copy World copyright reserved Exclusive Licence to Publish The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 2005

Britannia XXXVI (2005) 1-54

1 Holman 20002 The Romney Marsh area immediately to the south has been included because it forms part of the Channel

coast although only three coins have been recorded from there3 Everitt 1986

Iron Age Coinage and Settlement in East Kent

By DAVID HOLMAN

INTRODuCTION

until a few years ago relatively few Iron Age coins had been recorded from Kent With the exception of Canterbury and Richborough the east of the county was particularly lacking in coin finds Base metal coins were especially scarce However in recent years

the number of coins recorded has greatly increased altering the distribution pattern of some types while confirming the previously mapped distribution of others By the end of 2003 a total of more than 2500 Iron Age coin finds had been recorded from across the county

A recent overview of Iron Age coinage in Kent suggested that the county could tentatively be divided into at least three separate regions of coin circulation and use1 The most clearly delineated of these putative regions is that to the east of the valley of the Great Stour including the Isle of Thanet (fig 1) Mapping of coin finds appears to indicate that this region should be regarded as distinct from the rest of Kent West of the Stour Valley and along the north Kent coast from Reculver the distribution of coin types changes with gold in particular becoming far more evident Coins of the types most commonly found in east Kent are found in other parts of the county and indeed beyond but they generally decrease in quantity the further away they are found from their apparent home region although a large number of coins of the Kentish uninscribed Series in particular are known from Springhead in north-west Kent Perhaps the most striking feature of Iron Age coin distribution in Kent is the relatively large quantity of imported Gaulish potin bronze and to a lesser extent silver coinage which is concentrated mostly in the area closest to the Continent more than 150 of these coins have been found in Kent of which more than 80 per cent have been found in the easternmost part of the county Because of the large number of coins available the compact area and the significant location of the region in relation to continental Europe including the shortest Channel crossing between Britain and Gaul of little more than 35 km east Kent has been selected for detailed study here2

Topographically east Kent ranges from coastal marshland to high chalk downland reaching in excess of 180 m above OD The spine of the North Downs cuts across the central part of the region separating the north from the south On the west the Downs are cut by the Great Stour one of the three principal rivers of Kent and several smaller water courses such as the Little Stour give rise to downland valleys The Isle of Thanet was in the late Iron Age separated from mainland Kent by the Wantsum Channel once an important waterway but now completely silted up There is a broad range of soil types and the countryside is generally productive3

2 DAVID HOLMAN

The east Kent region has seen by far the greatest increase in the number of Iron Age coins recorded in the county To some extent this is the result of several productive sites but a significant quantity of coinage away from those sites is also evident Of the 2502 accurately provenanced Iron Age coins recorded from Kent (counting hoards as one) as at the end of 2003 1690 are from east Kent and of these 1629 have been identified and classified into groups based on the phases formulated by Colin Haselgrove (Table 1)4 A number of other coins have not been included owing to dubious or vague provenances The lack of any fixed chronology poses problems for the dating of Iron Age coinage the dates given by Van Arsdell are far too

fig 1 Map of east Kent showing the major sites discussed below 1 Worth Temple 2 Archers Low Farm Sandwich 3 Richborough 4 Ebbsfleet 5 North Foreland 6 lsquoEastryrsquo 7 Goodnestone

8 Canterbury 9 East Wear Bay Folkestone (Contour shows land 100m above OD)

4 Haselgrove 1987 75ndash101 these phases which are in general use for Iron Age coin studies have been slightly amended here based on advances in knowledge of Iron Age coinage in Kent and a further category for the earliest potin series the lsquoThurrockrsquo type (hereafter referred to perhaps more accurately as the lsquoKentish Primary Seriesrsquo) has been added

3IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

5 Van Arsdell 19896 Lewis 1736 27 pl 5 Boys 1792 8697 Haselgrove 1993 438 Allen 1976 1009 Some uninscribed types appear on typological and stylistic grounds to belong to the dynastic series and have

been treated as such where the evidence supports this10 Haselgrove 1987 21311 May 1994 14

precise given the nature of the evidence and most dates should be given a range of plus or minus ten years at least5

Early references to Iron Age coins from east Kent were made in the eighteenth century by local historians6 However despite its proximity to the Continent with the possibilities of finding evidence of cross-Channel contacts in the surviving coinage east Kent has previously received very little attention in the numismatic literature owing largely to the fact that Kentish Iron Age coins were with the exception of the Flat Linear potin coins very rare In addition few imported Gaulish base metal coins were known from the region although it has long been recognised that such imports were the prototypes and inspiration for many of the early Kentish types7 In 1976 Allen commented that Iron Age coinage in Kent was poorly understood and that there must be many more coins to be found and recorded8 Recording of metal-detector finds and major excavations in Canterbury since then have revolutionised this situation with the addition of more than 750 potin more than 550 struck bronze around 100 silver and around 100 gold coins to the east Kent corpus overall around ten times as many coins are now available for study and analysis as in 1976 These include several new types in the Kentish Uninscribed Series and the succeeding dynastic series9 As noted by Haselgrove single coin finds are of particular value in understanding circulation patterns10 and these have provided perhaps the most significant results of the current study with the realisation that coins are not largely restricted to certain sites but are far more widespread

Over the last few years several locations in east Kent have emerged as sites yielding significant quantities of Iron Age coins A discussion of the archaeological background and the coins recorded from nine sites mdash in the broadest sense mdash which have produced between 23 and 236 Iron Age coins and how these relate to the region as a whole forms the principal part of this paper Of the 1690 coin finds recorded from east Kent 802 come from these nine sites which are regarded here as lsquomajorrsquo sites Most of these sites are now farmland with material largely unstratified collected from on or near the surface similar to for example Dragonby and Kirmington in Lincolnshire11 The remaining 888 coin finds come from a total of more than

TABLE 1 PHASES OF IRON AGE COINAGE IN KENT

Phase Notes Date (+- 10 Years)PKP Earliest British potin coinage (Kentish Primary Series) Midndashlate 2nd century bc PFLI First potin coinage of lsquoflatrsquo module (Flat Linear I) Late 2ndndashmid 1st century bcPFLII Latest British potin coinage (Flat Linear II) c50ndash30 bcC (Potin AE AR) Imported base metal and silver coinage Mostly c100ndash30 bc1ndash5 (AV) All imported gold coinage and earliest British types Late 3rd centuryndashc50 bc6 Kentish Uninscribed Series other uninscribed British types c40ndash25 bc7 Dubnovellaunos Sa Vosenos Tasciovanus c25ndash1 bc8E (early) Eppillus early Cunobelin types c ad 1ndash258L (late) Later Cunobelin types Amminus c ad 25ndash409 Latest British coinage (no Kentish types) c ad 40ndashConquest

4 DAVID HOLMAN

12 Mack 1975 Van Arsdell 1989 Hobbs 199613 Around 80 per cent of the Iron Age coins from east Kent have been found by metal detectorists with

archaeological excavations providing 17 per cent and casual finds 3 per cent

200 separate locations ranging from sites with less than 20 coins down to single isolated finds together with areas containing large numbers of coins but no clear focus

A number of Kentish types uncatalogued by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs appear in the site lists12 In order to clarify which types have been found on which sites a summary description of these coins is provided together with a temporary reference solely for the purpose of this paper and a corresponding Celtic Coin Index reference (Table 2 fig 2) The temporary references are based on a system used by the writer in his database of coins found in Kent Only those coin types which appear in the site lists (Appendix 1) are shown

SOuRCE DATA AND STATISTICAL METHODOLOGy

Source data

The great majority of the coins used in this study have been found by metal detector users since c 198013 Despite the die-hard attitude of some archaeologists and continued arguments about the pros and cons of detecting metal detectors have increasingly been used on archaeological excavations and field surveys in recent years the principal result of which has been a significant increase in the quantity of metalwork especially coinage recovered from sites leading to the conclusion that much useful dating material has in the past been missed

TABLE 2 KENTISH COIN TyPES NOT LISTED By MACK VAN ARSDELL OR HOBBS WHICH HAVE BEEN FOUND ON THE MAjOR SITES IN EAST KENT CELTIC COIN INDEx (CCI) REFERENCES SHOWN

Kentish Uninscribed SeriesUB1 Head right clumpy-hoofed Pegasus left (AE) as CCI 950903 (fig 2 1) (Allen 1995 83 no 277)UB2a Head right alternate ring and dot border (lsquoneatrsquo style)lion left (AE) as CCI 030078 (fig 2 2)UB3 Boar left five-tailed lion left (AE) as CCI 920042 (fig 2 3)US3 Four horsesrsquo heads horse left (AR minim) as CCI 990362 (fig 2 4) (Blockley et al 1995 925 no 41)DubnovellaunosDB1a Long-haired head left Pegasus right with hatched box below (AE) as CCI 010199 (fig 2 5)DB1b Crowned head left (reverse as DB1a) (AE) as CCI 020075 (fig 2 6) DB2 Lion left horseman right (AE) as CCI 941182 (fig 2 7)DS1 Griffin right seated figure right (AR) as CCI 890026 (fig 28)

SaSamSB1 Horse right hippogryph left (AE frac12) as CCI 990002 (de jersey 1997) (fig 2 9)TasciovanusSegoTB1 Eight-pointed star bull left (VA 18551808 variant) (AE) as CCI 940337 (fig 2 10)

EppillusEB1 Boar right hippogryph left (AE frac12) as CCI 940397 (fig 2 11)

AmminusAS1 Head right biga (AR) as CCI 972069 (fig 2 12)

UncertainNS1 Back to back crescents dog right (Eppillus) as CCI 011438 (fig 2 13)

5IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

fig 2 Kentish Iron Age coin types listed in Table 2 and Mediterranean types frequently found in Kent

Metal detectors were used for the first time on an archaeological excavation in Canterbury at Blue Boy yard in 2000 Although this was a small site fifteen Iron Age coins were found more than half of them in spoil by the metal detectors In terms of the size of the excavation this was a much higher proportion of coins than was found at either the Cakebread Robey or Marlowe

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15

6 DAVID HOLMAN

excavations (see below) Metal detectors were subsequently used at the recently finished Whitefriars excavations and accounted for a significant proportion of the Roman and medieval coins from there Similar results have also been obtained from an excavation on a rural site at Maydensole Farm Sutton near Dover during which most of the metal detecting was undertaken by the writer At this site well over half of the coins as well as other items such as brooches were recovered from the spoilheaps having been missed during excavation Concentrated searching on a known productive site will produce a more representative cross-section of the coinage present than casual searching in isolated areas when smaller coins are more likely to be missed

No criticism of standard archaeological excavation methods is intended here Experience has shown the difficulty of finding coins by lsquoeyes onlyrsquo methods even with the use of a metal detector they are frequently difficult to locate often being found in a lump of compacted soil little bigger than the coin itself Colour is also a factor (see below) The conclusion is that the metal detector used responsibly can be a useful archaeological tool providing much additional information not only in quantities of finds but also their contexts

Another factor to be considered when looking at source data is the different colours of metal and related corrosion products A disproportionately high number of gold coins are evident among early finds as typically illustrated by Boys who provided detailed descriptions of gold staters but only a passing mention of bronze coins14 Reasons for this include gold being a valuable metal perhaps leading to greater interest gold coins are usually well-preserved unlike most bronze coins and not least because gold is much easier to spot than dull-coloured bronze Similarly bronze coins which have turned bright green are easier to spot than those which have not Silver is sometimes found in a shiny state but more often than not is in an oxidised state with a purple or even black hue Experience has shown that the most difficult metal items to spot are those made of lead a fact confirmed by a number of metal detector users

Since the advent of metal detecting the early imbalance towards gold has been corrected to a large extent with the discovery and recording of considerable numbers of base metal coins For example Kentish Primary potins (better known and generally referred to as the lsquoThurrockrsquo type after a hoard found near the Essex town of that name) were known from very few examples until well into the 1980s and were then regarded as Gaulish imports15 These are now known in their thousands (including hoards) so it appears that they were previously usually missed or ignored

As will be shown significant variations in coin deposition are apparent across the major sites of east Kent This is to a large extent chronological as it is clear that some sites appear to have become active at a later date than others However the nature of the site itself also has an influence on the types of coin deposited eg a possible port site will have a high proportion of imports while an inland trading site or settlement will have a more insular assemblage Given the difficulty in determining the precise nature and function of a site which may in any case have been multi-functional it is hard to assess how much of an influence this has on coin deposition and why this increases or decreases in certain phases The level of activity is another factor to be considered as is the likelihood that the coins themselves were used in varied ways as ritual offerings as well as in trade and wealth storage

Statistical methodology

The statistical method used in this paper attempts to compare coins recorded from specific individual sites against those recorded from the rest of east Kent rather than looking at sites

14 Boys 1792 86915 eg Nash 1978b

7IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

in isolation The reason for this is that individual site histograms show the number of coins in each phase at that site but they do not illustrate how this compares with the surrounding region ie a high number of coins in a particular phase at a site may or may not be normal for the region in which the site lies but the site histogram gives no indication of this As a result the interpretation of site histograms can easily lead to misleading conclusions16 An example of the problems which may arise is given by Reece in relation to the Roman coins from the excavations at Richborough17 One method used to calculate the theoretical loss per thousand for coins of the Roman period is dependent on chronologically precise phases18 and cannot be used accurately for Iron Age coins owing to their lack of absolute dating and the uncertain lengths of the phases although estimates can be made Small numbers also lead to heavily distorted results No attempt is made here to impose fixed dates as used by Van Arsdell19

The histograms used here are based on the phases shown in Table 1 The totals for each phase (and metal type) from individual sites have been converted into percentages and the same has been done for east Kent overall to produce mean figures against which individual sites can be compared20 Individual sites in east Kent show wide variation attributable to different types of site and dates of commencement and a lsquonormalrsquo pattern of coin loss such as that suggested by Haselgrove for a number of sites north of the Thames21 cannot be determined The figures used here do not include the inadequately recorded coins listed by Allen22 other unreliable provenances or lsquoGreekrsquo coins

The first histogram for each site shows the number of identified coins of each phase recorded from that site expressed as a percentage of the total identified site assemblage The second histogram sets the coins from individual sites against the rest of east Kent to show how those sites compare with the surrounding region Metal percentage figures are also shown as suggested by Rodwell23 ie potin (cast bronze) AE (struck bronze) AR (silver) and AV (gold) these include those coins mostly struck bronzes which cannot be classified owing to their condition24 Plated coins have been treated as being of the metal they purport to be Large sites can skew coin loss profiles with large numbers of particular types obvious examples in east Kent being the Flat Linear II potins from Canterbury and Folkestone However the large number of coins now recorded provides a more complete picture than was previously the case

The difference between a site and the surrounding region is expressed by directly comparing the individual site percentages for each phase and metal type relative to the percentages for the rest of the region For example comparing Kentish Primary potins at Worth Temple against the rest of east Kent shows that these coins are 30 per cent above the east Kent mean at Worth Similarly Gaulish non-gold imports at Worth are 20 per cent above the east Kent mean The basic site histogram (fig 3a) shows that Kentish Primary potins are far more numerous than Gaulish imports at this site (361 per cent and 93 per cent of the identified coins respectively) but does not show that they have a similar ratio when set against their respective mean figures from the rest of east Kent (278 per cent and 77 per cent respectively) This is illustrated by the lsquocomparisonrsquo histogram (fig 3b) and may be interpreted as indicating that the level of

16 eg Haselgrove 1992 12617 Reece 1987 80ndash818 eg Casey 1980 2819 Van Arsdell 198920 eg Haselgrove 1993 5321 Haselgrove 1993 5422 Allen 196023 Rodwell 1976 31424 The site histograms show two different figures one (n1) for the lsquophasersquo section showing the number of

identified coins and the other (n2) for the lsquometalrsquo section showing all coins including those which cannot be identified but which are certainly Iron Age

8 DAVID HOLMAN

coin deposition at Worth relative to the rest of east Kent was broadly similar in each of these particular coin phases even allowing for the different sample sizes

THE MAjOR SITES OF EAST KENT

SITE 1 ROMANO-CELTIC TEMPLE SITE WORTH

Background

The site lies some 700 m to the south of Worth village and occupies a low chalk promontory projecting into the surrounding marshland which constitutes the southern end of the silted-up Wantsum Channel Only at the north-west is the promontory connected to land above marsh level The site is some 35 km from the present-day coastline

The existence of a Romano-Celtic temple in Castle Field has been known since at least the eighteenth century It was excavated by WS Klein in 192525 Significant evidence of Iron Age occupation was located below the temple although the nature of this earlier occupation remains uncertain Finds included the remains of three bronze votive model shields which has led to the widely accepted view that the Roman temple at Worth was the successor to an earlier Iron Age religious site26 Recent work in the fields and private gardens adjacent to the temple has broadened our general understanding of the site and confirmed that Iron Age occupation deposits extend across much of the site

A substantial enclosure ditch occupies the highest part of the promontory One entrance is known on the south-eastern side The ditch has not as yet been located on the north-east and it may be that the enclosure was open to the wetlands on this side The enclosure has a minimum area of some 65 ha

The limited dating evidence suggests that the temple itself was in use if not constructed during the fourth century ad27 The pottery evidence suggests that the enclosure ditch was largely filled by this time and it thus seems clear that this ditch was not a contemporary boundary to the Roman temple complex Ceramic evidence also suggests that the ditch was probably dug no later than the earlier first century bc That the enclosure ditch represents the outer limits of the inferred Iron Age sanctuary presently seems the most likely interpretation

Considerable quantities of local Middle to Late Iron Age pottery Gallo-Belgic fineware and sherds of Dressel 1B amphorae have been discovered together with much later material Taken in conjunction with the substantial number of Iron Age coins recovered this ceramic material confirms occupation in the general area of the enclosure at this date

The coinage

Despite Haselgrove being unaware of any coins from here28 by the end of 2003 a total of 236 Iron Age coins had been recorded from the Worth Temple site of which 227 have been found by members of two local metal-detecting clubs and 9 during archaeological excavations and fieldwalking There are also four other pre-Conquest coins (Appendix 1) Several hundred Roman coins spanning almost the entire period of the Roman occupation have also been found

Almost exactly half of the Iron Age coins from this site are potins Even allowing for the

25 Klein 192826 eg Harding 1974 10327 Klein 192828 Haselgrove 1987

9IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

chronological problems associated with unstratified material29 the large number of Kentish Primary Series potins mdash 347 per cent of the total site assemblage 361 per cent of the identified coins mdash is significant and suggests an early date for coin use and deposition at Worth reflecting the general pattern of Iron Age coinage in east Kent This is the first peak of coin loss here at 30 per cent above the east Kent mean The distribution of the Kentish Primary potins at Worth shows no particular concentration and there is no evidence of hoarding There is now little doubt that Kentish Primary potins are Kentish in origin30 The 28 Flat Linear I potins seem to split into two groups 17 belonging to Allenrsquos early types AndashD the remainder mostly to the late types jndashL31 The solitary Flat Linear II potin indicates that Worth saw little use of these coins in keeping with the east Kent background pattern There are also several early Gaulish potins of varying types most if not all of which date to the second century bc One rare type apparently a first-generation copy of a medium-size struck bronze of Massalia (Marseilles)32 is probably the immediate prototype of the Kentish Primary potins

Although potins are the most numerous finds at Worth struck bronzes of which there are 103 examples are further above the east Kent mean (8 per cent and 23 per cent respectively) Among the many different British and Gaulish issues present coins of Eppillus and Cunobelin are the most abundant The Kentish uninscribed bronzes include types previously thought not to be Kentish33 The lsquoChichester Cockrsquo bronze is regarded here as a Phase 6 issue but potentially belongs to Phase 5

Some 106 per cent of the identifiable coins including gold issues from Worth are of Gaulish origin These include thirteen struck bronzes and seven potins Gaulish non-gold imports although 20 per cent above the east Kent mean are broadly in line with the average level for major sites in east Kent The Gaulish potins which are probably contemporary with the Kentish

29 eg de jersey 1999 19530 Holman 2000 22031 Allen 197132 eg Haselgrove 1995 11933 An uncatalogued bronze type belonging to the Kentish Uninscribed Series (UB1) previously published as

an uncertain Gaulish type (Allen 1995 83 coin 277) has here been reattributed to Kent on the basis of style and distribution with 16 specimens now known from the county Another type previously regarded as a North Thames issue (VA 1629) has been reattributed to Kent based on its almost exclusively Kentish distribution

fig 3a Worth Temple site coins from site ()fig 3b Worth Temple site set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

10 DAVID HOLMAN

Primary potins may have been deposited at an earlier date than the struck bronzes Most of the Gaulish bronzes from Worth originate from the region generally associated with the Ambiani tribe the nearest major tribal grouping on the Continental mainland A bronze of Massalia two Ebusus (Ibiza) bronzes and a Siculo-Punic bronze may also be noted as potential pre-Conquest imports The evidence for the appearance of these coins in Britain is reviewed below

Only nine silver and five gold coins have so far been recorded from Worth both well below the east Kent mean A silver-plated reverse brockage of a central Gaulish issue of Vepotal with an iron core is clearly a forgery but may have been regarded as suitable for a temple offering34 Three of the gold coins are also plated but with a copper core these include the two British coins both of which are of non-Kentish origin35

As on most sites numbers of coins of Phases 1ndash5 are low because most coinage belonging to these phases is of gold and is more frequently found away from recognised sites However coins of Phase 6 are also much scarcer than normal for an east Kent site Taken in conjunction with the scarcity of Flat Linear II potins this suggests greatly reduced activity in the third quarter of the first century bc intriguingly the same date at which Canterbury appears to have been established (see below Site 8) Following considerable activity in the midlate second to mid-first century bc coin deposition fell sharply before slowly recovering until the early first century ad (Phase 8E) when a significant increase is apparent under Eppillus and Cunobelin Phase 8E shows the highest peak of coin deposition at Worth relative to the surrounding region at 63 per cent above the east Kent mean

The large quantity of Iron Age coinage pottery and other domestic material from the Worth Temple site suggests that it was an extensive and important site from an early date Religion is only one of many activities which could have been carried out here The wide range of coin types and the large number of early potins suggest deposition for whatever reasons from as early as the second century bc The number of coins recorded must be regarded as providing a represent-ative sample of the coinage deposited at the site Worth has currently produced more Iron Age coins than any other site in Kent although the total is far lower than at many Continental sites Some British sites notably Harlow36 also have far higher numbers of coins A number of early Roman coins including Republican denarii issues of Tiberius and Gaius and copies of Claudius I are also known from Worth although these could all have been deposited at a later date

The coins from the Worth Temple site cannot be treated in isolation for on Worth Hill some 12 km to the north metal-detector surveys have produced a further fifteen Iron Age and a number of Roman coins The area is now under orchards Similarly an area of farmland at Ham only 1 km to the west of the Worth Temple site has produced a number of Iron Age coins There has been no archaeological input on either of these presumed sites and their nature is unknown but they may have been satellites of the main focus

A more detailed report and plan of the site (as at the end of December 2000) has been published elsewhere37 and only a summary updated to the end of 2003 has been given here

SITE 2 ARCHERS LOW FARM SANDWICH

Background

This site lies some 25 km to the north of the Worth Temple site and is situated on farmland

34 eg Briggs Haselgrove and King 1992 44ndash535 Sir john Evans held in his collection a gold quarter-stater of British Pa type (VA 147) lsquofound at Worth near

Sandwichrsquo but the exact findspot is unknown36 C Haselgrove pers comm37 Holman 2005a 265ndash75

11IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

immediately to the east of Sandwich It was discovered by members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association a local metal-detecting club in 1985 when a significant number of Iron Age and Roman coins were recovered from an area covering several arable fields In 1987 members of the Dover Archaeological Group undertook a limited amount of trenching in the area to ascertain the context of the coin finds and this was followed by a second more extensive phase of exploratory work in late 1990 and early 1991 A total of 45 hand-dug trenches was cut and from these and the metal-detector surveys it is now clear that an extensive occupation site beginning in the late Iron Age and continuing throughout the Roman period exists here38

In topographical terms a low eastward spur of the natural Thanet Beds clay seems at some stage to have provided the basis for the formation of a spit of alluvial sand Today this spit stands at an elevation of between about 25 and 4 m above OD and projects into the marshland that represents the silted up remnants of the southern end of the Wantsum Channel It seems probable that the site was established on or very close to the late Iron AgeRoman shoreline the sea today lies more than 2 km to the east39

The excavations revealed Belgic and Roman features and deposits at Archers Low Farm over an area measuring a minimum of 370 m by c 200 m covering at least 7 ha A few Roman coins were recovered further along the spit suggesting that occupation may have extended eastwards for at least 500 m Roman deposits have also been noted beneath later development 100 m to the west40 The upper layers contained medieval and post-medieval tile and pottery fragments in addition to earlier material and had clearly been disturbed in earlier periods Intact Belgic and Roman deposits lay below at a considerable depth and reached up to 150 m in thickness These comprised a series of general occupation layers occasionally interleaved with apparently natural sand deposits in which a total of eighteen features were located The lowest levels were frequently waterlogged

The excavations produced a considerable quantity of late Iron Age and Roman pottery A very significant proportion of this material consisted of fabrics in the Belgic grog-tempered tradition In addition there are significant quantities of samian ware including two fragments of a plain bowl provisionally identified as Arretine ware dateable to the AugustanTiberian period and other imported Gallo-Belgic wares including terra rubra terra nigra and white-ware butt beaker all apparently of early to mid-first-century ad date Small quantities of amphorae types Dressel 2-4 Dressel 20 and Cam 185 have been recovered but one type of vessel conspicuous by its absence is Dressel 1B amphora Much later Roman material is also present on the site including Roman building debris suggesting the presence of at least one as yet unlocated structure

The coinage

A total of 56 Iron Age and three Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from Archers Low Farm all found by members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association No pre-Conquest coins were recovered during the excavations Although it is apparent that all these coins come from the topsoil and there is no doubt that they are essentially in situ (ie not derived from elsewhere) the contemporary soil horizons can be as much as 2 m down which raises the question as to how this material arrived on the surface In part the explanation may be connected with the installation of several sets of deep land drains laid across the site at various times41 but this cannot represent the complete answer It is clear from the excavations that some considerable disturbance of

38 Frere 1988 484 Frere 1991 29239 Another Roman occupation site located on a second more extensive outer coastal sand spit has been located

at Dicksonrsquos Corner some 25 km to the south-east No coinage has been found there (Parfitt 2000)40 D Perkins pers comm41 C Burch pers comm

12 DAVID HOLMAN

the site occurred in the medieval and post-medieval periods when the area was presumably cultivated as it is now It seems certain that the uppermost Roman deposits have been damaged if not destroyed in this process thus archaeological horizons containing coins may once have been much closer to the surface This would imply that at least some of the Iron Age coinage recovered was previously contained within later Roman deposits as residual material suggesting much ancient disturbance of the earlier deposits there being no evidence for the continued use of these coins into the later Roman period No archaeological work or metal detecting has been undertaken since the early 1990s and the site has since changed ownership

The coin list for Archers Low Farm (Appendix 1) shows considerable differences compared with the Worth Temple site as does the site histogram (fig 4) Although the assemblage is much smaller it is sufficient to show the considerable diversity of the coinage present Only five potins have been recorded just 89 per cent of the total of Iron Age coins from the site compared with 504 per cent at Worth Temple of which three appear to be Gaulish imports The absence of Flat Linear potins is notable and suggests that any activity before the mid-first century bc was very limited

The most significant element among the struck bronzes is the unusually high proportion of Gaulish coins These show considerable heterogeneity although issues attributed to the Ambiani are not unexpectedly the most frequent In all Gaulish coins account for 15 of the 54 identified Iron Age coins recorded from Archers Low Farm some 278 per cent of the total nearly four

42 Briggs Haselgrove and King 1992 42ndash343 Haselgrove (in SCBI 42 coin no 427) noted that this type may be a Kentish copy of a continental type Six

examples are currently known five from East Kent and one from the temple site at Bois LrsquoAbbeacute Eu Seine-Maritime (Delestreacutee 1984 fig 88)

times the east Kent mean Only Richborough (304 per cent) among the east Kent sites exceeds this (see below Site 3) and few other sites in Britain can compare with Silchester (306 per cent) and Hayling Island (292 per cent) providing the closest comparisons42 There are also two specimens of an uncatalogued type (UB3) which has been listed here as possibly belonging to the Kentish uninscribed Series but which is conceivably Gaulish in which case the imported coinage would rise to 315 per cent of the total43 There are also three Siculo-Punic bronzes dated c 320ndash280 bc

fig 4a Archers Low Farm Sandwich coins from site ()fig 4b Archers Low Farm set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

13IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

The Kentish uninscribed Series is well represented with ten specimens (twelve including the uncatalogued type UB3) recorded of several different types The diversity of the dynastic coins from Archers Low Farm is very evident Of these coins of Dubnovellaunos are the most frequent Phases 6 and 7 and to a lesser extent Phase 8E are all above the east Kent mean There is a tendency towards an early date slowly falling off under Eppillus and Cunobelin possibly indicating greater activity prior to say c ad 15ndash25 rather than after This might also suggest that much of the imported coinage arrived before the turn of the century or at the latest very shortly afterwards However this can only be speculation in the absence of any stratified coins from the site There may be some parallel here with coin loss at Goodnestone (see below Site 7) at least in as much as struck bronze forms most of the assemblage

No genuine gold or silver coins have been recorded from Archers Low Farm There is however a bronze core of a contemporary forgery of a quarter-stater of Cunobelin with the reverse design being laterally reversed Another forgery a bronze core with uncertain designs which was probably originally silver-plated also appears to be of Cunobelin

The high proportion of Gaulish coins and the comparatively large amount of imported pottery together with the low-lying situation of Archers Low Farm all suggest that this site is a strong candidate for having been established as a port in the later Iron Age principally for the purposes of trade and probably before the turn of the millennium The proximity to the Continent and the sheltered nature of the site within the confines of the Wantsum Channel would have made it an ideal location for such a facility There would appear to be some chronological disparity between the coins and the pottery imports many of the coins dating to the mid- to late first century bc but much of the pottery apparently being of Augustan or Tiberian date with further samian imports of slightly later ClaudianNeronian date This can be partly explained if it is accepted that these coins continued to circulate in post-Conquest Gaul for many years before entering Britain at the same time as the pottery but this does not fully explain why the native coins show a similar inclination towards an early date If the site reached a peak in the early first century ad then perhaps more coins of Phase 8E should be present ie if the imports and coins of Phases 6 and 7 were not deposited until Phase 8E then coins of the latter phase although above average for the region might themselves be expected to be more numerous In addition the condition of some of the coins suggests that they had seen comparatively little circulation before their deposition No pottery certainly dating from before the first century bc has been found at the site and the low incidence of potin coins taken in conjunction with the very high levels of struck bronze indicates a date no earlier than perhaps c 30 bc for the start of the main phase of activity in the pre-Conquest period at Archers Low Farm

SITE 3 RICHBOROUGH CASTLE

Background

This internationally important Roman site situated on an island surrounded by drained wetlands that were formerly part of the Wantsum Channel occupies a small hill of Woolwich and Thanet Beds sand rising to a height of almost 20 m above OD44 It stands some 3 km to the north-west of Archers Low Farm and some 35 km to the south of the nearest point of the Isle of Thanet at Ebbsfleet

The Roman site is very well known from the excavation work of 1922ndash1938 but the evidence for its pre-Conquest origins is less than clear Occupation in the early to mid-Iron

44 Hawkes 1968 224

14 DAVID HOLMAN

Age is reasonably well attested45 but the status of the site immediately prior to the Roman invasion remains uncertain Cunliffe stated that there was lsquono trace of Belgic occupationrsquo on the site46 while both Thompson and Pollard have maintained that definite pre-Conquest pottery is generally absent from the excavated material47 A large number of early brooches are known from Richborough but there is no evidence that any of these arrived before ad 43 very few can categorically be shown to be contemporary with the Iron Age coins from the site48 although it should be noted that Iron Age brooches are much rarer finds than coins On the evidence of the coinage Rodwell suggested that there was some kind of pre-Conquest port here49 an idea previously suggested by Allen50 Indeed the fundamental question must be posed as to whether this place would ever have been chosen for a Roman invasion base if it were not already an established port of entry with clear routeways leading into the Kentish hinterland

The coinage

Allen stated that there were between 12 and 14 Iron Age coins from the excavations at Richborough (there was much confusion over the numbering system) and that these included a number of non-local coins including Gaulish imports51 Following reassessment of the site assemblage including non-excavation finds an updated summary list showing a total of 23 coins is provided in Appendix 152

Large numbers of coins have been found at and removed from Richborough over several centuries In the sixteenth century Leland wrote that more Roman coins were found at Richborough than anywhere else in England and that this had been the case for as long as anyone could remember53 Several local notables and antiquaries in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had collections of coins from the site54 It is evident that the total number of Roman coins deposited whether lost or deliberately hoarded at Richborough far exceeds the 56084 recovered during the excavations of 1922ndash193855 and it is probable that Iron Age coins were among those previously removed without record

Looked at in an overall context the 23 Iron Age coins from Richborough show considerable deviation from the general pattern in east Kent (fig 5) There are several unusual features and the group may perhaps be regarded as chronologically typologically and numerically unrepresentative for a number of reasons

a The coin distribution is irregular for an east Kent siteb An unknown number of coins have been removed without record over a long period of time including by recent illegal metal-detector activityc A lack of sanctioned metal detecting because much of the area is scheduledd The collections of local antiquaries could be of a selective nature

45 Bushe-Fox 1949 8ndash11 Cunliffe 1968 116ndash1746 Cunliffe 1968 23247 Thompson 1982 809 Pollard 1988 4448 Bayley and Butcher 200449 Rodwell 1976 22150 Allen 1968 18651 Allen 1968 184ndash852 A further coin from Richborough has been noted by Bean (Bean 2000 178 his type VERC 3-4) However the

Celtic Coin Index record for this coin queries this provenance and it has accordingly been decided not to include it in the site list at Appendix 1

53 Toulmin-Smith 1909 6254 eg Roach-Smith 1850 11955 Reece 1968

15IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

e Large-scale disturbance during the Roman period destroyed earlier layers (although any coins would probably have been re-deposited rather than removed)f There could have been considerable displacement of coins from non-local sources during the earliest Roman phaseg Many coins were probably missed during the excavations (see above)h The 1922ndash1938 excavations concentrated on the area within the Saxon Shore fort but this was not necessarily the centre of any LPRIA settlement A recent magnetometry survey and analysis of aerial photographs have revealed a dense mass of features across the fields around the fort56 many of these are probably of Roman date but the possibility that some are earlier cannot be discounted in the absence of excavation

On current evidence the Iron Age coins from Richborough appear to fall into two groups one ending at the beginning of the first century ad and consisting mainly of types typically found in east Kent and the other being more or less contemporary with the Roman conquest of ad 43 and consisting mainly of types not generally found in east Kent Haselgrove described the Richborough assemblage as superficially impressive but spurious commenting on the large number of Phase 8L coins compared with Canterbury which he suggested was a result of the Roman invasion57 No other site in east Kent bears any similarity to Richborough in Phase 8L when losses are nearly ten times the east Kent mean so it may be inferred that the reason for this is an event specific to Richborough The possibility that at least some of the earlier coins were lost at a later date as suggested by Haselgrove58 cannot be dismissed particularly in view of the lack of securely stratified and undisturbed Iron Age coins from the site the specimens of VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are candidates for this Although there are only three silver coins from Richborough silver is further above the east Kent mean than the bronze but this is entirely down to the appearance of non-local types and is misleading

56 Millett and Wilmott 200457 Haselgrove 1987 15358 Haselgrove 1987 153

fig 5a Richborough coins from site ()fig 5b Richborough set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

16 DAVID HOLMAN

The early group consists mainly of potins Gaulish imports and Kentish uninscribed bronzes together with a slightly later inscribed issue of Sa(m) Both of the coins previously recorded as bronzes of Massalia are actually potins59 The silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are early and both originate from the south coast of England With the exception of these silver coins which may have arrived later this early group fits very well into the general east Kent pattern and seemingly indicates a period of pre-Conquest coin use on the site The low percentage of potin and rather higher percentage of bronze counts against an establishment date much before the middle of the first century bc and it may be that the potins were lost at a later date and that the site was a later first-century bc foundation In favour of this is the fact that Phase 6 coins and continental imports are both above the mean for east Kent indeed Richborough has one of the highest levels of imported pre-Conquest coinage from any site in Britain comprising 304 per cent of the total site assemblage It may be significant that the proportions of Gaulish imports and Phase 6 coinage at Richborough are very similar to Archers Low Farm perhaps hinting at some link between these two sites The imports could have been deposited with the Phase 8L coins during early Roman occupation60 but given the low levels of Phase 7 and 8E coinage the near contemporary Phase 6 coinage seems unlikely to have been deposited as late as Phase 8L

Following an apparent hiatus in coin deposition evidenced by the lack of Eppillus and early Cunobelin issues common finds elsewhere in east Kent a later group becomes evident This consists of late issues of Cunobelin and three coins from the south coast one of Verica and two of the Durotriges Late issues of Cunobelin are greatly outnumbered by early issues elsewhere in east Kent while the three south coast coins suggest a link with the West Sussex Hampshire and Dorset area which is otherwise almost wholly absent in east Kent The southern silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 from the early group may have arrived at Richborough at the same time as the later coins as a result of post-Conquest activity An analogous situation can be seen at a number of sites in France where Gaulish bronzes continued in use into the first century ad61 A second-century bc bronze coin of Cyzicus is on balance more likely to be a Roman than a pre-Roman import in this instance further illustrating the difficulty in determining the date at which such early coins reached Britain62

SITE 4 EBBSFLEET ISLE OF THANET

Background

This site lies some 35 km to the north of Richborough Castle on the southern side of the Isle of Thanet at a mean elevation of 8 m above OD It occupies a low chalk promontory capped with Thanet Beds sand surrounded on three sides by marshlands which were once part of the Wantsum Channel Metal detector surveys by the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association and evaluation trenching by the Trust for Thanet Archaeology in 1990 have demonstrated the presence of extensive prehistoric and Roman occupation in this area63 Settlement in the late Iron Age is represented by a number of features together with significant quantities of pottery and coinage Amongst the pottery much of which is dated to c ad 25ndash5075 is a quantity of

59 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15260 Haselgrove 1987 15361 Haselgrove 1999 16462 There are also three early Mediterranean bronze coins from the foreshore close to the Roman fort at Reculver

at the northern end of the Wantsum Channel one of an uncertain Ptolemy one of Agathocles of Syracuse and one of Mamertini Sicily Reculver has also produced several Iron Age coins including a quarter stater (Sch 7) dating from as early as the third century bc which is potentially a contemporary import

63 Perkins 1992

17IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

imported Gallo-Belgic fineware not all of which is pre-Conquest in date There is also locally produced pottery dating from the mid-first century bc onwards as well as earlier material

The coinage

A total of 43 Iron Age and three other pre-Conquest coins are currently recorded from Ebbsfleet (Appendix 1) A few of these were published by Wren in 199264 but further discoveries have since been made and more information is available concerning the finds

Ebbsfleet has the highest percentage of Kentish Primary potins from any site in east Kent with the exception of lsquoEastryrsquo (see below Site 6) (fig 6) There are also a number of early Flat Linear I potins Overall potins are 23 per cent above the east Kent mean This suggests that the site was established at an early date probably before 100 bc a date also supported by quantities of flint-tempered pottery A relatively high level of coin deposition continued until perhaps the mid-first century bc when like Worth and North Foreland there appears to have been a major reduction in activity A change in local circumstances external factors or the non-relevance of Flat Linear II potins at these three sites are all possible reasons for the lack of Flat Linear II potins but in the absence of evidence other than the coinage itself little can be said without resorting to circular arguments At each of these sites coin deposition subsequently increased again by the early first

64 CR Wren lsquoCoins found at Ebbsfleet during 1990 and 1991rsquo in Perkins 1992 305ndash6

century ad Many of the potins from Ebbsfleet are in very poor condition possibly as a result of intensive agricultural activity in recent years Some may conceivably be Gaulish imports but their condition makes precise classification impossible

Although potins are above the east Kent mean struck bronzes are under-represented There are nine different types among the twelve coins recorded and only one is represented by more than a single specimen The solitary Gaulish struck bronze is unusually not an issue from Belgic Gaul The Siculo-Punic and Ebusus bronzes are potential pre-Conquest imports

There is an above average level of silver at Ebbsfleet a feature also evident at Richborough although very probably for different reasons there being little evidence for early Roman

fig 6a Ebbsfleet coins from site ()fig 6b Ebbsfleet set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

18 DAVID HOLMAN

occupation at Ebbsfleet The ratio of silver to bronze at Ebbsfleet is higher than for any other site in east Kent although this may be down to chance A silver coin regarded as an Atrebatic issue by Bean but not listed by Van Arsdell or Hobbs is now known from several other findspots in Kent and it may be an early Kentish issue although it bears little resemblance to any other Kentish coinage65 It is here regarded as Atrebatic although Atrebatic coinage is generally very rarely found in Kent No gold coins have been recorded from Ebbsfleet other than a contemporary forgery of a Gallo-Belgic E stater with a silver core

The level of Gaulish non-gold imports at Ebbsfleet is low at only 58 per cent of the east Kent mean An even lower level of imports is seen at North Foreland (see below Site 5) and imports are scarce finds in Thanet generally particularly when compared with the adjacent mainland area around Sandwich This is surprising in view of the coastal location and may suggest that the Kentish cross-Channel ports were situated on the mainland rather than on Thanet from where another water crossing would inconveniently be required before accessing any inland routes away from the coastal strip (although Richborough does seem to provide an exception to this) It seems clear that the main circulation area of Gaulish imports in Kent was in the hinterland of the mainland ports

The nature of the site at Ebbsfleet remains unclear but certain parallels with the Worth Temple site suggest that a not dissimilar site may exist here albeit with a significant reduction in coin deposition in Phase 8L which is far less in evidence at Worth The coin distributions at Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet are broadly similar with the exception of a higher level of silver and corresponding lower level of bronze at Ebbsfleet these differences may be more apparent than real when the relative sample sizes are compared Again there is an early peak among the potins and a later peak in Phases 7 and 8E The overall coin distribution at Ebbsfleet appears on current evidence to be marginally earlier than at the Worth Temple site both in its greater incidence of early potins and the higher ratio of Phase 7 coins to those of Phase 8E Other features shared by Ebbsfleet and Worth Temple are that both sites stand on a promontory and both have Roman masonry structures although the lsquomainrsquo Ebbsfleet building apparently of later second-century date is of unknown function66

The total lack of Phase 8L coinage at Ebbsfleet is particularly significant when compared with nearby Richborough and may conceivably represent a temporary abandonment of the site at around the time of the Conquest A marked decline in activity in the early Roman period until a resurgence in the later second century ad based on the comparative scarcity of pottery of early Roman date and the lack of contemporary coinage has previously been noted by Macpherson-Grant67 The implication can be made that the Iron Age coins were mostly if not all deposited before the Conquest or at the latest shortly afterwards

SITE 5 NORTH FORELAND BROADSTAIRS

Background

This site is located on the North Foreland on the Isle of Thanet at the easternmost point of Kent It occupies a ridge of upper Chalk and the eastern slope of the valley immediately to the west where the chalk is sealed by Head Brickearth The highest point of the site is now occupied by the North Foreland lighthouse at an elevation of about 36 m above OD

The existence of a double ditch system apparently enclosing an area of at least 24 ha across the hilltop was revealed by aerial photographs several years ago In 1995 members of the Thanet

65 Bean 2000 237 (his type QsD 3-4)66 Perkins 1992 278ndash8167 N MacPherson-Grant lsquoThe Potteryrsquo in Perkins 1992 301

19IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Archaeological Society investigated the site by cutting several sections across the ditches The outermost of these ditches had cut two earlier ditches one of which appears to have been palisaded68 Ceramic evidence indicated a construction date in the mid- to late Iron Age with infilling of the ditches occurring from the late first century bc onwards The site is currently interpreted as being a possible hillfort although the ditch dimensions are on the small side and the term lsquodefended hilltop enclosurersquo may be more appropriate

The coinage

A total of 81 Iron Age coins (counting a potin hoard as one find) has been recorded from the site at North Foreland the majority of which have been found by metal-detector users (Appendix 1) The two gold coins mentioned by Perkins are of unknown types69 A Gallo-Belgic stater found in the nineteenth century at Stone House immediately to the south of the St Stephenrsquos College site is probably related to the site and has been included here

The site histogram for North Foreland (fig 7) shows that potins are the most common Iron Age coins here with Kentish Primary potins comprising 346 per cent of the total site assemblage the most numerous However the distribution of the potins differs from Worth and Ebbsfleet in that Flat Linear I potins are much further above the east Kent mean than are the Kentish Primary potins This is not a result of the Flat Linear I hoard from the site which is counted as a single

68 Hogwood 1995 475ndash669 Perkins 1993 411ndash13

find rather the hoard complements the other Flat Linear I potins and provides definite evidence of contemporary activity The ratio of Flat Linear I potins to those of the Kentish Primary Series is higher than normal for east Kent and these show an emphasis towards the earlier varieties probably dating from the first quarter of the first century bc

In 1999 an archaeological excavation was undertaken by Canterbury Archaeological Trust and the Trust for Thanet Archaeology prior to the redevelopment of the St Stephenrsquos College site on the ridge-top some 400 m to the south-west of the lighthouse Among the many finds of Iron Age (and earlier) date was a coin hoard containing 62 Flat Linear I potins buried in a

fig 7a North Foreland coins from site ()fig 7b North Foreland set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

20 DAVID HOLMAN

pit Preliminary examination of this hoard indicated that although the coins range from Allenrsquos Class C to Class L approximately half belong to Class G70 The hoard will be reported on elsewhere The excavations also revealed an enclosure provisionally dated on ceramic evidence to the first half of the first century bc ie contemporary with the hoard and a large number of storage pits again of similar date The hoard was located only a short distance from the entrance to the enclosure and its location in the centre of what seems to have been an active site suggests that ritual deposition should be considered as a possible reason for its concealment Given the existence of this hoard the possibility that at least some of the potins recovered as metal-detector finds from the adjacent fields may derive from another now dispersed hoard cannot be discounted although there is no evidence to suggest this

North Foreland shows an apparent reduction in coinage deposition after the mid-first century bc before a later recovery in common with Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet Coins of Phases 6 and 7 are both around half the east Kent mean but a significant increase is evident in Phase 8E which continues into Phase 8L suggesting that the site saw a revival in the early first century ad The 24 struck bronzes recorded slightly below the east Kent mean form a very heterogeneous assemblage with 17 different types represented These are almost exclusively Kentish issues either produced in Kent or elsewhere (apparently) for specific use in Kent71 In view of the coastal location of the site it is interesting to note the appearance of three specimens of the lsquoShiprsquo type (VA 1989) among the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin

The low number of non-local issues is significant given the coastal location Apart from a Gallo-Belgic stater only one import has been recorded contrasting sharply with Archers Low Farm Richborough and Folkestone At only 16 per cent of the east Kent mean this site has the lowest percentage of non-gold imports at any of the major sites discussed in this paper Non-local British issues are also rare here but the coin of Verica is one of only two recorded from Kent

Set against the rest of east Kent potin is the most significant metal type at North Foreland followed by silver marginally ahead of bronze As with some elements of the phasing this is a feature shared with Ebbsfleet and may reflect a common cause North Foreland displays activity at a later date than Ebbsfleet but it is not unreasonable to assume that these sites were in some way related

SITE 6 lsquoEASTRyrsquo

Background

Situated on chalk downland south of Eastry this site has produced an assemblage of 51 pre-Roman coins At the request of the landowner and the finders details of the coins are held in the Celtic Coin Index under the neutral provenance of lsquoNorth-East Kentrsquo72

The coinage

A total of 47 Iron Age and four Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from lsquoEastryrsquo (Appendix 1)

70 C Haselgrove pers comm71 An example of the extremely rare bronze half unit VA 154-11 has been listed here as possibly being an issue

of Eppillus with its designs of a geometric pattern and a capricorn The capricorn on the reverse suggests an Augustan prototype which is probably later in date than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which this type has been attributed by both Mack and Van Arsdell However a clearer specimen is still awaited to prove or disprove this reattribution

72 Not all coins in the Celtic Coin Index with this provenance are necessarily from lsquoEastryrsquo The coins listed are known to be from this site

21IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

lsquoEastryrsquo shows clear signs of early activity with an emphasis on Kentish Primary potins (fig 8) which are 133 per cent above the east Kent mean higher than anywhere else in the region Flat Linear I potins are almost exactly on the mean but again there is an absence of Flat Linear II potins Overall potins are further above the east Kent mean here than at any other major site in the region heavily weighted by the large number of Kentish Primary types Early activity is also suggested by the three Gallo-Belgic staters lsquoEastryrsquo has a higher percentage of gold than most other sites in the region with the exception of Richborough and East Wear Bay Folkestone the latter of which fairly certainly incorporates a large degree of bias among the early finds

Only one silver coin has been recorded and there is also an unusually low number of struck bronzes lower in percentage terms than at any other site discussed in this paper Apart from this the most unusual aspect of the lsquoEastryrsquo coins is the discovery of four Siculo-Punic bronzes all of the same type the largest number of such coins from any site in Kent

The nature of this site is uncertain and the site histogram (fig 8) is irregular The above average representation of coinage in Phases 1ndash5 a very unusual feature for any site is an indicator that this site may have had a particular and possibly specialised function The high ratio of gold to silver and struck bronze may suggest that trade is unlikely to have been a principal function of this site as gold is not likely to have been a common medium of exchange A religious site is a possibility as is a disturbed hoard(s)

A separate report on lsquoEastryrsquo as a possible religiouslsquoritualrsquo site has been published elsewhere73 No further investigation of this site is anticipated

SITE 7 GOODNESTONE

Background

This inland site is located to the south-east of Goodnestone some 11 km south-east of Canterbury It occupies a broad gently sloping ridge of Upper Chalk capped by Head Brickearth at a mean elevation of 55 to 60 m above OD The existence of an Iron Age and Roman site was

73 Holman 2005a 280ndash1

fig 8a lsquoEastryrsquo coins from site ()fig 8b lsquoEastryrsquo set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

22 DAVID HOLMAN

not known until a metal-detector survey of the area carried out from 1994 onwards started to produce substantial quantities of coinage in addition to other artefacts including several pieces of mid-first-century ad Roman military equipment74 In addition to 92 Iron Age coins there are several hundred Roman coins covering the entire period of the Roman occupation Ceramic evidence and quernstones also indicate late Iron Age and Roman occupation

The coinage

The 92 Iron Age coins recorded from Goodnestone are listed in Appendix 1 The majority of these coins are either of Kentish origin or were produced elsewhere apparently for use in Kent the percentage of non-Kentish coinage from the site is lower than usual for east Kent (fig 9)

The low number of potin coins representing just 65 per cent of the site assemblage shows that although the site may have an origin in the first half of the first century bc activity at that time was probably limited The coin evidence suggests that the main phase of activity at Goodnestone started in the final quarter of the first century bc

The majority of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone 902 per cent of the site total are struck bronzes Coins of the Kentish uninscribed Series are the most frequent and are represented by 29 examples including three types not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs One of these a variant of VA 154-1 appears to provide a link between the Kentish uninscribed Series and the early inscribed coinage of Dubnovellaunos The obverse although worn on all three specimens appears to bear the same or a very similar design to the Kentish uninscribed bronze issue VA 154-1 The reverse shows a left-facing version of the horse depicted on the reverse of VA 154-1 and a close parallel for this is seen on the reverse of an inscribed silver coin of Dubnovellaunos (VA 171) It is possible that the same die-cutter was involved with all three types Three of the five known specimens of this variant form of VA 154-1 have come from Goodnestone It is conceivably an early uninscribed issue of Dubnovellaunos but has here been retained within the Kentish uninscribed Series

Coins attributed to Dubnovellaunos are represented by 21 examples at Goodnestone Among

fig 9a Goodnestone coins from site ()fig 9b Goodnestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

74 Bishop 1995 17ndash19

23IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

these are six examples of two uncatalogued but related bronze types known from several other provenances in both Kent and Essex75 A coin of Dubnovellaunos is one of only two silver coins from Goodnestone the other tentatively attributed to Addedomaros by Van Arsdell76 is known from three other provenances in east Kent but a north Thames origin still appears likely on stylistic grounds

Phase 8 coins at Goodnestone are less numerous than those of the Kentish uninscribed Series and Dubnovellaunos Coins of Eppillus are scarcer than expected for east Kent and the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin are represented by only three types all of which have their principal distribution in Kent A quarter-stater of Cunobelin is the only gold coin from Goodnestone and is possibly the latest Iron Age coin from the site although similarly late bronze coins of Amminus are also present Only three Gaulish coins have been recorded just 37 per cent of the site total unusually low for east Kent

The histogram for Goodnestone (fig 9) indicates that the site was established before the end of the first century bc Coins of Phase 6 are the most frequent finds but from then until the Conquest losses steadily decline although remaining above the east Kent mean This decline suggests that the earlier coins at least were largely deposited before the Conquest otherwise it is reasonable to expect that the ratio of Phase 8 coins to those of Phase 6 would be higher Goodnestonersquos nearest parallel among the east Kent sites is Archers Low Farm except for the lack of Gaulish imports which are significantly under-represented at only 45 per cent of the east Kent mean This may be regarded as an expected difference between a probable port site and an inland settlement of uncertain nature seemingly established at around the same time Otherwise both sites have low numbers of potins significant peaks in Phases 6 and 7 and are virtually identical in Phases 8E and 8L The metal types at Goodnestone and Archers Low Farm also have very similar proportions The very high level of struck bronze is indicative of trade and exchange from the latter part of the first century bc The scarcity of Gaulish imports and non-Kentish coinage at Goodnestone suggests that much of the activity here was locally based and that there were no direct links with places further afield A greater number of non-local coins would be expected at a trading centre with wider links such as Canterbury

The state of preservation of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone is generally very poor and ten have not been identified The impression given is that many of these coins had a long circulation life however to add a note of caution late Roman coins of the same type found only a few metres apart at Goodnestone sometimes show a very marked variation in their state of preservation the reason for which is unclear

The adjacent Cherrygarden Lane appears on Ordnance Survey maps as part of a trackway running for several kilometres across the Kentish downland This may well have originated as a main thoroughfare at a very early date A geophysical survey of part of the site revealed the existence of another trackway across the field with probable field boundaries adjoining it The function of the late Iron Age and Roman site at Goodnestone is unclear from the coin evidence alone and is only likely to be clarified by excavation Curteis has discussed a not dissimilar site at Evenley Northamptonshire and suggested either a religious centre andor an occupationaltrading settlement77 A detailed report on Goodnestone incorporating all facets of the site is in preparation78

75 Both types are uninscribed but can be attributed to Dubnovellaunos on stylistic and distributional grounds A Kentish origin for these issues is preferred here particularly in view of the lack of non-Kentish coinage from Goodnestone

76 Van Arsdell 1989 350 (his type VA 1611)77 Curteis 1996 33ndash478 Cross forthcoming

24 DAVID HOLMAN

SITE 8 CANTERBURy (WALLED AREA)

Background

As the Roman civitas capital of Kent and a moderately large town within the province of Britannia Canterbury was an important settlement which has continued to be occupied up to the present day The name by which the settlement was known to the Romans Durovernum Cantiacorum is of Celtic origin translating as lsquothe walled town by the alder swamprsquo79 and perhaps provides an initial clue to a pre-Conquest origin for the site

It has been known since at least the eighteenth century that substantial remains of the Roman town survived below the modern streets During the installation of the sewage system in the 1860s a number of coins were found none was described in detail but some were possibly Iron Age80 In 1871 an Iron Age coin was found in Burgate providing evidence for some type of pre-Conquest occupation in the area However definite remains of late Iron Age settlement were not found until excavations began on bomb-damaged sites in 1946 when work revealed a gully apparently bounding a hut site together with pottery of pre-Conquest date81 Since then a significant number of other sites producing evidence of pre-Roman occupation have been located most notably in the Marlowe car park area situated towards the central part of the Roman walled town where the remains of two circular houses set within a triple-ditched enclosure accompanied by hearths ovens and a well were found82 It now seems that late Iron Age settlement at Canterbury was dispersed across an area of at least 10 ha beside the River Stour fairly certainly focused on a ford but apparently lacking any significant defences The available dating evidence suggests that the later Iron Age settlement began during the mid- to late first century bc although evidence of occupation immediately pre-dating this may still await discovery There is some evidence for early Iron Age settlement in the area

Of particular significance in the context of the later Iron Age settlement is the hillfort of Bigberry Camp located above the Stour valley some 3 km to the west This site represents the only known certain hillfort in eastern Kent Occupation here seems to have begun c 350 bc but the defences do not appear to have been constructed until the second century bc83 The camp appears to have been largely abandoned around 50 bc perhaps as a result of it being stormed by Caesarrsquos troops in 54 bc84 Despite the significant amount of archaeological work at Bigberry no Iron Age coins have been found A few bronze coins have been found at Harbledown 1 km to the north-east Rodwell has previously suggested that the general lack of coinage from the site indicates that it was not of major importance as a permanent settlement85

It is generally accepted that the settlement at Canterbury in some way superseded Bigberry during the mid-first century bc perhaps originating as a river-side trading station of the hillfort86 Blagg has suggested that Canterburyrsquos importance grew after c 15 bc following the establishment of the Rhine frontier87 However there is currently insufficient evidence to show that Canterbury had developed into a major proto-urban centre before the Roman conquest and there appear to have been few changes certainly within the Marlowe area until the Flavian

79 Rivet and Smith 1979 353ndash480 Pilbrow 187181 Frere 1965 682 Blockley et al 199583 Thompson 1983 253ndash9 Blockley and Blockley 1989 245ndash684 Blockley and Blockley 1989 24685 Rodwell 1976 33086 Blockley et al 1995 987 T Blagg in Blockley et al 1995 11

25IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

period88 The Iron Age status of Canterbury has previously been questioned89 and Millett makes the important point that the later Roman development of the site arguably and quite possibly wrongly leads to the perception that the Iron Age settlement was of equal importance90 Nevertheless it is clear from the extent of the known remains the amount of coinage and the quantity of imported fineware pottery including Dressel I amphorae that the settlement here was of some importance The evidence for this as provided by the Iron Age coinage is further considered below

The coinage

By the end of 2003 a total of 163 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) had been recorded from within the area of the later Roman walled town mainly in the area of Longmarket Rose Lane St Margarets Street Watling Street and Beer Cart Lane Significantly fewer Iron Age coins have been found during the recent Whitefriars excavations immediately to the east perhaps indicating the eastern limits of the Iron Age settlement although development pressures meant that only limited excavation of the earliest layers was possible The most important point about these coins is that they have virtually all been found during archaeological excavations Canterbury is the only site considered in this paper which has subsequently been built over in its entirety but it is also the only site with the exception of Richborough that has seen archaeological excavation on a large scale Canterbury is the only major late Iron Age site in east Kent with large numbers of broadly contemporary stratified coin finds This is of considerable importance not only for understanding the origins of the city but also for the study of the circulation deposition and dating of Iron Age coinage in the region as a whole A basic relative chronology for other sites in east Kent can be constructed by considering the numismatic evidence from Canterbury for example the realisation that potin coins predate the struck bronzes which themselves evolved from native-inspired designs into more Romanised types

Archaeological contexts can be questioned if later activity has occurred on the site leading to the inevitable disturbance of earlier features The result is a tendency to date items later than should be the case91 A significant number of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury have been found in post-Conquest deposits and Haselgrove regarded these as a mixture of residual coins disturbed by Roman activity as one would expect in an urban context and coins continuing in use until the mid-first century ad92 Nash considered that the potin coins from the Marlowe excavations were circulating until the later first century ad but appeared to make insufficient concession to residuality93 Some Iron Age coins have been found in medieval and later deposits having clearly arrived there as a result of earlier levels being disturbed During the early Roman period disturbance of the underlying Iron Age deposits would have been much more frequent and therefore more coins would have been displaced It cannot be conclusively shown that the Iron Age coins at Canterbury circulated for any length of time after the Conquest although it is reasonable to suppose that some may have continued to circulate for a few years before being fully supplanted by the new Roman coinage94 The problems caused by residuality have also been discussed by Arthur in relation to the late Republican amphorae from the excavations95

88 Blockley et al 1995 1289 Blockley et al 1995 990 Millett 1996 342ndash391 Haselgrove 1988 103ndash592 Haselgrove 1987 14193 D Nash in Blockley et al 1995 92394 eg Nash 1987 36ndash895 Arthur 1986 240

26 DAVID HOLMAN

Potins account for 479 per cent of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury (fig 10) The near absence of Kentish Primary potins is significant because this implies that they had largely ceased to circulate before Canterbury was established Only two of these coins have been recorded both from post-Conquest contexts and these were previously wrongly identified as a cut-down bronze of Massalia and a Central Gaulish lsquotecircte diaboliquersquo potin96 Given that Kentish Primary potins are the commonest type of Iron Age coin in east Kent it is reasonable to assume that many more would have been found at Canterbury had they still been in circulation in the last 50ndash75 years before the Conquest The possibility remains that the initial nucleus of the settlement may have been situated elsewhere97 but the current evidence supports Haselgroversquos view that early potins had mostly ceased to circulate by the early first century ad98 indeed a date before the turn of the century may now be preferred In France the temple sites at Champlieu and Chilly also provide evidence that potins had virtually disappeared from circulation by the first century ad99

An early cessation date for the circulation of the earlier Flat Linear I potins particularly Allen Classes AndashD can also be surmised from the Canterbury evidence The 21 Flat Linear I potins all belong to Allen Classes jndashL ie late in the series probably dating to around the middle of the first century bc Some of these were deliberately cut100 a feature rarely seen elsewhere although a cut Class L coin has been recorded from the Worth Temple site Elsewhere in east Kent the earlier types form a significant component of the Flat Linear I potins and their absence at Canterbury again suggests that if any settlement existed on the site in the early first century bc it is likely to have been of little importance Haselgrove noted that earlier Flat Linear I types are present at Rochester suggesting that Rochester was a site of some importance at an earlier date than Canterbury101 This may well still hold true for the relative chronology of the earliest phases at Canterbury and Rochester but it now seems likely that Kentish coinage began in the

96 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15397 Blockley et al 1995 898 Haselgrove 1987 15899 Allen 1995 51100 Haselgrove 1988 118101 Haselgrove 1987 151

fig 10a Canterbury (walled area) coins from site ()fig 10b Canterbury (walled area) set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

27IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

east of the county102 and a later commencement date for Canterbury need have no particular relevance in any discussion on Rochester located some 43 km to the north-west

Flat Linear II potins are represented by 50 surviving specimens 307 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (321 per cent of the identified coins) Compared with their general scarcity elsewhere in east Kent with the exception of East Wear Bay Folkestone (see below Site 9) with which some sort of link may have existed this is exceptional a fact well illustrated by fig 10 which shows that the proportion of these coins at Canterbury is more than ten times the mean for the rest of east Kent Recent research on Flat Linear II potins based on hoard evidence and individual findspots is leaning increasingly towards an origin in the region immediately north of London rather than Kent at least for certain classes103 In this case the appearance of so many of these coins at Canterbury cannot be easily explained They passed into the local circulation pool at a much lower rate than other coin types and the scarcity of these coins around Canterbury suggests that their principal purpose may have been related to a specific activity or commodity the nature of which is unknown Alternatively there was a sudden and significant but short-lived increase in activity at Canterbury (and Folkestone) which may again have had a specific cause Either way there must have been a fairly high degree of control to restrict their circulation in this manner A comparison may perhaps be made with the exceptionally high number of Roman coins of the period ad 388ndash402 found at Richborough which is not reflected elsewhere in east Kent and which must represent an event specific to that site in the local record although the contents of several hoards at the site account for a not insignificant proportion of these late coins104 It seems likely that the Flat Linear II potins were used in Canterbury as a low-value coinage as the appearance of so many high-value coins in a non-hoard context would be difficult to explain There may perhaps have been a reliance on these coins to sustain the Canterbury circulation pool for small-scale transactions Haselgrove noted that potins were the commonest issues circulating in Canterbury until Phase 8 (c ad 20)105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role106 although how much of this is a result of residuality cannot be ascertained

Struck bronzes are represented at Canterbury by 69 coins These include ten Gaulish coins 159 per cent of the (identified) struck bronze total There are also five Gaulish potins Overall Gaulish coins at Canterbury are 53 per cent above the east Kent mean Haselgrove commented on possible early links with the Continent107 and Fitzpatrickrsquos suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands108 but coastal sites such as Archers Low Farm and East Wear Bay Folkestone may be regarded as more likely initial points of contact Phase 6 coins are also above the east Kent mean In this respect there is some similarity to Archers Low Farm although the deviation from the mean there both for imports and Phase 6 coins is far greater There are 21 struck bronzes of the Kentish Uninscribed Series and an early lsquoChichester Cockrsquo type The frequency of some of the Kentish Uninscribed types at Canterbury in particular VA 154-3 suggests that minting facilities may have been operating at that time

Bronzes of the dynastic period are represented by 31 coins The nine coins of Dubnovellaunos three of Tasciovanus-Sego and ten of Eppillus are typical for an east Kent site However coins of Cunobelin appear to be significantly under-represented only eight coins of Cunobelin have been recorded from Canterbury and four of these are late types otherwise scarce in east

102 Holman 2000103 Haselgrove 1988 117 G Cottam pers comm104 Reece 1987 84105 Haselgrove 1987 145106 Haselgrove 1993 44107 Haselgrove 1987 143108 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

2 DAVID HOLMAN

The east Kent region has seen by far the greatest increase in the number of Iron Age coins recorded in the county To some extent this is the result of several productive sites but a significant quantity of coinage away from those sites is also evident Of the 2502 accurately provenanced Iron Age coins recorded from Kent (counting hoards as one) as at the end of 2003 1690 are from east Kent and of these 1629 have been identified and classified into groups based on the phases formulated by Colin Haselgrove (Table 1)4 A number of other coins have not been included owing to dubious or vague provenances The lack of any fixed chronology poses problems for the dating of Iron Age coinage the dates given by Van Arsdell are far too

fig 1 Map of east Kent showing the major sites discussed below 1 Worth Temple 2 Archers Low Farm Sandwich 3 Richborough 4 Ebbsfleet 5 North Foreland 6 lsquoEastryrsquo 7 Goodnestone

8 Canterbury 9 East Wear Bay Folkestone (Contour shows land 100m above OD)

4 Haselgrove 1987 75ndash101 these phases which are in general use for Iron Age coin studies have been slightly amended here based on advances in knowledge of Iron Age coinage in Kent and a further category for the earliest potin series the lsquoThurrockrsquo type (hereafter referred to perhaps more accurately as the lsquoKentish Primary Seriesrsquo) has been added

3IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

5 Van Arsdell 19896 Lewis 1736 27 pl 5 Boys 1792 8697 Haselgrove 1993 438 Allen 1976 1009 Some uninscribed types appear on typological and stylistic grounds to belong to the dynastic series and have

been treated as such where the evidence supports this10 Haselgrove 1987 21311 May 1994 14

precise given the nature of the evidence and most dates should be given a range of plus or minus ten years at least5

Early references to Iron Age coins from east Kent were made in the eighteenth century by local historians6 However despite its proximity to the Continent with the possibilities of finding evidence of cross-Channel contacts in the surviving coinage east Kent has previously received very little attention in the numismatic literature owing largely to the fact that Kentish Iron Age coins were with the exception of the Flat Linear potin coins very rare In addition few imported Gaulish base metal coins were known from the region although it has long been recognised that such imports were the prototypes and inspiration for many of the early Kentish types7 In 1976 Allen commented that Iron Age coinage in Kent was poorly understood and that there must be many more coins to be found and recorded8 Recording of metal-detector finds and major excavations in Canterbury since then have revolutionised this situation with the addition of more than 750 potin more than 550 struck bronze around 100 silver and around 100 gold coins to the east Kent corpus overall around ten times as many coins are now available for study and analysis as in 1976 These include several new types in the Kentish Uninscribed Series and the succeeding dynastic series9 As noted by Haselgrove single coin finds are of particular value in understanding circulation patterns10 and these have provided perhaps the most significant results of the current study with the realisation that coins are not largely restricted to certain sites but are far more widespread

Over the last few years several locations in east Kent have emerged as sites yielding significant quantities of Iron Age coins A discussion of the archaeological background and the coins recorded from nine sites mdash in the broadest sense mdash which have produced between 23 and 236 Iron Age coins and how these relate to the region as a whole forms the principal part of this paper Of the 1690 coin finds recorded from east Kent 802 come from these nine sites which are regarded here as lsquomajorrsquo sites Most of these sites are now farmland with material largely unstratified collected from on or near the surface similar to for example Dragonby and Kirmington in Lincolnshire11 The remaining 888 coin finds come from a total of more than

TABLE 1 PHASES OF IRON AGE COINAGE IN KENT

Phase Notes Date (+- 10 Years)PKP Earliest British potin coinage (Kentish Primary Series) Midndashlate 2nd century bc PFLI First potin coinage of lsquoflatrsquo module (Flat Linear I) Late 2ndndashmid 1st century bcPFLII Latest British potin coinage (Flat Linear II) c50ndash30 bcC (Potin AE AR) Imported base metal and silver coinage Mostly c100ndash30 bc1ndash5 (AV) All imported gold coinage and earliest British types Late 3rd centuryndashc50 bc6 Kentish Uninscribed Series other uninscribed British types c40ndash25 bc7 Dubnovellaunos Sa Vosenos Tasciovanus c25ndash1 bc8E (early) Eppillus early Cunobelin types c ad 1ndash258L (late) Later Cunobelin types Amminus c ad 25ndash409 Latest British coinage (no Kentish types) c ad 40ndashConquest

4 DAVID HOLMAN

12 Mack 1975 Van Arsdell 1989 Hobbs 199613 Around 80 per cent of the Iron Age coins from east Kent have been found by metal detectorists with

archaeological excavations providing 17 per cent and casual finds 3 per cent

200 separate locations ranging from sites with less than 20 coins down to single isolated finds together with areas containing large numbers of coins but no clear focus

A number of Kentish types uncatalogued by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs appear in the site lists12 In order to clarify which types have been found on which sites a summary description of these coins is provided together with a temporary reference solely for the purpose of this paper and a corresponding Celtic Coin Index reference (Table 2 fig 2) The temporary references are based on a system used by the writer in his database of coins found in Kent Only those coin types which appear in the site lists (Appendix 1) are shown

