Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
B CUMBRIA
The same format of reporting will be used as in the previous volumes in 1990, 1995 and 2000:
These finds are reported from time to time in the Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and
Cheshire (HSLC) and of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society
(CW 3):
CW 3 2 (2002), 305-6
CW 3 5 (2005), 235-9
CW 3 6 (2006), 229-33
Notes: There are two substantial collections of coins which are not related to known Roman sites and
are not obvious hoards or votive deposits from Cumbria (Beetham Hall Farm) and from Cheshire
(Goostrey, Vale Royal and Congleton parishes). These will be included as Appendices at the ends of
Sections B and C respectively.
Many of the coins cited in this section have been reported through the Portable Antiquities Scheme
(PAS) and have been entered on the relevant county databases; these will be indicated as appropriate.
I am glad to acknowledge my gratitude to the Finds Liaison Officers for the north-west counties for their
unstinting help in providing the information to keep the entries in this section as up-to-date as possible.
151
IV.A CASUAL FINDS OF ROMAN COINS FROM LANCASHIRE
IV.A, 1
152
IV.A, 1 Further Information on Coins Previously Recorded
Grotton (Thornlee Hall; 1995, 66): The coin is an as of Domitian; the consular date is obscured, but
the reverse legend is VIRTVTI AVGVSTI S C, issued from AD 85. The coin is now in Saddleworth
Museum.
Oldham (Alexandra Park; 1995, 66): One of the coins is recorded as having the reverse type, Fortune
with cornucopiae.
Thornton Cleveleys (1990, 221): Further details have emerged regarding the discovery here of a coin
of Nero. The coin was found in 1946 in a private garden in Fleetwood Road North, and reported in the
Blackpool Gazette and Herald for 20 July, 1946. This report carries a photograph, allowing the coin to
be identified as a little-worn as (RIC 12 (Nero), 544 of AD 668).
153
IV.A, 2
154
4.1 Denarius (obverse
and reverse) of Faustina I
from Nether Kellet (RIC 3
(Antoninus), 371 of AD 141+).
Photograph: Dot Boughton
155
Silverdale 2009 Sestertius of Trajan; as of PAS
Antoninus Pius
(Note: *This entry for Formby may be a duplicate of a previous one: 2000, 197)
156
IV.A, 2 Further Information on Coins Previously Recorded
Crompton (Crow Knowl: 1995, 68): Although this coin cannot currently be located, it was at one time
in the collection of the Tolson Museum, Huddersfield.
Droylesden (1990, 222): The aes-coins of Trajan, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius may have
constituted the whole or part of a hoard (Higson 1859, 30; above III.A.iii, 40).
157
IV.A. 3
158
Clitheroe 1989 Radiate copy of Tetricus II PAS
(RIC 5 (Tetricus II), 272)
159
Silverdale 2007 Denarius of Severus/Caracalla PAS
(Note: *The dupondius of Trajan Decius was found in a collection of objects at a private house in
Preston; its local provenance cannot be regarded as secure; the coin has been pierced for use as a
pendant, either in ancient or more recent times).
160
IV.A, 3 Further Information on Coins Previously Recorded
Colne Valley (Lominot: 1995, 70): The denarius of Caracalla can be identified as Hill 1977, no. 434 of
AD 200; the coin, which is now in the Tolson Museum at Huddersfield, was found close to the line of the
Roman road from Castleshaw to Slack.
Didsbury (see above): Notice of the finely-preserved Alexandrian tetradrachm of Claudius II (listed
above) was found by Mr Ben Edwards (pers. comm.) in Manchester Central Library, in the form of a
letter enclosed in a copy of F.A. Bruton (Ed), The Roman Fort at Manchester, Manchester 1909. The
letter was written to Bruton on 19 February, 1923 over the signature, JWS or possibly JnS; if the
latter, it may have been the Mr John Swarbrick, who illustrated for Bruton (Bruton 1909, p. viii) and
who is perhaps to be identified with the man who later (1931) became editor of the National Ancient
Monuments Review. The coin was evidently found on an allotment in Didsbury, in gravel (possibly
Roman road material?) which was three feet below the ground-surface.
Derker (1995, 70): The tetradrachm of Probus was found at Albert Mount; the reverse type is described
as Eirene standing right.
Preesall (See above on p. 96): It seems likely that the five radiates listed above derive from the ill-
documented hoard from Preesall Hill (1990, 160f; 1995, 52; 2000, 137).
Royton (1995, 70): the silvered radiate of Postumus (RIC 5 (Postumus), 75) was found in Springfield
Lane.
Uppermill (Ballgrove: 1995, 70): Although the tetradrachm of Probus is listed in the records of Oldham
Museum, it is understood that it is, in fact, in private possession in Saddleworth. The coin is listed by
Milne as of Probus fifth regnal year (1971, no. 4600ff).
