22 (1922), 176).

28. Stanwix: A group of nine aes-coins was found in 1930; these were listed in the original compendium (1990, 97) as site-fi nds, but it is clear that they are better regarded as the whole or part of a hoard; they were found together in river-silt in King’s Meadow (Collingwood 1931, 79f):

110

Domitian 3 Two dupondii (inc. RIC 22 (Domitian), 754) and one quadrans Nerva 1 Dupondius (as RIC 2 (Nerva), 62) Trajan 2 Dupondii Hadrian 3 Two sestertii (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 583e, 711) and one quadrans

29. Maryport-area: In 2010, a hoard consisting of 309 radiates was found in this area; fragments of a pot were also recovered. The coins will require cleaning and conservation before any attempt can be made at comprehensive identifi cation and analysis (plate 3.12). The hoard is now in the hands of the Portable Antiquities Scheme for processing as Treasure; what follows, therefore, represents provisional identifi cations of the coins of which it consists. This is, of course, the second hoard to have been recovered from the area in the last fi ve years (see above, III.B.i, 26).

Currently, of the 309 coins, seven are illegible; of the remainder, reasonably confi dent identifi cations can be made for 254 coins, whilst in the cases of a further 48, issuers can be identifi ed, although the reverses cannot; the detailed breakdown is as follows:

Table 3.1: Status of the 302 legible coins in the hoard from the Maryport-area (2010)

Issuer Identifi ed Reverses illegible Totals

Valerian 6 – 6Gallienus (Joint Reign) 3 – 3Gallienus (Sole Reign) 70 11 81Salonina (Gallienus’ Joint Reign) 2 – 2Salonina (Gallienus’ Sole Reign) 7 – 7Claudius II 50 6 56Divus Claudius 6 – 6Quintillus 4 – 4Aurelian (Pre-reform) 1 – 1

Totals 149 17 166

3.12 Maryport-area hoard(III.B.i, 29); two small ‘columns’of radiates.Photograph: Anne Shotter

111

Postumus 19 2 21Laelian 1 – 1Marius 5 – 5Victorinus 73 26 99Tetricus I 6 3 9Tetricus II 1 – 1

Totals 105 31 136

Thus, of the 302 identifi ed coins, 54.97% are issues of ‘legitimist’ rulers, whilst 45.03% were issued by ‘rebel’ rulers of the Imperium Galliarum; this distribution stands in marked contrast to that found in other radiate hoards of any size that have been found in the North West (see below on p. 138). The presence of a single pre-reform radiate of Aurelian and the unusual near-absence of coins of the Tetrici would suggest that this hoard cannot have closed much later than AD 271. This suggestion appears to receive support from the fact that, unusually for radiate hoards from the North West, this hoard contains coins of the short-lived Emperors, Quintillus, Laelian and Marius; the relative strength of coins issued earlier than AD 260 is also worth noting in this connection.

Preliminary identifi cations of 302 coins are as follows:

Valerian RIC 5 (Valerian), 89(2), 106/7, 142c, 241, 254Gallienus (Joint Reign) RIC 5 (Gallienus), 123, 392(2)Gallienus (Sole Reign)* RIC 5 (Gallienus), 153, 157, 160, 163(4), 164, 166, 176(5), 177(6), 178, 179(3), 181, 193, 207(2), 210, 221(2), 230(3), 236, 242, 245, 249(2), 253(2), 267(5), 270, 275, 277, 280, 283(2), 284, 287(2), 317(4), 321, 330, 471, 489(5), 490, 491/2, 530, reverses illegible(11)

Salonina (G’s Joint Reign) RIC 5 (Salonina), 26, 34 Salonina (G’s Sole Reign) RIC 5 (Salonina), 5, 11, 13, 16, 32, 68(2) Claudius II RIC 5 (Claudius II), 10, 12, 15(4), 32, 36(4), 38, 41, 45(2), 46, 48(2), 52, 54(3), 55, 61, 63, 65, 70, 88, 91, 98, 100, 101, 102(4), 104(3), 105(2), 107, 109(4), 145, 168, 171, 191, reverses illegible(6) Divus Claudius RIC 5 (Claudius II), 261(5), 266 Quintillus RIC 5 (Quintillus), 9, 18, 28, 35 Aurelian RIC 5 (Aurelian), 28 (?) Postumus RIC 5 (Postumus), 52(2), 64, 67, 75(3), 81, 83, 85, 89, 93, 289, 309, 316(2), 318(3), reverses illegible(2) Laelian RIC 5 (Laelian), 9 Marius RIC 5 (Marius), 6, 10(3), 17 Victorinus RIC 5 (Victorinus), 40, 41, 55, 57(2), 59(6), 61(5), 67(6), 71(6), 73(2), 75, 78(4), 110(2), 114(21), 118(15), reverses illegible(26) Tetricus I RIC 5 (Tetricus I), 69, 86(2), 100(2), 136; reverses illegible(3) Tetricus II RIC 5 (Tetricus II), 280

(*Note: It has proved particularly diffi cult at this stage to provide fi rm identifi cations for the animals depicted in the . . . CONS AVG series of Gallienus).

112

III.B, ii HOARDS FROM LOCATIONS OTHER THAN KNOWN ROMAN SITES

7. Kirksteads (Kirkandrews): The total of coins found at this site, though reported at different times, stands at 261:

Diocletian 28 Maximian 43 Constantius I (as Caesar) 21 Constantius I (as Augustus) 4 Constantius I (deifi ed) 3 Galerius (as Caesar) 19 Severus II (as Caesar) 1 Maximin Daia (as Caesar) 1 Maximin Daia (as Augustus) 1 Constantine I (as Augustus) 75 Licinius II 1 Crispus 19 Constantine II (as Caesar) 16

Uncertain 26

This would indicate a closing-date in the early 320s (Robertson 2000, no. 1090). Robertson suggested that the seven nummi from the Dalzell Collection (Shotter 1978b, 203) might have derived from this hoard:

Diocletian 3 RIC 6 (Carthage), 17a; (Ticinum) 23a, 45a Maximian 3 RIC 6 (Antioch), 44b; (Ticinum), 55b; (Aquileia), 29b Maximin Daia 1 RIC 6 (Siscia), 222b

10. Newbiggin Hall: This hoard was erroneously associated with the Hall (1990, 198), and appears to be a duplication of that listed under Carlisle (III.B.i, 11). It should, therefore, be deleted.

14. Upper Holker: The papers of James Stockdale, which are held in the Record Offi ce at Barrow-in-Furness, include illustrations of some of these coins; this has facilitated clarifi cation of fourteen of the coins and their issuers:

Septimius Severus 1 RIC 4 (Severus), 144 Julia Domna 1 RIC 4 (Severus), 587 Caracalla 2 RIC 4 (Caracalla), 69, 267 Geta 1 RIC 4 (Geta), 22 Plautilla 1 RIC 4 (Caracalla), 367 Macrinus 1 RIC 4 (Macrinus), 2 Diadumenian 1 RIC 4 (Macrinus), 102 Elagabalus 2 RIC 4 (Elagabalus), 123, 146 Julia Paula 1 RIC 4 (Elagabalus), 222 Julia Sohaemias 1 RIC 4 (Elagabalus), 241 Julia Maesa 1 RIC 4 (Elagabalus), 249 Severus Alexander 1 (Obverse only illustrated of an issue of AD 231–5) Baines (1836, 4. 717), who is one of the earlier sources for this hoard, indicates that a number

of the coins (denarii of Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, Caracalla and

113

Plautilla, together with a ‘copper coin of Adrian’) were kept at Walton Hall in the private ‘museum’ of the Earl of Burlington. He adds that the coins had been found in an ‘unglazed vessel’ and that their condition was very good.

21. Distington: In 2001, a hoard of sixty-seven aes-coins of the later third and fourth centuries was found in a private garden adjacent to the A595 road, which represents the main Roman route of communication linking Papcastle and Moresby (Caruana and Shotter 2002). The coins were found in different parts of the garden, and some were evidently ‘related’ to a leather wallet. Unfortunately, the precise distinction between the ‘wallet-group’ and the others has become blurred by subsequent handling. There is, however, nothing particular in the coin-types or in their condition to suggest that there were originally two separate hoards – although theoretically this remains a possibility.

The group consists of seven radiate copies and sixty fourth-century issues, of which four were illegible:

Radiate CopiesGallienus 2 inc. RIC 5 (Gallienus), 219Claudius II 2Divus Claudius 1 RIC 5 (Claudius II), 265Victorinus/Tetricus I 1Unassignable radiate copy 1

Constantinian Coinsi) D N CONSTANTINI MAX AVG 1 LRBC I. 476ii) DOMINOR NOSTROR CAESS 2 inc. LRBC I. 478iii) GLORIA EXERCITVS (2 std) 1iv) She-wolf and twins 1 LRBC I. 838v) GLORIA EXERCITVS (1 std) 1vi) PIETAS ROMANA 1vii) VICTORIAE DD AVGGQ NN 5 inc. LRBC I. 701(2), 790viii) FEL TEMP REPARATIO (Falling Horseman) 19 inc. LRBC II. 1208, 1902, 2292, 2300, 2623, 2629, 2632(2), 2633ix) Illegible Constantinian 2

Valentinianic Coinsi) GLORIA ROMANORVM 10 inc. LRBC II. 1632ii) SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE 10 inc. LRBC II. 995, 2520Valentinian II 1 LRBC II. 2183Illegible Valentinianic 2

Illegible issues of the fourth century 4

In terms of dated coins, the hoard closed with the SALVS REIPVBLICAE issue of Valentinian II (AD 383-92), although the wear exhibited by a number of the Valentinianic coins might argue for a later date. In any case, the hoard demonstrates the domination in money circulating in the late fourth century of Constantinian and Valentinianic issues. It is noteworthy, too, that radiate copies persist in circulating money at so late a date (Shotter 1978g); this may have had something to do with the spurious ‘family-connection’ with Claudius II engineered by the family of Constantine (Panegyrici Latini 6.2,1f; Syme 1968, 115-6).

114

Although the mint-marks cannot be identifi ed on the majority of the coins, in all cases where such identifi cation is possible – approximately 30% of the whole – the mints of origin stretch from Italy eastwards:

Ticinum 3 Aquileia 3 Siscia 2 Sirmium 1 Heraclea 1 Thessalonica 1 Cyzicus 1 Constantinople 1 Nicomedia 2 Antioch 5

Although there may have been a number of explanations for the dominance of eastern mint-marks, it is possible that the phenomenon may point to an owner whose principal concerns were commercial rather than military; such speculation is, however, beyond proof. The coins have been donated to the Senhouse Roman Museum at Maryport.

22. Fremington: In c. 2000, a hoard of copper coins of the third or fourth centuries is said to have been found in a pot; the fi nd was not reported, and there is now no knowledge of the whereabouts of the coins or the pot.