SOuRCE DATA AND STATISTICAL METHODOLOGy

Source data

The great majority of the coins used in this study have been found by metal detector users since c 198013 Despite the die-hard attitude of some archaeologists and continued arguments about the pros and cons of detecting metal detectors have increasingly been used on archaeological excavations and field surveys in recent years the principal result of which has been a significant increase in the quantity of metalwork especially coinage recovered from sites leading to the conclusion that much useful dating material has in the past been missed

TABLE 2 KENTISH COIN TyPES NOT LISTED By MACK VAN ARSDELL OR HOBBS WHICH HAVE BEEN FOUND ON THE MAjOR SITES IN EAST KENT CELTIC COIN INDEx (CCI) REFERENCES SHOWN

Kentish Uninscribed SeriesUB1 Head right clumpy-hoofed Pegasus left (AE) as CCI 950903 (fig 2 1) (Allen 1995 83 no 277)UB2a Head right alternate ring and dot border (lsquoneatrsquo style)lion left (AE) as CCI 030078 (fig 2 2)UB3 Boar left five-tailed lion left (AE) as CCI 920042 (fig 2 3)US3 Four horsesrsquo heads horse left (AR minim) as CCI 990362 (fig 2 4) (Blockley et al 1995 925 no 41)DubnovellaunosDB1a Long-haired head left Pegasus right with hatched box below (AE) as CCI 010199 (fig 2 5)DB1b Crowned head left (reverse as DB1a) (AE) as CCI 020075 (fig 2 6) DB2 Lion left horseman right (AE) as CCI 941182 (fig 2 7)DS1 Griffin right seated figure right (AR) as CCI 890026 (fig 28)

SaSamSB1 Horse right hippogryph left (AE frac12) as CCI 990002 (de jersey 1997) (fig 2 9)TasciovanusSegoTB1 Eight-pointed star bull left (VA 18551808 variant) (AE) as CCI 940337 (fig 2 10)

EppillusEB1 Boar right hippogryph left (AE frac12) as CCI 940397 (fig 2 11)

AmminusAS1 Head right biga (AR) as CCI 972069 (fig 2 12)

UncertainNS1 Back to back crescents dog right (Eppillus) as CCI 011438 (fig 2 13)

5IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

fig 2 Kentish Iron Age coin types listed in Table 2 and Mediterranean types frequently found in Kent

Metal detectors were used for the first time on an archaeological excavation in Canterbury at Blue Boy yard in 2000 Although this was a small site fifteen Iron Age coins were found more than half of them in spoil by the metal detectors In terms of the size of the excavation this was a much higher proportion of coins than was found at either the Cakebread Robey or Marlowe

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15

6 DAVID HOLMAN

excavations (see below) Metal detectors were subsequently used at the recently finished Whitefriars excavations and accounted for a significant proportion of the Roman and medieval coins from there Similar results have also been obtained from an excavation on a rural site at Maydensole Farm Sutton near Dover during which most of the metal detecting was undertaken by the writer At this site well over half of the coins as well as other items such as brooches were recovered from the spoilheaps having been missed during excavation Concentrated searching on a known productive site will produce a more representative cross-section of the coinage present than casual searching in isolated areas when smaller coins are more likely to be missed

No criticism of standard archaeological excavation methods is intended here Experience has shown the difficulty of finding coins by lsquoeyes onlyrsquo methods even with the use of a metal detector they are frequently difficult to locate often being found in a lump of compacted soil little bigger than the coin itself Colour is also a factor (see below) The conclusion is that the metal detector used responsibly can be a useful archaeological tool providing much additional information not only in quantities of finds but also their contexts

Another factor to be considered when looking at source data is the different colours of metal and related corrosion products A disproportionately high number of gold coins are evident among early finds as typically illustrated by Boys who provided detailed descriptions of gold staters but only a passing mention of bronze coins14 Reasons for this include gold being a valuable metal perhaps leading to greater interest gold coins are usually well-preserved unlike most bronze coins and not least because gold is much easier to spot than dull-coloured bronze Similarly bronze coins which have turned bright green are easier to spot than those which have not Silver is sometimes found in a shiny state but more often than not is in an oxidised state with a purple or even black hue Experience has shown that the most difficult metal items to spot are those made of lead a fact confirmed by a number of metal detector users

Since the advent of metal detecting the early imbalance towards gold has been corrected to a large extent with the discovery and recording of considerable numbers of base metal coins For example Kentish Primary potins (better known and generally referred to as the lsquoThurrockrsquo type after a hoard found near the Essex town of that name) were known from very few examples until well into the 1980s and were then regarded as Gaulish imports15 These are now known in their thousands (including hoards) so it appears that they were previously usually missed or ignored

As will be shown significant variations in coin deposition are apparent across the major sites of east Kent This is to a large extent chronological as it is clear that some sites appear to have become active at a later date than others However the nature of the site itself also has an influence on the types of coin deposited eg a possible port site will have a high proportion of imports while an inland trading site or settlement will have a more insular assemblage Given the difficulty in determining the precise nature and function of a site which may in any case have been multi-functional it is hard to assess how much of an influence this has on coin deposition and why this increases or decreases in certain phases The level of activity is another factor to be considered as is the likelihood that the coins themselves were used in varied ways as ritual offerings as well as in trade and wealth storage

Statistical methodology

The statistical method used in this paper attempts to compare coins recorded from specific individual sites against those recorded from the rest of east Kent rather than looking at sites

14 Boys 1792 86915 eg Nash 1978b

7IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

in isolation The reason for this is that individual site histograms show the number of coins in each phase at that site but they do not illustrate how this compares with the surrounding region ie a high number of coins in a particular phase at a site may or may not be normal for the region in which the site lies but the site histogram gives no indication of this As a result the interpretation of site histograms can easily lead to misleading conclusions16 An example of the problems which may arise is given by Reece in relation to the Roman coins from the excavations at Richborough17 One method used to calculate the theoretical loss per thousand for coins of the Roman period is dependent on chronologically precise phases18 and cannot be used accurately for Iron Age coins owing to their lack of absolute dating and the uncertain lengths of the phases although estimates can be made Small numbers also lead to heavily distorted results No attempt is made here to impose fixed dates as used by Van Arsdell19

The histograms used here are based on the phases shown in Table 1 The totals for each phase (and metal type) from individual sites have been converted into percentages and the same has been done for east Kent overall to produce mean figures against which individual sites can be compared20 Individual sites in east Kent show wide variation attributable to different types of site and dates of commencement and a lsquonormalrsquo pattern of coin loss such as that suggested by Haselgrove for a number of sites north of the Thames21 cannot be determined The figures used here do not include the inadequately recorded coins listed by Allen22 other unreliable provenances or lsquoGreekrsquo coins

The first histogram for each site shows the number of identified coins of each phase recorded from that site expressed as a percentage of the total identified site assemblage The second histogram sets the coins from individual sites against the rest of east Kent to show how those sites compare with the surrounding region Metal percentage figures are also shown as suggested by Rodwell23 ie potin (cast bronze) AE (struck bronze) AR (silver) and AV (gold) these include those coins mostly struck bronzes which cannot be classified owing to their condition24 Plated coins have been treated as being of the metal they purport to be Large sites can skew coin loss profiles with large numbers of particular types obvious examples in east Kent being the Flat Linear II potins from Canterbury and Folkestone However the large number of coins now recorded provides a more complete picture than was previously the case

The difference between a site and the surrounding region is expressed by directly comparing the individual site percentages for each phase and metal type relative to the percentages for the rest of the region For example comparing Kentish Primary potins at Worth Temple against the rest of east Kent shows that these coins are 30 per cent above the east Kent mean at Worth Similarly Gaulish non-gold imports at Worth are 20 per cent above the east Kent mean The basic site histogram (fig 3a) shows that Kentish Primary potins are far more numerous than Gaulish imports at this site (361 per cent and 93 per cent of the identified coins respectively) but does not show that they have a similar ratio when set against their respective mean figures from the rest of east Kent (278 per cent and 77 per cent respectively) This is illustrated by the lsquocomparisonrsquo histogram (fig 3b) and may be interpreted as indicating that the level of

16 eg Haselgrove 1992 12617 Reece 1987 80ndash818 eg Casey 1980 2819 Van Arsdell 198920 eg Haselgrove 1993 5321 Haselgrove 1993 5422 Allen 196023 Rodwell 1976 31424 The site histograms show two different figures one (n1) for the lsquophasersquo section showing the number of

identified coins and the other (n2) for the lsquometalrsquo section showing all coins including those which cannot be identified but which are certainly Iron Age

8 DAVID HOLMAN

coin deposition at Worth relative to the rest of east Kent was broadly similar in each of these particular coin phases even allowing for the different sample sizes

THE MAjOR SITES OF EAST KENT

SITE 1 ROMANO-CELTIC TEMPLE SITE WORTH

Background

The site lies some 700 m to the south of Worth village and occupies a low chalk promontory projecting into the surrounding marshland which constitutes the southern end of the silted-up Wantsum Channel Only at the north-west is the promontory connected to land above marsh level The site is some 35 km from the present-day coastline

The existence of a Romano-Celtic temple in Castle Field has been known since at least the eighteenth century It was excavated by WS Klein in 192525 Significant evidence of Iron Age occupation was located below the temple although the nature of this earlier occupation remains uncertain Finds included the remains of three bronze votive model shields which has led to the widely accepted view that the Roman temple at Worth was the successor to an earlier Iron Age religious site26 Recent work in the fields and private gardens adjacent to the temple has broadened our general understanding of the site and confirmed that Iron Age occupation deposits extend across much of the site

A substantial enclosure ditch occupies the highest part of the promontory One entrance is known on the south-eastern side The ditch has not as yet been located on the north-east and it may be that the enclosure was open to the wetlands on this side The enclosure has a minimum area of some 65 ha

The limited dating evidence suggests that the temple itself was in use if not constructed during the fourth century ad27 The pottery evidence suggests that the enclosure ditch was largely filled by this time and it thus seems clear that this ditch was not a contemporary boundary to the Roman temple complex Ceramic evidence also suggests that the ditch was probably dug no later than the earlier first century bc That the enclosure ditch represents the outer limits of the inferred Iron Age sanctuary presently seems the most likely interpretation

Considerable quantities of local Middle to Late Iron Age pottery Gallo-Belgic fineware and sherds of Dressel 1B amphorae have been discovered together with much later material Taken in conjunction with the substantial number of Iron Age coins recovered this ceramic material confirms occupation in the general area of the enclosure at this date

The coinage

Despite Haselgrove being unaware of any coins from here28 by the end of 2003 a total of 236 Iron Age coins had been recorded from the Worth Temple site of which 227 have been found by members of two local metal-detecting clubs and 9 during archaeological excavations and fieldwalking There are also four other pre-Conquest coins (Appendix 1) Several hundred Roman coins spanning almost the entire period of the Roman occupation have also been found

Almost exactly half of the Iron Age coins from this site are potins Even allowing for the

25 Klein 192826 eg Harding 1974 10327 Klein 192828 Haselgrove 1987

9IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

chronological problems associated with unstratified material29 the large number of Kentish Primary Series potins mdash 347 per cent of the total site assemblage 361 per cent of the identified coins mdash is significant and suggests an early date for coin use and deposition at Worth reflecting the general pattern of Iron Age coinage in east Kent This is the first peak of coin loss here at 30 per cent above the east Kent mean The distribution of the Kentish Primary potins at Worth shows no particular concentration and there is no evidence of hoarding There is now little doubt that Kentish Primary potins are Kentish in origin30 The 28 Flat Linear I potins seem to split into two groups 17 belonging to Allenrsquos early types AndashD the remainder mostly to the late types jndashL31 The solitary Flat Linear II potin indicates that Worth saw little use of these coins in keeping with the east Kent background pattern There are also several early Gaulish potins of varying types most if not all of which date to the second century bc One rare type apparently a first-generation copy of a medium-size struck bronze of Massalia (Marseilles)32 is probably the immediate prototype of the Kentish Primary potins

Although potins are the most numerous finds at Worth struck bronzes of which there are 103 examples are further above the east Kent mean (8 per cent and 23 per cent respectively) Among the many different British and Gaulish issues present coins of Eppillus and Cunobelin are the most abundant The Kentish uninscribed bronzes include types previously thought not to be Kentish33 The lsquoChichester Cockrsquo bronze is regarded here as a Phase 6 issue but potentially belongs to Phase 5

Some 106 per cent of the identifiable coins including gold issues from Worth are of Gaulish origin These include thirteen struck bronzes and seven potins Gaulish non-gold imports although 20 per cent above the east Kent mean are broadly in line with the average level for major sites in east Kent The Gaulish potins which are probably contemporary with the Kentish

29 eg de jersey 1999 19530 Holman 2000 22031 Allen 197132 eg Haselgrove 1995 11933 An uncatalogued bronze type belonging to the Kentish Uninscribed Series (UB1) previously published as

an uncertain Gaulish type (Allen 1995 83 coin 277) has here been reattributed to Kent on the basis of style and distribution with 16 specimens now known from the county Another type previously regarded as a North Thames issue (VA 1629) has been reattributed to Kent based on its almost exclusively Kentish distribution

fig 3a Worth Temple site coins from site ()fig 3b Worth Temple site set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

10 DAVID HOLMAN

Primary potins may have been deposited at an earlier date than the struck bronzes Most of the Gaulish bronzes from Worth originate from the region generally associated with the Ambiani tribe the nearest major tribal grouping on the Continental mainland A bronze of Massalia two Ebusus (Ibiza) bronzes and a Siculo-Punic bronze may also be noted as potential pre-Conquest imports The evidence for the appearance of these coins in Britain is reviewed below

Only nine silver and five gold coins have so far been recorded from Worth both well below the east Kent mean A silver-plated reverse brockage of a central Gaulish issue of Vepotal with an iron core is clearly a forgery but may have been regarded as suitable for a temple offering34 Three of the gold coins are also plated but with a copper core these include the two British coins both of which are of non-Kentish origin35

As on most sites numbers of coins of Phases 1ndash5 are low because most coinage belonging to these phases is of gold and is more frequently found away from recognised sites However coins of Phase 6 are also much scarcer than normal for an east Kent site Taken in conjunction with the scarcity of Flat Linear II potins this suggests greatly reduced activity in the third quarter of the first century bc intriguingly the same date at which Canterbury appears to have been established (see below Site 8) Following considerable activity in the midlate second to mid-first century bc coin deposition fell sharply before slowly recovering until the early first century ad (Phase 8E) when a significant increase is apparent under Eppillus and Cunobelin Phase 8E shows the highest peak of coin deposition at Worth relative to the surrounding region at 63 per cent above the east Kent mean

The large quantity of Iron Age coinage pottery and other domestic material from the Worth Temple site suggests that it was an extensive and important site from an early date Religion is only one of many activities which could have been carried out here The wide range of coin types and the large number of early potins suggest deposition for whatever reasons from as early as the second century bc The number of coins recorded must be regarded as providing a represent-ative sample of the coinage deposited at the site Worth has currently produced more Iron Age coins than any other site in Kent although the total is far lower than at many Continental sites Some British sites notably Harlow36 also have far higher numbers of coins A number of early Roman coins including Republican denarii issues of Tiberius and Gaius and copies of Claudius I are also known from Worth although these could all have been deposited at a later date

The coins from the Worth Temple site cannot be treated in isolation for on Worth Hill some 12 km to the north metal-detector surveys have produced a further fifteen Iron Age and a number of Roman coins The area is now under orchards Similarly an area of farmland at Ham only 1 km to the west of the Worth Temple site has produced a number of Iron Age coins There has been no archaeological input on either of these presumed sites and their nature is unknown but they may have been satellites of the main focus

A more detailed report and plan of the site (as at the end of December 2000) has been published elsewhere37 and only a summary updated to the end of 2003 has been given here

SITE 2 ARCHERS LOW FARM SANDWICH

Background

This site lies some 25 km to the north of the Worth Temple site and is situated on farmland

34 eg Briggs Haselgrove and King 1992 44ndash535 Sir john Evans held in his collection a gold quarter-stater of British Pa type (VA 147) lsquofound at Worth near

Sandwichrsquo but the exact findspot is unknown36 C Haselgrove pers comm37 Holman 2005a 265ndash75

11IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

immediately to the east of Sandwich It was discovered by members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association a local metal-detecting club in 1985 when a significant number of Iron Age and Roman coins were recovered from an area covering several arable fields In 1987 members of the Dover Archaeological Group undertook a limited amount of trenching in the area to ascertain the context of the coin finds and this was followed by a second more extensive phase of exploratory work in late 1990 and early 1991 A total of 45 hand-dug trenches was cut and from these and the metal-detector surveys it is now clear that an extensive occupation site beginning in the late Iron Age and continuing throughout the Roman period exists here38

In topographical terms a low eastward spur of the natural Thanet Beds clay seems at some stage to have provided the basis for the formation of a spit of alluvial sand Today this spit stands at an elevation of between about 25 and 4 m above OD and projects into the marshland that represents the silted up remnants of the southern end of the Wantsum Channel It seems probable that the site was established on or very close to the late Iron AgeRoman shoreline the sea today lies more than 2 km to the east39

The excavations revealed Belgic and Roman features and deposits at Archers Low Farm over an area measuring a minimum of 370 m by c 200 m covering at least 7 ha A few Roman coins were recovered further along the spit suggesting that occupation may have extended eastwards for at least 500 m Roman deposits have also been noted beneath later development 100 m to the west40 The upper layers contained medieval and post-medieval tile and pottery fragments in addition to earlier material and had clearly been disturbed in earlier periods Intact Belgic and Roman deposits lay below at a considerable depth and reached up to 150 m in thickness These comprised a series of general occupation layers occasionally interleaved with apparently natural sand deposits in which a total of eighteen features were located The lowest levels were frequently waterlogged

The excavations produced a considerable quantity of late Iron Age and Roman pottery A very significant proportion of this material consisted of fabrics in the Belgic grog-tempered tradition In addition there are significant quantities of samian ware including two fragments of a plain bowl provisionally identified as Arretine ware dateable to the AugustanTiberian period and other imported Gallo-Belgic wares including terra rubra terra nigra and white-ware butt beaker all apparently of early to mid-first-century ad date Small quantities of amphorae types Dressel 2-4 Dressel 20 and Cam 185 have been recovered but one type of vessel conspicuous by its absence is Dressel 1B amphora Much later Roman material is also present on the site including Roman building debris suggesting the presence of at least one as yet unlocated structure

The coinage

A total of 56 Iron Age and three Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from Archers Low Farm all found by members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association No pre-Conquest coins were recovered during the excavations Although it is apparent that all these coins come from the topsoil and there is no doubt that they are essentially in situ (ie not derived from elsewhere) the contemporary soil horizons can be as much as 2 m down which raises the question as to how this material arrived on the surface In part the explanation may be connected with the installation of several sets of deep land drains laid across the site at various times41 but this cannot represent the complete answer It is clear from the excavations that some considerable disturbance of

38 Frere 1988 484 Frere 1991 29239 Another Roman occupation site located on a second more extensive outer coastal sand spit has been located

at Dicksonrsquos Corner some 25 km to the south-east No coinage has been found there (Parfitt 2000)40 D Perkins pers comm41 C Burch pers comm

12 DAVID HOLMAN

the site occurred in the medieval and post-medieval periods when the area was presumably cultivated as it is now It seems certain that the uppermost Roman deposits have been damaged if not destroyed in this process thus archaeological horizons containing coins may once have been much closer to the surface This would imply that at least some of the Iron Age coinage recovered was previously contained within later Roman deposits as residual material suggesting much ancient disturbance of the earlier deposits there being no evidence for the continued use of these coins into the later Roman period No archaeological work or metal detecting has been undertaken since the early 1990s and the site has since changed ownership

The coin list for Archers Low Farm (Appendix 1) shows considerable differences compared with the Worth Temple site as does the site histogram (fig 4) Although the assemblage is much smaller it is sufficient to show the considerable diversity of the coinage present Only five potins have been recorded just 89 per cent of the total of Iron Age coins from the site compared with 504 per cent at Worth Temple of which three appear to be Gaulish imports The absence of Flat Linear potins is notable and suggests that any activity before the mid-first century bc was very limited

The most significant element among the struck bronzes is the unusually high proportion of Gaulish coins These show considerable heterogeneity although issues attributed to the Ambiani are not unexpectedly the most frequent In all Gaulish coins account for 15 of the 54 identified Iron Age coins recorded from Archers Low Farm some 278 per cent of the total nearly four

42 Briggs Haselgrove and King 1992 42ndash343 Haselgrove (in SCBI 42 coin no 427) noted that this type may be a Kentish copy of a continental type Six

examples are currently known five from East Kent and one from the temple site at Bois LrsquoAbbeacute Eu Seine-Maritime (Delestreacutee 1984 fig 88)

times the east Kent mean Only Richborough (304 per cent) among the east Kent sites exceeds this (see below Site 3) and few other sites in Britain can compare with Silchester (306 per cent) and Hayling Island (292 per cent) providing the closest comparisons42 There are also two specimens of an uncatalogued type (UB3) which has been listed here as possibly belonging to the Kentish uninscribed Series but which is conceivably Gaulish in which case the imported coinage would rise to 315 per cent of the total43 There are also three Siculo-Punic bronzes dated c 320ndash280 bc

fig 4a Archers Low Farm Sandwich coins from site ()fig 4b Archers Low Farm set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

13IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

The Kentish uninscribed Series is well represented with ten specimens (twelve including the uncatalogued type UB3) recorded of several different types The diversity of the dynastic coins from Archers Low Farm is very evident Of these coins of Dubnovellaunos are the most frequent Phases 6 and 7 and to a lesser extent Phase 8E are all above the east Kent mean There is a tendency towards an early date slowly falling off under Eppillus and Cunobelin possibly indicating greater activity prior to say c ad 15ndash25 rather than after This might also suggest that much of the imported coinage arrived before the turn of the century or at the latest very shortly afterwards However this can only be speculation in the absence of any stratified coins from the site There may be some parallel here with coin loss at Goodnestone (see below Site 7) at least in as much as struck bronze forms most of the assemblage

No genuine gold or silver coins have been recorded from Archers Low Farm There is however a bronze core of a contemporary forgery of a quarter-stater of Cunobelin with the reverse design being laterally reversed Another forgery a bronze core with uncertain designs which was probably originally silver-plated also appears to be of Cunobelin

The high proportion of Gaulish coins and the comparatively large amount of imported pottery together with the low-lying situation of Archers Low Farm all suggest that this site is a strong candidate for having been established as a port in the later Iron Age principally for the purposes of trade and probably before the turn of the millennium The proximity to the Continent and the sheltered nature of the site within the confines of the Wantsum Channel would have made it an ideal location for such a facility There would appear to be some chronological disparity between the coins and the pottery imports many of the coins dating to the mid- to late first century bc but much of the pottery apparently being of Augustan or Tiberian date with further samian imports of slightly later ClaudianNeronian date This can be partly explained if it is accepted that these coins continued to circulate in post-Conquest Gaul for many years before entering Britain at the same time as the pottery but this does not fully explain why the native coins show a similar inclination towards an early date If the site reached a peak in the early first century ad then perhaps more coins of Phase 8E should be present ie if the imports and coins of Phases 6 and 7 were not deposited until Phase 8E then coins of the latter phase although above average for the region might themselves be expected to be more numerous In addition the condition of some of the coins suggests that they had seen comparatively little circulation before their deposition No pottery certainly dating from before the first century bc has been found at the site and the low incidence of potin coins taken in conjunction with the very high levels of struck bronze indicates a date no earlier than perhaps c 30 bc for the start of the main phase of activity in the pre-Conquest period at Archers Low Farm

SITE 3 RICHBOROUGH CASTLE

Background

This internationally important Roman site situated on an island surrounded by drained wetlands that were formerly part of the Wantsum Channel occupies a small hill of Woolwich and Thanet Beds sand rising to a height of almost 20 m above OD44 It stands some 3 km to the north-west of Archers Low Farm and some 35 km to the south of the nearest point of the Isle of Thanet at Ebbsfleet

The Roman site is very well known from the excavation work of 1922ndash1938 but the evidence for its pre-Conquest origins is less than clear Occupation in the early to mid-Iron

44 Hawkes 1968 224

14 DAVID HOLMAN

Age is reasonably well attested45 but the status of the site immediately prior to the Roman invasion remains uncertain Cunliffe stated that there was lsquono trace of Belgic occupationrsquo on the site46 while both Thompson and Pollard have maintained that definite pre-Conquest pottery is generally absent from the excavated material47 A large number of early brooches are known from Richborough but there is no evidence that any of these arrived before ad 43 very few can categorically be shown to be contemporary with the Iron Age coins from the site48 although it should be noted that Iron Age brooches are much rarer finds than coins On the evidence of the coinage Rodwell suggested that there was some kind of pre-Conquest port here49 an idea previously suggested by Allen50 Indeed the fundamental question must be posed as to whether this place would ever have been chosen for a Roman invasion base if it were not already an established port of entry with clear routeways leading into the Kentish hinterland

The coinage

Allen stated that there were between 12 and 14 Iron Age coins from the excavations at Richborough (there was much confusion over the numbering system) and that these included a number of non-local coins including Gaulish imports51 Following reassessment of the site assemblage including non-excavation finds an updated summary list showing a total of 23 coins is provided in Appendix 152

Large numbers of coins have been found at and removed from Richborough over several centuries In the sixteenth century Leland wrote that more Roman coins were found at Richborough than anywhere else in England and that this had been the case for as long as anyone could remember53 Several local notables and antiquaries in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had collections of coins from the site54 It is evident that the total number of Roman coins deposited whether lost or deliberately hoarded at Richborough far exceeds the 56084 recovered during the excavations of 1922ndash193855 and it is probable that Iron Age coins were among those previously removed without record

Looked at in an overall context the 23 Iron Age coins from Richborough show considerable deviation from the general pattern in east Kent (fig 5) There are several unusual features and the group may perhaps be regarded as chronologically typologically and numerically unrepresentative for a number of reasons

a The coin distribution is irregular for an east Kent siteb An unknown number of coins have been removed without record over a long period of time including by recent illegal metal-detector activityc A lack of sanctioned metal detecting because much of the area is scheduledd The collections of local antiquaries could be of a selective nature

45 Bushe-Fox 1949 8ndash11 Cunliffe 1968 116ndash1746 Cunliffe 1968 23247 Thompson 1982 809 Pollard 1988 4448 Bayley and Butcher 200449 Rodwell 1976 22150 Allen 1968 18651 Allen 1968 184ndash852 A further coin from Richborough has been noted by Bean (Bean 2000 178 his type VERC 3-4) However the

Celtic Coin Index record for this coin queries this provenance and it has accordingly been decided not to include it in the site list at Appendix 1

53 Toulmin-Smith 1909 6254 eg Roach-Smith 1850 11955 Reece 1968

15IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

e Large-scale disturbance during the Roman period destroyed earlier layers (although any coins would probably have been re-deposited rather than removed)f There could have been considerable displacement of coins from non-local sources during the earliest Roman phaseg Many coins were probably missed during the excavations (see above)h The 1922ndash1938 excavations concentrated on the area within the Saxon Shore fort but this was not necessarily the centre of any LPRIA settlement A recent magnetometry survey and analysis of aerial photographs have revealed a dense mass of features across the fields around the fort56 many of these are probably of Roman date but the possibility that some are earlier cannot be discounted in the absence of excavation

On current evidence the Iron Age coins from Richborough appear to fall into two groups one ending at the beginning of the first century ad and consisting mainly of types typically found in east Kent and the other being more or less contemporary with the Roman conquest of ad 43 and consisting mainly of types not generally found in east Kent Haselgrove described the Richborough assemblage as superficially impressive but spurious commenting on the large number of Phase 8L coins compared with Canterbury which he suggested was a result of the Roman invasion57 No other site in east Kent bears any similarity to Richborough in Phase 8L when losses are nearly ten times the east Kent mean so it may be inferred that the reason for this is an event specific to Richborough The possibility that at least some of the earlier coins were lost at a later date as suggested by Haselgrove58 cannot be dismissed particularly in view of the lack of securely stratified and undisturbed Iron Age coins from the site the specimens of VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are candidates for this Although there are only three silver coins from Richborough silver is further above the east Kent mean than the bronze but this is entirely down to the appearance of non-local types and is misleading

56 Millett and Wilmott 200457 Haselgrove 1987 15358 Haselgrove 1987 153

fig 5a Richborough coins from site ()fig 5b Richborough set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

16 DAVID HOLMAN

The early group consists mainly of potins Gaulish imports and Kentish uninscribed bronzes together with a slightly later inscribed issue of Sa(m) Both of the coins previously recorded as bronzes of Massalia are actually potins59 The silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are early and both originate from the south coast of England With the exception of these silver coins which may have arrived later this early group fits very well into the general east Kent pattern and seemingly indicates a period of pre-Conquest coin use on the site The low percentage of potin and rather higher percentage of bronze counts against an establishment date much before the middle of the first century bc and it may be that the potins were lost at a later date and that the site was a later first-century bc foundation In favour of this is the fact that Phase 6 coins and continental imports are both above the mean for east Kent indeed Richborough has one of the highest levels of imported pre-Conquest coinage from any site in Britain comprising 304 per cent of the total site assemblage It may be significant that the proportions of Gaulish imports and Phase 6 coinage at Richborough are very similar to Archers Low Farm perhaps hinting at some link between these two sites The imports could have been deposited with the Phase 8L coins during early Roman occupation60 but given the low levels of Phase 7 and 8E coinage the near contemporary Phase 6 coinage seems unlikely to have been deposited as late as Phase 8L

Following an apparent hiatus in coin deposition evidenced by the lack of Eppillus and early Cunobelin issues common finds elsewhere in east Kent a later group becomes evident This consists of late issues of Cunobelin and three coins from the south coast one of Verica and two of the Durotriges Late issues of Cunobelin are greatly outnumbered by early issues elsewhere in east Kent while the three south coast coins suggest a link with the West Sussex Hampshire and Dorset area which is otherwise almost wholly absent in east Kent The southern silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 from the early group may have arrived at Richborough at the same time as the later coins as a result of post-Conquest activity An analogous situation can be seen at a number of sites in France where Gaulish bronzes continued in use into the first century ad61 A second-century bc bronze coin of Cyzicus is on balance more likely to be a Roman than a pre-Roman import in this instance further illustrating the difficulty in determining the date at which such early coins reached Britain62

SITE 4 EBBSFLEET ISLE OF THANET

Background

This site lies some 35 km to the north of Richborough Castle on the southern side of the Isle of Thanet at a mean elevation of 8 m above OD It occupies a low chalk promontory capped with Thanet Beds sand surrounded on three sides by marshlands which were once part of the Wantsum Channel Metal detector surveys by the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association and evaluation trenching by the Trust for Thanet Archaeology in 1990 have demonstrated the presence of extensive prehistoric and Roman occupation in this area63 Settlement in the late Iron Age is represented by a number of features together with significant quantities of pottery and coinage Amongst the pottery much of which is dated to c ad 25ndash5075 is a quantity of

59 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15260 Haselgrove 1987 15361 Haselgrove 1999 16462 There are also three early Mediterranean bronze coins from the foreshore close to the Roman fort at Reculver

at the northern end of the Wantsum Channel one of an uncertain Ptolemy one of Agathocles of Syracuse and one of Mamertini Sicily Reculver has also produced several Iron Age coins including a quarter stater (Sch 7) dating from as early as the third century bc which is potentially a contemporary import

63 Perkins 1992

17IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

imported Gallo-Belgic fineware not all of which is pre-Conquest in date There is also locally produced pottery dating from the mid-first century bc onwards as well as earlier material

The coinage

A total of 43 Iron Age and three other pre-Conquest coins are currently recorded from Ebbsfleet (Appendix 1) A few of these were published by Wren in 199264 but further discoveries have since been made and more information is available concerning the finds

Ebbsfleet has the highest percentage of Kentish Primary potins from any site in east Kent with the exception of lsquoEastryrsquo (see below Site 6) (fig 6) There are also a number of early Flat Linear I potins Overall potins are 23 per cent above the east Kent mean This suggests that the site was established at an early date probably before 100 bc a date also supported by quantities of flint-tempered pottery A relatively high level of coin deposition continued until perhaps the mid-first century bc when like Worth and North Foreland there appears to have been a major reduction in activity A change in local circumstances external factors or the non-relevance of Flat Linear II potins at these three sites are all possible reasons for the lack of Flat Linear II potins but in the absence of evidence other than the coinage itself little can be said without resorting to circular arguments At each of these sites coin deposition subsequently increased again by the early first

64 CR Wren lsquoCoins found at Ebbsfleet during 1990 and 1991rsquo in Perkins 1992 305ndash6

century ad Many of the potins from Ebbsfleet are in very poor condition possibly as a result of intensive agricultural activity in recent years Some may conceivably be Gaulish imports but their condition makes precise classification impossible

Although potins are above the east Kent mean struck bronzes are under-represented There are nine different types among the twelve coins recorded and only one is represented by more than a single specimen The solitary Gaulish struck bronze is unusually not an issue from Belgic Gaul The Siculo-Punic and Ebusus bronzes are potential pre-Conquest imports

There is an above average level of silver at Ebbsfleet a feature also evident at Richborough although very probably for different reasons there being little evidence for early Roman

fig 6a Ebbsfleet coins from site ()fig 6b Ebbsfleet set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

18 DAVID HOLMAN

occupation at Ebbsfleet The ratio of silver to bronze at Ebbsfleet is higher than for any other site in east Kent although this may be down to chance A silver coin regarded as an Atrebatic issue by Bean but not listed by Van Arsdell or Hobbs is now known from several other findspots in Kent and it may be an early Kentish issue although it bears little resemblance to any other Kentish coinage65 It is here regarded as Atrebatic although Atrebatic coinage is generally very rarely found in Kent No gold coins have been recorded from Ebbsfleet other than a contemporary forgery of a Gallo-Belgic E stater with a silver core

The level of Gaulish non-gold imports at Ebbsfleet is low at only 58 per cent of the east Kent mean An even lower level of imports is seen at North Foreland (see below Site 5) and imports are scarce finds in Thanet generally particularly when compared with the adjacent mainland area around Sandwich This is surprising in view of the coastal location and may suggest that the Kentish cross-Channel ports were situated on the mainland rather than on Thanet from where another water crossing would inconveniently be required before accessing any inland routes away from the coastal strip (although Richborough does seem to provide an exception to this) It seems clear that the main circulation area of Gaulish imports in Kent was in the hinterland of the mainland ports

The nature of the site at Ebbsfleet remains unclear but certain parallels with the Worth Temple site suggest that a not dissimilar site may exist here albeit with a significant reduction in coin deposition in Phase 8L which is far less in evidence at Worth The coin distributions at Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet are broadly similar with the exception of a higher level of silver and corresponding lower level of bronze at Ebbsfleet these differences may be more apparent than real when the relative sample sizes are compared Again there is an early peak among the potins and a later peak in Phases 7 and 8E The overall coin distribution at Ebbsfleet appears on current evidence to be marginally earlier than at the Worth Temple site both in its greater incidence of early potins and the higher ratio of Phase 7 coins to those of Phase 8E Other features shared by Ebbsfleet and Worth Temple are that both sites stand on a promontory and both have Roman masonry structures although the lsquomainrsquo Ebbsfleet building apparently of later second-century date is of unknown function66

The total lack of Phase 8L coinage at Ebbsfleet is particularly significant when compared with nearby Richborough and may conceivably represent a temporary abandonment of the site at around the time of the Conquest A marked decline in activity in the early Roman period until a resurgence in the later second century ad based on the comparative scarcity of pottery of early Roman date and the lack of contemporary coinage has previously been noted by Macpherson-Grant67 The implication can be made that the Iron Age coins were mostly if not all deposited before the Conquest or at the latest shortly afterwards

SITE 5 NORTH FORELAND BROADSTAIRS

Background

This site is located on the North Foreland on the Isle of Thanet at the easternmost point of Kent It occupies a ridge of upper Chalk and the eastern slope of the valley immediately to the west where the chalk is sealed by Head Brickearth The highest point of the site is now occupied by the North Foreland lighthouse at an elevation of about 36 m above OD

The existence of a double ditch system apparently enclosing an area of at least 24 ha across the hilltop was revealed by aerial photographs several years ago In 1995 members of the Thanet

65 Bean 2000 237 (his type QsD 3-4)66 Perkins 1992 278ndash8167 N MacPherson-Grant lsquoThe Potteryrsquo in Perkins 1992 301

19IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Archaeological Society investigated the site by cutting several sections across the ditches The outermost of these ditches had cut two earlier ditches one of which appears to have been palisaded68 Ceramic evidence indicated a construction date in the mid- to late Iron Age with infilling of the ditches occurring from the late first century bc onwards The site is currently interpreted as being a possible hillfort although the ditch dimensions are on the small side and the term lsquodefended hilltop enclosurersquo may be more appropriate

The coinage

A total of 81 Iron Age coins (counting a potin hoard as one find) has been recorded from the site at North Foreland the majority of which have been found by metal-detector users (Appendix 1) The two gold coins mentioned by Perkins are of unknown types69 A Gallo-Belgic stater found in the nineteenth century at Stone House immediately to the south of the St Stephenrsquos College site is probably related to the site and has been included here

The site histogram for North Foreland (fig 7) shows that potins are the most common Iron Age coins here with Kentish Primary potins comprising 346 per cent of the total site assemblage the most numerous However the distribution of the potins differs from Worth and Ebbsfleet in that Flat Linear I potins are much further above the east Kent mean than are the Kentish Primary potins This is not a result of the Flat Linear I hoard from the site which is counted as a single

68 Hogwood 1995 475ndash669 Perkins 1993 411ndash13

find rather the hoard complements the other Flat Linear I potins and provides definite evidence of contemporary activity The ratio of Flat Linear I potins to those of the Kentish Primary Series is higher than normal for east Kent and these show an emphasis towards the earlier varieties probably dating from the first quarter of the first century bc

In 1999 an archaeological excavation was undertaken by Canterbury Archaeological Trust and the Trust for Thanet Archaeology prior to the redevelopment of the St Stephenrsquos College site on the ridge-top some 400 m to the south-west of the lighthouse Among the many finds of Iron Age (and earlier) date was a coin hoard containing 62 Flat Linear I potins buried in a

fig 7a North Foreland coins from site ()fig 7b North Foreland set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

20 DAVID HOLMAN

pit Preliminary examination of this hoard indicated that although the coins range from Allenrsquos Class C to Class L approximately half belong to Class G70 The hoard will be reported on elsewhere The excavations also revealed an enclosure provisionally dated on ceramic evidence to the first half of the first century bc ie contemporary with the hoard and a large number of storage pits again of similar date The hoard was located only a short distance from the entrance to the enclosure and its location in the centre of what seems to have been an active site suggests that ritual deposition should be considered as a possible reason for its concealment Given the existence of this hoard the possibility that at least some of the potins recovered as metal-detector finds from the adjacent fields may derive from another now dispersed hoard cannot be discounted although there is no evidence to suggest this

North Foreland shows an apparent reduction in coinage deposition after the mid-first century bc before a later recovery in common with Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet Coins of Phases 6 and 7 are both around half the east Kent mean but a significant increase is evident in Phase 8E which continues into Phase 8L suggesting that the site saw a revival in the early first century ad The 24 struck bronzes recorded slightly below the east Kent mean form a very heterogeneous assemblage with 17 different types represented These are almost exclusively Kentish issues either produced in Kent or elsewhere (apparently) for specific use in Kent71 In view of the coastal location of the site it is interesting to note the appearance of three specimens of the lsquoShiprsquo type (VA 1989) among the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin

The low number of non-local issues is significant given the coastal location Apart from a Gallo-Belgic stater only one import has been recorded contrasting sharply with Archers Low Farm Richborough and Folkestone At only 16 per cent of the east Kent mean this site has the lowest percentage of non-gold imports at any of the major sites discussed in this paper Non-local British issues are also rare here but the coin of Verica is one of only two recorded from Kent

Set against the rest of east Kent potin is the most significant metal type at North Foreland followed by silver marginally ahead of bronze As with some elements of the phasing this is a feature shared with Ebbsfleet and may reflect a common cause North Foreland displays activity at a later date than Ebbsfleet but it is not unreasonable to assume that these sites were in some way related

SITE 6 lsquoEASTRyrsquo

Background

Situated on chalk downland south of Eastry this site has produced an assemblage of 51 pre-Roman coins At the request of the landowner and the finders details of the coins are held in the Celtic Coin Index under the neutral provenance of lsquoNorth-East Kentrsquo72

The coinage

A total of 47 Iron Age and four Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from lsquoEastryrsquo (Appendix 1)

70 C Haselgrove pers comm71 An example of the extremely rare bronze half unit VA 154-11 has been listed here as possibly being an issue

of Eppillus with its designs of a geometric pattern and a capricorn The capricorn on the reverse suggests an Augustan prototype which is probably later in date than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which this type has been attributed by both Mack and Van Arsdell However a clearer specimen is still awaited to prove or disprove this reattribution

72 Not all coins in the Celtic Coin Index with this provenance are necessarily from lsquoEastryrsquo The coins listed are known to be from this site

21IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

lsquoEastryrsquo shows clear signs of early activity with an emphasis on Kentish Primary potins (fig 8) which are 133 per cent above the east Kent mean higher than anywhere else in the region Flat Linear I potins are almost exactly on the mean but again there is an absence of Flat Linear II potins Overall potins are further above the east Kent mean here than at any other major site in the region heavily weighted by the large number of Kentish Primary types Early activity is also suggested by the three Gallo-Belgic staters lsquoEastryrsquo has a higher percentage of gold than most other sites in the region with the exception of Richborough and East Wear Bay Folkestone the latter of which fairly certainly incorporates a large degree of bias among the early finds

Only one silver coin has been recorded and there is also an unusually low number of struck bronzes lower in percentage terms than at any other site discussed in this paper Apart from this the most unusual aspect of the lsquoEastryrsquo coins is the discovery of four Siculo-Punic bronzes all of the same type the largest number of such coins from any site in Kent

The nature of this site is uncertain and the site histogram (fig 8) is irregular The above average representation of coinage in Phases 1ndash5 a very unusual feature for any site is an indicator that this site may have had a particular and possibly specialised function The high ratio of gold to silver and struck bronze may suggest that trade is unlikely to have been a principal function of this site as gold is not likely to have been a common medium of exchange A religious site is a possibility as is a disturbed hoard(s)

A separate report on lsquoEastryrsquo as a possible religiouslsquoritualrsquo site has been published elsewhere73 No further investigation of this site is anticipated

SITE 7 GOODNESTONE

Background

This inland site is located to the south-east of Goodnestone some 11 km south-east of Canterbury It occupies a broad gently sloping ridge of Upper Chalk capped by Head Brickearth at a mean elevation of 55 to 60 m above OD The existence of an Iron Age and Roman site was

73 Holman 2005a 280ndash1

fig 8a lsquoEastryrsquo coins from site ()fig 8b lsquoEastryrsquo set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

22 DAVID HOLMAN

not known until a metal-detector survey of the area carried out from 1994 onwards started to produce substantial quantities of coinage in addition to other artefacts including several pieces of mid-first-century ad Roman military equipment74 In addition to 92 Iron Age coins there are several hundred Roman coins covering the entire period of the Roman occupation Ceramic evidence and quernstones also indicate late Iron Age and Roman occupation

The coinage

The 92 Iron Age coins recorded from Goodnestone are listed in Appendix 1 The majority of these coins are either of Kentish origin or were produced elsewhere apparently for use in Kent the percentage of non-Kentish coinage from the site is lower than usual for east Kent (fig 9)

The low number of potin coins representing just 65 per cent of the site assemblage shows that although the site may have an origin in the first half of the first century bc activity at that time was probably limited The coin evidence suggests that the main phase of activity at Goodnestone started in the final quarter of the first century bc

The majority of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone 902 per cent of the site total are struck bronzes Coins of the Kentish uninscribed Series are the most frequent and are represented by 29 examples including three types not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs One of these a variant of VA 154-1 appears to provide a link between the Kentish uninscribed Series and the early inscribed coinage of Dubnovellaunos The obverse although worn on all three specimens appears to bear the same or a very similar design to the Kentish uninscribed bronze issue VA 154-1 The reverse shows a left-facing version of the horse depicted on the reverse of VA 154-1 and a close parallel for this is seen on the reverse of an inscribed silver coin of Dubnovellaunos (VA 171) It is possible that the same die-cutter was involved with all three types Three of the five known specimens of this variant form of VA 154-1 have come from Goodnestone It is conceivably an early uninscribed issue of Dubnovellaunos but has here been retained within the Kentish uninscribed Series

Coins attributed to Dubnovellaunos are represented by 21 examples at Goodnestone Among

fig 9a Goodnestone coins from site ()fig 9b Goodnestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

74 Bishop 1995 17ndash19

23IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

these are six examples of two uncatalogued but related bronze types known from several other provenances in both Kent and Essex75 A coin of Dubnovellaunos is one of only two silver coins from Goodnestone the other tentatively attributed to Addedomaros by Van Arsdell76 is known from three other provenances in east Kent but a north Thames origin still appears likely on stylistic grounds

Phase 8 coins at Goodnestone are less numerous than those of the Kentish uninscribed Series and Dubnovellaunos Coins of Eppillus are scarcer than expected for east Kent and the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin are represented by only three types all of which have their principal distribution in Kent A quarter-stater of Cunobelin is the only gold coin from Goodnestone and is possibly the latest Iron Age coin from the site although similarly late bronze coins of Amminus are also present Only three Gaulish coins have been recorded just 37 per cent of the site total unusually low for east Kent

The histogram for Goodnestone (fig 9) indicates that the site was established before the end of the first century bc Coins of Phase 6 are the most frequent finds but from then until the Conquest losses steadily decline although remaining above the east Kent mean This decline suggests that the earlier coins at least were largely deposited before the Conquest otherwise it is reasonable to expect that the ratio of Phase 8 coins to those of Phase 6 would be higher Goodnestonersquos nearest parallel among the east Kent sites is Archers Low Farm except for the lack of Gaulish imports which are significantly under-represented at only 45 per cent of the east Kent mean This may be regarded as an expected difference between a probable port site and an inland settlement of uncertain nature seemingly established at around the same time Otherwise both sites have low numbers of potins significant peaks in Phases 6 and 7 and are virtually identical in Phases 8E and 8L The metal types at Goodnestone and Archers Low Farm also have very similar proportions The very high level of struck bronze is indicative of trade and exchange from the latter part of the first century bc The scarcity of Gaulish imports and non-Kentish coinage at Goodnestone suggests that much of the activity here was locally based and that there were no direct links with places further afield A greater number of non-local coins would be expected at a trading centre with wider links such as Canterbury

The state of preservation of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone is generally very poor and ten have not been identified The impression given is that many of these coins had a long circulation life however to add a note of caution late Roman coins of the same type found only a few metres apart at Goodnestone sometimes show a very marked variation in their state of preservation the reason for which is unclear

The adjacent Cherrygarden Lane appears on Ordnance Survey maps as part of a trackway running for several kilometres across the Kentish downland This may well have originated as a main thoroughfare at a very early date A geophysical survey of part of the site revealed the existence of another trackway across the field with probable field boundaries adjoining it The function of the late Iron Age and Roman site at Goodnestone is unclear from the coin evidence alone and is only likely to be clarified by excavation Curteis has discussed a not dissimilar site at Evenley Northamptonshire and suggested either a religious centre andor an occupationaltrading settlement77 A detailed report on Goodnestone incorporating all facets of the site is in preparation78

75 Both types are uninscribed but can be attributed to Dubnovellaunos on stylistic and distributional grounds A Kentish origin for these issues is preferred here particularly in view of the lack of non-Kentish coinage from Goodnestone

76 Van Arsdell 1989 350 (his type VA 1611)77 Curteis 1996 33ndash478 Cross forthcoming

24 DAVID HOLMAN

SITE 8 CANTERBURy (WALLED AREA)

Background

As the Roman civitas capital of Kent and a moderately large town within the province of Britannia Canterbury was an important settlement which has continued to be occupied up to the present day The name by which the settlement was known to the Romans Durovernum Cantiacorum is of Celtic origin translating as lsquothe walled town by the alder swamprsquo79 and perhaps provides an initial clue to a pre-Conquest origin for the site

It has been known since at least the eighteenth century that substantial remains of the Roman town survived below the modern streets During the installation of the sewage system in the 1860s a number of coins were found none was described in detail but some were possibly Iron Age80 In 1871 an Iron Age coin was found in Burgate providing evidence for some type of pre-Conquest occupation in the area However definite remains of late Iron Age settlement were not found until excavations began on bomb-damaged sites in 1946 when work revealed a gully apparently bounding a hut site together with pottery of pre-Conquest date81 Since then a significant number of other sites producing evidence of pre-Roman occupation have been located most notably in the Marlowe car park area situated towards the central part of the Roman walled town where the remains of two circular houses set within a triple-ditched enclosure accompanied by hearths ovens and a well were found82 It now seems that late Iron Age settlement at Canterbury was dispersed across an area of at least 10 ha beside the River Stour fairly certainly focused on a ford but apparently lacking any significant defences The available dating evidence suggests that the later Iron Age settlement began during the mid- to late first century bc although evidence of occupation immediately pre-dating this may still await discovery There is some evidence for early Iron Age settlement in the area

Of particular significance in the context of the later Iron Age settlement is the hillfort of Bigberry Camp located above the Stour valley some 3 km to the west This site represents the only known certain hillfort in eastern Kent Occupation here seems to have begun c 350 bc but the defences do not appear to have been constructed until the second century bc83 The camp appears to have been largely abandoned around 50 bc perhaps as a result of it being stormed by Caesarrsquos troops in 54 bc84 Despite the significant amount of archaeological work at Bigberry no Iron Age coins have been found A few bronze coins have been found at Harbledown 1 km to the north-east Rodwell has previously suggested that the general lack of coinage from the site indicates that it was not of major importance as a permanent settlement85

It is generally accepted that the settlement at Canterbury in some way superseded Bigberry during the mid-first century bc perhaps originating as a river-side trading station of the hillfort86 Blagg has suggested that Canterburyrsquos importance grew after c 15 bc following the establishment of the Rhine frontier87 However there is currently insufficient evidence to show that Canterbury had developed into a major proto-urban centre before the Roman conquest and there appear to have been few changes certainly within the Marlowe area until the Flavian

79 Rivet and Smith 1979 353ndash480 Pilbrow 187181 Frere 1965 682 Blockley et al 199583 Thompson 1983 253ndash9 Blockley and Blockley 1989 245ndash684 Blockley and Blockley 1989 24685 Rodwell 1976 33086 Blockley et al 1995 987 T Blagg in Blockley et al 1995 11

25IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

period88 The Iron Age status of Canterbury has previously been questioned89 and Millett makes the important point that the later Roman development of the site arguably and quite possibly wrongly leads to the perception that the Iron Age settlement was of equal importance90 Nevertheless it is clear from the extent of the known remains the amount of coinage and the quantity of imported fineware pottery including Dressel I amphorae that the settlement here was of some importance The evidence for this as provided by the Iron Age coinage is further considered below

The coinage

By the end of 2003 a total of 163 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) had been recorded from within the area of the later Roman walled town mainly in the area of Longmarket Rose Lane St Margarets Street Watling Street and Beer Cart Lane Significantly fewer Iron Age coins have been found during the recent Whitefriars excavations immediately to the east perhaps indicating the eastern limits of the Iron Age settlement although development pressures meant that only limited excavation of the earliest layers was possible The most important point about these coins is that they have virtually all been found during archaeological excavations Canterbury is the only site considered in this paper which has subsequently been built over in its entirety but it is also the only site with the exception of Richborough that has seen archaeological excavation on a large scale Canterbury is the only major late Iron Age site in east Kent with large numbers of broadly contemporary stratified coin finds This is of considerable importance not only for understanding the origins of the city but also for the study of the circulation deposition and dating of Iron Age coinage in the region as a whole A basic relative chronology for other sites in east Kent can be constructed by considering the numismatic evidence from Canterbury for example the realisation that potin coins predate the struck bronzes which themselves evolved from native-inspired designs into more Romanised types

Archaeological contexts can be questioned if later activity has occurred on the site leading to the inevitable disturbance of earlier features The result is a tendency to date items later than should be the case91 A significant number of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury have been found in post-Conquest deposits and Haselgrove regarded these as a mixture of residual coins disturbed by Roman activity as one would expect in an urban context and coins continuing in use until the mid-first century ad92 Nash considered that the potin coins from the Marlowe excavations were circulating until the later first century ad but appeared to make insufficient concession to residuality93 Some Iron Age coins have been found in medieval and later deposits having clearly arrived there as a result of earlier levels being disturbed During the early Roman period disturbance of the underlying Iron Age deposits would have been much more frequent and therefore more coins would have been displaced It cannot be conclusively shown that the Iron Age coins at Canterbury circulated for any length of time after the Conquest although it is reasonable to suppose that some may have continued to circulate for a few years before being fully supplanted by the new Roman coinage94 The problems caused by residuality have also been discussed by Arthur in relation to the late Republican amphorae from the excavations95

88 Blockley et al 1995 1289 Blockley et al 1995 990 Millett 1996 342ndash391 Haselgrove 1988 103ndash592 Haselgrove 1987 14193 D Nash in Blockley et al 1995 92394 eg Nash 1987 36ndash895 Arthur 1986 240

26 DAVID HOLMAN

Potins account for 479 per cent of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury (fig 10) The near absence of Kentish Primary potins is significant because this implies that they had largely ceased to circulate before Canterbury was established Only two of these coins have been recorded both from post-Conquest contexts and these were previously wrongly identified as a cut-down bronze of Massalia and a Central Gaulish lsquotecircte diaboliquersquo potin96 Given that Kentish Primary potins are the commonest type of Iron Age coin in east Kent it is reasonable to assume that many more would have been found at Canterbury had they still been in circulation in the last 50ndash75 years before the Conquest The possibility remains that the initial nucleus of the settlement may have been situated elsewhere97 but the current evidence supports Haselgroversquos view that early potins had mostly ceased to circulate by the early first century ad98 indeed a date before the turn of the century may now be preferred In France the temple sites at Champlieu and Chilly also provide evidence that potins had virtually disappeared from circulation by the first century ad99

An early cessation date for the circulation of the earlier Flat Linear I potins particularly Allen Classes AndashD can also be surmised from the Canterbury evidence The 21 Flat Linear I potins all belong to Allen Classes jndashL ie late in the series probably dating to around the middle of the first century bc Some of these were deliberately cut100 a feature rarely seen elsewhere although a cut Class L coin has been recorded from the Worth Temple site Elsewhere in east Kent the earlier types form a significant component of the Flat Linear I potins and their absence at Canterbury again suggests that if any settlement existed on the site in the early first century bc it is likely to have been of little importance Haselgrove noted that earlier Flat Linear I types are present at Rochester suggesting that Rochester was a site of some importance at an earlier date than Canterbury101 This may well still hold true for the relative chronology of the earliest phases at Canterbury and Rochester but it now seems likely that Kentish coinage began in the

96 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15397 Blockley et al 1995 898 Haselgrove 1987 15899 Allen 1995 51100 Haselgrove 1988 118101 Haselgrove 1987 151

fig 10a Canterbury (walled area) coins from site ()fig 10b Canterbury (walled area) set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

27IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

east of the county102 and a later commencement date for Canterbury need have no particular relevance in any discussion on Rochester located some 43 km to the north-west

Flat Linear II potins are represented by 50 surviving specimens 307 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (321 per cent of the identified coins) Compared with their general scarcity elsewhere in east Kent with the exception of East Wear Bay Folkestone (see below Site 9) with which some sort of link may have existed this is exceptional a fact well illustrated by fig 10 which shows that the proportion of these coins at Canterbury is more than ten times the mean for the rest of east Kent Recent research on Flat Linear II potins based on hoard evidence and individual findspots is leaning increasingly towards an origin in the region immediately north of London rather than Kent at least for certain classes103 In this case the appearance of so many of these coins at Canterbury cannot be easily explained They passed into the local circulation pool at a much lower rate than other coin types and the scarcity of these coins around Canterbury suggests that their principal purpose may have been related to a specific activity or commodity the nature of which is unknown Alternatively there was a sudden and significant but short-lived increase in activity at Canterbury (and Folkestone) which may again have had a specific cause Either way there must have been a fairly high degree of control to restrict their circulation in this manner A comparison may perhaps be made with the exceptionally high number of Roman coins of the period ad 388ndash402 found at Richborough which is not reflected elsewhere in east Kent and which must represent an event specific to that site in the local record although the contents of several hoards at the site account for a not insignificant proportion of these late coins104 It seems likely that the Flat Linear II potins were used in Canterbury as a low-value coinage as the appearance of so many high-value coins in a non-hoard context would be difficult to explain There may perhaps have been a reliance on these coins to sustain the Canterbury circulation pool for small-scale transactions Haselgrove noted that potins were the commonest issues circulating in Canterbury until Phase 8 (c ad 20)105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role106 although how much of this is a result of residuality cannot be ascertained

Struck bronzes are represented at Canterbury by 69 coins These include ten Gaulish coins 159 per cent of the (identified) struck bronze total There are also five Gaulish potins Overall Gaulish coins at Canterbury are 53 per cent above the east Kent mean Haselgrove commented on possible early links with the Continent107 and Fitzpatrickrsquos suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands108 but coastal sites such as Archers Low Farm and East Wear Bay Folkestone may be regarded as more likely initial points of contact Phase 6 coins are also above the east Kent mean In this respect there is some similarity to Archers Low Farm although the deviation from the mean there both for imports and Phase 6 coins is far greater There are 21 struck bronzes of the Kentish Uninscribed Series and an early lsquoChichester Cockrsquo type The frequency of some of the Kentish Uninscribed types at Canterbury in particular VA 154-3 suggests that minting facilities may have been operating at that time

Bronzes of the dynastic period are represented by 31 coins The nine coins of Dubnovellaunos three of Tasciovanus-Sego and ten of Eppillus are typical for an east Kent site However coins of Cunobelin appear to be significantly under-represented only eight coins of Cunobelin have been recorded from Canterbury and four of these are late types otherwise scarce in east

102 Holman 2000103 Haselgrove 1988 117 G Cottam pers comm104 Reece 1987 84105 Haselgrove 1987 145106 Haselgrove 1993 44107 Haselgrove 1987 143108 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

3IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

5 Van Arsdell 19896 Lewis 1736 27 pl 5 Boys 1792 8697 Haselgrove 1993 438 Allen 1976 1009 Some uninscribed types appear on typological and stylistic grounds to belong to the dynastic series and have

been treated as such where the evidence supports this10 Haselgrove 1987 21311 May 1994 14

precise given the nature of the evidence and most dates should be given a range of plus or minus ten years at least5

Early references to Iron Age coins from east Kent were made in the eighteenth century by local historians6 However despite its proximity to the Continent with the possibilities of finding evidence of cross-Channel contacts in the surviving coinage east Kent has previously received very little attention in the numismatic literature owing largely to the fact that Kentish Iron Age coins were with the exception of the Flat Linear potin coins very rare In addition few imported Gaulish base metal coins were known from the region although it has long been recognised that such imports were the prototypes and inspiration for many of the early Kentish types7 In 1976 Allen commented that Iron Age coinage in Kent was poorly understood and that there must be many more coins to be found and recorded8 Recording of metal-detector finds and major excavations in Canterbury since then have revolutionised this situation with the addition of more than 750 potin more than 550 struck bronze around 100 silver and around 100 gold coins to the east Kent corpus overall around ten times as many coins are now available for study and analysis as in 1976 These include several new types in the Kentish Uninscribed Series and the succeeding dynastic series9 As noted by Haselgrove single coin finds are of particular value in understanding circulation patterns10 and these have provided perhaps the most significant results of the current study with the realisation that coins are not largely restricted to certain sites but are far more widespread

Over the last few years several locations in east Kent have emerged as sites yielding significant quantities of Iron Age coins A discussion of the archaeological background and the coins recorded from nine sites mdash in the broadest sense mdash which have produced between 23 and 236 Iron Age coins and how these relate to the region as a whole forms the principal part of this paper Of the 1690 coin finds recorded from east Kent 802 come from these nine sites which are regarded here as lsquomajorrsquo sites Most of these sites are now farmland with material largely unstratified collected from on or near the surface similar to for example Dragonby and Kirmington in Lincolnshire11 The remaining 888 coin finds come from a total of more than

TABLE 1 PHASES OF IRON AGE COINAGE IN KENT

Phase Notes Date (+- 10 Years)PKP Earliest British potin coinage (Kentish Primary Series) Midndashlate 2nd century bc PFLI First potin coinage of lsquoflatrsquo module (Flat Linear I) Late 2ndndashmid 1st century bcPFLII Latest British potin coinage (Flat Linear II) c50ndash30 bcC (Potin AE AR) Imported base metal and silver coinage Mostly c100ndash30 bc1ndash5 (AV) All imported gold coinage and earliest British types Late 3rd centuryndashc50 bc6 Kentish Uninscribed Series other uninscribed British types c40ndash25 bc7 Dubnovellaunos Sa Vosenos Tasciovanus c25ndash1 bc8E (early) Eppillus early Cunobelin types c ad 1ndash258L (late) Later Cunobelin types Amminus c ad 25ndash409 Latest British coinage (no Kentish types) c ad 40ndashConquest

4 DAVID HOLMAN

12 Mack 1975 Van Arsdell 1989 Hobbs 199613 Around 80 per cent of the Iron Age coins from east Kent have been found by metal detectorists with

archaeological excavations providing 17 per cent and casual finds 3 per cent

200 separate locations ranging from sites with less than 20 coins down to single isolated finds together with areas containing large numbers of coins but no clear focus

A number of Kentish types uncatalogued by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs appear in the site lists12 In order to clarify which types have been found on which sites a summary description of these coins is provided together with a temporary reference solely for the purpose of this paper and a corresponding Celtic Coin Index reference (Table 2 fig 2) The temporary references are based on a system used by the writer in his database of coins found in Kent Only those coin types which appear in the site lists (Appendix 1) are shown

SOuRCE DATA AND STATISTICAL METHODOLOGy

Source data

The great majority of the coins used in this study have been found by metal detector users since c 198013 Despite the die-hard attitude of some archaeologists and continued arguments about the pros and cons of detecting metal detectors have increasingly been used on archaeological excavations and field surveys in recent years the principal result of which has been a significant increase in the quantity of metalwork especially coinage recovered from sites leading to the conclusion that much useful dating material has in the past been missed

TABLE 2 KENTISH COIN TyPES NOT LISTED By MACK VAN ARSDELL OR HOBBS WHICH HAVE BEEN FOUND ON THE MAjOR SITES IN EAST KENT CELTIC COIN INDEx (CCI) REFERENCES SHOWN

Kentish Uninscribed SeriesUB1 Head right clumpy-hoofed Pegasus left (AE) as CCI 950903 (fig 2 1) (Allen 1995 83 no 277)UB2a Head right alternate ring and dot border (lsquoneatrsquo style)lion left (AE) as CCI 030078 (fig 2 2)UB3 Boar left five-tailed lion left (AE) as CCI 920042 (fig 2 3)US3 Four horsesrsquo heads horse left (AR minim) as CCI 990362 (fig 2 4) (Blockley et al 1995 925 no 41)DubnovellaunosDB1a Long-haired head left Pegasus right with hatched box below (AE) as CCI 010199 (fig 2 5)DB1b Crowned head left (reverse as DB1a) (AE) as CCI 020075 (fig 2 6) DB2 Lion left horseman right (AE) as CCI 941182 (fig 2 7)DS1 Griffin right seated figure right (AR) as CCI 890026 (fig 28)

SaSamSB1 Horse right hippogryph left (AE frac12) as CCI 990002 (de jersey 1997) (fig 2 9)TasciovanusSegoTB1 Eight-pointed star bull left (VA 18551808 variant) (AE) as CCI 940337 (fig 2 10)

EppillusEB1 Boar right hippogryph left (AE frac12) as CCI 940397 (fig 2 11)

AmminusAS1 Head right biga (AR) as CCI 972069 (fig 2 12)

UncertainNS1 Back to back crescents dog right (Eppillus) as CCI 011438 (fig 2 13)

5IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

fig 2 Kentish Iron Age coin types listed in Table 2 and Mediterranean types frequently found in Kent

Metal detectors were used for the first time on an archaeological excavation in Canterbury at Blue Boy yard in 2000 Although this was a small site fifteen Iron Age coins were found more than half of them in spoil by the metal detectors In terms of the size of the excavation this was a much higher proportion of coins than was found at either the Cakebread Robey or Marlowe

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15

6 DAVID HOLMAN

excavations (see below) Metal detectors were subsequently used at the recently finished Whitefriars excavations and accounted for a significant proportion of the Roman and medieval coins from there Similar results have also been obtained from an excavation on a rural site at Maydensole Farm Sutton near Dover during which most of the metal detecting was undertaken by the writer At this site well over half of the coins as well as other items such as brooches were recovered from the spoilheaps having been missed during excavation Concentrated searching on a known productive site will produce a more representative cross-section of the coinage present than casual searching in isolated areas when smaller coins are more likely to be missed

No criticism of standard archaeological excavation methods is intended here Experience has shown the difficulty of finding coins by lsquoeyes onlyrsquo methods even with the use of a metal detector they are frequently difficult to locate often being found in a lump of compacted soil little bigger than the coin itself Colour is also a factor (see below) The conclusion is that the metal detector used responsibly can be a useful archaeological tool providing much additional information not only in quantities of finds but also their contexts

Another factor to be considered when looking at source data is the different colours of metal and related corrosion products A disproportionately high number of gold coins are evident among early finds as typically illustrated by Boys who provided detailed descriptions of gold staters but only a passing mention of bronze coins14 Reasons for this include gold being a valuable metal perhaps leading to greater interest gold coins are usually well-preserved unlike most bronze coins and not least because gold is much easier to spot than dull-coloured bronze Similarly bronze coins which have turned bright green are easier to spot than those which have not Silver is sometimes found in a shiny state but more often than not is in an oxidised state with a purple or even black hue Experience has shown that the most difficult metal items to spot are those made of lead a fact confirmed by a number of metal detector users

Since the advent of metal detecting the early imbalance towards gold has been corrected to a large extent with the discovery and recording of considerable numbers of base metal coins For example Kentish Primary potins (better known and generally referred to as the lsquoThurrockrsquo type after a hoard found near the Essex town of that name) were known from very few examples until well into the 1980s and were then regarded as Gaulish imports15 These are now known in their thousands (including hoards) so it appears that they were previously usually missed or ignored

As will be shown significant variations in coin deposition are apparent across the major sites of east Kent This is to a large extent chronological as it is clear that some sites appear to have become active at a later date than others However the nature of the site itself also has an influence on the types of coin deposited eg a possible port site will have a high proportion of imports while an inland trading site or settlement will have a more insular assemblage Given the difficulty in determining the precise nature and function of a site which may in any case have been multi-functional it is hard to assess how much of an influence this has on coin deposition and why this increases or decreases in certain phases The level of activity is another factor to be considered as is the likelihood that the coins themselves were used in varied ways as ritual offerings as well as in trade and wealth storage

Statistical methodology

The statistical method used in this paper attempts to compare coins recorded from specific individual sites against those recorded from the rest of east Kent rather than looking at sites

14 Boys 1792 86915 eg Nash 1978b

7IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

in isolation The reason for this is that individual site histograms show the number of coins in each phase at that site but they do not illustrate how this compares with the surrounding region ie a high number of coins in a particular phase at a site may or may not be normal for the region in which the site lies but the site histogram gives no indication of this As a result the interpretation of site histograms can easily lead to misleading conclusions16 An example of the problems which may arise is given by Reece in relation to the Roman coins from the excavations at Richborough17 One method used to calculate the theoretical loss per thousand for coins of the Roman period is dependent on chronologically precise phases18 and cannot be used accurately for Iron Age coins owing to their lack of absolute dating and the uncertain lengths of the phases although estimates can be made Small numbers also lead to heavily distorted results No attempt is made here to impose fixed dates as used by Van Arsdell19

The histograms used here are based on the phases shown in Table 1 The totals for each phase (and metal type) from individual sites have been converted into percentages and the same has been done for east Kent overall to produce mean figures against which individual sites can be compared20 Individual sites in east Kent show wide variation attributable to different types of site and dates of commencement and a lsquonormalrsquo pattern of coin loss such as that suggested by Haselgrove for a number of sites north of the Thames21 cannot be determined The figures used here do not include the inadequately recorded coins listed by Allen22 other unreliable provenances or lsquoGreekrsquo coins

The first histogram for each site shows the number of identified coins of each phase recorded from that site expressed as a percentage of the total identified site assemblage The second histogram sets the coins from individual sites against the rest of east Kent to show how those sites compare with the surrounding region Metal percentage figures are also shown as suggested by Rodwell23 ie potin (cast bronze) AE (struck bronze) AR (silver) and AV (gold) these include those coins mostly struck bronzes which cannot be classified owing to their condition24 Plated coins have been treated as being of the metal they purport to be Large sites can skew coin loss profiles with large numbers of particular types obvious examples in east Kent being the Flat Linear II potins from Canterbury and Folkestone However the large number of coins now recorded provides a more complete picture than was previously the case

The difference between a site and the surrounding region is expressed by directly comparing the individual site percentages for each phase and metal type relative to the percentages for the rest of the region For example comparing Kentish Primary potins at Worth Temple against the rest of east Kent shows that these coins are 30 per cent above the east Kent mean at Worth Similarly Gaulish non-gold imports at Worth are 20 per cent above the east Kent mean The basic site histogram (fig 3a) shows that Kentish Primary potins are far more numerous than Gaulish imports at this site (361 per cent and 93 per cent of the identified coins respectively) but does not show that they have a similar ratio when set against their respective mean figures from the rest of east Kent (278 per cent and 77 per cent respectively) This is illustrated by the lsquocomparisonrsquo histogram (fig 3b) and may be interpreted as indicating that the level of

16 eg Haselgrove 1992 12617 Reece 1987 80ndash818 eg Casey 1980 2819 Van Arsdell 198920 eg Haselgrove 1993 5321 Haselgrove 1993 5422 Allen 196023 Rodwell 1976 31424 The site histograms show two different figures one (n1) for the lsquophasersquo section showing the number of

identified coins and the other (n2) for the lsquometalrsquo section showing all coins including those which cannot be identified but which are certainly Iron Age