161
IV.A, 4
162
Formby 2007 Nummus of Constantine I (RIC 7 PAS
(London), 10 of AD 3134)
163
IV.A, 4 Further Information on Coins Previously Recorded
Pitses (1995, 72): The coin of Constantine I, of which no details appear to have survived, was found in
an old lane in Pitses.
164
IV.A, 5
Whalley (1990, 231ff): There seems no reason to doubt the report of coins found in Whalley Churchyard,
although details of them are sparse. In his brief Guide to the Church (1958), Rev. H.C. Snape, in
discussing Roman discoveries associated with the site, writes Roman coins, however, have been dug
up in the churchyard, and at one time there was a collection of these in a case made from the wood of
an old pulpit. The coins were of Vespasian, Constantine and others, but unfortunately this collection has
been lost to the church (see above on pp. 152 and 163).
165
IV.B CASUAL FINDS OF ROMAN COINS FROM CUMBRIA
IV.B, 1
166
Siddick 1926 Aureus of Nero (RIC 12 (Nero), 52) R. Bland
167
IV.B, 1 Further Information on Coins Previously Recorded
Urswick (1990, 234): A detailed account of the discovery in 1798 of the denarius of Otho appears in
Thomas Wests The Antiquities of Furness (revised by William Close: Ulverston 1805). Descriptions are
given on pp. 10 and 395, and the coin is illustrated on Plate 5 (no. 1); it was found by John Holme in his
orchard in Little Urswick and, despite some uncertainties in reading the legends, was evidently the issue
listed as RIC 12 (Otho), 8ff.
Kirkhead Cave (1990, 234): The coin of Domitian was evidently found shortly before 1865, and is
recorded by H. Ecroyd Smith in HSLC 5 (1865), 226.
**Temple Sowerby: this moderately worn as of Vespasian (AD 71), listed above, was recovered during
a controlled excavation of a section of the Roman road which represented the western approach to the
Stainmore Pass; the coin was not, however, securely stratified (Zant 2009b).
168
IV.B, 2
169
Great Urswick 2005 Damaged denarius of Antoninus PAS
Pius (RIC 3 (Antoninus), 260 of
AD 1567)
170
Little Urswick 2006 Denarius of Antoninus Pius (RIC 3 PAS
(Antoninus), 275 of AD 157-8; as of Trajan (?)
171
IV.B, 2 Further Information on Coins Previously Recorded
Broughton-in-Cartmel (1990, 235): The papers of James Stockdale, held in the Record Office at
Barrow-in-Furness, show that one of the coins of Hadrian found in c. 1800 was a sestertius of AD
11922 (RIC 2 (Hadrian), 562).
Crosby Ravensworth (1990, 235; CW 2 64 (1964), 84): The denarius of Lucius Verus was found at
Trainlands; although there is still a farm of that name, enquiries have failed to reveal anything further
relating to the find. The only information, therefore that the coin was found beneath a heap of stones
derives from a letter, dated 21 May, 1851, of Thomas Reveley of Kendal (Archaeologia 34 (1852), 446;
Birley E.B. 1964, 81ff). The find was evidently made a few years previous to 1851.
Kirkby Lonsdale (see above on p. 170): These five coins of Trajan were found in 2009 in separate
findspots in the vicinity of Kirkby Lonsdale and Whittington; presumably they point to agricultural activity
in the hinterland of the fort at Burrow-in-Lonsdale.
172
IV.B, 3
173
Barrow-in-Furness 2008 Tetradrachm of Diocletian (Milne PAS
(Walney Island) 1971, no. 4851 of AD 287; plate 4.9)
4.10 Denarius of
Septimius Severus
(obverse and reverse)
from Irthington (RIC 4
(Septimius Severus),
91 of AD 1967).
Photograph: Dot
Boughton
174
Kendal 2009 Radiate copy of Gallienus (RIC 5 PAS
(Gallienus), 480?)
175
IV.B, 3 Further Information on Coins Previously Recorded
Barrow-in-Furness (Hartington Street; 1995, 79 and 2000, 217): The mystery that has surrounded
the circumstances of the discovery of this denarius of Septimius Severus has now been clarified; I am
grateful to Dan Elsworth (of Greenlane Archaeology) for informing me, following a visit he made to an
exhibition held in 2009 at the Dock Museum at Barrow, that he has learnt from the finder that the coin
was, in fact, found in Back Hartington Street during excavation work conducted by North-West Water;
there seems to be no doubt that it was retrieved from one of their trenches. This coin can, therefore, take
its place as a genuine Barrow find. It is worth noting that other archaeological finds have been made in
this area, and that there is evidence of late prehistoric settlement in the nearby park.