23. Ulverston: In 1534, a letter from Sir James Layburn to Thomas Cromwell reveals the discovery ‘in Fornes near Owstone’ (Furness, near Ulverston) of a mixed hoard of aurei and denarii (Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, Vol. 7, 1534, HMSO 1864–1932, London). An enquiry was set up, and the fi nders ‘bound . . . to appear at the duchy chamber, Westminster. The baily of the abbot of Fornes and of my lord Derby made arrest of the ground the day after the treasure was found.’ It requires no stressing that for the fi nders to be required to appear at Westminster to explain themselves would have involved them in great expense and no little personal risk (see Contrebis 32 (2008-09), 9-10).

The fi nd is said to have consisted of three aurei and forty ounces of silver coins. Of the aurei, two had been sold ‘to a goldsmith at York’, whilst the third, said to have borne the legend, AVGVSTVS CAESAR NERO, had been retained. The forty ounces of silver coins would imply between 200 and 300 denarii. The legend of the coin of Nero – more correctly, NERO CAESAR AVGVSTVS – shows it to have been an issue that post-dated Nero’s reform of the gold and silver coinage in AD 64, dating more precisely to AD 64–6. The essence of Nero’s reform was to reduce the weight of the aureus, enabling more coins to be struck from the bullion; in the case of the denarius, the weight was also reduced, and the coin debased by alloying with copper. The motive behind these moves was almost certainly to make it easier for the emperor to pay the huge bills that accrued from the rebuilding of Rome, including principally the construction of his new palace (the Domus Aurea, or ‘Golden House’), following the great fi re of AD 64 (Tacitus Annals 15.38ff; Mac Dowell 1979, 31-5; Shotter 2008a, 117-26).

As noted earlier (above in III.B.i, 23), mixed hoards of gold and silver coins are not common in north-west England; fi ve others are recorded, although with detail of very variable quality:

Carlisle (Newcastle road, 1763; 1990, 183)Lancaster (Wery Wall,1856; 1995, 49)Manchester (Trafford Street, 1840; 1990, 136-7)Old Carlisle (2000; above in III.B.i, 23)Shap (The Brinns Farm, pre-1833; 1990, 198)

115

24. Armathwaite (Castle): In 1759, twenty aes-coins were found near the Castle; eighteen were issues of Constantine I, and two of Licinius (Robertson 2000, no.1014).

25. Alston: In 1848, nearly 100 aes-coins of ‘the two Constantines and Crispus’, were found during work on a branch line from the Newcastle to Carlisle railway; nearly all of them are said to have carried the mint-mark, PLON. The coins were thought to have been contained in a small iron box (Robertson 2000, no. 1077A).

26. Killington Hall: A pot containing Roman coins was found in c. 1820; the only surviving detail concerns the fi ndspot, which is said to have been ‘where [the Tenth Iter] … crossed the Lune’ (Robertson 2000, no. 1826).

27. Morecambe Bay: In 2009, a hoard of 50 radiates was found in a coastal location to the north of Carnforth (in Lancashire); the hoard is dominated by issues of Carausius (20) and Allectus (16). Indeed, it is the only hoard reported from north-west England confi rmed as terminating with coins of the second British usurper (Allectus: AD 293-6), although that from Boothsbank Farm, Salford (III.A.ii, 49) may, when cleaned, emerge as another. Robertson (2000) lists in excess of 1,900 coin hoards from Roman Britain; only forty-four of these terminated with coins of Allectus. That Carausius and Allectus were aware of the need for coastal defences is well-known (Casey 1977; 1994; Mason 2003), but the present fi nd may indicate that this awareness extended to the west coast and a threat emanating from across the Irish Sea. It is possible, therefore, that there was a coastal installation of some type in the area of this discovery – perhaps a watchtower – or possibly an ‘emporium’. In time, if there was a military site here, it will have related to the fort of the ‘Saxon-Shore’ type that was built at Lancaster early in the fourth century (Shotter and White 1990, 23-7), and perhaps to other as yet undiscovered late coastal sites, of which Barrow-in-Furness furnishes a possibility.

The coins are generally in a poor state of preservation, and some of the following identifi cations will remain provisional until the coins have been cleaned. The coins:

Victorinus 1Claudius Tacitus 2 (inc. RIC 5 (Tacitus), 58)Probus 6 (inc. RIC 5 (Probus), 53, 104, 515, 801)

Carausius 20 (inc. RIC 5 (Carausius), 33(?), 98(3), 101(2), 118(2), 161, 179, 300, 440) Carausius/Allectus 1 Allectus 16 (inc. RIC 5 (Allectus), 20(?), 28/86(?), 35(2), 46, 55, 83, 86, 90/91) Illegible 4

A report of this hoard appears in CHRB 13 (Shotter 2010), pp. 186-8; it is understood that the coins have been acquired by Kendal Museum.

(Note: It is worth recording that the same area has also, in recent times, produced a further Roman hoard (III.A.ii, 60), two medieval and two post-medieval coin hoards)

28. Eden Valley: In 2010, a hoard of approximately 500-600 early Constantinian nummi was recovered from a location in the Eden Valley (NGR supplied to the Portable Antiquities Scheme). The discovery of yet another hoard in this area, which lies in the hinterland of Clifton Dykes, the possible pre-Roman centre of the group who came to be known as the Carvetii (Edwards 2006), and of Brougham Roman fort and extramural settlement serve to emphasise the signifi cance of this area in the late Iron-Age and Romano-British periods. No fewer than twelve hoards have been reported over the years from this area; such a cluster would suggest high-status activity

116

– perhaps agricultural land owned by ‘senators’ of the Carvetii, some of whom may have been former military personnel.

There are 62 loose coins, which are summarised below, but the majority are corroded into a ‘ball’, which may have retained the shape of a bag, purse or other wrapping in which the coins were originally deposited; an extensive search of the area produced no evidence of a pot. As is the case with the hoard from Boothsbank Farm (III.A.ii, 49), there is little likelihood in the short term of these corroded coins being separated. It is worth noting that the contents of this hoard are very similar to those of the smaller hoard which was found in 1975 behind a radiator in the basement of Kendal Museum, wrapped in a sheet of newspaper dated 1893 (III.B.iii, 4; 1990, 202f).

I. The loose coins

62 coins have become separated from the ‘fused ball’; some of these are separated singly, whilst others remain in small fused groups of from 2 to 13 coins. All of these coins appear to fall within a date-range of c. AD 320-340; in many cases, however, the reverses cannot be seen, and these are registered as illegible in the following summary-list:

DOMINORVM NOSTRORVM CAESS VOT V 1BEATA TRANQVILLITAS VOTIS XX 1CAESARVM NOSTRORVM VOT X 1PROVIDENTIAE AVGG 1GLORIA EXERCITVS (2 std) 13She-wolf and twins 5Victory on prow 4GLORIA EXERCITVS (1 std) ` 2Illegible reverses 34

II. The ‘fused ball’

Disappointingly few of the coins that made up the ‘ball’ could be identifi ed from their reverses; the ‘ball’ is held together tightly by corrosion products, and the majority of the coins appear to have been fused with their reverses facing inwards. On the other hand, it is clear that many of the coins within the ‘ball’ are in a good state of preservation, and display relatively little wear. Thus, when they have been separated and cleaned, it should prove possible to provide a full identifi cation of the majority of them. One type was seen on the outside of the ‘ball’, which had not featured amongst the separated coins - a SARMATIA DEVICTA issue of AD 323–4. In all, 41 reverses were noted, as follows:

BEATA TRANQVILLITAS VOTIS XX 2SARMATIA DEVICTA 1CAESARVM NOSTRORVM VOT X 5PROVIDENTIAE AVGG 13GLORIA EXERCITVS (2 std) 13She-wolf and twins 5Victory on prow 2

It is hoped that a full report on this hoard can be given in a future publication.

117

III.B,iii COLLECTIONS OF COINS OF UNCERTAIN STATUS

11. Ravenglass: The late Professor Anne Robertson (2000, no. 1319) has pointed out some confusion in the reporting of a possible disturbed late Roman aes-hoard, found during the excavations on the site in 1976; three coins were fused together (two of Constans – LRBC II. 180 and 197; one of Magnentius – LRBC II. 49). Nearby were two further coins of Magnentius (LRBC II. 7 and 49). See report in Potter 1979, 104.

13. Stanwix (Edenbridge): The likelihood of a Flavian hoard in this area has been enhanced by the acceptance of a Roman presence in Carlisle and parts of Scotland from AD 72 onwards (Shotter 2008b, 108ff). It remains possible, however, that this group was a multiple casual loss, similar in nature to that found during excavations at Carlisle in 1998 (Irishgate: III.B.iii, 23)

14. Upper Allithwaite: A report of this fi nd, which was made on the estate of the Ironmaster, John Wilkinson, and its ‘fate’ (Stockdale 1872, 201ff) indicates that an original listing of material by Dr Priestly (Wilkinson’s brother-in-law) mentioned one coin of Constantine, together with two others which could not be identifi ed; it also mentioned ‘coins, supposed British’ and ‘seventy-two various Roman coins in brass’. In view of the fact that this and other material from the Wilkinson estate was evidently sold in Liverpool, it seems unlikely that any of it now resides in local collections. A suggested possible connection with coins ‘re-discovered’ in Kendal Museum (III.B.iii, 4; 1990, 202) should probably, therefore, be discounted.

The Record Offi ce at Barrow-in-Furness contains the papers of James Stockdale; amongst these there is a reference to the fi nd of coins from Castlehead: this indicates that all the Roman coins were nummi of the late Empire, and that the earliest issuer was Constantine I. This again does not quite match the coins from Kendal Museum, mentioned above.

The papers include a number of Roman and other coins which Stockdale described for ‘Mr Field’, a local antiquarian, numismatist and businessman (Stockdale 1872, 575f); the provenances of these are unclear, though they may conceivably have come from Castlehead:

Gallienus 1 RIC 5 (Gallienus, sole reign), 192a Victorinus 1 RIC 5 (Victorinus), 67 Maximian 1 RIC 5 (Maximian), 386(?) Constantine I 2 RIC 7 (London), 9; (Trier), 209 Crispus 1 as RIC 7 (London), 235 (Illegible 1)

(I am grateful to Michael Hancox for bringing this information to my attention).

21. Ainstable: William Hutchinson (1794, i. 199) gives an account of this fi nd, which had been gleaned from a Mr Housman (evidently of Cumwhitton), a writer on agricultural matters: ‘In a fi eld in Lord Carlisle’s estate, at Low-Hall, a few years ago some copper coins were ploughed up. From the account we have of them, we suppose they were Roman; but the farmer took no care of them, and they were soon lost.’ It is clear from this that the date of the fi nd, previously (2000, 155) given as ‘c.1800’, must have been too late, and that a date in the 1770s or 1780s would probably be more accurate.

22. Scathwaite: It appears that this hoard was most probably not of Roman origin, but medieval, and possibly foreign (White 1996, 115-20 – note corrected pagination of this article). It should, therefore, be deleted from these lists.