8 DAVID HOLMAN

coin deposition at Worth relative to the rest of east Kent was broadly similar in each of these particular coin phases even allowing for the different sample sizes

THE MAjOR SITES OF EAST KENT

SITE 1 ROMANO-CELTIC TEMPLE SITE WORTH

Background

The site lies some 700 m to the south of Worth village and occupies a low chalk promontory projecting into the surrounding marshland which constitutes the southern end of the silted-up Wantsum Channel Only at the north-west is the promontory connected to land above marsh level The site is some 35 km from the present-day coastline

The existence of a Romano-Celtic temple in Castle Field has been known since at least the eighteenth century It was excavated by WS Klein in 192525 Significant evidence of Iron Age occupation was located below the temple although the nature of this earlier occupation remains uncertain Finds included the remains of three bronze votive model shields which has led to the widely accepted view that the Roman temple at Worth was the successor to an earlier Iron Age religious site26 Recent work in the fields and private gardens adjacent to the temple has broadened our general understanding of the site and confirmed that Iron Age occupation deposits extend across much of the site

A substantial enclosure ditch occupies the highest part of the promontory One entrance is known on the south-eastern side The ditch has not as yet been located on the north-east and it may be that the enclosure was open to the wetlands on this side The enclosure has a minimum area of some 65 ha

The limited dating evidence suggests that the temple itself was in use if not constructed during the fourth century ad27 The pottery evidence suggests that the enclosure ditch was largely filled by this time and it thus seems clear that this ditch was not a contemporary boundary to the Roman temple complex Ceramic evidence also suggests that the ditch was probably dug no later than the earlier first century bc That the enclosure ditch represents the outer limits of the inferred Iron Age sanctuary presently seems the most likely interpretation

Considerable quantities of local Middle to Late Iron Age pottery Gallo-Belgic fineware and sherds of Dressel 1B amphorae have been discovered together with much later material Taken in conjunction with the substantial number of Iron Age coins recovered this ceramic material confirms occupation in the general area of the enclosure at this date

The coinage

Despite Haselgrove being unaware of any coins from here28 by the end of 2003 a total of 236 Iron Age coins had been recorded from the Worth Temple site of which 227 have been found by members of two local metal-detecting clubs and 9 during archaeological excavations and fieldwalking There are also four other pre-Conquest coins (Appendix 1) Several hundred Roman coins spanning almost the entire period of the Roman occupation have also been found

Almost exactly half of the Iron Age coins from this site are potins Even allowing for the

25 Klein 192826 eg Harding 1974 10327 Klein 192828 Haselgrove 1987

9IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

chronological problems associated with unstratified material29 the large number of Kentish Primary Series potins mdash 347 per cent of the total site assemblage 361 per cent of the identified coins mdash is significant and suggests an early date for coin use and deposition at Worth reflecting the general pattern of Iron Age coinage in east Kent This is the first peak of coin loss here at 30 per cent above the east Kent mean The distribution of the Kentish Primary potins at Worth shows no particular concentration and there is no evidence of hoarding There is now little doubt that Kentish Primary potins are Kentish in origin30 The 28 Flat Linear I potins seem to split into two groups 17 belonging to Allenrsquos early types AndashD the remainder mostly to the late types jndashL31 The solitary Flat Linear II potin indicates that Worth saw little use of these coins in keeping with the east Kent background pattern There are also several early Gaulish potins of varying types most if not all of which date to the second century bc One rare type apparently a first-generation copy of a medium-size struck bronze of Massalia (Marseilles)32 is probably the immediate prototype of the Kentish Primary potins

Although potins are the most numerous finds at Worth struck bronzes of which there are 103 examples are further above the east Kent mean (8 per cent and 23 per cent respectively) Among the many different British and Gaulish issues present coins of Eppillus and Cunobelin are the most abundant The Kentish uninscribed bronzes include types previously thought not to be Kentish33 The lsquoChichester Cockrsquo bronze is regarded here as a Phase 6 issue but potentially belongs to Phase 5

Some 106 per cent of the identifiable coins including gold issues from Worth are of Gaulish origin These include thirteen struck bronzes and seven potins Gaulish non-gold imports although 20 per cent above the east Kent mean are broadly in line with the average level for major sites in east Kent The Gaulish potins which are probably contemporary with the Kentish

29 eg de jersey 1999 19530 Holman 2000 22031 Allen 197132 eg Haselgrove 1995 11933 An uncatalogued bronze type belonging to the Kentish Uninscribed Series (UB1) previously published as

an uncertain Gaulish type (Allen 1995 83 coin 277) has here been reattributed to Kent on the basis of style and distribution with 16 specimens now known from the county Another type previously regarded as a North Thames issue (VA 1629) has been reattributed to Kent based on its almost exclusively Kentish distribution

fig 3a Worth Temple site coins from site ()fig 3b Worth Temple site set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

10 DAVID HOLMAN

Primary potins may have been deposited at an earlier date than the struck bronzes Most of the Gaulish bronzes from Worth originate from the region generally associated with the Ambiani tribe the nearest major tribal grouping on the Continental mainland A bronze of Massalia two Ebusus (Ibiza) bronzes and a Siculo-Punic bronze may also be noted as potential pre-Conquest imports The evidence for the appearance of these coins in Britain is reviewed below

Only nine silver and five gold coins have so far been recorded from Worth both well below the east Kent mean A silver-plated reverse brockage of a central Gaulish issue of Vepotal with an iron core is clearly a forgery but may have been regarded as suitable for a temple offering34 Three of the gold coins are also plated but with a copper core these include the two British coins both of which are of non-Kentish origin35

As on most sites numbers of coins of Phases 1ndash5 are low because most coinage belonging to these phases is of gold and is more frequently found away from recognised sites However coins of Phase 6 are also much scarcer than normal for an east Kent site Taken in conjunction with the scarcity of Flat Linear II potins this suggests greatly reduced activity in the third quarter of the first century bc intriguingly the same date at which Canterbury appears to have been established (see below Site 8) Following considerable activity in the midlate second to mid-first century bc coin deposition fell sharply before slowly recovering until the early first century ad (Phase 8E) when a significant increase is apparent under Eppillus and Cunobelin Phase 8E shows the highest peak of coin deposition at Worth relative to the surrounding region at 63 per cent above the east Kent mean

The large quantity of Iron Age coinage pottery and other domestic material from the Worth Temple site suggests that it was an extensive and important site from an early date Religion is only one of many activities which could have been carried out here The wide range of coin types and the large number of early potins suggest deposition for whatever reasons from as early as the second century bc The number of coins recorded must be regarded as providing a represent-ative sample of the coinage deposited at the site Worth has currently produced more Iron Age coins than any other site in Kent although the total is far lower than at many Continental sites Some British sites notably Harlow36 also have far higher numbers of coins A number of early Roman coins including Republican denarii issues of Tiberius and Gaius and copies of Claudius I are also known from Worth although these could all have been deposited at a later date

The coins from the Worth Temple site cannot be treated in isolation for on Worth Hill some 12 km to the north metal-detector surveys have produced a further fifteen Iron Age and a number of Roman coins The area is now under orchards Similarly an area of farmland at Ham only 1 km to the west of the Worth Temple site has produced a number of Iron Age coins There has been no archaeological input on either of these presumed sites and their nature is unknown but they may have been satellites of the main focus

A more detailed report and plan of the site (as at the end of December 2000) has been published elsewhere37 and only a summary updated to the end of 2003 has been given here

SITE 2 ARCHERS LOW FARM SANDWICH

Background

This site lies some 25 km to the north of the Worth Temple site and is situated on farmland

34 eg Briggs Haselgrove and King 1992 44ndash535 Sir john Evans held in his collection a gold quarter-stater of British Pa type (VA 147) lsquofound at Worth near

Sandwichrsquo but the exact findspot is unknown36 C Haselgrove pers comm37 Holman 2005a 265ndash75

11IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

immediately to the east of Sandwich It was discovered by members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association a local metal-detecting club in 1985 when a significant number of Iron Age and Roman coins were recovered from an area covering several arable fields In 1987 members of the Dover Archaeological Group undertook a limited amount of trenching in the area to ascertain the context of the coin finds and this was followed by a second more extensive phase of exploratory work in late 1990 and early 1991 A total of 45 hand-dug trenches was cut and from these and the metal-detector surveys it is now clear that an extensive occupation site beginning in the late Iron Age and continuing throughout the Roman period exists here38

In topographical terms a low eastward spur of the natural Thanet Beds clay seems at some stage to have provided the basis for the formation of a spit of alluvial sand Today this spit stands at an elevation of between about 25 and 4 m above OD and projects into the marshland that represents the silted up remnants of the southern end of the Wantsum Channel It seems probable that the site was established on or very close to the late Iron AgeRoman shoreline the sea today lies more than 2 km to the east39

The excavations revealed Belgic and Roman features and deposits at Archers Low Farm over an area measuring a minimum of 370 m by c 200 m covering at least 7 ha A few Roman coins were recovered further along the spit suggesting that occupation may have extended eastwards for at least 500 m Roman deposits have also been noted beneath later development 100 m to the west40 The upper layers contained medieval and post-medieval tile and pottery fragments in addition to earlier material and had clearly been disturbed in earlier periods Intact Belgic and Roman deposits lay below at a considerable depth and reached up to 150 m in thickness These comprised a series of general occupation layers occasionally interleaved with apparently natural sand deposits in which a total of eighteen features were located The lowest levels were frequently waterlogged

The excavations produced a considerable quantity of late Iron Age and Roman pottery A very significant proportion of this material consisted of fabrics in the Belgic grog-tempered tradition In addition there are significant quantities of samian ware including two fragments of a plain bowl provisionally identified as Arretine ware dateable to the AugustanTiberian period and other imported Gallo-Belgic wares including terra rubra terra nigra and white-ware butt beaker all apparently of early to mid-first-century ad date Small quantities of amphorae types Dressel 2-4 Dressel 20 and Cam 185 have been recovered but one type of vessel conspicuous by its absence is Dressel 1B amphora Much later Roman material is also present on the site including Roman building debris suggesting the presence of at least one as yet unlocated structure

The coinage

A total of 56 Iron Age and three Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from Archers Low Farm all found by members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association No pre-Conquest coins were recovered during the excavations Although it is apparent that all these coins come from the topsoil and there is no doubt that they are essentially in situ (ie not derived from elsewhere) the contemporary soil horizons can be as much as 2 m down which raises the question as to how this material arrived on the surface In part the explanation may be connected with the installation of several sets of deep land drains laid across the site at various times41 but this cannot represent the complete answer It is clear from the excavations that some considerable disturbance of

38 Frere 1988 484 Frere 1991 29239 Another Roman occupation site located on a second more extensive outer coastal sand spit has been located

at Dicksonrsquos Corner some 25 km to the south-east No coinage has been found there (Parfitt 2000)40 D Perkins pers comm41 C Burch pers comm

12 DAVID HOLMAN

the site occurred in the medieval and post-medieval periods when the area was presumably cultivated as it is now It seems certain that the uppermost Roman deposits have been damaged if not destroyed in this process thus archaeological horizons containing coins may once have been much closer to the surface This would imply that at least some of the Iron Age coinage recovered was previously contained within later Roman deposits as residual material suggesting much ancient disturbance of the earlier deposits there being no evidence for the continued use of these coins into the later Roman period No archaeological work or metal detecting has been undertaken since the early 1990s and the site has since changed ownership

The coin list for Archers Low Farm (Appendix 1) shows considerable differences compared with the Worth Temple site as does the site histogram (fig 4) Although the assemblage is much smaller it is sufficient to show the considerable diversity of the coinage present Only five potins have been recorded just 89 per cent of the total of Iron Age coins from the site compared with 504 per cent at Worth Temple of which three appear to be Gaulish imports The absence of Flat Linear potins is notable and suggests that any activity before the mid-first century bc was very limited

The most significant element among the struck bronzes is the unusually high proportion of Gaulish coins These show considerable heterogeneity although issues attributed to the Ambiani are not unexpectedly the most frequent In all Gaulish coins account for 15 of the 54 identified Iron Age coins recorded from Archers Low Farm some 278 per cent of the total nearly four

42 Briggs Haselgrove and King 1992 42ndash343 Haselgrove (in SCBI 42 coin no 427) noted that this type may be a Kentish copy of a continental type Six

examples are currently known five from East Kent and one from the temple site at Bois LrsquoAbbeacute Eu Seine-Maritime (Delestreacutee 1984 fig 88)

times the east Kent mean Only Richborough (304 per cent) among the east Kent sites exceeds this (see below Site 3) and few other sites in Britain can compare with Silchester (306 per cent) and Hayling Island (292 per cent) providing the closest comparisons42 There are also two specimens of an uncatalogued type (UB3) which has been listed here as possibly belonging to the Kentish uninscribed Series but which is conceivably Gaulish in which case the imported coinage would rise to 315 per cent of the total43 There are also three Siculo-Punic bronzes dated c 320ndash280 bc

fig 4a Archers Low Farm Sandwich coins from site ()fig 4b Archers Low Farm set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

13IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

The Kentish uninscribed Series is well represented with ten specimens (twelve including the uncatalogued type UB3) recorded of several different types The diversity of the dynastic coins from Archers Low Farm is very evident Of these coins of Dubnovellaunos are the most frequent Phases 6 and 7 and to a lesser extent Phase 8E are all above the east Kent mean There is a tendency towards an early date slowly falling off under Eppillus and Cunobelin possibly indicating greater activity prior to say c ad 15ndash25 rather than after This might also suggest that much of the imported coinage arrived before the turn of the century or at the latest very shortly afterwards However this can only be speculation in the absence of any stratified coins from the site There may be some parallel here with coin loss at Goodnestone (see below Site 7) at least in as much as struck bronze forms most of the assemblage

No genuine gold or silver coins have been recorded from Archers Low Farm There is however a bronze core of a contemporary forgery of a quarter-stater of Cunobelin with the reverse design being laterally reversed Another forgery a bronze core with uncertain designs which was probably originally silver-plated also appears to be of Cunobelin

The high proportion of Gaulish coins and the comparatively large amount of imported pottery together with the low-lying situation of Archers Low Farm all suggest that this site is a strong candidate for having been established as a port in the later Iron Age principally for the purposes of trade and probably before the turn of the millennium The proximity to the Continent and the sheltered nature of the site within the confines of the Wantsum Channel would have made it an ideal location for such a facility There would appear to be some chronological disparity between the coins and the pottery imports many of the coins dating to the mid- to late first century bc but much of the pottery apparently being of Augustan or Tiberian date with further samian imports of slightly later ClaudianNeronian date This can be partly explained if it is accepted that these coins continued to circulate in post-Conquest Gaul for many years before entering Britain at the same time as the pottery but this does not fully explain why the native coins show a similar inclination towards an early date If the site reached a peak in the early first century ad then perhaps more coins of Phase 8E should be present ie if the imports and coins of Phases 6 and 7 were not deposited until Phase 8E then coins of the latter phase although above average for the region might themselves be expected to be more numerous In addition the condition of some of the coins suggests that they had seen comparatively little circulation before their deposition No pottery certainly dating from before the first century bc has been found at the site and the low incidence of potin coins taken in conjunction with the very high levels of struck bronze indicates a date no earlier than perhaps c 30 bc for the start of the main phase of activity in the pre-Conquest period at Archers Low Farm

SITE 3 RICHBOROUGH CASTLE

Background

This internationally important Roman site situated on an island surrounded by drained wetlands that were formerly part of the Wantsum Channel occupies a small hill of Woolwich and Thanet Beds sand rising to a height of almost 20 m above OD44 It stands some 3 km to the north-west of Archers Low Farm and some 35 km to the south of the nearest point of the Isle of Thanet at Ebbsfleet

The Roman site is very well known from the excavation work of 1922ndash1938 but the evidence for its pre-Conquest origins is less than clear Occupation in the early to mid-Iron

44 Hawkes 1968 224

14 DAVID HOLMAN

Age is reasonably well attested45 but the status of the site immediately prior to the Roman invasion remains uncertain Cunliffe stated that there was lsquono trace of Belgic occupationrsquo on the site46 while both Thompson and Pollard have maintained that definite pre-Conquest pottery is generally absent from the excavated material47 A large number of early brooches are known from Richborough but there is no evidence that any of these arrived before ad 43 very few can categorically be shown to be contemporary with the Iron Age coins from the site48 although it should be noted that Iron Age brooches are much rarer finds than coins On the evidence of the coinage Rodwell suggested that there was some kind of pre-Conquest port here49 an idea previously suggested by Allen50 Indeed the fundamental question must be posed as to whether this place would ever have been chosen for a Roman invasion base if it were not already an established port of entry with clear routeways leading into the Kentish hinterland

The coinage

Allen stated that there were between 12 and 14 Iron Age coins from the excavations at Richborough (there was much confusion over the numbering system) and that these included a number of non-local coins including Gaulish imports51 Following reassessment of the site assemblage including non-excavation finds an updated summary list showing a total of 23 coins is provided in Appendix 152

Large numbers of coins have been found at and removed from Richborough over several centuries In the sixteenth century Leland wrote that more Roman coins were found at Richborough than anywhere else in England and that this had been the case for as long as anyone could remember53 Several local notables and antiquaries in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had collections of coins from the site54 It is evident that the total number of Roman coins deposited whether lost or deliberately hoarded at Richborough far exceeds the 56084 recovered during the excavations of 1922ndash193855 and it is probable that Iron Age coins were among those previously removed without record

Looked at in an overall context the 23 Iron Age coins from Richborough show considerable deviation from the general pattern in east Kent (fig 5) There are several unusual features and the group may perhaps be regarded as chronologically typologically and numerically unrepresentative for a number of reasons

a The coin distribution is irregular for an east Kent siteb An unknown number of coins have been removed without record over a long period of time including by recent illegal metal-detector activityc A lack of sanctioned metal detecting because much of the area is scheduledd The collections of local antiquaries could be of a selective nature

45 Bushe-Fox 1949 8ndash11 Cunliffe 1968 116ndash1746 Cunliffe 1968 23247 Thompson 1982 809 Pollard 1988 4448 Bayley and Butcher 200449 Rodwell 1976 22150 Allen 1968 18651 Allen 1968 184ndash852 A further coin from Richborough has been noted by Bean (Bean 2000 178 his type VERC 3-4) However the

Celtic Coin Index record for this coin queries this provenance and it has accordingly been decided not to include it in the site list at Appendix 1

53 Toulmin-Smith 1909 6254 eg Roach-Smith 1850 11955 Reece 1968

15IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

e Large-scale disturbance during the Roman period destroyed earlier layers (although any coins would probably have been re-deposited rather than removed)f There could have been considerable displacement of coins from non-local sources during the earliest Roman phaseg Many coins were probably missed during the excavations (see above)h The 1922ndash1938 excavations concentrated on the area within the Saxon Shore fort but this was not necessarily the centre of any LPRIA settlement A recent magnetometry survey and analysis of aerial photographs have revealed a dense mass of features across the fields around the fort56 many of these are probably of Roman date but the possibility that some are earlier cannot be discounted in the absence of excavation

On current evidence the Iron Age coins from Richborough appear to fall into two groups one ending at the beginning of the first century ad and consisting mainly of types typically found in east Kent and the other being more or less contemporary with the Roman conquest of ad 43 and consisting mainly of types not generally found in east Kent Haselgrove described the Richborough assemblage as superficially impressive but spurious commenting on the large number of Phase 8L coins compared with Canterbury which he suggested was a result of the Roman invasion57 No other site in east Kent bears any similarity to Richborough in Phase 8L when losses are nearly ten times the east Kent mean so it may be inferred that the reason for this is an event specific to Richborough The possibility that at least some of the earlier coins were lost at a later date as suggested by Haselgrove58 cannot be dismissed particularly in view of the lack of securely stratified and undisturbed Iron Age coins from the site the specimens of VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are candidates for this Although there are only three silver coins from Richborough silver is further above the east Kent mean than the bronze but this is entirely down to the appearance of non-local types and is misleading

56 Millett and Wilmott 200457 Haselgrove 1987 15358 Haselgrove 1987 153

fig 5a Richborough coins from site ()fig 5b Richborough set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

16 DAVID HOLMAN

The early group consists mainly of potins Gaulish imports and Kentish uninscribed bronzes together with a slightly later inscribed issue of Sa(m) Both of the coins previously recorded as bronzes of Massalia are actually potins59 The silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are early and both originate from the south coast of England With the exception of these silver coins which may have arrived later this early group fits very well into the general east Kent pattern and seemingly indicates a period of pre-Conquest coin use on the site The low percentage of potin and rather higher percentage of bronze counts against an establishment date much before the middle of the first century bc and it may be that the potins were lost at a later date and that the site was a later first-century bc foundation In favour of this is the fact that Phase 6 coins and continental imports are both above the mean for east Kent indeed Richborough has one of the highest levels of imported pre-Conquest coinage from any site in Britain comprising 304 per cent of the total site assemblage It may be significant that the proportions of Gaulish imports and Phase 6 coinage at Richborough are very similar to Archers Low Farm perhaps hinting at some link between these two sites The imports could have been deposited with the Phase 8L coins during early Roman occupation60 but given the low levels of Phase 7 and 8E coinage the near contemporary Phase 6 coinage seems unlikely to have been deposited as late as Phase 8L

Following an apparent hiatus in coin deposition evidenced by the lack of Eppillus and early Cunobelin issues common finds elsewhere in east Kent a later group becomes evident This consists of late issues of Cunobelin and three coins from the south coast one of Verica and two of the Durotriges Late issues of Cunobelin are greatly outnumbered by early issues elsewhere in east Kent while the three south coast coins suggest a link with the West Sussex Hampshire and Dorset area which is otherwise almost wholly absent in east Kent The southern silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 from the early group may have arrived at Richborough at the same time as the later coins as a result of post-Conquest activity An analogous situation can be seen at a number of sites in France where Gaulish bronzes continued in use into the first century ad61 A second-century bc bronze coin of Cyzicus is on balance more likely to be a Roman than a pre-Roman import in this instance further illustrating the difficulty in determining the date at which such early coins reached Britain62

SITE 4 EBBSFLEET ISLE OF THANET

Background

This site lies some 35 km to the north of Richborough Castle on the southern side of the Isle of Thanet at a mean elevation of 8 m above OD It occupies a low chalk promontory capped with Thanet Beds sand surrounded on three sides by marshlands which were once part of the Wantsum Channel Metal detector surveys by the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association and evaluation trenching by the Trust for Thanet Archaeology in 1990 have demonstrated the presence of extensive prehistoric and Roman occupation in this area63 Settlement in the late Iron Age is represented by a number of features together with significant quantities of pottery and coinage Amongst the pottery much of which is dated to c ad 25ndash5075 is a quantity of

59 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15260 Haselgrove 1987 15361 Haselgrove 1999 16462 There are also three early Mediterranean bronze coins from the foreshore close to the Roman fort at Reculver

at the northern end of the Wantsum Channel one of an uncertain Ptolemy one of Agathocles of Syracuse and one of Mamertini Sicily Reculver has also produced several Iron Age coins including a quarter stater (Sch 7) dating from as early as the third century bc which is potentially a contemporary import

63 Perkins 1992

17IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

imported Gallo-Belgic fineware not all of which is pre-Conquest in date There is also locally produced pottery dating from the mid-first century bc onwards as well as earlier material

The coinage

A total of 43 Iron Age and three other pre-Conquest coins are currently recorded from Ebbsfleet (Appendix 1) A few of these were published by Wren in 199264 but further discoveries have since been made and more information is available concerning the finds

Ebbsfleet has the highest percentage of Kentish Primary potins from any site in east Kent with the exception of lsquoEastryrsquo (see below Site 6) (fig 6) There are also a number of early Flat Linear I potins Overall potins are 23 per cent above the east Kent mean This suggests that the site was established at an early date probably before 100 bc a date also supported by quantities of flint-tempered pottery A relatively high level of coin deposition continued until perhaps the mid-first century bc when like Worth and North Foreland there appears to have been a major reduction in activity A change in local circumstances external factors or the non-relevance of Flat Linear II potins at these three sites are all possible reasons for the lack of Flat Linear II potins but in the absence of evidence other than the coinage itself little can be said without resorting to circular arguments At each of these sites coin deposition subsequently increased again by the early first

64 CR Wren lsquoCoins found at Ebbsfleet during 1990 and 1991rsquo in Perkins 1992 305ndash6

century ad Many of the potins from Ebbsfleet are in very poor condition possibly as a result of intensive agricultural activity in recent years Some may conceivably be Gaulish imports but their condition makes precise classification impossible

Although potins are above the east Kent mean struck bronzes are under-represented There are nine different types among the twelve coins recorded and only one is represented by more than a single specimen The solitary Gaulish struck bronze is unusually not an issue from Belgic Gaul The Siculo-Punic and Ebusus bronzes are potential pre-Conquest imports

There is an above average level of silver at Ebbsfleet a feature also evident at Richborough although very probably for different reasons there being little evidence for early Roman

fig 6a Ebbsfleet coins from site ()fig 6b Ebbsfleet set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

18 DAVID HOLMAN

occupation at Ebbsfleet The ratio of silver to bronze at Ebbsfleet is higher than for any other site in east Kent although this may be down to chance A silver coin regarded as an Atrebatic issue by Bean but not listed by Van Arsdell or Hobbs is now known from several other findspots in Kent and it may be an early Kentish issue although it bears little resemblance to any other Kentish coinage65 It is here regarded as Atrebatic although Atrebatic coinage is generally very rarely found in Kent No gold coins have been recorded from Ebbsfleet other than a contemporary forgery of a Gallo-Belgic E stater with a silver core

The level of Gaulish non-gold imports at Ebbsfleet is low at only 58 per cent of the east Kent mean An even lower level of imports is seen at North Foreland (see below Site 5) and imports are scarce finds in Thanet generally particularly when compared with the adjacent mainland area around Sandwich This is surprising in view of the coastal location and may suggest that the Kentish cross-Channel ports were situated on the mainland rather than on Thanet from where another water crossing would inconveniently be required before accessing any inland routes away from the coastal strip (although Richborough does seem to provide an exception to this) It seems clear that the main circulation area of Gaulish imports in Kent was in the hinterland of the mainland ports

The nature of the site at Ebbsfleet remains unclear but certain parallels with the Worth Temple site suggest that a not dissimilar site may exist here albeit with a significant reduction in coin deposition in Phase 8L which is far less in evidence at Worth The coin distributions at Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet are broadly similar with the exception of a higher level of silver and corresponding lower level of bronze at Ebbsfleet these differences may be more apparent than real when the relative sample sizes are compared Again there is an early peak among the potins and a later peak in Phases 7 and 8E The overall coin distribution at Ebbsfleet appears on current evidence to be marginally earlier than at the Worth Temple site both in its greater incidence of early potins and the higher ratio of Phase 7 coins to those of Phase 8E Other features shared by Ebbsfleet and Worth Temple are that both sites stand on a promontory and both have Roman masonry structures although the lsquomainrsquo Ebbsfleet building apparently of later second-century date is of unknown function66

The total lack of Phase 8L coinage at Ebbsfleet is particularly significant when compared with nearby Richborough and may conceivably represent a temporary abandonment of the site at around the time of the Conquest A marked decline in activity in the early Roman period until a resurgence in the later second century ad based on the comparative scarcity of pottery of early Roman date and the lack of contemporary coinage has previously been noted by Macpherson-Grant67 The implication can be made that the Iron Age coins were mostly if not all deposited before the Conquest or at the latest shortly afterwards

SITE 5 NORTH FORELAND BROADSTAIRS

Background

This site is located on the North Foreland on the Isle of Thanet at the easternmost point of Kent It occupies a ridge of upper Chalk and the eastern slope of the valley immediately to the west where the chalk is sealed by Head Brickearth The highest point of the site is now occupied by the North Foreland lighthouse at an elevation of about 36 m above OD

The existence of a double ditch system apparently enclosing an area of at least 24 ha across the hilltop was revealed by aerial photographs several years ago In 1995 members of the Thanet

65 Bean 2000 237 (his type QsD 3-4)66 Perkins 1992 278ndash8167 N MacPherson-Grant lsquoThe Potteryrsquo in Perkins 1992 301

19IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Archaeological Society investigated the site by cutting several sections across the ditches The outermost of these ditches had cut two earlier ditches one of which appears to have been palisaded68 Ceramic evidence indicated a construction date in the mid- to late Iron Age with infilling of the ditches occurring from the late first century bc onwards The site is currently interpreted as being a possible hillfort although the ditch dimensions are on the small side and the term lsquodefended hilltop enclosurersquo may be more appropriate

The coinage

A total of 81 Iron Age coins (counting a potin hoard as one find) has been recorded from the site at North Foreland the majority of which have been found by metal-detector users (Appendix 1) The two gold coins mentioned by Perkins are of unknown types69 A Gallo-Belgic stater found in the nineteenth century at Stone House immediately to the south of the St Stephenrsquos College site is probably related to the site and has been included here

The site histogram for North Foreland (fig 7) shows that potins are the most common Iron Age coins here with Kentish Primary potins comprising 346 per cent of the total site assemblage the most numerous However the distribution of the potins differs from Worth and Ebbsfleet in that Flat Linear I potins are much further above the east Kent mean than are the Kentish Primary potins This is not a result of the Flat Linear I hoard from the site which is counted as a single

68 Hogwood 1995 475ndash669 Perkins 1993 411ndash13

find rather the hoard complements the other Flat Linear I potins and provides definite evidence of contemporary activity The ratio of Flat Linear I potins to those of the Kentish Primary Series is higher than normal for east Kent and these show an emphasis towards the earlier varieties probably dating from the first quarter of the first century bc

In 1999 an archaeological excavation was undertaken by Canterbury Archaeological Trust and the Trust for Thanet Archaeology prior to the redevelopment of the St Stephenrsquos College site on the ridge-top some 400 m to the south-west of the lighthouse Among the many finds of Iron Age (and earlier) date was a coin hoard containing 62 Flat Linear I potins buried in a

fig 7a North Foreland coins from site ()fig 7b North Foreland set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

20 DAVID HOLMAN

pit Preliminary examination of this hoard indicated that although the coins range from Allenrsquos Class C to Class L approximately half belong to Class G70 The hoard will be reported on elsewhere The excavations also revealed an enclosure provisionally dated on ceramic evidence to the first half of the first century bc ie contemporary with the hoard and a large number of storage pits again of similar date The hoard was located only a short distance from the entrance to the enclosure and its location in the centre of what seems to have been an active site suggests that ritual deposition should be considered as a possible reason for its concealment Given the existence of this hoard the possibility that at least some of the potins recovered as metal-detector finds from the adjacent fields may derive from another now dispersed hoard cannot be discounted although there is no evidence to suggest this

North Foreland shows an apparent reduction in coinage deposition after the mid-first century bc before a later recovery in common with Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet Coins of Phases 6 and 7 are both around half the east Kent mean but a significant increase is evident in Phase 8E which continues into Phase 8L suggesting that the site saw a revival in the early first century ad The 24 struck bronzes recorded slightly below the east Kent mean form a very heterogeneous assemblage with 17 different types represented These are almost exclusively Kentish issues either produced in Kent or elsewhere (apparently) for specific use in Kent71 In view of the coastal location of the site it is interesting to note the appearance of three specimens of the lsquoShiprsquo type (VA 1989) among the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin

The low number of non-local issues is significant given the coastal location Apart from a Gallo-Belgic stater only one import has been recorded contrasting sharply with Archers Low Farm Richborough and Folkestone At only 16 per cent of the east Kent mean this site has the lowest percentage of non-gold imports at any of the major sites discussed in this paper Non-local British issues are also rare here but the coin of Verica is one of only two recorded from Kent

Set against the rest of east Kent potin is the most significant metal type at North Foreland followed by silver marginally ahead of bronze As with some elements of the phasing this is a feature shared with Ebbsfleet and may reflect a common cause North Foreland displays activity at a later date than Ebbsfleet but it is not unreasonable to assume that these sites were in some way related

SITE 6 lsquoEASTRyrsquo

Background

Situated on chalk downland south of Eastry this site has produced an assemblage of 51 pre-Roman coins At the request of the landowner and the finders details of the coins are held in the Celtic Coin Index under the neutral provenance of lsquoNorth-East Kentrsquo72

The coinage

A total of 47 Iron Age and four Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from lsquoEastryrsquo (Appendix 1)

70 C Haselgrove pers comm71 An example of the extremely rare bronze half unit VA 154-11 has been listed here as possibly being an issue

of Eppillus with its designs of a geometric pattern and a capricorn The capricorn on the reverse suggests an Augustan prototype which is probably later in date than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which this type has been attributed by both Mack and Van Arsdell However a clearer specimen is still awaited to prove or disprove this reattribution

72 Not all coins in the Celtic Coin Index with this provenance are necessarily from lsquoEastryrsquo The coins listed are known to be from this site

21IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

lsquoEastryrsquo shows clear signs of early activity with an emphasis on Kentish Primary potins (fig 8) which are 133 per cent above the east Kent mean higher than anywhere else in the region Flat Linear I potins are almost exactly on the mean but again there is an absence of Flat Linear II potins Overall potins are further above the east Kent mean here than at any other major site in the region heavily weighted by the large number of Kentish Primary types Early activity is also suggested by the three Gallo-Belgic staters lsquoEastryrsquo has a higher percentage of gold than most other sites in the region with the exception of Richborough and East Wear Bay Folkestone the latter of which fairly certainly incorporates a large degree of bias among the early finds

Only one silver coin has been recorded and there is also an unusually low number of struck bronzes lower in percentage terms than at any other site discussed in this paper Apart from this the most unusual aspect of the lsquoEastryrsquo coins is the discovery of four Siculo-Punic bronzes all of the same type the largest number of such coins from any site in Kent

The nature of this site is uncertain and the site histogram (fig 8) is irregular The above average representation of coinage in Phases 1ndash5 a very unusual feature for any site is an indicator that this site may have had a particular and possibly specialised function The high ratio of gold to silver and struck bronze may suggest that trade is unlikely to have been a principal function of this site as gold is not likely to have been a common medium of exchange A religious site is a possibility as is a disturbed hoard(s)

A separate report on lsquoEastryrsquo as a possible religiouslsquoritualrsquo site has been published elsewhere73 No further investigation of this site is anticipated

SITE 7 GOODNESTONE

Background

This inland site is located to the south-east of Goodnestone some 11 km south-east of Canterbury It occupies a broad gently sloping ridge of Upper Chalk capped by Head Brickearth at a mean elevation of 55 to 60 m above OD The existence of an Iron Age and Roman site was

73 Holman 2005a 280ndash1

fig 8a lsquoEastryrsquo coins from site ()fig 8b lsquoEastryrsquo set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

22 DAVID HOLMAN

not known until a metal-detector survey of the area carried out from 1994 onwards started to produce substantial quantities of coinage in addition to other artefacts including several pieces of mid-first-century ad Roman military equipment74 In addition to 92 Iron Age coins there are several hundred Roman coins covering the entire period of the Roman occupation Ceramic evidence and quernstones also indicate late Iron Age and Roman occupation

The coinage

The 92 Iron Age coins recorded from Goodnestone are listed in Appendix 1 The majority of these coins are either of Kentish origin or were produced elsewhere apparently for use in Kent the percentage of non-Kentish coinage from the site is lower than usual for east Kent (fig 9)

The low number of potin coins representing just 65 per cent of the site assemblage shows that although the site may have an origin in the first half of the first century bc activity at that time was probably limited The coin evidence suggests that the main phase of activity at Goodnestone started in the final quarter of the first century bc

The majority of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone 902 per cent of the site total are struck bronzes Coins of the Kentish uninscribed Series are the most frequent and are represented by 29 examples including three types not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs One of these a variant of VA 154-1 appears to provide a link between the Kentish uninscribed Series and the early inscribed coinage of Dubnovellaunos The obverse although worn on all three specimens appears to bear the same or a very similar design to the Kentish uninscribed bronze issue VA 154-1 The reverse shows a left-facing version of the horse depicted on the reverse of VA 154-1 and a close parallel for this is seen on the reverse of an inscribed silver coin of Dubnovellaunos (VA 171) It is possible that the same die-cutter was involved with all three types Three of the five known specimens of this variant form of VA 154-1 have come from Goodnestone It is conceivably an early uninscribed issue of Dubnovellaunos but has here been retained within the Kentish uninscribed Series

Coins attributed to Dubnovellaunos are represented by 21 examples at Goodnestone Among

fig 9a Goodnestone coins from site ()fig 9b Goodnestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

74 Bishop 1995 17ndash19

23IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

these are six examples of two uncatalogued but related bronze types known from several other provenances in both Kent and Essex75 A coin of Dubnovellaunos is one of only two silver coins from Goodnestone the other tentatively attributed to Addedomaros by Van Arsdell76 is known from three other provenances in east Kent but a north Thames origin still appears likely on stylistic grounds

Phase 8 coins at Goodnestone are less numerous than those of the Kentish uninscribed Series and Dubnovellaunos Coins of Eppillus are scarcer than expected for east Kent and the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin are represented by only three types all of which have their principal distribution in Kent A quarter-stater of Cunobelin is the only gold coin from Goodnestone and is possibly the latest Iron Age coin from the site although similarly late bronze coins of Amminus are also present Only three Gaulish coins have been recorded just 37 per cent of the site total unusually low for east Kent

The histogram for Goodnestone (fig 9) indicates that the site was established before the end of the first century bc Coins of Phase 6 are the most frequent finds but from then until the Conquest losses steadily decline although remaining above the east Kent mean This decline suggests that the earlier coins at least were largely deposited before the Conquest otherwise it is reasonable to expect that the ratio of Phase 8 coins to those of Phase 6 would be higher Goodnestonersquos nearest parallel among the east Kent sites is Archers Low Farm except for the lack of Gaulish imports which are significantly under-represented at only 45 per cent of the east Kent mean This may be regarded as an expected difference between a probable port site and an inland settlement of uncertain nature seemingly established at around the same time Otherwise both sites have low numbers of potins significant peaks in Phases 6 and 7 and are virtually identical in Phases 8E and 8L The metal types at Goodnestone and Archers Low Farm also have very similar proportions The very high level of struck bronze is indicative of trade and exchange from the latter part of the first century bc The scarcity of Gaulish imports and non-Kentish coinage at Goodnestone suggests that much of the activity here was locally based and that there were no direct links with places further afield A greater number of non-local coins would be expected at a trading centre with wider links such as Canterbury

The state of preservation of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone is generally very poor and ten have not been identified The impression given is that many of these coins had a long circulation life however to add a note of caution late Roman coins of the same type found only a few metres apart at Goodnestone sometimes show a very marked variation in their state of preservation the reason for which is unclear

The adjacent Cherrygarden Lane appears on Ordnance Survey maps as part of a trackway running for several kilometres across the Kentish downland This may well have originated as a main thoroughfare at a very early date A geophysical survey of part of the site revealed the existence of another trackway across the field with probable field boundaries adjoining it The function of the late Iron Age and Roman site at Goodnestone is unclear from the coin evidence alone and is only likely to be clarified by excavation Curteis has discussed a not dissimilar site at Evenley Northamptonshire and suggested either a religious centre andor an occupationaltrading settlement77 A detailed report on Goodnestone incorporating all facets of the site is in preparation78

75 Both types are uninscribed but can be attributed to Dubnovellaunos on stylistic and distributional grounds A Kentish origin for these issues is preferred here particularly in view of the lack of non-Kentish coinage from Goodnestone

76 Van Arsdell 1989 350 (his type VA 1611)77 Curteis 1996 33ndash478 Cross forthcoming

24 DAVID HOLMAN

SITE 8 CANTERBURy (WALLED AREA)

Background

As the Roman civitas capital of Kent and a moderately large town within the province of Britannia Canterbury was an important settlement which has continued to be occupied up to the present day The name by which the settlement was known to the Romans Durovernum Cantiacorum is of Celtic origin translating as lsquothe walled town by the alder swamprsquo79 and perhaps provides an initial clue to a pre-Conquest origin for the site

It has been known since at least the eighteenth century that substantial remains of the Roman town survived below the modern streets During the installation of the sewage system in the 1860s a number of coins were found none was described in detail but some were possibly Iron Age80 In 1871 an Iron Age coin was found in Burgate providing evidence for some type of pre-Conquest occupation in the area However definite remains of late Iron Age settlement were not found until excavations began on bomb-damaged sites in 1946 when work revealed a gully apparently bounding a hut site together with pottery of pre-Conquest date81 Since then a significant number of other sites producing evidence of pre-Roman occupation have been located most notably in the Marlowe car park area situated towards the central part of the Roman walled town where the remains of two circular houses set within a triple-ditched enclosure accompanied by hearths ovens and a well were found82 It now seems that late Iron Age settlement at Canterbury was dispersed across an area of at least 10 ha beside the River Stour fairly certainly focused on a ford but apparently lacking any significant defences The available dating evidence suggests that the later Iron Age settlement began during the mid- to late first century bc although evidence of occupation immediately pre-dating this may still await discovery There is some evidence for early Iron Age settlement in the area

Of particular significance in the context of the later Iron Age settlement is the hillfort of Bigberry Camp located above the Stour valley some 3 km to the west This site represents the only known certain hillfort in eastern Kent Occupation here seems to have begun c 350 bc but the defences do not appear to have been constructed until the second century bc83 The camp appears to have been largely abandoned around 50 bc perhaps as a result of it being stormed by Caesarrsquos troops in 54 bc84 Despite the significant amount of archaeological work at Bigberry no Iron Age coins have been found A few bronze coins have been found at Harbledown 1 km to the north-east Rodwell has previously suggested that the general lack of coinage from the site indicates that it was not of major importance as a permanent settlement85

It is generally accepted that the settlement at Canterbury in some way superseded Bigberry during the mid-first century bc perhaps originating as a river-side trading station of the hillfort86 Blagg has suggested that Canterburyrsquos importance grew after c 15 bc following the establishment of the Rhine frontier87 However there is currently insufficient evidence to show that Canterbury had developed into a major proto-urban centre before the Roman conquest and there appear to have been few changes certainly within the Marlowe area until the Flavian

79 Rivet and Smith 1979 353ndash480 Pilbrow 187181 Frere 1965 682 Blockley et al 199583 Thompson 1983 253ndash9 Blockley and Blockley 1989 245ndash684 Blockley and Blockley 1989 24685 Rodwell 1976 33086 Blockley et al 1995 987 T Blagg in Blockley et al 1995 11

25IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

period88 The Iron Age status of Canterbury has previously been questioned89 and Millett makes the important point that the later Roman development of the site arguably and quite possibly wrongly leads to the perception that the Iron Age settlement was of equal importance90 Nevertheless it is clear from the extent of the known remains the amount of coinage and the quantity of imported fineware pottery including Dressel I amphorae that the settlement here was of some importance The evidence for this as provided by the Iron Age coinage is further considered below

The coinage

By the end of 2003 a total of 163 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) had been recorded from within the area of the later Roman walled town mainly in the area of Longmarket Rose Lane St Margarets Street Watling Street and Beer Cart Lane Significantly fewer Iron Age coins have been found during the recent Whitefriars excavations immediately to the east perhaps indicating the eastern limits of the Iron Age settlement although development pressures meant that only limited excavation of the earliest layers was possible The most important point about these coins is that they have virtually all been found during archaeological excavations Canterbury is the only site considered in this paper which has subsequently been built over in its entirety but it is also the only site with the exception of Richborough that has seen archaeological excavation on a large scale Canterbury is the only major late Iron Age site in east Kent with large numbers of broadly contemporary stratified coin finds This is of considerable importance not only for understanding the origins of the city but also for the study of the circulation deposition and dating of Iron Age coinage in the region as a whole A basic relative chronology for other sites in east Kent can be constructed by considering the numismatic evidence from Canterbury for example the realisation that potin coins predate the struck bronzes which themselves evolved from native-inspired designs into more Romanised types

Archaeological contexts can be questioned if later activity has occurred on the site leading to the inevitable disturbance of earlier features The result is a tendency to date items later than should be the case91 A significant number of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury have been found in post-Conquest deposits and Haselgrove regarded these as a mixture of residual coins disturbed by Roman activity as one would expect in an urban context and coins continuing in use until the mid-first century ad92 Nash considered that the potin coins from the Marlowe excavations were circulating until the later first century ad but appeared to make insufficient concession to residuality93 Some Iron Age coins have been found in medieval and later deposits having clearly arrived there as a result of earlier levels being disturbed During the early Roman period disturbance of the underlying Iron Age deposits would have been much more frequent and therefore more coins would have been displaced It cannot be conclusively shown that the Iron Age coins at Canterbury circulated for any length of time after the Conquest although it is reasonable to suppose that some may have continued to circulate for a few years before being fully supplanted by the new Roman coinage94 The problems caused by residuality have also been discussed by Arthur in relation to the late Republican amphorae from the excavations95

88 Blockley et al 1995 1289 Blockley et al 1995 990 Millett 1996 342ndash391 Haselgrove 1988 103ndash592 Haselgrove 1987 14193 D Nash in Blockley et al 1995 92394 eg Nash 1987 36ndash895 Arthur 1986 240

26 DAVID HOLMAN

Potins account for 479 per cent of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury (fig 10) The near absence of Kentish Primary potins is significant because this implies that they had largely ceased to circulate before Canterbury was established Only two of these coins have been recorded both from post-Conquest contexts and these were previously wrongly identified as a cut-down bronze of Massalia and a Central Gaulish lsquotecircte diaboliquersquo potin96 Given that Kentish Primary potins are the commonest type of Iron Age coin in east Kent it is reasonable to assume that many more would have been found at Canterbury had they still been in circulation in the last 50ndash75 years before the Conquest The possibility remains that the initial nucleus of the settlement may have been situated elsewhere97 but the current evidence supports Haselgroversquos view that early potins had mostly ceased to circulate by the early first century ad98 indeed a date before the turn of the century may now be preferred In France the temple sites at Champlieu and Chilly also provide evidence that potins had virtually disappeared from circulation by the first century ad99

An early cessation date for the circulation of the earlier Flat Linear I potins particularly Allen Classes AndashD can also be surmised from the Canterbury evidence The 21 Flat Linear I potins all belong to Allen Classes jndashL ie late in the series probably dating to around the middle of the first century bc Some of these were deliberately cut100 a feature rarely seen elsewhere although a cut Class L coin has been recorded from the Worth Temple site Elsewhere in east Kent the earlier types form a significant component of the Flat Linear I potins and their absence at Canterbury again suggests that if any settlement existed on the site in the early first century bc it is likely to have been of little importance Haselgrove noted that earlier Flat Linear I types are present at Rochester suggesting that Rochester was a site of some importance at an earlier date than Canterbury101 This may well still hold true for the relative chronology of the earliest phases at Canterbury and Rochester but it now seems likely that Kentish coinage began in the

96 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15397 Blockley et al 1995 898 Haselgrove 1987 15899 Allen 1995 51100 Haselgrove 1988 118101 Haselgrove 1987 151

fig 10a Canterbury (walled area) coins from site ()fig 10b Canterbury (walled area) set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

27IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

east of the county102 and a later commencement date for Canterbury need have no particular relevance in any discussion on Rochester located some 43 km to the north-west

Flat Linear II potins are represented by 50 surviving specimens 307 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (321 per cent of the identified coins) Compared with their general scarcity elsewhere in east Kent with the exception of East Wear Bay Folkestone (see below Site 9) with which some sort of link may have existed this is exceptional a fact well illustrated by fig 10 which shows that the proportion of these coins at Canterbury is more than ten times the mean for the rest of east Kent Recent research on Flat Linear II potins based on hoard evidence and individual findspots is leaning increasingly towards an origin in the region immediately north of London rather than Kent at least for certain classes103 In this case the appearance of so many of these coins at Canterbury cannot be easily explained They passed into the local circulation pool at a much lower rate than other coin types and the scarcity of these coins around Canterbury suggests that their principal purpose may have been related to a specific activity or commodity the nature of which is unknown Alternatively there was a sudden and significant but short-lived increase in activity at Canterbury (and Folkestone) which may again have had a specific cause Either way there must have been a fairly high degree of control to restrict their circulation in this manner A comparison may perhaps be made with the exceptionally high number of Roman coins of the period ad 388ndash402 found at Richborough which is not reflected elsewhere in east Kent and which must represent an event specific to that site in the local record although the contents of several hoards at the site account for a not insignificant proportion of these late coins104 It seems likely that the Flat Linear II potins were used in Canterbury as a low-value coinage as the appearance of so many high-value coins in a non-hoard context would be difficult to explain There may perhaps have been a reliance on these coins to sustain the Canterbury circulation pool for small-scale transactions Haselgrove noted that potins were the commonest issues circulating in Canterbury until Phase 8 (c ad 20)105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role106 although how much of this is a result of residuality cannot be ascertained

Struck bronzes are represented at Canterbury by 69 coins These include ten Gaulish coins 159 per cent of the (identified) struck bronze total There are also five Gaulish potins Overall Gaulish coins at Canterbury are 53 per cent above the east Kent mean Haselgrove commented on possible early links with the Continent107 and Fitzpatrickrsquos suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands108 but coastal sites such as Archers Low Farm and East Wear Bay Folkestone may be regarded as more likely initial points of contact Phase 6 coins are also above the east Kent mean In this respect there is some similarity to Archers Low Farm although the deviation from the mean there both for imports and Phase 6 coins is far greater There are 21 struck bronzes of the Kentish Uninscribed Series and an early lsquoChichester Cockrsquo type The frequency of some of the Kentish Uninscribed types at Canterbury in particular VA 154-3 suggests that minting facilities may have been operating at that time

Bronzes of the dynastic period are represented by 31 coins The nine coins of Dubnovellaunos three of Tasciovanus-Sego and ten of Eppillus are typical for an east Kent site However coins of Cunobelin appear to be significantly under-represented only eight coins of Cunobelin have been recorded from Canterbury and four of these are late types otherwise scarce in east

102 Holman 2000103 Haselgrove 1988 117 G Cottam pers comm104 Reece 1987 84105 Haselgrove 1987 145106 Haselgrove 1993 44107 Haselgrove 1987 143108 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

4 DAVID HOLMAN

12 Mack 1975 Van Arsdell 1989 Hobbs 199613 Around 80 per cent of the Iron Age coins from east Kent have been found by metal detectorists with

archaeological excavations providing 17 per cent and casual finds 3 per cent

200 separate locations ranging from sites with less than 20 coins down to single isolated finds together with areas containing large numbers of coins but no clear focus

A number of Kentish types uncatalogued by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs appear in the site lists12 In order to clarify which types have been found on which sites a summary description of these coins is provided together with a temporary reference solely for the purpose of this paper and a corresponding Celtic Coin Index reference (Table 2 fig 2) The temporary references are based on a system used by the writer in his database of coins found in Kent Only those coin types which appear in the site lists (Appendix 1) are shown

SOuRCE DATA AND STATISTICAL METHODOLOGy

Source data

The great majority of the coins used in this study have been found by metal detector users since c 198013 Despite the die-hard attitude of some archaeologists and continued arguments about the pros and cons of detecting metal detectors have increasingly been used on archaeological excavations and field surveys in recent years the principal result of which has been a significant increase in the quantity of metalwork especially coinage recovered from sites leading to the conclusion that much useful dating material has in the past been missed

TABLE 2 KENTISH COIN TyPES NOT LISTED By MACK VAN ARSDELL OR HOBBS WHICH HAVE BEEN FOUND ON THE MAjOR SITES IN EAST KENT CELTIC COIN INDEx (CCI) REFERENCES SHOWN

Kentish Uninscribed SeriesUB1 Head right clumpy-hoofed Pegasus left (AE) as CCI 950903 (fig 2 1) (Allen 1995 83 no 277)UB2a Head right alternate ring and dot border (lsquoneatrsquo style)lion left (AE) as CCI 030078 (fig 2 2)UB3 Boar left five-tailed lion left (AE) as CCI 920042 (fig 2 3)US3 Four horsesrsquo heads horse left (AR minim) as CCI 990362 (fig 2 4) (Blockley et al 1995 925 no 41)DubnovellaunosDB1a Long-haired head left Pegasus right with hatched box below (AE) as CCI 010199 (fig 2 5)DB1b Crowned head left (reverse as DB1a) (AE) as CCI 020075 (fig 2 6) DB2 Lion left horseman right (AE) as CCI 941182 (fig 2 7)DS1 Griffin right seated figure right (AR) as CCI 890026 (fig 28)

SaSamSB1 Horse right hippogryph left (AE frac12) as CCI 990002 (de jersey 1997) (fig 2 9)TasciovanusSegoTB1 Eight-pointed star bull left (VA 18551808 variant) (AE) as CCI 940337 (fig 2 10)

EppillusEB1 Boar right hippogryph left (AE frac12) as CCI 940397 (fig 2 11)

AmminusAS1 Head right biga (AR) as CCI 972069 (fig 2 12)

UncertainNS1 Back to back crescents dog right (Eppillus) as CCI 011438 (fig 2 13)

5IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

fig 2 Kentish Iron Age coin types listed in Table 2 and Mediterranean types frequently found in Kent

Metal detectors were used for the first time on an archaeological excavation in Canterbury at Blue Boy yard in 2000 Although this was a small site fifteen Iron Age coins were found more than half of them in spoil by the metal detectors In terms of the size of the excavation this was a much higher proportion of coins than was found at either the Cakebread Robey or Marlowe

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15

6 DAVID HOLMAN

excavations (see below) Metal detectors were subsequently used at the recently finished Whitefriars excavations and accounted for a significant proportion of the Roman and medieval coins from there Similar results have also been obtained from an excavation on a rural site at Maydensole Farm Sutton near Dover during which most of the metal detecting was undertaken by the writer At this site well over half of the coins as well as other items such as brooches were recovered from the spoilheaps having been missed during excavation Concentrated searching on a known productive site will produce a more representative cross-section of the coinage present than casual searching in isolated areas when smaller coins are more likely to be missed

No criticism of standard archaeological excavation methods is intended here Experience has shown the difficulty of finding coins by lsquoeyes onlyrsquo methods even with the use of a metal detector they are frequently difficult to locate often being found in a lump of compacted soil little bigger than the coin itself Colour is also a factor (see below) The conclusion is that the metal detector used responsibly can be a useful archaeological tool providing much additional information not only in quantities of finds but also their contexts

Another factor to be considered when looking at source data is the different colours of metal and related corrosion products A disproportionately high number of gold coins are evident among early finds as typically illustrated by Boys who provided detailed descriptions of gold staters but only a passing mention of bronze coins14 Reasons for this include gold being a valuable metal perhaps leading to greater interest gold coins are usually well-preserved unlike most bronze coins and not least because gold is much easier to spot than dull-coloured bronze Similarly bronze coins which have turned bright green are easier to spot than those which have not Silver is sometimes found in a shiny state but more often than not is in an oxidised state with a purple or even black hue Experience has shown that the most difficult metal items to spot are those made of lead a fact confirmed by a number of metal detector users

Since the advent of metal detecting the early imbalance towards gold has been corrected to a large extent with the discovery and recording of considerable numbers of base metal coins For example Kentish Primary potins (better known and generally referred to as the lsquoThurrockrsquo type after a hoard found near the Essex town of that name) were known from very few examples until well into the 1980s and were then regarded as Gaulish imports15 These are now known in their thousands (including hoards) so it appears that they were previously usually missed or ignored

As will be shown significant variations in coin deposition are apparent across the major sites of east Kent This is to a large extent chronological as it is clear that some sites appear to have become active at a later date than others However the nature of the site itself also has an influence on the types of coin deposited eg a possible port site will have a high proportion of imports while an inland trading site or settlement will have a more insular assemblage Given the difficulty in determining the precise nature and function of a site which may in any case have been multi-functional it is hard to assess how much of an influence this has on coin deposition and why this increases or decreases in certain phases The level of activity is another factor to be considered as is the likelihood that the coins themselves were used in varied ways as ritual offerings as well as in trade and wealth storage

Statistical methodology

The statistical method used in this paper attempts to compare coins recorded from specific individual sites against those recorded from the rest of east Kent rather than looking at sites

14 Boys 1792 86915 eg Nash 1978b

7IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

in isolation The reason for this is that individual site histograms show the number of coins in each phase at that site but they do not illustrate how this compares with the surrounding region ie a high number of coins in a particular phase at a site may or may not be normal for the region in which the site lies but the site histogram gives no indication of this As a result the interpretation of site histograms can easily lead to misleading conclusions16 An example of the problems which may arise is given by Reece in relation to the Roman coins from the excavations at Richborough17 One method used to calculate the theoretical loss per thousand for coins of the Roman period is dependent on chronologically precise phases18 and cannot be used accurately for Iron Age coins owing to their lack of absolute dating and the uncertain lengths of the phases although estimates can be made Small numbers also lead to heavily distorted results No attempt is made here to impose fixed dates as used by Van Arsdell19

The histograms used here are based on the phases shown in Table 1 The totals for each phase (and metal type) from individual sites have been converted into percentages and the same has been done for east Kent overall to produce mean figures against which individual sites can be compared20 Individual sites in east Kent show wide variation attributable to different types of site and dates of commencement and a lsquonormalrsquo pattern of coin loss such as that suggested by Haselgrove for a number of sites north of the Thames21 cannot be determined The figures used here do not include the inadequately recorded coins listed by Allen22 other unreliable provenances or lsquoGreekrsquo coins

The first histogram for each site shows the number of identified coins of each phase recorded from that site expressed as a percentage of the total identified site assemblage The second histogram sets the coins from individual sites against the rest of east Kent to show how those sites compare with the surrounding region Metal percentage figures are also shown as suggested by Rodwell23 ie potin (cast bronze) AE (struck bronze) AR (silver) and AV (gold) these include those coins mostly struck bronzes which cannot be classified owing to their condition24 Plated coins have been treated as being of the metal they purport to be Large sites can skew coin loss profiles with large numbers of particular types obvious examples in east Kent being the Flat Linear II potins from Canterbury and Folkestone However the large number of coins now recorded provides a more complete picture than was previously the case

The difference between a site and the surrounding region is expressed by directly comparing the individual site percentages for each phase and metal type relative to the percentages for the rest of the region For example comparing Kentish Primary potins at Worth Temple against the rest of east Kent shows that these coins are 30 per cent above the east Kent mean at Worth Similarly Gaulish non-gold imports at Worth are 20 per cent above the east Kent mean The basic site histogram (fig 3a) shows that Kentish Primary potins are far more numerous than Gaulish imports at this site (361 per cent and 93 per cent of the identified coins respectively) but does not show that they have a similar ratio when set against their respective mean figures from the rest of east Kent (278 per cent and 77 per cent respectively) This is illustrated by the lsquocomparisonrsquo histogram (fig 3b) and may be interpreted as indicating that the level of

16 eg Haselgrove 1992 12617 Reece 1987 80ndash818 eg Casey 1980 2819 Van Arsdell 198920 eg Haselgrove 1993 5321 Haselgrove 1993 5422 Allen 196023 Rodwell 1976 31424 The site histograms show two different figures one (n1) for the lsquophasersquo section showing the number of

identified coins and the other (n2) for the lsquometalrsquo section showing all coins including those which cannot be identified but which are certainly Iron Age

8 DAVID HOLMAN

coin deposition at Worth relative to the rest of east Kent was broadly similar in each of these particular coin phases even allowing for the different sample sizes

THE MAjOR SITES OF EAST KENT

SITE 1 ROMANO-CELTIC TEMPLE SITE WORTH

Background

The site lies some 700 m to the south of Worth village and occupies a low chalk promontory projecting into the surrounding marshland which constitutes the southern end of the silted-up Wantsum Channel Only at the north-west is the promontory connected to land above marsh level The site is some 35 km from the present-day coastline

The existence of a Romano-Celtic temple in Castle Field has been known since at least the eighteenth century It was excavated by WS Klein in 192525 Significant evidence of Iron Age occupation was located below the temple although the nature of this earlier occupation remains uncertain Finds included the remains of three bronze votive model shields which has led to the widely accepted view that the Roman temple at Worth was the successor to an earlier Iron Age religious site26 Recent work in the fields and private gardens adjacent to the temple has broadened our general understanding of the site and confirmed that Iron Age occupation deposits extend across much of the site

A substantial enclosure ditch occupies the highest part of the promontory One entrance is known on the south-eastern side The ditch has not as yet been located on the north-east and it may be that the enclosure was open to the wetlands on this side The enclosure has a minimum area of some 65 ha

The limited dating evidence suggests that the temple itself was in use if not constructed during the fourth century ad27 The pottery evidence suggests that the enclosure ditch was largely filled by this time and it thus seems clear that this ditch was not a contemporary boundary to the Roman temple complex Ceramic evidence also suggests that the ditch was probably dug no later than the earlier first century bc That the enclosure ditch represents the outer limits of the inferred Iron Age sanctuary presently seems the most likely interpretation

Considerable quantities of local Middle to Late Iron Age pottery Gallo-Belgic fineware and sherds of Dressel 1B amphorae have been discovered together with much later material Taken in conjunction with the substantial number of Iron Age coins recovered this ceramic material confirms occupation in the general area of the enclosure at this date

The coinage

Despite Haselgrove being unaware of any coins from here28 by the end of 2003 a total of 236 Iron Age coins had been recorded from the Worth Temple site of which 227 have been found by members of two local metal-detecting clubs and 9 during archaeological excavations and fieldwalking There are also four other pre-Conquest coins (Appendix 1) Several hundred Roman coins spanning almost the entire period of the Roman occupation have also been found

Almost exactly half of the Iron Age coins from this site are potins Even allowing for the

25 Klein 192826 eg Harding 1974 10327 Klein 192828 Haselgrove 1987

9IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

chronological problems associated with unstratified material29 the large number of Kentish Primary Series potins mdash 347 per cent of the total site assemblage 361 per cent of the identified coins mdash is significant and suggests an early date for coin use and deposition at Worth reflecting the general pattern of Iron Age coinage in east Kent This is the first peak of coin loss here at 30 per cent above the east Kent mean The distribution of the Kentish Primary potins at Worth shows no particular concentration and there is no evidence of hoarding There is now little doubt that Kentish Primary potins are Kentish in origin30 The 28 Flat Linear I potins seem to split into two groups 17 belonging to Allenrsquos early types AndashD the remainder mostly to the late types jndashL31 The solitary Flat Linear II potin indicates that Worth saw little use of these coins in keeping with the east Kent background pattern There are also several early Gaulish potins of varying types most if not all of which date to the second century bc One rare type apparently a first-generation copy of a medium-size struck bronze of Massalia (Marseilles)32 is probably the immediate prototype of the Kentish Primary potins

Although potins are the most numerous finds at Worth struck bronzes of which there are 103 examples are further above the east Kent mean (8 per cent and 23 per cent respectively) Among the many different British and Gaulish issues present coins of Eppillus and Cunobelin are the most abundant The Kentish uninscribed bronzes include types previously thought not to be Kentish33 The lsquoChichester Cockrsquo bronze is regarded here as a Phase 6 issue but potentially belongs to Phase 5

Some 106 per cent of the identifiable coins including gold issues from Worth are of Gaulish origin These include thirteen struck bronzes and seven potins Gaulish non-gold imports although 20 per cent above the east Kent mean are broadly in line with the average level for major sites in east Kent The Gaulish potins which are probably contemporary with the Kentish

29 eg de jersey 1999 19530 Holman 2000 22031 Allen 197132 eg Haselgrove 1995 11933 An uncatalogued bronze type belonging to the Kentish Uninscribed Series (UB1) previously published as

an uncertain Gaulish type (Allen 1995 83 coin 277) has here been reattributed to Kent on the basis of style and distribution with 16 specimens now known from the county Another type previously regarded as a North Thames issue (VA 1629) has been reattributed to Kent based on its almost exclusively Kentish distribution

fig 3a Worth Temple site coins from site ()fig 3b Worth Temple site set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

10 DAVID HOLMAN

Primary potins may have been deposited at an earlier date than the struck bronzes Most of the Gaulish bronzes from Worth originate from the region generally associated with the Ambiani tribe the nearest major tribal grouping on the Continental mainland A bronze of Massalia two Ebusus (Ibiza) bronzes and a Siculo-Punic bronze may also be noted as potential pre-Conquest imports The evidence for the appearance of these coins in Britain is reviewed below

Only nine silver and five gold coins have so far been recorded from Worth both well below the east Kent mean A silver-plated reverse brockage of a central Gaulish issue of Vepotal with an iron core is clearly a forgery but may have been regarded as suitable for a temple offering34 Three of the gold coins are also plated but with a copper core these include the two British coins both of which are of non-Kentish origin35

As on most sites numbers of coins of Phases 1ndash5 are low because most coinage belonging to these phases is of gold and is more frequently found away from recognised sites However coins of Phase 6 are also much scarcer than normal for an east Kent site Taken in conjunction with the scarcity of Flat Linear II potins this suggests greatly reduced activity in the third quarter of the first century bc intriguingly the same date at which Canterbury appears to have been established (see below Site 8) Following considerable activity in the midlate second to mid-first century bc coin deposition fell sharply before slowly recovering until the early first century ad (Phase 8E) when a significant increase is apparent under Eppillus and Cunobelin Phase 8E shows the highest peak of coin deposition at Worth relative to the surrounding region at 63 per cent above the east Kent mean

The large quantity of Iron Age coinage pottery and other domestic material from the Worth Temple site suggests that it was an extensive and important site from an early date Religion is only one of many activities which could have been carried out here The wide range of coin types and the large number of early potins suggest deposition for whatever reasons from as early as the second century bc The number of coins recorded must be regarded as providing a represent-ative sample of the coinage deposited at the site Worth has currently produced more Iron Age coins than any other site in Kent although the total is far lower than at many Continental sites Some British sites notably Harlow36 also have far higher numbers of coins A number of early Roman coins including Republican denarii issues of Tiberius and Gaius and copies of Claudius I are also known from Worth although these could all have been deposited at a later date

The coins from the Worth Temple site cannot be treated in isolation for on Worth Hill some 12 km to the north metal-detector surveys have produced a further fifteen Iron Age and a number of Roman coins The area is now under orchards Similarly an area of farmland at Ham only 1 km to the west of the Worth Temple site has produced a number of Iron Age coins There has been no archaeological input on either of these presumed sites and their nature is unknown but they may have been satellites of the main focus

A more detailed report and plan of the site (as at the end of December 2000) has been published elsewhere37 and only a summary updated to the end of 2003 has been given here

SITE 2 ARCHERS LOW FARM SANDWICH

Background

This site lies some 25 km to the north of the Worth Temple site and is situated on farmland

34 eg Briggs Haselgrove and King 1992 44ndash535 Sir john Evans held in his collection a gold quarter-stater of British Pa type (VA 147) lsquofound at Worth near

Sandwichrsquo but the exact findspot is unknown36 C Haselgrove pers comm37 Holman 2005a 265ndash75

11IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

immediately to the east of Sandwich It was discovered by members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association a local metal-detecting club in 1985 when a significant number of Iron Age and Roman coins were recovered from an area covering several arable fields In 1987 members of the Dover Archaeological Group undertook a limited amount of trenching in the area to ascertain the context of the coin finds and this was followed by a second more extensive phase of exploratory work in late 1990 and early 1991 A total of 45 hand-dug trenches was cut and from these and the metal-detector surveys it is now clear that an extensive occupation site beginning in the late Iron Age and continuing throughout the Roman period exists here38

In topographical terms a low eastward spur of the natural Thanet Beds clay seems at some stage to have provided the basis for the formation of a spit of alluvial sand Today this spit stands at an elevation of between about 25 and 4 m above OD and projects into the marshland that represents the silted up remnants of the southern end of the Wantsum Channel It seems probable that the site was established on or very close to the late Iron AgeRoman shoreline the sea today lies more than 2 km to the east39

The excavations revealed Belgic and Roman features and deposits at Archers Low Farm over an area measuring a minimum of 370 m by c 200 m covering at least 7 ha A few Roman coins were recovered further along the spit suggesting that occupation may have extended eastwards for at least 500 m Roman deposits have also been noted beneath later development 100 m to the west40 The upper layers contained medieval and post-medieval tile and pottery fragments in addition to earlier material and had clearly been disturbed in earlier periods Intact Belgic and Roman deposits lay below at a considerable depth and reached up to 150 m in thickness These comprised a series of general occupation layers occasionally interleaved with apparently natural sand deposits in which a total of eighteen features were located The lowest levels were frequently waterlogged

The excavations produced a considerable quantity of late Iron Age and Roman pottery A very significant proportion of this material consisted of fabrics in the Belgic grog-tempered tradition In addition there are significant quantities of samian ware including two fragments of a plain bowl provisionally identified as Arretine ware dateable to the AugustanTiberian period and other imported Gallo-Belgic wares including terra rubra terra nigra and white-ware butt beaker all apparently of early to mid-first-century ad date Small quantities of amphorae types Dressel 2-4 Dressel 20 and Cam 185 have been recovered but one type of vessel conspicuous by its absence is Dressel 1B amphora Much later Roman material is also present on the site including Roman building debris suggesting the presence of at least one as yet unlocated structure

The coinage

A total of 56 Iron Age and three Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from Archers Low Farm all found by members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association No pre-Conquest coins were recovered during the excavations Although it is apparent that all these coins come from the topsoil and there is no doubt that they are essentially in situ (ie not derived from elsewhere) the contemporary soil horizons can be as much as 2 m down which raises the question as to how this material arrived on the surface In part the explanation may be connected with the installation of several sets of deep land drains laid across the site at various times41 but this cannot represent the complete answer It is clear from the excavations that some considerable disturbance of

38 Frere 1988 484 Frere 1991 29239 Another Roman occupation site located on a second more extensive outer coastal sand spit has been located

at Dicksonrsquos Corner some 25 km to the south-east No coinage has been found there (Parfitt 2000)40 D Perkins pers comm41 C Burch pers comm

12 DAVID HOLMAN

the site occurred in the medieval and post-medieval periods when the area was presumably cultivated as it is now It seems certain that the uppermost Roman deposits have been damaged if not destroyed in this process thus archaeological horizons containing coins may once have been much closer to the surface This would imply that at least some of the Iron Age coinage recovered was previously contained within later Roman deposits as residual material suggesting much ancient disturbance of the earlier deposits there being no evidence for the continued use of these coins into the later Roman period No archaeological work or metal detecting has been undertaken since the early 1990s and the site has since changed ownership