Penrith (2000, 218): See also Brit. Num. Journal 65 (1995), no. 57; for the coin, cf. RIC 7 (London),
158.
176
IV.B, 4
4.11 Nummus of
Constantius II (obverse and
reverse) from Walney Island;
FEL TEMP REPARATIO
(Galley type; LRBC II. 40).
Photograph: Dot Boughton
177
Holme St Cuthbert 2006 Nummus of the House of Valentinian PAS
178
IV.B, 4 Further Information on Coins Previously Recorded
Whitehaven (1990, 239): Two Constantinian coins were recorded as having been found in Whitehaven;
it is clear from the notebook of Thomas Dalzell, an antiquarian collector from Lancaster (who later
moved to Whitehaven), which is held in Lancaster City Museum, that the coins (found in the 1860s) were
given to Dalzell by another local collector, Corbyn Barrow. Dalzell later donated the coins to the Storey
Institute, a precursor of Lancaster Museum. The coins were both examples of the SOLI INVICTO
COMITI type of the second decade of the fourth century. Dalzells notes do not provide any indication of
the mint-marks of the coins; although the coins in question probably do form part of Lancaster Museums
coin collection, the absence of recorded mint-marks precludes a positive identification of them within
the collection.
Broughton-in-Cartmel (1990, 239): There is evidently some confusion about the findspot of the 1785
coin find; Watkin (1883, 243), supposedly citing Baines (History of Lancashire (1836 edition), vol. 4.
718), says that the coins (of Magnus Maximus and Hadrian) were found in Broughton-in-Furness, whilst
other information (Mark Brennand, pers. comm.) places the find at Broughton East, near Cartmel. No
details of the coin of Magnus Maximus have survived. Baines, in fact, is perfectly clear that the coin
of Magnus Maximus was found at Broughton-in-Cartmel. It also seems likely that the coin of Hadrian
referred to by Watkin was, in fact, the copper coin of Adrian that was found with the hoard from Upper
Holker (Baines 1836, 4. 717).
179
IV.B, 5
180
IV.B Appendix
Beetham Hall Farm: In the First Supplement (1995, 77ff), a number of coins were reported as having
been recovered from a variety of findspots in the vicinity of the site of this medieval hall. The findspots
are too disparate and the date-range of the coins (first to late fourth century) too wide for them to have
come from a hoard; they thus pose the question of whether there was a Roman or Romano-British site
in the area. There are now seven coins in all, of which some of the original identifications have been
modified:
Vespasian 1 (sestertius)
Hadrian 1 (sestertius)
Tetricus I 1 (as RIC 5 (Tetricus I), 94)
Unassignable radiate copy 1
Constantine I 2 (RIC 7 (London), 90; as LRBC I. 51)
Valens 1 (as LRBC II. 97)
181
IV.C CASUAL FINDS OF ROMAN COINS IN CHESHIRE
IV.C, 1
4.12 Anonymous
quadrans (obverse and
reverse) from Holmes
Chapel (RIC 21 (Anon.
Quads), 32).
Photograph: Vanessa
Oakden
182
Huntington 2008 Denarius of Galba PAS
183
IV.C, 2
184
Kelsall 2008 Sestertius of Trajan (AD 103-11) L-P
Archaeology
185
IV.C,2 Further Information on Coins Previously Recorded
Gresford (see above): The dupondius/as of Marcus Aurelius (listed above) does not appear to be
recorded in RIC 3 or BMC 4; although the coin is poorly preserved and its legends cannot be recovered,
it seems to be the PROFECTIO AVG type, which is recorded for Marcus Aurelius as a sestertius (RIC
3 (Marcus), 977), showing the Emperor riding from left to right, with a soldier in front and three soldiers
with standards behind.
186
IV.C, 3
187
Tattenhall 2009 Radiate of Gallienus and an PAS
unassignable radiate copy
188
IV.C, 4
189
4.13 Nummus of Constantine I from Marbury;
reverse type, SOLI INVICTO COMITI (RIC 6
(Lyon), 307 of AD 30910).
Photograph: Vanessa Oakden
190
IV.C, 4 Further Information on Coins Previously Recorded
Christleton (2000, 235): The coin of Constantine I (BEATA TRANQVILLITAS) appears to have been
minted at Lyon (RIC 7 (Lyon), 130 of AD 321; Cummings 2000, 13).
Church Minshull (2000, 235): The nummus of Constantius II was a GLORIA EXERCITVS (1 std)
type.