23. Carlisle (Irishgate): For a photograph of these coins, see plate 2.5 and Zant 2009, 60.

118

25. Distington: The Cumberland Pacquet (5 May, 1868) carried a relatively detailed report of a major fi nd of Roman objects at the farm at Kelmore Hills. It appears that the principal feature of the discovery was a stone coffi n containing a ‘few fragmentary bones’. Nearby, there were terracotta lamps, two armilla, several fi bulae, two spearheads, a bronze torque, and a ‘curious piece of bronze in the form of a cross inlaid with small squares of white, blue and red enamel’. In addition, there were two amphorae, a cinerary urn (with ashes) and two or three probable lachrymatory vessels. There were also a number of coins, mostly badly worn, but including one each of Trajan and Diocletian, and two of Constantine I. It was thought likely that these related to a possible military site in the area.

26. Muncaster: There is a suggestion that, in the eighteenth century, a hoard of gold coins, which had evidently been found beneath a fl agstone at the Castle, was offered for auction in Edinburgh. Although there is currently no verifi cation of this or a suggestion of a connection with any other fi nd, it remains a possibility that the single solidus of Theodosius I, still in the possession of the Pennington family (1990, 206; 1995, 62; III.B.iii, 8), is a survivor from that hoard. This in its turn would greatly strengthen the case for late Roman activity in the area of the Castle (Shotter 2004b, 165).

Carlisle Museum and Art Gallery has in its collection a tremissis of Theodosius I (RIC 9 (Constantinople), 75b), which is said to have come from Muncaster (Roger Bland, pers. comm.); however, since the details of this fi nd, as held in the Museum records, are in many particulars similar to those of the solidus (above), it may be safest to assume that the provenances of the two coins have become duplicated, and that, as a consequence, the provenance of the tremissis is now beyond recovery – unless, of course, it came from Carlisle. It should, however, be borne in mind that, since the Pennington family believes that the solidus has always been at the Castle, it remains a possibility, at least, that the coin at Tullie House Museum is a second survivor of a ‘Muncaster hoard’.

27. Carlisle (Castle Green): A small ‘column’ of fi ve denarii was found in the excavations of 1999-2001 (Howard-Davis 2009a, 680); the status of the fi nd remains unclear – whether the coins were accidentally lost or deliberately concealed:

Republican 3 inc. Crawford 1974, nos. 158,1; 459,1 Augustus 1 RIC 12 (Augustus), 207 Tiberius 1 RIC 12 (Tiberius), 26

Such early coins are often regarded as associated with legionary activity, and thus may throw some light on the early garrisoning of the fort. It may be noted that one of the Republican denarii dates to 179–170 BC, and is amongst the earliest of such coins to have been located in north-west England (see plate 2.6). The contents of this group are reminiscent of that reported from Warburton (Greater Manchester; III.A.ii, 54), but contrast with that from Papcastle (III.B.iii, 28).

28. Papcastle: A small ‘column’ of four denarii and a further denarius nearby were found in 2004 during excavations by North Pennines Archaeology Ltd within the fort-area; it is currently unclear whether these coins should be regarded as the whole (or part) of a hoard or as a multiple casual loss (cf. 1990, 201). The coins, which range in date from AD 68 to 128, are:

Galba 1 RIC 12 (Galba), 146 Vespasian 2 Titus 1 RIC 22 (Titus), 113 Hadrian 1 RIC 2 (Hadrian), 153

29. Whitehaven: A collection of coins came to light in 2004, which are said (on the envelope in which they appeared) to have been found at Whitehaven Castle in 1769. It seems, however, more

119

likely that the coins derived from the 1920s, when a hospital was built on the site. The coins, which have been donated to the Senhouse Roman Museum at Maryport, raise the possibility of a previously-unknown Roman coastal site in the area; they have evidently remained in private ownership since their discovery.

The collection consists of thirty-three coins – sixteen radiates and copies, nine Constantinian issues, two Valentinianic and one Theodosian. In addition, there were fi ve post-Roman pieces, including an Irish halfpenny of George II, dated 1747.

The Roman coins (Caruana and Shotter 2005), although conceivably constituting a single hoard, are perhaps best regarded as comprising two separate hoards:

Hoard A

Gallienus 3 RIC 5 (Gallienus), 192, 207, 210 Claudius II 1 Divus Claudius 3 RIC 5 (Claudius II), 259(3) Victorinus 1 RIC 5 (Victorinus), 71

Tetricus I 4 inc. RIC 5 (Tetricus I), 68ff, 85, 121ff Tetricus II 1 RIC 5 (Tetricus II), 235 Unassignable radiate copies 3

Hoard B

Constantinian (AD 330–46)

i) GLORIA EXERCITVS (2 std) 1 LRBC I. 48ii) GLORIA EXERCITVS (1 std) 2 inc. LRBC I. 99iii) She-wolf and twins 2iv) PIETAS ROMANA 1v) PAX PVBLICA 1

Constantinian (AD 346-64)

i) FEL TEMP REPARATIO (Galley) 1ii) FEL TEMP REPARATIO (Falling Horseman) 1

Valentinianic

SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE 2 inc. LRBC II. 96

Theodosian 1

The majority of the coins in both groups appear to be local copies of varying standard. It should be noted that the coins in ‘Hoard A’ are distributed fairly evenly between issues of legitimate rulers and those or rebel-rulers of the Imperium Galliarum. Two coins of Constantine I from Whitehaven (now in Lancaster Museum) do not appear to be connected with these groups (1990, 239; also below on p. 179).

120

30. Sizergh (Castle): The Castle has on display a sestertius of Faustina II (RIC 3 (Marcus), 1628), which was found in 1960. It is understood that this coin may have been one of a number found together – presumably either a hoard or a votive deposit (see also below in IV.B, 2).

31. ‘Furness’: Although the precise location of a fi ndspot is not given, there is a report of coins of Vespasian and Domitian having been found in the late nineteenth century along with Bronze Age remains (Barber 1894, 7 and 9).

32. Hincaster: There is a verbal report of Roman coins having been found at Greenside Farm in the mid-1990s, during conversion-work; there are no surviving details of the coins.

33. Milnthorpe: In 2007, two fresh denarii were found near the town, both of the reign of Antoninus Pius:

Antoninus Pius 1 RIC 3 (Antoninus), 216 Faustina I 1 RIC 3 (Antoninus), 371

The coins might possibly constitute the whole or part of a hoard, although they might equally well represent a votive deposit, similar to that found at Silverdale (Lancashire) in 1971, when a coin each of Severus Alexander and Julia Mamaea were recovered from a crevice in the living rock (III.A.ii, 19; Shotter 1972, 333f; 1990, 177). It is worth noting that the same pairing of denarii was reported as found in the same year at Nether Kellet in Lancashire; see below in IV.A, 2.

34. Denton Foot: In 2008, ten aes-coins, which had been found many years ago, were shown for identifi cation to Carlisle Museum and Art Gallery; they had evidently been found in the bank of a beck. The coins ranged in date from the reign of Vespasian to that of Magnentius; in view of the nature of the fi ndspot, it may well be that they represent a votive deposit:

Vespasian 1 RIC 22 (Vespasian), 243 Domitian (as Caesar) 1 RIC 22 (Vespasian), 654 Hadrian 1 RIC 2 (Hadrian), 754 Antoninus Pius 2 inc. RIC 3 (Antoninus), 840 Faustina I 1 RIC 3 (Antoninus), 1102 Marcus Aurelius 1 RIC 3 (Marcus), 797 Tetricus I 1 RIC 5 (Tetricus I), 86/87 Diocletian 1 RIC 6 (Trier), 525a Magnentius 1 LRBC II. 62

35. Carlisle (‘Roman Cemetery’): Robertson (2000, no. 188; cf. Patten 1974) draws attention to coins found in 1829 on Gallows Hill in association with burials; it is not clear whether these should be regarded as hoards or offerings. One burial, in a lead coffi n, had six coins, which included two of Antoninus Pius and one of Faustina I. Secondly, the grave of Aurelia Aureliana (RIB 959) was found with eight small aes-coins. For a true hoard found in this area in 1829, see III.B.i, 15.

36. Bowes (Roman Fort): The report on the excavations of 1966–70 (Frere and Fitts 2009; Shotter 2009b, 56ff) includes a record of six coins – silvered or copper radiates of fair quality – which were found fused together in a column, as if they had originally been wrapped in linen cloth. As there was nothing in the circumstances of discovery to suggest deliberate deposition, it remains uncertain whether these coins should be regarded as a multiple casual loss or as the whole or part of a hoard. Further, there was a seventh coin – a radiate of Divus Claudius – which was found so close to the others, both horizontally and vertically, as to suggest that it may originally have belonged to the group. The coins, which are now in the Bowes Museum at Barnard Castle, are as follows:

121

Valerian 1 AR/Æ (RIC 5 (Valerian), 142c)Gallienus 1 AR/Æ (RIC 5 (Gallienus), 556)Claudius II 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Claudius II), 18)Divus Claudius 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Claudius II), 259ff)Postumus 1 AR/Æ (RIC 5 (Postumus), 288)Victorinus 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Victorinus), 114)Tetricus I 1 Æ (RIC 5 (Tetricus I), 100)

37. Beckfoot: In 2010, a group of six aes-radiates was recovered from a location to the north of the site of the known fort. The radiates were of good size and quality and were relatively fresh; their condition was also very similar. Although these coins were scattered over an area, there is a case for suggesting that they may have been either the whole or part of a hoard, or (perhaps more likely) a multiple casual loss. However, because of continuing doubts regarding their status, these coins will also be included in the Beckfoot site fi gures (II.B, 1). The coins:

Gallienus 2 (RIC 5 (Gallienus, joint reign), 311 of AD 259;

RIC 5 (Gallienus, sole reign), 245) Claudius II 1 (RIC 5 (Claudius II), 104) Victorinus 3 (RIC 5 (Victorinus), 57, 67, 114)

(Note: The coin of Gallienus’ joint reign bore the mint-mark MS in the exergue)

122

C: ROMAN HOARDS FROM CHESHIRE

i) Hoards from Known Roman Sitesii) Hoards from Locations other than Known Roman Sitesiii) Collections of Coins of Uncertain Status

A Note

The original Compendium (1990) and the First Supplement (1995) dealt only with fi nds of Roman coins in Cumbria and Lancashire; material from Cheshire was included for the fi rst time in the Second Supplement (2000). However, it was decided in the cases of the original Compendium to include as much material as possible from the south of the region by using the old (pre-1974) southern boundaries of Lancashire. As a result, some of the material included under Lancashire is now properly in Cheshire. In order to avoid confusion in the site-notation, however, it has been decided to retain the original running-order of sites, and to include fresh information accordingly. The sites affected are:

Category (i) III.A.i, 24 Wilderspool (1990, 147)

Category (ii) III.A.ii, 13 Didsbury (1990, 153) III.A.ii, 33 Statham (1990, 162-3) III.A.ii, 44 Bowdon (1995, 52) III.A.ii, 50 Stockport (1995, 54)

Category (iii) III.A.iii, 28 Cheadle (1995, 56) III.A.iii, 29 Cheadle (1995, 56) III.A.iii, 31 Sale (1995, 56)