The coin list for Archers Low Farm (Appendix 1) shows considerable differences compared with the Worth Temple site as does the site histogram (fig 4) Although the assemblage is much smaller it is sufficient to show the considerable diversity of the coinage present Only five potins have been recorded just 89 per cent of the total of Iron Age coins from the site compared with 504 per cent at Worth Temple of which three appear to be Gaulish imports The absence of Flat Linear potins is notable and suggests that any activity before the mid-first century bc was very limited

The most significant element among the struck bronzes is the unusually high proportion of Gaulish coins These show considerable heterogeneity although issues attributed to the Ambiani are not unexpectedly the most frequent In all Gaulish coins account for 15 of the 54 identified Iron Age coins recorded from Archers Low Farm some 278 per cent of the total nearly four

42 Briggs Haselgrove and King 1992 42ndash343 Haselgrove (in SCBI 42 coin no 427) noted that this type may be a Kentish copy of a continental type Six

examples are currently known five from East Kent and one from the temple site at Bois LrsquoAbbeacute Eu Seine-Maritime (Delestreacutee 1984 fig 88)

times the east Kent mean Only Richborough (304 per cent) among the east Kent sites exceeds this (see below Site 3) and few other sites in Britain can compare with Silchester (306 per cent) and Hayling Island (292 per cent) providing the closest comparisons42 There are also two specimens of an uncatalogued type (UB3) which has been listed here as possibly belonging to the Kentish uninscribed Series but which is conceivably Gaulish in which case the imported coinage would rise to 315 per cent of the total43 There are also three Siculo-Punic bronzes dated c 320ndash280 bc

fig 4a Archers Low Farm Sandwich coins from site ()fig 4b Archers Low Farm set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

13IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

The Kentish uninscribed Series is well represented with ten specimens (twelve including the uncatalogued type UB3) recorded of several different types The diversity of the dynastic coins from Archers Low Farm is very evident Of these coins of Dubnovellaunos are the most frequent Phases 6 and 7 and to a lesser extent Phase 8E are all above the east Kent mean There is a tendency towards an early date slowly falling off under Eppillus and Cunobelin possibly indicating greater activity prior to say c ad 15ndash25 rather than after This might also suggest that much of the imported coinage arrived before the turn of the century or at the latest very shortly afterwards However this can only be speculation in the absence of any stratified coins from the site There may be some parallel here with coin loss at Goodnestone (see below Site 7) at least in as much as struck bronze forms most of the assemblage

No genuine gold or silver coins have been recorded from Archers Low Farm There is however a bronze core of a contemporary forgery of a quarter-stater of Cunobelin with the reverse design being laterally reversed Another forgery a bronze core with uncertain designs which was probably originally silver-plated also appears to be of Cunobelin

The high proportion of Gaulish coins and the comparatively large amount of imported pottery together with the low-lying situation of Archers Low Farm all suggest that this site is a strong candidate for having been established as a port in the later Iron Age principally for the purposes of trade and probably before the turn of the millennium The proximity to the Continent and the sheltered nature of the site within the confines of the Wantsum Channel would have made it an ideal location for such a facility There would appear to be some chronological disparity between the coins and the pottery imports many of the coins dating to the mid- to late first century bc but much of the pottery apparently being of Augustan or Tiberian date with further samian imports of slightly later ClaudianNeronian date This can be partly explained if it is accepted that these coins continued to circulate in post-Conquest Gaul for many years before entering Britain at the same time as the pottery but this does not fully explain why the native coins show a similar inclination towards an early date If the site reached a peak in the early first century ad then perhaps more coins of Phase 8E should be present ie if the imports and coins of Phases 6 and 7 were not deposited until Phase 8E then coins of the latter phase although above average for the region might themselves be expected to be more numerous In addition the condition of some of the coins suggests that they had seen comparatively little circulation before their deposition No pottery certainly dating from before the first century bc has been found at the site and the low incidence of potin coins taken in conjunction with the very high levels of struck bronze indicates a date no earlier than perhaps c 30 bc for the start of the main phase of activity in the pre-Conquest period at Archers Low Farm

SITE 3 RICHBOROUGH CASTLE

Background

This internationally important Roman site situated on an island surrounded by drained wetlands that were formerly part of the Wantsum Channel occupies a small hill of Woolwich and Thanet Beds sand rising to a height of almost 20 m above OD44 It stands some 3 km to the north-west of Archers Low Farm and some 35 km to the south of the nearest point of the Isle of Thanet at Ebbsfleet

The Roman site is very well known from the excavation work of 1922ndash1938 but the evidence for its pre-Conquest origins is less than clear Occupation in the early to mid-Iron

44 Hawkes 1968 224

14 DAVID HOLMAN

Age is reasonably well attested45 but the status of the site immediately prior to the Roman invasion remains uncertain Cunliffe stated that there was lsquono trace of Belgic occupationrsquo on the site46 while both Thompson and Pollard have maintained that definite pre-Conquest pottery is generally absent from the excavated material47 A large number of early brooches are known from Richborough but there is no evidence that any of these arrived before ad 43 very few can categorically be shown to be contemporary with the Iron Age coins from the site48 although it should be noted that Iron Age brooches are much rarer finds than coins On the evidence of the coinage Rodwell suggested that there was some kind of pre-Conquest port here49 an idea previously suggested by Allen50 Indeed the fundamental question must be posed as to whether this place would ever have been chosen for a Roman invasion base if it were not already an established port of entry with clear routeways leading into the Kentish hinterland

The coinage

Allen stated that there were between 12 and 14 Iron Age coins from the excavations at Richborough (there was much confusion over the numbering system) and that these included a number of non-local coins including Gaulish imports51 Following reassessment of the site assemblage including non-excavation finds an updated summary list showing a total of 23 coins is provided in Appendix 152

Large numbers of coins have been found at and removed from Richborough over several centuries In the sixteenth century Leland wrote that more Roman coins were found at Richborough than anywhere else in England and that this had been the case for as long as anyone could remember53 Several local notables and antiquaries in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had collections of coins from the site54 It is evident that the total number of Roman coins deposited whether lost or deliberately hoarded at Richborough far exceeds the 56084 recovered during the excavations of 1922ndash193855 and it is probable that Iron Age coins were among those previously removed without record

Looked at in an overall context the 23 Iron Age coins from Richborough show considerable deviation from the general pattern in east Kent (fig 5) There are several unusual features and the group may perhaps be regarded as chronologically typologically and numerically unrepresentative for a number of reasons

a The coin distribution is irregular for an east Kent siteb An unknown number of coins have been removed without record over a long period of time including by recent illegal metal-detector activityc A lack of sanctioned metal detecting because much of the area is scheduledd The collections of local antiquaries could be of a selective nature

45 Bushe-Fox 1949 8ndash11 Cunliffe 1968 116ndash1746 Cunliffe 1968 23247 Thompson 1982 809 Pollard 1988 4448 Bayley and Butcher 200449 Rodwell 1976 22150 Allen 1968 18651 Allen 1968 184ndash852 A further coin from Richborough has been noted by Bean (Bean 2000 178 his type VERC 3-4) However the

Celtic Coin Index record for this coin queries this provenance and it has accordingly been decided not to include it in the site list at Appendix 1

53 Toulmin-Smith 1909 6254 eg Roach-Smith 1850 11955 Reece 1968

15IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

e Large-scale disturbance during the Roman period destroyed earlier layers (although any coins would probably have been re-deposited rather than removed)f There could have been considerable displacement of coins from non-local sources during the earliest Roman phaseg Many coins were probably missed during the excavations (see above)h The 1922ndash1938 excavations concentrated on the area within the Saxon Shore fort but this was not necessarily the centre of any LPRIA settlement A recent magnetometry survey and analysis of aerial photographs have revealed a dense mass of features across the fields around the fort56 many of these are probably of Roman date but the possibility that some are earlier cannot be discounted in the absence of excavation

On current evidence the Iron Age coins from Richborough appear to fall into two groups one ending at the beginning of the first century ad and consisting mainly of types typically found in east Kent and the other being more or less contemporary with the Roman conquest of ad 43 and consisting mainly of types not generally found in east Kent Haselgrove described the Richborough assemblage as superficially impressive but spurious commenting on the large number of Phase 8L coins compared with Canterbury which he suggested was a result of the Roman invasion57 No other site in east Kent bears any similarity to Richborough in Phase 8L when losses are nearly ten times the east Kent mean so it may be inferred that the reason for this is an event specific to Richborough The possibility that at least some of the earlier coins were lost at a later date as suggested by Haselgrove58 cannot be dismissed particularly in view of the lack of securely stratified and undisturbed Iron Age coins from the site the specimens of VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are candidates for this Although there are only three silver coins from Richborough silver is further above the east Kent mean than the bronze but this is entirely down to the appearance of non-local types and is misleading

56 Millett and Wilmott 200457 Haselgrove 1987 15358 Haselgrove 1987 153

fig 5a Richborough coins from site ()fig 5b Richborough set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

16 DAVID HOLMAN

The early group consists mainly of potins Gaulish imports and Kentish uninscribed bronzes together with a slightly later inscribed issue of Sa(m) Both of the coins previously recorded as bronzes of Massalia are actually potins59 The silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are early and both originate from the south coast of England With the exception of these silver coins which may have arrived later this early group fits very well into the general east Kent pattern and seemingly indicates a period of pre-Conquest coin use on the site The low percentage of potin and rather higher percentage of bronze counts against an establishment date much before the middle of the first century bc and it may be that the potins were lost at a later date and that the site was a later first-century bc foundation In favour of this is the fact that Phase 6 coins and continental imports are both above the mean for east Kent indeed Richborough has one of the highest levels of imported pre-Conquest coinage from any site in Britain comprising 304 per cent of the total site assemblage It may be significant that the proportions of Gaulish imports and Phase 6 coinage at Richborough are very similar to Archers Low Farm perhaps hinting at some link between these two sites The imports could have been deposited with the Phase 8L coins during early Roman occupation60 but given the low levels of Phase 7 and 8E coinage the near contemporary Phase 6 coinage seems unlikely to have been deposited as late as Phase 8L

Following an apparent hiatus in coin deposition evidenced by the lack of Eppillus and early Cunobelin issues common finds elsewhere in east Kent a later group becomes evident This consists of late issues of Cunobelin and three coins from the south coast one of Verica and two of the Durotriges Late issues of Cunobelin are greatly outnumbered by early issues elsewhere in east Kent while the three south coast coins suggest a link with the West Sussex Hampshire and Dorset area which is otherwise almost wholly absent in east Kent The southern silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 from the early group may have arrived at Richborough at the same time as the later coins as a result of post-Conquest activity An analogous situation can be seen at a number of sites in France where Gaulish bronzes continued in use into the first century ad61 A second-century bc bronze coin of Cyzicus is on balance more likely to be a Roman than a pre-Roman import in this instance further illustrating the difficulty in determining the date at which such early coins reached Britain62

SITE 4 EBBSFLEET ISLE OF THANET

Background

This site lies some 35 km to the north of Richborough Castle on the southern side of the Isle of Thanet at a mean elevation of 8 m above OD It occupies a low chalk promontory capped with Thanet Beds sand surrounded on three sides by marshlands which were once part of the Wantsum Channel Metal detector surveys by the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association and evaluation trenching by the Trust for Thanet Archaeology in 1990 have demonstrated the presence of extensive prehistoric and Roman occupation in this area63 Settlement in the late Iron Age is represented by a number of features together with significant quantities of pottery and coinage Amongst the pottery much of which is dated to c ad 25ndash5075 is a quantity of

59 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15260 Haselgrove 1987 15361 Haselgrove 1999 16462 There are also three early Mediterranean bronze coins from the foreshore close to the Roman fort at Reculver

at the northern end of the Wantsum Channel one of an uncertain Ptolemy one of Agathocles of Syracuse and one of Mamertini Sicily Reculver has also produced several Iron Age coins including a quarter stater (Sch 7) dating from as early as the third century bc which is potentially a contemporary import

63 Perkins 1992

17IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

imported Gallo-Belgic fineware not all of which is pre-Conquest in date There is also locally produced pottery dating from the mid-first century bc onwards as well as earlier material

The coinage

A total of 43 Iron Age and three other pre-Conquest coins are currently recorded from Ebbsfleet (Appendix 1) A few of these were published by Wren in 199264 but further discoveries have since been made and more information is available concerning the finds

Ebbsfleet has the highest percentage of Kentish Primary potins from any site in east Kent with the exception of lsquoEastryrsquo (see below Site 6) (fig 6) There are also a number of early Flat Linear I potins Overall potins are 23 per cent above the east Kent mean This suggests that the site was established at an early date probably before 100 bc a date also supported by quantities of flint-tempered pottery A relatively high level of coin deposition continued until perhaps the mid-first century bc when like Worth and North Foreland there appears to have been a major reduction in activity A change in local circumstances external factors or the non-relevance of Flat Linear II potins at these three sites are all possible reasons for the lack of Flat Linear II potins but in the absence of evidence other than the coinage itself little can be said without resorting to circular arguments At each of these sites coin deposition subsequently increased again by the early first

64 CR Wren lsquoCoins found at Ebbsfleet during 1990 and 1991rsquo in Perkins 1992 305ndash6

century ad Many of the potins from Ebbsfleet are in very poor condition possibly as a result of intensive agricultural activity in recent years Some may conceivably be Gaulish imports but their condition makes precise classification impossible

Although potins are above the east Kent mean struck bronzes are under-represented There are nine different types among the twelve coins recorded and only one is represented by more than a single specimen The solitary Gaulish struck bronze is unusually not an issue from Belgic Gaul The Siculo-Punic and Ebusus bronzes are potential pre-Conquest imports

There is an above average level of silver at Ebbsfleet a feature also evident at Richborough although very probably for different reasons there being little evidence for early Roman

fig 6a Ebbsfleet coins from site ()fig 6b Ebbsfleet set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

18 DAVID HOLMAN

occupation at Ebbsfleet The ratio of silver to bronze at Ebbsfleet is higher than for any other site in east Kent although this may be down to chance A silver coin regarded as an Atrebatic issue by Bean but not listed by Van Arsdell or Hobbs is now known from several other findspots in Kent and it may be an early Kentish issue although it bears little resemblance to any other Kentish coinage65 It is here regarded as Atrebatic although Atrebatic coinage is generally very rarely found in Kent No gold coins have been recorded from Ebbsfleet other than a contemporary forgery of a Gallo-Belgic E stater with a silver core

The level of Gaulish non-gold imports at Ebbsfleet is low at only 58 per cent of the east Kent mean An even lower level of imports is seen at North Foreland (see below Site 5) and imports are scarce finds in Thanet generally particularly when compared with the adjacent mainland area around Sandwich This is surprising in view of the coastal location and may suggest that the Kentish cross-Channel ports were situated on the mainland rather than on Thanet from where another water crossing would inconveniently be required before accessing any inland routes away from the coastal strip (although Richborough does seem to provide an exception to this) It seems clear that the main circulation area of Gaulish imports in Kent was in the hinterland of the mainland ports

The nature of the site at Ebbsfleet remains unclear but certain parallels with the Worth Temple site suggest that a not dissimilar site may exist here albeit with a significant reduction in coin deposition in Phase 8L which is far less in evidence at Worth The coin distributions at Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet are broadly similar with the exception of a higher level of silver and corresponding lower level of bronze at Ebbsfleet these differences may be more apparent than real when the relative sample sizes are compared Again there is an early peak among the potins and a later peak in Phases 7 and 8E The overall coin distribution at Ebbsfleet appears on current evidence to be marginally earlier than at the Worth Temple site both in its greater incidence of early potins and the higher ratio of Phase 7 coins to those of Phase 8E Other features shared by Ebbsfleet and Worth Temple are that both sites stand on a promontory and both have Roman masonry structures although the lsquomainrsquo Ebbsfleet building apparently of later second-century date is of unknown function66

The total lack of Phase 8L coinage at Ebbsfleet is particularly significant when compared with nearby Richborough and may conceivably represent a temporary abandonment of the site at around the time of the Conquest A marked decline in activity in the early Roman period until a resurgence in the later second century ad based on the comparative scarcity of pottery of early Roman date and the lack of contemporary coinage has previously been noted by Macpherson-Grant67 The implication can be made that the Iron Age coins were mostly if not all deposited before the Conquest or at the latest shortly afterwards

SITE 5 NORTH FORELAND BROADSTAIRS

Background

This site is located on the North Foreland on the Isle of Thanet at the easternmost point of Kent It occupies a ridge of upper Chalk and the eastern slope of the valley immediately to the west where the chalk is sealed by Head Brickearth The highest point of the site is now occupied by the North Foreland lighthouse at an elevation of about 36 m above OD

The existence of a double ditch system apparently enclosing an area of at least 24 ha across the hilltop was revealed by aerial photographs several years ago In 1995 members of the Thanet

65 Bean 2000 237 (his type QsD 3-4)66 Perkins 1992 278ndash8167 N MacPherson-Grant lsquoThe Potteryrsquo in Perkins 1992 301

19IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Archaeological Society investigated the site by cutting several sections across the ditches The outermost of these ditches had cut two earlier ditches one of which appears to have been palisaded68 Ceramic evidence indicated a construction date in the mid- to late Iron Age with infilling of the ditches occurring from the late first century bc onwards The site is currently interpreted as being a possible hillfort although the ditch dimensions are on the small side and the term lsquodefended hilltop enclosurersquo may be more appropriate

The coinage

A total of 81 Iron Age coins (counting a potin hoard as one find) has been recorded from the site at North Foreland the majority of which have been found by metal-detector users (Appendix 1) The two gold coins mentioned by Perkins are of unknown types69 A Gallo-Belgic stater found in the nineteenth century at Stone House immediately to the south of the St Stephenrsquos College site is probably related to the site and has been included here

The site histogram for North Foreland (fig 7) shows that potins are the most common Iron Age coins here with Kentish Primary potins comprising 346 per cent of the total site assemblage the most numerous However the distribution of the potins differs from Worth and Ebbsfleet in that Flat Linear I potins are much further above the east Kent mean than are the Kentish Primary potins This is not a result of the Flat Linear I hoard from the site which is counted as a single

68 Hogwood 1995 475ndash669 Perkins 1993 411ndash13

find rather the hoard complements the other Flat Linear I potins and provides definite evidence of contemporary activity The ratio of Flat Linear I potins to those of the Kentish Primary Series is higher than normal for east Kent and these show an emphasis towards the earlier varieties probably dating from the first quarter of the first century bc

In 1999 an archaeological excavation was undertaken by Canterbury Archaeological Trust and the Trust for Thanet Archaeology prior to the redevelopment of the St Stephenrsquos College site on the ridge-top some 400 m to the south-west of the lighthouse Among the many finds of Iron Age (and earlier) date was a coin hoard containing 62 Flat Linear I potins buried in a

fig 7a North Foreland coins from site ()fig 7b North Foreland set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

20 DAVID HOLMAN

pit Preliminary examination of this hoard indicated that although the coins range from Allenrsquos Class C to Class L approximately half belong to Class G70 The hoard will be reported on elsewhere The excavations also revealed an enclosure provisionally dated on ceramic evidence to the first half of the first century bc ie contemporary with the hoard and a large number of storage pits again of similar date The hoard was located only a short distance from the entrance to the enclosure and its location in the centre of what seems to have been an active site suggests that ritual deposition should be considered as a possible reason for its concealment Given the existence of this hoard the possibility that at least some of the potins recovered as metal-detector finds from the adjacent fields may derive from another now dispersed hoard cannot be discounted although there is no evidence to suggest this

North Foreland shows an apparent reduction in coinage deposition after the mid-first century bc before a later recovery in common with Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet Coins of Phases 6 and 7 are both around half the east Kent mean but a significant increase is evident in Phase 8E which continues into Phase 8L suggesting that the site saw a revival in the early first century ad The 24 struck bronzes recorded slightly below the east Kent mean form a very heterogeneous assemblage with 17 different types represented These are almost exclusively Kentish issues either produced in Kent or elsewhere (apparently) for specific use in Kent71 In view of the coastal location of the site it is interesting to note the appearance of three specimens of the lsquoShiprsquo type (VA 1989) among the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin

The low number of non-local issues is significant given the coastal location Apart from a Gallo-Belgic stater only one import has been recorded contrasting sharply with Archers Low Farm Richborough and Folkestone At only 16 per cent of the east Kent mean this site has the lowest percentage of non-gold imports at any of the major sites discussed in this paper Non-local British issues are also rare here but the coin of Verica is one of only two recorded from Kent

Set against the rest of east Kent potin is the most significant metal type at North Foreland followed by silver marginally ahead of bronze As with some elements of the phasing this is a feature shared with Ebbsfleet and may reflect a common cause North Foreland displays activity at a later date than Ebbsfleet but it is not unreasonable to assume that these sites were in some way related

SITE 6 lsquoEASTRyrsquo

Background

Situated on chalk downland south of Eastry this site has produced an assemblage of 51 pre-Roman coins At the request of the landowner and the finders details of the coins are held in the Celtic Coin Index under the neutral provenance of lsquoNorth-East Kentrsquo72

The coinage

A total of 47 Iron Age and four Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from lsquoEastryrsquo (Appendix 1)

70 C Haselgrove pers comm71 An example of the extremely rare bronze half unit VA 154-11 has been listed here as possibly being an issue

of Eppillus with its designs of a geometric pattern and a capricorn The capricorn on the reverse suggests an Augustan prototype which is probably later in date than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which this type has been attributed by both Mack and Van Arsdell However a clearer specimen is still awaited to prove or disprove this reattribution

72 Not all coins in the Celtic Coin Index with this provenance are necessarily from lsquoEastryrsquo The coins listed are known to be from this site

21IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

lsquoEastryrsquo shows clear signs of early activity with an emphasis on Kentish Primary potins (fig 8) which are 133 per cent above the east Kent mean higher than anywhere else in the region Flat Linear I potins are almost exactly on the mean but again there is an absence of Flat Linear II potins Overall potins are further above the east Kent mean here than at any other major site in the region heavily weighted by the large number of Kentish Primary types Early activity is also suggested by the three Gallo-Belgic staters lsquoEastryrsquo has a higher percentage of gold than most other sites in the region with the exception of Richborough and East Wear Bay Folkestone the latter of which fairly certainly incorporates a large degree of bias among the early finds

Only one silver coin has been recorded and there is also an unusually low number of struck bronzes lower in percentage terms than at any other site discussed in this paper Apart from this the most unusual aspect of the lsquoEastryrsquo coins is the discovery of four Siculo-Punic bronzes all of the same type the largest number of such coins from any site in Kent

The nature of this site is uncertain and the site histogram (fig 8) is irregular The above average representation of coinage in Phases 1ndash5 a very unusual feature for any site is an indicator that this site may have had a particular and possibly specialised function The high ratio of gold to silver and struck bronze may suggest that trade is unlikely to have been a principal function of this site as gold is not likely to have been a common medium of exchange A religious site is a possibility as is a disturbed hoard(s)

A separate report on lsquoEastryrsquo as a possible religiouslsquoritualrsquo site has been published elsewhere73 No further investigation of this site is anticipated

SITE 7 GOODNESTONE

Background

This inland site is located to the south-east of Goodnestone some 11 km south-east of Canterbury It occupies a broad gently sloping ridge of Upper Chalk capped by Head Brickearth at a mean elevation of 55 to 60 m above OD The existence of an Iron Age and Roman site was

73 Holman 2005a 280ndash1

fig 8a lsquoEastryrsquo coins from site ()fig 8b lsquoEastryrsquo set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

22 DAVID HOLMAN

not known until a metal-detector survey of the area carried out from 1994 onwards started to produce substantial quantities of coinage in addition to other artefacts including several pieces of mid-first-century ad Roman military equipment74 In addition to 92 Iron Age coins there are several hundred Roman coins covering the entire period of the Roman occupation Ceramic evidence and quernstones also indicate late Iron Age and Roman occupation

The coinage

The 92 Iron Age coins recorded from Goodnestone are listed in Appendix 1 The majority of these coins are either of Kentish origin or were produced elsewhere apparently for use in Kent the percentage of non-Kentish coinage from the site is lower than usual for east Kent (fig 9)

The low number of potin coins representing just 65 per cent of the site assemblage shows that although the site may have an origin in the first half of the first century bc activity at that time was probably limited The coin evidence suggests that the main phase of activity at Goodnestone started in the final quarter of the first century bc

The majority of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone 902 per cent of the site total are struck bronzes Coins of the Kentish uninscribed Series are the most frequent and are represented by 29 examples including three types not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs One of these a variant of VA 154-1 appears to provide a link between the Kentish uninscribed Series and the early inscribed coinage of Dubnovellaunos The obverse although worn on all three specimens appears to bear the same or a very similar design to the Kentish uninscribed bronze issue VA 154-1 The reverse shows a left-facing version of the horse depicted on the reverse of VA 154-1 and a close parallel for this is seen on the reverse of an inscribed silver coin of Dubnovellaunos (VA 171) It is possible that the same die-cutter was involved with all three types Three of the five known specimens of this variant form of VA 154-1 have come from Goodnestone It is conceivably an early uninscribed issue of Dubnovellaunos but has here been retained within the Kentish uninscribed Series

Coins attributed to Dubnovellaunos are represented by 21 examples at Goodnestone Among

fig 9a Goodnestone coins from site ()fig 9b Goodnestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

74 Bishop 1995 17ndash19

23IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

these are six examples of two uncatalogued but related bronze types known from several other provenances in both Kent and Essex75 A coin of Dubnovellaunos is one of only two silver coins from Goodnestone the other tentatively attributed to Addedomaros by Van Arsdell76 is known from three other provenances in east Kent but a north Thames origin still appears likely on stylistic grounds

Phase 8 coins at Goodnestone are less numerous than those of the Kentish uninscribed Series and Dubnovellaunos Coins of Eppillus are scarcer than expected for east Kent and the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin are represented by only three types all of which have their principal distribution in Kent A quarter-stater of Cunobelin is the only gold coin from Goodnestone and is possibly the latest Iron Age coin from the site although similarly late bronze coins of Amminus are also present Only three Gaulish coins have been recorded just 37 per cent of the site total unusually low for east Kent

The histogram for Goodnestone (fig 9) indicates that the site was established before the end of the first century bc Coins of Phase 6 are the most frequent finds but from then until the Conquest losses steadily decline although remaining above the east Kent mean This decline suggests that the earlier coins at least were largely deposited before the Conquest otherwise it is reasonable to expect that the ratio of Phase 8 coins to those of Phase 6 would be higher Goodnestonersquos nearest parallel among the east Kent sites is Archers Low Farm except for the lack of Gaulish imports which are significantly under-represented at only 45 per cent of the east Kent mean This may be regarded as an expected difference between a probable port site and an inland settlement of uncertain nature seemingly established at around the same time Otherwise both sites have low numbers of potins significant peaks in Phases 6 and 7 and are virtually identical in Phases 8E and 8L The metal types at Goodnestone and Archers Low Farm also have very similar proportions The very high level of struck bronze is indicative of trade and exchange from the latter part of the first century bc The scarcity of Gaulish imports and non-Kentish coinage at Goodnestone suggests that much of the activity here was locally based and that there were no direct links with places further afield A greater number of non-local coins would be expected at a trading centre with wider links such as Canterbury

The state of preservation of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone is generally very poor and ten have not been identified The impression given is that many of these coins had a long circulation life however to add a note of caution late Roman coins of the same type found only a few metres apart at Goodnestone sometimes show a very marked variation in their state of preservation the reason for which is unclear

The adjacent Cherrygarden Lane appears on Ordnance Survey maps as part of a trackway running for several kilometres across the Kentish downland This may well have originated as a main thoroughfare at a very early date A geophysical survey of part of the site revealed the existence of another trackway across the field with probable field boundaries adjoining it The function of the late Iron Age and Roman site at Goodnestone is unclear from the coin evidence alone and is only likely to be clarified by excavation Curteis has discussed a not dissimilar site at Evenley Northamptonshire and suggested either a religious centre andor an occupationaltrading settlement77 A detailed report on Goodnestone incorporating all facets of the site is in preparation78

75 Both types are uninscribed but can be attributed to Dubnovellaunos on stylistic and distributional grounds A Kentish origin for these issues is preferred here particularly in view of the lack of non-Kentish coinage from Goodnestone

76 Van Arsdell 1989 350 (his type VA 1611)77 Curteis 1996 33ndash478 Cross forthcoming

24 DAVID HOLMAN

SITE 8 CANTERBURy (WALLED AREA)

Background

As the Roman civitas capital of Kent and a moderately large town within the province of Britannia Canterbury was an important settlement which has continued to be occupied up to the present day The name by which the settlement was known to the Romans Durovernum Cantiacorum is of Celtic origin translating as lsquothe walled town by the alder swamprsquo79 and perhaps provides an initial clue to a pre-Conquest origin for the site

It has been known since at least the eighteenth century that substantial remains of the Roman town survived below the modern streets During the installation of the sewage system in the 1860s a number of coins were found none was described in detail but some were possibly Iron Age80 In 1871 an Iron Age coin was found in Burgate providing evidence for some type of pre-Conquest occupation in the area However definite remains of late Iron Age settlement were not found until excavations began on bomb-damaged sites in 1946 when work revealed a gully apparently bounding a hut site together with pottery of pre-Conquest date81 Since then a significant number of other sites producing evidence of pre-Roman occupation have been located most notably in the Marlowe car park area situated towards the central part of the Roman walled town where the remains of two circular houses set within a triple-ditched enclosure accompanied by hearths ovens and a well were found82 It now seems that late Iron Age settlement at Canterbury was dispersed across an area of at least 10 ha beside the River Stour fairly certainly focused on a ford but apparently lacking any significant defences The available dating evidence suggests that the later Iron Age settlement began during the mid- to late first century bc although evidence of occupation immediately pre-dating this may still await discovery There is some evidence for early Iron Age settlement in the area

Of particular significance in the context of the later Iron Age settlement is the hillfort of Bigberry Camp located above the Stour valley some 3 km to the west This site represents the only known certain hillfort in eastern Kent Occupation here seems to have begun c 350 bc but the defences do not appear to have been constructed until the second century bc83 The camp appears to have been largely abandoned around 50 bc perhaps as a result of it being stormed by Caesarrsquos troops in 54 bc84 Despite the significant amount of archaeological work at Bigberry no Iron Age coins have been found A few bronze coins have been found at Harbledown 1 km to the north-east Rodwell has previously suggested that the general lack of coinage from the site indicates that it was not of major importance as a permanent settlement85

It is generally accepted that the settlement at Canterbury in some way superseded Bigberry during the mid-first century bc perhaps originating as a river-side trading station of the hillfort86 Blagg has suggested that Canterburyrsquos importance grew after c 15 bc following the establishment of the Rhine frontier87 However there is currently insufficient evidence to show that Canterbury had developed into a major proto-urban centre before the Roman conquest and there appear to have been few changes certainly within the Marlowe area until the Flavian

79 Rivet and Smith 1979 353ndash480 Pilbrow 187181 Frere 1965 682 Blockley et al 199583 Thompson 1983 253ndash9 Blockley and Blockley 1989 245ndash684 Blockley and Blockley 1989 24685 Rodwell 1976 33086 Blockley et al 1995 987 T Blagg in Blockley et al 1995 11

25IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

period88 The Iron Age status of Canterbury has previously been questioned89 and Millett makes the important point that the later Roman development of the site arguably and quite possibly wrongly leads to the perception that the Iron Age settlement was of equal importance90 Nevertheless it is clear from the extent of the known remains the amount of coinage and the quantity of imported fineware pottery including Dressel I amphorae that the settlement here was of some importance The evidence for this as provided by the Iron Age coinage is further considered below

The coinage

By the end of 2003 a total of 163 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) had been recorded from within the area of the later Roman walled town mainly in the area of Longmarket Rose Lane St Margarets Street Watling Street and Beer Cart Lane Significantly fewer Iron Age coins have been found during the recent Whitefriars excavations immediately to the east perhaps indicating the eastern limits of the Iron Age settlement although development pressures meant that only limited excavation of the earliest layers was possible The most important point about these coins is that they have virtually all been found during archaeological excavations Canterbury is the only site considered in this paper which has subsequently been built over in its entirety but it is also the only site with the exception of Richborough that has seen archaeological excavation on a large scale Canterbury is the only major late Iron Age site in east Kent with large numbers of broadly contemporary stratified coin finds This is of considerable importance not only for understanding the origins of the city but also for the study of the circulation deposition and dating of Iron Age coinage in the region as a whole A basic relative chronology for other sites in east Kent can be constructed by considering the numismatic evidence from Canterbury for example the realisation that potin coins predate the struck bronzes which themselves evolved from native-inspired designs into more Romanised types

Archaeological contexts can be questioned if later activity has occurred on the site leading to the inevitable disturbance of earlier features The result is a tendency to date items later than should be the case91 A significant number of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury have been found in post-Conquest deposits and Haselgrove regarded these as a mixture of residual coins disturbed by Roman activity as one would expect in an urban context and coins continuing in use until the mid-first century ad92 Nash considered that the potin coins from the Marlowe excavations were circulating until the later first century ad but appeared to make insufficient concession to residuality93 Some Iron Age coins have been found in medieval and later deposits having clearly arrived there as a result of earlier levels being disturbed During the early Roman period disturbance of the underlying Iron Age deposits would have been much more frequent and therefore more coins would have been displaced It cannot be conclusively shown that the Iron Age coins at Canterbury circulated for any length of time after the Conquest although it is reasonable to suppose that some may have continued to circulate for a few years before being fully supplanted by the new Roman coinage94 The problems caused by residuality have also been discussed by Arthur in relation to the late Republican amphorae from the excavations95

88 Blockley et al 1995 1289 Blockley et al 1995 990 Millett 1996 342ndash391 Haselgrove 1988 103ndash592 Haselgrove 1987 14193 D Nash in Blockley et al 1995 92394 eg Nash 1987 36ndash895 Arthur 1986 240

26 DAVID HOLMAN

Potins account for 479 per cent of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury (fig 10) The near absence of Kentish Primary potins is significant because this implies that they had largely ceased to circulate before Canterbury was established Only two of these coins have been recorded both from post-Conquest contexts and these were previously wrongly identified as a cut-down bronze of Massalia and a Central Gaulish lsquotecircte diaboliquersquo potin96 Given that Kentish Primary potins are the commonest type of Iron Age coin in east Kent it is reasonable to assume that many more would have been found at Canterbury had they still been in circulation in the last 50ndash75 years before the Conquest The possibility remains that the initial nucleus of the settlement may have been situated elsewhere97 but the current evidence supports Haselgroversquos view that early potins had mostly ceased to circulate by the early first century ad98 indeed a date before the turn of the century may now be preferred In France the temple sites at Champlieu and Chilly also provide evidence that potins had virtually disappeared from circulation by the first century ad99

An early cessation date for the circulation of the earlier Flat Linear I potins particularly Allen Classes AndashD can also be surmised from the Canterbury evidence The 21 Flat Linear I potins all belong to Allen Classes jndashL ie late in the series probably dating to around the middle of the first century bc Some of these were deliberately cut100 a feature rarely seen elsewhere although a cut Class L coin has been recorded from the Worth Temple site Elsewhere in east Kent the earlier types form a significant component of the Flat Linear I potins and their absence at Canterbury again suggests that if any settlement existed on the site in the early first century bc it is likely to have been of little importance Haselgrove noted that earlier Flat Linear I types are present at Rochester suggesting that Rochester was a site of some importance at an earlier date than Canterbury101 This may well still hold true for the relative chronology of the earliest phases at Canterbury and Rochester but it now seems likely that Kentish coinage began in the

96 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15397 Blockley et al 1995 898 Haselgrove 1987 15899 Allen 1995 51100 Haselgrove 1988 118101 Haselgrove 1987 151

fig 10a Canterbury (walled area) coins from site ()fig 10b Canterbury (walled area) set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

27IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

east of the county102 and a later commencement date for Canterbury need have no particular relevance in any discussion on Rochester located some 43 km to the north-west

Flat Linear II potins are represented by 50 surviving specimens 307 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (321 per cent of the identified coins) Compared with their general scarcity elsewhere in east Kent with the exception of East Wear Bay Folkestone (see below Site 9) with which some sort of link may have existed this is exceptional a fact well illustrated by fig 10 which shows that the proportion of these coins at Canterbury is more than ten times the mean for the rest of east Kent Recent research on Flat Linear II potins based on hoard evidence and individual findspots is leaning increasingly towards an origin in the region immediately north of London rather than Kent at least for certain classes103 In this case the appearance of so many of these coins at Canterbury cannot be easily explained They passed into the local circulation pool at a much lower rate than other coin types and the scarcity of these coins around Canterbury suggests that their principal purpose may have been related to a specific activity or commodity the nature of which is unknown Alternatively there was a sudden and significant but short-lived increase in activity at Canterbury (and Folkestone) which may again have had a specific cause Either way there must have been a fairly high degree of control to restrict their circulation in this manner A comparison may perhaps be made with the exceptionally high number of Roman coins of the period ad 388ndash402 found at Richborough which is not reflected elsewhere in east Kent and which must represent an event specific to that site in the local record although the contents of several hoards at the site account for a not insignificant proportion of these late coins104 It seems likely that the Flat Linear II potins were used in Canterbury as a low-value coinage as the appearance of so many high-value coins in a non-hoard context would be difficult to explain There may perhaps have been a reliance on these coins to sustain the Canterbury circulation pool for small-scale transactions Haselgrove noted that potins were the commonest issues circulating in Canterbury until Phase 8 (c ad 20)105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role106 although how much of this is a result of residuality cannot be ascertained

Struck bronzes are represented at Canterbury by 69 coins These include ten Gaulish coins 159 per cent of the (identified) struck bronze total There are also five Gaulish potins Overall Gaulish coins at Canterbury are 53 per cent above the east Kent mean Haselgrove commented on possible early links with the Continent107 and Fitzpatrickrsquos suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands108 but coastal sites such as Archers Low Farm and East Wear Bay Folkestone may be regarded as more likely initial points of contact Phase 6 coins are also above the east Kent mean In this respect there is some similarity to Archers Low Farm although the deviation from the mean there both for imports and Phase 6 coins is far greater There are 21 struck bronzes of the Kentish Uninscribed Series and an early lsquoChichester Cockrsquo type The frequency of some of the Kentish Uninscribed types at Canterbury in particular VA 154-3 suggests that minting facilities may have been operating at that time

Bronzes of the dynastic period are represented by 31 coins The nine coins of Dubnovellaunos three of Tasciovanus-Sego and ten of Eppillus are typical for an east Kent site However coins of Cunobelin appear to be significantly under-represented only eight coins of Cunobelin have been recorded from Canterbury and four of these are late types otherwise scarce in east

102 Holman 2000103 Haselgrove 1988 117 G Cottam pers comm104 Reece 1987 84105 Haselgrove 1987 145106 Haselgrove 1993 44107 Haselgrove 1987 143108 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

5IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

fig 2 Kentish Iron Age coin types listed in Table 2 and Mediterranean types frequently found in Kent

Metal detectors were used for the first time on an archaeological excavation in Canterbury at Blue Boy yard in 2000 Although this was a small site fifteen Iron Age coins were found more than half of them in spoil by the metal detectors In terms of the size of the excavation this was a much higher proportion of coins than was found at either the Cakebread Robey or Marlowe

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15

6 DAVID HOLMAN

excavations (see below) Metal detectors were subsequently used at the recently finished Whitefriars excavations and accounted for a significant proportion of the Roman and medieval coins from there Similar results have also been obtained from an excavation on a rural site at Maydensole Farm Sutton near Dover during which most of the metal detecting was undertaken by the writer At this site well over half of the coins as well as other items such as brooches were recovered from the spoilheaps having been missed during excavation Concentrated searching on a known productive site will produce a more representative cross-section of the coinage present than casual searching in isolated areas when smaller coins are more likely to be missed

No criticism of standard archaeological excavation methods is intended here Experience has shown the difficulty of finding coins by lsquoeyes onlyrsquo methods even with the use of a metal detector they are frequently difficult to locate often being found in a lump of compacted soil little bigger than the coin itself Colour is also a factor (see below) The conclusion is that the metal detector used responsibly can be a useful archaeological tool providing much additional information not only in quantities of finds but also their contexts

Another factor to be considered when looking at source data is the different colours of metal and related corrosion products A disproportionately high number of gold coins are evident among early finds as typically illustrated by Boys who provided detailed descriptions of gold staters but only a passing mention of bronze coins14 Reasons for this include gold being a valuable metal perhaps leading to greater interest gold coins are usually well-preserved unlike most bronze coins and not least because gold is much easier to spot than dull-coloured bronze Similarly bronze coins which have turned bright green are easier to spot than those which have not Silver is sometimes found in a shiny state but more often than not is in an oxidised state with a purple or even black hue Experience has shown that the most difficult metal items to spot are those made of lead a fact confirmed by a number of metal detector users

Since the advent of metal detecting the early imbalance towards gold has been corrected to a large extent with the discovery and recording of considerable numbers of base metal coins For example Kentish Primary potins (better known and generally referred to as the lsquoThurrockrsquo type after a hoard found near the Essex town of that name) were known from very few examples until well into the 1980s and were then regarded as Gaulish imports15 These are now known in their thousands (including hoards) so it appears that they were previously usually missed or ignored

As will be shown significant variations in coin deposition are apparent across the major sites of east Kent This is to a large extent chronological as it is clear that some sites appear to have become active at a later date than others However the nature of the site itself also has an influence on the types of coin deposited eg a possible port site will have a high proportion of imports while an inland trading site or settlement will have a more insular assemblage Given the difficulty in determining the precise nature and function of a site which may in any case have been multi-functional it is hard to assess how much of an influence this has on coin deposition and why this increases or decreases in certain phases The level of activity is another factor to be considered as is the likelihood that the coins themselves were used in varied ways as ritual offerings as well as in trade and wealth storage

Statistical methodology

The statistical method used in this paper attempts to compare coins recorded from specific individual sites against those recorded from the rest of east Kent rather than looking at sites

14 Boys 1792 86915 eg Nash 1978b

7IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

in isolation The reason for this is that individual site histograms show the number of coins in each phase at that site but they do not illustrate how this compares with the surrounding region ie a high number of coins in a particular phase at a site may or may not be normal for the region in which the site lies but the site histogram gives no indication of this As a result the interpretation of site histograms can easily lead to misleading conclusions16 An example of the problems which may arise is given by Reece in relation to the Roman coins from the excavations at Richborough17 One method used to calculate the theoretical loss per thousand for coins of the Roman period is dependent on chronologically precise phases18 and cannot be used accurately for Iron Age coins owing to their lack of absolute dating and the uncertain lengths of the phases although estimates can be made Small numbers also lead to heavily distorted results No attempt is made here to impose fixed dates as used by Van Arsdell19

The histograms used here are based on the phases shown in Table 1 The totals for each phase (and metal type) from individual sites have been converted into percentages and the same has been done for east Kent overall to produce mean figures against which individual sites can be compared20 Individual sites in east Kent show wide variation attributable to different types of site and dates of commencement and a lsquonormalrsquo pattern of coin loss such as that suggested by Haselgrove for a number of sites north of the Thames21 cannot be determined The figures used here do not include the inadequately recorded coins listed by Allen22 other unreliable provenances or lsquoGreekrsquo coins

The first histogram for each site shows the number of identified coins of each phase recorded from that site expressed as a percentage of the total identified site assemblage The second histogram sets the coins from individual sites against the rest of east Kent to show how those sites compare with the surrounding region Metal percentage figures are also shown as suggested by Rodwell23 ie potin (cast bronze) AE (struck bronze) AR (silver) and AV (gold) these include those coins mostly struck bronzes which cannot be classified owing to their condition24 Plated coins have been treated as being of the metal they purport to be Large sites can skew coin loss profiles with large numbers of particular types obvious examples in east Kent being the Flat Linear II potins from Canterbury and Folkestone However the large number of coins now recorded provides a more complete picture than was previously the case

The difference between a site and the surrounding region is expressed by directly comparing the individual site percentages for each phase and metal type relative to the percentages for the rest of the region For example comparing Kentish Primary potins at Worth Temple against the rest of east Kent shows that these coins are 30 per cent above the east Kent mean at Worth Similarly Gaulish non-gold imports at Worth are 20 per cent above the east Kent mean The basic site histogram (fig 3a) shows that Kentish Primary potins are far more numerous than Gaulish imports at this site (361 per cent and 93 per cent of the identified coins respectively) but does not show that they have a similar ratio when set against their respective mean figures from the rest of east Kent (278 per cent and 77 per cent respectively) This is illustrated by the lsquocomparisonrsquo histogram (fig 3b) and may be interpreted as indicating that the level of

16 eg Haselgrove 1992 12617 Reece 1987 80ndash818 eg Casey 1980 2819 Van Arsdell 198920 eg Haselgrove 1993 5321 Haselgrove 1993 5422 Allen 196023 Rodwell 1976 31424 The site histograms show two different figures one (n1) for the lsquophasersquo section showing the number of

identified coins and the other (n2) for the lsquometalrsquo section showing all coins including those which cannot be identified but which are certainly Iron Age

8 DAVID HOLMAN

coin deposition at Worth relative to the rest of east Kent was broadly similar in each of these particular coin phases even allowing for the different sample sizes

THE MAjOR SITES OF EAST KENT

SITE 1 ROMANO-CELTIC TEMPLE SITE WORTH

Background

The site lies some 700 m to the south of Worth village and occupies a low chalk promontory projecting into the surrounding marshland which constitutes the southern end of the silted-up Wantsum Channel Only at the north-west is the promontory connected to land above marsh level The site is some 35 km from the present-day coastline

The existence of a Romano-Celtic temple in Castle Field has been known since at least the eighteenth century It was excavated by WS Klein in 192525 Significant evidence of Iron Age occupation was located below the temple although the nature of this earlier occupation remains uncertain Finds included the remains of three bronze votive model shields which has led to the widely accepted view that the Roman temple at Worth was the successor to an earlier Iron Age religious site26 Recent work in the fields and private gardens adjacent to the temple has broadened our general understanding of the site and confirmed that Iron Age occupation deposits extend across much of the site

A substantial enclosure ditch occupies the highest part of the promontory One entrance is known on the south-eastern side The ditch has not as yet been located on the north-east and it may be that the enclosure was open to the wetlands on this side The enclosure has a minimum area of some 65 ha

The limited dating evidence suggests that the temple itself was in use if not constructed during the fourth century ad27 The pottery evidence suggests that the enclosure ditch was largely filled by this time and it thus seems clear that this ditch was not a contemporary boundary to the Roman temple complex Ceramic evidence also suggests that the ditch was probably dug no later than the earlier first century bc That the enclosure ditch represents the outer limits of the inferred Iron Age sanctuary presently seems the most likely interpretation

Considerable quantities of local Middle to Late Iron Age pottery Gallo-Belgic fineware and sherds of Dressel 1B amphorae have been discovered together with much later material Taken in conjunction with the substantial number of Iron Age coins recovered this ceramic material confirms occupation in the general area of the enclosure at this date

The coinage

Despite Haselgrove being unaware of any coins from here28 by the end of 2003 a total of 236 Iron Age coins had been recorded from the Worth Temple site of which 227 have been found by members of two local metal-detecting clubs and 9 during archaeological excavations and fieldwalking There are also four other pre-Conquest coins (Appendix 1) Several hundred Roman coins spanning almost the entire period of the Roman occupation have also been found

Almost exactly half of the Iron Age coins from this site are potins Even allowing for the

25 Klein 192826 eg Harding 1974 10327 Klein 192828 Haselgrove 1987

9IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

chronological problems associated with unstratified material29 the large number of Kentish Primary Series potins mdash 347 per cent of the total site assemblage 361 per cent of the identified coins mdash is significant and suggests an early date for coin use and deposition at Worth reflecting the general pattern of Iron Age coinage in east Kent This is the first peak of coin loss here at 30 per cent above the east Kent mean The distribution of the Kentish Primary potins at Worth shows no particular concentration and there is no evidence of hoarding There is now little doubt that Kentish Primary potins are Kentish in origin30 The 28 Flat Linear I potins seem to split into two groups 17 belonging to Allenrsquos early types AndashD the remainder mostly to the late types jndashL31 The solitary Flat Linear II potin indicates that Worth saw little use of these coins in keeping with the east Kent background pattern There are also several early Gaulish potins of varying types most if not all of which date to the second century bc One rare type apparently a first-generation copy of a medium-size struck bronze of Massalia (Marseilles)32 is probably the immediate prototype of the Kentish Primary potins

Although potins are the most numerous finds at Worth struck bronzes of which there are 103 examples are further above the east Kent mean (8 per cent and 23 per cent respectively) Among the many different British and Gaulish issues present coins of Eppillus and Cunobelin are the most abundant The Kentish uninscribed bronzes include types previously thought not to be Kentish33 The lsquoChichester Cockrsquo bronze is regarded here as a Phase 6 issue but potentially belongs to Phase 5

Some 106 per cent of the identifiable coins including gold issues from Worth are of Gaulish origin These include thirteen struck bronzes and seven potins Gaulish non-gold imports although 20 per cent above the east Kent mean are broadly in line with the average level for major sites in east Kent The Gaulish potins which are probably contemporary with the Kentish

29 eg de jersey 1999 19530 Holman 2000 22031 Allen 197132 eg Haselgrove 1995 11933 An uncatalogued bronze type belonging to the Kentish Uninscribed Series (UB1) previously published as

an uncertain Gaulish type (Allen 1995 83 coin 277) has here been reattributed to Kent on the basis of style and distribution with 16 specimens now known from the county Another type previously regarded as a North Thames issue (VA 1629) has been reattributed to Kent based on its almost exclusively Kentish distribution

fig 3a Worth Temple site coins from site ()fig 3b Worth Temple site set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

10 DAVID HOLMAN

Primary potins may have been deposited at an earlier date than the struck bronzes Most of the Gaulish bronzes from Worth originate from the region generally associated with the Ambiani tribe the nearest major tribal grouping on the Continental mainland A bronze of Massalia two Ebusus (Ibiza) bronzes and a Siculo-Punic bronze may also be noted as potential pre-Conquest imports The evidence for the appearance of these coins in Britain is reviewed below

Only nine silver and five gold coins have so far been recorded from Worth both well below the east Kent mean A silver-plated reverse brockage of a central Gaulish issue of Vepotal with an iron core is clearly a forgery but may have been regarded as suitable for a temple offering34 Three of the gold coins are also plated but with a copper core these include the two British coins both of which are of non-Kentish origin35

As on most sites numbers of coins of Phases 1ndash5 are low because most coinage belonging to these phases is of gold and is more frequently found away from recognised sites However coins of Phase 6 are also much scarcer than normal for an east Kent site Taken in conjunction with the scarcity of Flat Linear II potins this suggests greatly reduced activity in the third quarter of the first century bc intriguingly the same date at which Canterbury appears to have been established (see below Site 8) Following considerable activity in the midlate second to mid-first century bc coin deposition fell sharply before slowly recovering until the early first century ad (Phase 8E) when a significant increase is apparent under Eppillus and Cunobelin Phase 8E shows the highest peak of coin deposition at Worth relative to the surrounding region at 63 per cent above the east Kent mean

The large quantity of Iron Age coinage pottery and other domestic material from the Worth Temple site suggests that it was an extensive and important site from an early date Religion is only one of many activities which could have been carried out here The wide range of coin types and the large number of early potins suggest deposition for whatever reasons from as early as the second century bc The number of coins recorded must be regarded as providing a represent-ative sample of the coinage deposited at the site Worth has currently produced more Iron Age coins than any other site in Kent although the total is far lower than at many Continental sites Some British sites notably Harlow36 also have far higher numbers of coins A number of early Roman coins including Republican denarii issues of Tiberius and Gaius and copies of Claudius I are also known from Worth although these could all have been deposited at a later date

The coins from the Worth Temple site cannot be treated in isolation for on Worth Hill some 12 km to the north metal-detector surveys have produced a further fifteen Iron Age and a number of Roman coins The area is now under orchards Similarly an area of farmland at Ham only 1 km to the west of the Worth Temple site has produced a number of Iron Age coins There has been no archaeological input on either of these presumed sites and their nature is unknown but they may have been satellites of the main focus

A more detailed report and plan of the site (as at the end of December 2000) has been published elsewhere37 and only a summary updated to the end of 2003 has been given here

SITE 2 ARCHERS LOW FARM SANDWICH

Background

This site lies some 25 km to the north of the Worth Temple site and is situated on farmland

34 eg Briggs Haselgrove and King 1992 44ndash535 Sir john Evans held in his collection a gold quarter-stater of British Pa type (VA 147) lsquofound at Worth near

Sandwichrsquo but the exact findspot is unknown36 C Haselgrove pers comm37 Holman 2005a 265ndash75

11IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

immediately to the east of Sandwich It was discovered by members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association a local metal-detecting club in 1985 when a significant number of Iron Age and Roman coins were recovered from an area covering several arable fields In 1987 members of the Dover Archaeological Group undertook a limited amount of trenching in the area to ascertain the context of the coin finds and this was followed by a second more extensive phase of exploratory work in late 1990 and early 1991 A total of 45 hand-dug trenches was cut and from these and the metal-detector surveys it is now clear that an extensive occupation site beginning in the late Iron Age and continuing throughout the Roman period exists here38

In topographical terms a low eastward spur of the natural Thanet Beds clay seems at some stage to have provided the basis for the formation of a spit of alluvial sand Today this spit stands at an elevation of between about 25 and 4 m above OD and projects into the marshland that represents the silted up remnants of the southern end of the Wantsum Channel It seems probable that the site was established on or very close to the late Iron AgeRoman shoreline the sea today lies more than 2 km to the east39

The excavations revealed Belgic and Roman features and deposits at Archers Low Farm over an area measuring a minimum of 370 m by c 200 m covering at least 7 ha A few Roman coins were recovered further along the spit suggesting that occupation may have extended eastwards for at least 500 m Roman deposits have also been noted beneath later development 100 m to the west40 The upper layers contained medieval and post-medieval tile and pottery fragments in addition to earlier material and had clearly been disturbed in earlier periods Intact Belgic and Roman deposits lay below at a considerable depth and reached up to 150 m in thickness These comprised a series of general occupation layers occasionally interleaved with apparently natural sand deposits in which a total of eighteen features were located The lowest levels were frequently waterlogged

The excavations produced a considerable quantity of late Iron Age and Roman pottery A very significant proportion of this material consisted of fabrics in the Belgic grog-tempered tradition In addition there are significant quantities of samian ware including two fragments of a plain bowl provisionally identified as Arretine ware dateable to the AugustanTiberian period and other imported Gallo-Belgic wares including terra rubra terra nigra and white-ware butt beaker all apparently of early to mid-first-century ad date Small quantities of amphorae types Dressel 2-4 Dressel 20 and Cam 185 have been recovered but one type of vessel conspicuous by its absence is Dressel 1B amphora Much later Roman material is also present on the site including Roman building debris suggesting the presence of at least one as yet unlocated structure

The coinage

A total of 56 Iron Age and three Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from Archers Low Farm all found by members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association No pre-Conquest coins were recovered during the excavations Although it is apparent that all these coins come from the topsoil and there is no doubt that they are essentially in situ (ie not derived from elsewhere) the contemporary soil horizons can be as much as 2 m down which raises the question as to how this material arrived on the surface In part the explanation may be connected with the installation of several sets of deep land drains laid across the site at various times41 but this cannot represent the complete answer It is clear from the excavations that some considerable disturbance of

38 Frere 1988 484 Frere 1991 29239 Another Roman occupation site located on a second more extensive outer coastal sand spit has been located

at Dicksonrsquos Corner some 25 km to the south-east No coinage has been found there (Parfitt 2000)40 D Perkins pers comm41 C Burch pers comm

12 DAVID HOLMAN

the site occurred in the medieval and post-medieval periods when the area was presumably cultivated as it is now It seems certain that the uppermost Roman deposits have been damaged if not destroyed in this process thus archaeological horizons containing coins may once have been much closer to the surface This would imply that at least some of the Iron Age coinage recovered was previously contained within later Roman deposits as residual material suggesting much ancient disturbance of the earlier deposits there being no evidence for the continued use of these coins into the later Roman period No archaeological work or metal detecting has been undertaken since the early 1990s and the site has since changed ownership

The coin list for Archers Low Farm (Appendix 1) shows considerable differences compared with the Worth Temple site as does the site histogram (fig 4) Although the assemblage is much smaller it is sufficient to show the considerable diversity of the coinage present Only five potins have been recorded just 89 per cent of the total of Iron Age coins from the site compared with 504 per cent at Worth Temple of which three appear to be Gaulish imports The absence of Flat Linear potins is notable and suggests that any activity before the mid-first century bc was very limited

The most significant element among the struck bronzes is the unusually high proportion of Gaulish coins These show considerable heterogeneity although issues attributed to the Ambiani are not unexpectedly the most frequent In all Gaulish coins account for 15 of the 54 identified Iron Age coins recorded from Archers Low Farm some 278 per cent of the total nearly four

42 Briggs Haselgrove and King 1992 42ndash343 Haselgrove (in SCBI 42 coin no 427) noted that this type may be a Kentish copy of a continental type Six

examples are currently known five from East Kent and one from the temple site at Bois LrsquoAbbeacute Eu Seine-Maritime (Delestreacutee 1984 fig 88)

times the east Kent mean Only Richborough (304 per cent) among the east Kent sites exceeds this (see below Site 3) and few other sites in Britain can compare with Silchester (306 per cent) and Hayling Island (292 per cent) providing the closest comparisons42 There are also two specimens of an uncatalogued type (UB3) which has been listed here as possibly belonging to the Kentish uninscribed Series but which is conceivably Gaulish in which case the imported coinage would rise to 315 per cent of the total43 There are also three Siculo-Punic bronzes dated c 320ndash280 bc

fig 4a Archers Low Farm Sandwich coins from site ()fig 4b Archers Low Farm set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

13IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

The Kentish uninscribed Series is well represented with ten specimens (twelve including the uncatalogued type UB3) recorded of several different types The diversity of the dynastic coins from Archers Low Farm is very evident Of these coins of Dubnovellaunos are the most frequent Phases 6 and 7 and to a lesser extent Phase 8E are all above the east Kent mean There is a tendency towards an early date slowly falling off under Eppillus and Cunobelin possibly indicating greater activity prior to say c ad 15ndash25 rather than after This might also suggest that much of the imported coinage arrived before the turn of the century or at the latest very shortly afterwards However this can only be speculation in the absence of any stratified coins from the site There may be some parallel here with coin loss at Goodnestone (see below Site 7) at least in as much as struck bronze forms most of the assemblage

No genuine gold or silver coins have been recorded from Archers Low Farm There is however a bronze core of a contemporary forgery of a quarter-stater of Cunobelin with the reverse design being laterally reversed Another forgery a bronze core with uncertain designs which was probably originally silver-plated also appears to be of Cunobelin

The high proportion of Gaulish coins and the comparatively large amount of imported pottery together with the low-lying situation of Archers Low Farm all suggest that this site is a strong candidate for having been established as a port in the later Iron Age principally for the purposes of trade and probably before the turn of the millennium The proximity to the Continent and the sheltered nature of the site within the confines of the Wantsum Channel would have made it an ideal location for such a facility There would appear to be some chronological disparity between the coins and the pottery imports many of the coins dating to the mid- to late first century bc but much of the pottery apparently being of Augustan or Tiberian date with further samian imports of slightly later ClaudianNeronian date This can be partly explained if it is accepted that these coins continued to circulate in post-Conquest Gaul for many years before entering Britain at the same time as the pottery but this does not fully explain why the native coins show a similar inclination towards an early date If the site reached a peak in the early first century ad then perhaps more coins of Phase 8E should be present ie if the imports and coins of Phases 6 and 7 were not deposited until Phase 8E then coins of the latter phase although above average for the region might themselves be expected to be more numerous In addition the condition of some of the coins suggests that they had seen comparatively little circulation before their deposition No pottery certainly dating from before the first century bc has been found at the site and the low incidence of potin coins taken in conjunction with the very high levels of struck bronze indicates a date no earlier than perhaps c 30 bc for the start of the main phase of activity in the pre-Conquest period at Archers Low Farm

SITE 3 RICHBOROUGH CASTLE

Background

This internationally important Roman site situated on an island surrounded by drained wetlands that were formerly part of the Wantsum Channel occupies a small hill of Woolwich and Thanet Beds sand rising to a height of almost 20 m above OD44 It stands some 3 km to the north-west of Archers Low Farm and some 35 km to the south of the nearest point of the Isle of Thanet at Ebbsfleet

The Roman site is very well known from the excavation work of 1922ndash1938 but the evidence for its pre-Conquest origins is less than clear Occupation in the early to mid-Iron

44 Hawkes 1968 224

14 DAVID HOLMAN

Age is reasonably well attested45 but the status of the site immediately prior to the Roman invasion remains uncertain Cunliffe stated that there was lsquono trace of Belgic occupationrsquo on the site46 while both Thompson and Pollard have maintained that definite pre-Conquest pottery is generally absent from the excavated material47 A large number of early brooches are known from Richborough but there is no evidence that any of these arrived before ad 43 very few can categorically be shown to be contemporary with the Iron Age coins from the site48 although it should be noted that Iron Age brooches are much rarer finds than coins On the evidence of the coinage Rodwell suggested that there was some kind of pre-Conquest port here49 an idea previously suggested by Allen50 Indeed the fundamental question must be posed as to whether this place would ever have been chosen for a Roman invasion base if it were not already an established port of entry with clear routeways leading into the Kentish hinterland

The coinage

Allen stated that there were between 12 and 14 Iron Age coins from the excavations at Richborough (there was much confusion over the numbering system) and that these included a number of non-local coins including Gaulish imports51 Following reassessment of the site assemblage including non-excavation finds an updated summary list showing a total of 23 coins is provided in Appendix 152

Large numbers of coins have been found at and removed from Richborough over several centuries In the sixteenth century Leland wrote that more Roman coins were found at Richborough than anywhere else in England and that this had been the case for as long as anyone could remember53 Several local notables and antiquaries in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had collections of coins from the site54 It is evident that the total number of Roman coins deposited whether lost or deliberately hoarded at Richborough far exceeds the 56084 recovered during the excavations of 1922ndash193855 and it is probable that Iron Age coins were among those previously removed without record

Looked at in an overall context the 23 Iron Age coins from Richborough show considerable deviation from the general pattern in east Kent (fig 5) There are several unusual features and the group may perhaps be regarded as chronologically typologically and numerically unrepresentative for a number of reasons

a The coin distribution is irregular for an east Kent siteb An unknown number of coins have been removed without record over a long period of time including by recent illegal metal-detector activityc A lack of sanctioned metal detecting because much of the area is scheduledd The collections of local antiquaries could be of a selective nature

45 Bushe-Fox 1949 8ndash11 Cunliffe 1968 116ndash1746 Cunliffe 1968 23247 Thompson 1982 809 Pollard 1988 4448 Bayley and Butcher 200449 Rodwell 1976 22150 Allen 1968 18651 Allen 1968 184ndash852 A further coin from Richborough has been noted by Bean (Bean 2000 178 his type VERC 3-4) However the

Celtic Coin Index record for this coin queries this provenance and it has accordingly been decided not to include it in the site list at Appendix 1

53 Toulmin-Smith 1909 6254 eg Roach-Smith 1850 11955 Reece 1968

15IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

e Large-scale disturbance during the Roman period destroyed earlier layers (although any coins would probably have been re-deposited rather than removed)f There could have been considerable displacement of coins from non-local sources during the earliest Roman phaseg Many coins were probably missed during the excavations (see above)h The 1922ndash1938 excavations concentrated on the area within the Saxon Shore fort but this was not necessarily the centre of any LPRIA settlement A recent magnetometry survey and analysis of aerial photographs have revealed a dense mass of features across the fields around the fort56 many of these are probably of Roman date but the possibility that some are earlier cannot be discounted in the absence of excavation

On current evidence the Iron Age coins from Richborough appear to fall into two groups one ending at the beginning of the first century ad and consisting mainly of types typically found in east Kent and the other being more or less contemporary with the Roman conquest of ad 43 and consisting mainly of types not generally found in east Kent Haselgrove described the Richborough assemblage as superficially impressive but spurious commenting on the large number of Phase 8L coins compared with Canterbury which he suggested was a result of the Roman invasion57 No other site in east Kent bears any similarity to Richborough in Phase 8L when losses are nearly ten times the east Kent mean so it may be inferred that the reason for this is an event specific to Richborough The possibility that at least some of the earlier coins were lost at a later date as suggested by Haselgrove58 cannot be dismissed particularly in view of the lack of securely stratified and undisturbed Iron Age coins from the site the specimens of VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are candidates for this Although there are only three silver coins from Richborough silver is further above the east Kent mean than the bronze but this is entirely down to the appearance of non-local types and is misleading

56 Millett and Wilmott 200457 Haselgrove 1987 15358 Haselgrove 1987 153

fig 5a Richborough coins from site ()fig 5b Richborough set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

16 DAVID HOLMAN

The early group consists mainly of potins Gaulish imports and Kentish uninscribed bronzes together with a slightly later inscribed issue of Sa(m) Both of the coins previously recorded as bronzes of Massalia are actually potins59 The silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are early and both originate from the south coast of England With the exception of these silver coins which may have arrived later this early group fits very well into the general east Kent pattern and seemingly indicates a period of pre-Conquest coin use on the site The low percentage of potin and rather higher percentage of bronze counts against an establishment date much before the middle of the first century bc and it may be that the potins were lost at a later date and that the site was a later first-century bc foundation In favour of this is the fact that Phase 6 coins and continental imports are both above the mean for east Kent indeed Richborough has one of the highest levels of imported pre-Conquest coinage from any site in Britain comprising 304 per cent of the total site assemblage It may be significant that the proportions of Gaulish imports and Phase 6 coinage at Richborough are very similar to Archers Low Farm perhaps hinting at some link between these two sites The imports could have been deposited with the Phase 8L coins during early Roman occupation60 but given the low levels of Phase 7 and 8E coinage the near contemporary Phase 6 coinage seems unlikely to have been deposited as late as Phase 8L

Following an apparent hiatus in coin deposition evidenced by the lack of Eppillus and early Cunobelin issues common finds elsewhere in east Kent a later group becomes evident This consists of late issues of Cunobelin and three coins from the south coast one of Verica and two of the Durotriges Late issues of Cunobelin are greatly outnumbered by early issues elsewhere in east Kent while the three south coast coins suggest a link with the West Sussex Hampshire and Dorset area which is otherwise almost wholly absent in east Kent The southern silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 from the early group may have arrived at Richborough at the same time as the later coins as a result of post-Conquest activity An analogous situation can be seen at a number of sites in France where Gaulish bronzes continued in use into the first century ad61 A second-century bc bronze coin of Cyzicus is on balance more likely to be a Roman than a pre-Roman import in this instance further illustrating the difficulty in determining the date at which such early coins reached Britain62

SITE 4 EBBSFLEET ISLE OF THANET

Background

This site lies some 35 km to the north of Richborough Castle on the southern side of the Isle of Thanet at a mean elevation of 8 m above OD It occupies a low chalk promontory capped with Thanet Beds sand surrounded on three sides by marshlands which were once part of the Wantsum Channel Metal detector surveys by the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association and evaluation trenching by the Trust for Thanet Archaeology in 1990 have demonstrated the presence of extensive prehistoric and Roman occupation in this area63 Settlement in the late Iron Age is represented by a number of features together with significant quantities of pottery and coinage Amongst the pottery much of which is dated to c ad 25ndash5075 is a quantity of

59 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15260 Haselgrove 1987 15361 Haselgrove 1999 16462 There are also three early Mediterranean bronze coins from the foreshore close to the Roman fort at Reculver

at the northern end of the Wantsum Channel one of an uncertain Ptolemy one of Agathocles of Syracuse and one of Mamertini Sicily Reculver has also produced several Iron Age coins including a quarter stater (Sch 7) dating from as early as the third century bc which is potentially a contemporary import

63 Perkins 1992

17IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

imported Gallo-Belgic fineware not all of which is pre-Conquest in date There is also locally produced pottery dating from the mid-first century bc onwards as well as earlier material

The coinage

A total of 43 Iron Age and three other pre-Conquest coins are currently recorded from Ebbsfleet (Appendix 1) A few of these were published by Wren in 199264 but further discoveries have since been made and more information is available concerning the finds

Ebbsfleet has the highest percentage of Kentish Primary potins from any site in east Kent with the exception of lsquoEastryrsquo (see below Site 6) (fig 6) There are also a number of early Flat Linear I potins Overall potins are 23 per cent above the east Kent mean This suggests that the site was established at an early date probably before 100 bc a date also supported by quantities of flint-tempered pottery A relatively high level of coin deposition continued until perhaps the mid-first century bc when like Worth and North Foreland there appears to have been a major reduction in activity A change in local circumstances external factors or the non-relevance of Flat Linear II potins at these three sites are all possible reasons for the lack of Flat Linear II potins but in the absence of evidence other than the coinage itself little can be said without resorting to circular arguments At each of these sites coin deposition subsequently increased again by the early first

64 CR Wren lsquoCoins found at Ebbsfleet during 1990 and 1991rsquo in Perkins 1992 305ndash6

century ad Many of the potins from Ebbsfleet are in very poor condition possibly as a result of intensive agricultural activity in recent years Some may conceivably be Gaulish imports but their condition makes precise classification impossible

Although potins are above the east Kent mean struck bronzes are under-represented There are nine different types among the twelve coins recorded and only one is represented by more than a single specimen The solitary Gaulish struck bronze is unusually not an issue from Belgic Gaul The Siculo-Punic and Ebusus bronzes are potential pre-Conquest imports

There is an above average level of silver at Ebbsfleet a feature also evident at Richborough although very probably for different reasons there being little evidence for early Roman

fig 6a Ebbsfleet coins from site ()fig 6b Ebbsfleet set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

18 DAVID HOLMAN

occupation at Ebbsfleet The ratio of silver to bronze at Ebbsfleet is higher than for any other site in east Kent although this may be down to chance A silver coin regarded as an Atrebatic issue by Bean but not listed by Van Arsdell or Hobbs is now known from several other findspots in Kent and it may be an early Kentish issue although it bears little resemblance to any other Kentish coinage65 It is here regarded as Atrebatic although Atrebatic coinage is generally very rarely found in Kent No gold coins have been recorded from Ebbsfleet other than a contemporary forgery of a Gallo-Belgic E stater with a silver core