191
IV.C, 5
192
IV.C Appendix
The following 122 (118 legible) Roman coins came from fields within three parishes in Cheshire
Goostrey, Vale Royal and Congleton; they were collected by the same finder, using a metal-detector,
over a period of approximately fifteen years. There was no suggestion from the circumstances of
discovery that they (or any groups of them) should be regarded as hoard-material. The coins:
Constantinian
SOLI INVICTO COMITI 2
VICTORIAE LAETAE 1
BEATA TRANQVILLITAS 4 (inc. RIC 7 (London), 271, 284)
CAESARVM NOSTRORVM 1 (RIC 7 (Trier), 441)
GLORIA EXERCITVS (2s) 4 (inc. LRBC I. 181, 352)
She-wolf and twins 8 (inc. LRBC I. 51(2), 58, 65, 184(2))
Victory on prow 3 (inc. LRBC I. 52, 356)
Quadriga 1 (LRBC I. 114)
GLORIA EXERCITVS (1s) 14 (inc. LRBC I. 87, 88, 118, 124ff, 133)
PIETAS ROMANA 2 (inc. LRBC I. 113)
Facing Victories 2 (inc. LRBC I. 260)
FEL TEMP REPARATIO
(Falling Horseman) 11 (inc. LRBC II. 206)
Magnentius 2 (as LRBC II. 58(2))
Valentinianic
GLORIA
ROMANORVM 4 (inc. LRBC II. 321, 1411-3)
SECVRITAS
REIPVBLICAE 7 (inc. LRBC II. 1416/7)
VOT XV MVLT XX 1 (LRBC II. 1072)
193
Theodosian
Table 4.1: Chronological Distribution of the Coins listed in the above Appendix
I 1 VIII 2 XV 8
II 1 IX XVI 1
III 1 X 1 XVII 34
IV XI XVIII 13
V 2 XII XIX 12
VI 1 XIII 29 XX
VII 4 XIV 4 XXI 4
Although the numbers of coins of the first and early second centuries are very low, from the mid-second
century the profile in general resembles that for Roman sites in the North West: the later coins are
dominated by those of periods XIII and XVII; some strength is maintained during the later Constantinian
and Valentinianic periods, and there is a noticeable showing of Theodosian issues, which is not surprising
as one comes closer to the north-west midlands.
194
DISCUSSION OF THE COINS LISTED IN CHAPTER IV
The advent of the Portable Antiquities Scheme has greatly enhanced the flow of information regarding
individual finds of Roman coins, especially from locations away from known Roman or Romano-British
sites. The volume of material currently available (and listed in this and in the previous volumes) offers
some likelihood that locations at which there may be a site that is currently unrecognised may be
postulated. Attention will first be paid to such possible locations.
Table 4.2: Totals of Casual Finds of Roman Coins in North-West England, taken from all four
volumes of Roman Coins from North-West England (1990; 1995; 2000; 2011)
(Note: *The total for Cheshire includes the coins reported from Landican II.C, 23)
(Note: There may be some minor inaccuracies in the figures given for periods XV, XVI, XVII and XVIII;
this is due to the occasional paucity of recorded detail in the case of coins of these periods, prior to the
advent of the Portable Antiquities Scheme in 1999)
The Totals
For each of the three county areas, the overall totals are broadly similar, with Cheshire producing
slightly more recorded coins than the other two counties. This is probably due to the fact that the large
legionary concentration at Chester, with its requirements for supplies and consumer durables, was
closer to hand and thus had the effect of stimulating the local economy particularly sharply. Further,
195
veteran settlement from a legionary base will have led to a denser (and probably more prosperous)
population in the hinterland. The fluctuations between periods, however, also exhibit patterns that are
very similar to each other, and similar, too, to those that we find at the individual sites within the region.
Pre-Flavian coinage in Cheshire runs at a rate that is a little higher than that in the other two county
areas, presumably because coherent Roman military activity in Cheshire started earlier, and perhaps
over a wider area, than it did further north. No doubt, it also reflects the importance to the Roman army of
such local commodities as salt, both for the preservation of foodstuffs and for the preparation of leather,
which will have been required for the the manufacture and repair of tents, as well as for footwear and
other equipment.
However, the relationship between coin-loss in the Flavian and Trajanic periods (IV and V) is stronger
in the latter, which may indicate that, despite a noted Flavian superiority of coin-loss at a number of
early sites (see above on pp. 73ff), the Trajanic surge reflects the establishment of new military sites
in a period of consolidation, and the consequently enhanced activity in the hinterlands of those Roman
sites as the military presence succeeded in creating a more orderly environment: as the consolidation
of conquest from the late Flavian period onwards inevitably involved more troops on the ground, there
was, as a consequence, an increasing rle for local people within the context of the developing military
economy.