123

III.C ROMAN HOARDS FOUND IN CHESHIRE AND ADJACENT AREAS

INDEX OF HOARDS

i) Hoards from Known Roman Sites

1. Chester 2000, 1632. Chester (Bridge Street) 2000, 163-43. Chester (Northgate Street) 2000, 1644. Chester (White Friars) 2000, 1645. Chester (Bridge Street) 2000, 1646. Chester (Deanery Field) 2000, 1657. Chester (Deanery Field) 2000, 1658. Chester (Amphitheatre) 2000, 1659. Heronbridge (Eccleston) 2000, 165-610. Holt 2000, 166-711. Middlewich (King Street) 2000, 16712. Nantwich (Marsh Lane) 2000, 16713. Nantwich 2000, 16714. Nantwich (Wall Lane Tanyard) 2000, 16715. Littlechester16. Littlechester17. Littlechester18. Littlechester19. Chester (Bridge Street)20. Chester (Roodeye)

ii) Hoards from Locations other than Known Roman Sites

1. Agden (Agden Brook) 2000, 169-702. Alderley Edge 2000, 170-43. Barnton 2000, 1754. Birkenhead 2000, 1755. Bradwall 2000, 1756. Brereton (Brindley Moors Farm) 2000, 1757. Cholmondeston 2000, 1758. Chorlton 2000, 1759. Coddington 2000, 17610. Eastham 2000, 17611. Hampton 2000, 17612. Hooton 2000, 17613. Leycett 2000, 17614. Neston 2000, 17615. Wervin 2000, 17616. Whiteley Green 2000, 17617. Weston 2000, 17618. Wybunbury 2000, 17719. Church Minshull20. Nantwich (Barbridge)21. Weaverham22. Adlington

124

iii) Collections of Coins of Uncertain Status

1. Alvanley 2000, 1792. Aston 2000, 1793. Bickerton Hills 2000, 1794. Chester (Foregate Street) 2000, 1795. Chester (Pepper Street) 2000, 1796. Chester (Hunter Street) 2000, 1797. Chester (Curzon Park) 2000, 1798. Chester (‘Elliptical Building’) 2000, 1799. Chester (Castle Street) 2000, 18010. Congleton (Howley Lane) 2000, 18011. Eddisbury 2000, 18012. Egerton 2000, 18013. Handbridge 2000, 18014. Malpas 2000, 18015. Melandra Castle 2000, 18116. Nantwich 2000, 18117. Oxton (Arno Hill) 2000, 18118. Rudheath 2000, 18119. Whitchurch (Hadley) 2000, 181-220. Whitchurch (Doddington) 2000, 18221. Chester (Claverton)22. Nantwich (Combermere Abbey)23. Wallasey (‘Embankment’)24. Lymm

125

III.C.i HOARDS FROM KNOWN ROMAN SITES

3. Chester: The single recorded coin from this hoard found in Northgate Street in 1883 was a dupondius of Antoninus Pius (RIC 3 (Antoninus), 907).

8. Chester (Amphitheatre): One of the two coins of Tetricus I from this hoard was retained by the British Museum; the remainder are in the Grosvenor Museum at Chester (JCNWAAS 29 (1932), 35-7).

10. Holt: There was one further coin in this hoard, in addition to the thirteen previously recorded – a dupondius of Trajan of AD 98-99.

11. Middlewich: It has been reported that, when found, this hoard of denarii was covered by a sheet of lead; this may have been debris from a cut-up brine tank. The hoard is now recorded in HSLC 151 (2002), 161-3; for salt-working in Middlewich, see Strickland 2001, Garner 2005 and Williams and Reid 2008.

15-17. Littlechester: Although this site is in Derbyshire, its inclusion in the present volume is due to its likely use, along with Wroxeter, as a principal starting-point for land-based troops in their advances into the North West between the early 50s and the 70s. Three hoards, two of denarii and one of radiate copies, were found during excavations and watching-briefs on the site of the former Pickford’s Garage between 1986 and 1990 (Langley and Drage 2000, 236-46).

15. Twenty-fi ve denarii in good condition and little worn:

Domitian (as Caesar) 1 RIC 22 (Vespasian), 921 Titus (Divus Vespasianus) 1 RIC 22 (Titus), 357 Domitian 3 RIC 22 (Domitian), 670, 690, 691 Nerva 1 RIC 2 (Nerva), 19 Trajan 7 RIC 2 (Trajan), 98(2), 184, 190a, 318, 355; BMC (Trajan), 626 Hadrian 7 RIC 2 (Hadrian), 9, 80, 86, 165(2), 217, 360 Sabina 2 RIC 2 (Hadrian), 391, 410 Antoninus Pius 3 RIC 3 (Antoninus), 58, 111; hybrid with reverse of Faustina II (RIC 3 (Antoninus), 517)

The condition of the coins and their chronological distribution would suggest atermination-date not later than c. AD 150; the coins were found in a compact mass in the fi ll of a stake-hole, suggesting that they may have been wrapped in a piece of cloth.

16. Six denarii, in good condition and little worn (apart from the coin of Vespasian):

Vespasian 1 Trajan 1 RIC 2 (Trajan), 32 Antoninus Pius 2 RIC 3 (Antoninus), 229a, 274 Faustina I 1 RIC 3 (Antoninus), 373 Marcus Aurelius (as Caesar) 1 RIC 3 (Antoninus), 426

The latest coin in this group is dated to AD 157-8, suggesting a termination-date of c. AD 160. The coins were scattered over a fl oor-surface, and there was no sign of a container.

126

17. 214 radiate copies were found concreted into a mass in a pit on the site; there was one ‘regular’ coin (DIVO CLAVDIO/CONSECRATIO, altar-type), whilst the remainder were poor, small, copies:

Gallienus 1 RIC 5 (Gallienus), 318(?) Claudius II 1 Divus Claudius 6 RIC 5 (Claudius II), 261(5), 265 Victorinus 19 inc. RIC 5 (Victorinus), 61, 67, 71, 78(2), 112(11) Tetricus I 34 inc. RIC 5 (Tetricus I), 68(3), 100(14), 109(?1), 126(2), 135(2), 148(2) Tetricus II 15 inc. RIC 5 (Tetricus II), 254(4?), 270(3) Aurelian/Probus 1 Unassignable radiate copies 137

Such a hoard probably closed in the mid-280s.

18. Littlechester: In c. 1887, a hoard of 80/90 denarii was found in Strutt’s Park; little information survives, although coins of the Republic (Crawford 1974, no. 472), Tiberius, Gaius, Vitellius and Vespasian, as well as a sestertius of Nero, have been mentioned by various writers (Derbys. Arch. Journ. 13 (1891), 117; 15 (1893), 21; 90 (1970), 25-6; VCH Derbyshire, Vol. 1 (1905), 262).

19. Chester (Bridge Street): In 1899, a number of coins (chiefl y Constantinian) were found, evidently with remnants of a samian vessel, in a Roman building on Bridge Street (Robertson 2000, no. 1032).

20. Chester (Roodeye): In 1886, a discovery was made in what was taken to be river-gravel, at a depth of 23 feet; a lead pig of AD 74 was found (RIB 2404. 31), together with four coins (two dupondii of Vespasian of AD 71, a dupondius of AD 77–8, and a dupondius of Titus as Caesar of AD 77–8; JCAHS 1 (1887), 77 and 83-5).

127

III.C.ii HOARDS FROM LOCATIONS OTHER THAN KNOWN ROMAN SITES

1. Agden: The main part of this large hoard was found in 1957 by Agden Brook on Woolstencroft Farm; 2,443 coins were recovered at that time, together with the cooking-pot in which they had been concealed. These coins and the pot were published by F.H. Thompson (1962, 143-55; see also 2000, 169-70); they are deposited in the Grosvenor Museum at Chester. The date-range of the coins was from Gordian III to Probus (AD 238-82).

Although Thompson’s list contained 2,443 coins, another report (Cheshire Historian 8 (1958), 23) put the total at 2,451. Subsequently, a further twenty-seven coins were recovered from the site in the early-1970s, and exhibited at the Lymm Historical Society (Britannia 7 (1976), 319); these coins do not appear to have been published in full, but are said to have had a date-range of AD 253–73. It is hoped that further information regarding them may be forthcoming. Finally, two further coins – one each of Gallienus (RIC 5 (Gallienus), 331) and of his wife, Salonina (RIC 5 (Salonina), 60) – are recorded as having been found at Henbury (Cheshire Arch. Bull. 1 (1973), 5).

More recently, Mr James Balme of Warrington has reported that a further fi fty-two coins were found in the mid-1980s, close to the original fi ndspot; he has kindly made these available for examination. This group of coins, all of which are radiate copies of generally poor quality, are distributed as follows:

Gallienus (Sole Reign) 4 RIC 5 (Gallienus), 194a*, 226, 236, 256* Claudius II 6 RIC 5 (Claudius II), 72, 98(2), 99(2), 156 Postumus 1 RIC 5 (Postumus), 331* Victorinus 7 RIC 5 (Victorinus), 55, 57, 71(2), 78, 114, 118* Tetricus I 29 RIC 5 (Tetricus I), 48(?), 56, 68, 70, 73, 79, 80, 87(5), 88, 92, 111, 121, 123(2), 126(2), 127(2), 142(2), 146(2), 148(2), and one uncertain type Tetricus II 5 RIC 5 (Tetricus II), 267, 270, 275, 280, and one uncertain type

Note: Those coins marked with an asterisk show signs of surviving silvering.

The present total of 2,495 identifi ed coins, incorporating slight adjustments to the original list, made by Robertson (2000, no. 741), is distributed as follows:

Gordian III 1 Valerian 7 Gallienus (Joint Reign) 6 Salonina (Joint Reign) 8 Gallienus (Sole Reign) 251 Salonina (Gallienus’ Sole Reign) 18 Valerian II 2 Claudius II 212 Divus Claudius 38 Quintillus 20 Postumus 54 Laelian 2 Marius 6 Victorinus 602

128

Tetricus I 855 Tetricus II 377 Aurelian 1 Tacitus 2 Probus 2 Unassignable radiate copies 31

As is often, although not always, the case with Roman hoards of the late third century found in north-west England, the coins of ‘rebel emperors’ of the Imperium Galliarum (1896 coins: 76.95%) outnumber those of ‘legitimist emperors’ (568 coins: 23.05%) by more than 3:1 (see below on pp. 137ff).

6. Bradwall (Brindley Moors Farm): For this hoard, see also Earwaker (1890, 146), who cites a ‘Dr Ormerod’ in Archaeologia Cambrensis 2 (1847), 181 and HSLC 2 (1849-50), 212-3 to the effect that the coins were found ‘near the edge of Bradwall’, and that the edge of the Roman road between Kinderton and Chesterton was found on the Brindley Moors Farm estate.