The level of Gaulish non-gold imports at Ebbsfleet is low at only 58 per cent of the east Kent mean An even lower level of imports is seen at North Foreland (see below Site 5) and imports are scarce finds in Thanet generally particularly when compared with the adjacent mainland area around Sandwich This is surprising in view of the coastal location and may suggest that the Kentish cross-Channel ports were situated on the mainland rather than on Thanet from where another water crossing would inconveniently be required before accessing any inland routes away from the coastal strip (although Richborough does seem to provide an exception to this) It seems clear that the main circulation area of Gaulish imports in Kent was in the hinterland of the mainland ports

The nature of the site at Ebbsfleet remains unclear but certain parallels with the Worth Temple site suggest that a not dissimilar site may exist here albeit with a significant reduction in coin deposition in Phase 8L which is far less in evidence at Worth The coin distributions at Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet are broadly similar with the exception of a higher level of silver and corresponding lower level of bronze at Ebbsfleet these differences may be more apparent than real when the relative sample sizes are compared Again there is an early peak among the potins and a later peak in Phases 7 and 8E The overall coin distribution at Ebbsfleet appears on current evidence to be marginally earlier than at the Worth Temple site both in its greater incidence of early potins and the higher ratio of Phase 7 coins to those of Phase 8E Other features shared by Ebbsfleet and Worth Temple are that both sites stand on a promontory and both have Roman masonry structures although the lsquomainrsquo Ebbsfleet building apparently of later second-century date is of unknown function66

The total lack of Phase 8L coinage at Ebbsfleet is particularly significant when compared with nearby Richborough and may conceivably represent a temporary abandonment of the site at around the time of the Conquest A marked decline in activity in the early Roman period until a resurgence in the later second century ad based on the comparative scarcity of pottery of early Roman date and the lack of contemporary coinage has previously been noted by Macpherson-Grant67 The implication can be made that the Iron Age coins were mostly if not all deposited before the Conquest or at the latest shortly afterwards

SITE 5 NORTH FORELAND BROADSTAIRS

Background

This site is located on the North Foreland on the Isle of Thanet at the easternmost point of Kent It occupies a ridge of upper Chalk and the eastern slope of the valley immediately to the west where the chalk is sealed by Head Brickearth The highest point of the site is now occupied by the North Foreland lighthouse at an elevation of about 36 m above OD

The existence of a double ditch system apparently enclosing an area of at least 24 ha across the hilltop was revealed by aerial photographs several years ago In 1995 members of the Thanet

65 Bean 2000 237 (his type QsD 3-4)66 Perkins 1992 278ndash8167 N MacPherson-Grant lsquoThe Potteryrsquo in Perkins 1992 301

19IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Archaeological Society investigated the site by cutting several sections across the ditches The outermost of these ditches had cut two earlier ditches one of which appears to have been palisaded68 Ceramic evidence indicated a construction date in the mid- to late Iron Age with infilling of the ditches occurring from the late first century bc onwards The site is currently interpreted as being a possible hillfort although the ditch dimensions are on the small side and the term lsquodefended hilltop enclosurersquo may be more appropriate

The coinage

A total of 81 Iron Age coins (counting a potin hoard as one find) has been recorded from the site at North Foreland the majority of which have been found by metal-detector users (Appendix 1) The two gold coins mentioned by Perkins are of unknown types69 A Gallo-Belgic stater found in the nineteenth century at Stone House immediately to the south of the St Stephenrsquos College site is probably related to the site and has been included here

The site histogram for North Foreland (fig 7) shows that potins are the most common Iron Age coins here with Kentish Primary potins comprising 346 per cent of the total site assemblage the most numerous However the distribution of the potins differs from Worth and Ebbsfleet in that Flat Linear I potins are much further above the east Kent mean than are the Kentish Primary potins This is not a result of the Flat Linear I hoard from the site which is counted as a single

68 Hogwood 1995 475ndash669 Perkins 1993 411ndash13

find rather the hoard complements the other Flat Linear I potins and provides definite evidence of contemporary activity The ratio of Flat Linear I potins to those of the Kentish Primary Series is higher than normal for east Kent and these show an emphasis towards the earlier varieties probably dating from the first quarter of the first century bc

In 1999 an archaeological excavation was undertaken by Canterbury Archaeological Trust and the Trust for Thanet Archaeology prior to the redevelopment of the St Stephenrsquos College site on the ridge-top some 400 m to the south-west of the lighthouse Among the many finds of Iron Age (and earlier) date was a coin hoard containing 62 Flat Linear I potins buried in a

fig 7a North Foreland coins from site ()fig 7b North Foreland set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

20 DAVID HOLMAN

pit Preliminary examination of this hoard indicated that although the coins range from Allenrsquos Class C to Class L approximately half belong to Class G70 The hoard will be reported on elsewhere The excavations also revealed an enclosure provisionally dated on ceramic evidence to the first half of the first century bc ie contemporary with the hoard and a large number of storage pits again of similar date The hoard was located only a short distance from the entrance to the enclosure and its location in the centre of what seems to have been an active site suggests that ritual deposition should be considered as a possible reason for its concealment Given the existence of this hoard the possibility that at least some of the potins recovered as metal-detector finds from the adjacent fields may derive from another now dispersed hoard cannot be discounted although there is no evidence to suggest this

North Foreland shows an apparent reduction in coinage deposition after the mid-first century bc before a later recovery in common with Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet Coins of Phases 6 and 7 are both around half the east Kent mean but a significant increase is evident in Phase 8E which continues into Phase 8L suggesting that the site saw a revival in the early first century ad The 24 struck bronzes recorded slightly below the east Kent mean form a very heterogeneous assemblage with 17 different types represented These are almost exclusively Kentish issues either produced in Kent or elsewhere (apparently) for specific use in Kent71 In view of the coastal location of the site it is interesting to note the appearance of three specimens of the lsquoShiprsquo type (VA 1989) among the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin

The low number of non-local issues is significant given the coastal location Apart from a Gallo-Belgic stater only one import has been recorded contrasting sharply with Archers Low Farm Richborough and Folkestone At only 16 per cent of the east Kent mean this site has the lowest percentage of non-gold imports at any of the major sites discussed in this paper Non-local British issues are also rare here but the coin of Verica is one of only two recorded from Kent

Set against the rest of east Kent potin is the most significant metal type at North Foreland followed by silver marginally ahead of bronze As with some elements of the phasing this is a feature shared with Ebbsfleet and may reflect a common cause North Foreland displays activity at a later date than Ebbsfleet but it is not unreasonable to assume that these sites were in some way related

SITE 6 lsquoEASTRyrsquo

Background

Situated on chalk downland south of Eastry this site has produced an assemblage of 51 pre-Roman coins At the request of the landowner and the finders details of the coins are held in the Celtic Coin Index under the neutral provenance of lsquoNorth-East Kentrsquo72

The coinage

A total of 47 Iron Age and four Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from lsquoEastryrsquo (Appendix 1)

70 C Haselgrove pers comm71 An example of the extremely rare bronze half unit VA 154-11 has been listed here as possibly being an issue

of Eppillus with its designs of a geometric pattern and a capricorn The capricorn on the reverse suggests an Augustan prototype which is probably later in date than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which this type has been attributed by both Mack and Van Arsdell However a clearer specimen is still awaited to prove or disprove this reattribution

72 Not all coins in the Celtic Coin Index with this provenance are necessarily from lsquoEastryrsquo The coins listed are known to be from this site

21IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

lsquoEastryrsquo shows clear signs of early activity with an emphasis on Kentish Primary potins (fig 8) which are 133 per cent above the east Kent mean higher than anywhere else in the region Flat Linear I potins are almost exactly on the mean but again there is an absence of Flat Linear II potins Overall potins are further above the east Kent mean here than at any other major site in the region heavily weighted by the large number of Kentish Primary types Early activity is also suggested by the three Gallo-Belgic staters lsquoEastryrsquo has a higher percentage of gold than most other sites in the region with the exception of Richborough and East Wear Bay Folkestone the latter of which fairly certainly incorporates a large degree of bias among the early finds

Only one silver coin has been recorded and there is also an unusually low number of struck bronzes lower in percentage terms than at any other site discussed in this paper Apart from this the most unusual aspect of the lsquoEastryrsquo coins is the discovery of four Siculo-Punic bronzes all of the same type the largest number of such coins from any site in Kent

The nature of this site is uncertain and the site histogram (fig 8) is irregular The above average representation of coinage in Phases 1ndash5 a very unusual feature for any site is an indicator that this site may have had a particular and possibly specialised function The high ratio of gold to silver and struck bronze may suggest that trade is unlikely to have been a principal function of this site as gold is not likely to have been a common medium of exchange A religious site is a possibility as is a disturbed hoard(s)

A separate report on lsquoEastryrsquo as a possible religiouslsquoritualrsquo site has been published elsewhere73 No further investigation of this site is anticipated

SITE 7 GOODNESTONE

Background

This inland site is located to the south-east of Goodnestone some 11 km south-east of Canterbury It occupies a broad gently sloping ridge of Upper Chalk capped by Head Brickearth at a mean elevation of 55 to 60 m above OD The existence of an Iron Age and Roman site was

73 Holman 2005a 280ndash1

fig 8a lsquoEastryrsquo coins from site ()fig 8b lsquoEastryrsquo set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

22 DAVID HOLMAN

not known until a metal-detector survey of the area carried out from 1994 onwards started to produce substantial quantities of coinage in addition to other artefacts including several pieces of mid-first-century ad Roman military equipment74 In addition to 92 Iron Age coins there are several hundred Roman coins covering the entire period of the Roman occupation Ceramic evidence and quernstones also indicate late Iron Age and Roman occupation

The coinage

The 92 Iron Age coins recorded from Goodnestone are listed in Appendix 1 The majority of these coins are either of Kentish origin or were produced elsewhere apparently for use in Kent the percentage of non-Kentish coinage from the site is lower than usual for east Kent (fig 9)

The low number of potin coins representing just 65 per cent of the site assemblage shows that although the site may have an origin in the first half of the first century bc activity at that time was probably limited The coin evidence suggests that the main phase of activity at Goodnestone started in the final quarter of the first century bc

The majority of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone 902 per cent of the site total are struck bronzes Coins of the Kentish uninscribed Series are the most frequent and are represented by 29 examples including three types not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs One of these a variant of VA 154-1 appears to provide a link between the Kentish uninscribed Series and the early inscribed coinage of Dubnovellaunos The obverse although worn on all three specimens appears to bear the same or a very similar design to the Kentish uninscribed bronze issue VA 154-1 The reverse shows a left-facing version of the horse depicted on the reverse of VA 154-1 and a close parallel for this is seen on the reverse of an inscribed silver coin of Dubnovellaunos (VA 171) It is possible that the same die-cutter was involved with all three types Three of the five known specimens of this variant form of VA 154-1 have come from Goodnestone It is conceivably an early uninscribed issue of Dubnovellaunos but has here been retained within the Kentish uninscribed Series

Coins attributed to Dubnovellaunos are represented by 21 examples at Goodnestone Among

fig 9a Goodnestone coins from site ()fig 9b Goodnestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

74 Bishop 1995 17ndash19

23IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

these are six examples of two uncatalogued but related bronze types known from several other provenances in both Kent and Essex75 A coin of Dubnovellaunos is one of only two silver coins from Goodnestone the other tentatively attributed to Addedomaros by Van Arsdell76 is known from three other provenances in east Kent but a north Thames origin still appears likely on stylistic grounds

Phase 8 coins at Goodnestone are less numerous than those of the Kentish uninscribed Series and Dubnovellaunos Coins of Eppillus are scarcer than expected for east Kent and the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin are represented by only three types all of which have their principal distribution in Kent A quarter-stater of Cunobelin is the only gold coin from Goodnestone and is possibly the latest Iron Age coin from the site although similarly late bronze coins of Amminus are also present Only three Gaulish coins have been recorded just 37 per cent of the site total unusually low for east Kent

The histogram for Goodnestone (fig 9) indicates that the site was established before the end of the first century bc Coins of Phase 6 are the most frequent finds but from then until the Conquest losses steadily decline although remaining above the east Kent mean This decline suggests that the earlier coins at least were largely deposited before the Conquest otherwise it is reasonable to expect that the ratio of Phase 8 coins to those of Phase 6 would be higher Goodnestonersquos nearest parallel among the east Kent sites is Archers Low Farm except for the lack of Gaulish imports which are significantly under-represented at only 45 per cent of the east Kent mean This may be regarded as an expected difference between a probable port site and an inland settlement of uncertain nature seemingly established at around the same time Otherwise both sites have low numbers of potins significant peaks in Phases 6 and 7 and are virtually identical in Phases 8E and 8L The metal types at Goodnestone and Archers Low Farm also have very similar proportions The very high level of struck bronze is indicative of trade and exchange from the latter part of the first century bc The scarcity of Gaulish imports and non-Kentish coinage at Goodnestone suggests that much of the activity here was locally based and that there were no direct links with places further afield A greater number of non-local coins would be expected at a trading centre with wider links such as Canterbury

The state of preservation of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone is generally very poor and ten have not been identified The impression given is that many of these coins had a long circulation life however to add a note of caution late Roman coins of the same type found only a few metres apart at Goodnestone sometimes show a very marked variation in their state of preservation the reason for which is unclear

The adjacent Cherrygarden Lane appears on Ordnance Survey maps as part of a trackway running for several kilometres across the Kentish downland This may well have originated as a main thoroughfare at a very early date A geophysical survey of part of the site revealed the existence of another trackway across the field with probable field boundaries adjoining it The function of the late Iron Age and Roman site at Goodnestone is unclear from the coin evidence alone and is only likely to be clarified by excavation Curteis has discussed a not dissimilar site at Evenley Northamptonshire and suggested either a religious centre andor an occupationaltrading settlement77 A detailed report on Goodnestone incorporating all facets of the site is in preparation78

75 Both types are uninscribed but can be attributed to Dubnovellaunos on stylistic and distributional grounds A Kentish origin for these issues is preferred here particularly in view of the lack of non-Kentish coinage from Goodnestone

76 Van Arsdell 1989 350 (his type VA 1611)77 Curteis 1996 33ndash478 Cross forthcoming

24 DAVID HOLMAN

SITE 8 CANTERBURy (WALLED AREA)

Background

As the Roman civitas capital of Kent and a moderately large town within the province of Britannia Canterbury was an important settlement which has continued to be occupied up to the present day The name by which the settlement was known to the Romans Durovernum Cantiacorum is of Celtic origin translating as lsquothe walled town by the alder swamprsquo79 and perhaps provides an initial clue to a pre-Conquest origin for the site

It has been known since at least the eighteenth century that substantial remains of the Roman town survived below the modern streets During the installation of the sewage system in the 1860s a number of coins were found none was described in detail but some were possibly Iron Age80 In 1871 an Iron Age coin was found in Burgate providing evidence for some type of pre-Conquest occupation in the area However definite remains of late Iron Age settlement were not found until excavations began on bomb-damaged sites in 1946 when work revealed a gully apparently bounding a hut site together with pottery of pre-Conquest date81 Since then a significant number of other sites producing evidence of pre-Roman occupation have been located most notably in the Marlowe car park area situated towards the central part of the Roman walled town where the remains of two circular houses set within a triple-ditched enclosure accompanied by hearths ovens and a well were found82 It now seems that late Iron Age settlement at Canterbury was dispersed across an area of at least 10 ha beside the River Stour fairly certainly focused on a ford but apparently lacking any significant defences The available dating evidence suggests that the later Iron Age settlement began during the mid- to late first century bc although evidence of occupation immediately pre-dating this may still await discovery There is some evidence for early Iron Age settlement in the area

Of particular significance in the context of the later Iron Age settlement is the hillfort of Bigberry Camp located above the Stour valley some 3 km to the west This site represents the only known certain hillfort in eastern Kent Occupation here seems to have begun c 350 bc but the defences do not appear to have been constructed until the second century bc83 The camp appears to have been largely abandoned around 50 bc perhaps as a result of it being stormed by Caesarrsquos troops in 54 bc84 Despite the significant amount of archaeological work at Bigberry no Iron Age coins have been found A few bronze coins have been found at Harbledown 1 km to the north-east Rodwell has previously suggested that the general lack of coinage from the site indicates that it was not of major importance as a permanent settlement85

It is generally accepted that the settlement at Canterbury in some way superseded Bigberry during the mid-first century bc perhaps originating as a river-side trading station of the hillfort86 Blagg has suggested that Canterburyrsquos importance grew after c 15 bc following the establishment of the Rhine frontier87 However there is currently insufficient evidence to show that Canterbury had developed into a major proto-urban centre before the Roman conquest and there appear to have been few changes certainly within the Marlowe area until the Flavian

79 Rivet and Smith 1979 353ndash480 Pilbrow 187181 Frere 1965 682 Blockley et al 199583 Thompson 1983 253ndash9 Blockley and Blockley 1989 245ndash684 Blockley and Blockley 1989 24685 Rodwell 1976 33086 Blockley et al 1995 987 T Blagg in Blockley et al 1995 11

25IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

period88 The Iron Age status of Canterbury has previously been questioned89 and Millett makes the important point that the later Roman development of the site arguably and quite possibly wrongly leads to the perception that the Iron Age settlement was of equal importance90 Nevertheless it is clear from the extent of the known remains the amount of coinage and the quantity of imported fineware pottery including Dressel I amphorae that the settlement here was of some importance The evidence for this as provided by the Iron Age coinage is further considered below

The coinage

By the end of 2003 a total of 163 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) had been recorded from within the area of the later Roman walled town mainly in the area of Longmarket Rose Lane St Margarets Street Watling Street and Beer Cart Lane Significantly fewer Iron Age coins have been found during the recent Whitefriars excavations immediately to the east perhaps indicating the eastern limits of the Iron Age settlement although development pressures meant that only limited excavation of the earliest layers was possible The most important point about these coins is that they have virtually all been found during archaeological excavations Canterbury is the only site considered in this paper which has subsequently been built over in its entirety but it is also the only site with the exception of Richborough that has seen archaeological excavation on a large scale Canterbury is the only major late Iron Age site in east Kent with large numbers of broadly contemporary stratified coin finds This is of considerable importance not only for understanding the origins of the city but also for the study of the circulation deposition and dating of Iron Age coinage in the region as a whole A basic relative chronology for other sites in east Kent can be constructed by considering the numismatic evidence from Canterbury for example the realisation that potin coins predate the struck bronzes which themselves evolved from native-inspired designs into more Romanised types

Archaeological contexts can be questioned if later activity has occurred on the site leading to the inevitable disturbance of earlier features The result is a tendency to date items later than should be the case91 A significant number of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury have been found in post-Conquest deposits and Haselgrove regarded these as a mixture of residual coins disturbed by Roman activity as one would expect in an urban context and coins continuing in use until the mid-first century ad92 Nash considered that the potin coins from the Marlowe excavations were circulating until the later first century ad but appeared to make insufficient concession to residuality93 Some Iron Age coins have been found in medieval and later deposits having clearly arrived there as a result of earlier levels being disturbed During the early Roman period disturbance of the underlying Iron Age deposits would have been much more frequent and therefore more coins would have been displaced It cannot be conclusively shown that the Iron Age coins at Canterbury circulated for any length of time after the Conquest although it is reasonable to suppose that some may have continued to circulate for a few years before being fully supplanted by the new Roman coinage94 The problems caused by residuality have also been discussed by Arthur in relation to the late Republican amphorae from the excavations95

88 Blockley et al 1995 1289 Blockley et al 1995 990 Millett 1996 342ndash391 Haselgrove 1988 103ndash592 Haselgrove 1987 14193 D Nash in Blockley et al 1995 92394 eg Nash 1987 36ndash895 Arthur 1986 240

26 DAVID HOLMAN

Potins account for 479 per cent of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury (fig 10) The near absence of Kentish Primary potins is significant because this implies that they had largely ceased to circulate before Canterbury was established Only two of these coins have been recorded both from post-Conquest contexts and these were previously wrongly identified as a cut-down bronze of Massalia and a Central Gaulish lsquotecircte diaboliquersquo potin96 Given that Kentish Primary potins are the commonest type of Iron Age coin in east Kent it is reasonable to assume that many more would have been found at Canterbury had they still been in circulation in the last 50ndash75 years before the Conquest The possibility remains that the initial nucleus of the settlement may have been situated elsewhere97 but the current evidence supports Haselgroversquos view that early potins had mostly ceased to circulate by the early first century ad98 indeed a date before the turn of the century may now be preferred In France the temple sites at Champlieu and Chilly also provide evidence that potins had virtually disappeared from circulation by the first century ad99

An early cessation date for the circulation of the earlier Flat Linear I potins particularly Allen Classes AndashD can also be surmised from the Canterbury evidence The 21 Flat Linear I potins all belong to Allen Classes jndashL ie late in the series probably dating to around the middle of the first century bc Some of these were deliberately cut100 a feature rarely seen elsewhere although a cut Class L coin has been recorded from the Worth Temple site Elsewhere in east Kent the earlier types form a significant component of the Flat Linear I potins and their absence at Canterbury again suggests that if any settlement existed on the site in the early first century bc it is likely to have been of little importance Haselgrove noted that earlier Flat Linear I types are present at Rochester suggesting that Rochester was a site of some importance at an earlier date than Canterbury101 This may well still hold true for the relative chronology of the earliest phases at Canterbury and Rochester but it now seems likely that Kentish coinage began in the

96 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15397 Blockley et al 1995 898 Haselgrove 1987 15899 Allen 1995 51100 Haselgrove 1988 118101 Haselgrove 1987 151

fig 10a Canterbury (walled area) coins from site ()fig 10b Canterbury (walled area) set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

27IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

east of the county102 and a later commencement date for Canterbury need have no particular relevance in any discussion on Rochester located some 43 km to the north-west

Flat Linear II potins are represented by 50 surviving specimens 307 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (321 per cent of the identified coins) Compared with their general scarcity elsewhere in east Kent with the exception of East Wear Bay Folkestone (see below Site 9) with which some sort of link may have existed this is exceptional a fact well illustrated by fig 10 which shows that the proportion of these coins at Canterbury is more than ten times the mean for the rest of east Kent Recent research on Flat Linear II potins based on hoard evidence and individual findspots is leaning increasingly towards an origin in the region immediately north of London rather than Kent at least for certain classes103 In this case the appearance of so many of these coins at Canterbury cannot be easily explained They passed into the local circulation pool at a much lower rate than other coin types and the scarcity of these coins around Canterbury suggests that their principal purpose may have been related to a specific activity or commodity the nature of which is unknown Alternatively there was a sudden and significant but short-lived increase in activity at Canterbury (and Folkestone) which may again have had a specific cause Either way there must have been a fairly high degree of control to restrict their circulation in this manner A comparison may perhaps be made with the exceptionally high number of Roman coins of the period ad 388ndash402 found at Richborough which is not reflected elsewhere in east Kent and which must represent an event specific to that site in the local record although the contents of several hoards at the site account for a not insignificant proportion of these late coins104 It seems likely that the Flat Linear II potins were used in Canterbury as a low-value coinage as the appearance of so many high-value coins in a non-hoard context would be difficult to explain There may perhaps have been a reliance on these coins to sustain the Canterbury circulation pool for small-scale transactions Haselgrove noted that potins were the commonest issues circulating in Canterbury until Phase 8 (c ad 20)105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role106 although how much of this is a result of residuality cannot be ascertained

Struck bronzes are represented at Canterbury by 69 coins These include ten Gaulish coins 159 per cent of the (identified) struck bronze total There are also five Gaulish potins Overall Gaulish coins at Canterbury are 53 per cent above the east Kent mean Haselgrove commented on possible early links with the Continent107 and Fitzpatrickrsquos suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands108 but coastal sites such as Archers Low Farm and East Wear Bay Folkestone may be regarded as more likely initial points of contact Phase 6 coins are also above the east Kent mean In this respect there is some similarity to Archers Low Farm although the deviation from the mean there both for imports and Phase 6 coins is far greater There are 21 struck bronzes of the Kentish Uninscribed Series and an early lsquoChichester Cockrsquo type The frequency of some of the Kentish Uninscribed types at Canterbury in particular VA 154-3 suggests that minting facilities may have been operating at that time

Bronzes of the dynastic period are represented by 31 coins The nine coins of Dubnovellaunos three of Tasciovanus-Sego and ten of Eppillus are typical for an east Kent site However coins of Cunobelin appear to be significantly under-represented only eight coins of Cunobelin have been recorded from Canterbury and four of these are late types otherwise scarce in east

102 Holman 2000103 Haselgrove 1988 117 G Cottam pers comm104 Reece 1987 84105 Haselgrove 1987 145106 Haselgrove 1993 44107 Haselgrove 1987 143108 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

6 DAVID HOLMAN

excavations (see below) Metal detectors were subsequently used at the recently finished Whitefriars excavations and accounted for a significant proportion of the Roman and medieval coins from there Similar results have also been obtained from an excavation on a rural site at Maydensole Farm Sutton near Dover during which most of the metal detecting was undertaken by the writer At this site well over half of the coins as well as other items such as brooches were recovered from the spoilheaps having been missed during excavation Concentrated searching on a known productive site will produce a more representative cross-section of the coinage present than casual searching in isolated areas when smaller coins are more likely to be missed

No criticism of standard archaeological excavation methods is intended here Experience has shown the difficulty of finding coins by lsquoeyes onlyrsquo methods even with the use of a metal detector they are frequently difficult to locate often being found in a lump of compacted soil little bigger than the coin itself Colour is also a factor (see below) The conclusion is that the metal detector used responsibly can be a useful archaeological tool providing much additional information not only in quantities of finds but also their contexts

Another factor to be considered when looking at source data is the different colours of metal and related corrosion products A disproportionately high number of gold coins are evident among early finds as typically illustrated by Boys who provided detailed descriptions of gold staters but only a passing mention of bronze coins14 Reasons for this include gold being a valuable metal perhaps leading to greater interest gold coins are usually well-preserved unlike most bronze coins and not least because gold is much easier to spot than dull-coloured bronze Similarly bronze coins which have turned bright green are easier to spot than those which have not Silver is sometimes found in a shiny state but more often than not is in an oxidised state with a purple or even black hue Experience has shown that the most difficult metal items to spot are those made of lead a fact confirmed by a number of metal detector users

Since the advent of metal detecting the early imbalance towards gold has been corrected to a large extent with the discovery and recording of considerable numbers of base metal coins For example Kentish Primary potins (better known and generally referred to as the lsquoThurrockrsquo type after a hoard found near the Essex town of that name) were known from very few examples until well into the 1980s and were then regarded as Gaulish imports15 These are now known in their thousands (including hoards) so it appears that they were previously usually missed or ignored

As will be shown significant variations in coin deposition are apparent across the major sites of east Kent This is to a large extent chronological as it is clear that some sites appear to have become active at a later date than others However the nature of the site itself also has an influence on the types of coin deposited eg a possible port site will have a high proportion of imports while an inland trading site or settlement will have a more insular assemblage Given the difficulty in determining the precise nature and function of a site which may in any case have been multi-functional it is hard to assess how much of an influence this has on coin deposition and why this increases or decreases in certain phases The level of activity is another factor to be considered as is the likelihood that the coins themselves were used in varied ways as ritual offerings as well as in trade and wealth storage

Statistical methodology

The statistical method used in this paper attempts to compare coins recorded from specific individual sites against those recorded from the rest of east Kent rather than looking at sites

14 Boys 1792 86915 eg Nash 1978b

7IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

in isolation The reason for this is that individual site histograms show the number of coins in each phase at that site but they do not illustrate how this compares with the surrounding region ie a high number of coins in a particular phase at a site may or may not be normal for the region in which the site lies but the site histogram gives no indication of this As a result the interpretation of site histograms can easily lead to misleading conclusions16 An example of the problems which may arise is given by Reece in relation to the Roman coins from the excavations at Richborough17 One method used to calculate the theoretical loss per thousand for coins of the Roman period is dependent on chronologically precise phases18 and cannot be used accurately for Iron Age coins owing to their lack of absolute dating and the uncertain lengths of the phases although estimates can be made Small numbers also lead to heavily distorted results No attempt is made here to impose fixed dates as used by Van Arsdell19

The histograms used here are based on the phases shown in Table 1 The totals for each phase (and metal type) from individual sites have been converted into percentages and the same has been done for east Kent overall to produce mean figures against which individual sites can be compared20 Individual sites in east Kent show wide variation attributable to different types of site and dates of commencement and a lsquonormalrsquo pattern of coin loss such as that suggested by Haselgrove for a number of sites north of the Thames21 cannot be determined The figures used here do not include the inadequately recorded coins listed by Allen22 other unreliable provenances or lsquoGreekrsquo coins

The first histogram for each site shows the number of identified coins of each phase recorded from that site expressed as a percentage of the total identified site assemblage The second histogram sets the coins from individual sites against the rest of east Kent to show how those sites compare with the surrounding region Metal percentage figures are also shown as suggested by Rodwell23 ie potin (cast bronze) AE (struck bronze) AR (silver) and AV (gold) these include those coins mostly struck bronzes which cannot be classified owing to their condition24 Plated coins have been treated as being of the metal they purport to be Large sites can skew coin loss profiles with large numbers of particular types obvious examples in east Kent being the Flat Linear II potins from Canterbury and Folkestone However the large number of coins now recorded provides a more complete picture than was previously the case

The difference between a site and the surrounding region is expressed by directly comparing the individual site percentages for each phase and metal type relative to the percentages for the rest of the region For example comparing Kentish Primary potins at Worth Temple against the rest of east Kent shows that these coins are 30 per cent above the east Kent mean at Worth Similarly Gaulish non-gold imports at Worth are 20 per cent above the east Kent mean The basic site histogram (fig 3a) shows that Kentish Primary potins are far more numerous than Gaulish imports at this site (361 per cent and 93 per cent of the identified coins respectively) but does not show that they have a similar ratio when set against their respective mean figures from the rest of east Kent (278 per cent and 77 per cent respectively) This is illustrated by the lsquocomparisonrsquo histogram (fig 3b) and may be interpreted as indicating that the level of

16 eg Haselgrove 1992 12617 Reece 1987 80ndash818 eg Casey 1980 2819 Van Arsdell 198920 eg Haselgrove 1993 5321 Haselgrove 1993 5422 Allen 196023 Rodwell 1976 31424 The site histograms show two different figures one (n1) for the lsquophasersquo section showing the number of

identified coins and the other (n2) for the lsquometalrsquo section showing all coins including those which cannot be identified but which are certainly Iron Age

8 DAVID HOLMAN

coin deposition at Worth relative to the rest of east Kent was broadly similar in each of these particular coin phases even allowing for the different sample sizes

THE MAjOR SITES OF EAST KENT

SITE 1 ROMANO-CELTIC TEMPLE SITE WORTH

Background

The site lies some 700 m to the south of Worth village and occupies a low chalk promontory projecting into the surrounding marshland which constitutes the southern end of the silted-up Wantsum Channel Only at the north-west is the promontory connected to land above marsh level The site is some 35 km from the present-day coastline

The existence of a Romano-Celtic temple in Castle Field has been known since at least the eighteenth century It was excavated by WS Klein in 192525 Significant evidence of Iron Age occupation was located below the temple although the nature of this earlier occupation remains uncertain Finds included the remains of three bronze votive model shields which has led to the widely accepted view that the Roman temple at Worth was the successor to an earlier Iron Age religious site26 Recent work in the fields and private gardens adjacent to the temple has broadened our general understanding of the site and confirmed that Iron Age occupation deposits extend across much of the site

A substantial enclosure ditch occupies the highest part of the promontory One entrance is known on the south-eastern side The ditch has not as yet been located on the north-east and it may be that the enclosure was open to the wetlands on this side The enclosure has a minimum area of some 65 ha

The limited dating evidence suggests that the temple itself was in use if not constructed during the fourth century ad27 The pottery evidence suggests that the enclosure ditch was largely filled by this time and it thus seems clear that this ditch was not a contemporary boundary to the Roman temple complex Ceramic evidence also suggests that the ditch was probably dug no later than the earlier first century bc That the enclosure ditch represents the outer limits of the inferred Iron Age sanctuary presently seems the most likely interpretation

Considerable quantities of local Middle to Late Iron Age pottery Gallo-Belgic fineware and sherds of Dressel 1B amphorae have been discovered together with much later material Taken in conjunction with the substantial number of Iron Age coins recovered this ceramic material confirms occupation in the general area of the enclosure at this date

The coinage

Despite Haselgrove being unaware of any coins from here28 by the end of 2003 a total of 236 Iron Age coins had been recorded from the Worth Temple site of which 227 have been found by members of two local metal-detecting clubs and 9 during archaeological excavations and fieldwalking There are also four other pre-Conquest coins (Appendix 1) Several hundred Roman coins spanning almost the entire period of the Roman occupation have also been found

Almost exactly half of the Iron Age coins from this site are potins Even allowing for the

25 Klein 192826 eg Harding 1974 10327 Klein 192828 Haselgrove 1987

9IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

chronological problems associated with unstratified material29 the large number of Kentish Primary Series potins mdash 347 per cent of the total site assemblage 361 per cent of the identified coins mdash is significant and suggests an early date for coin use and deposition at Worth reflecting the general pattern of Iron Age coinage in east Kent This is the first peak of coin loss here at 30 per cent above the east Kent mean The distribution of the Kentish Primary potins at Worth shows no particular concentration and there is no evidence of hoarding There is now little doubt that Kentish Primary potins are Kentish in origin30 The 28 Flat Linear I potins seem to split into two groups 17 belonging to Allenrsquos early types AndashD the remainder mostly to the late types jndashL31 The solitary Flat Linear II potin indicates that Worth saw little use of these coins in keeping with the east Kent background pattern There are also several early Gaulish potins of varying types most if not all of which date to the second century bc One rare type apparently a first-generation copy of a medium-size struck bronze of Massalia (Marseilles)32 is probably the immediate prototype of the Kentish Primary potins

Although potins are the most numerous finds at Worth struck bronzes of which there are 103 examples are further above the east Kent mean (8 per cent and 23 per cent respectively) Among the many different British and Gaulish issues present coins of Eppillus and Cunobelin are the most abundant The Kentish uninscribed bronzes include types previously thought not to be Kentish33 The lsquoChichester Cockrsquo bronze is regarded here as a Phase 6 issue but potentially belongs to Phase 5

Some 106 per cent of the identifiable coins including gold issues from Worth are of Gaulish origin These include thirteen struck bronzes and seven potins Gaulish non-gold imports although 20 per cent above the east Kent mean are broadly in line with the average level for major sites in east Kent The Gaulish potins which are probably contemporary with the Kentish

29 eg de jersey 1999 19530 Holman 2000 22031 Allen 197132 eg Haselgrove 1995 11933 An uncatalogued bronze type belonging to the Kentish Uninscribed Series (UB1) previously published as

an uncertain Gaulish type (Allen 1995 83 coin 277) has here been reattributed to Kent on the basis of style and distribution with 16 specimens now known from the county Another type previously regarded as a North Thames issue (VA 1629) has been reattributed to Kent based on its almost exclusively Kentish distribution

fig 3a Worth Temple site coins from site ()fig 3b Worth Temple site set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

10 DAVID HOLMAN

Primary potins may have been deposited at an earlier date than the struck bronzes Most of the Gaulish bronzes from Worth originate from the region generally associated with the Ambiani tribe the nearest major tribal grouping on the Continental mainland A bronze of Massalia two Ebusus (Ibiza) bronzes and a Siculo-Punic bronze may also be noted as potential pre-Conquest imports The evidence for the appearance of these coins in Britain is reviewed below

Only nine silver and five gold coins have so far been recorded from Worth both well below the east Kent mean A silver-plated reverse brockage of a central Gaulish issue of Vepotal with an iron core is clearly a forgery but may have been regarded as suitable for a temple offering34 Three of the gold coins are also plated but with a copper core these include the two British coins both of which are of non-Kentish origin35

As on most sites numbers of coins of Phases 1ndash5 are low because most coinage belonging to these phases is of gold and is more frequently found away from recognised sites However coins of Phase 6 are also much scarcer than normal for an east Kent site Taken in conjunction with the scarcity of Flat Linear II potins this suggests greatly reduced activity in the third quarter of the first century bc intriguingly the same date at which Canterbury appears to have been established (see below Site 8) Following considerable activity in the midlate second to mid-first century bc coin deposition fell sharply before slowly recovering until the early first century ad (Phase 8E) when a significant increase is apparent under Eppillus and Cunobelin Phase 8E shows the highest peak of coin deposition at Worth relative to the surrounding region at 63 per cent above the east Kent mean

The large quantity of Iron Age coinage pottery and other domestic material from the Worth Temple site suggests that it was an extensive and important site from an early date Religion is only one of many activities which could have been carried out here The wide range of coin types and the large number of early potins suggest deposition for whatever reasons from as early as the second century bc The number of coins recorded must be regarded as providing a represent-ative sample of the coinage deposited at the site Worth has currently produced more Iron Age coins than any other site in Kent although the total is far lower than at many Continental sites Some British sites notably Harlow36 also have far higher numbers of coins A number of early Roman coins including Republican denarii issues of Tiberius and Gaius and copies of Claudius I are also known from Worth although these could all have been deposited at a later date

The coins from the Worth Temple site cannot be treated in isolation for on Worth Hill some 12 km to the north metal-detector surveys have produced a further fifteen Iron Age and a number of Roman coins The area is now under orchards Similarly an area of farmland at Ham only 1 km to the west of the Worth Temple site has produced a number of Iron Age coins There has been no archaeological input on either of these presumed sites and their nature is unknown but they may have been satellites of the main focus

A more detailed report and plan of the site (as at the end of December 2000) has been published elsewhere37 and only a summary updated to the end of 2003 has been given here

SITE 2 ARCHERS LOW FARM SANDWICH

Background

This site lies some 25 km to the north of the Worth Temple site and is situated on farmland

34 eg Briggs Haselgrove and King 1992 44ndash535 Sir john Evans held in his collection a gold quarter-stater of British Pa type (VA 147) lsquofound at Worth near

Sandwichrsquo but the exact findspot is unknown36 C Haselgrove pers comm37 Holman 2005a 265ndash75

11IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

immediately to the east of Sandwich It was discovered by members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association a local metal-detecting club in 1985 when a significant number of Iron Age and Roman coins were recovered from an area covering several arable fields In 1987 members of the Dover Archaeological Group undertook a limited amount of trenching in the area to ascertain the context of the coin finds and this was followed by a second more extensive phase of exploratory work in late 1990 and early 1991 A total of 45 hand-dug trenches was cut and from these and the metal-detector surveys it is now clear that an extensive occupation site beginning in the late Iron Age and continuing throughout the Roman period exists here38

In topographical terms a low eastward spur of the natural Thanet Beds clay seems at some stage to have provided the basis for the formation of a spit of alluvial sand Today this spit stands at an elevation of between about 25 and 4 m above OD and projects into the marshland that represents the silted up remnants of the southern end of the Wantsum Channel It seems probable that the site was established on or very close to the late Iron AgeRoman shoreline the sea today lies more than 2 km to the east39

The excavations revealed Belgic and Roman features and deposits at Archers Low Farm over an area measuring a minimum of 370 m by c 200 m covering at least 7 ha A few Roman coins were recovered further along the spit suggesting that occupation may have extended eastwards for at least 500 m Roman deposits have also been noted beneath later development 100 m to the west40 The upper layers contained medieval and post-medieval tile and pottery fragments in addition to earlier material and had clearly been disturbed in earlier periods Intact Belgic and Roman deposits lay below at a considerable depth and reached up to 150 m in thickness These comprised a series of general occupation layers occasionally interleaved with apparently natural sand deposits in which a total of eighteen features were located The lowest levels were frequently waterlogged

The excavations produced a considerable quantity of late Iron Age and Roman pottery A very significant proportion of this material consisted of fabrics in the Belgic grog-tempered tradition In addition there are significant quantities of samian ware including two fragments of a plain bowl provisionally identified as Arretine ware dateable to the AugustanTiberian period and other imported Gallo-Belgic wares including terra rubra terra nigra and white-ware butt beaker all apparently of early to mid-first-century ad date Small quantities of amphorae types Dressel 2-4 Dressel 20 and Cam 185 have been recovered but one type of vessel conspicuous by its absence is Dressel 1B amphora Much later Roman material is also present on the site including Roman building debris suggesting the presence of at least one as yet unlocated structure

The coinage

A total of 56 Iron Age and three Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from Archers Low Farm all found by members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association No pre-Conquest coins were recovered during the excavations Although it is apparent that all these coins come from the topsoil and there is no doubt that they are essentially in situ (ie not derived from elsewhere) the contemporary soil horizons can be as much as 2 m down which raises the question as to how this material arrived on the surface In part the explanation may be connected with the installation of several sets of deep land drains laid across the site at various times41 but this cannot represent the complete answer It is clear from the excavations that some considerable disturbance of

38 Frere 1988 484 Frere 1991 29239 Another Roman occupation site located on a second more extensive outer coastal sand spit has been located

at Dicksonrsquos Corner some 25 km to the south-east No coinage has been found there (Parfitt 2000)40 D Perkins pers comm41 C Burch pers comm

12 DAVID HOLMAN

the site occurred in the medieval and post-medieval periods when the area was presumably cultivated as it is now It seems certain that the uppermost Roman deposits have been damaged if not destroyed in this process thus archaeological horizons containing coins may once have been much closer to the surface This would imply that at least some of the Iron Age coinage recovered was previously contained within later Roman deposits as residual material suggesting much ancient disturbance of the earlier deposits there being no evidence for the continued use of these coins into the later Roman period No archaeological work or metal detecting has been undertaken since the early 1990s and the site has since changed ownership

The coin list for Archers Low Farm (Appendix 1) shows considerable differences compared with the Worth Temple site as does the site histogram (fig 4) Although the assemblage is much smaller it is sufficient to show the considerable diversity of the coinage present Only five potins have been recorded just 89 per cent of the total of Iron Age coins from the site compared with 504 per cent at Worth Temple of which three appear to be Gaulish imports The absence of Flat Linear potins is notable and suggests that any activity before the mid-first century bc was very limited

The most significant element among the struck bronzes is the unusually high proportion of Gaulish coins These show considerable heterogeneity although issues attributed to the Ambiani are not unexpectedly the most frequent In all Gaulish coins account for 15 of the 54 identified Iron Age coins recorded from Archers Low Farm some 278 per cent of the total nearly four

42 Briggs Haselgrove and King 1992 42ndash343 Haselgrove (in SCBI 42 coin no 427) noted that this type may be a Kentish copy of a continental type Six

examples are currently known five from East Kent and one from the temple site at Bois LrsquoAbbeacute Eu Seine-Maritime (Delestreacutee 1984 fig 88)

times the east Kent mean Only Richborough (304 per cent) among the east Kent sites exceeds this (see below Site 3) and few other sites in Britain can compare with Silchester (306 per cent) and Hayling Island (292 per cent) providing the closest comparisons42 There are also two specimens of an uncatalogued type (UB3) which has been listed here as possibly belonging to the Kentish uninscribed Series but which is conceivably Gaulish in which case the imported coinage would rise to 315 per cent of the total43 There are also three Siculo-Punic bronzes dated c 320ndash280 bc

fig 4a Archers Low Farm Sandwich coins from site ()fig 4b Archers Low Farm set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

13IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

The Kentish uninscribed Series is well represented with ten specimens (twelve including the uncatalogued type UB3) recorded of several different types The diversity of the dynastic coins from Archers Low Farm is very evident Of these coins of Dubnovellaunos are the most frequent Phases 6 and 7 and to a lesser extent Phase 8E are all above the east Kent mean There is a tendency towards an early date slowly falling off under Eppillus and Cunobelin possibly indicating greater activity prior to say c ad 15ndash25 rather than after This might also suggest that much of the imported coinage arrived before the turn of the century or at the latest very shortly afterwards However this can only be speculation in the absence of any stratified coins from the site There may be some parallel here with coin loss at Goodnestone (see below Site 7) at least in as much as struck bronze forms most of the assemblage

No genuine gold or silver coins have been recorded from Archers Low Farm There is however a bronze core of a contemporary forgery of a quarter-stater of Cunobelin with the reverse design being laterally reversed Another forgery a bronze core with uncertain designs which was probably originally silver-plated also appears to be of Cunobelin

The high proportion of Gaulish coins and the comparatively large amount of imported pottery together with the low-lying situation of Archers Low Farm all suggest that this site is a strong candidate for having been established as a port in the later Iron Age principally for the purposes of trade and probably before the turn of the millennium The proximity to the Continent and the sheltered nature of the site within the confines of the Wantsum Channel would have made it an ideal location for such a facility There would appear to be some chronological disparity between the coins and the pottery imports many of the coins dating to the mid- to late first century bc but much of the pottery apparently being of Augustan or Tiberian date with further samian imports of slightly later ClaudianNeronian date This can be partly explained if it is accepted that these coins continued to circulate in post-Conquest Gaul for many years before entering Britain at the same time as the pottery but this does not fully explain why the native coins show a similar inclination towards an early date If the site reached a peak in the early first century ad then perhaps more coins of Phase 8E should be present ie if the imports and coins of Phases 6 and 7 were not deposited until Phase 8E then coins of the latter phase although above average for the region might themselves be expected to be more numerous In addition the condition of some of the coins suggests that they had seen comparatively little circulation before their deposition No pottery certainly dating from before the first century bc has been found at the site and the low incidence of potin coins taken in conjunction with the very high levels of struck bronze indicates a date no earlier than perhaps c 30 bc for the start of the main phase of activity in the pre-Conquest period at Archers Low Farm

SITE 3 RICHBOROUGH CASTLE

Background

This internationally important Roman site situated on an island surrounded by drained wetlands that were formerly part of the Wantsum Channel occupies a small hill of Woolwich and Thanet Beds sand rising to a height of almost 20 m above OD44 It stands some 3 km to the north-west of Archers Low Farm and some 35 km to the south of the nearest point of the Isle of Thanet at Ebbsfleet

The Roman site is very well known from the excavation work of 1922ndash1938 but the evidence for its pre-Conquest origins is less than clear Occupation in the early to mid-Iron

44 Hawkes 1968 224

14 DAVID HOLMAN

Age is reasonably well attested45 but the status of the site immediately prior to the Roman invasion remains uncertain Cunliffe stated that there was lsquono trace of Belgic occupationrsquo on the site46 while both Thompson and Pollard have maintained that definite pre-Conquest pottery is generally absent from the excavated material47 A large number of early brooches are known from Richborough but there is no evidence that any of these arrived before ad 43 very few can categorically be shown to be contemporary with the Iron Age coins from the site48 although it should be noted that Iron Age brooches are much rarer finds than coins On the evidence of the coinage Rodwell suggested that there was some kind of pre-Conquest port here49 an idea previously suggested by Allen50 Indeed the fundamental question must be posed as to whether this place would ever have been chosen for a Roman invasion base if it were not already an established port of entry with clear routeways leading into the Kentish hinterland

The coinage

Allen stated that there were between 12 and 14 Iron Age coins from the excavations at Richborough (there was much confusion over the numbering system) and that these included a number of non-local coins including Gaulish imports51 Following reassessment of the site assemblage including non-excavation finds an updated summary list showing a total of 23 coins is provided in Appendix 152

Large numbers of coins have been found at and removed from Richborough over several centuries In the sixteenth century Leland wrote that more Roman coins were found at Richborough than anywhere else in England and that this had been the case for as long as anyone could remember53 Several local notables and antiquaries in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had collections of coins from the site54 It is evident that the total number of Roman coins deposited whether lost or deliberately hoarded at Richborough far exceeds the 56084 recovered during the excavations of 1922ndash193855 and it is probable that Iron Age coins were among those previously removed without record

Looked at in an overall context the 23 Iron Age coins from Richborough show considerable deviation from the general pattern in east Kent (fig 5) There are several unusual features and the group may perhaps be regarded as chronologically typologically and numerically unrepresentative for a number of reasons

a The coin distribution is irregular for an east Kent siteb An unknown number of coins have been removed without record over a long period of time including by recent illegal metal-detector activityc A lack of sanctioned metal detecting because much of the area is scheduledd The collections of local antiquaries could be of a selective nature

45 Bushe-Fox 1949 8ndash11 Cunliffe 1968 116ndash1746 Cunliffe 1968 23247 Thompson 1982 809 Pollard 1988 4448 Bayley and Butcher 200449 Rodwell 1976 22150 Allen 1968 18651 Allen 1968 184ndash852 A further coin from Richborough has been noted by Bean (Bean 2000 178 his type VERC 3-4) However the

Celtic Coin Index record for this coin queries this provenance and it has accordingly been decided not to include it in the site list at Appendix 1

53 Toulmin-Smith 1909 6254 eg Roach-Smith 1850 11955 Reece 1968

15IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

e Large-scale disturbance during the Roman period destroyed earlier layers (although any coins would probably have been re-deposited rather than removed)f There could have been considerable displacement of coins from non-local sources during the earliest Roman phaseg Many coins were probably missed during the excavations (see above)h The 1922ndash1938 excavations concentrated on the area within the Saxon Shore fort but this was not necessarily the centre of any LPRIA settlement A recent magnetometry survey and analysis of aerial photographs have revealed a dense mass of features across the fields around the fort56 many of these are probably of Roman date but the possibility that some are earlier cannot be discounted in the absence of excavation

On current evidence the Iron Age coins from Richborough appear to fall into two groups one ending at the beginning of the first century ad and consisting mainly of types typically found in east Kent and the other being more or less contemporary with the Roman conquest of ad 43 and consisting mainly of types not generally found in east Kent Haselgrove described the Richborough assemblage as superficially impressive but spurious commenting on the large number of Phase 8L coins compared with Canterbury which he suggested was a result of the Roman invasion57 No other site in east Kent bears any similarity to Richborough in Phase 8L when losses are nearly ten times the east Kent mean so it may be inferred that the reason for this is an event specific to Richborough The possibility that at least some of the earlier coins were lost at a later date as suggested by Haselgrove58 cannot be dismissed particularly in view of the lack of securely stratified and undisturbed Iron Age coins from the site the specimens of VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are candidates for this Although there are only three silver coins from Richborough silver is further above the east Kent mean than the bronze but this is entirely down to the appearance of non-local types and is misleading

56 Millett and Wilmott 200457 Haselgrove 1987 15358 Haselgrove 1987 153

fig 5a Richborough coins from site ()fig 5b Richborough set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

16 DAVID HOLMAN

The early group consists mainly of potins Gaulish imports and Kentish uninscribed bronzes together with a slightly later inscribed issue of Sa(m) Both of the coins previously recorded as bronzes of Massalia are actually potins59 The silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are early and both originate from the south coast of England With the exception of these silver coins which may have arrived later this early group fits very well into the general east Kent pattern and seemingly indicates a period of pre-Conquest coin use on the site The low percentage of potin and rather higher percentage of bronze counts against an establishment date much before the middle of the first century bc and it may be that the potins were lost at a later date and that the site was a later first-century bc foundation In favour of this is the fact that Phase 6 coins and continental imports are both above the mean for east Kent indeed Richborough has one of the highest levels of imported pre-Conquest coinage from any site in Britain comprising 304 per cent of the total site assemblage It may be significant that the proportions of Gaulish imports and Phase 6 coinage at Richborough are very similar to Archers Low Farm perhaps hinting at some link between these two sites The imports could have been deposited with the Phase 8L coins during early Roman occupation60 but given the low levels of Phase 7 and 8E coinage the near contemporary Phase 6 coinage seems unlikely to have been deposited as late as Phase 8L

Following an apparent hiatus in coin deposition evidenced by the lack of Eppillus and early Cunobelin issues common finds elsewhere in east Kent a later group becomes evident This consists of late issues of Cunobelin and three coins from the south coast one of Verica and two of the Durotriges Late issues of Cunobelin are greatly outnumbered by early issues elsewhere in east Kent while the three south coast coins suggest a link with the West Sussex Hampshire and Dorset area which is otherwise almost wholly absent in east Kent The southern silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 from the early group may have arrived at Richborough at the same time as the later coins as a result of post-Conquest activity An analogous situation can be seen at a number of sites in France where Gaulish bronzes continued in use into the first century ad61 A second-century bc bronze coin of Cyzicus is on balance more likely to be a Roman than a pre-Roman import in this instance further illustrating the difficulty in determining the date at which such early coins reached Britain62

SITE 4 EBBSFLEET ISLE OF THANET

Background

This site lies some 35 km to the north of Richborough Castle on the southern side of the Isle of Thanet at a mean elevation of 8 m above OD It occupies a low chalk promontory capped with Thanet Beds sand surrounded on three sides by marshlands which were once part of the Wantsum Channel Metal detector surveys by the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association and evaluation trenching by the Trust for Thanet Archaeology in 1990 have demonstrated the presence of extensive prehistoric and Roman occupation in this area63 Settlement in the late Iron Age is represented by a number of features together with significant quantities of pottery and coinage Amongst the pottery much of which is dated to c ad 25ndash5075 is a quantity of

59 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15260 Haselgrove 1987 15361 Haselgrove 1999 16462 There are also three early Mediterranean bronze coins from the foreshore close to the Roman fort at Reculver

at the northern end of the Wantsum Channel one of an uncertain Ptolemy one of Agathocles of Syracuse and one of Mamertini Sicily Reculver has also produced several Iron Age coins including a quarter stater (Sch 7) dating from as early as the third century bc which is potentially a contemporary import

63 Perkins 1992

17IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

imported Gallo-Belgic fineware not all of which is pre-Conquest in date There is also locally produced pottery dating from the mid-first century bc onwards as well as earlier material

The coinage

A total of 43 Iron Age and three other pre-Conquest coins are currently recorded from Ebbsfleet (Appendix 1) A few of these were published by Wren in 199264 but further discoveries have since been made and more information is available concerning the finds

Ebbsfleet has the highest percentage of Kentish Primary potins from any site in east Kent with the exception of lsquoEastryrsquo (see below Site 6) (fig 6) There are also a number of early Flat Linear I potins Overall potins are 23 per cent above the east Kent mean This suggests that the site was established at an early date probably before 100 bc a date also supported by quantities of flint-tempered pottery A relatively high level of coin deposition continued until perhaps the mid-first century bc when like Worth and North Foreland there appears to have been a major reduction in activity A change in local circumstances external factors or the non-relevance of Flat Linear II potins at these three sites are all possible reasons for the lack of Flat Linear II potins but in the absence of evidence other than the coinage itself little can be said without resorting to circular arguments At each of these sites coin deposition subsequently increased again by the early first

64 CR Wren lsquoCoins found at Ebbsfleet during 1990 and 1991rsquo in Perkins 1992 305ndash6

century ad Many of the potins from Ebbsfleet are in very poor condition possibly as a result of intensive agricultural activity in recent years Some may conceivably be Gaulish imports but their condition makes precise classification impossible

Although potins are above the east Kent mean struck bronzes are under-represented There are nine different types among the twelve coins recorded and only one is represented by more than a single specimen The solitary Gaulish struck bronze is unusually not an issue from Belgic Gaul The Siculo-Punic and Ebusus bronzes are potential pre-Conquest imports

There is an above average level of silver at Ebbsfleet a feature also evident at Richborough although very probably for different reasons there being little evidence for early Roman

fig 6a Ebbsfleet coins from site ()fig 6b Ebbsfleet set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

18 DAVID HOLMAN

occupation at Ebbsfleet The ratio of silver to bronze at Ebbsfleet is higher than for any other site in east Kent although this may be down to chance A silver coin regarded as an Atrebatic issue by Bean but not listed by Van Arsdell or Hobbs is now known from several other findspots in Kent and it may be an early Kentish issue although it bears little resemblance to any other Kentish coinage65 It is here regarded as Atrebatic although Atrebatic coinage is generally very rarely found in Kent No gold coins have been recorded from Ebbsfleet other than a contemporary forgery of a Gallo-Belgic E stater with a silver core

The level of Gaulish non-gold imports at Ebbsfleet is low at only 58 per cent of the east Kent mean An even lower level of imports is seen at North Foreland (see below Site 5) and imports are scarce finds in Thanet generally particularly when compared with the adjacent mainland area around Sandwich This is surprising in view of the coastal location and may suggest that the Kentish cross-Channel ports were situated on the mainland rather than on Thanet from where another water crossing would inconveniently be required before accessing any inland routes away from the coastal strip (although Richborough does seem to provide an exception to this) It seems clear that the main circulation area of Gaulish imports in Kent was in the hinterland of the mainland ports

The nature of the site at Ebbsfleet remains unclear but certain parallels with the Worth Temple site suggest that a not dissimilar site may exist here albeit with a significant reduction in coin deposition in Phase 8L which is far less in evidence at Worth The coin distributions at Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet are broadly similar with the exception of a higher level of silver and corresponding lower level of bronze at Ebbsfleet these differences may be more apparent than real when the relative sample sizes are compared Again there is an early peak among the potins and a later peak in Phases 7 and 8E The overall coin distribution at Ebbsfleet appears on current evidence to be marginally earlier than at the Worth Temple site both in its greater incidence of early potins and the higher ratio of Phase 7 coins to those of Phase 8E Other features shared by Ebbsfleet and Worth Temple are that both sites stand on a promontory and both have Roman masonry structures although the lsquomainrsquo Ebbsfleet building apparently of later second-century date is of unknown function66

The total lack of Phase 8L coinage at Ebbsfleet is particularly significant when compared with nearby Richborough and may conceivably represent a temporary abandonment of the site at around the time of the Conquest A marked decline in activity in the early Roman period until a resurgence in the later second century ad based on the comparative scarcity of pottery of early Roman date and the lack of contemporary coinage has previously been noted by Macpherson-Grant67 The implication can be made that the Iron Age coins were mostly if not all deposited before the Conquest or at the latest shortly afterwards

SITE 5 NORTH FORELAND BROADSTAIRS

Background

This site is located on the North Foreland on the Isle of Thanet at the easternmost point of Kent It occupies a ridge of upper Chalk and the eastern slope of the valley immediately to the west where the chalk is sealed by Head Brickearth The highest point of the site is now occupied by the North Foreland lighthouse at an elevation of about 36 m above OD

The existence of a double ditch system apparently enclosing an area of at least 24 ha across the hilltop was revealed by aerial photographs several years ago In 1995 members of the Thanet

65 Bean 2000 237 (his type QsD 3-4)66 Perkins 1992 278ndash8167 N MacPherson-Grant lsquoThe Potteryrsquo in Perkins 1992 301

19IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Archaeological Society investigated the site by cutting several sections across the ditches The outermost of these ditches had cut two earlier ditches one of which appears to have been palisaded68 Ceramic evidence indicated a construction date in the mid- to late Iron Age with infilling of the ditches occurring from the late first century bc onwards The site is currently interpreted as being a possible hillfort although the ditch dimensions are on the small side and the term lsquodefended hilltop enclosurersquo may be more appropriate

The coinage

A total of 81 Iron Age coins (counting a potin hoard as one find) has been recorded from the site at North Foreland the majority of which have been found by metal-detector users (Appendix 1) The two gold coins mentioned by Perkins are of unknown types69 A Gallo-Belgic stater found in the nineteenth century at Stone House immediately to the south of the St Stephenrsquos College site is probably related to the site and has been included here

The site histogram for North Foreland (fig 7) shows that potins are the most common Iron Age coins here with Kentish Primary potins comprising 346 per cent of the total site assemblage the most numerous However the distribution of the potins differs from Worth and Ebbsfleet in that Flat Linear I potins are much further above the east Kent mean than are the Kentish Primary potins This is not a result of the Flat Linear I hoard from the site which is counted as a single

68 Hogwood 1995 475ndash669 Perkins 1993 411ndash13

find rather the hoard complements the other Flat Linear I potins and provides definite evidence of contemporary activity The ratio of Flat Linear I potins to those of the Kentish Primary Series is higher than normal for east Kent and these show an emphasis towards the earlier varieties probably dating from the first quarter of the first century bc

In 1999 an archaeological excavation was undertaken by Canterbury Archaeological Trust and the Trust for Thanet Archaeology prior to the redevelopment of the St Stephenrsquos College site on the ridge-top some 400 m to the south-west of the lighthouse Among the many finds of Iron Age (and earlier) date was a coin hoard containing 62 Flat Linear I potins buried in a

fig 7a North Foreland coins from site ()fig 7b North Foreland set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

20 DAVID HOLMAN

pit Preliminary examination of this hoard indicated that although the coins range from Allenrsquos Class C to Class L approximately half belong to Class G70 The hoard will be reported on elsewhere The excavations also revealed an enclosure provisionally dated on ceramic evidence to the first half of the first century bc ie contemporary with the hoard and a large number of storage pits again of similar date The hoard was located only a short distance from the entrance to the enclosure and its location in the centre of what seems to have been an active site suggests that ritual deposition should be considered as a possible reason for its concealment Given the existence of this hoard the possibility that at least some of the potins recovered as metal-detector finds from the adjacent fields may derive from another now dispersed hoard cannot be discounted although there is no evidence to suggest this

North Foreland shows an apparent reduction in coinage deposition after the mid-first century bc before a later recovery in common with Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet Coins of Phases 6 and 7 are both around half the east Kent mean but a significant increase is evident in Phase 8E which continues into Phase 8L suggesting that the site saw a revival in the early first century ad The 24 struck bronzes recorded slightly below the east Kent mean form a very heterogeneous assemblage with 17 different types represented These are almost exclusively Kentish issues either produced in Kent or elsewhere (apparently) for specific use in Kent71 In view of the coastal location of the site it is interesting to note the appearance of three specimens of the lsquoShiprsquo type (VA 1989) among the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin

The low number of non-local issues is significant given the coastal location Apart from a Gallo-Belgic stater only one import has been recorded contrasting sharply with Archers Low Farm Richborough and Folkestone At only 16 per cent of the east Kent mean this site has the lowest percentage of non-gold imports at any of the major sites discussed in this paper Non-local British issues are also rare here but the coin of Verica is one of only two recorded from Kent

Set against the rest of east Kent potin is the most significant metal type at North Foreland followed by silver marginally ahead of bronze As with some elements of the phasing this is a feature shared with Ebbsfleet and may reflect a common cause North Foreland displays activity at a later date than Ebbsfleet but it is not unreasonable to assume that these sites were in some way related

SITE 6 lsquoEASTRyrsquo

Background

Situated on chalk downland south of Eastry this site has produced an assemblage of 51 pre-Roman coins At the request of the landowner and the finders details of the coins are held in the Celtic Coin Index under the neutral provenance of lsquoNorth-East Kentrsquo72

The coinage

A total of 47 Iron Age and four Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from lsquoEastryrsquo (Appendix 1)

70 C Haselgrove pers comm71 An example of the extremely rare bronze half unit VA 154-11 has been listed here as possibly being an issue

of Eppillus with its designs of a geometric pattern and a capricorn The capricorn on the reverse suggests an Augustan prototype which is probably later in date than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which this type has been attributed by both Mack and Van Arsdell However a clearer specimen is still awaited to prove or disprove this reattribution

72 Not all coins in the Celtic Coin Index with this provenance are necessarily from lsquoEastryrsquo The coins listed are known to be from this site

21IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

lsquoEastryrsquo shows clear signs of early activity with an emphasis on Kentish Primary potins (fig 8) which are 133 per cent above the east Kent mean higher than anywhere else in the region Flat Linear I potins are almost exactly on the mean but again there is an absence of Flat Linear II potins Overall potins are further above the east Kent mean here than at any other major site in the region heavily weighted by the large number of Kentish Primary types Early activity is also suggested by the three Gallo-Belgic staters lsquoEastryrsquo has a higher percentage of gold than most other sites in the region with the exception of Richborough and East Wear Bay Folkestone the latter of which fairly certainly incorporates a large degree of bias among the early finds

Only one silver coin has been recorded and there is also an unusually low number of struck bronzes lower in percentage terms than at any other site discussed in this paper Apart from this the most unusual aspect of the lsquoEastryrsquo coins is the discovery of four Siculo-Punic bronzes all of the same type the largest number of such coins from any site in Kent

The nature of this site is uncertain and the site histogram (fig 8) is irregular The above average representation of coinage in Phases 1ndash5 a very unusual feature for any site is an indicator that this site may have had a particular and possibly specialised function The high ratio of gold to silver and struck bronze may suggest that trade is unlikely to have been a principal function of this site as gold is not likely to have been a common medium of exchange A religious site is a possibility as is a disturbed hoard(s)

A separate report on lsquoEastryrsquo as a possible religiouslsquoritualrsquo site has been published elsewhere73 No further investigation of this site is anticipated

SITE 7 GOODNESTONE

Background

This inland site is located to the south-east of Goodnestone some 11 km south-east of Canterbury It occupies a broad gently sloping ridge of Upper Chalk capped by Head Brickearth at a mean elevation of 55 to 60 m above OD The existence of an Iron Age and Roman site was

73 Holman 2005a 280ndash1

fig 8a lsquoEastryrsquo coins from site ()fig 8b lsquoEastryrsquo set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

22 DAVID HOLMAN

not known until a metal-detector survey of the area carried out from 1994 onwards started to produce substantial quantities of coinage in addition to other artefacts including several pieces of mid-first-century ad Roman military equipment74 In addition to 92 Iron Age coins there are several hundred Roman coins covering the entire period of the Roman occupation Ceramic evidence and quernstones also indicate late Iron Age and Roman occupation

The coinage

The 92 Iron Age coins recorded from Goodnestone are listed in Appendix 1 The majority of these coins are either of Kentish origin or were produced elsewhere apparently for use in Kent the percentage of non-Kentish coinage from the site is lower than usual for east Kent (fig 9)

The low number of potin coins representing just 65 per cent of the site assemblage shows that although the site may have an origin in the first half of the first century bc activity at that time was probably limited The coin evidence suggests that the main phase of activity at Goodnestone started in the final quarter of the first century bc

The majority of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone 902 per cent of the site total are struck bronzes Coins of the Kentish uninscribed Series are the most frequent and are represented by 29 examples including three types not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs One of these a variant of VA 154-1 appears to provide a link between the Kentish uninscribed Series and the early inscribed coinage of Dubnovellaunos The obverse although worn on all three specimens appears to bear the same or a very similar design to the Kentish uninscribed bronze issue VA 154-1 The reverse shows a left-facing version of the horse depicted on the reverse of VA 154-1 and a close parallel for this is seen on the reverse of an inscribed silver coin of Dubnovellaunos (VA 171) It is possible that the same die-cutter was involved with all three types Three of the five known specimens of this variant form of VA 154-1 have come from Goodnestone It is conceivably an early uninscribed issue of Dubnovellaunos but has here been retained within the Kentish uninscribed Series

Coins attributed to Dubnovellaunos are represented by 21 examples at Goodnestone Among

fig 9a Goodnestone coins from site ()fig 9b Goodnestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

74 Bishop 1995 17ndash19

23IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

these are six examples of two uncatalogued but related bronze types known from several other provenances in both Kent and Essex75 A coin of Dubnovellaunos is one of only two silver coins from Goodnestone the other tentatively attributed to Addedomaros by Van Arsdell76 is known from three other provenances in east Kent but a north Thames origin still appears likely on stylistic grounds

Phase 8 coins at Goodnestone are less numerous than those of the Kentish uninscribed Series and Dubnovellaunos Coins of Eppillus are scarcer than expected for east Kent and the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin are represented by only three types all of which have their principal distribution in Kent A quarter-stater of Cunobelin is the only gold coin from Goodnestone and is possibly the latest Iron Age coin from the site although similarly late bronze coins of Amminus are also present Only three Gaulish coins have been recorded just 37 per cent of the site total unusually low for east Kent

The histogram for Goodnestone (fig 9) indicates that the site was established before the end of the first century bc Coins of Phase 6 are the most frequent finds but from then until the Conquest losses steadily decline although remaining above the east Kent mean This decline suggests that the earlier coins at least were largely deposited before the Conquest otherwise it is reasonable to expect that the ratio of Phase 8 coins to those of Phase 6 would be higher Goodnestonersquos nearest parallel among the east Kent sites is Archers Low Farm except for the lack of Gaulish imports which are significantly under-represented at only 45 per cent of the east Kent mean This may be regarded as an expected difference between a probable port site and an inland settlement of uncertain nature seemingly established at around the same time Otherwise both sites have low numbers of potins significant peaks in Phases 6 and 7 and are virtually identical in Phases 8E and 8L The metal types at Goodnestone and Archers Low Farm also have very similar proportions The very high level of struck bronze is indicative of trade and exchange from the latter part of the first century bc The scarcity of Gaulish imports and non-Kentish coinage at Goodnestone suggests that much of the activity here was locally based and that there were no direct links with places further afield A greater number of non-local coins would be expected at a trading centre with wider links such as Canterbury

The state of preservation of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone is generally very poor and ten have not been identified The impression given is that many of these coins had a long circulation life however to add a note of caution late Roman coins of the same type found only a few metres apart at Goodnestone sometimes show a very marked variation in their state of preservation the reason for which is unclear

The adjacent Cherrygarden Lane appears on Ordnance Survey maps as part of a trackway running for several kilometres across the Kentish downland This may well have originated as a main thoroughfare at a very early date A geophysical survey of part of the site revealed the existence of another trackway across the field with probable field boundaries adjoining it The function of the late Iron Age and Roman site at Goodnestone is unclear from the coin evidence alone and is only likely to be clarified by excavation Curteis has discussed a not dissimilar site at Evenley Northamptonshire and suggested either a religious centre andor an occupationaltrading settlement77 A detailed report on Goodnestone incorporating all facets of the site is in preparation78

75 Both types are uninscribed but can be attributed to Dubnovellaunos on stylistic and distributional grounds A Kentish origin for these issues is preferred here particularly in view of the lack of non-Kentish coinage from Goodnestone

76 Van Arsdell 1989 350 (his type VA 1611)77 Curteis 1996 33ndash478 Cross forthcoming

24 DAVID HOLMAN

SITE 8 CANTERBURy (WALLED AREA)

Background

As the Roman civitas capital of Kent and a moderately large town within the province of Britannia Canterbury was an important settlement which has continued to be occupied up to the present day The name by which the settlement was known to the Romans Durovernum Cantiacorum is of Celtic origin translating as lsquothe walled town by the alder swamprsquo79 and perhaps provides an initial clue to a pre-Conquest origin for the site