The strength of Trajanic and Hadrianic coin-loss in Cumbria (V and VI) is particularly notable and,
alongside the effects of consolidation, presumably reflects the increased activity connected with the
development of the frontier, a process that continued during the Antonine period (VII and VIII). The
profile through the remainder of the second century is again similar to that recorded at Roman sites,
declining sharply in period IX. An unusual feature is the dip in coin-loss recorded in Cumbria in the reign
of Antoninus Pius. This will have been due in part to the decision to re-occupy southern Scotland in the
140s and 150s: the late Professor Brian Hartley (1972) demonstrated convincingly from the evidence
of Samian ware that Hadrians Wall (and presumably its hinterland) lost troops during this episode,
although we might have expected that the subsequent withdrawal from Scotland in the later 150s and
160s would have led to a revived loss of coins of Antoninus in the reign of his successor, Marcus
Aurelius (VIII). A Severan surge is very clear, whilst periods XI and XII show the same decline in coin-
loss that is seen at Roman sites; it is worth bearing in mind, however, that (as noted above on p.7) the
appearance of the radiate, double sestertius, in the 240s may have encouraged the re-emergence into
circulation of old and worn sestertii. Also visible are the familiar peaks in periods XIII, XV and XVII.
Thereafter, coin-loss shows the usual gradual decline, although, in the case of Cheshire, this is from
a higher starting-point than further north again, presumably, to be accounted for by the presence of
legionary troops at Chester, and perhaps also by the continuing vibrancy of the salt-industry (Penney
and Shotter 1996; 2001). It should be noted that Cheshire has fewer recorded coins in period XIV, which
may provide a hint of the increased attention being paid to coastal defence further north, a suggestion
already noted above (on p. 140f). Not unexpectedly, given the vagaries of the coin-supply to Britain, the
final years are not strongly represented (Brickstock 2000), although it may be significant that coins from
periods XX and XXI have been recorded from all three county areas, with a definite peak in Cheshire
in period XXI. Nonetheless, as Brickstock has noted (2000, 35), the absence of copying beyond period
XIX demonstrates either that the supply of coinage in the latest years was sufficient for the needs of the
population or that a system of barter was re-asserting itself or perhaps a combination of these factors.
In all, it may be argued that these coin-loss figures demonstrate the importance of Romanisation in
the north, even if the form that it took may have been different in the north compared with the south,
and even if its impact in the north may have been uneven in terms of location. However, it is becoming
clearer that, following conquest in the first century, far from viewing the Roman troops with suspicion
or even worse, the descendants of tribal leaders, such as Cartimandua and Venutius, appear to have
found that participation in what the Roman Empire had to offer brought them benefits, both material and
cultural. Further, archaeological research is showing with increasing clarity and frequency (Wilmott and
Wilson 2000) that the Romano-British in the north had no intention, as Britains formal links with Rome
declined three centuries later, of fundamentally discarding a culture that they regarded as their own. If
196
nothing else, Bedes description of St Cuthberts visit to Carlisle demonstrates this.
Although many locations in these lists provide evidence of just a single find, some appear on numerous
occasions, even extending across the centuries of Roman occupation. It is difficult to judge, however, in
numerical terms at least, at what point a group of coins from a particular location may become significant,
suggesting the possible presence nearby of a previously unrecognised Roman or Romano-British site.
However, it has to be borne in mind that there can be alternative explanations of localised coin-clusters:
they could, despite appearances, represent nothing more meaningful than casual losses, or they might
derive from a spread hoard or some other type of multiple loss or deposition.
On the other hand, whilst a single coin-find might point to the presence of an unrecognised site, the
present study will concentrate on cases where three or more coins have been reported from a single
location, preferably extending over a period of time that would normally be thought of as too long for a
hoard. At the outset, a cautionary note should be sounded: it is sometimes the case that finders, whether
they be antiquarian writers or metal-detectorists, are unable or reluctant to provide a precise findspot,
but give a broad location only. The actual findspot in some of such cases might turn out to be a known
Roman site. Obvious examples in these lists are finds given locations, such as Kendal, which might in
fact mean the Roman fort at Watercrook, or Burrow-with-Burrow, which might mean the Roman fort at
Burrow-in-Lonsdale. Further, in the cases of large modern urban spreads, such as Manchester, a find-
location, given as Manchester, might in fact lie at a considerable distance from the Roman fort and its
extramural settlement.
The overall geographical distribution of reported coin-finds in Cumbria and Lancashire appears to be
concentrated in areas where settlement would be naturally expected Roman roads, river valleys,
site-hinterlands, coastlines. In Cheshire, on the other hand, the findspots seem to reflect a rather more
general scatter of coins, perhaps because the landscape held a denser Romanised rural population,
within the more organised context of the civitas Cornoviorum.