15. Wervin: The sixteen coins from this hoard are in the Grosvenor Museum at Chester.

19. Church Minshull: A hoard, consisting of fi fty-eight denarii and fragments of two gilded silver ‘trumpet’ brooches, was recovered in 2004 (Treasure Annual Report 2004, no. 433). The coins, which were generally in a poor condition, consisted of the following (Richard Abdy, pers. comm.):

Marcus Antonius 2 Crawford 1974, 544(2) Nero 2 RIC 12 (Nero), 53 Otho 2 inc. RIC 12 (Otho), 19 Vitellius 1 RIC 12 (Vitellius), 101 Vespasian 5 inc. RIC 22 (Vespasian), 29, 43, 545, 1120 Titus (as Caesar) 1 (illegible) Domitian 2 inc. RIC 22 (Domitian), 733 Trajan 17 inc. RIC 2 (Trajan), 6, 11, 22, 59, 107, 116, 147, 172, 252, 270, 275, 318, 340, 356, 364 Hadrian 15 inc. RIC 2 (Hadrian), 4, 77, 80, 110, 129, 135, 149, 163, 173, 175, 228, 237 Sabina 1 RIC 2 (Hadrian), 395 Antoninus Pius 6 RIC 3 (Antoninus), 43, 136, 240, 272, 274, 292 Faustina I 2 RIC 3 (Antoninus), 344, 361 Faustina II 1 RIC 3 (Marcus), 677

Illegible 1

The termination-date of this hoard remains a little uncertain; brooches such as these with La Tène-inspired decoration are common throughout the second century. Further, although the coin of Faustina II is normally associated with the reign of her husband, Marcus Aurelius, it has been suggested (Richard Abdy, pers. comm.) that it could have been issued late in the reign of her father, Antoninus. In any case, even if it was issued in the reign of Marcus, the fact that it would be the only representative of that reign suggests that this hoard might have terminated in the latest years of Antoninus or the very earliest of Marcus Aurelius. The hoard is to be published by Jonathan Williams and Richard Abdy in a forthcoming issue of CHRB.

The hoard is now deposited in Nantwich Museum.

129

20. Nantwich (Barbridge): Twenty-eight nummi were recovered in 2007, together with two brooches and a ring (Britannia 39 (2008), 291). The coins, which were identifi ed by Richard Abdy of the British Museum, consisted of eleven issues of the reign of Constantine I, nine FEL TEMP REPARATIO (Galley) issues of AD 348-50 and seven of Magnentius. The latest coin, which was a Valentinianic SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE issue of AD 364-75, has been discounted as an ‘intruder’. In the absence of coins of Decentius it is believed that the hoard closed in the middle of AD 351.

The twenty-seven coins of the hoard are:

Constantinian i) AD 323-4 3 inc. RIC 7 (Ticinum), 140; (Siscia), 169 ii) AD 324-9 2 inc. RIC 7 (London), 295 iii) AD 330-5 6 iinc. RIC 7 (Trier), 521, 550 iv) AD 348-50 9 RIC 8 (Trier), 219(3); (Lyon), 105(2); four imitations Magnentius 7 inc.RIC 8 (Trier), 266; (Arles), 137; (Lyon), 115/6; one imitation

The mints represented are as follows:

London 1 Trier 7 Lyon 2 Arles 2 Ticinum 1

Siscia 1 Uncertain 8

(Irregular 5)

21. Weaverham: In 2002-03, six denarii were recovered from a fi eld; despite a detailed search by metal-detectorists after ploughing and sowing, no further coins were revealed. The coins form a notably early group, since all were issued prior to the Flavian period:

Republican 2 Crawford 1974, nos 350A, 2; 415, 1 Augustus 1 RIC 12 (Augustus), 69b Tiberius 1 RIC 12 (Tiberius), 30 Nero 1 RIC 12 (Nero), 60 Vitellius 1 RIC 12 (Vitellius), 109

22. Adlington: In 1925, a hoard of twenty coins was found, ranging in date from Titus to Antoninus Pius; they were recovered in a decaying leather bag (Robertson 2000, no. 174)

130

III.C.iii COLLECTIONS OF COINS OF UNCERTAIN STATUS

21. Chester (Claverton): In the 1980s and again more recently, a number of denarii have been found in the vicinity of The King’s School; these may belong to a dispersed hoard:

Faustina I 2 RIC 3 (Antoninus), 384f, 351 Septimius Severus 1 RIC 4 (Severus), 100 Caracalla 1 RIC 4 (Caracalla), 9

22. Nantwich (Combermere Abbey): Five denarii are reported to have been found in 2007 in close proximity to each other; their status is unclear, but they are consistent with having been part of a hoard (plate 3.13):

Galba 1 RIC 12 (Galba), 143 Domitian 1 RIC 22 (Domitian), 691 Trajan 2 RIC 2 (Trajan), 126, 127 Faustina II 1 RIC 3 (Marcus), 674

23. Wallasey (Embankment): Five fourth-century nummi were found between 1972 and 1976, together with a bronze fi bula. There is a possibility that these coins formed part of a disturbed hoard; the date-range of the coins is AD 311-75:

Maximin Daia 1 RIC 6 (Antioch), 162 Constantine I 1 RIC 7 (Trier), 223 Constans (as Augustus) 2 inc. LRBC I. 138; the other coin was a GLORIA EXERCITVS (1 std) type Gratian 1 LRBC II. 318

24. Lymm: There is a report that, in the eighteenth century, a hoard of approximately 1,200 coins was found in a fi eld on the Cheshire side of the River Mersey, about four miles upstream of Warrington. The coins were said to have been in a good state of preservation, and included issues of Valerian, Gallienus, Postumus, Marius, Victorinus, Tetricus, Aurelian and Tacitus. It remains a possibility that this report duplicates that of the Statham hoard (see above in III.A.ii, 33; Robertson 2000, no. 737).

3.13 Possible hoard of denarii from Combermere Abbey (Nantwich); denarius of Domitian (RIC 22 (Domitian), 691 of AD 90).Photograph: Frances MacIntosh

131

DISCUSSION

Hoard Sizes and Locations

A total of 296 ‘groups of Roman coins’ have now been reported from the north-west counties; this number comprises 78 (26.36%) from known Roman or Romano-British sites, 109 (36.82%) from locations where no Roman or Romano-British site is presently known, whilst the remaining 109 (36.82%) are groups from all locations whose status, on the available evidence, cannot be satisfactorily determined – whether hoards, multiple casual losses or votive deposits. The sizes of these groups could not always be given exactly, although in some cases an approximate number of coins could be inferred.

Table 3.2 Recorded Sizes of Coin-Groups

No. of Coins No. of groups %

1 – 30 107 36.1531 – 50 13 4.3951 – 100 24 8.11101 – 300 23 7.77301 – 500 10 3.38501 – 1000 12 4.05Over 1000 11 3.72Uncertain size 96 32.43

Table 3.3 Recorded Sizes of Coin-Groups, by Site-Type and Location

No. of Coins Known Roman Not known Roman Uncertain Sites Sites Groups Ch La Cu Ch La Cu Ch La Cu

1–30 10 8 9 9 12 3 18 19 1931–50 2 2 3 – 1 1 – 3 151–100 3 3 1 1 4 5 – 3 4101–300 1 3 3 – 9 5 – 1 1301–500 1 1 2 – 2 3 – 1 –501–1000 – – 1 1 6 4 – – –Over 1000 – 2 2 3 2 1 1 – –Uncertain Size 3 10 8 8 24 5 5 22 11

TOTALS 20 29 29 22 60 27 24 49 36

(Note: Ch: Cheshire; La: Lancashire; Cu: Cumbria)

Some comments should be made on these tables: fi rst, the large numbers of coin-groups in the 1-30 range are probably due to the fact that, although in many cases precise fi gures for hoard-size appear to be given in surviving records, many of the apparently smaller hoards should be regarded as incompletely recorded portions of larger hoards. Secondly, as can be seen, the fi gures are somewhat distorted because a considerable number of the groups cannot be given even an approximate size; many of these, however, are described as ‘large’, or are said to have been recovered in circumstances that suggest a large number of coins. It is likely, therefore, that the numbers for hoards containing 200

132

or more coins may be considerably higher than appears to be the case. Thirdly, the sections containing ‘groups of uncertain status’ (III.A,iii; III.B.iii; III.C.iii) clearly include deposits which originated in many different ways; indeed, some of these may be relatively recent in origin. Many of those included in these sections, however, are almost certainly ‘true hoards’, although we generally lack the information which would allow us to distinguish decisively between hoards and multiple casual losses.

A further point of some interest is the relationship between the number of hoards recovered in urban contexts which are underlain by known Roman military establishments and those that have been found in rural settings. Clearly, as the late Professor Anne Robertson observed many years ago (1988, 13), the distribution of hoard-fi nds is in reality a mirror of the distribution of those activities that have brought them to light. In urban contexts, this comes as no surprise: building and rebuilding represent a virtually constant activity through which ancient artefacts of all kinds may be recovered. Two points may, however, be made about such fi nds occurring in rural environments: fi rst, many of these fi nds have come to light where there is no known Roman (or Romano-British) site. Whether the fi nd is of a hoard or a votive deposit, its presence indicates that, in the ancient landscape, there must have been a feature that attracted attention – whether that was of a religious nature or simply a spot which the owner of the coins could recognise as a safe place for his savings, but which would not attract unwanted attention. It may, of course, emerge later that there is an adjacent site awaiting discovery, as has happened, for example, at Tarbock in Merseyside (see above in II.A,12 and III.A.ii, 34, together with references there). It is also worth noting that the last two or three decades have seen a considerable growth in organised and disciplined metal-detecting, involving ‘rallies’ in rural locations where no ancient site is suspected. Such activities have certainly led to an increase in the discovery of coins and other artefacts in the open countryside, the signifi cance of which may become clearer over the years. It is worth noting that it has been suggested recently that more of the recorded multiple fi nds of coins (with or without other objects present) may have been of ritual/votive signifi cance than was once thought (Moorhead, Bland and Pett 2010).

In a part of the country where it is often suggested that Romanisation gained no real hold, it is notable that so many reported hoards consist of 100 or more coins, and occasionally items of jewellery also. This certainly suggests that, in both town and country, there was considerable wealth to be found, which presumably belonged to the kind of people who, where appropriate, would have been expected to take on some responsibility for local administration amongst the Brigantes, Cornovii, Carvetii and perhaps the Setantii, too. The signs of wealth that have been observed, for example, in connection with some burials uncovered in Carlisle (Patten 1974; Shotter 2011) point to families who were probably involved with local government in the civitas Carvetiorum, which was probably established by the Emperor, Septimius Severus (Edwards and Shotter 2005).