It has been known since at least the eighteenth century that substantial remains of the Roman town survived below the modern streets During the installation of the sewage system in the 1860s a number of coins were found none was described in detail but some were possibly Iron Age80 In 1871 an Iron Age coin was found in Burgate providing evidence for some type of pre-Conquest occupation in the area However definite remains of late Iron Age settlement were not found until excavations began on bomb-damaged sites in 1946 when work revealed a gully apparently bounding a hut site together with pottery of pre-Conquest date81 Since then a significant number of other sites producing evidence of pre-Roman occupation have been located most notably in the Marlowe car park area situated towards the central part of the Roman walled town where the remains of two circular houses set within a triple-ditched enclosure accompanied by hearths ovens and a well were found82 It now seems that late Iron Age settlement at Canterbury was dispersed across an area of at least 10 ha beside the River Stour fairly certainly focused on a ford but apparently lacking any significant defences The available dating evidence suggests that the later Iron Age settlement began during the mid- to late first century bc although evidence of occupation immediately pre-dating this may still await discovery There is some evidence for early Iron Age settlement in the area

Of particular significance in the context of the later Iron Age settlement is the hillfort of Bigberry Camp located above the Stour valley some 3 km to the west This site represents the only known certain hillfort in eastern Kent Occupation here seems to have begun c 350 bc but the defences do not appear to have been constructed until the second century bc83 The camp appears to have been largely abandoned around 50 bc perhaps as a result of it being stormed by Caesarrsquos troops in 54 bc84 Despite the significant amount of archaeological work at Bigberry no Iron Age coins have been found A few bronze coins have been found at Harbledown 1 km to the north-east Rodwell has previously suggested that the general lack of coinage from the site indicates that it was not of major importance as a permanent settlement85

It is generally accepted that the settlement at Canterbury in some way superseded Bigberry during the mid-first century bc perhaps originating as a river-side trading station of the hillfort86 Blagg has suggested that Canterburyrsquos importance grew after c 15 bc following the establishment of the Rhine frontier87 However there is currently insufficient evidence to show that Canterbury had developed into a major proto-urban centre before the Roman conquest and there appear to have been few changes certainly within the Marlowe area until the Flavian

79 Rivet and Smith 1979 353ndash480 Pilbrow 187181 Frere 1965 682 Blockley et al 199583 Thompson 1983 253ndash9 Blockley and Blockley 1989 245ndash684 Blockley and Blockley 1989 24685 Rodwell 1976 33086 Blockley et al 1995 987 T Blagg in Blockley et al 1995 11

25IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

period88 The Iron Age status of Canterbury has previously been questioned89 and Millett makes the important point that the later Roman development of the site arguably and quite possibly wrongly leads to the perception that the Iron Age settlement was of equal importance90 Nevertheless it is clear from the extent of the known remains the amount of coinage and the quantity of imported fineware pottery including Dressel I amphorae that the settlement here was of some importance The evidence for this as provided by the Iron Age coinage is further considered below

The coinage

By the end of 2003 a total of 163 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) had been recorded from within the area of the later Roman walled town mainly in the area of Longmarket Rose Lane St Margarets Street Watling Street and Beer Cart Lane Significantly fewer Iron Age coins have been found during the recent Whitefriars excavations immediately to the east perhaps indicating the eastern limits of the Iron Age settlement although development pressures meant that only limited excavation of the earliest layers was possible The most important point about these coins is that they have virtually all been found during archaeological excavations Canterbury is the only site considered in this paper which has subsequently been built over in its entirety but it is also the only site with the exception of Richborough that has seen archaeological excavation on a large scale Canterbury is the only major late Iron Age site in east Kent with large numbers of broadly contemporary stratified coin finds This is of considerable importance not only for understanding the origins of the city but also for the study of the circulation deposition and dating of Iron Age coinage in the region as a whole A basic relative chronology for other sites in east Kent can be constructed by considering the numismatic evidence from Canterbury for example the realisation that potin coins predate the struck bronzes which themselves evolved from native-inspired designs into more Romanised types

Archaeological contexts can be questioned if later activity has occurred on the site leading to the inevitable disturbance of earlier features The result is a tendency to date items later than should be the case91 A significant number of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury have been found in post-Conquest deposits and Haselgrove regarded these as a mixture of residual coins disturbed by Roman activity as one would expect in an urban context and coins continuing in use until the mid-first century ad92 Nash considered that the potin coins from the Marlowe excavations were circulating until the later first century ad but appeared to make insufficient concession to residuality93 Some Iron Age coins have been found in medieval and later deposits having clearly arrived there as a result of earlier levels being disturbed During the early Roman period disturbance of the underlying Iron Age deposits would have been much more frequent and therefore more coins would have been displaced It cannot be conclusively shown that the Iron Age coins at Canterbury circulated for any length of time after the Conquest although it is reasonable to suppose that some may have continued to circulate for a few years before being fully supplanted by the new Roman coinage94 The problems caused by residuality have also been discussed by Arthur in relation to the late Republican amphorae from the excavations95

88 Blockley et al 1995 1289 Blockley et al 1995 990 Millett 1996 342ndash391 Haselgrove 1988 103ndash592 Haselgrove 1987 14193 D Nash in Blockley et al 1995 92394 eg Nash 1987 36ndash895 Arthur 1986 240

26 DAVID HOLMAN

Potins account for 479 per cent of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury (fig 10) The near absence of Kentish Primary potins is significant because this implies that they had largely ceased to circulate before Canterbury was established Only two of these coins have been recorded both from post-Conquest contexts and these were previously wrongly identified as a cut-down bronze of Massalia and a Central Gaulish lsquotecircte diaboliquersquo potin96 Given that Kentish Primary potins are the commonest type of Iron Age coin in east Kent it is reasonable to assume that many more would have been found at Canterbury had they still been in circulation in the last 50ndash75 years before the Conquest The possibility remains that the initial nucleus of the settlement may have been situated elsewhere97 but the current evidence supports Haselgroversquos view that early potins had mostly ceased to circulate by the early first century ad98 indeed a date before the turn of the century may now be preferred In France the temple sites at Champlieu and Chilly also provide evidence that potins had virtually disappeared from circulation by the first century ad99

An early cessation date for the circulation of the earlier Flat Linear I potins particularly Allen Classes AndashD can also be surmised from the Canterbury evidence The 21 Flat Linear I potins all belong to Allen Classes jndashL ie late in the series probably dating to around the middle of the first century bc Some of these were deliberately cut100 a feature rarely seen elsewhere although a cut Class L coin has been recorded from the Worth Temple site Elsewhere in east Kent the earlier types form a significant component of the Flat Linear I potins and their absence at Canterbury again suggests that if any settlement existed on the site in the early first century bc it is likely to have been of little importance Haselgrove noted that earlier Flat Linear I types are present at Rochester suggesting that Rochester was a site of some importance at an earlier date than Canterbury101 This may well still hold true for the relative chronology of the earliest phases at Canterbury and Rochester but it now seems likely that Kentish coinage began in the

96 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15397 Blockley et al 1995 898 Haselgrove 1987 15899 Allen 1995 51100 Haselgrove 1988 118101 Haselgrove 1987 151

fig 10a Canterbury (walled area) coins from site ()fig 10b Canterbury (walled area) set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

27IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

east of the county102 and a later commencement date for Canterbury need have no particular relevance in any discussion on Rochester located some 43 km to the north-west

Flat Linear II potins are represented by 50 surviving specimens 307 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (321 per cent of the identified coins) Compared with their general scarcity elsewhere in east Kent with the exception of East Wear Bay Folkestone (see below Site 9) with which some sort of link may have existed this is exceptional a fact well illustrated by fig 10 which shows that the proportion of these coins at Canterbury is more than ten times the mean for the rest of east Kent Recent research on Flat Linear II potins based on hoard evidence and individual findspots is leaning increasingly towards an origin in the region immediately north of London rather than Kent at least for certain classes103 In this case the appearance of so many of these coins at Canterbury cannot be easily explained They passed into the local circulation pool at a much lower rate than other coin types and the scarcity of these coins around Canterbury suggests that their principal purpose may have been related to a specific activity or commodity the nature of which is unknown Alternatively there was a sudden and significant but short-lived increase in activity at Canterbury (and Folkestone) which may again have had a specific cause Either way there must have been a fairly high degree of control to restrict their circulation in this manner A comparison may perhaps be made with the exceptionally high number of Roman coins of the period ad 388ndash402 found at Richborough which is not reflected elsewhere in east Kent and which must represent an event specific to that site in the local record although the contents of several hoards at the site account for a not insignificant proportion of these late coins104 It seems likely that the Flat Linear II potins were used in Canterbury as a low-value coinage as the appearance of so many high-value coins in a non-hoard context would be difficult to explain There may perhaps have been a reliance on these coins to sustain the Canterbury circulation pool for small-scale transactions Haselgrove noted that potins were the commonest issues circulating in Canterbury until Phase 8 (c ad 20)105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role106 although how much of this is a result of residuality cannot be ascertained

Struck bronzes are represented at Canterbury by 69 coins These include ten Gaulish coins 159 per cent of the (identified) struck bronze total There are also five Gaulish potins Overall Gaulish coins at Canterbury are 53 per cent above the east Kent mean Haselgrove commented on possible early links with the Continent107 and Fitzpatrickrsquos suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands108 but coastal sites such as Archers Low Farm and East Wear Bay Folkestone may be regarded as more likely initial points of contact Phase 6 coins are also above the east Kent mean In this respect there is some similarity to Archers Low Farm although the deviation from the mean there both for imports and Phase 6 coins is far greater There are 21 struck bronzes of the Kentish Uninscribed Series and an early lsquoChichester Cockrsquo type The frequency of some of the Kentish Uninscribed types at Canterbury in particular VA 154-3 suggests that minting facilities may have been operating at that time

Bronzes of the dynastic period are represented by 31 coins The nine coins of Dubnovellaunos three of Tasciovanus-Sego and ten of Eppillus are typical for an east Kent site However coins of Cunobelin appear to be significantly under-represented only eight coins of Cunobelin have been recorded from Canterbury and four of these are late types otherwise scarce in east

102 Holman 2000103 Haselgrove 1988 117 G Cottam pers comm104 Reece 1987 84105 Haselgrove 1987 145106 Haselgrove 1993 44107 Haselgrove 1987 143108 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

7IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

in isolation The reason for this is that individual site histograms show the number of coins in each phase at that site but they do not illustrate how this compares with the surrounding region ie a high number of coins in a particular phase at a site may or may not be normal for the region in which the site lies but the site histogram gives no indication of this As a result the interpretation of site histograms can easily lead to misleading conclusions16 An example of the problems which may arise is given by Reece in relation to the Roman coins from the excavations at Richborough17 One method used to calculate the theoretical loss per thousand for coins of the Roman period is dependent on chronologically precise phases18 and cannot be used accurately for Iron Age coins owing to their lack of absolute dating and the uncertain lengths of the phases although estimates can be made Small numbers also lead to heavily distorted results No attempt is made here to impose fixed dates as used by Van Arsdell19

The histograms used here are based on the phases shown in Table 1 The totals for each phase (and metal type) from individual sites have been converted into percentages and the same has been done for east Kent overall to produce mean figures against which individual sites can be compared20 Individual sites in east Kent show wide variation attributable to different types of site and dates of commencement and a lsquonormalrsquo pattern of coin loss such as that suggested by Haselgrove for a number of sites north of the Thames21 cannot be determined The figures used here do not include the inadequately recorded coins listed by Allen22 other unreliable provenances or lsquoGreekrsquo coins

The first histogram for each site shows the number of identified coins of each phase recorded from that site expressed as a percentage of the total identified site assemblage The second histogram sets the coins from individual sites against the rest of east Kent to show how those sites compare with the surrounding region Metal percentage figures are also shown as suggested by Rodwell23 ie potin (cast bronze) AE (struck bronze) AR (silver) and AV (gold) these include those coins mostly struck bronzes which cannot be classified owing to their condition24 Plated coins have been treated as being of the metal they purport to be Large sites can skew coin loss profiles with large numbers of particular types obvious examples in east Kent being the Flat Linear II potins from Canterbury and Folkestone However the large number of coins now recorded provides a more complete picture than was previously the case

The difference between a site and the surrounding region is expressed by directly comparing the individual site percentages for each phase and metal type relative to the percentages for the rest of the region For example comparing Kentish Primary potins at Worth Temple against the rest of east Kent shows that these coins are 30 per cent above the east Kent mean at Worth Similarly Gaulish non-gold imports at Worth are 20 per cent above the east Kent mean The basic site histogram (fig 3a) shows that Kentish Primary potins are far more numerous than Gaulish imports at this site (361 per cent and 93 per cent of the identified coins respectively) but does not show that they have a similar ratio when set against their respective mean figures from the rest of east Kent (278 per cent and 77 per cent respectively) This is illustrated by the lsquocomparisonrsquo histogram (fig 3b) and may be interpreted as indicating that the level of

16 eg Haselgrove 1992 12617 Reece 1987 80ndash818 eg Casey 1980 2819 Van Arsdell 198920 eg Haselgrove 1993 5321 Haselgrove 1993 5422 Allen 196023 Rodwell 1976 31424 The site histograms show two different figures one (n1) for the lsquophasersquo section showing the number of

identified coins and the other (n2) for the lsquometalrsquo section showing all coins including those which cannot be identified but which are certainly Iron Age

8 DAVID HOLMAN

coin deposition at Worth relative to the rest of east Kent was broadly similar in each of these particular coin phases even allowing for the different sample sizes

THE MAjOR SITES OF EAST KENT

SITE 1 ROMANO-CELTIC TEMPLE SITE WORTH

Background

The site lies some 700 m to the south of Worth village and occupies a low chalk promontory projecting into the surrounding marshland which constitutes the southern end of the silted-up Wantsum Channel Only at the north-west is the promontory connected to land above marsh level The site is some 35 km from the present-day coastline

The existence of a Romano-Celtic temple in Castle Field has been known since at least the eighteenth century It was excavated by WS Klein in 192525 Significant evidence of Iron Age occupation was located below the temple although the nature of this earlier occupation remains uncertain Finds included the remains of three bronze votive model shields which has led to the widely accepted view that the Roman temple at Worth was the successor to an earlier Iron Age religious site26 Recent work in the fields and private gardens adjacent to the temple has broadened our general understanding of the site and confirmed that Iron Age occupation deposits extend across much of the site

A substantial enclosure ditch occupies the highest part of the promontory One entrance is known on the south-eastern side The ditch has not as yet been located on the north-east and it may be that the enclosure was open to the wetlands on this side The enclosure has a minimum area of some 65 ha

The limited dating evidence suggests that the temple itself was in use if not constructed during the fourth century ad27 The pottery evidence suggests that the enclosure ditch was largely filled by this time and it thus seems clear that this ditch was not a contemporary boundary to the Roman temple complex Ceramic evidence also suggests that the ditch was probably dug no later than the earlier first century bc That the enclosure ditch represents the outer limits of the inferred Iron Age sanctuary presently seems the most likely interpretation

Considerable quantities of local Middle to Late Iron Age pottery Gallo-Belgic fineware and sherds of Dressel 1B amphorae have been discovered together with much later material Taken in conjunction with the substantial number of Iron Age coins recovered this ceramic material confirms occupation in the general area of the enclosure at this date

The coinage

Despite Haselgrove being unaware of any coins from here28 by the end of 2003 a total of 236 Iron Age coins had been recorded from the Worth Temple site of which 227 have been found by members of two local metal-detecting clubs and 9 during archaeological excavations and fieldwalking There are also four other pre-Conquest coins (Appendix 1) Several hundred Roman coins spanning almost the entire period of the Roman occupation have also been found

Almost exactly half of the Iron Age coins from this site are potins Even allowing for the

25 Klein 192826 eg Harding 1974 10327 Klein 192828 Haselgrove 1987

9IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

chronological problems associated with unstratified material29 the large number of Kentish Primary Series potins mdash 347 per cent of the total site assemblage 361 per cent of the identified coins mdash is significant and suggests an early date for coin use and deposition at Worth reflecting the general pattern of Iron Age coinage in east Kent This is the first peak of coin loss here at 30 per cent above the east Kent mean The distribution of the Kentish Primary potins at Worth shows no particular concentration and there is no evidence of hoarding There is now little doubt that Kentish Primary potins are Kentish in origin30 The 28 Flat Linear I potins seem to split into two groups 17 belonging to Allenrsquos early types AndashD the remainder mostly to the late types jndashL31 The solitary Flat Linear II potin indicates that Worth saw little use of these coins in keeping with the east Kent background pattern There are also several early Gaulish potins of varying types most if not all of which date to the second century bc One rare type apparently a first-generation copy of a medium-size struck bronze of Massalia (Marseilles)32 is probably the immediate prototype of the Kentish Primary potins

Although potins are the most numerous finds at Worth struck bronzes of which there are 103 examples are further above the east Kent mean (8 per cent and 23 per cent respectively) Among the many different British and Gaulish issues present coins of Eppillus and Cunobelin are the most abundant The Kentish uninscribed bronzes include types previously thought not to be Kentish33 The lsquoChichester Cockrsquo bronze is regarded here as a Phase 6 issue but potentially belongs to Phase 5

Some 106 per cent of the identifiable coins including gold issues from Worth are of Gaulish origin These include thirteen struck bronzes and seven potins Gaulish non-gold imports although 20 per cent above the east Kent mean are broadly in line with the average level for major sites in east Kent The Gaulish potins which are probably contemporary with the Kentish

29 eg de jersey 1999 19530 Holman 2000 22031 Allen 197132 eg Haselgrove 1995 11933 An uncatalogued bronze type belonging to the Kentish Uninscribed Series (UB1) previously published as

an uncertain Gaulish type (Allen 1995 83 coin 277) has here been reattributed to Kent on the basis of style and distribution with 16 specimens now known from the county Another type previously regarded as a North Thames issue (VA 1629) has been reattributed to Kent based on its almost exclusively Kentish distribution

fig 3a Worth Temple site coins from site ()fig 3b Worth Temple site set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

10 DAVID HOLMAN

Primary potins may have been deposited at an earlier date than the struck bronzes Most of the Gaulish bronzes from Worth originate from the region generally associated with the Ambiani tribe the nearest major tribal grouping on the Continental mainland A bronze of Massalia two Ebusus (Ibiza) bronzes and a Siculo-Punic bronze may also be noted as potential pre-Conquest imports The evidence for the appearance of these coins in Britain is reviewed below

Only nine silver and five gold coins have so far been recorded from Worth both well below the east Kent mean A silver-plated reverse brockage of a central Gaulish issue of Vepotal with an iron core is clearly a forgery but may have been regarded as suitable for a temple offering34 Three of the gold coins are also plated but with a copper core these include the two British coins both of which are of non-Kentish origin35

As on most sites numbers of coins of Phases 1ndash5 are low because most coinage belonging to these phases is of gold and is more frequently found away from recognised sites However coins of Phase 6 are also much scarcer than normal for an east Kent site Taken in conjunction with the scarcity of Flat Linear II potins this suggests greatly reduced activity in the third quarter of the first century bc intriguingly the same date at which Canterbury appears to have been established (see below Site 8) Following considerable activity in the midlate second to mid-first century bc coin deposition fell sharply before slowly recovering until the early first century ad (Phase 8E) when a significant increase is apparent under Eppillus and Cunobelin Phase 8E shows the highest peak of coin deposition at Worth relative to the surrounding region at 63 per cent above the east Kent mean

The large quantity of Iron Age coinage pottery and other domestic material from the Worth Temple site suggests that it was an extensive and important site from an early date Religion is only one of many activities which could have been carried out here The wide range of coin types and the large number of early potins suggest deposition for whatever reasons from as early as the second century bc The number of coins recorded must be regarded as providing a represent-ative sample of the coinage deposited at the site Worth has currently produced more Iron Age coins than any other site in Kent although the total is far lower than at many Continental sites Some British sites notably Harlow36 also have far higher numbers of coins A number of early Roman coins including Republican denarii issues of Tiberius and Gaius and copies of Claudius I are also known from Worth although these could all have been deposited at a later date

The coins from the Worth Temple site cannot be treated in isolation for on Worth Hill some 12 km to the north metal-detector surveys have produced a further fifteen Iron Age and a number of Roman coins The area is now under orchards Similarly an area of farmland at Ham only 1 km to the west of the Worth Temple site has produced a number of Iron Age coins There has been no archaeological input on either of these presumed sites and their nature is unknown but they may have been satellites of the main focus

A more detailed report and plan of the site (as at the end of December 2000) has been published elsewhere37 and only a summary updated to the end of 2003 has been given here

SITE 2 ARCHERS LOW FARM SANDWICH

Background

This site lies some 25 km to the north of the Worth Temple site and is situated on farmland

34 eg Briggs Haselgrove and King 1992 44ndash535 Sir john Evans held in his collection a gold quarter-stater of British Pa type (VA 147) lsquofound at Worth near

Sandwichrsquo but the exact findspot is unknown36 C Haselgrove pers comm37 Holman 2005a 265ndash75

11IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

immediately to the east of Sandwich It was discovered by members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association a local metal-detecting club in 1985 when a significant number of Iron Age and Roman coins were recovered from an area covering several arable fields In 1987 members of the Dover Archaeological Group undertook a limited amount of trenching in the area to ascertain the context of the coin finds and this was followed by a second more extensive phase of exploratory work in late 1990 and early 1991 A total of 45 hand-dug trenches was cut and from these and the metal-detector surveys it is now clear that an extensive occupation site beginning in the late Iron Age and continuing throughout the Roman period exists here38

In topographical terms a low eastward spur of the natural Thanet Beds clay seems at some stage to have provided the basis for the formation of a spit of alluvial sand Today this spit stands at an elevation of between about 25 and 4 m above OD and projects into the marshland that represents the silted up remnants of the southern end of the Wantsum Channel It seems probable that the site was established on or very close to the late Iron AgeRoman shoreline the sea today lies more than 2 km to the east39

The excavations revealed Belgic and Roman features and deposits at Archers Low Farm over an area measuring a minimum of 370 m by c 200 m covering at least 7 ha A few Roman coins were recovered further along the spit suggesting that occupation may have extended eastwards for at least 500 m Roman deposits have also been noted beneath later development 100 m to the west40 The upper layers contained medieval and post-medieval tile and pottery fragments in addition to earlier material and had clearly been disturbed in earlier periods Intact Belgic and Roman deposits lay below at a considerable depth and reached up to 150 m in thickness These comprised a series of general occupation layers occasionally interleaved with apparently natural sand deposits in which a total of eighteen features were located The lowest levels were frequently waterlogged

The excavations produced a considerable quantity of late Iron Age and Roman pottery A very significant proportion of this material consisted of fabrics in the Belgic grog-tempered tradition In addition there are significant quantities of samian ware including two fragments of a plain bowl provisionally identified as Arretine ware dateable to the AugustanTiberian period and other imported Gallo-Belgic wares including terra rubra terra nigra and white-ware butt beaker all apparently of early to mid-first-century ad date Small quantities of amphorae types Dressel 2-4 Dressel 20 and Cam 185 have been recovered but one type of vessel conspicuous by its absence is Dressel 1B amphora Much later Roman material is also present on the site including Roman building debris suggesting the presence of at least one as yet unlocated structure

The coinage

A total of 56 Iron Age and three Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from Archers Low Farm all found by members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association No pre-Conquest coins were recovered during the excavations Although it is apparent that all these coins come from the topsoil and there is no doubt that they are essentially in situ (ie not derived from elsewhere) the contemporary soil horizons can be as much as 2 m down which raises the question as to how this material arrived on the surface In part the explanation may be connected with the installation of several sets of deep land drains laid across the site at various times41 but this cannot represent the complete answer It is clear from the excavations that some considerable disturbance of

38 Frere 1988 484 Frere 1991 29239 Another Roman occupation site located on a second more extensive outer coastal sand spit has been located

at Dicksonrsquos Corner some 25 km to the south-east No coinage has been found there (Parfitt 2000)40 D Perkins pers comm41 C Burch pers comm

12 DAVID HOLMAN

the site occurred in the medieval and post-medieval periods when the area was presumably cultivated as it is now It seems certain that the uppermost Roman deposits have been damaged if not destroyed in this process thus archaeological horizons containing coins may once have been much closer to the surface This would imply that at least some of the Iron Age coinage recovered was previously contained within later Roman deposits as residual material suggesting much ancient disturbance of the earlier deposits there being no evidence for the continued use of these coins into the later Roman period No archaeological work or metal detecting has been undertaken since the early 1990s and the site has since changed ownership

The coin list for Archers Low Farm (Appendix 1) shows considerable differences compared with the Worth Temple site as does the site histogram (fig 4) Although the assemblage is much smaller it is sufficient to show the considerable diversity of the coinage present Only five potins have been recorded just 89 per cent of the total of Iron Age coins from the site compared with 504 per cent at Worth Temple of which three appear to be Gaulish imports The absence of Flat Linear potins is notable and suggests that any activity before the mid-first century bc was very limited

The most significant element among the struck bronzes is the unusually high proportion of Gaulish coins These show considerable heterogeneity although issues attributed to the Ambiani are not unexpectedly the most frequent In all Gaulish coins account for 15 of the 54 identified Iron Age coins recorded from Archers Low Farm some 278 per cent of the total nearly four

42 Briggs Haselgrove and King 1992 42ndash343 Haselgrove (in SCBI 42 coin no 427) noted that this type may be a Kentish copy of a continental type Six

examples are currently known five from East Kent and one from the temple site at Bois LrsquoAbbeacute Eu Seine-Maritime (Delestreacutee 1984 fig 88)

times the east Kent mean Only Richborough (304 per cent) among the east Kent sites exceeds this (see below Site 3) and few other sites in Britain can compare with Silchester (306 per cent) and Hayling Island (292 per cent) providing the closest comparisons42 There are also two specimens of an uncatalogued type (UB3) which has been listed here as possibly belonging to the Kentish uninscribed Series but which is conceivably Gaulish in which case the imported coinage would rise to 315 per cent of the total43 There are also three Siculo-Punic bronzes dated c 320ndash280 bc

fig 4a Archers Low Farm Sandwich coins from site ()fig 4b Archers Low Farm set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

13IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

The Kentish uninscribed Series is well represented with ten specimens (twelve including the uncatalogued type UB3) recorded of several different types The diversity of the dynastic coins from Archers Low Farm is very evident Of these coins of Dubnovellaunos are the most frequent Phases 6 and 7 and to a lesser extent Phase 8E are all above the east Kent mean There is a tendency towards an early date slowly falling off under Eppillus and Cunobelin possibly indicating greater activity prior to say c ad 15ndash25 rather than after This might also suggest that much of the imported coinage arrived before the turn of the century or at the latest very shortly afterwards However this can only be speculation in the absence of any stratified coins from the site There may be some parallel here with coin loss at Goodnestone (see below Site 7) at least in as much as struck bronze forms most of the assemblage

No genuine gold or silver coins have been recorded from Archers Low Farm There is however a bronze core of a contemporary forgery of a quarter-stater of Cunobelin with the reverse design being laterally reversed Another forgery a bronze core with uncertain designs which was probably originally silver-plated also appears to be of Cunobelin

The high proportion of Gaulish coins and the comparatively large amount of imported pottery together with the low-lying situation of Archers Low Farm all suggest that this site is a strong candidate for having been established as a port in the later Iron Age principally for the purposes of trade and probably before the turn of the millennium The proximity to the Continent and the sheltered nature of the site within the confines of the Wantsum Channel would have made it an ideal location for such a facility There would appear to be some chronological disparity between the coins and the pottery imports many of the coins dating to the mid- to late first century bc but much of the pottery apparently being of Augustan or Tiberian date with further samian imports of slightly later ClaudianNeronian date This can be partly explained if it is accepted that these coins continued to circulate in post-Conquest Gaul for many years before entering Britain at the same time as the pottery but this does not fully explain why the native coins show a similar inclination towards an early date If the site reached a peak in the early first century ad then perhaps more coins of Phase 8E should be present ie if the imports and coins of Phases 6 and 7 were not deposited until Phase 8E then coins of the latter phase although above average for the region might themselves be expected to be more numerous In addition the condition of some of the coins suggests that they had seen comparatively little circulation before their deposition No pottery certainly dating from before the first century bc has been found at the site and the low incidence of potin coins taken in conjunction with the very high levels of struck bronze indicates a date no earlier than perhaps c 30 bc for the start of the main phase of activity in the pre-Conquest period at Archers Low Farm

SITE 3 RICHBOROUGH CASTLE

Background

This internationally important Roman site situated on an island surrounded by drained wetlands that were formerly part of the Wantsum Channel occupies a small hill of Woolwich and Thanet Beds sand rising to a height of almost 20 m above OD44 It stands some 3 km to the north-west of Archers Low Farm and some 35 km to the south of the nearest point of the Isle of Thanet at Ebbsfleet

The Roman site is very well known from the excavation work of 1922ndash1938 but the evidence for its pre-Conquest origins is less than clear Occupation in the early to mid-Iron

44 Hawkes 1968 224

14 DAVID HOLMAN

Age is reasonably well attested45 but the status of the site immediately prior to the Roman invasion remains uncertain Cunliffe stated that there was lsquono trace of Belgic occupationrsquo on the site46 while both Thompson and Pollard have maintained that definite pre-Conquest pottery is generally absent from the excavated material47 A large number of early brooches are known from Richborough but there is no evidence that any of these arrived before ad 43 very few can categorically be shown to be contemporary with the Iron Age coins from the site48 although it should be noted that Iron Age brooches are much rarer finds than coins On the evidence of the coinage Rodwell suggested that there was some kind of pre-Conquest port here49 an idea previously suggested by Allen50 Indeed the fundamental question must be posed as to whether this place would ever have been chosen for a Roman invasion base if it were not already an established port of entry with clear routeways leading into the Kentish hinterland

The coinage

Allen stated that there were between 12 and 14 Iron Age coins from the excavations at Richborough (there was much confusion over the numbering system) and that these included a number of non-local coins including Gaulish imports51 Following reassessment of the site assemblage including non-excavation finds an updated summary list showing a total of 23 coins is provided in Appendix 152

Large numbers of coins have been found at and removed from Richborough over several centuries In the sixteenth century Leland wrote that more Roman coins were found at Richborough than anywhere else in England and that this had been the case for as long as anyone could remember53 Several local notables and antiquaries in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had collections of coins from the site54 It is evident that the total number of Roman coins deposited whether lost or deliberately hoarded at Richborough far exceeds the 56084 recovered during the excavations of 1922ndash193855 and it is probable that Iron Age coins were among those previously removed without record

Looked at in an overall context the 23 Iron Age coins from Richborough show considerable deviation from the general pattern in east Kent (fig 5) There are several unusual features and the group may perhaps be regarded as chronologically typologically and numerically unrepresentative for a number of reasons

a The coin distribution is irregular for an east Kent siteb An unknown number of coins have been removed without record over a long period of time including by recent illegal metal-detector activityc A lack of sanctioned metal detecting because much of the area is scheduledd The collections of local antiquaries could be of a selective nature

45 Bushe-Fox 1949 8ndash11 Cunliffe 1968 116ndash1746 Cunliffe 1968 23247 Thompson 1982 809 Pollard 1988 4448 Bayley and Butcher 200449 Rodwell 1976 22150 Allen 1968 18651 Allen 1968 184ndash852 A further coin from Richborough has been noted by Bean (Bean 2000 178 his type VERC 3-4) However the

Celtic Coin Index record for this coin queries this provenance and it has accordingly been decided not to include it in the site list at Appendix 1

53 Toulmin-Smith 1909 6254 eg Roach-Smith 1850 11955 Reece 1968

15IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

e Large-scale disturbance during the Roman period destroyed earlier layers (although any coins would probably have been re-deposited rather than removed)f There could have been considerable displacement of coins from non-local sources during the earliest Roman phaseg Many coins were probably missed during the excavations (see above)h The 1922ndash1938 excavations concentrated on the area within the Saxon Shore fort but this was not necessarily the centre of any LPRIA settlement A recent magnetometry survey and analysis of aerial photographs have revealed a dense mass of features across the fields around the fort56 many of these are probably of Roman date but the possibility that some are earlier cannot be discounted in the absence of excavation

On current evidence the Iron Age coins from Richborough appear to fall into two groups one ending at the beginning of the first century ad and consisting mainly of types typically found in east Kent and the other being more or less contemporary with the Roman conquest of ad 43 and consisting mainly of types not generally found in east Kent Haselgrove described the Richborough assemblage as superficially impressive but spurious commenting on the large number of Phase 8L coins compared with Canterbury which he suggested was a result of the Roman invasion57 No other site in east Kent bears any similarity to Richborough in Phase 8L when losses are nearly ten times the east Kent mean so it may be inferred that the reason for this is an event specific to Richborough The possibility that at least some of the earlier coins were lost at a later date as suggested by Haselgrove58 cannot be dismissed particularly in view of the lack of securely stratified and undisturbed Iron Age coins from the site the specimens of VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are candidates for this Although there are only three silver coins from Richborough silver is further above the east Kent mean than the bronze but this is entirely down to the appearance of non-local types and is misleading

56 Millett and Wilmott 200457 Haselgrove 1987 15358 Haselgrove 1987 153

fig 5a Richborough coins from site ()fig 5b Richborough set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

16 DAVID HOLMAN

The early group consists mainly of potins Gaulish imports and Kentish uninscribed bronzes together with a slightly later inscribed issue of Sa(m) Both of the coins previously recorded as bronzes of Massalia are actually potins59 The silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are early and both originate from the south coast of England With the exception of these silver coins which may have arrived later this early group fits very well into the general east Kent pattern and seemingly indicates a period of pre-Conquest coin use on the site The low percentage of potin and rather higher percentage of bronze counts against an establishment date much before the middle of the first century bc and it may be that the potins were lost at a later date and that the site was a later first-century bc foundation In favour of this is the fact that Phase 6 coins and continental imports are both above the mean for east Kent indeed Richborough has one of the highest levels of imported pre-Conquest coinage from any site in Britain comprising 304 per cent of the total site assemblage It may be significant that the proportions of Gaulish imports and Phase 6 coinage at Richborough are very similar to Archers Low Farm perhaps hinting at some link between these two sites The imports could have been deposited with the Phase 8L coins during early Roman occupation60 but given the low levels of Phase 7 and 8E coinage the near contemporary Phase 6 coinage seems unlikely to have been deposited as late as Phase 8L

Following an apparent hiatus in coin deposition evidenced by the lack of Eppillus and early Cunobelin issues common finds elsewhere in east Kent a later group becomes evident This consists of late issues of Cunobelin and three coins from the south coast one of Verica and two of the Durotriges Late issues of Cunobelin are greatly outnumbered by early issues elsewhere in east Kent while the three south coast coins suggest a link with the West Sussex Hampshire and Dorset area which is otherwise almost wholly absent in east Kent The southern silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 from the early group may have arrived at Richborough at the same time as the later coins as a result of post-Conquest activity An analogous situation can be seen at a number of sites in France where Gaulish bronzes continued in use into the first century ad61 A second-century bc bronze coin of Cyzicus is on balance more likely to be a Roman than a pre-Roman import in this instance further illustrating the difficulty in determining the date at which such early coins reached Britain62

SITE 4 EBBSFLEET ISLE OF THANET

Background

This site lies some 35 km to the north of Richborough Castle on the southern side of the Isle of Thanet at a mean elevation of 8 m above OD It occupies a low chalk promontory capped with Thanet Beds sand surrounded on three sides by marshlands which were once part of the Wantsum Channel Metal detector surveys by the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association and evaluation trenching by the Trust for Thanet Archaeology in 1990 have demonstrated the presence of extensive prehistoric and Roman occupation in this area63 Settlement in the late Iron Age is represented by a number of features together with significant quantities of pottery and coinage Amongst the pottery much of which is dated to c ad 25ndash5075 is a quantity of

59 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15260 Haselgrove 1987 15361 Haselgrove 1999 16462 There are also three early Mediterranean bronze coins from the foreshore close to the Roman fort at Reculver

at the northern end of the Wantsum Channel one of an uncertain Ptolemy one of Agathocles of Syracuse and one of Mamertini Sicily Reculver has also produced several Iron Age coins including a quarter stater (Sch 7) dating from as early as the third century bc which is potentially a contemporary import

63 Perkins 1992

17IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

imported Gallo-Belgic fineware not all of which is pre-Conquest in date There is also locally produced pottery dating from the mid-first century bc onwards as well as earlier material

The coinage

A total of 43 Iron Age and three other pre-Conquest coins are currently recorded from Ebbsfleet (Appendix 1) A few of these were published by Wren in 199264 but further discoveries have since been made and more information is available concerning the finds

Ebbsfleet has the highest percentage of Kentish Primary potins from any site in east Kent with the exception of lsquoEastryrsquo (see below Site 6) (fig 6) There are also a number of early Flat Linear I potins Overall potins are 23 per cent above the east Kent mean This suggests that the site was established at an early date probably before 100 bc a date also supported by quantities of flint-tempered pottery A relatively high level of coin deposition continued until perhaps the mid-first century bc when like Worth and North Foreland there appears to have been a major reduction in activity A change in local circumstances external factors or the non-relevance of Flat Linear II potins at these three sites are all possible reasons for the lack of Flat Linear II potins but in the absence of evidence other than the coinage itself little can be said without resorting to circular arguments At each of these sites coin deposition subsequently increased again by the early first

64 CR Wren lsquoCoins found at Ebbsfleet during 1990 and 1991rsquo in Perkins 1992 305ndash6

century ad Many of the potins from Ebbsfleet are in very poor condition possibly as a result of intensive agricultural activity in recent years Some may conceivably be Gaulish imports but their condition makes precise classification impossible

Although potins are above the east Kent mean struck bronzes are under-represented There are nine different types among the twelve coins recorded and only one is represented by more than a single specimen The solitary Gaulish struck bronze is unusually not an issue from Belgic Gaul The Siculo-Punic and Ebusus bronzes are potential pre-Conquest imports

There is an above average level of silver at Ebbsfleet a feature also evident at Richborough although very probably for different reasons there being little evidence for early Roman

fig 6a Ebbsfleet coins from site ()fig 6b Ebbsfleet set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

18 DAVID HOLMAN

occupation at Ebbsfleet The ratio of silver to bronze at Ebbsfleet is higher than for any other site in east Kent although this may be down to chance A silver coin regarded as an Atrebatic issue by Bean but not listed by Van Arsdell or Hobbs is now known from several other findspots in Kent and it may be an early Kentish issue although it bears little resemblance to any other Kentish coinage65 It is here regarded as Atrebatic although Atrebatic coinage is generally very rarely found in Kent No gold coins have been recorded from Ebbsfleet other than a contemporary forgery of a Gallo-Belgic E stater with a silver core

The level of Gaulish non-gold imports at Ebbsfleet is low at only 58 per cent of the east Kent mean An even lower level of imports is seen at North Foreland (see below Site 5) and imports are scarce finds in Thanet generally particularly when compared with the adjacent mainland area around Sandwich This is surprising in view of the coastal location and may suggest that the Kentish cross-Channel ports were situated on the mainland rather than on Thanet from where another water crossing would inconveniently be required before accessing any inland routes away from the coastal strip (although Richborough does seem to provide an exception to this) It seems clear that the main circulation area of Gaulish imports in Kent was in the hinterland of the mainland ports

The nature of the site at Ebbsfleet remains unclear but certain parallels with the Worth Temple site suggest that a not dissimilar site may exist here albeit with a significant reduction in coin deposition in Phase 8L which is far less in evidence at Worth The coin distributions at Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet are broadly similar with the exception of a higher level of silver and corresponding lower level of bronze at Ebbsfleet these differences may be more apparent than real when the relative sample sizes are compared Again there is an early peak among the potins and a later peak in Phases 7 and 8E The overall coin distribution at Ebbsfleet appears on current evidence to be marginally earlier than at the Worth Temple site both in its greater incidence of early potins and the higher ratio of Phase 7 coins to those of Phase 8E Other features shared by Ebbsfleet and Worth Temple are that both sites stand on a promontory and both have Roman masonry structures although the lsquomainrsquo Ebbsfleet building apparently of later second-century date is of unknown function66

The total lack of Phase 8L coinage at Ebbsfleet is particularly significant when compared with nearby Richborough and may conceivably represent a temporary abandonment of the site at around the time of the Conquest A marked decline in activity in the early Roman period until a resurgence in the later second century ad based on the comparative scarcity of pottery of early Roman date and the lack of contemporary coinage has previously been noted by Macpherson-Grant67 The implication can be made that the Iron Age coins were mostly if not all deposited before the Conquest or at the latest shortly afterwards

SITE 5 NORTH FORELAND BROADSTAIRS

Background

This site is located on the North Foreland on the Isle of Thanet at the easternmost point of Kent It occupies a ridge of upper Chalk and the eastern slope of the valley immediately to the west where the chalk is sealed by Head Brickearth The highest point of the site is now occupied by the North Foreland lighthouse at an elevation of about 36 m above OD

The existence of a double ditch system apparently enclosing an area of at least 24 ha across the hilltop was revealed by aerial photographs several years ago In 1995 members of the Thanet

65 Bean 2000 237 (his type QsD 3-4)66 Perkins 1992 278ndash8167 N MacPherson-Grant lsquoThe Potteryrsquo in Perkins 1992 301

19IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Archaeological Society investigated the site by cutting several sections across the ditches The outermost of these ditches had cut two earlier ditches one of which appears to have been palisaded68 Ceramic evidence indicated a construction date in the mid- to late Iron Age with infilling of the ditches occurring from the late first century bc onwards The site is currently interpreted as being a possible hillfort although the ditch dimensions are on the small side and the term lsquodefended hilltop enclosurersquo may be more appropriate

The coinage

A total of 81 Iron Age coins (counting a potin hoard as one find) has been recorded from the site at North Foreland the majority of which have been found by metal-detector users (Appendix 1) The two gold coins mentioned by Perkins are of unknown types69 A Gallo-Belgic stater found in the nineteenth century at Stone House immediately to the south of the St Stephenrsquos College site is probably related to the site and has been included here

The site histogram for North Foreland (fig 7) shows that potins are the most common Iron Age coins here with Kentish Primary potins comprising 346 per cent of the total site assemblage the most numerous However the distribution of the potins differs from Worth and Ebbsfleet in that Flat Linear I potins are much further above the east Kent mean than are the Kentish Primary potins This is not a result of the Flat Linear I hoard from the site which is counted as a single

68 Hogwood 1995 475ndash669 Perkins 1993 411ndash13

find rather the hoard complements the other Flat Linear I potins and provides definite evidence of contemporary activity The ratio of Flat Linear I potins to those of the Kentish Primary Series is higher than normal for east Kent and these show an emphasis towards the earlier varieties probably dating from the first quarter of the first century bc

In 1999 an archaeological excavation was undertaken by Canterbury Archaeological Trust and the Trust for Thanet Archaeology prior to the redevelopment of the St Stephenrsquos College site on the ridge-top some 400 m to the south-west of the lighthouse Among the many finds of Iron Age (and earlier) date was a coin hoard containing 62 Flat Linear I potins buried in a

fig 7a North Foreland coins from site ()fig 7b North Foreland set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

20 DAVID HOLMAN

pit Preliminary examination of this hoard indicated that although the coins range from Allenrsquos Class C to Class L approximately half belong to Class G70 The hoard will be reported on elsewhere The excavations also revealed an enclosure provisionally dated on ceramic evidence to the first half of the first century bc ie contemporary with the hoard and a large number of storage pits again of similar date The hoard was located only a short distance from the entrance to the enclosure and its location in the centre of what seems to have been an active site suggests that ritual deposition should be considered as a possible reason for its concealment Given the existence of this hoard the possibility that at least some of the potins recovered as metal-detector finds from the adjacent fields may derive from another now dispersed hoard cannot be discounted although there is no evidence to suggest this

North Foreland shows an apparent reduction in coinage deposition after the mid-first century bc before a later recovery in common with Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet Coins of Phases 6 and 7 are both around half the east Kent mean but a significant increase is evident in Phase 8E which continues into Phase 8L suggesting that the site saw a revival in the early first century ad The 24 struck bronzes recorded slightly below the east Kent mean form a very heterogeneous assemblage with 17 different types represented These are almost exclusively Kentish issues either produced in Kent or elsewhere (apparently) for specific use in Kent71 In view of the coastal location of the site it is interesting to note the appearance of three specimens of the lsquoShiprsquo type (VA 1989) among the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin

The low number of non-local issues is significant given the coastal location Apart from a Gallo-Belgic stater only one import has been recorded contrasting sharply with Archers Low Farm Richborough and Folkestone At only 16 per cent of the east Kent mean this site has the lowest percentage of non-gold imports at any of the major sites discussed in this paper Non-local British issues are also rare here but the coin of Verica is one of only two recorded from Kent

Set against the rest of east Kent potin is the most significant metal type at North Foreland followed by silver marginally ahead of bronze As with some elements of the phasing this is a feature shared with Ebbsfleet and may reflect a common cause North Foreland displays activity at a later date than Ebbsfleet but it is not unreasonable to assume that these sites were in some way related

SITE 6 lsquoEASTRyrsquo

Background

Situated on chalk downland south of Eastry this site has produced an assemblage of 51 pre-Roman coins At the request of the landowner and the finders details of the coins are held in the Celtic Coin Index under the neutral provenance of lsquoNorth-East Kentrsquo72

The coinage

A total of 47 Iron Age and four Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from lsquoEastryrsquo (Appendix 1)

70 C Haselgrove pers comm71 An example of the extremely rare bronze half unit VA 154-11 has been listed here as possibly being an issue

of Eppillus with its designs of a geometric pattern and a capricorn The capricorn on the reverse suggests an Augustan prototype which is probably later in date than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which this type has been attributed by both Mack and Van Arsdell However a clearer specimen is still awaited to prove or disprove this reattribution

72 Not all coins in the Celtic Coin Index with this provenance are necessarily from lsquoEastryrsquo The coins listed are known to be from this site

21IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

lsquoEastryrsquo shows clear signs of early activity with an emphasis on Kentish Primary potins (fig 8) which are 133 per cent above the east Kent mean higher than anywhere else in the region Flat Linear I potins are almost exactly on the mean but again there is an absence of Flat Linear II potins Overall potins are further above the east Kent mean here than at any other major site in the region heavily weighted by the large number of Kentish Primary types Early activity is also suggested by the three Gallo-Belgic staters lsquoEastryrsquo has a higher percentage of gold than most other sites in the region with the exception of Richborough and East Wear Bay Folkestone the latter of which fairly certainly incorporates a large degree of bias among the early finds

Only one silver coin has been recorded and there is also an unusually low number of struck bronzes lower in percentage terms than at any other site discussed in this paper Apart from this the most unusual aspect of the lsquoEastryrsquo coins is the discovery of four Siculo-Punic bronzes all of the same type the largest number of such coins from any site in Kent

The nature of this site is uncertain and the site histogram (fig 8) is irregular The above average representation of coinage in Phases 1ndash5 a very unusual feature for any site is an indicator that this site may have had a particular and possibly specialised function The high ratio of gold to silver and struck bronze may suggest that trade is unlikely to have been a principal function of this site as gold is not likely to have been a common medium of exchange A religious site is a possibility as is a disturbed hoard(s)

A separate report on lsquoEastryrsquo as a possible religiouslsquoritualrsquo site has been published elsewhere73 No further investigation of this site is anticipated

SITE 7 GOODNESTONE

Background

This inland site is located to the south-east of Goodnestone some 11 km south-east of Canterbury It occupies a broad gently sloping ridge of Upper Chalk capped by Head Brickearth at a mean elevation of 55 to 60 m above OD The existence of an Iron Age and Roman site was

73 Holman 2005a 280ndash1

fig 8a lsquoEastryrsquo coins from site ()fig 8b lsquoEastryrsquo set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

22 DAVID HOLMAN

not known until a metal-detector survey of the area carried out from 1994 onwards started to produce substantial quantities of coinage in addition to other artefacts including several pieces of mid-first-century ad Roman military equipment74 In addition to 92 Iron Age coins there are several hundred Roman coins covering the entire period of the Roman occupation Ceramic evidence and quernstones also indicate late Iron Age and Roman occupation

The coinage

The 92 Iron Age coins recorded from Goodnestone are listed in Appendix 1 The majority of these coins are either of Kentish origin or were produced elsewhere apparently for use in Kent the percentage of non-Kentish coinage from the site is lower than usual for east Kent (fig 9)

The low number of potin coins representing just 65 per cent of the site assemblage shows that although the site may have an origin in the first half of the first century bc activity at that time was probably limited The coin evidence suggests that the main phase of activity at Goodnestone started in the final quarter of the first century bc

The majority of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone 902 per cent of the site total are struck bronzes Coins of the Kentish uninscribed Series are the most frequent and are represented by 29 examples including three types not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs One of these a variant of VA 154-1 appears to provide a link between the Kentish uninscribed Series and the early inscribed coinage of Dubnovellaunos The obverse although worn on all three specimens appears to bear the same or a very similar design to the Kentish uninscribed bronze issue VA 154-1 The reverse shows a left-facing version of the horse depicted on the reverse of VA 154-1 and a close parallel for this is seen on the reverse of an inscribed silver coin of Dubnovellaunos (VA 171) It is possible that the same die-cutter was involved with all three types Three of the five known specimens of this variant form of VA 154-1 have come from Goodnestone It is conceivably an early uninscribed issue of Dubnovellaunos but has here been retained within the Kentish uninscribed Series

Coins attributed to Dubnovellaunos are represented by 21 examples at Goodnestone Among

fig 9a Goodnestone coins from site ()fig 9b Goodnestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

74 Bishop 1995 17ndash19

23IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

these are six examples of two uncatalogued but related bronze types known from several other provenances in both Kent and Essex75 A coin of Dubnovellaunos is one of only two silver coins from Goodnestone the other tentatively attributed to Addedomaros by Van Arsdell76 is known from three other provenances in east Kent but a north Thames origin still appears likely on stylistic grounds

Phase 8 coins at Goodnestone are less numerous than those of the Kentish uninscribed Series and Dubnovellaunos Coins of Eppillus are scarcer than expected for east Kent and the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin are represented by only three types all of which have their principal distribution in Kent A quarter-stater of Cunobelin is the only gold coin from Goodnestone and is possibly the latest Iron Age coin from the site although similarly late bronze coins of Amminus are also present Only three Gaulish coins have been recorded just 37 per cent of the site total unusually low for east Kent

The histogram for Goodnestone (fig 9) indicates that the site was established before the end of the first century bc Coins of Phase 6 are the most frequent finds but from then until the Conquest losses steadily decline although remaining above the east Kent mean This decline suggests that the earlier coins at least were largely deposited before the Conquest otherwise it is reasonable to expect that the ratio of Phase 8 coins to those of Phase 6 would be higher Goodnestonersquos nearest parallel among the east Kent sites is Archers Low Farm except for the lack of Gaulish imports which are significantly under-represented at only 45 per cent of the east Kent mean This may be regarded as an expected difference between a probable port site and an inland settlement of uncertain nature seemingly established at around the same time Otherwise both sites have low numbers of potins significant peaks in Phases 6 and 7 and are virtually identical in Phases 8E and 8L The metal types at Goodnestone and Archers Low Farm also have very similar proportions The very high level of struck bronze is indicative of trade and exchange from the latter part of the first century bc The scarcity of Gaulish imports and non-Kentish coinage at Goodnestone suggests that much of the activity here was locally based and that there were no direct links with places further afield A greater number of non-local coins would be expected at a trading centre with wider links such as Canterbury

The state of preservation of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone is generally very poor and ten have not been identified The impression given is that many of these coins had a long circulation life however to add a note of caution late Roman coins of the same type found only a few metres apart at Goodnestone sometimes show a very marked variation in their state of preservation the reason for which is unclear

The adjacent Cherrygarden Lane appears on Ordnance Survey maps as part of a trackway running for several kilometres across the Kentish downland This may well have originated as a main thoroughfare at a very early date A geophysical survey of part of the site revealed the existence of another trackway across the field with probable field boundaries adjoining it The function of the late Iron Age and Roman site at Goodnestone is unclear from the coin evidence alone and is only likely to be clarified by excavation Curteis has discussed a not dissimilar site at Evenley Northamptonshire and suggested either a religious centre andor an occupationaltrading settlement77 A detailed report on Goodnestone incorporating all facets of the site is in preparation78

75 Both types are uninscribed but can be attributed to Dubnovellaunos on stylistic and distributional grounds A Kentish origin for these issues is preferred here particularly in view of the lack of non-Kentish coinage from Goodnestone

76 Van Arsdell 1989 350 (his type VA 1611)77 Curteis 1996 33ndash478 Cross forthcoming

24 DAVID HOLMAN

SITE 8 CANTERBURy (WALLED AREA)

Background

As the Roman civitas capital of Kent and a moderately large town within the province of Britannia Canterbury was an important settlement which has continued to be occupied up to the present day The name by which the settlement was known to the Romans Durovernum Cantiacorum is of Celtic origin translating as lsquothe walled town by the alder swamprsquo79 and perhaps provides an initial clue to a pre-Conquest origin for the site

It has been known since at least the eighteenth century that substantial remains of the Roman town survived below the modern streets During the installation of the sewage system in the 1860s a number of coins were found none was described in detail but some were possibly Iron Age80 In 1871 an Iron Age coin was found in Burgate providing evidence for some type of pre-Conquest occupation in the area However definite remains of late Iron Age settlement were not found until excavations began on bomb-damaged sites in 1946 when work revealed a gully apparently bounding a hut site together with pottery of pre-Conquest date81 Since then a significant number of other sites producing evidence of pre-Roman occupation have been located most notably in the Marlowe car park area situated towards the central part of the Roman walled town where the remains of two circular houses set within a triple-ditched enclosure accompanied by hearths ovens and a well were found82 It now seems that late Iron Age settlement at Canterbury was dispersed across an area of at least 10 ha beside the River Stour fairly certainly focused on a ford but apparently lacking any significant defences The available dating evidence suggests that the later Iron Age settlement began during the mid- to late first century bc although evidence of occupation immediately pre-dating this may still await discovery There is some evidence for early Iron Age settlement in the area

Of particular significance in the context of the later Iron Age settlement is the hillfort of Bigberry Camp located above the Stour valley some 3 km to the west This site represents the only known certain hillfort in eastern Kent Occupation here seems to have begun c 350 bc but the defences do not appear to have been constructed until the second century bc83 The camp appears to have been largely abandoned around 50 bc perhaps as a result of it being stormed by Caesarrsquos troops in 54 bc84 Despite the significant amount of archaeological work at Bigberry no Iron Age coins have been found A few bronze coins have been found at Harbledown 1 km to the north-east Rodwell has previously suggested that the general lack of coinage from the site indicates that it was not of major importance as a permanent settlement85

It is generally accepted that the settlement at Canterbury in some way superseded Bigberry during the mid-first century bc perhaps originating as a river-side trading station of the hillfort86 Blagg has suggested that Canterburyrsquos importance grew after c 15 bc following the establishment of the Rhine frontier87 However there is currently insufficient evidence to show that Canterbury had developed into a major proto-urban centre before the Roman conquest and there appear to have been few changes certainly within the Marlowe area until the Flavian

79 Rivet and Smith 1979 353ndash480 Pilbrow 187181 Frere 1965 682 Blockley et al 199583 Thompson 1983 253ndash9 Blockley and Blockley 1989 245ndash684 Blockley and Blockley 1989 24685 Rodwell 1976 33086 Blockley et al 1995 987 T Blagg in Blockley et al 1995 11

25IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

period88 The Iron Age status of Canterbury has previously been questioned89 and Millett makes the important point that the later Roman development of the site arguably and quite possibly wrongly leads to the perception that the Iron Age settlement was of equal importance90 Nevertheless it is clear from the extent of the known remains the amount of coinage and the quantity of imported fineware pottery including Dressel I amphorae that the settlement here was of some importance The evidence for this as provided by the Iron Age coinage is further considered below

The coinage

By the end of 2003 a total of 163 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) had been recorded from within the area of the later Roman walled town mainly in the area of Longmarket Rose Lane St Margarets Street Watling Street and Beer Cart Lane Significantly fewer Iron Age coins have been found during the recent Whitefriars excavations immediately to the east perhaps indicating the eastern limits of the Iron Age settlement although development pressures meant that only limited excavation of the earliest layers was possible The most important point about these coins is that they have virtually all been found during archaeological excavations Canterbury is the only site considered in this paper which has subsequently been built over in its entirety but it is also the only site with the exception of Richborough that has seen archaeological excavation on a large scale Canterbury is the only major late Iron Age site in east Kent with large numbers of broadly contemporary stratified coin finds This is of considerable importance not only for understanding the origins of the city but also for the study of the circulation deposition and dating of Iron Age coinage in the region as a whole A basic relative chronology for other sites in east Kent can be constructed by considering the numismatic evidence from Canterbury for example the realisation that potin coins predate the struck bronzes which themselves evolved from native-inspired designs into more Romanised types

Archaeological contexts can be questioned if later activity has occurred on the site leading to the inevitable disturbance of earlier features The result is a tendency to date items later than should be the case91 A significant number of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury have been found in post-Conquest deposits and Haselgrove regarded these as a mixture of residual coins disturbed by Roman activity as one would expect in an urban context and coins continuing in use until the mid-first century ad92 Nash considered that the potin coins from the Marlowe excavations were circulating until the later first century ad but appeared to make insufficient concession to residuality93 Some Iron Age coins have been found in medieval and later deposits having clearly arrived there as a result of earlier levels being disturbed During the early Roman period disturbance of the underlying Iron Age deposits would have been much more frequent and therefore more coins would have been displaced It cannot be conclusively shown that the Iron Age coins at Canterbury circulated for any length of time after the Conquest although it is reasonable to suppose that some may have continued to circulate for a few years before being fully supplanted by the new Roman coinage94 The problems caused by residuality have also been discussed by Arthur in relation to the late Republican amphorae from the excavations95

88 Blockley et al 1995 1289 Blockley et al 1995 990 Millett 1996 342ndash391 Haselgrove 1988 103ndash592 Haselgrove 1987 14193 D Nash in Blockley et al 1995 92394 eg Nash 1987 36ndash895 Arthur 1986 240

26 DAVID HOLMAN

Potins account for 479 per cent of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury (fig 10) The near absence of Kentish Primary potins is significant because this implies that they had largely ceased to circulate before Canterbury was established Only two of these coins have been recorded both from post-Conquest contexts and these were previously wrongly identified as a cut-down bronze of Massalia and a Central Gaulish lsquotecircte diaboliquersquo potin96 Given that Kentish Primary potins are the commonest type of Iron Age coin in east Kent it is reasonable to assume that many more would have been found at Canterbury had they still been in circulation in the last 50ndash75 years before the Conquest The possibility remains that the initial nucleus of the settlement may have been situated elsewhere97 but the current evidence supports Haselgroversquos view that early potins had mostly ceased to circulate by the early first century ad98 indeed a date before the turn of the century may now be preferred In France the temple sites at Champlieu and Chilly also provide evidence that potins had virtually disappeared from circulation by the first century ad99

An early cessation date for the circulation of the earlier Flat Linear I potins particularly Allen Classes AndashD can also be surmised from the Canterbury evidence The 21 Flat Linear I potins all belong to Allen Classes jndashL ie late in the series probably dating to around the middle of the first century bc Some of these were deliberately cut100 a feature rarely seen elsewhere although a cut Class L coin has been recorded from the Worth Temple site Elsewhere in east Kent the earlier types form a significant component of the Flat Linear I potins and their absence at Canterbury again suggests that if any settlement existed on the site in the early first century bc it is likely to have been of little importance Haselgrove noted that earlier Flat Linear I types are present at Rochester suggesting that Rochester was a site of some importance at an earlier date than Canterbury101 This may well still hold true for the relative chronology of the earliest phases at Canterbury and Rochester but it now seems likely that Kentish coinage began in the

96 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15397 Blockley et al 1995 898 Haselgrove 1987 15899 Allen 1995 51100 Haselgrove 1988 118101 Haselgrove 1987 151

fig 10a Canterbury (walled area) coins from site ()fig 10b Canterbury (walled area) set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

27IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

east of the county102 and a later commencement date for Canterbury need have no particular relevance in any discussion on Rochester located some 43 km to the north-west

Flat Linear II potins are represented by 50 surviving specimens 307 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (321 per cent of the identified coins) Compared with their general scarcity elsewhere in east Kent with the exception of East Wear Bay Folkestone (see below Site 9) with which some sort of link may have existed this is exceptional a fact well illustrated by fig 10 which shows that the proportion of these coins at Canterbury is more than ten times the mean for the rest of east Kent Recent research on Flat Linear II potins based on hoard evidence and individual findspots is leaning increasingly towards an origin in the region immediately north of London rather than Kent at least for certain classes103 In this case the appearance of so many of these coins at Canterbury cannot be easily explained They passed into the local circulation pool at a much lower rate than other coin types and the scarcity of these coins around Canterbury suggests that their principal purpose may have been related to a specific activity or commodity the nature of which is unknown Alternatively there was a sudden and significant but short-lived increase in activity at Canterbury (and Folkestone) which may again have had a specific cause Either way there must have been a fairly high degree of control to restrict their circulation in this manner A comparison may perhaps be made with the exceptionally high number of Roman coins of the period ad 388ndash402 found at Richborough which is not reflected elsewhere in east Kent and which must represent an event specific to that site in the local record although the contents of several hoards at the site account for a not insignificant proportion of these late coins104 It seems likely that the Flat Linear II potins were used in Canterbury as a low-value coinage as the appearance of so many high-value coins in a non-hoard context would be difficult to explain There may perhaps have been a reliance on these coins to sustain the Canterbury circulation pool for small-scale transactions Haselgrove noted that potins were the commonest issues circulating in Canterbury until Phase 8 (c ad 20)105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role106 although how much of this is a result of residuality cannot be ascertained

Struck bronzes are represented at Canterbury by 69 coins These include ten Gaulish coins 159 per cent of the (identified) struck bronze total There are also five Gaulish potins Overall Gaulish coins at Canterbury are 53 per cent above the east Kent mean Haselgrove commented on possible early links with the Continent107 and Fitzpatrickrsquos suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands108 but coastal sites such as Archers Low Farm and East Wear Bay Folkestone may be regarded as more likely initial points of contact Phase 6 coins are also above the east Kent mean In this respect there is some similarity to Archers Low Farm although the deviation from the mean there both for imports and Phase 6 coins is far greater There are 21 struck bronzes of the Kentish Uninscribed Series and an early lsquoChichester Cockrsquo type The frequency of some of the Kentish Uninscribed types at Canterbury in particular VA 154-3 suggests that minting facilities may have been operating at that time

Bronzes of the dynastic period are represented by 31 coins The nine coins of Dubnovellaunos three of Tasciovanus-Sego and ten of Eppillus are typical for an east Kent site However coins of Cunobelin appear to be significantly under-represented only eight coins of Cunobelin have been recorded from Canterbury and four of these are late types otherwise scarce in east

102 Holman 2000103 Haselgrove 1988 117 G Cottam pers comm104 Reece 1987 84105 Haselgrove 1987 145106 Haselgrove 1993 44107 Haselgrove 1987 143108 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

8 DAVID HOLMAN

coin deposition at Worth relative to the rest of east Kent was broadly similar in each of these particular coin phases even allowing for the different sample sizes

THE MAjOR SITES OF EAST KENT

SITE 1 ROMANO-CELTIC TEMPLE SITE WORTH

Background

The site lies some 700 m to the south of Worth village and occupies a low chalk promontory projecting into the surrounding marshland which constitutes the southern end of the silted-up Wantsum Channel Only at the north-west is the promontory connected to land above marsh level The site is some 35 km from the present-day coastline

The existence of a Romano-Celtic temple in Castle Field has been known since at least the eighteenth century It was excavated by WS Klein in 192525 Significant evidence of Iron Age occupation was located below the temple although the nature of this earlier occupation remains uncertain Finds included the remains of three bronze votive model shields which has led to the widely accepted view that the Roman temple at Worth was the successor to an earlier Iron Age religious site26 Recent work in the fields and private gardens adjacent to the temple has broadened our general understanding of the site and confirmed that Iron Age occupation deposits extend across much of the site

A substantial enclosure ditch occupies the highest part of the promontory One entrance is known on the south-eastern side The ditch has not as yet been located on the north-east and it may be that the enclosure was open to the wetlands on this side The enclosure has a minimum area of some 65 ha

The limited dating evidence suggests that the temple itself was in use if not constructed during the fourth century ad27 The pottery evidence suggests that the enclosure ditch was largely filled by this time and it thus seems clear that this ditch was not a contemporary boundary to the Roman temple complex Ceramic evidence also suggests that the ditch was probably dug no later than the earlier first century bc That the enclosure ditch represents the outer limits of the inferred Iron Age sanctuary presently seems the most likely interpretation

Considerable quantities of local Middle to Late Iron Age pottery Gallo-Belgic fineware and sherds of Dressel 1B amphorae have been discovered together with much later material Taken in conjunction with the substantial number of Iron Age coins recovered this ceramic material confirms occupation in the general area of the enclosure at this date

The coinage

Despite Haselgrove being unaware of any coins from here28 by the end of 2003 a total of 236 Iron Age coins had been recorded from the Worth Temple site of which 227 have been found by members of two local metal-detecting clubs and 9 during archaeological excavations and fieldwalking There are also four other pre-Conquest coins (Appendix 1) Several hundred Roman coins spanning almost the entire period of the Roman occupation have also been found

Almost exactly half of the Iron Age coins from this site are potins Even allowing for the

25 Klein 192826 eg Harding 1974 10327 Klein 192828 Haselgrove 1987

9IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

chronological problems associated with unstratified material29 the large number of Kentish Primary Series potins mdash 347 per cent of the total site assemblage 361 per cent of the identified coins mdash is significant and suggests an early date for coin use and deposition at Worth reflecting the general pattern of Iron Age coinage in east Kent This is the first peak of coin loss here at 30 per cent above the east Kent mean The distribution of the Kentish Primary potins at Worth shows no particular concentration and there is no evidence of hoarding There is now little doubt that Kentish Primary potins are Kentish in origin30 The 28 Flat Linear I potins seem to split into two groups 17 belonging to Allenrsquos early types AndashD the remainder mostly to the late types jndashL31 The solitary Flat Linear II potin indicates that Worth saw little use of these coins in keeping with the east Kent background pattern There are also several early Gaulish potins of varying types most if not all of which date to the second century bc One rare type apparently a first-generation copy of a medium-size struck bronze of Massalia (Marseilles)32 is probably the immediate prototype of the Kentish Primary potins

Although potins are the most numerous finds at Worth struck bronzes of which there are 103 examples are further above the east Kent mean (8 per cent and 23 per cent respectively) Among the many different British and Gaulish issues present coins of Eppillus and Cunobelin are the most abundant The Kentish uninscribed bronzes include types previously thought not to be Kentish33 The lsquoChichester Cockrsquo bronze is regarded here as a Phase 6 issue but potentially belongs to Phase 5

Some 106 per cent of the identifiable coins including gold issues from Worth are of Gaulish origin These include thirteen struck bronzes and seven potins Gaulish non-gold imports although 20 per cent above the east Kent mean are broadly in line with the average level for major sites in east Kent The Gaulish potins which are probably contemporary with the Kentish

29 eg de jersey 1999 19530 Holman 2000 22031 Allen 197132 eg Haselgrove 1995 11933 An uncatalogued bronze type belonging to the Kentish Uninscribed Series (UB1) previously published as

an uncertain Gaulish type (Allen 1995 83 coin 277) has here been reattributed to Kent on the basis of style and distribution with 16 specimens now known from the county Another type previously regarded as a North Thames issue (VA 1629) has been reattributed to Kent based on its almost exclusively Kentish distribution

fig 3a Worth Temple site coins from site ()fig 3b Worth Temple site set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

10 DAVID HOLMAN

Primary potins may have been deposited at an earlier date than the struck bronzes Most of the Gaulish bronzes from Worth originate from the region generally associated with the Ambiani tribe the nearest major tribal grouping on the Continental mainland A bronze of Massalia two Ebusus (Ibiza) bronzes and a Siculo-Punic bronze may also be noted as potential pre-Conquest imports The evidence for the appearance of these coins in Britain is reviewed below

Only nine silver and five gold coins have so far been recorded from Worth both well below the east Kent mean A silver-plated reverse brockage of a central Gaulish issue of Vepotal with an iron core is clearly a forgery but may have been regarded as suitable for a temple offering34 Three of the gold coins are also plated but with a copper core these include the two British coins both of which are of non-Kentish origin35

As on most sites numbers of coins of Phases 1ndash5 are low because most coinage belonging to these phases is of gold and is more frequently found away from recognised sites However coins of Phase 6 are also much scarcer than normal for an east Kent site Taken in conjunction with the scarcity of Flat Linear II potins this suggests greatly reduced activity in the third quarter of the first century bc intriguingly the same date at which Canterbury appears to have been established (see below Site 8) Following considerable activity in the midlate second to mid-first century bc coin deposition fell sharply before slowly recovering until the early first century ad (Phase 8E) when a significant increase is apparent under Eppillus and Cunobelin Phase 8E shows the highest peak of coin deposition at Worth relative to the surrounding region at 63 per cent above the east Kent mean

The large quantity of Iron Age coinage pottery and other domestic material from the Worth Temple site suggests that it was an extensive and important site from an early date Religion is only one of many activities which could have been carried out here The wide range of coin types and the large number of early potins suggest deposition for whatever reasons from as early as the second century bc The number of coins recorded must be regarded as providing a represent-ative sample of the coinage deposited at the site Worth has currently produced more Iron Age coins than any other site in Kent although the total is far lower than at many Continental sites Some British sites notably Harlow36 also have far higher numbers of coins A number of early Roman coins including Republican denarii issues of Tiberius and Gaius and copies of Claudius I are also known from Worth although these could all have been deposited at a later date

The coins from the Worth Temple site cannot be treated in isolation for on Worth Hill some 12 km to the north metal-detector surveys have produced a further fifteen Iron Age and a number of Roman coins The area is now under orchards Similarly an area of farmland at Ham only 1 km to the west of the Worth Temple site has produced a number of Iron Age coins There has been no archaeological input on either of these presumed sites and their nature is unknown but they may have been satellites of the main focus

A more detailed report and plan of the site (as at the end of December 2000) has been published elsewhere37 and only a summary updated to the end of 2003 has been given here

SITE 2 ARCHERS LOW FARM SANDWICH

Background

This site lies some 25 km to the north of the Worth Temple site and is situated on farmland