There are 165 recorded locations for casual coin-finds in Cheshire; of these the following have yielded
clusters of seven or more coins: Acton Bridge (35), Cheadle (11), Christleton (7), Church Minshull (7 +
hoard), Eccleston (10 + hoard), Handbridge (20 + possible hoard), Hoole (15), Huntington (15), Landican
(46)*, Neston (7 + hoard), Stapeley (7). Of these, Eccleston, Handbridge and Huntington are probably
to be explained by their proximity to known sites Heronbridge in the case of Eccleston, and Chester
in the cases of Handbridge and Huntington. Of particular interest in this group of sites are the 35 coins
reported from Acton Bridge to the north west of Northwich; these coins have issue-dates throughout the
Roman period, and are suggestive of a site in the vicinity.
197
(Note: *Until the nature of a possible site at Landican becomes clearer, the 46 coins found there are
included in the casual finds from Cheshire, making that total 511; the 46 coins from Landican have come
from a spread of findspots within the area).
In view of the possible significance to be attached to finds of pre-Neronian aes-coins (above on p. 73),
we should note that five locations in Cheshire, other than known Roman sites, have yielded examples:
Cheshire has produced casual finds of coins of periods XIX to XXI at the following twelve locations:
Thus, leaving aside the known Roman sites, there have been 181 separate locations in Lancashire at
which Roman coin-finds have been recorded. Although it is not, of course, possible on present evidence
to offer an explanation for these, there are seventeen which have clusters of seven or more coins:
Bolton (8), Borwick (11), Burnley (9 + hoards), Burrow-with-Burrow (8), Bury (7), Colne (18 + possible
hoards), Crosby (8), Formby (10), Garstang (19 + possible hoards), Halsall (11), Liverpool Area (24),
Preston (13), Silverdale area (11 + hoard), Upholland (7), Warrington (17), Whalley (12), Worsley (7).
Of these, as stated above, there are no precise locations for the coin-finds attributed to Burrow-with-
Burrow; these may have come from the proximity of the known fort and extramural settlement at Burrow-
in-Lonsdale. On the other hand, the precise findspots given for the Warrington finds make it unlikely that
198
these coins in fact derived directly from the site at Wilderspool. There is a local perception that there
was a Roman site somewhere in the vicinity of Whalley, perhaps on the site of the church. Further, the
volume of coin-finds in the areas of Burnley and Colne certainly suggests that there is more to be learnt
about this area in the Roman period. Similarly, the number and chronological spread of Roman coins
found in and around Silverdale, coupled now with finds from Arnside and the hoards recently discovered
at the north-east end of Morecambe Bay, suggest the likelihood of naval activities military and/or
commercial in this area. It should be noted that more finds from this area have been recorded since
entries for this volume closed.
Of particular interest are the coin-finds recorded from locations in or adjacent to the Lancashire Fylde
(Middleton, Wells and Huckerby 1995, 206-7): in addition to the known camp, watch-tower, fort and
extramural settlement at Kirkham, there are recorded coin-finds from Blackpool (8), Clifton (1), Cockerham
(4), Cockersands (1), Fleetwood (5 + two hoards), Freckleton (hoard), Hackensall Hall (hoard), Garstang
(19 + two possible hoards), Hambleton (1), Kates Pad (1), Knott End (1), Lytham (possible hoard),
Nateby (4), Pilling (2), Poulton-le-Fylde (4 + possible hoard), Preesall (7 + hoard), Rossall (hoard),
Shard Bridge (3), Singleton (1), Skippool (1), Staining (3), Stalmine (3), Stanah (1), Thornton Cleveleys
(1 + possible hoard), Treales (1 + possible hoard), Weeton (3), Wesham (1), Woodplumpton (1), Wrea
Green (4). These locations indicate considerable activity along the line of, and adjacent to, the River
Wyre; this, of course, along with the apparent line of the Roman road running westwards from the fort at
Kirkham, serves to keep alive the question of a possible Roman site in the vicinity of that river.