Contents of Hoards and Other Groups of Coins

Table 3.4: Hoard-Contents by Metals

Cheshire Lancashire Cumbria TOTALS %

AV 1 4 2 7 2.36

AV/AR – 1 4 5 1.69

AV/AR/Æ – 1 1 2 0.68

AR 13 29 24 66 22.30

AR/Æ 3 13 5 21 7.09

Æ 38 64 46 148 50.00

No information 9 32 6 47 15.88

133

Most of the gold hoards included here remain speculative, either because the evidence for their existence is circumstantial, or because, as at Muncaster (III.B.iii, 8) and Scalesceugh (III.B.iii, 12), local rumours about hoards have grown from gold coins which certainly have existed (or, indeed, still exist). However, efforts to achieve greater certainty have so far proved fruitless. The six mixed hoards of gold and silver coins are rather more reliably provenanced; three of them – Carlisle (III.B.i, 11), Old Carlisle (III.B.i, 23), and Lancaster (III.A.i, 2) – included a single aureus in a hoard of denarii, whilst the other three – Manchester (III.A.i, 11), Shap (III.B.ii, 12) and Ulverston (III.B.ii, 23) – evidently represented a genuine mix of aurei and denarii. Whilst in the cases of the majority of hoards involving gold coins, these were aurei, there were two, albeit of uncertain status, in which the gold coins were fourth-century denominations – Ribchester (III.A.iii, 44) and Muncaster (III.B.iii, 26).

The hoards of silver coins are composed overwhelmingly of denarii, though there is one, that from Fleetwood of very uncertain provenance (III.A.iii, 5), which is made up of siliquae. The denarius-hoards vary greatly in size, and several appear to have consisted of 200 or more coins, representing, of course, savings of very considerable value. At the other end of the scale, there are some very small groups of denarii, some of which may, of course, be the survivors from larger hoards, or perhaps multiple casual losses – as at Carlisle (III.B.iii, 27) and Papcastle (III.B.iii, 28) – or even votive deposits, such as the two denarii of the reign of Severus Alexander, which were found in a crevice in the living rock at Silverdale (III.A.iii, 19) and an apparently similar fi nd from Milnthorpe (III.B.iii, 33). Several denarius-hoards are also recorded as containing one or two aes-coins, which may well have been used as ‘stoppers’ for hoards concealed in narrow-necked fl agons; such ‘stoppers’ were perhaps intended to convince unwanted fi nders that the contents of the pot were not of very great value.

Aes-hoards provide the clear majority (50%) of those recorded in the North West, although some of the groups are probably more likely to have been the results of multiple accidental losses – for example, Capernwray (III.B.iii, 43), Carlisle (Irishgate: III.B.iii, 23) and Stanwix (Edenbridge: III.B.iii, 13). Three main types of aes-hoards are represented – those consisting of early imperial coinage up to the middle of the second century, radiates and copies of the second half of the third century, and nummi of the mid- to late fourth century. A further particularly interesting type is that consisting almost exclusively of, or dominated by, tetrarchic coins; it is notable that, whilst these coins appear in hoards in the North West, they are rarely to be found as casual losses on Roman sites in the area. It may be that the size of these coins was regarded as evidence of their quality and that, in an age of declining confi dence, the increasingly inferior quality of contemporary nummi drove the ‘better’ coins into hoards. As we have seen (above on pp. 8-9), some support for this interpretation comes from the issue, in the very early 300s, of the SACRA MONETA type, which should presumably be taken as a signal that the gods were being invoked by the emperors to protect the standard of the coinage, which human agencies were evidently no longer able to guarantee.

Table 3.5: Dates of the Latest Recorded Coins

Period Number %

I 2 0.68II – –III 1 0.34IV 12 4.05V 4 1.35VI 16 5.41VII 22 7.42VIII 16 5.41IX 4 1.35X 13 4.39XI 2 0.68

134

XII 9 3.04XIII 35 11.82XIV 12 4.05XV 20 6.76XVI – –XVII 10 3.38XVIII 13 4.39XIX 20 6.76XX 5 1.69XXI 4 1.35

No information 76 25.68

A number of points emerge from these fi gures: fi rst, they need to be used with some caution since, whilst many of the older sources indicate issuing authorities of coins included in these groups, they do not necessarily inform us of the latest coins that were present. This seems to be especially relevant in a consideration of coin groups in which only coins of periods I to V are cited; whilst there are undoubtedly some hoards that did terminate in the Flavian or Trajanic periods – for example, Holt (III.C.i, 10) – in some cases these coins may have been only a selection from a longer time-span. Indeed, where such short time-spans do seem to be beyond dispute – for example, Carlisle (Irishgate: III.B.iii, 23) and Capernwray (III.A.iii, 43) – it probably indicates that these coins were multiple casual losses which, in the context of Flavian military activities, are likely to have consisted wholly or predominantly of aes-issues of the Flavian period itself.

Secondly, it has often been held that the period of the reign of Marcus Aurelius represented a peak of hoarding, and that this was connected with a ‘Brigantian revolt’ late in the reign of Antoninus (Robertson 1988, 29). In fact, the fi gures from the North West indicate that the reign of Marcus Aurelius was part of a rather longer hoarding peak, which spanned the period from Hadrian’s reign to that of Marcus Aurelius (VI to VIII). The obvious factor which links these three periods is not so much a single revolt (if, indeed, such occurred), but a rather more protracted period of uncertainty which was connected with complex movements of soldiers and civilians arising from changes in frontier-policy, as well perhaps as the need to move troops between Britain and other parts of the Empire. A further factor which may have had some infl uence in this derived from a deeper and broader uncertainty regarding imperial political, social and economic stability (Reardon 1973); infl ation and coinage debasement may have led people to save more, and specifi cally to save coins which were regarded as of a greater intrinsic worth; ‘bad money drives good money out of circulation’. Similar uncertainties may explain the renewed peak in period X.

Thirdly, the peak in the hoarding of coins of period XIII has long been appreciated; again, the reasons are not far to seek. The political and military instability that characterised the period from c. AD 250 onwards led to economic near-collapse, as money was ‘printed’ to support the campaigns of various pretenders to supreme power, whilst price-infl ation ran so badly out of control that, at local level, it was necessary to produce copied coinage to supplement the inadequate supplies coming from offi cial mints. Such local coinage was often of very poor quality. We may assume that it was the attempts by later emperors to ‘outlaw’ this coinage that led to the abandonment of very large hoards, which often ran into thousands of coins. Some extremely large hoards, such as those found in recent years at Cunetio (Wiltshire), Normanby (Lincolnshire) and Frome (Somerset; Moorhead, Booth and Bland 2010), may have represented ‘offi cial’ funds of some kind. Even so, the contents of some fourth-century hoards make it clear that radiates and copies continued to circulate even into the later years of the fourth century – see, for example, the hoard from Ribblesdale Mill (III.A.i, 30), which contains radiates and fourth-century coins down to the Valentinianic period.

135

Yet, the peak of period XIII is itself not isolated, as it appears to continue into periods XIV and XV. Again, this may have more than a single explanation: It is clear that from the late third century – if not before – the north-west coast was coming under pressure from raiders from across the Irish Sea; there is evidence from fi nds of fourth-century coins around and to the north of Morecambe Bay – and especially in and around Barrow-in-Furness – that could suggest Roman military activity, perhaps to deal with this raiding. In the 1970s, Lancaster produced two small hoards of radiates and copies, which terminate with issues of the British usurper, Carausius (III.A.i, 6-7); most recently (III.B.ii, 27), a late radiate hoard has been recovered in the north-east corner of Morecambe Bay, which consists almost entirely of coins of Carausius and Allectus, terminating – almost uniquely for the North West – with issues of Allectus. It is worth noting that, nationally, only 44 hoards are recorded as terminating with coins of Carausius’ short-lived successor (Robertson 2000, 222-34).

Another reason for the continued hoarding into the early fourth century may have been the declining state of the economy. Diocletian introduced major reforms in an attempt to restore stability across the Empire: the principal amongst these were the reform of the coinage and the introduction of the Edict of Maximum Prices. The coinage reform appears to have been directed to trying to achieve something like a return to the Augustan system of integrated gold, silver and copper denominations. This was done presumably in the hope that it would effectively remove the persistently poor radiate copies. Little of this new coinage, however, appears as casual fi nds on Roman or Romano-British sites in the North West, although there are 20 hoards which either consist of, or the contents of which are dominated by, the new copper coins. However, as mentioned above, the appearance of the SACRA MONETA issues in the very early 300s provides an indication that all was not well with the new coinage-system, which is demonstrated by the shrinkage in size of the copper coin, and the reduction of its common reverse legend from GENIO POPVLI ROMANI to GENIO POP ROM. The inevitable result was that, as had happened in the second century to the denarius, the new coins ended up in hoards instead of circulating.

The decline continued in the fourth century with political and military problems compounded by those of an economic nature; local copying reappeared, but now of the small Constantinian and Valentinianic copper coins; hoarding in the North West peaked again in the late Constantinian and Valentinianic periods, as the centralised coin-supply began to fail and tax-collection declined. The administration of the British provinces was breaking down – not in a single dramatic event, but as local rulers and ruled found themselves conducting their lives on a much reduced, localised, canvas, as has been demonstrated convincingly through the analysis of recent excavation-results at the Hadrian’s Wall fort of Birdoswald (Wilmott 2001). This is certainly not to be seen as a rejection of Roman culture; rather, the opposite was true. People were taking their lives into their own hands and, as the large spreads of fourth-century coins in the centres of the Roman forts at Carlisle, Vindolanda and Newcastle have shown, this lifestyle continued to be based, for as long as it could be, on a market-economy of a Roman style. This ‘independence of spirit’ was perhaps a refl ection of the infl uence, in the later fourth century and beyond, of the Pelagian heresy which denied the act of Divine Grace, holding that ‘man was master of his own salvation’.

In all, the number and sizes of – and thus the wealth represented by – the hoards recorded in the north-west counties indicate that, in both town and country, there were people of substance to be found – whether these were retired members of the occupying power or local people and their descendants. To this extent, the Romanisation that spread outwards from the military centres can be said to have been suffi ciently successful to facilitate local people gradually taking on some responsibility for their own governance. This alone can be cited to refute the famous indictment put by the historian, Tacitus, into the mouth of Agricola’s Caledonian opponent, Calgacus, before the battle of Mons Graupius in AD 83 – ‘They create a desolation, and they call it peace’ (Life of Agricola 30,5). It is clear that, three-and-a-half centuries later, few in the North West would have had cause to agree with that.