34 eg Briggs Haselgrove and King 1992 44ndash535 Sir john Evans held in his collection a gold quarter-stater of British Pa type (VA 147) lsquofound at Worth near

Sandwichrsquo but the exact findspot is unknown36 C Haselgrove pers comm37 Holman 2005a 265ndash75

11IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

immediately to the east of Sandwich It was discovered by members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association a local metal-detecting club in 1985 when a significant number of Iron Age and Roman coins were recovered from an area covering several arable fields In 1987 members of the Dover Archaeological Group undertook a limited amount of trenching in the area to ascertain the context of the coin finds and this was followed by a second more extensive phase of exploratory work in late 1990 and early 1991 A total of 45 hand-dug trenches was cut and from these and the metal-detector surveys it is now clear that an extensive occupation site beginning in the late Iron Age and continuing throughout the Roman period exists here38

In topographical terms a low eastward spur of the natural Thanet Beds clay seems at some stage to have provided the basis for the formation of a spit of alluvial sand Today this spit stands at an elevation of between about 25 and 4 m above OD and projects into the marshland that represents the silted up remnants of the southern end of the Wantsum Channel It seems probable that the site was established on or very close to the late Iron AgeRoman shoreline the sea today lies more than 2 km to the east39

The excavations revealed Belgic and Roman features and deposits at Archers Low Farm over an area measuring a minimum of 370 m by c 200 m covering at least 7 ha A few Roman coins were recovered further along the spit suggesting that occupation may have extended eastwards for at least 500 m Roman deposits have also been noted beneath later development 100 m to the west40 The upper layers contained medieval and post-medieval tile and pottery fragments in addition to earlier material and had clearly been disturbed in earlier periods Intact Belgic and Roman deposits lay below at a considerable depth and reached up to 150 m in thickness These comprised a series of general occupation layers occasionally interleaved with apparently natural sand deposits in which a total of eighteen features were located The lowest levels were frequently waterlogged

The excavations produced a considerable quantity of late Iron Age and Roman pottery A very significant proportion of this material consisted of fabrics in the Belgic grog-tempered tradition In addition there are significant quantities of samian ware including two fragments of a plain bowl provisionally identified as Arretine ware dateable to the AugustanTiberian period and other imported Gallo-Belgic wares including terra rubra terra nigra and white-ware butt beaker all apparently of early to mid-first-century ad date Small quantities of amphorae types Dressel 2-4 Dressel 20 and Cam 185 have been recovered but one type of vessel conspicuous by its absence is Dressel 1B amphora Much later Roman material is also present on the site including Roman building debris suggesting the presence of at least one as yet unlocated structure

The coinage

A total of 56 Iron Age and three Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from Archers Low Farm all found by members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association No pre-Conquest coins were recovered during the excavations Although it is apparent that all these coins come from the topsoil and there is no doubt that they are essentially in situ (ie not derived from elsewhere) the contemporary soil horizons can be as much as 2 m down which raises the question as to how this material arrived on the surface In part the explanation may be connected with the installation of several sets of deep land drains laid across the site at various times41 but this cannot represent the complete answer It is clear from the excavations that some considerable disturbance of

38 Frere 1988 484 Frere 1991 29239 Another Roman occupation site located on a second more extensive outer coastal sand spit has been located

at Dicksonrsquos Corner some 25 km to the south-east No coinage has been found there (Parfitt 2000)40 D Perkins pers comm41 C Burch pers comm

12 DAVID HOLMAN

the site occurred in the medieval and post-medieval periods when the area was presumably cultivated as it is now It seems certain that the uppermost Roman deposits have been damaged if not destroyed in this process thus archaeological horizons containing coins may once have been much closer to the surface This would imply that at least some of the Iron Age coinage recovered was previously contained within later Roman deposits as residual material suggesting much ancient disturbance of the earlier deposits there being no evidence for the continued use of these coins into the later Roman period No archaeological work or metal detecting has been undertaken since the early 1990s and the site has since changed ownership

The coin list for Archers Low Farm (Appendix 1) shows considerable differences compared with the Worth Temple site as does the site histogram (fig 4) Although the assemblage is much smaller it is sufficient to show the considerable diversity of the coinage present Only five potins have been recorded just 89 per cent of the total of Iron Age coins from the site compared with 504 per cent at Worth Temple of which three appear to be Gaulish imports The absence of Flat Linear potins is notable and suggests that any activity before the mid-first century bc was very limited

The most significant element among the struck bronzes is the unusually high proportion of Gaulish coins These show considerable heterogeneity although issues attributed to the Ambiani are not unexpectedly the most frequent In all Gaulish coins account for 15 of the 54 identified Iron Age coins recorded from Archers Low Farm some 278 per cent of the total nearly four

42 Briggs Haselgrove and King 1992 42ndash343 Haselgrove (in SCBI 42 coin no 427) noted that this type may be a Kentish copy of a continental type Six

examples are currently known five from East Kent and one from the temple site at Bois LrsquoAbbeacute Eu Seine-Maritime (Delestreacutee 1984 fig 88)

times the east Kent mean Only Richborough (304 per cent) among the east Kent sites exceeds this (see below Site 3) and few other sites in Britain can compare with Silchester (306 per cent) and Hayling Island (292 per cent) providing the closest comparisons42 There are also two specimens of an uncatalogued type (UB3) which has been listed here as possibly belonging to the Kentish uninscribed Series but which is conceivably Gaulish in which case the imported coinage would rise to 315 per cent of the total43 There are also three Siculo-Punic bronzes dated c 320ndash280 bc

fig 4a Archers Low Farm Sandwich coins from site ()fig 4b Archers Low Farm set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

13IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

The Kentish uninscribed Series is well represented with ten specimens (twelve including the uncatalogued type UB3) recorded of several different types The diversity of the dynastic coins from Archers Low Farm is very evident Of these coins of Dubnovellaunos are the most frequent Phases 6 and 7 and to a lesser extent Phase 8E are all above the east Kent mean There is a tendency towards an early date slowly falling off under Eppillus and Cunobelin possibly indicating greater activity prior to say c ad 15ndash25 rather than after This might also suggest that much of the imported coinage arrived before the turn of the century or at the latest very shortly afterwards However this can only be speculation in the absence of any stratified coins from the site There may be some parallel here with coin loss at Goodnestone (see below Site 7) at least in as much as struck bronze forms most of the assemblage

No genuine gold or silver coins have been recorded from Archers Low Farm There is however a bronze core of a contemporary forgery of a quarter-stater of Cunobelin with the reverse design being laterally reversed Another forgery a bronze core with uncertain designs which was probably originally silver-plated also appears to be of Cunobelin

The high proportion of Gaulish coins and the comparatively large amount of imported pottery together with the low-lying situation of Archers Low Farm all suggest that this site is a strong candidate for having been established as a port in the later Iron Age principally for the purposes of trade and probably before the turn of the millennium The proximity to the Continent and the sheltered nature of the site within the confines of the Wantsum Channel would have made it an ideal location for such a facility There would appear to be some chronological disparity between the coins and the pottery imports many of the coins dating to the mid- to late first century bc but much of the pottery apparently being of Augustan or Tiberian date with further samian imports of slightly later ClaudianNeronian date This can be partly explained if it is accepted that these coins continued to circulate in post-Conquest Gaul for many years before entering Britain at the same time as the pottery but this does not fully explain why the native coins show a similar inclination towards an early date If the site reached a peak in the early first century ad then perhaps more coins of Phase 8E should be present ie if the imports and coins of Phases 6 and 7 were not deposited until Phase 8E then coins of the latter phase although above average for the region might themselves be expected to be more numerous In addition the condition of some of the coins suggests that they had seen comparatively little circulation before their deposition No pottery certainly dating from before the first century bc has been found at the site and the low incidence of potin coins taken in conjunction with the very high levels of struck bronze indicates a date no earlier than perhaps c 30 bc for the start of the main phase of activity in the pre-Conquest period at Archers Low Farm

SITE 3 RICHBOROUGH CASTLE

Background

This internationally important Roman site situated on an island surrounded by drained wetlands that were formerly part of the Wantsum Channel occupies a small hill of Woolwich and Thanet Beds sand rising to a height of almost 20 m above OD44 It stands some 3 km to the north-west of Archers Low Farm and some 35 km to the south of the nearest point of the Isle of Thanet at Ebbsfleet

The Roman site is very well known from the excavation work of 1922ndash1938 but the evidence for its pre-Conquest origins is less than clear Occupation in the early to mid-Iron

44 Hawkes 1968 224

14 DAVID HOLMAN

Age is reasonably well attested45 but the status of the site immediately prior to the Roman invasion remains uncertain Cunliffe stated that there was lsquono trace of Belgic occupationrsquo on the site46 while both Thompson and Pollard have maintained that definite pre-Conquest pottery is generally absent from the excavated material47 A large number of early brooches are known from Richborough but there is no evidence that any of these arrived before ad 43 very few can categorically be shown to be contemporary with the Iron Age coins from the site48 although it should be noted that Iron Age brooches are much rarer finds than coins On the evidence of the coinage Rodwell suggested that there was some kind of pre-Conquest port here49 an idea previously suggested by Allen50 Indeed the fundamental question must be posed as to whether this place would ever have been chosen for a Roman invasion base if it were not already an established port of entry with clear routeways leading into the Kentish hinterland

The coinage

Allen stated that there were between 12 and 14 Iron Age coins from the excavations at Richborough (there was much confusion over the numbering system) and that these included a number of non-local coins including Gaulish imports51 Following reassessment of the site assemblage including non-excavation finds an updated summary list showing a total of 23 coins is provided in Appendix 152

Large numbers of coins have been found at and removed from Richborough over several centuries In the sixteenth century Leland wrote that more Roman coins were found at Richborough than anywhere else in England and that this had been the case for as long as anyone could remember53 Several local notables and antiquaries in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had collections of coins from the site54 It is evident that the total number of Roman coins deposited whether lost or deliberately hoarded at Richborough far exceeds the 56084 recovered during the excavations of 1922ndash193855 and it is probable that Iron Age coins were among those previously removed without record

Looked at in an overall context the 23 Iron Age coins from Richborough show considerable deviation from the general pattern in east Kent (fig 5) There are several unusual features and the group may perhaps be regarded as chronologically typologically and numerically unrepresentative for a number of reasons

a The coin distribution is irregular for an east Kent siteb An unknown number of coins have been removed without record over a long period of time including by recent illegal metal-detector activityc A lack of sanctioned metal detecting because much of the area is scheduledd The collections of local antiquaries could be of a selective nature

45 Bushe-Fox 1949 8ndash11 Cunliffe 1968 116ndash1746 Cunliffe 1968 23247 Thompson 1982 809 Pollard 1988 4448 Bayley and Butcher 200449 Rodwell 1976 22150 Allen 1968 18651 Allen 1968 184ndash852 A further coin from Richborough has been noted by Bean (Bean 2000 178 his type VERC 3-4) However the

Celtic Coin Index record for this coin queries this provenance and it has accordingly been decided not to include it in the site list at Appendix 1

53 Toulmin-Smith 1909 6254 eg Roach-Smith 1850 11955 Reece 1968

15IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

e Large-scale disturbance during the Roman period destroyed earlier layers (although any coins would probably have been re-deposited rather than removed)f There could have been considerable displacement of coins from non-local sources during the earliest Roman phaseg Many coins were probably missed during the excavations (see above)h The 1922ndash1938 excavations concentrated on the area within the Saxon Shore fort but this was not necessarily the centre of any LPRIA settlement A recent magnetometry survey and analysis of aerial photographs have revealed a dense mass of features across the fields around the fort56 many of these are probably of Roman date but the possibility that some are earlier cannot be discounted in the absence of excavation

On current evidence the Iron Age coins from Richborough appear to fall into two groups one ending at the beginning of the first century ad and consisting mainly of types typically found in east Kent and the other being more or less contemporary with the Roman conquest of ad 43 and consisting mainly of types not generally found in east Kent Haselgrove described the Richborough assemblage as superficially impressive but spurious commenting on the large number of Phase 8L coins compared with Canterbury which he suggested was a result of the Roman invasion57 No other site in east Kent bears any similarity to Richborough in Phase 8L when losses are nearly ten times the east Kent mean so it may be inferred that the reason for this is an event specific to Richborough The possibility that at least some of the earlier coins were lost at a later date as suggested by Haselgrove58 cannot be dismissed particularly in view of the lack of securely stratified and undisturbed Iron Age coins from the site the specimens of VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are candidates for this Although there are only three silver coins from Richborough silver is further above the east Kent mean than the bronze but this is entirely down to the appearance of non-local types and is misleading

56 Millett and Wilmott 200457 Haselgrove 1987 15358 Haselgrove 1987 153

fig 5a Richborough coins from site ()fig 5b Richborough set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

16 DAVID HOLMAN

The early group consists mainly of potins Gaulish imports and Kentish uninscribed bronzes together with a slightly later inscribed issue of Sa(m) Both of the coins previously recorded as bronzes of Massalia are actually potins59 The silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are early and both originate from the south coast of England With the exception of these silver coins which may have arrived later this early group fits very well into the general east Kent pattern and seemingly indicates a period of pre-Conquest coin use on the site The low percentage of potin and rather higher percentage of bronze counts against an establishment date much before the middle of the first century bc and it may be that the potins were lost at a later date and that the site was a later first-century bc foundation In favour of this is the fact that Phase 6 coins and continental imports are both above the mean for east Kent indeed Richborough has one of the highest levels of imported pre-Conquest coinage from any site in Britain comprising 304 per cent of the total site assemblage It may be significant that the proportions of Gaulish imports and Phase 6 coinage at Richborough are very similar to Archers Low Farm perhaps hinting at some link between these two sites The imports could have been deposited with the Phase 8L coins during early Roman occupation60 but given the low levels of Phase 7 and 8E coinage the near contemporary Phase 6 coinage seems unlikely to have been deposited as late as Phase 8L

Following an apparent hiatus in coin deposition evidenced by the lack of Eppillus and early Cunobelin issues common finds elsewhere in east Kent a later group becomes evident This consists of late issues of Cunobelin and three coins from the south coast one of Verica and two of the Durotriges Late issues of Cunobelin are greatly outnumbered by early issues elsewhere in east Kent while the three south coast coins suggest a link with the West Sussex Hampshire and Dorset area which is otherwise almost wholly absent in east Kent The southern silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 from the early group may have arrived at Richborough at the same time as the later coins as a result of post-Conquest activity An analogous situation can be seen at a number of sites in France where Gaulish bronzes continued in use into the first century ad61 A second-century bc bronze coin of Cyzicus is on balance more likely to be a Roman than a pre-Roman import in this instance further illustrating the difficulty in determining the date at which such early coins reached Britain62

SITE 4 EBBSFLEET ISLE OF THANET

Background

This site lies some 35 km to the north of Richborough Castle on the southern side of the Isle of Thanet at a mean elevation of 8 m above OD It occupies a low chalk promontory capped with Thanet Beds sand surrounded on three sides by marshlands which were once part of the Wantsum Channel Metal detector surveys by the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association and evaluation trenching by the Trust for Thanet Archaeology in 1990 have demonstrated the presence of extensive prehistoric and Roman occupation in this area63 Settlement in the late Iron Age is represented by a number of features together with significant quantities of pottery and coinage Amongst the pottery much of which is dated to c ad 25ndash5075 is a quantity of

59 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15260 Haselgrove 1987 15361 Haselgrove 1999 16462 There are also three early Mediterranean bronze coins from the foreshore close to the Roman fort at Reculver

at the northern end of the Wantsum Channel one of an uncertain Ptolemy one of Agathocles of Syracuse and one of Mamertini Sicily Reculver has also produced several Iron Age coins including a quarter stater (Sch 7) dating from as early as the third century bc which is potentially a contemporary import

63 Perkins 1992

17IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

imported Gallo-Belgic fineware not all of which is pre-Conquest in date There is also locally produced pottery dating from the mid-first century bc onwards as well as earlier material

The coinage

A total of 43 Iron Age and three other pre-Conquest coins are currently recorded from Ebbsfleet (Appendix 1) A few of these were published by Wren in 199264 but further discoveries have since been made and more information is available concerning the finds

Ebbsfleet has the highest percentage of Kentish Primary potins from any site in east Kent with the exception of lsquoEastryrsquo (see below Site 6) (fig 6) There are also a number of early Flat Linear I potins Overall potins are 23 per cent above the east Kent mean This suggests that the site was established at an early date probably before 100 bc a date also supported by quantities of flint-tempered pottery A relatively high level of coin deposition continued until perhaps the mid-first century bc when like Worth and North Foreland there appears to have been a major reduction in activity A change in local circumstances external factors or the non-relevance of Flat Linear II potins at these three sites are all possible reasons for the lack of Flat Linear II potins but in the absence of evidence other than the coinage itself little can be said without resorting to circular arguments At each of these sites coin deposition subsequently increased again by the early first

64 CR Wren lsquoCoins found at Ebbsfleet during 1990 and 1991rsquo in Perkins 1992 305ndash6

century ad Many of the potins from Ebbsfleet are in very poor condition possibly as a result of intensive agricultural activity in recent years Some may conceivably be Gaulish imports but their condition makes precise classification impossible

Although potins are above the east Kent mean struck bronzes are under-represented There are nine different types among the twelve coins recorded and only one is represented by more than a single specimen The solitary Gaulish struck bronze is unusually not an issue from Belgic Gaul The Siculo-Punic and Ebusus bronzes are potential pre-Conquest imports

There is an above average level of silver at Ebbsfleet a feature also evident at Richborough although very probably for different reasons there being little evidence for early Roman

fig 6a Ebbsfleet coins from site ()fig 6b Ebbsfleet set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

18 DAVID HOLMAN

occupation at Ebbsfleet The ratio of silver to bronze at Ebbsfleet is higher than for any other site in east Kent although this may be down to chance A silver coin regarded as an Atrebatic issue by Bean but not listed by Van Arsdell or Hobbs is now known from several other findspots in Kent and it may be an early Kentish issue although it bears little resemblance to any other Kentish coinage65 It is here regarded as Atrebatic although Atrebatic coinage is generally very rarely found in Kent No gold coins have been recorded from Ebbsfleet other than a contemporary forgery of a Gallo-Belgic E stater with a silver core

The level of Gaulish non-gold imports at Ebbsfleet is low at only 58 per cent of the east Kent mean An even lower level of imports is seen at North Foreland (see below Site 5) and imports are scarce finds in Thanet generally particularly when compared with the adjacent mainland area around Sandwich This is surprising in view of the coastal location and may suggest that the Kentish cross-Channel ports were situated on the mainland rather than on Thanet from where another water crossing would inconveniently be required before accessing any inland routes away from the coastal strip (although Richborough does seem to provide an exception to this) It seems clear that the main circulation area of Gaulish imports in Kent was in the hinterland of the mainland ports

The nature of the site at Ebbsfleet remains unclear but certain parallels with the Worth Temple site suggest that a not dissimilar site may exist here albeit with a significant reduction in coin deposition in Phase 8L which is far less in evidence at Worth The coin distributions at Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet are broadly similar with the exception of a higher level of silver and corresponding lower level of bronze at Ebbsfleet these differences may be more apparent than real when the relative sample sizes are compared Again there is an early peak among the potins and a later peak in Phases 7 and 8E The overall coin distribution at Ebbsfleet appears on current evidence to be marginally earlier than at the Worth Temple site both in its greater incidence of early potins and the higher ratio of Phase 7 coins to those of Phase 8E Other features shared by Ebbsfleet and Worth Temple are that both sites stand on a promontory and both have Roman masonry structures although the lsquomainrsquo Ebbsfleet building apparently of later second-century date is of unknown function66

The total lack of Phase 8L coinage at Ebbsfleet is particularly significant when compared with nearby Richborough and may conceivably represent a temporary abandonment of the site at around the time of the Conquest A marked decline in activity in the early Roman period until a resurgence in the later second century ad based on the comparative scarcity of pottery of early Roman date and the lack of contemporary coinage has previously been noted by Macpherson-Grant67 The implication can be made that the Iron Age coins were mostly if not all deposited before the Conquest or at the latest shortly afterwards

SITE 5 NORTH FORELAND BROADSTAIRS

Background

This site is located on the North Foreland on the Isle of Thanet at the easternmost point of Kent It occupies a ridge of upper Chalk and the eastern slope of the valley immediately to the west where the chalk is sealed by Head Brickearth The highest point of the site is now occupied by the North Foreland lighthouse at an elevation of about 36 m above OD

The existence of a double ditch system apparently enclosing an area of at least 24 ha across the hilltop was revealed by aerial photographs several years ago In 1995 members of the Thanet

65 Bean 2000 237 (his type QsD 3-4)66 Perkins 1992 278ndash8167 N MacPherson-Grant lsquoThe Potteryrsquo in Perkins 1992 301

19IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Archaeological Society investigated the site by cutting several sections across the ditches The outermost of these ditches had cut two earlier ditches one of which appears to have been palisaded68 Ceramic evidence indicated a construction date in the mid- to late Iron Age with infilling of the ditches occurring from the late first century bc onwards The site is currently interpreted as being a possible hillfort although the ditch dimensions are on the small side and the term lsquodefended hilltop enclosurersquo may be more appropriate

The coinage

A total of 81 Iron Age coins (counting a potin hoard as one find) has been recorded from the site at North Foreland the majority of which have been found by metal-detector users (Appendix 1) The two gold coins mentioned by Perkins are of unknown types69 A Gallo-Belgic stater found in the nineteenth century at Stone House immediately to the south of the St Stephenrsquos College site is probably related to the site and has been included here

The site histogram for North Foreland (fig 7) shows that potins are the most common Iron Age coins here with Kentish Primary potins comprising 346 per cent of the total site assemblage the most numerous However the distribution of the potins differs from Worth and Ebbsfleet in that Flat Linear I potins are much further above the east Kent mean than are the Kentish Primary potins This is not a result of the Flat Linear I hoard from the site which is counted as a single

68 Hogwood 1995 475ndash669 Perkins 1993 411ndash13

find rather the hoard complements the other Flat Linear I potins and provides definite evidence of contemporary activity The ratio of Flat Linear I potins to those of the Kentish Primary Series is higher than normal for east Kent and these show an emphasis towards the earlier varieties probably dating from the first quarter of the first century bc

In 1999 an archaeological excavation was undertaken by Canterbury Archaeological Trust and the Trust for Thanet Archaeology prior to the redevelopment of the St Stephenrsquos College site on the ridge-top some 400 m to the south-west of the lighthouse Among the many finds of Iron Age (and earlier) date was a coin hoard containing 62 Flat Linear I potins buried in a

fig 7a North Foreland coins from site ()fig 7b North Foreland set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

20 DAVID HOLMAN

pit Preliminary examination of this hoard indicated that although the coins range from Allenrsquos Class C to Class L approximately half belong to Class G70 The hoard will be reported on elsewhere The excavations also revealed an enclosure provisionally dated on ceramic evidence to the first half of the first century bc ie contemporary with the hoard and a large number of storage pits again of similar date The hoard was located only a short distance from the entrance to the enclosure and its location in the centre of what seems to have been an active site suggests that ritual deposition should be considered as a possible reason for its concealment Given the existence of this hoard the possibility that at least some of the potins recovered as metal-detector finds from the adjacent fields may derive from another now dispersed hoard cannot be discounted although there is no evidence to suggest this

North Foreland shows an apparent reduction in coinage deposition after the mid-first century bc before a later recovery in common with Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet Coins of Phases 6 and 7 are both around half the east Kent mean but a significant increase is evident in Phase 8E which continues into Phase 8L suggesting that the site saw a revival in the early first century ad The 24 struck bronzes recorded slightly below the east Kent mean form a very heterogeneous assemblage with 17 different types represented These are almost exclusively Kentish issues either produced in Kent or elsewhere (apparently) for specific use in Kent71 In view of the coastal location of the site it is interesting to note the appearance of three specimens of the lsquoShiprsquo type (VA 1989) among the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin

The low number of non-local issues is significant given the coastal location Apart from a Gallo-Belgic stater only one import has been recorded contrasting sharply with Archers Low Farm Richborough and Folkestone At only 16 per cent of the east Kent mean this site has the lowest percentage of non-gold imports at any of the major sites discussed in this paper Non-local British issues are also rare here but the coin of Verica is one of only two recorded from Kent

Set against the rest of east Kent potin is the most significant metal type at North Foreland followed by silver marginally ahead of bronze As with some elements of the phasing this is a feature shared with Ebbsfleet and may reflect a common cause North Foreland displays activity at a later date than Ebbsfleet but it is not unreasonable to assume that these sites were in some way related

SITE 6 lsquoEASTRyrsquo

Background

Situated on chalk downland south of Eastry this site has produced an assemblage of 51 pre-Roman coins At the request of the landowner and the finders details of the coins are held in the Celtic Coin Index under the neutral provenance of lsquoNorth-East Kentrsquo72

The coinage

A total of 47 Iron Age and four Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from lsquoEastryrsquo (Appendix 1)

70 C Haselgrove pers comm71 An example of the extremely rare bronze half unit VA 154-11 has been listed here as possibly being an issue

of Eppillus with its designs of a geometric pattern and a capricorn The capricorn on the reverse suggests an Augustan prototype which is probably later in date than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which this type has been attributed by both Mack and Van Arsdell However a clearer specimen is still awaited to prove or disprove this reattribution

72 Not all coins in the Celtic Coin Index with this provenance are necessarily from lsquoEastryrsquo The coins listed are known to be from this site

21IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

lsquoEastryrsquo shows clear signs of early activity with an emphasis on Kentish Primary potins (fig 8) which are 133 per cent above the east Kent mean higher than anywhere else in the region Flat Linear I potins are almost exactly on the mean but again there is an absence of Flat Linear II potins Overall potins are further above the east Kent mean here than at any other major site in the region heavily weighted by the large number of Kentish Primary types Early activity is also suggested by the three Gallo-Belgic staters lsquoEastryrsquo has a higher percentage of gold than most other sites in the region with the exception of Richborough and East Wear Bay Folkestone the latter of which fairly certainly incorporates a large degree of bias among the early finds

Only one silver coin has been recorded and there is also an unusually low number of struck bronzes lower in percentage terms than at any other site discussed in this paper Apart from this the most unusual aspect of the lsquoEastryrsquo coins is the discovery of four Siculo-Punic bronzes all of the same type the largest number of such coins from any site in Kent

The nature of this site is uncertain and the site histogram (fig 8) is irregular The above average representation of coinage in Phases 1ndash5 a very unusual feature for any site is an indicator that this site may have had a particular and possibly specialised function The high ratio of gold to silver and struck bronze may suggest that trade is unlikely to have been a principal function of this site as gold is not likely to have been a common medium of exchange A religious site is a possibility as is a disturbed hoard(s)

A separate report on lsquoEastryrsquo as a possible religiouslsquoritualrsquo site has been published elsewhere73 No further investigation of this site is anticipated

SITE 7 GOODNESTONE

Background

This inland site is located to the south-east of Goodnestone some 11 km south-east of Canterbury It occupies a broad gently sloping ridge of Upper Chalk capped by Head Brickearth at a mean elevation of 55 to 60 m above OD The existence of an Iron Age and Roman site was

73 Holman 2005a 280ndash1

fig 8a lsquoEastryrsquo coins from site ()fig 8b lsquoEastryrsquo set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

22 DAVID HOLMAN

not known until a metal-detector survey of the area carried out from 1994 onwards started to produce substantial quantities of coinage in addition to other artefacts including several pieces of mid-first-century ad Roman military equipment74 In addition to 92 Iron Age coins there are several hundred Roman coins covering the entire period of the Roman occupation Ceramic evidence and quernstones also indicate late Iron Age and Roman occupation

The coinage

The 92 Iron Age coins recorded from Goodnestone are listed in Appendix 1 The majority of these coins are either of Kentish origin or were produced elsewhere apparently for use in Kent the percentage of non-Kentish coinage from the site is lower than usual for east Kent (fig 9)

The low number of potin coins representing just 65 per cent of the site assemblage shows that although the site may have an origin in the first half of the first century bc activity at that time was probably limited The coin evidence suggests that the main phase of activity at Goodnestone started in the final quarter of the first century bc

The majority of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone 902 per cent of the site total are struck bronzes Coins of the Kentish uninscribed Series are the most frequent and are represented by 29 examples including three types not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs One of these a variant of VA 154-1 appears to provide a link between the Kentish uninscribed Series and the early inscribed coinage of Dubnovellaunos The obverse although worn on all three specimens appears to bear the same or a very similar design to the Kentish uninscribed bronze issue VA 154-1 The reverse shows a left-facing version of the horse depicted on the reverse of VA 154-1 and a close parallel for this is seen on the reverse of an inscribed silver coin of Dubnovellaunos (VA 171) It is possible that the same die-cutter was involved with all three types Three of the five known specimens of this variant form of VA 154-1 have come from Goodnestone It is conceivably an early uninscribed issue of Dubnovellaunos but has here been retained within the Kentish uninscribed Series

Coins attributed to Dubnovellaunos are represented by 21 examples at Goodnestone Among

fig 9a Goodnestone coins from site ()fig 9b Goodnestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

74 Bishop 1995 17ndash19

23IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

these are six examples of two uncatalogued but related bronze types known from several other provenances in both Kent and Essex75 A coin of Dubnovellaunos is one of only two silver coins from Goodnestone the other tentatively attributed to Addedomaros by Van Arsdell76 is known from three other provenances in east Kent but a north Thames origin still appears likely on stylistic grounds

Phase 8 coins at Goodnestone are less numerous than those of the Kentish uninscribed Series and Dubnovellaunos Coins of Eppillus are scarcer than expected for east Kent and the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin are represented by only three types all of which have their principal distribution in Kent A quarter-stater of Cunobelin is the only gold coin from Goodnestone and is possibly the latest Iron Age coin from the site although similarly late bronze coins of Amminus are also present Only three Gaulish coins have been recorded just 37 per cent of the site total unusually low for east Kent

The histogram for Goodnestone (fig 9) indicates that the site was established before the end of the first century bc Coins of Phase 6 are the most frequent finds but from then until the Conquest losses steadily decline although remaining above the east Kent mean This decline suggests that the earlier coins at least were largely deposited before the Conquest otherwise it is reasonable to expect that the ratio of Phase 8 coins to those of Phase 6 would be higher Goodnestonersquos nearest parallel among the east Kent sites is Archers Low Farm except for the lack of Gaulish imports which are significantly under-represented at only 45 per cent of the east Kent mean This may be regarded as an expected difference between a probable port site and an inland settlement of uncertain nature seemingly established at around the same time Otherwise both sites have low numbers of potins significant peaks in Phases 6 and 7 and are virtually identical in Phases 8E and 8L The metal types at Goodnestone and Archers Low Farm also have very similar proportions The very high level of struck bronze is indicative of trade and exchange from the latter part of the first century bc The scarcity of Gaulish imports and non-Kentish coinage at Goodnestone suggests that much of the activity here was locally based and that there were no direct links with places further afield A greater number of non-local coins would be expected at a trading centre with wider links such as Canterbury

The state of preservation of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone is generally very poor and ten have not been identified The impression given is that many of these coins had a long circulation life however to add a note of caution late Roman coins of the same type found only a few metres apart at Goodnestone sometimes show a very marked variation in their state of preservation the reason for which is unclear

The adjacent Cherrygarden Lane appears on Ordnance Survey maps as part of a trackway running for several kilometres across the Kentish downland This may well have originated as a main thoroughfare at a very early date A geophysical survey of part of the site revealed the existence of another trackway across the field with probable field boundaries adjoining it The function of the late Iron Age and Roman site at Goodnestone is unclear from the coin evidence alone and is only likely to be clarified by excavation Curteis has discussed a not dissimilar site at Evenley Northamptonshire and suggested either a religious centre andor an occupationaltrading settlement77 A detailed report on Goodnestone incorporating all facets of the site is in preparation78

75 Both types are uninscribed but can be attributed to Dubnovellaunos on stylistic and distributional grounds A Kentish origin for these issues is preferred here particularly in view of the lack of non-Kentish coinage from Goodnestone

76 Van Arsdell 1989 350 (his type VA 1611)77 Curteis 1996 33ndash478 Cross forthcoming

24 DAVID HOLMAN

SITE 8 CANTERBURy (WALLED AREA)

Background

As the Roman civitas capital of Kent and a moderately large town within the province of Britannia Canterbury was an important settlement which has continued to be occupied up to the present day The name by which the settlement was known to the Romans Durovernum Cantiacorum is of Celtic origin translating as lsquothe walled town by the alder swamprsquo79 and perhaps provides an initial clue to a pre-Conquest origin for the site

It has been known since at least the eighteenth century that substantial remains of the Roman town survived below the modern streets During the installation of the sewage system in the 1860s a number of coins were found none was described in detail but some were possibly Iron Age80 In 1871 an Iron Age coin was found in Burgate providing evidence for some type of pre-Conquest occupation in the area However definite remains of late Iron Age settlement were not found until excavations began on bomb-damaged sites in 1946 when work revealed a gully apparently bounding a hut site together with pottery of pre-Conquest date81 Since then a significant number of other sites producing evidence of pre-Roman occupation have been located most notably in the Marlowe car park area situated towards the central part of the Roman walled town where the remains of two circular houses set within a triple-ditched enclosure accompanied by hearths ovens and a well were found82 It now seems that late Iron Age settlement at Canterbury was dispersed across an area of at least 10 ha beside the River Stour fairly certainly focused on a ford but apparently lacking any significant defences The available dating evidence suggests that the later Iron Age settlement began during the mid- to late first century bc although evidence of occupation immediately pre-dating this may still await discovery There is some evidence for early Iron Age settlement in the area

Of particular significance in the context of the later Iron Age settlement is the hillfort of Bigberry Camp located above the Stour valley some 3 km to the west This site represents the only known certain hillfort in eastern Kent Occupation here seems to have begun c 350 bc but the defences do not appear to have been constructed until the second century bc83 The camp appears to have been largely abandoned around 50 bc perhaps as a result of it being stormed by Caesarrsquos troops in 54 bc84 Despite the significant amount of archaeological work at Bigberry no Iron Age coins have been found A few bronze coins have been found at Harbledown 1 km to the north-east Rodwell has previously suggested that the general lack of coinage from the site indicates that it was not of major importance as a permanent settlement85

It is generally accepted that the settlement at Canterbury in some way superseded Bigberry during the mid-first century bc perhaps originating as a river-side trading station of the hillfort86 Blagg has suggested that Canterburyrsquos importance grew after c 15 bc following the establishment of the Rhine frontier87 However there is currently insufficient evidence to show that Canterbury had developed into a major proto-urban centre before the Roman conquest and there appear to have been few changes certainly within the Marlowe area until the Flavian

79 Rivet and Smith 1979 353ndash480 Pilbrow 187181 Frere 1965 682 Blockley et al 199583 Thompson 1983 253ndash9 Blockley and Blockley 1989 245ndash684 Blockley and Blockley 1989 24685 Rodwell 1976 33086 Blockley et al 1995 987 T Blagg in Blockley et al 1995 11

25IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

period88 The Iron Age status of Canterbury has previously been questioned89 and Millett makes the important point that the later Roman development of the site arguably and quite possibly wrongly leads to the perception that the Iron Age settlement was of equal importance90 Nevertheless it is clear from the extent of the known remains the amount of coinage and the quantity of imported fineware pottery including Dressel I amphorae that the settlement here was of some importance The evidence for this as provided by the Iron Age coinage is further considered below

The coinage

By the end of 2003 a total of 163 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) had been recorded from within the area of the later Roman walled town mainly in the area of Longmarket Rose Lane St Margarets Street Watling Street and Beer Cart Lane Significantly fewer Iron Age coins have been found during the recent Whitefriars excavations immediately to the east perhaps indicating the eastern limits of the Iron Age settlement although development pressures meant that only limited excavation of the earliest layers was possible The most important point about these coins is that they have virtually all been found during archaeological excavations Canterbury is the only site considered in this paper which has subsequently been built over in its entirety but it is also the only site with the exception of Richborough that has seen archaeological excavation on a large scale Canterbury is the only major late Iron Age site in east Kent with large numbers of broadly contemporary stratified coin finds This is of considerable importance not only for understanding the origins of the city but also for the study of the circulation deposition and dating of Iron Age coinage in the region as a whole A basic relative chronology for other sites in east Kent can be constructed by considering the numismatic evidence from Canterbury for example the realisation that potin coins predate the struck bronzes which themselves evolved from native-inspired designs into more Romanised types

Archaeological contexts can be questioned if later activity has occurred on the site leading to the inevitable disturbance of earlier features The result is a tendency to date items later than should be the case91 A significant number of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury have been found in post-Conquest deposits and Haselgrove regarded these as a mixture of residual coins disturbed by Roman activity as one would expect in an urban context and coins continuing in use until the mid-first century ad92 Nash considered that the potin coins from the Marlowe excavations were circulating until the later first century ad but appeared to make insufficient concession to residuality93 Some Iron Age coins have been found in medieval and later deposits having clearly arrived there as a result of earlier levels being disturbed During the early Roman period disturbance of the underlying Iron Age deposits would have been much more frequent and therefore more coins would have been displaced It cannot be conclusively shown that the Iron Age coins at Canterbury circulated for any length of time after the Conquest although it is reasonable to suppose that some may have continued to circulate for a few years before being fully supplanted by the new Roman coinage94 The problems caused by residuality have also been discussed by Arthur in relation to the late Republican amphorae from the excavations95

88 Blockley et al 1995 1289 Blockley et al 1995 990 Millett 1996 342ndash391 Haselgrove 1988 103ndash592 Haselgrove 1987 14193 D Nash in Blockley et al 1995 92394 eg Nash 1987 36ndash895 Arthur 1986 240

26 DAVID HOLMAN

Potins account for 479 per cent of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury (fig 10) The near absence of Kentish Primary potins is significant because this implies that they had largely ceased to circulate before Canterbury was established Only two of these coins have been recorded both from post-Conquest contexts and these were previously wrongly identified as a cut-down bronze of Massalia and a Central Gaulish lsquotecircte diaboliquersquo potin96 Given that Kentish Primary potins are the commonest type of Iron Age coin in east Kent it is reasonable to assume that many more would have been found at Canterbury had they still been in circulation in the last 50ndash75 years before the Conquest The possibility remains that the initial nucleus of the settlement may have been situated elsewhere97 but the current evidence supports Haselgroversquos view that early potins had mostly ceased to circulate by the early first century ad98 indeed a date before the turn of the century may now be preferred In France the temple sites at Champlieu and Chilly also provide evidence that potins had virtually disappeared from circulation by the first century ad99

An early cessation date for the circulation of the earlier Flat Linear I potins particularly Allen Classes AndashD can also be surmised from the Canterbury evidence The 21 Flat Linear I potins all belong to Allen Classes jndashL ie late in the series probably dating to around the middle of the first century bc Some of these were deliberately cut100 a feature rarely seen elsewhere although a cut Class L coin has been recorded from the Worth Temple site Elsewhere in east Kent the earlier types form a significant component of the Flat Linear I potins and their absence at Canterbury again suggests that if any settlement existed on the site in the early first century bc it is likely to have been of little importance Haselgrove noted that earlier Flat Linear I types are present at Rochester suggesting that Rochester was a site of some importance at an earlier date than Canterbury101 This may well still hold true for the relative chronology of the earliest phases at Canterbury and Rochester but it now seems likely that Kentish coinage began in the

96 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15397 Blockley et al 1995 898 Haselgrove 1987 15899 Allen 1995 51100 Haselgrove 1988 118101 Haselgrove 1987 151

fig 10a Canterbury (walled area) coins from site ()fig 10b Canterbury (walled area) set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

27IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

east of the county102 and a later commencement date for Canterbury need have no particular relevance in any discussion on Rochester located some 43 km to the north-west

Flat Linear II potins are represented by 50 surviving specimens 307 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (321 per cent of the identified coins) Compared with their general scarcity elsewhere in east Kent with the exception of East Wear Bay Folkestone (see below Site 9) with which some sort of link may have existed this is exceptional a fact well illustrated by fig 10 which shows that the proportion of these coins at Canterbury is more than ten times the mean for the rest of east Kent Recent research on Flat Linear II potins based on hoard evidence and individual findspots is leaning increasingly towards an origin in the region immediately north of London rather than Kent at least for certain classes103 In this case the appearance of so many of these coins at Canterbury cannot be easily explained They passed into the local circulation pool at a much lower rate than other coin types and the scarcity of these coins around Canterbury suggests that their principal purpose may have been related to a specific activity or commodity the nature of which is unknown Alternatively there was a sudden and significant but short-lived increase in activity at Canterbury (and Folkestone) which may again have had a specific cause Either way there must have been a fairly high degree of control to restrict their circulation in this manner A comparison may perhaps be made with the exceptionally high number of Roman coins of the period ad 388ndash402 found at Richborough which is not reflected elsewhere in east Kent and which must represent an event specific to that site in the local record although the contents of several hoards at the site account for a not insignificant proportion of these late coins104 It seems likely that the Flat Linear II potins were used in Canterbury as a low-value coinage as the appearance of so many high-value coins in a non-hoard context would be difficult to explain There may perhaps have been a reliance on these coins to sustain the Canterbury circulation pool for small-scale transactions Haselgrove noted that potins were the commonest issues circulating in Canterbury until Phase 8 (c ad 20)105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role106 although how much of this is a result of residuality cannot be ascertained

Struck bronzes are represented at Canterbury by 69 coins These include ten Gaulish coins 159 per cent of the (identified) struck bronze total There are also five Gaulish potins Overall Gaulish coins at Canterbury are 53 per cent above the east Kent mean Haselgrove commented on possible early links with the Continent107 and Fitzpatrickrsquos suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands108 but coastal sites such as Archers Low Farm and East Wear Bay Folkestone may be regarded as more likely initial points of contact Phase 6 coins are also above the east Kent mean In this respect there is some similarity to Archers Low Farm although the deviation from the mean there both for imports and Phase 6 coins is far greater There are 21 struck bronzes of the Kentish Uninscribed Series and an early lsquoChichester Cockrsquo type The frequency of some of the Kentish Uninscribed types at Canterbury in particular VA 154-3 suggests that minting facilities may have been operating at that time

Bronzes of the dynastic period are represented by 31 coins The nine coins of Dubnovellaunos three of Tasciovanus-Sego and ten of Eppillus are typical for an east Kent site However coins of Cunobelin appear to be significantly under-represented only eight coins of Cunobelin have been recorded from Canterbury and four of these are late types otherwise scarce in east

102 Holman 2000103 Haselgrove 1988 117 G Cottam pers comm104 Reece 1987 84105 Haselgrove 1987 145106 Haselgrove 1993 44107 Haselgrove 1987 143108 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

9IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

chronological problems associated with unstratified material29 the large number of Kentish Primary Series potins mdash 347 per cent of the total site assemblage 361 per cent of the identified coins mdash is significant and suggests an early date for coin use and deposition at Worth reflecting the general pattern of Iron Age coinage in east Kent This is the first peak of coin loss here at 30 per cent above the east Kent mean The distribution of the Kentish Primary potins at Worth shows no particular concentration and there is no evidence of hoarding There is now little doubt that Kentish Primary potins are Kentish in origin30 The 28 Flat Linear I potins seem to split into two groups 17 belonging to Allenrsquos early types AndashD the remainder mostly to the late types jndashL31 The solitary Flat Linear II potin indicates that Worth saw little use of these coins in keeping with the east Kent background pattern There are also several early Gaulish potins of varying types most if not all of which date to the second century bc One rare type apparently a first-generation copy of a medium-size struck bronze of Massalia (Marseilles)32 is probably the immediate prototype of the Kentish Primary potins

Although potins are the most numerous finds at Worth struck bronzes of which there are 103 examples are further above the east Kent mean (8 per cent and 23 per cent respectively) Among the many different British and Gaulish issues present coins of Eppillus and Cunobelin are the most abundant The Kentish uninscribed bronzes include types previously thought not to be Kentish33 The lsquoChichester Cockrsquo bronze is regarded here as a Phase 6 issue but potentially belongs to Phase 5

Some 106 per cent of the identifiable coins including gold issues from Worth are of Gaulish origin These include thirteen struck bronzes and seven potins Gaulish non-gold imports although 20 per cent above the east Kent mean are broadly in line with the average level for major sites in east Kent The Gaulish potins which are probably contemporary with the Kentish

29 eg de jersey 1999 19530 Holman 2000 22031 Allen 197132 eg Haselgrove 1995 11933 An uncatalogued bronze type belonging to the Kentish Uninscribed Series (UB1) previously published as

an uncertain Gaulish type (Allen 1995 83 coin 277) has here been reattributed to Kent on the basis of style and distribution with 16 specimens now known from the county Another type previously regarded as a North Thames issue (VA 1629) has been reattributed to Kent based on its almost exclusively Kentish distribution

fig 3a Worth Temple site coins from site ()fig 3b Worth Temple site set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

10 DAVID HOLMAN

Primary potins may have been deposited at an earlier date than the struck bronzes Most of the Gaulish bronzes from Worth originate from the region generally associated with the Ambiani tribe the nearest major tribal grouping on the Continental mainland A bronze of Massalia two Ebusus (Ibiza) bronzes and a Siculo-Punic bronze may also be noted as potential pre-Conquest imports The evidence for the appearance of these coins in Britain is reviewed below

Only nine silver and five gold coins have so far been recorded from Worth both well below the east Kent mean A silver-plated reverse brockage of a central Gaulish issue of Vepotal with an iron core is clearly a forgery but may have been regarded as suitable for a temple offering34 Three of the gold coins are also plated but with a copper core these include the two British coins both of which are of non-Kentish origin35

As on most sites numbers of coins of Phases 1ndash5 are low because most coinage belonging to these phases is of gold and is more frequently found away from recognised sites However coins of Phase 6 are also much scarcer than normal for an east Kent site Taken in conjunction with the scarcity of Flat Linear II potins this suggests greatly reduced activity in the third quarter of the first century bc intriguingly the same date at which Canterbury appears to have been established (see below Site 8) Following considerable activity in the midlate second to mid-first century bc coin deposition fell sharply before slowly recovering until the early first century ad (Phase 8E) when a significant increase is apparent under Eppillus and Cunobelin Phase 8E shows the highest peak of coin deposition at Worth relative to the surrounding region at 63 per cent above the east Kent mean

The large quantity of Iron Age coinage pottery and other domestic material from the Worth Temple site suggests that it was an extensive and important site from an early date Religion is only one of many activities which could have been carried out here The wide range of coin types and the large number of early potins suggest deposition for whatever reasons from as early as the second century bc The number of coins recorded must be regarded as providing a represent-ative sample of the coinage deposited at the site Worth has currently produced more Iron Age coins than any other site in Kent although the total is far lower than at many Continental sites Some British sites notably Harlow36 also have far higher numbers of coins A number of early Roman coins including Republican denarii issues of Tiberius and Gaius and copies of Claudius I are also known from Worth although these could all have been deposited at a later date

The coins from the Worth Temple site cannot be treated in isolation for on Worth Hill some 12 km to the north metal-detector surveys have produced a further fifteen Iron Age and a number of Roman coins The area is now under orchards Similarly an area of farmland at Ham only 1 km to the west of the Worth Temple site has produced a number of Iron Age coins There has been no archaeological input on either of these presumed sites and their nature is unknown but they may have been satellites of the main focus

A more detailed report and plan of the site (as at the end of December 2000) has been published elsewhere37 and only a summary updated to the end of 2003 has been given here

SITE 2 ARCHERS LOW FARM SANDWICH

Background

This site lies some 25 km to the north of the Worth Temple site and is situated on farmland

34 eg Briggs Haselgrove and King 1992 44ndash535 Sir john Evans held in his collection a gold quarter-stater of British Pa type (VA 147) lsquofound at Worth near

Sandwichrsquo but the exact findspot is unknown36 C Haselgrove pers comm37 Holman 2005a 265ndash75

11IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

immediately to the east of Sandwich It was discovered by members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association a local metal-detecting club in 1985 when a significant number of Iron Age and Roman coins were recovered from an area covering several arable fields In 1987 members of the Dover Archaeological Group undertook a limited amount of trenching in the area to ascertain the context of the coin finds and this was followed by a second more extensive phase of exploratory work in late 1990 and early 1991 A total of 45 hand-dug trenches was cut and from these and the metal-detector surveys it is now clear that an extensive occupation site beginning in the late Iron Age and continuing throughout the Roman period exists here38

In topographical terms a low eastward spur of the natural Thanet Beds clay seems at some stage to have provided the basis for the formation of a spit of alluvial sand Today this spit stands at an elevation of between about 25 and 4 m above OD and projects into the marshland that represents the silted up remnants of the southern end of the Wantsum Channel It seems probable that the site was established on or very close to the late Iron AgeRoman shoreline the sea today lies more than 2 km to the east39

The excavations revealed Belgic and Roman features and deposits at Archers Low Farm over an area measuring a minimum of 370 m by c 200 m covering at least 7 ha A few Roman coins were recovered further along the spit suggesting that occupation may have extended eastwards for at least 500 m Roman deposits have also been noted beneath later development 100 m to the west40 The upper layers contained medieval and post-medieval tile and pottery fragments in addition to earlier material and had clearly been disturbed in earlier periods Intact Belgic and Roman deposits lay below at a considerable depth and reached up to 150 m in thickness These comprised a series of general occupation layers occasionally interleaved with apparently natural sand deposits in which a total of eighteen features were located The lowest levels were frequently waterlogged

The excavations produced a considerable quantity of late Iron Age and Roman pottery A very significant proportion of this material consisted of fabrics in the Belgic grog-tempered tradition In addition there are significant quantities of samian ware including two fragments of a plain bowl provisionally identified as Arretine ware dateable to the AugustanTiberian period and other imported Gallo-Belgic wares including terra rubra terra nigra and white-ware butt beaker all apparently of early to mid-first-century ad date Small quantities of amphorae types Dressel 2-4 Dressel 20 and Cam 185 have been recovered but one type of vessel conspicuous by its absence is Dressel 1B amphora Much later Roman material is also present on the site including Roman building debris suggesting the presence of at least one as yet unlocated structure

The coinage

A total of 56 Iron Age and three Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from Archers Low Farm all found by members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association No pre-Conquest coins were recovered during the excavations Although it is apparent that all these coins come from the topsoil and there is no doubt that they are essentially in situ (ie not derived from elsewhere) the contemporary soil horizons can be as much as 2 m down which raises the question as to how this material arrived on the surface In part the explanation may be connected with the installation of several sets of deep land drains laid across the site at various times41 but this cannot represent the complete answer It is clear from the excavations that some considerable disturbance of

38 Frere 1988 484 Frere 1991 29239 Another Roman occupation site located on a second more extensive outer coastal sand spit has been located

at Dicksonrsquos Corner some 25 km to the south-east No coinage has been found there (Parfitt 2000)40 D Perkins pers comm41 C Burch pers comm

12 DAVID HOLMAN

the site occurred in the medieval and post-medieval periods when the area was presumably cultivated as it is now It seems certain that the uppermost Roman deposits have been damaged if not destroyed in this process thus archaeological horizons containing coins may once have been much closer to the surface This would imply that at least some of the Iron Age coinage recovered was previously contained within later Roman deposits as residual material suggesting much ancient disturbance of the earlier deposits there being no evidence for the continued use of these coins into the later Roman period No archaeological work or metal detecting has been undertaken since the early 1990s and the site has since changed ownership

The coin list for Archers Low Farm (Appendix 1) shows considerable differences compared with the Worth Temple site as does the site histogram (fig 4) Although the assemblage is much smaller it is sufficient to show the considerable diversity of the coinage present Only five potins have been recorded just 89 per cent of the total of Iron Age coins from the site compared with 504 per cent at Worth Temple of which three appear to be Gaulish imports The absence of Flat Linear potins is notable and suggests that any activity before the mid-first century bc was very limited

The most significant element among the struck bronzes is the unusually high proportion of Gaulish coins These show considerable heterogeneity although issues attributed to the Ambiani are not unexpectedly the most frequent In all Gaulish coins account for 15 of the 54 identified Iron Age coins recorded from Archers Low Farm some 278 per cent of the total nearly four

42 Briggs Haselgrove and King 1992 42ndash343 Haselgrove (in SCBI 42 coin no 427) noted that this type may be a Kentish copy of a continental type Six

examples are currently known five from East Kent and one from the temple site at Bois LrsquoAbbeacute Eu Seine-Maritime (Delestreacutee 1984 fig 88)

times the east Kent mean Only Richborough (304 per cent) among the east Kent sites exceeds this (see below Site 3) and few other sites in Britain can compare with Silchester (306 per cent) and Hayling Island (292 per cent) providing the closest comparisons42 There are also two specimens of an uncatalogued type (UB3) which has been listed here as possibly belonging to the Kentish uninscribed Series but which is conceivably Gaulish in which case the imported coinage would rise to 315 per cent of the total43 There are also three Siculo-Punic bronzes dated c 320ndash280 bc

fig 4a Archers Low Farm Sandwich coins from site ()fig 4b Archers Low Farm set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

13IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

The Kentish uninscribed Series is well represented with ten specimens (twelve including the uncatalogued type UB3) recorded of several different types The diversity of the dynastic coins from Archers Low Farm is very evident Of these coins of Dubnovellaunos are the most frequent Phases 6 and 7 and to a lesser extent Phase 8E are all above the east Kent mean There is a tendency towards an early date slowly falling off under Eppillus and Cunobelin possibly indicating greater activity prior to say c ad 15ndash25 rather than after This might also suggest that much of the imported coinage arrived before the turn of the century or at the latest very shortly afterwards However this can only be speculation in the absence of any stratified coins from the site There may be some parallel here with coin loss at Goodnestone (see below Site 7) at least in as much as struck bronze forms most of the assemblage

No genuine gold or silver coins have been recorded from Archers Low Farm There is however a bronze core of a contemporary forgery of a quarter-stater of Cunobelin with the reverse design being laterally reversed Another forgery a bronze core with uncertain designs which was probably originally silver-plated also appears to be of Cunobelin

The high proportion of Gaulish coins and the comparatively large amount of imported pottery together with the low-lying situation of Archers Low Farm all suggest that this site is a strong candidate for having been established as a port in the later Iron Age principally for the purposes of trade and probably before the turn of the millennium The proximity to the Continent and the sheltered nature of the site within the confines of the Wantsum Channel would have made it an ideal location for such a facility There would appear to be some chronological disparity between the coins and the pottery imports many of the coins dating to the mid- to late first century bc but much of the pottery apparently being of Augustan or Tiberian date with further samian imports of slightly later ClaudianNeronian date This can be partly explained if it is accepted that these coins continued to circulate in post-Conquest Gaul for many years before entering Britain at the same time as the pottery but this does not fully explain why the native coins show a similar inclination towards an early date If the site reached a peak in the early first century ad then perhaps more coins of Phase 8E should be present ie if the imports and coins of Phases 6 and 7 were not deposited until Phase 8E then coins of the latter phase although above average for the region might themselves be expected to be more numerous In addition the condition of some of the coins suggests that they had seen comparatively little circulation before their deposition No pottery certainly dating from before the first century bc has been found at the site and the low incidence of potin coins taken in conjunction with the very high levels of struck bronze indicates a date no earlier than perhaps c 30 bc for the start of the main phase of activity in the pre-Conquest period at Archers Low Farm

SITE 3 RICHBOROUGH CASTLE

Background

This internationally important Roman site situated on an island surrounded by drained wetlands that were formerly part of the Wantsum Channel occupies a small hill of Woolwich and Thanet Beds sand rising to a height of almost 20 m above OD44 It stands some 3 km to the north-west of Archers Low Farm and some 35 km to the south of the nearest point of the Isle of Thanet at Ebbsfleet

The Roman site is very well known from the excavation work of 1922ndash1938 but the evidence for its pre-Conquest origins is less than clear Occupation in the early to mid-Iron

44 Hawkes 1968 224

14 DAVID HOLMAN

Age is reasonably well attested45 but the status of the site immediately prior to the Roman invasion remains uncertain Cunliffe stated that there was lsquono trace of Belgic occupationrsquo on the site46 while both Thompson and Pollard have maintained that definite pre-Conquest pottery is generally absent from the excavated material47 A large number of early brooches are known from Richborough but there is no evidence that any of these arrived before ad 43 very few can categorically be shown to be contemporary with the Iron Age coins from the site48 although it should be noted that Iron Age brooches are much rarer finds than coins On the evidence of the coinage Rodwell suggested that there was some kind of pre-Conquest port here49 an idea previously suggested by Allen50 Indeed the fundamental question must be posed as to whether this place would ever have been chosen for a Roman invasion base if it were not already an established port of entry with clear routeways leading into the Kentish hinterland

The coinage

Allen stated that there were between 12 and 14 Iron Age coins from the excavations at Richborough (there was much confusion over the numbering system) and that these included a number of non-local coins including Gaulish imports51 Following reassessment of the site assemblage including non-excavation finds an updated summary list showing a total of 23 coins is provided in Appendix 152

Large numbers of coins have been found at and removed from Richborough over several centuries In the sixteenth century Leland wrote that more Roman coins were found at Richborough than anywhere else in England and that this had been the case for as long as anyone could remember53 Several local notables and antiquaries in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had collections of coins from the site54 It is evident that the total number of Roman coins deposited whether lost or deliberately hoarded at Richborough far exceeds the 56084 recovered during the excavations of 1922ndash193855 and it is probable that Iron Age coins were among those previously removed without record

Looked at in an overall context the 23 Iron Age coins from Richborough show considerable deviation from the general pattern in east Kent (fig 5) There are several unusual features and the group may perhaps be regarded as chronologically typologically and numerically unrepresentative for a number of reasons

a The coin distribution is irregular for an east Kent siteb An unknown number of coins have been removed without record over a long period of time including by recent illegal metal-detector activityc A lack of sanctioned metal detecting because much of the area is scheduledd The collections of local antiquaries could be of a selective nature

45 Bushe-Fox 1949 8ndash11 Cunliffe 1968 116ndash1746 Cunliffe 1968 23247 Thompson 1982 809 Pollard 1988 4448 Bayley and Butcher 200449 Rodwell 1976 22150 Allen 1968 18651 Allen 1968 184ndash852 A further coin from Richborough has been noted by Bean (Bean 2000 178 his type VERC 3-4) However the

Celtic Coin Index record for this coin queries this provenance and it has accordingly been decided not to include it in the site list at Appendix 1

53 Toulmin-Smith 1909 6254 eg Roach-Smith 1850 11955 Reece 1968

15IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

e Large-scale disturbance during the Roman period destroyed earlier layers (although any coins would probably have been re-deposited rather than removed)f There could have been considerable displacement of coins from non-local sources during the earliest Roman phaseg Many coins were probably missed during the excavations (see above)h The 1922ndash1938 excavations concentrated on the area within the Saxon Shore fort but this was not necessarily the centre of any LPRIA settlement A recent magnetometry survey and analysis of aerial photographs have revealed a dense mass of features across the fields around the fort56 many of these are probably of Roman date but the possibility that some are earlier cannot be discounted in the absence of excavation

On current evidence the Iron Age coins from Richborough appear to fall into two groups one ending at the beginning of the first century ad and consisting mainly of types typically found in east Kent and the other being more or less contemporary with the Roman conquest of ad 43 and consisting mainly of types not generally found in east Kent Haselgrove described the Richborough assemblage as superficially impressive but spurious commenting on the large number of Phase 8L coins compared with Canterbury which he suggested was a result of the Roman invasion57 No other site in east Kent bears any similarity to Richborough in Phase 8L when losses are nearly ten times the east Kent mean so it may be inferred that the reason for this is an event specific to Richborough The possibility that at least some of the earlier coins were lost at a later date as suggested by Haselgrove58 cannot be dismissed particularly in view of the lack of securely stratified and undisturbed Iron Age coins from the site the specimens of VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are candidates for this Although there are only three silver coins from Richborough silver is further above the east Kent mean than the bronze but this is entirely down to the appearance of non-local types and is misleading

56 Millett and Wilmott 200457 Haselgrove 1987 15358 Haselgrove 1987 153

fig 5a Richborough coins from site ()fig 5b Richborough set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

16 DAVID HOLMAN

The early group consists mainly of potins Gaulish imports and Kentish uninscribed bronzes together with a slightly later inscribed issue of Sa(m) Both of the coins previously recorded as bronzes of Massalia are actually potins59 The silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are early and both originate from the south coast of England With the exception of these silver coins which may have arrived later this early group fits very well into the general east Kent pattern and seemingly indicates a period of pre-Conquest coin use on the site The low percentage of potin and rather higher percentage of bronze counts against an establishment date much before the middle of the first century bc and it may be that the potins were lost at a later date and that the site was a later first-century bc foundation In favour of this is the fact that Phase 6 coins and continental imports are both above the mean for east Kent indeed Richborough has one of the highest levels of imported pre-Conquest coinage from any site in Britain comprising 304 per cent of the total site assemblage It may be significant that the proportions of Gaulish imports and Phase 6 coinage at Richborough are very similar to Archers Low Farm perhaps hinting at some link between these two sites The imports could have been deposited with the Phase 8L coins during early Roman occupation60 but given the low levels of Phase 7 and 8E coinage the near contemporary Phase 6 coinage seems unlikely to have been deposited as late as Phase 8L

Following an apparent hiatus in coin deposition evidenced by the lack of Eppillus and early Cunobelin issues common finds elsewhere in east Kent a later group becomes evident This consists of late issues of Cunobelin and three coins from the south coast one of Verica and two of the Durotriges Late issues of Cunobelin are greatly outnumbered by early issues elsewhere in east Kent while the three south coast coins suggest a link with the West Sussex Hampshire and Dorset area which is otherwise almost wholly absent in east Kent The southern silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 from the early group may have arrived at Richborough at the same time as the later coins as a result of post-Conquest activity An analogous situation can be seen at a number of sites in France where Gaulish bronzes continued in use into the first century ad61 A second-century bc bronze coin of Cyzicus is on balance more likely to be a Roman than a pre-Roman import in this instance further illustrating the difficulty in determining the date at which such early coins reached Britain62

SITE 4 EBBSFLEET ISLE OF THANET

Background

This site lies some 35 km to the north of Richborough Castle on the southern side of the Isle of Thanet at a mean elevation of 8 m above OD It occupies a low chalk promontory capped with Thanet Beds sand surrounded on three sides by marshlands which were once part of the Wantsum Channel Metal detector surveys by the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association and evaluation trenching by the Trust for Thanet Archaeology in 1990 have demonstrated the presence of extensive prehistoric and Roman occupation in this area63 Settlement in the late Iron Age is represented by a number of features together with significant quantities of pottery and coinage Amongst the pottery much of which is dated to c ad 25ndash5075 is a quantity of

59 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15260 Haselgrove 1987 15361 Haselgrove 1999 16462 There are also three early Mediterranean bronze coins from the foreshore close to the Roman fort at Reculver

at the northern end of the Wantsum Channel one of an uncertain Ptolemy one of Agathocles of Syracuse and one of Mamertini Sicily Reculver has also produced several Iron Age coins including a quarter stater (Sch 7) dating from as early as the third century bc which is potentially a contemporary import

63 Perkins 1992

17IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

imported Gallo-Belgic fineware not all of which is pre-Conquest in date There is also locally produced pottery dating from the mid-first century bc onwards as well as earlier material

The coinage

A total of 43 Iron Age and three other pre-Conquest coins are currently recorded from Ebbsfleet (Appendix 1) A few of these were published by Wren in 199264 but further discoveries have since been made and more information is available concerning the finds

Ebbsfleet has the highest percentage of Kentish Primary potins from any site in east Kent with the exception of lsquoEastryrsquo (see below Site 6) (fig 6) There are also a number of early Flat Linear I potins Overall potins are 23 per cent above the east Kent mean This suggests that the site was established at an early date probably before 100 bc a date also supported by quantities of flint-tempered pottery A relatively high level of coin deposition continued until perhaps the mid-first century bc when like Worth and North Foreland there appears to have been a major reduction in activity A change in local circumstances external factors or the non-relevance of Flat Linear II potins at these three sites are all possible reasons for the lack of Flat Linear II potins but in the absence of evidence other than the coinage itself little can be said without resorting to circular arguments At each of these sites coin deposition subsequently increased again by the early first

64 CR Wren lsquoCoins found at Ebbsfleet during 1990 and 1991rsquo in Perkins 1992 305ndash6

century ad Many of the potins from Ebbsfleet are in very poor condition possibly as a result of intensive agricultural activity in recent years Some may conceivably be Gaulish imports but their condition makes precise classification impossible

Although potins are above the east Kent mean struck bronzes are under-represented There are nine different types among the twelve coins recorded and only one is represented by more than a single specimen The solitary Gaulish struck bronze is unusually not an issue from Belgic Gaul The Siculo-Punic and Ebusus bronzes are potential pre-Conquest imports

There is an above average level of silver at Ebbsfleet a feature also evident at Richborough although very probably for different reasons there being little evidence for early Roman

fig 6a Ebbsfleet coins from site ()fig 6b Ebbsfleet set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

18 DAVID HOLMAN

occupation at Ebbsfleet The ratio of silver to bronze at Ebbsfleet is higher than for any other site in east Kent although this may be down to chance A silver coin regarded as an Atrebatic issue by Bean but not listed by Van Arsdell or Hobbs is now known from several other findspots in Kent and it may be an early Kentish issue although it bears little resemblance to any other Kentish coinage65 It is here regarded as Atrebatic although Atrebatic coinage is generally very rarely found in Kent No gold coins have been recorded from Ebbsfleet other than a contemporary forgery of a Gallo-Belgic E stater with a silver core

The level of Gaulish non-gold imports at Ebbsfleet is low at only 58 per cent of the east Kent mean An even lower level of imports is seen at North Foreland (see below Site 5) and imports are scarce finds in Thanet generally particularly when compared with the adjacent mainland area around Sandwich This is surprising in view of the coastal location and may suggest that the Kentish cross-Channel ports were situated on the mainland rather than on Thanet from where another water crossing would inconveniently be required before accessing any inland routes away from the coastal strip (although Richborough does seem to provide an exception to this) It seems clear that the main circulation area of Gaulish imports in Kent was in the hinterland of the mainland ports

The nature of the site at Ebbsfleet remains unclear but certain parallels with the Worth Temple site suggest that a not dissimilar site may exist here albeit with a significant reduction in coin deposition in Phase 8L which is far less in evidence at Worth The coin distributions at Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet are broadly similar with the exception of a higher level of silver and corresponding lower level of bronze at Ebbsfleet these differences may be more apparent than real when the relative sample sizes are compared Again there is an early peak among the potins and a later peak in Phases 7 and 8E The overall coin distribution at Ebbsfleet appears on current evidence to be marginally earlier than at the Worth Temple site both in its greater incidence of early potins and the higher ratio of Phase 7 coins to those of Phase 8E Other features shared by Ebbsfleet and Worth Temple are that both sites stand on a promontory and both have Roman masonry structures although the lsquomainrsquo Ebbsfleet building apparently of later second-century date is of unknown function66

The total lack of Phase 8L coinage at Ebbsfleet is particularly significant when compared with nearby Richborough and may conceivably represent a temporary abandonment of the site at around the time of the Conquest A marked decline in activity in the early Roman period until a resurgence in the later second century ad based on the comparative scarcity of pottery of early Roman date and the lack of contemporary coinage has previously been noted by Macpherson-Grant67 The implication can be made that the Iron Age coins were mostly if not all deposited before the Conquest or at the latest shortly afterwards

SITE 5 NORTH FORELAND BROADSTAIRS

Background

This site is located on the North Foreland on the Isle of Thanet at the easternmost point of Kent It occupies a ridge of upper Chalk and the eastern slope of the valley immediately to the west where the chalk is sealed by Head Brickearth The highest point of the site is now occupied by the North Foreland lighthouse at an elevation of about 36 m above OD

The existence of a double ditch system apparently enclosing an area of at least 24 ha across the hilltop was revealed by aerial photographs several years ago In 1995 members of the Thanet

65 Bean 2000 237 (his type QsD 3-4)66 Perkins 1992 278ndash8167 N MacPherson-Grant lsquoThe Potteryrsquo in Perkins 1992 301

19IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Archaeological Society investigated the site by cutting several sections across the ditches The outermost of these ditches had cut two earlier ditches one of which appears to have been palisaded68 Ceramic evidence indicated a construction date in the mid- to late Iron Age with infilling of the ditches occurring from the late first century bc onwards The site is currently interpreted as being a possible hillfort although the ditch dimensions are on the small side and the term lsquodefended hilltop enclosurersquo may be more appropriate

The coinage

A total of 81 Iron Age coins (counting a potin hoard as one find) has been recorded from the site at North Foreland the majority of which have been found by metal-detector users (Appendix 1) The two gold coins mentioned by Perkins are of unknown types69 A Gallo-Belgic stater found in the nineteenth century at Stone House immediately to the south of the St Stephenrsquos College site is probably related to the site and has been included here

The site histogram for North Foreland (fig 7) shows that potins are the most common Iron Age coins here with Kentish Primary potins comprising 346 per cent of the total site assemblage the most numerous However the distribution of the potins differs from Worth and Ebbsfleet in that Flat Linear I potins are much further above the east Kent mean than are the Kentish Primary potins This is not a result of the Flat Linear I hoard from the site which is counted as a single

68 Hogwood 1995 475ndash669 Perkins 1993 411ndash13

find rather the hoard complements the other Flat Linear I potins and provides definite evidence of contemporary activity The ratio of Flat Linear I potins to those of the Kentish Primary Series is higher than normal for east Kent and these show an emphasis towards the earlier varieties probably dating from the first quarter of the first century bc

In 1999 an archaeological excavation was undertaken by Canterbury Archaeological Trust and the Trust for Thanet Archaeology prior to the redevelopment of the St Stephenrsquos College site on the ridge-top some 400 m to the south-west of the lighthouse Among the many finds of Iron Age (and earlier) date was a coin hoard containing 62 Flat Linear I potins buried in a

fig 7a North Foreland coins from site ()fig 7b North Foreland set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

20 DAVID HOLMAN

pit Preliminary examination of this hoard indicated that although the coins range from Allenrsquos Class C to Class L approximately half belong to Class G70 The hoard will be reported on elsewhere The excavations also revealed an enclosure provisionally dated on ceramic evidence to the first half of the first century bc ie contemporary with the hoard and a large number of storage pits again of similar date The hoard was located only a short distance from the entrance to the enclosure and its location in the centre of what seems to have been an active site suggests that ritual deposition should be considered as a possible reason for its concealment Given the existence of this hoard the possibility that at least some of the potins recovered as metal-detector finds from the adjacent fields may derive from another now dispersed hoard cannot be discounted although there is no evidence to suggest this