It is worth listing the findspots of pre-Neronian aes-coins in Lancashire that are not related in location to
any known Roman site:
As to the latest coins found as casual losses in Lancashire, there are eight, together with two hoards,
on record from periods XIX to XXI:
199
Table 4.5: Cumbria: No. of Coins per Recorded Location
1-2 80 61.54
3-5 34 26.15
6-10 11 8.46
11-15 1 0.77
16-20 1 0.77
21+ 3 (22, 31 and 65 coins) 2.31
Aside from the known Roman sites, there are in Cumbria 130 locations from which Roman coins have
been recovered; thirteen of these have clusters of more than seven coins Arnside (16 + hoard),
Barrow-in-Furness (31), Beetham (9), Brampton (9), Cartmel (7 + hoard), Kirksteads (two hoards),
Kirksteads (Cobble Hall [9]), Great Urswick (10), Helsington (7), Irthington (14), the Kendal area (65),
Kirkby Lonsdale (22), Natland (7), Ulverston (10 + hoard). It is likely that the large totals recorded
for Brampton, the Kendal area, Natland and Kirkby Lonsdale are not unrelated to the proximity of
these areas to known Roman forts; nor, in all probability, is it to be regarded as coincidental that the
clusters at Arnside (see also neighbouring Silverdale in Lancashire), Barrow-in-Furness, Cartmel and
Ulverston occur in locations on or near to the coast, reflecting both commercial activity and the greater
military attention that was probably being paid to the coast, its defences and supply-potential in the
later years of the Roman period. The coastal areas and their hinterlands have also produced smaller
numbers of coins, although at a considerable number of locations; these include Aldingham, Bardsea,
Barnscar (hoard), Birkrigg, Braystones (possible hoard), Broughton-in-Cartmel, Broughton-in-Furness,
Cark, Cockermouth, Dalton-in-Furness, Distington (hoard(s)), Egremont, Eskmeals, Gleaston Castle,
Gosforth, Grange-over-Sands, Harrington, Levens, Mawbray, Millom Castle (hoard), Muncaster Castle
(hoard?), Newby Bridge, Parton, St Bees, St Bridget Beckermet, Seascale, Silloth (hoard), Starling
Castle, Whitehaven (+ hoard), Workington, as well as some elements of the Hadrianic coastal system
on the northern and north-western coast of the county.
Another clustering of coin-find locations lies in the hinterland of Penrith and Brougham, which may
have been the traditional centre of the tribe of the Carvetii (Edwards 2006), and which incidentally
has produced the only three surviving pieces of epigraphic evidence relating to the tribe, which was
evidently organised as a civitas by the Emperor, Septimius Severus, in the early third century (Higham
and Jones 1985; Edwards and Shotter 2005; RIB 933, 3525, 3526).This area also saw the junction
of two highly significant roads those from York (across Stainmore) and from Chester. This cluster
includes coin-finds at Askham, Castle Carrock, Cliburn (hoard), Clifton, Colby, Crackenthorpe, Crosby-
on-Eden, Dacre, Fremington (hoard), Great Strickland (hoard), Hackthorpe (hoard), Penrith, Plumpton,
Shap, Scratchmore Scar (hoard), Stainmore and Temple Sowerby.
Cumbria has also produced a significant number of pre-Neronian aes-issues as casual finds:
Eleven casual finds in the county, together with two hoards, represent the latest periods of coin-issue
found in Britain:
200
Barbon Nummus of Eudoxia (LRBC II. 2217)
Beetham Nummus of Valens (as LRBC II. 97)
Broughton-
in-Cartmel Magnus Maximus
Cartmel Nummus of Valentinian I
[Distington Hoard; III.B.ii, 21]
Hackthorpe Valentinianic nummus (SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE)
Kendal Nummus of Valens
Kirksteads
(Cobble Hall) Nummus of Valentinian I
Muncaster Solidus of Theodosius (RIC 9 (Trier), 50)
Parton Nummus of Gratian (LRBC II. 529)
Tebay Solidus of Valens
[Whitehaven Probable hoard(s); III.B.iii, 29]
Workington Nummus of Valens (LRBC II. 288)
The average numbers of recorded coins per location in the three county areas are:
Cheshire 3.15
Lancashire 2.28
Cumbria 3.09
In recent years, Richard Reece (1988, 91-2) has drawn attention to the place in the money-system of
early denarii that is, coins issued prior to Neros coinage-reform of AD 64, when the gold coinage was
devalued and the silver coinage debased. Dio Cassius (History of Rome 68.15, 3) records that, in c. AD
110, Trajan recalled and melted down all the worn coinage; although this probably took some time to
become fully effective in Britain, it appears from the evidence of denarius-hoards that, beyond the reign
of Hadrian, the only pre-Neronian coins to appear in hoards in any numbers were the legionary denarii of
Marcus Antonius, minted in the east in 321 BC. These, it seems, perhaps because of Augustan spin,
were (wrongly) regarded as base (Pliny Natural History 33.132), and thus appear to have escaped the
recall, remaining in use, often worn completely smooth, until the 230s/240s. Thus, it is a reasonable
proposition that other pre-AD 64 denarii were in circulation into the second quarter of the second century
(plate 4.14). In the North West, the hoards of denarii from the fort at Birdoswald (which terminated
in AD122 and 119; III.B.i, 4 and III.B.iii, 1; Shotter 1990, 179 and 201) appear to represent the latest
substantial appearances of such coins. It is thought by some that, perhaps because of their superior
intrinsic value, these older denarii were used for paying legionaries, although it has to be said that recent
field-work in the vicinity of the Agricolan legionary fortress at Inchtuthil (Perthshire), the advance base
of Legion XX Valeria-Victrix for a short time in the 80s, has yielded many aes-issues, but few denarii
(David Woolliscroft, pers. comm.).