136

Coins concealed with Other Objects

In the cases of twenty-three of the coin-groups listed in these volumes, other objects were also recovered along with the coins:

Cheshire (10)

Alvanley (III.C.iii, 1; 1886): Jewelled ringChester (III.C.i, 7; Deanery Field, 1922-3): Bronze fi nger ring.Chester (III.C.i, 20; Roodeye, 1886): Lead pig of AD 74Church Minshull (III.C.ii, 19; 2004): Two gilded silver trumpet broochesCoddington (III.C.ii, 9; 1724): ‘Camp kettle’ (Stukeley)Malpas (III.C.iii, 14; 1993): ‘Iron objects’Nantwich (III.C.ii, 20; Barbridge, 2007): Two brooches and a ring Wallasey (III.C.iii, 23; Embankment, 1970s): Bronze fi bulaWeston (III.C.ii, 17; 1982): Two dolphin broochesWybunbury (III.C.ii, 18; 1980/1996): Fibula and other objects

Lancashire (7)

Boothstown (III.A.ii, 3; 1947): ‘Some beads’Cheadle (III.A.iii, 28; c. 1894): Gold braceletChorley (III.A.ii, 8; c. 1825): Jewellery, including two silver fi bulaeLancaster (III.A.iii, 45; 1849): Spearhead (Watkin 1883, 185)Manchester (III.A.i. 13; 1789) ‘A coin of Trajan and other objects’Ormskirk (III.A.ii, 25; Lathom, 1949): Two rings and a lead discWalmersley (III.A.ii, 38; Throstle Hill, 1864): Silver bracelets and rings, a bronze bracelet and hinge, the

bowl of a bronze spoon, and an amber armlet

Cumbria (6)

Beckfoot (III.B.i, 2; c. 1894): Funerary material (Caruana 2004; Iles and Shotter 2009, 94-5)Bewcastle (III.B.i, 3; 1800): Funerary materialBrough-under-Stainmore (III.B.i, 19; c. 1825): Brooches and jewellers’ toolsCarlisle (III.B.iii, 35; Gallows Hill, 1829): Funerary material, including a lead coffi n and coinsDistington (III.B.iii, 25; c. 1868): Funerary material (stone coffi n, terracotta lamps, two armilla, several

fi bulae, two spearheads, a bronze torque, a ‘curious piece of bronze’ with inlaid enamel, two amphorae, cinerary urn, two or three lachrymatory vessels

Old Carlisle (III.B.i, 19; 1819): Two terracotta lamps

Hoard Containers

Although, in the cases of 191 of the coin-groups published in these volumes, no indication was given regarding a container or the circumstances of deposition, in a few cases, some such details have been provided; it should be noted, however, that total fi gures will not tally with those given above, as for some hoards more than one detail of concealment is given. It should also be noted that, in some cases, a container was not visible, although its original presence may reasonably be inferred.

137

Containers (95)

Single pottery vessels (types unspecifi ed) 28Samian vessels 3 (including one Déchelette 67 and one Ritterling 13)Black Burnished ware vessels 6Multiple pottery vessels (types unspecifi ed) 6Possible use of narrow-necked fl agons (where a hoard is said to have contained one or two early imperial large-fl anned aes coins, possibly used as ‘stoppers’) 11Lachrymatory vessel 1Ceramic dishes 1Pottery vessel ‘sealed’ with a piece of fabric 1Iron and other metal vessels 6Glass vessels 3Wooden boxes 5Iron (or other metal) boxes 3Metal wrist purses 1Leather purses or bags 11Fabric wrapping 9

Other features/circumstances of concealment (33)

Pits or holes in the ground (one lined with straw) 3Holes covered with a stone slab or other object 7Sub-fl oor voids 4Crevices in the ‘living rock’ 1Proximity to known Roman roads 18

Newly Reported Hoards: Some Notes

(The importance of the appearance in 2000 of the late Professor Anne Robertson’s monumental listing of all known Romano-British coin hoards cannot be overestimated; not only has it ensured that the widely scattered information on nearly 2000 certain and probable hoards has been brought together into one place, but as a work of reference and a source for comparative studies it is indispensable; happily, it ensures that Robertson’s unrivalled knowledge of the subject is retained for posterity; happily, too, it can be kept up-to-date through the occasional publication of the British Museum’s Coin Hoards from Roman Britain (CHRB). A concordance relating the items recorded in these volumes to those in Robertson’s Inventory is provided as an Appendix to the present chapter).

From the new information included in this Third Supplement, a few items can be picked out as of some note. First, a substantial new group of coins has come to light from the hoard of radiates and copies originally discovered in 1957 at Agden (III.C.ii, 1). Already one of the largest hoards to have been recovered in north-west England, it has now grown to 2,523 coins, of which 569 are issues of ‘legitimist’ emperors and 1,896 of emperors of the Imperium Galliarum; 31 coins are illegible, and a further 27 cannot now be traced. It is to be hoped that anyone who has information of further coins from this hoard will make contact through the Finds Liaison Offi cer for Cheshire in the Portable Antiquities Scheme.

138

A point to note in this hoard is the proportional distribution between coins of ‘legitimist’ emperors and those of the Imperium Galliarum; the signifi cance of this can be demonstrated in Table 3.6 (below). Whilst many of the reported hoards of the period from the North West are too small and others too incompletely recorded for fair comparison, a few (of varying sizes) may be listed:

Table 3.6: Proportional Distribution of Issuers in Hoards of Radiates Legible Coins ‘Legitimist’ ImperiumHoard Total Emperors Galliarum

Agden (III.C.ii, 1) 2,465 569 (23.08%) 1,896 (76.92%)Boothstown (III.A.ii, 3) 540 143 (26.48%) 397 (73.52%)Hackensall Hall (III.A.ii, 19) 351 84 (23.93%) 267 (76.07%)Maryport-area (III.B.i, 29) 302 166 (59.47%) 136 (45.03%) Manchester (Birchfi eld) (III.A.i, 15) 149 25 (16.78%) 124 (83.22%) Worden (III.A.ii, 40) 112 27 (24.11%) 85 (75.89%)Docker Moor (III.B.ii, 3) 107 21 (19.63%) 86 (80.37%)Great Strickland (III.B.ii, 4) 85 32 (37.65%) 53 (62.35%)

With the exception of the hoards from the Maryport-area and Great Strickland (Cumbria), the remainder show a striking strength and consistency in the levels of coins of emperors of the Imperium Galliarum. It is known that the contents of hoards do on occasion display an element of choice on the part of the saver as to which types of coin to include; obvious examples of choice can be recognised in those hoards in which every issuer over the hoard-period is represented, or where there may be an apparent attempt to retain in the hoard coins of greater intrinsic merit, such as Republican denarii (Robertson 1988, 19-21). It should, therefore, come as no surprise if, in a fraught period of civil strife, savers (as at Beckfoot and Great Strickland) appear to indicate their political sympathies through the coins that they save – particularly feasible at a time when hoarding-periods were much shorter. On the other hand, the contents of the hoard from the Maryport-area, which appears to have closed early in the 270s, may be more illustrative of circulation patterns of radiates during the lifetime of the Gallic rebellion (plates 3.14, 3.15 and 3.16).

Further, there is some evidence from Roman Britain to suggest that, as is usual in periods of civil strife, feelings were often strong, even verging on violence. Three pieces of evidence from the north would appear to support such a contention in the case of the events of the mid-third century AD. First, an inscription from Lancaster (RIB 605) dedicates to an emperor whose name had been subsequently erased the re-opened bath-house and basilica, which had ‘collapsed through old age’ and required rebuilding ‘from ground-level’. Whilst this might refer to normal refurbishment, it is equally possible that it is a euphemistic indication of major repairs to damage caused in a disturbance (Welsby 1980). Many years ago, the late Professor Eric Birley (1936, 5) suggested that this inscription might date to a year within the period AD 262–6, in which case the emperor whose name was subsequently erased will have been Postumus, the instigator of the Gallic rebellion. A second erasure on the inscription removed an adjectival form of that emperor’s name, which the garrison-unit, the Ala Gallorum Sebosiana, had evidently adopted to indicate its loyalty to the rebellion’s authorities. If nothing else, this inscription and its erasures provide an indication not only of political sympathies during a rebellion, but also of a deeply-held resentment on the part of some in the wake of that rebellion.

Secondly, a tombstone found at Ambleside in 1962 (RIB 3218; Thorley 2002; Shotter 2003) records the murder of Flavius Romanus by an enemy inside his fort. Whilst this might refer to a ‘conventional’

139

or a personal enemy, the Latin word, hostis (‘enemy’), had a traditional usage for a ‘political enemy’. Although the tombstone is not explicitly dated, its style suggests that a date in the mid-third century would not be inappropriate, leaving the possibility that Romanus may have been another victim of civil strife. It might have been the case that Romanus was trying to defend the fort’s treasury against political opponents seeking funds. Thirdly, a newly-discovered inscription from Vindolanda (RIB 3332; Birley 2008) records a dedication to the goddess, Gallia, by ‘the citizens of Gaul and the British who were of one mind with them’. Dedications to Gallia are uncommon in Britain; further, if the inscription does date from the mid-third century – as its style would suggest – the ‘citizens of Gaul’ might be Gallic recruits into the contemporary garrison-unit (Cohors IIII Gallorum), and the ‘supportive’ British local recruits into the same unit – all presumably pledging their support for the Imperium Galliarum.

Thus, it may be that the choice of coins in hoards, such as that from Agden, can provide an indication of their owners’ loyalty to the Gallic rebellion, which of course fi nally collapsed in AD 273–4. As with the

3.14 Radiate copy (obverse) of ‘legitimist’ Emperor, Gallienus (AD 259–68).Photograph: Stuart Noon

3.15 Radiates (obverses) of ‘legitimist’ Emperors, Claudius II (AD 268–70), Quintillus (AD 270) and Aurelian (AD 270–5)

3.16 Radiates (obverses) of ‘Gallic usurper’ Emperors, Postumus (AD 260–9), Laelianus (AD 268), Marius (AD 268), Victorinus (AD 269–71) and Tetricus I (AD 271–3)

140

quarrel between Caesar and Pompeius in the mid-fi rst century BC, the evidence from Roman Britain in the mid-third century AD provides a reminder – if one were needed – of the disastrously divisive bitterness of feeling that accompanies civil strife.

It is perhaps worth noting in this context the hoard from Ribblesdale Mill (III.A.i, 30 above), which contained coins mostly of the third and fourth centuries; all of the radiates and copies, with a single exception, were issues of emperors of the Imperium Galliarum; the exception was a radiate of Claudius II, the inclusion of which may have been a ‘product’ of the claim by Constantius I and his family that Claudius II was their ancestor.

A second sample of coins new to this volume are those from Beckfoot (II.B, 2 and III.B.i, 26 and 29); most of these have been recovered by local metal-detectorists. The issue of interest in the case of these fi nds is the manner in which they may relate to what is clearly a complex site, consisting of a Roman fort (visible as crop marks in dry weather), an extramural settlement, a cemetery-area (Caruana 2004) and the likely site of Milefortlet 15 of the Hadrianic coastal system (Bellhouse 1989a, 39). Without the benefi t of samples deriving from controlled excavations, it is hardly possible to relate the bulk of the new fi nds to particular sites in the area.

It does appear, however, that the two hoards of radiate copies were found to the north and the east of the known fort-site; this would put distance between them and the known cemetery-area. The casual fi nds, on the other hand, were mostly retrieved from the beach, and thus closer to a presumed cemetery-area. The chief strength of these coins lies in the second and third centuries, which appears to coincide with the main period of usage of the known cemetery. If these coins do refl ect cemetery ritual, then the rituals associated with this cemetery appear to be rather different from those so far encountered in other Roman and Romano-British cemeteries in north-west England, where coins have proved to be very few and far between (Iles and Shotter 2009, 92-4).