201
Aside from those denarii which feature in such groups, all the county areas in these volumes have
produced some as unconnected casual losses:
(Note: It is possible that, in view of the proximity of the recorded findspots, the coins from Pilling and
Stalmine might be duplicates).
202
Hincaster Denarius of Octavian and Antonius (Crawford no. 517 of 41 BC)
Hutton Roof Denarius of Antonius (Crawford no. 544)
Irthington Denarius of Tiberius (RIC 12 (Tiberius), 26ff of AD 1437)
Kendal Three Republican denarii (inc. Crawford no. 317, 3b of
104 BC)
Denarius of Antonius (Crawford no. 544)
Kirkby Lonsdale Republican denarius (Crawford no. 199, 1a of 155 BC)
Natland Two denarii of Antonius (Crawford no. 544, 14 and 18)
Stainmore Republican denarius
Ulverston Denarius of Augustus (RIC 12 (Augustus), 207 of 76 BC)
Cheshire
I 1 21 1 3 743
II 2 2
III 2 4 4 868
IV 1 12 3 7 7 625
V 1 9 14 4 3 611
VI 9 8 2 4 184
VII 11 13 3 5 239
VIII 3 15 1 3 93
IX 2 1 1 38
X 21 4 1 1 355
Totals 5 92 59 19 32 3758
Lancashire
Period Aurei Denarii Sestertii Dupondii Asses As-value
I 16 1 4 264
II 1 7 9
III 1 1 1 22
IV - 8 4 4 2 154
V 12 9 1 1 231
VI 12 9 1 1 231
VII 11 7 4 2 214
VIII 3 4 1 1 67
IX 1 1 6
X 7 2 120
Totals 70 38 14 18 1318
(Note: The totals on the Lancashire table are incomplete because of the fact that some of the
information, which was gathered from antiquarian reports, gave the issuers of coins, but without the
denominations).
203
Cumbria
I 1 19 704
II 1 1 5 11
III 4 4 2 2 1674
IV 1 11 3 1 9 599
V 1 15 20 10 10 750
VI 1 6 14 9 2 572
VII 7 12 5 170
VIII 2 12 14 2 3 1059
IX 4 3 76
X 1 17 672
Totals 11 95 68 28 31 6287
The figures for as-value per coin (exclusive of aurei) may be compared with those for individual Roman
and Romano-British sites of different types and in differing locations (2000, 106-7):
Birdoswald 8.88
Carlisle 4.65
Chester 6.66
Holt 3.85
Lancaster 7.36
Manchester 7.11
Middlewich 8.96
Papcastle 6.48
Walton-le-Dale 5.86
Wilderspool 6.40
The as-value per coin measure for the three county areas is very similar; indeed, that for Lancashire
would probably be lower (and thus more closely in line) if the information contained in the antiquarian
reports were in a more usable form. Using this criterion as a measure of wealth, it can be seen that the
situation away from known Roman and Romano-British sites appears to accord closely with that for the
known sites. Of course, the significance of the coin-finds listed in chapter IV is not immediately apparent
whether they derive from sites nearby that have not as yet been recognised, or whether they represent
casual, one-off, losses by people on the move. The latter could, of course, be the Romano-British
inhabitants of the county areas or retired soldiers; alternatively, some of such losses could equally have
derived from campaigning or policing elements of the army. In the context of the identities of coin-losers,
the large number of aurei noted in Cumbria is striking (even discounting the two such coins recorded
from Scalesceugh). It is presumably likely that these may have derived from former administrators or
military personnel, but the level of wealth indicated as present, particularly in Cumbria and Cheshire,
may go some way towards illuminating the potential viability of the establishment respectively of the
civitas Carvetiorum and the civitas Cornoviorum. We may also assume that these two county areas
enjoyed an economic stimulant that was not present in Lancashire namely, an active and a former
204
legionary fortress in the case of the Cornovii and Hadrians Wall in the case of the Carvetii. Also, we
should not lose sight of the important natural resources present salt and the nearby metallic resources
of north Wales in the case of Cheshire, and iron and other metals in Cumbria.
An inflationary indicator, recognised on known sites, is present also amongst these casual finds the
gradual loss of the lower denominations of the coinage and the increasing reliance on denarii and
sestertii. In Cheshire and Lancashire, far more obviously than in Cumbria, this appears to occur
alongside a general reduction in the volume of coin-loss in the later years of the second century. Again,
the reason for this may be a heightened concentration on matters related to the northern frontier as the
second century wore on. Despite the legionary presence at Chester, it is hard to escape the impression
that the centre of gravity in the Roman North West was gradually moving northwards. It is to be hoped
that future finds of coins and of other evidence (hopefully structural) will permit progress to be made in
the understanding (or rejection) of trends that appear to be suggested by the evidence that is presently
available.
205