The newly-reported coins from Low Borrow Bridge (II.B, 18 and III.B.i, 24) represent a rather remarkable case of survival: as recounted above (on p. 45f), these coins, which include some casual losses, as well as a small hoard, appear to have been found when the railway from Lancaster to Carlisle was driven through the Tebay Gorge in the 1840s. Mr James Day, the engineer in charge of this length of construction, evidently retrieved the coins from the workforce as they were found, and kept them within his family; they were eventually (in 2001) donated to Penrith Museum by Day’s great-granddaughter.

Fourth, the hoard of late third-century radiates from the north east of Morecambe Bay (III.B.ii, 27) is remarkable chiefl y because it is only the second hoard recorded in north-west England to have terminated with coins of the British rebel Emperor, Allectus (AD 293–6). Of the 2,000 hoards recorded in her Inventory, Robertson cites fewer than 50 which terminate with this ruler. Although the murderer of and successor to Carausius has generally not elicited enthusiastic notices from historians, most recently John Casey has made the case for a more positive evaluation (Casey 1994, 127ff; Shotter forthcoming). Without doubt, in the later third and fourth centuries, renewed attention was given to the defence of the north-west coast (Mason 2003, 149ff). Aside from the building of forts in the new ‘Saxon-Shore’ type of design on the coasts of Wales (Cardiff, Caernarfon and Caer Gybi), there was a new fort of similar style at Lancaster, and coin-fi nds in and around the Furness peninsula (see below in chapter IV) suggest that there might have been another in the vicinity of Barrow-in-Furness. If so, it would not be surprising if there was a site (or sites) awaiting discovery at the north end of Morecambe Bay. The discovery of an ‘Allectus-hoard’ certainly strengthens the case for this. This area, which has in recent times produced two Roman hoards (III.B.ii, 27 and 28), as well as a number of post-Roman date, was clearly at the centre of signifi cant activity of some kind. It should be noted that a second hoard of 30 radiates and copies was reported in 2010 from the same area (III.A.ii, 60).

141

Fifthly, it has long been known that a solidus of Theodosius was found in c. 1800 at Muncaster Castle (III.B.iii, 26); again, such a fi nd may point to the importance of the north-west coast in the later years of the fourth century. This coin has always been thought of as a possible ‘single-coin hoard’; however, there is now some circumstantial evidence to suggest that it may have been one of a larger number of late fourth-century gold coins to have been recovered at Muncaster, presumably at some point in the eighteenth century, and then, for whatever reason, sold at auction, probably in Edinburgh. The existence of such a hoard would suggest the presence of a person of considerable consequence at Muncaster / Ravenglass in the late fourth century – perhaps pointing to a late development similar to that now thought likely to have taken place at the fort at Birdoswald (Wilmott 2001, 111ff). The evident long-term survival of the fort bath-house may point to this building having functioned as the hall and headquarters of a local warlord – a ‘proto-castle’ and the antecedent of Muncaster. So far, however, attempts to confi rm the original existence of more gold coins at Muncaster have proved fruitless.

A further matter of interest in this area is the report of a collection of coins which include some early imperial aes-issues (II.B, 27; Gerrard and Mills 2002); the status of these coins is far from clear, as their time-span is too long for a genuine hoard. Several questions remain: fi rst, from where in the area did they come? The present accepted answer to this is that they were recovered ‘in the vicinity of Muncaster Castle’. Secondly, do they include hoard-material, or might they have a votive origin? Or, again, might they represent a relatively modern collection of coins recovered from various locations in the vicinity? The presence of the early imperial coins – if they are genuine site-fi nds from the area – would certainly point to Roman military activity on the north-west coast prior to the initiation of Vespasian’s ‘British Project’ in the early 70s and following the effective breakdown of the relationship between Cartimandua and Venutius (see above on pp. 71ff).

Sixth, the hoard from Old Carlisle (III.B.i, 23) is the fi rst to contain both denarii and an aureus to have been reported from the North West for many years; unfortunately, its true contents are clouded with uncertainties. The coins were evidently recovered over a period of time and from an area of the fort’s extramural settlement – how extensive an area is unclear; further, because the Coroner’s decision regarding the aureus was taken in isolation from the other coins that had been declared, it remains uncertain how many aurei and denarii may originally have made up the hoard. As it stands, it appears that the coins in the hoard ranged in date from the Flavian to the Severan period, and provide another example of the longevity in circulation of the legionary denarii of Marcus Antonius. Fortunately, for the sake of clarity in dating the hoard, although the denarius of Caracalla was identifi ed only tentatively, that of Julia Domna is beyond doubt.

Seventh, the present listing also includes the earliest recorded discovery (in 1534) of a Roman coin hoard in the North West – that from Ulverston (III.B.ii, 23); this, too, like that from Old Carlisle, was a mixed hoard of aurei and denarii, and evidently of considerable size. It appears that the business of tracking down the full contents of a hoard can be as diffi cult now as it was in the sixteenth century, though perhaps now occasioning less peril for the fi nders! The chief historical interest of this hoard lies in the facts that it provides yet further evidence of Roman activity in southern Cumbria (Shotter 2007) and that it would seem likely that this was the property of someone of wealth and consequence. It has unfortunately not proved possible to carry the story of this fi nd to its conclusion; however, the fact that Henry VIII and his agents were evidently on the watch for such opportunities to enrich the royal coffers is of no little interest although, in view of the Monarch’s other activities, it does not occasion much surprise.

Eighth, shortly before the closing date for reports for the present volume, a large hoard of Constantinian nummi was reported from a location in the Eden Valley (III.B.ii, 28), thus adding to an already-considerable number of hoards that have been recorded in this area:

142

Brougham (Castle Farm; radiates; III.B.i, 8)Brougham (Ninekirks; radiates; III.B.i, 7)Cliburn (Shaw Hall Farm; tetrarchic nummi; III.B.ii, 2)Fremington (radiates or fourth-century nummi; III.B.ii, 22)Great Strickland (radiates; III.B.ii, 4)Hackthorpe (Constantinian and Magnentian nummi; III.B.ii, 17)Newbiggin Hall (denarii of the fi rst/second centuries; III.B.i, 17)Newbiggin Hall (tetrarchic nummi; III.B.ii, 10)Eden Valley (Constantinian nummi; III.B.ii, 28)Old Penrith (denarii of the second/third centuries; III.B.i, 25)Old Penrith (denarii of the second/third centuries; III.B.iii, 10)Scratchmore Scar (radiates; III.B.ii, 11)

The bulk of the new hoard is corroded into a ‘ball’, possibly retaining the shape and size of the leather purse which may have contained it. Because of this, it has been possible to make only a superfi cial assessment of the contents of this hoard; it probably consisted of approximately 600 coins within a date-range of c. AD 320–340

Finally, we have a continuing process of discovery in the case of the hoard of denarii which has been gradually coming to light near the village of Warburton (III.A.ii, 54). Whilst there is (as yet) no defi nite evidence of a Roman site in the area, the probability of one seems high in view of the nature of the coins so far recovered – nine Republican denarii and one of Augustus; these contents, as in the case of the early hoard from Weaverham (III.C.ii, 21), would seem to point strongly to early Roman military activity – probably of a legionary character – in the area.

Thus, as we have seen, the newly reported hoards from the North West provide some new evidence relating to the chronology of the Roman conquest, as well as posing some new questions regarding the character and spread of Romanisation in the area. However, it may be that an equally engaging interest is generated by their contribution to the history of hoard retrieval and survival in the area.

143

III: APPENDIX: CONCORDANCE OF HOARDS LISTED IN CHAPTER III TO THOSE LISTED IN A.S. ROBERTSON, AN INVENTORY OF ROMANO-BRITISH COIN HOARDS, LONDON 2000

144

III.A: LANCASHIRE, MERSEYSIDE AND GREATER MANCHESTER

III.A.i Hoards from Known Roman Sites

1. R 433 21. R 7702. R 147 22. R 4423. R 99 23. R 4224. Probable duplicate of 2 24.5. 25.6. R 852 26.7. R 853 27.8. R 1019 28.9. 29.10. R 178 30.11. R 10612. R 95713.14. R 27115. R 63916. 17. R 139618. R 23119. R 175620.

III.A.ii Hoards from Locations other than Known Roman Sites

1. 21. R 1759 41. R 1892. 22. R 1634 42.3. R 698 23. R 1761 43.4. R 1505 24. 44.5. R 109 25. R 135 45.6. 26. R 799 46.7. R 1018 27. 47.8. R 146 28. R 38 48.9. R 201 29. R 983 49.10. 30. R 68 50.11. 31. R 1380 51.12. R 441 32. 52.13. 33. R 737/737A 53.14. R 1754 34. R 209 54.15. R 382 35. R 454 55. R 46716. R 1757 (= 8/146?) 36. R 504 56. R 175517. R 769 37. R 135A 57. R 163518. R 1000 38. R 883 58. R 127519. R 640 39. R 1667 59. R 17920. R 272 40. R 748 60.

145

III.A.iii Collections of Coins of Uncertain Status

1. 21. 41.2 22. 42.3. 23. 43.4. 24. 44.5. 25. 45. R 17586. 26. 46. R 11417. 27. 47. R 17608. 28. 48. R 1899. R 252 29. 49.10. 30.11. 31.12. 32.13. 33.14. 34.15. 35.16. R 1259 36.17. 37.18. R 89 38.19. 39.20. 40.

146

III.B: CUMBRIA

III.B.i Hoards from Known Roman Sites

1. R 445 21.2. 22.3. R 163 23.4. R 131 24.5. R 199 25.6. R 740 26.7. R 815 27. R 17218. R 662 28. R 132A9. R 78 29. 10. R 1720 11. R 18712. R 24813. R 95314. R 32215. R 188/20016. R 172217. R 33318. R 182519. 20.

III.B.ii Hoards from Locations other than Known Roman Sites

1. R 350 21.2. R 992 22.3. R 572 23.4. 24. R 10145. 25. R 1077A6. R 998 26. R 18267. R 1090 27.8. R 141 28.9. R 172410.11. R 61212. R 10313.14. R 46815.16.17.18.19.20.

147

III.B.iii Collections of Uncertain Status 1. R 132 21.2. 22.3. 23.4. R 1152 24.5. R 410 25.6. 26.7. R 174A 27.8. 28.9. R 1725 29.10. 30.11. R 1319 31.12. 32.13. R 59 33.14. 34.15. R 559A 35. R 18816. 36.17. 37.18.19.20.

148

III.C: CHESHIRE AND ADJACENT AREAS

III.C.i Hoards from Known Roman Sites

1. R 1292. R 6063. R 2194. R 8745.6. R 13917. R 3818. R 5589. R 23710. R 12411.12. R 1279(iii)/171313.14. R 1279(ii)/128415.16.17.18. R 6419. R 103220. R 58

III.C.ii Hoards from Locations other than Known Roman Sites

1. R 747 21.2. 22. R 1743.4.5.6. R 6057. R 1279(i)8. R 4969.10.11.12. R 129513.14. R 113215. R 20716.17. R 13018.19.20.

149

III.C.iii Collections of Coins of Uncertain Status

1. 21.2. 22.3. 23.4. 24. R 737A5. R 13906. R 13797.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17. R 152018.19.20.