North Foreland shows an apparent reduction in coinage deposition after the mid-first century bc before a later recovery in common with Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet Coins of Phases 6 and 7 are both around half the east Kent mean but a significant increase is evident in Phase 8E which continues into Phase 8L suggesting that the site saw a revival in the early first century ad The 24 struck bronzes recorded slightly below the east Kent mean form a very heterogeneous assemblage with 17 different types represented These are almost exclusively Kentish issues either produced in Kent or elsewhere (apparently) for specific use in Kent71 In view of the coastal location of the site it is interesting to note the appearance of three specimens of the lsquoShiprsquo type (VA 1989) among the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin

The low number of non-local issues is significant given the coastal location Apart from a Gallo-Belgic stater only one import has been recorded contrasting sharply with Archers Low Farm Richborough and Folkestone At only 16 per cent of the east Kent mean this site has the lowest percentage of non-gold imports at any of the major sites discussed in this paper Non-local British issues are also rare here but the coin of Verica is one of only two recorded from Kent

Set against the rest of east Kent potin is the most significant metal type at North Foreland followed by silver marginally ahead of bronze As with some elements of the phasing this is a feature shared with Ebbsfleet and may reflect a common cause North Foreland displays activity at a later date than Ebbsfleet but it is not unreasonable to assume that these sites were in some way related

SITE 6 lsquoEASTRyrsquo

Background

Situated on chalk downland south of Eastry this site has produced an assemblage of 51 pre-Roman coins At the request of the landowner and the finders details of the coins are held in the Celtic Coin Index under the neutral provenance of lsquoNorth-East Kentrsquo72

The coinage

A total of 47 Iron Age and four Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from lsquoEastryrsquo (Appendix 1)

70 C Haselgrove pers comm71 An example of the extremely rare bronze half unit VA 154-11 has been listed here as possibly being an issue

of Eppillus with its designs of a geometric pattern and a capricorn The capricorn on the reverse suggests an Augustan prototype which is probably later in date than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which this type has been attributed by both Mack and Van Arsdell However a clearer specimen is still awaited to prove or disprove this reattribution

72 Not all coins in the Celtic Coin Index with this provenance are necessarily from lsquoEastryrsquo The coins listed are known to be from this site

21IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

lsquoEastryrsquo shows clear signs of early activity with an emphasis on Kentish Primary potins (fig 8) which are 133 per cent above the east Kent mean higher than anywhere else in the region Flat Linear I potins are almost exactly on the mean but again there is an absence of Flat Linear II potins Overall potins are further above the east Kent mean here than at any other major site in the region heavily weighted by the large number of Kentish Primary types Early activity is also suggested by the three Gallo-Belgic staters lsquoEastryrsquo has a higher percentage of gold than most other sites in the region with the exception of Richborough and East Wear Bay Folkestone the latter of which fairly certainly incorporates a large degree of bias among the early finds

Only one silver coin has been recorded and there is also an unusually low number of struck bronzes lower in percentage terms than at any other site discussed in this paper Apart from this the most unusual aspect of the lsquoEastryrsquo coins is the discovery of four Siculo-Punic bronzes all of the same type the largest number of such coins from any site in Kent

The nature of this site is uncertain and the site histogram (fig 8) is irregular The above average representation of coinage in Phases 1ndash5 a very unusual feature for any site is an indicator that this site may have had a particular and possibly specialised function The high ratio of gold to silver and struck bronze may suggest that trade is unlikely to have been a principal function of this site as gold is not likely to have been a common medium of exchange A religious site is a possibility as is a disturbed hoard(s)

A separate report on lsquoEastryrsquo as a possible religiouslsquoritualrsquo site has been published elsewhere73 No further investigation of this site is anticipated

SITE 7 GOODNESTONE

Background

This inland site is located to the south-east of Goodnestone some 11 km south-east of Canterbury It occupies a broad gently sloping ridge of Upper Chalk capped by Head Brickearth at a mean elevation of 55 to 60 m above OD The existence of an Iron Age and Roman site was

73 Holman 2005a 280ndash1

fig 8a lsquoEastryrsquo coins from site ()fig 8b lsquoEastryrsquo set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

22 DAVID HOLMAN

not known until a metal-detector survey of the area carried out from 1994 onwards started to produce substantial quantities of coinage in addition to other artefacts including several pieces of mid-first-century ad Roman military equipment74 In addition to 92 Iron Age coins there are several hundred Roman coins covering the entire period of the Roman occupation Ceramic evidence and quernstones also indicate late Iron Age and Roman occupation

The coinage

The 92 Iron Age coins recorded from Goodnestone are listed in Appendix 1 The majority of these coins are either of Kentish origin or were produced elsewhere apparently for use in Kent the percentage of non-Kentish coinage from the site is lower than usual for east Kent (fig 9)

The low number of potin coins representing just 65 per cent of the site assemblage shows that although the site may have an origin in the first half of the first century bc activity at that time was probably limited The coin evidence suggests that the main phase of activity at Goodnestone started in the final quarter of the first century bc

The majority of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone 902 per cent of the site total are struck bronzes Coins of the Kentish uninscribed Series are the most frequent and are represented by 29 examples including three types not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs One of these a variant of VA 154-1 appears to provide a link between the Kentish uninscribed Series and the early inscribed coinage of Dubnovellaunos The obverse although worn on all three specimens appears to bear the same or a very similar design to the Kentish uninscribed bronze issue VA 154-1 The reverse shows a left-facing version of the horse depicted on the reverse of VA 154-1 and a close parallel for this is seen on the reverse of an inscribed silver coin of Dubnovellaunos (VA 171) It is possible that the same die-cutter was involved with all three types Three of the five known specimens of this variant form of VA 154-1 have come from Goodnestone It is conceivably an early uninscribed issue of Dubnovellaunos but has here been retained within the Kentish uninscribed Series

Coins attributed to Dubnovellaunos are represented by 21 examples at Goodnestone Among

fig 9a Goodnestone coins from site ()fig 9b Goodnestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

74 Bishop 1995 17ndash19

23IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

these are six examples of two uncatalogued but related bronze types known from several other provenances in both Kent and Essex75 A coin of Dubnovellaunos is one of only two silver coins from Goodnestone the other tentatively attributed to Addedomaros by Van Arsdell76 is known from three other provenances in east Kent but a north Thames origin still appears likely on stylistic grounds

Phase 8 coins at Goodnestone are less numerous than those of the Kentish uninscribed Series and Dubnovellaunos Coins of Eppillus are scarcer than expected for east Kent and the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin are represented by only three types all of which have their principal distribution in Kent A quarter-stater of Cunobelin is the only gold coin from Goodnestone and is possibly the latest Iron Age coin from the site although similarly late bronze coins of Amminus are also present Only three Gaulish coins have been recorded just 37 per cent of the site total unusually low for east Kent

The histogram for Goodnestone (fig 9) indicates that the site was established before the end of the first century bc Coins of Phase 6 are the most frequent finds but from then until the Conquest losses steadily decline although remaining above the east Kent mean This decline suggests that the earlier coins at least were largely deposited before the Conquest otherwise it is reasonable to expect that the ratio of Phase 8 coins to those of Phase 6 would be higher Goodnestonersquos nearest parallel among the east Kent sites is Archers Low Farm except for the lack of Gaulish imports which are significantly under-represented at only 45 per cent of the east Kent mean This may be regarded as an expected difference between a probable port site and an inland settlement of uncertain nature seemingly established at around the same time Otherwise both sites have low numbers of potins significant peaks in Phases 6 and 7 and are virtually identical in Phases 8E and 8L The metal types at Goodnestone and Archers Low Farm also have very similar proportions The very high level of struck bronze is indicative of trade and exchange from the latter part of the first century bc The scarcity of Gaulish imports and non-Kentish coinage at Goodnestone suggests that much of the activity here was locally based and that there were no direct links with places further afield A greater number of non-local coins would be expected at a trading centre with wider links such as Canterbury

The state of preservation of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone is generally very poor and ten have not been identified The impression given is that many of these coins had a long circulation life however to add a note of caution late Roman coins of the same type found only a few metres apart at Goodnestone sometimes show a very marked variation in their state of preservation the reason for which is unclear

The adjacent Cherrygarden Lane appears on Ordnance Survey maps as part of a trackway running for several kilometres across the Kentish downland This may well have originated as a main thoroughfare at a very early date A geophysical survey of part of the site revealed the existence of another trackway across the field with probable field boundaries adjoining it The function of the late Iron Age and Roman site at Goodnestone is unclear from the coin evidence alone and is only likely to be clarified by excavation Curteis has discussed a not dissimilar site at Evenley Northamptonshire and suggested either a religious centre andor an occupationaltrading settlement77 A detailed report on Goodnestone incorporating all facets of the site is in preparation78

75 Both types are uninscribed but can be attributed to Dubnovellaunos on stylistic and distributional grounds A Kentish origin for these issues is preferred here particularly in view of the lack of non-Kentish coinage from Goodnestone

76 Van Arsdell 1989 350 (his type VA 1611)77 Curteis 1996 33ndash478 Cross forthcoming

24 DAVID HOLMAN

SITE 8 CANTERBURy (WALLED AREA)

Background

As the Roman civitas capital of Kent and a moderately large town within the province of Britannia Canterbury was an important settlement which has continued to be occupied up to the present day The name by which the settlement was known to the Romans Durovernum Cantiacorum is of Celtic origin translating as lsquothe walled town by the alder swamprsquo79 and perhaps provides an initial clue to a pre-Conquest origin for the site

It has been known since at least the eighteenth century that substantial remains of the Roman town survived below the modern streets During the installation of the sewage system in the 1860s a number of coins were found none was described in detail but some were possibly Iron Age80 In 1871 an Iron Age coin was found in Burgate providing evidence for some type of pre-Conquest occupation in the area However definite remains of late Iron Age settlement were not found until excavations began on bomb-damaged sites in 1946 when work revealed a gully apparently bounding a hut site together with pottery of pre-Conquest date81 Since then a significant number of other sites producing evidence of pre-Roman occupation have been located most notably in the Marlowe car park area situated towards the central part of the Roman walled town where the remains of two circular houses set within a triple-ditched enclosure accompanied by hearths ovens and a well were found82 It now seems that late Iron Age settlement at Canterbury was dispersed across an area of at least 10 ha beside the River Stour fairly certainly focused on a ford but apparently lacking any significant defences The available dating evidence suggests that the later Iron Age settlement began during the mid- to late first century bc although evidence of occupation immediately pre-dating this may still await discovery There is some evidence for early Iron Age settlement in the area

Of particular significance in the context of the later Iron Age settlement is the hillfort of Bigberry Camp located above the Stour valley some 3 km to the west This site represents the only known certain hillfort in eastern Kent Occupation here seems to have begun c 350 bc but the defences do not appear to have been constructed until the second century bc83 The camp appears to have been largely abandoned around 50 bc perhaps as a result of it being stormed by Caesarrsquos troops in 54 bc84 Despite the significant amount of archaeological work at Bigberry no Iron Age coins have been found A few bronze coins have been found at Harbledown 1 km to the north-east Rodwell has previously suggested that the general lack of coinage from the site indicates that it was not of major importance as a permanent settlement85

It is generally accepted that the settlement at Canterbury in some way superseded Bigberry during the mid-first century bc perhaps originating as a river-side trading station of the hillfort86 Blagg has suggested that Canterburyrsquos importance grew after c 15 bc following the establishment of the Rhine frontier87 However there is currently insufficient evidence to show that Canterbury had developed into a major proto-urban centre before the Roman conquest and there appear to have been few changes certainly within the Marlowe area until the Flavian

79 Rivet and Smith 1979 353ndash480 Pilbrow 187181 Frere 1965 682 Blockley et al 199583 Thompson 1983 253ndash9 Blockley and Blockley 1989 245ndash684 Blockley and Blockley 1989 24685 Rodwell 1976 33086 Blockley et al 1995 987 T Blagg in Blockley et al 1995 11

25IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

period88 The Iron Age status of Canterbury has previously been questioned89 and Millett makes the important point that the later Roman development of the site arguably and quite possibly wrongly leads to the perception that the Iron Age settlement was of equal importance90 Nevertheless it is clear from the extent of the known remains the amount of coinage and the quantity of imported fineware pottery including Dressel I amphorae that the settlement here was of some importance The evidence for this as provided by the Iron Age coinage is further considered below

The coinage

By the end of 2003 a total of 163 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) had been recorded from within the area of the later Roman walled town mainly in the area of Longmarket Rose Lane St Margarets Street Watling Street and Beer Cart Lane Significantly fewer Iron Age coins have been found during the recent Whitefriars excavations immediately to the east perhaps indicating the eastern limits of the Iron Age settlement although development pressures meant that only limited excavation of the earliest layers was possible The most important point about these coins is that they have virtually all been found during archaeological excavations Canterbury is the only site considered in this paper which has subsequently been built over in its entirety but it is also the only site with the exception of Richborough that has seen archaeological excavation on a large scale Canterbury is the only major late Iron Age site in east Kent with large numbers of broadly contemporary stratified coin finds This is of considerable importance not only for understanding the origins of the city but also for the study of the circulation deposition and dating of Iron Age coinage in the region as a whole A basic relative chronology for other sites in east Kent can be constructed by considering the numismatic evidence from Canterbury for example the realisation that potin coins predate the struck bronzes which themselves evolved from native-inspired designs into more Romanised types

Archaeological contexts can be questioned if later activity has occurred on the site leading to the inevitable disturbance of earlier features The result is a tendency to date items later than should be the case91 A significant number of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury have been found in post-Conquest deposits and Haselgrove regarded these as a mixture of residual coins disturbed by Roman activity as one would expect in an urban context and coins continuing in use until the mid-first century ad92 Nash considered that the potin coins from the Marlowe excavations were circulating until the later first century ad but appeared to make insufficient concession to residuality93 Some Iron Age coins have been found in medieval and later deposits having clearly arrived there as a result of earlier levels being disturbed During the early Roman period disturbance of the underlying Iron Age deposits would have been much more frequent and therefore more coins would have been displaced It cannot be conclusively shown that the Iron Age coins at Canterbury circulated for any length of time after the Conquest although it is reasonable to suppose that some may have continued to circulate for a few years before being fully supplanted by the new Roman coinage94 The problems caused by residuality have also been discussed by Arthur in relation to the late Republican amphorae from the excavations95

88 Blockley et al 1995 1289 Blockley et al 1995 990 Millett 1996 342ndash391 Haselgrove 1988 103ndash592 Haselgrove 1987 14193 D Nash in Blockley et al 1995 92394 eg Nash 1987 36ndash895 Arthur 1986 240

26 DAVID HOLMAN

Potins account for 479 per cent of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury (fig 10) The near absence of Kentish Primary potins is significant because this implies that they had largely ceased to circulate before Canterbury was established Only two of these coins have been recorded both from post-Conquest contexts and these were previously wrongly identified as a cut-down bronze of Massalia and a Central Gaulish lsquotecircte diaboliquersquo potin96 Given that Kentish Primary potins are the commonest type of Iron Age coin in east Kent it is reasonable to assume that many more would have been found at Canterbury had they still been in circulation in the last 50ndash75 years before the Conquest The possibility remains that the initial nucleus of the settlement may have been situated elsewhere97 but the current evidence supports Haselgroversquos view that early potins had mostly ceased to circulate by the early first century ad98 indeed a date before the turn of the century may now be preferred In France the temple sites at Champlieu and Chilly also provide evidence that potins had virtually disappeared from circulation by the first century ad99

An early cessation date for the circulation of the earlier Flat Linear I potins particularly Allen Classes AndashD can also be surmised from the Canterbury evidence The 21 Flat Linear I potins all belong to Allen Classes jndashL ie late in the series probably dating to around the middle of the first century bc Some of these were deliberately cut100 a feature rarely seen elsewhere although a cut Class L coin has been recorded from the Worth Temple site Elsewhere in east Kent the earlier types form a significant component of the Flat Linear I potins and their absence at Canterbury again suggests that if any settlement existed on the site in the early first century bc it is likely to have been of little importance Haselgrove noted that earlier Flat Linear I types are present at Rochester suggesting that Rochester was a site of some importance at an earlier date than Canterbury101 This may well still hold true for the relative chronology of the earliest phases at Canterbury and Rochester but it now seems likely that Kentish coinage began in the

96 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15397 Blockley et al 1995 898 Haselgrove 1987 15899 Allen 1995 51100 Haselgrove 1988 118101 Haselgrove 1987 151

fig 10a Canterbury (walled area) coins from site ()fig 10b Canterbury (walled area) set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

27IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

east of the county102 and a later commencement date for Canterbury need have no particular relevance in any discussion on Rochester located some 43 km to the north-west

Flat Linear II potins are represented by 50 surviving specimens 307 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (321 per cent of the identified coins) Compared with their general scarcity elsewhere in east Kent with the exception of East Wear Bay Folkestone (see below Site 9) with which some sort of link may have existed this is exceptional a fact well illustrated by fig 10 which shows that the proportion of these coins at Canterbury is more than ten times the mean for the rest of east Kent Recent research on Flat Linear II potins based on hoard evidence and individual findspots is leaning increasingly towards an origin in the region immediately north of London rather than Kent at least for certain classes103 In this case the appearance of so many of these coins at Canterbury cannot be easily explained They passed into the local circulation pool at a much lower rate than other coin types and the scarcity of these coins around Canterbury suggests that their principal purpose may have been related to a specific activity or commodity the nature of which is unknown Alternatively there was a sudden and significant but short-lived increase in activity at Canterbury (and Folkestone) which may again have had a specific cause Either way there must have been a fairly high degree of control to restrict their circulation in this manner A comparison may perhaps be made with the exceptionally high number of Roman coins of the period ad 388ndash402 found at Richborough which is not reflected elsewhere in east Kent and which must represent an event specific to that site in the local record although the contents of several hoards at the site account for a not insignificant proportion of these late coins104 It seems likely that the Flat Linear II potins were used in Canterbury as a low-value coinage as the appearance of so many high-value coins in a non-hoard context would be difficult to explain There may perhaps have been a reliance on these coins to sustain the Canterbury circulation pool for small-scale transactions Haselgrove noted that potins were the commonest issues circulating in Canterbury until Phase 8 (c ad 20)105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role106 although how much of this is a result of residuality cannot be ascertained

Struck bronzes are represented at Canterbury by 69 coins These include ten Gaulish coins 159 per cent of the (identified) struck bronze total There are also five Gaulish potins Overall Gaulish coins at Canterbury are 53 per cent above the east Kent mean Haselgrove commented on possible early links with the Continent107 and Fitzpatrickrsquos suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands108 but coastal sites such as Archers Low Farm and East Wear Bay Folkestone may be regarded as more likely initial points of contact Phase 6 coins are also above the east Kent mean In this respect there is some similarity to Archers Low Farm although the deviation from the mean there both for imports and Phase 6 coins is far greater There are 21 struck bronzes of the Kentish Uninscribed Series and an early lsquoChichester Cockrsquo type The frequency of some of the Kentish Uninscribed types at Canterbury in particular VA 154-3 suggests that minting facilities may have been operating at that time

Bronzes of the dynastic period are represented by 31 coins The nine coins of Dubnovellaunos three of Tasciovanus-Sego and ten of Eppillus are typical for an east Kent site However coins of Cunobelin appear to be significantly under-represented only eight coins of Cunobelin have been recorded from Canterbury and four of these are late types otherwise scarce in east

102 Holman 2000103 Haselgrove 1988 117 G Cottam pers comm104 Reece 1987 84105 Haselgrove 1987 145106 Haselgrove 1993 44107 Haselgrove 1987 143108 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

10 DAVID HOLMAN

Primary potins may have been deposited at an earlier date than the struck bronzes Most of the Gaulish bronzes from Worth originate from the region generally associated with the Ambiani tribe the nearest major tribal grouping on the Continental mainland A bronze of Massalia two Ebusus (Ibiza) bronzes and a Siculo-Punic bronze may also be noted as potential pre-Conquest imports The evidence for the appearance of these coins in Britain is reviewed below

Only nine silver and five gold coins have so far been recorded from Worth both well below the east Kent mean A silver-plated reverse brockage of a central Gaulish issue of Vepotal with an iron core is clearly a forgery but may have been regarded as suitable for a temple offering34 Three of the gold coins are also plated but with a copper core these include the two British coins both of which are of non-Kentish origin35

As on most sites numbers of coins of Phases 1ndash5 are low because most coinage belonging to these phases is of gold and is more frequently found away from recognised sites However coins of Phase 6 are also much scarcer than normal for an east Kent site Taken in conjunction with the scarcity of Flat Linear II potins this suggests greatly reduced activity in the third quarter of the first century bc intriguingly the same date at which Canterbury appears to have been established (see below Site 8) Following considerable activity in the midlate second to mid-first century bc coin deposition fell sharply before slowly recovering until the early first century ad (Phase 8E) when a significant increase is apparent under Eppillus and Cunobelin Phase 8E shows the highest peak of coin deposition at Worth relative to the surrounding region at 63 per cent above the east Kent mean

The large quantity of Iron Age coinage pottery and other domestic material from the Worth Temple site suggests that it was an extensive and important site from an early date Religion is only one of many activities which could have been carried out here The wide range of coin types and the large number of early potins suggest deposition for whatever reasons from as early as the second century bc The number of coins recorded must be regarded as providing a represent-ative sample of the coinage deposited at the site Worth has currently produced more Iron Age coins than any other site in Kent although the total is far lower than at many Continental sites Some British sites notably Harlow36 also have far higher numbers of coins A number of early Roman coins including Republican denarii issues of Tiberius and Gaius and copies of Claudius I are also known from Worth although these could all have been deposited at a later date

The coins from the Worth Temple site cannot be treated in isolation for on Worth Hill some 12 km to the north metal-detector surveys have produced a further fifteen Iron Age and a number of Roman coins The area is now under orchards Similarly an area of farmland at Ham only 1 km to the west of the Worth Temple site has produced a number of Iron Age coins There has been no archaeological input on either of these presumed sites and their nature is unknown but they may have been satellites of the main focus

A more detailed report and plan of the site (as at the end of December 2000) has been published elsewhere37 and only a summary updated to the end of 2003 has been given here

SITE 2 ARCHERS LOW FARM SANDWICH

Background

This site lies some 25 km to the north of the Worth Temple site and is situated on farmland

34 eg Briggs Haselgrove and King 1992 44ndash535 Sir john Evans held in his collection a gold quarter-stater of British Pa type (VA 147) lsquofound at Worth near

Sandwichrsquo but the exact findspot is unknown36 C Haselgrove pers comm37 Holman 2005a 265ndash75

11IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

immediately to the east of Sandwich It was discovered by members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association a local metal-detecting club in 1985 when a significant number of Iron Age and Roman coins were recovered from an area covering several arable fields In 1987 members of the Dover Archaeological Group undertook a limited amount of trenching in the area to ascertain the context of the coin finds and this was followed by a second more extensive phase of exploratory work in late 1990 and early 1991 A total of 45 hand-dug trenches was cut and from these and the metal-detector surveys it is now clear that an extensive occupation site beginning in the late Iron Age and continuing throughout the Roman period exists here38

In topographical terms a low eastward spur of the natural Thanet Beds clay seems at some stage to have provided the basis for the formation of a spit of alluvial sand Today this spit stands at an elevation of between about 25 and 4 m above OD and projects into the marshland that represents the silted up remnants of the southern end of the Wantsum Channel It seems probable that the site was established on or very close to the late Iron AgeRoman shoreline the sea today lies more than 2 km to the east39

The excavations revealed Belgic and Roman features and deposits at Archers Low Farm over an area measuring a minimum of 370 m by c 200 m covering at least 7 ha A few Roman coins were recovered further along the spit suggesting that occupation may have extended eastwards for at least 500 m Roman deposits have also been noted beneath later development 100 m to the west40 The upper layers contained medieval and post-medieval tile and pottery fragments in addition to earlier material and had clearly been disturbed in earlier periods Intact Belgic and Roman deposits lay below at a considerable depth and reached up to 150 m in thickness These comprised a series of general occupation layers occasionally interleaved with apparently natural sand deposits in which a total of eighteen features were located The lowest levels were frequently waterlogged

The excavations produced a considerable quantity of late Iron Age and Roman pottery A very significant proportion of this material consisted of fabrics in the Belgic grog-tempered tradition In addition there are significant quantities of samian ware including two fragments of a plain bowl provisionally identified as Arretine ware dateable to the AugustanTiberian period and other imported Gallo-Belgic wares including terra rubra terra nigra and white-ware butt beaker all apparently of early to mid-first-century ad date Small quantities of amphorae types Dressel 2-4 Dressel 20 and Cam 185 have been recovered but one type of vessel conspicuous by its absence is Dressel 1B amphora Much later Roman material is also present on the site including Roman building debris suggesting the presence of at least one as yet unlocated structure

The coinage

A total of 56 Iron Age and three Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from Archers Low Farm all found by members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association No pre-Conquest coins were recovered during the excavations Although it is apparent that all these coins come from the topsoil and there is no doubt that they are essentially in situ (ie not derived from elsewhere) the contemporary soil horizons can be as much as 2 m down which raises the question as to how this material arrived on the surface In part the explanation may be connected with the installation of several sets of deep land drains laid across the site at various times41 but this cannot represent the complete answer It is clear from the excavations that some considerable disturbance of

38 Frere 1988 484 Frere 1991 29239 Another Roman occupation site located on a second more extensive outer coastal sand spit has been located

at Dicksonrsquos Corner some 25 km to the south-east No coinage has been found there (Parfitt 2000)40 D Perkins pers comm41 C Burch pers comm

12 DAVID HOLMAN

the site occurred in the medieval and post-medieval periods when the area was presumably cultivated as it is now It seems certain that the uppermost Roman deposits have been damaged if not destroyed in this process thus archaeological horizons containing coins may once have been much closer to the surface This would imply that at least some of the Iron Age coinage recovered was previously contained within later Roman deposits as residual material suggesting much ancient disturbance of the earlier deposits there being no evidence for the continued use of these coins into the later Roman period No archaeological work or metal detecting has been undertaken since the early 1990s and the site has since changed ownership

The coin list for Archers Low Farm (Appendix 1) shows considerable differences compared with the Worth Temple site as does the site histogram (fig 4) Although the assemblage is much smaller it is sufficient to show the considerable diversity of the coinage present Only five potins have been recorded just 89 per cent of the total of Iron Age coins from the site compared with 504 per cent at Worth Temple of which three appear to be Gaulish imports The absence of Flat Linear potins is notable and suggests that any activity before the mid-first century bc was very limited

The most significant element among the struck bronzes is the unusually high proportion of Gaulish coins These show considerable heterogeneity although issues attributed to the Ambiani are not unexpectedly the most frequent In all Gaulish coins account for 15 of the 54 identified Iron Age coins recorded from Archers Low Farm some 278 per cent of the total nearly four

42 Briggs Haselgrove and King 1992 42ndash343 Haselgrove (in SCBI 42 coin no 427) noted that this type may be a Kentish copy of a continental type Six

examples are currently known five from East Kent and one from the temple site at Bois LrsquoAbbeacute Eu Seine-Maritime (Delestreacutee 1984 fig 88)

times the east Kent mean Only Richborough (304 per cent) among the east Kent sites exceeds this (see below Site 3) and few other sites in Britain can compare with Silchester (306 per cent) and Hayling Island (292 per cent) providing the closest comparisons42 There are also two specimens of an uncatalogued type (UB3) which has been listed here as possibly belonging to the Kentish uninscribed Series but which is conceivably Gaulish in which case the imported coinage would rise to 315 per cent of the total43 There are also three Siculo-Punic bronzes dated c 320ndash280 bc

fig 4a Archers Low Farm Sandwich coins from site ()fig 4b Archers Low Farm set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

13IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

The Kentish uninscribed Series is well represented with ten specimens (twelve including the uncatalogued type UB3) recorded of several different types The diversity of the dynastic coins from Archers Low Farm is very evident Of these coins of Dubnovellaunos are the most frequent Phases 6 and 7 and to a lesser extent Phase 8E are all above the east Kent mean There is a tendency towards an early date slowly falling off under Eppillus and Cunobelin possibly indicating greater activity prior to say c ad 15ndash25 rather than after This might also suggest that much of the imported coinage arrived before the turn of the century or at the latest very shortly afterwards However this can only be speculation in the absence of any stratified coins from the site There may be some parallel here with coin loss at Goodnestone (see below Site 7) at least in as much as struck bronze forms most of the assemblage

No genuine gold or silver coins have been recorded from Archers Low Farm There is however a bronze core of a contemporary forgery of a quarter-stater of Cunobelin with the reverse design being laterally reversed Another forgery a bronze core with uncertain designs which was probably originally silver-plated also appears to be of Cunobelin

The high proportion of Gaulish coins and the comparatively large amount of imported pottery together with the low-lying situation of Archers Low Farm all suggest that this site is a strong candidate for having been established as a port in the later Iron Age principally for the purposes of trade and probably before the turn of the millennium The proximity to the Continent and the sheltered nature of the site within the confines of the Wantsum Channel would have made it an ideal location for such a facility There would appear to be some chronological disparity between the coins and the pottery imports many of the coins dating to the mid- to late first century bc but much of the pottery apparently being of Augustan or Tiberian date with further samian imports of slightly later ClaudianNeronian date This can be partly explained if it is accepted that these coins continued to circulate in post-Conquest Gaul for many years before entering Britain at the same time as the pottery but this does not fully explain why the native coins show a similar inclination towards an early date If the site reached a peak in the early first century ad then perhaps more coins of Phase 8E should be present ie if the imports and coins of Phases 6 and 7 were not deposited until Phase 8E then coins of the latter phase although above average for the region might themselves be expected to be more numerous In addition the condition of some of the coins suggests that they had seen comparatively little circulation before their deposition No pottery certainly dating from before the first century bc has been found at the site and the low incidence of potin coins taken in conjunction with the very high levels of struck bronze indicates a date no earlier than perhaps c 30 bc for the start of the main phase of activity in the pre-Conquest period at Archers Low Farm

SITE 3 RICHBOROUGH CASTLE

Background

This internationally important Roman site situated on an island surrounded by drained wetlands that were formerly part of the Wantsum Channel occupies a small hill of Woolwich and Thanet Beds sand rising to a height of almost 20 m above OD44 It stands some 3 km to the north-west of Archers Low Farm and some 35 km to the south of the nearest point of the Isle of Thanet at Ebbsfleet

The Roman site is very well known from the excavation work of 1922ndash1938 but the evidence for its pre-Conquest origins is less than clear Occupation in the early to mid-Iron

44 Hawkes 1968 224

14 DAVID HOLMAN

Age is reasonably well attested45 but the status of the site immediately prior to the Roman invasion remains uncertain Cunliffe stated that there was lsquono trace of Belgic occupationrsquo on the site46 while both Thompson and Pollard have maintained that definite pre-Conquest pottery is generally absent from the excavated material47 A large number of early brooches are known from Richborough but there is no evidence that any of these arrived before ad 43 very few can categorically be shown to be contemporary with the Iron Age coins from the site48 although it should be noted that Iron Age brooches are much rarer finds than coins On the evidence of the coinage Rodwell suggested that there was some kind of pre-Conquest port here49 an idea previously suggested by Allen50 Indeed the fundamental question must be posed as to whether this place would ever have been chosen for a Roman invasion base if it were not already an established port of entry with clear routeways leading into the Kentish hinterland

The coinage

Allen stated that there were between 12 and 14 Iron Age coins from the excavations at Richborough (there was much confusion over the numbering system) and that these included a number of non-local coins including Gaulish imports51 Following reassessment of the site assemblage including non-excavation finds an updated summary list showing a total of 23 coins is provided in Appendix 152

Large numbers of coins have been found at and removed from Richborough over several centuries In the sixteenth century Leland wrote that more Roman coins were found at Richborough than anywhere else in England and that this had been the case for as long as anyone could remember53 Several local notables and antiquaries in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had collections of coins from the site54 It is evident that the total number of Roman coins deposited whether lost or deliberately hoarded at Richborough far exceeds the 56084 recovered during the excavations of 1922ndash193855 and it is probable that Iron Age coins were among those previously removed without record

Looked at in an overall context the 23 Iron Age coins from Richborough show considerable deviation from the general pattern in east Kent (fig 5) There are several unusual features and the group may perhaps be regarded as chronologically typologically and numerically unrepresentative for a number of reasons

a The coin distribution is irregular for an east Kent siteb An unknown number of coins have been removed without record over a long period of time including by recent illegal metal-detector activityc A lack of sanctioned metal detecting because much of the area is scheduledd The collections of local antiquaries could be of a selective nature

45 Bushe-Fox 1949 8ndash11 Cunliffe 1968 116ndash1746 Cunliffe 1968 23247 Thompson 1982 809 Pollard 1988 4448 Bayley and Butcher 200449 Rodwell 1976 22150 Allen 1968 18651 Allen 1968 184ndash852 A further coin from Richborough has been noted by Bean (Bean 2000 178 his type VERC 3-4) However the

Celtic Coin Index record for this coin queries this provenance and it has accordingly been decided not to include it in the site list at Appendix 1

53 Toulmin-Smith 1909 6254 eg Roach-Smith 1850 11955 Reece 1968

15IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

e Large-scale disturbance during the Roman period destroyed earlier layers (although any coins would probably have been re-deposited rather than removed)f There could have been considerable displacement of coins from non-local sources during the earliest Roman phaseg Many coins were probably missed during the excavations (see above)h The 1922ndash1938 excavations concentrated on the area within the Saxon Shore fort but this was not necessarily the centre of any LPRIA settlement A recent magnetometry survey and analysis of aerial photographs have revealed a dense mass of features across the fields around the fort56 many of these are probably of Roman date but the possibility that some are earlier cannot be discounted in the absence of excavation

On current evidence the Iron Age coins from Richborough appear to fall into two groups one ending at the beginning of the first century ad and consisting mainly of types typically found in east Kent and the other being more or less contemporary with the Roman conquest of ad 43 and consisting mainly of types not generally found in east Kent Haselgrove described the Richborough assemblage as superficially impressive but spurious commenting on the large number of Phase 8L coins compared with Canterbury which he suggested was a result of the Roman invasion57 No other site in east Kent bears any similarity to Richborough in Phase 8L when losses are nearly ten times the east Kent mean so it may be inferred that the reason for this is an event specific to Richborough The possibility that at least some of the earlier coins were lost at a later date as suggested by Haselgrove58 cannot be dismissed particularly in view of the lack of securely stratified and undisturbed Iron Age coins from the site the specimens of VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are candidates for this Although there are only three silver coins from Richborough silver is further above the east Kent mean than the bronze but this is entirely down to the appearance of non-local types and is misleading

56 Millett and Wilmott 200457 Haselgrove 1987 15358 Haselgrove 1987 153

fig 5a Richborough coins from site ()fig 5b Richborough set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

16 DAVID HOLMAN

The early group consists mainly of potins Gaulish imports and Kentish uninscribed bronzes together with a slightly later inscribed issue of Sa(m) Both of the coins previously recorded as bronzes of Massalia are actually potins59 The silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are early and both originate from the south coast of England With the exception of these silver coins which may have arrived later this early group fits very well into the general east Kent pattern and seemingly indicates a period of pre-Conquest coin use on the site The low percentage of potin and rather higher percentage of bronze counts against an establishment date much before the middle of the first century bc and it may be that the potins were lost at a later date and that the site was a later first-century bc foundation In favour of this is the fact that Phase 6 coins and continental imports are both above the mean for east Kent indeed Richborough has one of the highest levels of imported pre-Conquest coinage from any site in Britain comprising 304 per cent of the total site assemblage It may be significant that the proportions of Gaulish imports and Phase 6 coinage at Richborough are very similar to Archers Low Farm perhaps hinting at some link between these two sites The imports could have been deposited with the Phase 8L coins during early Roman occupation60 but given the low levels of Phase 7 and 8E coinage the near contemporary Phase 6 coinage seems unlikely to have been deposited as late as Phase 8L

Following an apparent hiatus in coin deposition evidenced by the lack of Eppillus and early Cunobelin issues common finds elsewhere in east Kent a later group becomes evident This consists of late issues of Cunobelin and three coins from the south coast one of Verica and two of the Durotriges Late issues of Cunobelin are greatly outnumbered by early issues elsewhere in east Kent while the three south coast coins suggest a link with the West Sussex Hampshire and Dorset area which is otherwise almost wholly absent in east Kent The southern silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 from the early group may have arrived at Richborough at the same time as the later coins as a result of post-Conquest activity An analogous situation can be seen at a number of sites in France where Gaulish bronzes continued in use into the first century ad61 A second-century bc bronze coin of Cyzicus is on balance more likely to be a Roman than a pre-Roman import in this instance further illustrating the difficulty in determining the date at which such early coins reached Britain62

SITE 4 EBBSFLEET ISLE OF THANET

Background

This site lies some 35 km to the north of Richborough Castle on the southern side of the Isle of Thanet at a mean elevation of 8 m above OD It occupies a low chalk promontory capped with Thanet Beds sand surrounded on three sides by marshlands which were once part of the Wantsum Channel Metal detector surveys by the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association and evaluation trenching by the Trust for Thanet Archaeology in 1990 have demonstrated the presence of extensive prehistoric and Roman occupation in this area63 Settlement in the late Iron Age is represented by a number of features together with significant quantities of pottery and coinage Amongst the pottery much of which is dated to c ad 25ndash5075 is a quantity of

59 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15260 Haselgrove 1987 15361 Haselgrove 1999 16462 There are also three early Mediterranean bronze coins from the foreshore close to the Roman fort at Reculver

at the northern end of the Wantsum Channel one of an uncertain Ptolemy one of Agathocles of Syracuse and one of Mamertini Sicily Reculver has also produced several Iron Age coins including a quarter stater (Sch 7) dating from as early as the third century bc which is potentially a contemporary import

63 Perkins 1992

17IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

imported Gallo-Belgic fineware not all of which is pre-Conquest in date There is also locally produced pottery dating from the mid-first century bc onwards as well as earlier material

The coinage

A total of 43 Iron Age and three other pre-Conquest coins are currently recorded from Ebbsfleet (Appendix 1) A few of these were published by Wren in 199264 but further discoveries have since been made and more information is available concerning the finds

Ebbsfleet has the highest percentage of Kentish Primary potins from any site in east Kent with the exception of lsquoEastryrsquo (see below Site 6) (fig 6) There are also a number of early Flat Linear I potins Overall potins are 23 per cent above the east Kent mean This suggests that the site was established at an early date probably before 100 bc a date also supported by quantities of flint-tempered pottery A relatively high level of coin deposition continued until perhaps the mid-first century bc when like Worth and North Foreland there appears to have been a major reduction in activity A change in local circumstances external factors or the non-relevance of Flat Linear II potins at these three sites are all possible reasons for the lack of Flat Linear II potins but in the absence of evidence other than the coinage itself little can be said without resorting to circular arguments At each of these sites coin deposition subsequently increased again by the early first

64 CR Wren lsquoCoins found at Ebbsfleet during 1990 and 1991rsquo in Perkins 1992 305ndash6

century ad Many of the potins from Ebbsfleet are in very poor condition possibly as a result of intensive agricultural activity in recent years Some may conceivably be Gaulish imports but their condition makes precise classification impossible

Although potins are above the east Kent mean struck bronzes are under-represented There are nine different types among the twelve coins recorded and only one is represented by more than a single specimen The solitary Gaulish struck bronze is unusually not an issue from Belgic Gaul The Siculo-Punic and Ebusus bronzes are potential pre-Conquest imports

There is an above average level of silver at Ebbsfleet a feature also evident at Richborough although very probably for different reasons there being little evidence for early Roman

fig 6a Ebbsfleet coins from site ()fig 6b Ebbsfleet set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

18 DAVID HOLMAN

occupation at Ebbsfleet The ratio of silver to bronze at Ebbsfleet is higher than for any other site in east Kent although this may be down to chance A silver coin regarded as an Atrebatic issue by Bean but not listed by Van Arsdell or Hobbs is now known from several other findspots in Kent and it may be an early Kentish issue although it bears little resemblance to any other Kentish coinage65 It is here regarded as Atrebatic although Atrebatic coinage is generally very rarely found in Kent No gold coins have been recorded from Ebbsfleet other than a contemporary forgery of a Gallo-Belgic E stater with a silver core

The level of Gaulish non-gold imports at Ebbsfleet is low at only 58 per cent of the east Kent mean An even lower level of imports is seen at North Foreland (see below Site 5) and imports are scarce finds in Thanet generally particularly when compared with the adjacent mainland area around Sandwich This is surprising in view of the coastal location and may suggest that the Kentish cross-Channel ports were situated on the mainland rather than on Thanet from where another water crossing would inconveniently be required before accessing any inland routes away from the coastal strip (although Richborough does seem to provide an exception to this) It seems clear that the main circulation area of Gaulish imports in Kent was in the hinterland of the mainland ports

The nature of the site at Ebbsfleet remains unclear but certain parallels with the Worth Temple site suggest that a not dissimilar site may exist here albeit with a significant reduction in coin deposition in Phase 8L which is far less in evidence at Worth The coin distributions at Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet are broadly similar with the exception of a higher level of silver and corresponding lower level of bronze at Ebbsfleet these differences may be more apparent than real when the relative sample sizes are compared Again there is an early peak among the potins and a later peak in Phases 7 and 8E The overall coin distribution at Ebbsfleet appears on current evidence to be marginally earlier than at the Worth Temple site both in its greater incidence of early potins and the higher ratio of Phase 7 coins to those of Phase 8E Other features shared by Ebbsfleet and Worth Temple are that both sites stand on a promontory and both have Roman masonry structures although the lsquomainrsquo Ebbsfleet building apparently of later second-century date is of unknown function66

The total lack of Phase 8L coinage at Ebbsfleet is particularly significant when compared with nearby Richborough and may conceivably represent a temporary abandonment of the site at around the time of the Conquest A marked decline in activity in the early Roman period until a resurgence in the later second century ad based on the comparative scarcity of pottery of early Roman date and the lack of contemporary coinage has previously been noted by Macpherson-Grant67 The implication can be made that the Iron Age coins were mostly if not all deposited before the Conquest or at the latest shortly afterwards

SITE 5 NORTH FORELAND BROADSTAIRS

Background

This site is located on the North Foreland on the Isle of Thanet at the easternmost point of Kent It occupies a ridge of upper Chalk and the eastern slope of the valley immediately to the west where the chalk is sealed by Head Brickearth The highest point of the site is now occupied by the North Foreland lighthouse at an elevation of about 36 m above OD

The existence of a double ditch system apparently enclosing an area of at least 24 ha across the hilltop was revealed by aerial photographs several years ago In 1995 members of the Thanet

65 Bean 2000 237 (his type QsD 3-4)66 Perkins 1992 278ndash8167 N MacPherson-Grant lsquoThe Potteryrsquo in Perkins 1992 301

19IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Archaeological Society investigated the site by cutting several sections across the ditches The outermost of these ditches had cut two earlier ditches one of which appears to have been palisaded68 Ceramic evidence indicated a construction date in the mid- to late Iron Age with infilling of the ditches occurring from the late first century bc onwards The site is currently interpreted as being a possible hillfort although the ditch dimensions are on the small side and the term lsquodefended hilltop enclosurersquo may be more appropriate

The coinage

A total of 81 Iron Age coins (counting a potin hoard as one find) has been recorded from the site at North Foreland the majority of which have been found by metal-detector users (Appendix 1) The two gold coins mentioned by Perkins are of unknown types69 A Gallo-Belgic stater found in the nineteenth century at Stone House immediately to the south of the St Stephenrsquos College site is probably related to the site and has been included here

The site histogram for North Foreland (fig 7) shows that potins are the most common Iron Age coins here with Kentish Primary potins comprising 346 per cent of the total site assemblage the most numerous However the distribution of the potins differs from Worth and Ebbsfleet in that Flat Linear I potins are much further above the east Kent mean than are the Kentish Primary potins This is not a result of the Flat Linear I hoard from the site which is counted as a single

68 Hogwood 1995 475ndash669 Perkins 1993 411ndash13

find rather the hoard complements the other Flat Linear I potins and provides definite evidence of contemporary activity The ratio of Flat Linear I potins to those of the Kentish Primary Series is higher than normal for east Kent and these show an emphasis towards the earlier varieties probably dating from the first quarter of the first century bc

In 1999 an archaeological excavation was undertaken by Canterbury Archaeological Trust and the Trust for Thanet Archaeology prior to the redevelopment of the St Stephenrsquos College site on the ridge-top some 400 m to the south-west of the lighthouse Among the many finds of Iron Age (and earlier) date was a coin hoard containing 62 Flat Linear I potins buried in a

fig 7a North Foreland coins from site ()fig 7b North Foreland set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

20 DAVID HOLMAN

pit Preliminary examination of this hoard indicated that although the coins range from Allenrsquos Class C to Class L approximately half belong to Class G70 The hoard will be reported on elsewhere The excavations also revealed an enclosure provisionally dated on ceramic evidence to the first half of the first century bc ie contemporary with the hoard and a large number of storage pits again of similar date The hoard was located only a short distance from the entrance to the enclosure and its location in the centre of what seems to have been an active site suggests that ritual deposition should be considered as a possible reason for its concealment Given the existence of this hoard the possibility that at least some of the potins recovered as metal-detector finds from the adjacent fields may derive from another now dispersed hoard cannot be discounted although there is no evidence to suggest this

North Foreland shows an apparent reduction in coinage deposition after the mid-first century bc before a later recovery in common with Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet Coins of Phases 6 and 7 are both around half the east Kent mean but a significant increase is evident in Phase 8E which continues into Phase 8L suggesting that the site saw a revival in the early first century ad The 24 struck bronzes recorded slightly below the east Kent mean form a very heterogeneous assemblage with 17 different types represented These are almost exclusively Kentish issues either produced in Kent or elsewhere (apparently) for specific use in Kent71 In view of the coastal location of the site it is interesting to note the appearance of three specimens of the lsquoShiprsquo type (VA 1989) among the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin

The low number of non-local issues is significant given the coastal location Apart from a Gallo-Belgic stater only one import has been recorded contrasting sharply with Archers Low Farm Richborough and Folkestone At only 16 per cent of the east Kent mean this site has the lowest percentage of non-gold imports at any of the major sites discussed in this paper Non-local British issues are also rare here but the coin of Verica is one of only two recorded from Kent

Set against the rest of east Kent potin is the most significant metal type at North Foreland followed by silver marginally ahead of bronze As with some elements of the phasing this is a feature shared with Ebbsfleet and may reflect a common cause North Foreland displays activity at a later date than Ebbsfleet but it is not unreasonable to assume that these sites were in some way related

SITE 6 lsquoEASTRyrsquo

Background

Situated on chalk downland south of Eastry this site has produced an assemblage of 51 pre-Roman coins At the request of the landowner and the finders details of the coins are held in the Celtic Coin Index under the neutral provenance of lsquoNorth-East Kentrsquo72

The coinage

A total of 47 Iron Age and four Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from lsquoEastryrsquo (Appendix 1)

70 C Haselgrove pers comm71 An example of the extremely rare bronze half unit VA 154-11 has been listed here as possibly being an issue

of Eppillus with its designs of a geometric pattern and a capricorn The capricorn on the reverse suggests an Augustan prototype which is probably later in date than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which this type has been attributed by both Mack and Van Arsdell However a clearer specimen is still awaited to prove or disprove this reattribution

72 Not all coins in the Celtic Coin Index with this provenance are necessarily from lsquoEastryrsquo The coins listed are known to be from this site

21IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

lsquoEastryrsquo shows clear signs of early activity with an emphasis on Kentish Primary potins (fig 8) which are 133 per cent above the east Kent mean higher than anywhere else in the region Flat Linear I potins are almost exactly on the mean but again there is an absence of Flat Linear II potins Overall potins are further above the east Kent mean here than at any other major site in the region heavily weighted by the large number of Kentish Primary types Early activity is also suggested by the three Gallo-Belgic staters lsquoEastryrsquo has a higher percentage of gold than most other sites in the region with the exception of Richborough and East Wear Bay Folkestone the latter of which fairly certainly incorporates a large degree of bias among the early finds

Only one silver coin has been recorded and there is also an unusually low number of struck bronzes lower in percentage terms than at any other site discussed in this paper Apart from this the most unusual aspect of the lsquoEastryrsquo coins is the discovery of four Siculo-Punic bronzes all of the same type the largest number of such coins from any site in Kent

The nature of this site is uncertain and the site histogram (fig 8) is irregular The above average representation of coinage in Phases 1ndash5 a very unusual feature for any site is an indicator that this site may have had a particular and possibly specialised function The high ratio of gold to silver and struck bronze may suggest that trade is unlikely to have been a principal function of this site as gold is not likely to have been a common medium of exchange A religious site is a possibility as is a disturbed hoard(s)

A separate report on lsquoEastryrsquo as a possible religiouslsquoritualrsquo site has been published elsewhere73 No further investigation of this site is anticipated

SITE 7 GOODNESTONE

Background

This inland site is located to the south-east of Goodnestone some 11 km south-east of Canterbury It occupies a broad gently sloping ridge of Upper Chalk capped by Head Brickearth at a mean elevation of 55 to 60 m above OD The existence of an Iron Age and Roman site was

73 Holman 2005a 280ndash1

fig 8a lsquoEastryrsquo coins from site ()fig 8b lsquoEastryrsquo set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

22 DAVID HOLMAN

not known until a metal-detector survey of the area carried out from 1994 onwards started to produce substantial quantities of coinage in addition to other artefacts including several pieces of mid-first-century ad Roman military equipment74 In addition to 92 Iron Age coins there are several hundred Roman coins covering the entire period of the Roman occupation Ceramic evidence and quernstones also indicate late Iron Age and Roman occupation

The coinage

The 92 Iron Age coins recorded from Goodnestone are listed in Appendix 1 The majority of these coins are either of Kentish origin or were produced elsewhere apparently for use in Kent the percentage of non-Kentish coinage from the site is lower than usual for east Kent (fig 9)

The low number of potin coins representing just 65 per cent of the site assemblage shows that although the site may have an origin in the first half of the first century bc activity at that time was probably limited The coin evidence suggests that the main phase of activity at Goodnestone started in the final quarter of the first century bc

The majority of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone 902 per cent of the site total are struck bronzes Coins of the Kentish uninscribed Series are the most frequent and are represented by 29 examples including three types not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs One of these a variant of VA 154-1 appears to provide a link between the Kentish uninscribed Series and the early inscribed coinage of Dubnovellaunos The obverse although worn on all three specimens appears to bear the same or a very similar design to the Kentish uninscribed bronze issue VA 154-1 The reverse shows a left-facing version of the horse depicted on the reverse of VA 154-1 and a close parallel for this is seen on the reverse of an inscribed silver coin of Dubnovellaunos (VA 171) It is possible that the same die-cutter was involved with all three types Three of the five known specimens of this variant form of VA 154-1 have come from Goodnestone It is conceivably an early uninscribed issue of Dubnovellaunos but has here been retained within the Kentish uninscribed Series

Coins attributed to Dubnovellaunos are represented by 21 examples at Goodnestone Among

fig 9a Goodnestone coins from site ()fig 9b Goodnestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

74 Bishop 1995 17ndash19

23IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

these are six examples of two uncatalogued but related bronze types known from several other provenances in both Kent and Essex75 A coin of Dubnovellaunos is one of only two silver coins from Goodnestone the other tentatively attributed to Addedomaros by Van Arsdell76 is known from three other provenances in east Kent but a north Thames origin still appears likely on stylistic grounds

Phase 8 coins at Goodnestone are less numerous than those of the Kentish uninscribed Series and Dubnovellaunos Coins of Eppillus are scarcer than expected for east Kent and the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin are represented by only three types all of which have their principal distribution in Kent A quarter-stater of Cunobelin is the only gold coin from Goodnestone and is possibly the latest Iron Age coin from the site although similarly late bronze coins of Amminus are also present Only three Gaulish coins have been recorded just 37 per cent of the site total unusually low for east Kent

The histogram for Goodnestone (fig 9) indicates that the site was established before the end of the first century bc Coins of Phase 6 are the most frequent finds but from then until the Conquest losses steadily decline although remaining above the east Kent mean This decline suggests that the earlier coins at least were largely deposited before the Conquest otherwise it is reasonable to expect that the ratio of Phase 8 coins to those of Phase 6 would be higher Goodnestonersquos nearest parallel among the east Kent sites is Archers Low Farm except for the lack of Gaulish imports which are significantly under-represented at only 45 per cent of the east Kent mean This may be regarded as an expected difference between a probable port site and an inland settlement of uncertain nature seemingly established at around the same time Otherwise both sites have low numbers of potins significant peaks in Phases 6 and 7 and are virtually identical in Phases 8E and 8L The metal types at Goodnestone and Archers Low Farm also have very similar proportions The very high level of struck bronze is indicative of trade and exchange from the latter part of the first century bc The scarcity of Gaulish imports and non-Kentish coinage at Goodnestone suggests that much of the activity here was locally based and that there were no direct links with places further afield A greater number of non-local coins would be expected at a trading centre with wider links such as Canterbury

The state of preservation of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone is generally very poor and ten have not been identified The impression given is that many of these coins had a long circulation life however to add a note of caution late Roman coins of the same type found only a few metres apart at Goodnestone sometimes show a very marked variation in their state of preservation the reason for which is unclear

The adjacent Cherrygarden Lane appears on Ordnance Survey maps as part of a trackway running for several kilometres across the Kentish downland This may well have originated as a main thoroughfare at a very early date A geophysical survey of part of the site revealed the existence of another trackway across the field with probable field boundaries adjoining it The function of the late Iron Age and Roman site at Goodnestone is unclear from the coin evidence alone and is only likely to be clarified by excavation Curteis has discussed a not dissimilar site at Evenley Northamptonshire and suggested either a religious centre andor an occupationaltrading settlement77 A detailed report on Goodnestone incorporating all facets of the site is in preparation78

75 Both types are uninscribed but can be attributed to Dubnovellaunos on stylistic and distributional grounds A Kentish origin for these issues is preferred here particularly in view of the lack of non-Kentish coinage from Goodnestone

76 Van Arsdell 1989 350 (his type VA 1611)77 Curteis 1996 33ndash478 Cross forthcoming

24 DAVID HOLMAN

SITE 8 CANTERBURy (WALLED AREA)

Background

As the Roman civitas capital of Kent and a moderately large town within the province of Britannia Canterbury was an important settlement which has continued to be occupied up to the present day The name by which the settlement was known to the Romans Durovernum Cantiacorum is of Celtic origin translating as lsquothe walled town by the alder swamprsquo79 and perhaps provides an initial clue to a pre-Conquest origin for the site

It has been known since at least the eighteenth century that substantial remains of the Roman town survived below the modern streets During the installation of the sewage system in the 1860s a number of coins were found none was described in detail but some were possibly Iron Age80 In 1871 an Iron Age coin was found in Burgate providing evidence for some type of pre-Conquest occupation in the area However definite remains of late Iron Age settlement were not found until excavations began on bomb-damaged sites in 1946 when work revealed a gully apparently bounding a hut site together with pottery of pre-Conquest date81 Since then a significant number of other sites producing evidence of pre-Roman occupation have been located most notably in the Marlowe car park area situated towards the central part of the Roman walled town where the remains of two circular houses set within a triple-ditched enclosure accompanied by hearths ovens and a well were found82 It now seems that late Iron Age settlement at Canterbury was dispersed across an area of at least 10 ha beside the River Stour fairly certainly focused on a ford but apparently lacking any significant defences The available dating evidence suggests that the later Iron Age settlement began during the mid- to late first century bc although evidence of occupation immediately pre-dating this may still await discovery There is some evidence for early Iron Age settlement in the area

Of particular significance in the context of the later Iron Age settlement is the hillfort of Bigberry Camp located above the Stour valley some 3 km to the west This site represents the only known certain hillfort in eastern Kent Occupation here seems to have begun c 350 bc but the defences do not appear to have been constructed until the second century bc83 The camp appears to have been largely abandoned around 50 bc perhaps as a result of it being stormed by Caesarrsquos troops in 54 bc84 Despite the significant amount of archaeological work at Bigberry no Iron Age coins have been found A few bronze coins have been found at Harbledown 1 km to the north-east Rodwell has previously suggested that the general lack of coinage from the site indicates that it was not of major importance as a permanent settlement85

It is generally accepted that the settlement at Canterbury in some way superseded Bigberry during the mid-first century bc perhaps originating as a river-side trading station of the hillfort86 Blagg has suggested that Canterburyrsquos importance grew after c 15 bc following the establishment of the Rhine frontier87 However there is currently insufficient evidence to show that Canterbury had developed into a major proto-urban centre before the Roman conquest and there appear to have been few changes certainly within the Marlowe area until the Flavian

79 Rivet and Smith 1979 353ndash480 Pilbrow 187181 Frere 1965 682 Blockley et al 199583 Thompson 1983 253ndash9 Blockley and Blockley 1989 245ndash684 Blockley and Blockley 1989 24685 Rodwell 1976 33086 Blockley et al 1995 987 T Blagg in Blockley et al 1995 11

25IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

period88 The Iron Age status of Canterbury has previously been questioned89 and Millett makes the important point that the later Roman development of the site arguably and quite possibly wrongly leads to the perception that the Iron Age settlement was of equal importance90 Nevertheless it is clear from the extent of the known remains the amount of coinage and the quantity of imported fineware pottery including Dressel I amphorae that the settlement here was of some importance The evidence for this as provided by the Iron Age coinage is further considered below

The coinage

By the end of 2003 a total of 163 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) had been recorded from within the area of the later Roman walled town mainly in the area of Longmarket Rose Lane St Margarets Street Watling Street and Beer Cart Lane Significantly fewer Iron Age coins have been found during the recent Whitefriars excavations immediately to the east perhaps indicating the eastern limits of the Iron Age settlement although development pressures meant that only limited excavation of the earliest layers was possible The most important point about these coins is that they have virtually all been found during archaeological excavations Canterbury is the only site considered in this paper which has subsequently been built over in its entirety but it is also the only site with the exception of Richborough that has seen archaeological excavation on a large scale Canterbury is the only major late Iron Age site in east Kent with large numbers of broadly contemporary stratified coin finds This is of considerable importance not only for understanding the origins of the city but also for the study of the circulation deposition and dating of Iron Age coinage in the region as a whole A basic relative chronology for other sites in east Kent can be constructed by considering the numismatic evidence from Canterbury for example the realisation that potin coins predate the struck bronzes which themselves evolved from native-inspired designs into more Romanised types

Archaeological contexts can be questioned if later activity has occurred on the site leading to the inevitable disturbance of earlier features The result is a tendency to date items later than should be the case91 A significant number of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury have been found in post-Conquest deposits and Haselgrove regarded these as a mixture of residual coins disturbed by Roman activity as one would expect in an urban context and coins continuing in use until the mid-first century ad92 Nash considered that the potin coins from the Marlowe excavations were circulating until the later first century ad but appeared to make insufficient concession to residuality93 Some Iron Age coins have been found in medieval and later deposits having clearly arrived there as a result of earlier levels being disturbed During the early Roman period disturbance of the underlying Iron Age deposits would have been much more frequent and therefore more coins would have been displaced It cannot be conclusively shown that the Iron Age coins at Canterbury circulated for any length of time after the Conquest although it is reasonable to suppose that some may have continued to circulate for a few years before being fully supplanted by the new Roman coinage94 The problems caused by residuality have also been discussed by Arthur in relation to the late Republican amphorae from the excavations95

88 Blockley et al 1995 1289 Blockley et al 1995 990 Millett 1996 342ndash391 Haselgrove 1988 103ndash592 Haselgrove 1987 14193 D Nash in Blockley et al 1995 92394 eg Nash 1987 36ndash895 Arthur 1986 240

26 DAVID HOLMAN

Potins account for 479 per cent of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury (fig 10) The near absence of Kentish Primary potins is significant because this implies that they had largely ceased to circulate before Canterbury was established Only two of these coins have been recorded both from post-Conquest contexts and these were previously wrongly identified as a cut-down bronze of Massalia and a Central Gaulish lsquotecircte diaboliquersquo potin96 Given that Kentish Primary potins are the commonest type of Iron Age coin in east Kent it is reasonable to assume that many more would have been found at Canterbury had they still been in circulation in the last 50ndash75 years before the Conquest The possibility remains that the initial nucleus of the settlement may have been situated elsewhere97 but the current evidence supports Haselgroversquos view that early potins had mostly ceased to circulate by the early first century ad98 indeed a date before the turn of the century may now be preferred In France the temple sites at Champlieu and Chilly also provide evidence that potins had virtually disappeared from circulation by the first century ad99

An early cessation date for the circulation of the earlier Flat Linear I potins particularly Allen Classes AndashD can also be surmised from the Canterbury evidence The 21 Flat Linear I potins all belong to Allen Classes jndashL ie late in the series probably dating to around the middle of the first century bc Some of these were deliberately cut100 a feature rarely seen elsewhere although a cut Class L coin has been recorded from the Worth Temple site Elsewhere in east Kent the earlier types form a significant component of the Flat Linear I potins and their absence at Canterbury again suggests that if any settlement existed on the site in the early first century bc it is likely to have been of little importance Haselgrove noted that earlier Flat Linear I types are present at Rochester suggesting that Rochester was a site of some importance at an earlier date than Canterbury101 This may well still hold true for the relative chronology of the earliest phases at Canterbury and Rochester but it now seems likely that Kentish coinage began in the

96 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15397 Blockley et al 1995 898 Haselgrove 1987 15899 Allen 1995 51100 Haselgrove 1988 118101 Haselgrove 1987 151

fig 10a Canterbury (walled area) coins from site ()fig 10b Canterbury (walled area) set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

27IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

east of the county102 and a later commencement date for Canterbury need have no particular relevance in any discussion on Rochester located some 43 km to the north-west

Flat Linear II potins are represented by 50 surviving specimens 307 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (321 per cent of the identified coins) Compared with their general scarcity elsewhere in east Kent with the exception of East Wear Bay Folkestone (see below Site 9) with which some sort of link may have existed this is exceptional a fact well illustrated by fig 10 which shows that the proportion of these coins at Canterbury is more than ten times the mean for the rest of east Kent Recent research on Flat Linear II potins based on hoard evidence and individual findspots is leaning increasingly towards an origin in the region immediately north of London rather than Kent at least for certain classes103 In this case the appearance of so many of these coins at Canterbury cannot be easily explained They passed into the local circulation pool at a much lower rate than other coin types and the scarcity of these coins around Canterbury suggests that their principal purpose may have been related to a specific activity or commodity the nature of which is unknown Alternatively there was a sudden and significant but short-lived increase in activity at Canterbury (and Folkestone) which may again have had a specific cause Either way there must have been a fairly high degree of control to restrict their circulation in this manner A comparison may perhaps be made with the exceptionally high number of Roman coins of the period ad 388ndash402 found at Richborough which is not reflected elsewhere in east Kent and which must represent an event specific to that site in the local record although the contents of several hoards at the site account for a not insignificant proportion of these late coins104 It seems likely that the Flat Linear II potins were used in Canterbury as a low-value coinage as the appearance of so many high-value coins in a non-hoard context would be difficult to explain There may perhaps have been a reliance on these coins to sustain the Canterbury circulation pool for small-scale transactions Haselgrove noted that potins were the commonest issues circulating in Canterbury until Phase 8 (c ad 20)105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role106 although how much of this is a result of residuality cannot be ascertained

Struck bronzes are represented at Canterbury by 69 coins These include ten Gaulish coins 159 per cent of the (identified) struck bronze total There are also five Gaulish potins Overall Gaulish coins at Canterbury are 53 per cent above the east Kent mean Haselgrove commented on possible early links with the Continent107 and Fitzpatrickrsquos suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands108 but coastal sites such as Archers Low Farm and East Wear Bay Folkestone may be regarded as more likely initial points of contact Phase 6 coins are also above the east Kent mean In this respect there is some similarity to Archers Low Farm although the deviation from the mean there both for imports and Phase 6 coins is far greater There are 21 struck bronzes of the Kentish Uninscribed Series and an early lsquoChichester Cockrsquo type The frequency of some of the Kentish Uninscribed types at Canterbury in particular VA 154-3 suggests that minting facilities may have been operating at that time

Bronzes of the dynastic period are represented by 31 coins The nine coins of Dubnovellaunos three of Tasciovanus-Sego and ten of Eppillus are typical for an east Kent site However coins of Cunobelin appear to be significantly under-represented only eight coins of Cunobelin have been recorded from Canterbury and four of these are late types otherwise scarce in east

102 Holman 2000103 Haselgrove 1988 117 G Cottam pers comm104 Reece 1987 84105 Haselgrove 1987 145106 Haselgrove 1993 44107 Haselgrove 1987 143108 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

11IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

immediately to the east of Sandwich It was discovered by members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association a local metal-detecting club in 1985 when a significant number of Iron Age and Roman coins were recovered from an area covering several arable fields In 1987 members of the Dover Archaeological Group undertook a limited amount of trenching in the area to ascertain the context of the coin finds and this was followed by a second more extensive phase of exploratory work in late 1990 and early 1991 A total of 45 hand-dug trenches was cut and from these and the metal-detector surveys it is now clear that an extensive occupation site beginning in the late Iron Age and continuing throughout the Roman period exists here38

In topographical terms a low eastward spur of the natural Thanet Beds clay seems at some stage to have provided the basis for the formation of a spit of alluvial sand Today this spit stands at an elevation of between about 25 and 4 m above OD and projects into the marshland that represents the silted up remnants of the southern end of the Wantsum Channel It seems probable that the site was established on or very close to the late Iron AgeRoman shoreline the sea today lies more than 2 km to the east39

The excavations revealed Belgic and Roman features and deposits at Archers Low Farm over an area measuring a minimum of 370 m by c 200 m covering at least 7 ha A few Roman coins were recovered further along the spit suggesting that occupation may have extended eastwards for at least 500 m Roman deposits have also been noted beneath later development 100 m to the west40 The upper layers contained medieval and post-medieval tile and pottery fragments in addition to earlier material and had clearly been disturbed in earlier periods Intact Belgic and Roman deposits lay below at a considerable depth and reached up to 150 m in thickness These comprised a series of general occupation layers occasionally interleaved with apparently natural sand deposits in which a total of eighteen features were located The lowest levels were frequently waterlogged

The excavations produced a considerable quantity of late Iron Age and Roman pottery A very significant proportion of this material consisted of fabrics in the Belgic grog-tempered tradition In addition there are significant quantities of samian ware including two fragments of a plain bowl provisionally identified as Arretine ware dateable to the AugustanTiberian period and other imported Gallo-Belgic wares including terra rubra terra nigra and white-ware butt beaker all apparently of early to mid-first-century ad date Small quantities of amphorae types Dressel 2-4 Dressel 20 and Cam 185 have been recovered but one type of vessel conspicuous by its absence is Dressel 1B amphora Much later Roman material is also present on the site including Roman building debris suggesting the presence of at least one as yet unlocated structure

The coinage

A total of 56 Iron Age and three Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from Archers Low Farm all found by members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association No pre-Conquest coins were recovered during the excavations Although it is apparent that all these coins come from the topsoil and there is no doubt that they are essentially in situ (ie not derived from elsewhere) the contemporary soil horizons can be as much as 2 m down which raises the question as to how this material arrived on the surface In part the explanation may be connected with the installation of several sets of deep land drains laid across the site at various times41 but this cannot represent the complete answer It is clear from the excavations that some considerable disturbance of

38 Frere 1988 484 Frere 1991 29239 Another Roman occupation site located on a second more extensive outer coastal sand spit has been located

at Dicksonrsquos Corner some 25 km to the south-east No coinage has been found there (Parfitt 2000)40 D Perkins pers comm41 C Burch pers comm

12 DAVID HOLMAN

the site occurred in the medieval and post-medieval periods when the area was presumably cultivated as it is now It seems certain that the uppermost Roman deposits have been damaged if not destroyed in this process thus archaeological horizons containing coins may once have been much closer to the surface This would imply that at least some of the Iron Age coinage recovered was previously contained within later Roman deposits as residual material suggesting much ancient disturbance of the earlier deposits there being no evidence for the continued use of these coins into the later Roman period No archaeological work or metal detecting has been undertaken since the early 1990s and the site has since changed ownership

The coin list for Archers Low Farm (Appendix 1) shows considerable differences compared with the Worth Temple site as does the site histogram (fig 4) Although the assemblage is much smaller it is sufficient to show the considerable diversity of the coinage present Only five potins have been recorded just 89 per cent of the total of Iron Age coins from the site compared with 504 per cent at Worth Temple of which three appear to be Gaulish imports The absence of Flat Linear potins is notable and suggests that any activity before the mid-first century bc was very limited

The most significant element among the struck bronzes is the unusually high proportion of Gaulish coins These show considerable heterogeneity although issues attributed to the Ambiani are not unexpectedly the most frequent In all Gaulish coins account for 15 of the 54 identified Iron Age coins recorded from Archers Low Farm some 278 per cent of the total nearly four

42 Briggs Haselgrove and King 1992 42ndash343 Haselgrove (in SCBI 42 coin no 427) noted that this type may be a Kentish copy of a continental type Six

examples are currently known five from East Kent and one from the temple site at Bois LrsquoAbbeacute Eu Seine-Maritime (Delestreacutee 1984 fig 88)

times the east Kent mean Only Richborough (304 per cent) among the east Kent sites exceeds this (see below Site 3) and few other sites in Britain can compare with Silchester (306 per cent) and Hayling Island (292 per cent) providing the closest comparisons42 There are also two specimens of an uncatalogued type (UB3) which has been listed here as possibly belonging to the Kentish uninscribed Series but which is conceivably Gaulish in which case the imported coinage would rise to 315 per cent of the total43 There are also three Siculo-Punic bronzes dated c 320ndash280 bc

fig 4a Archers Low Farm Sandwich coins from site ()fig 4b Archers Low Farm set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

13IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

The Kentish uninscribed Series is well represented with ten specimens (twelve including the uncatalogued type UB3) recorded of several different types The diversity of the dynastic coins from Archers Low Farm is very evident Of these coins of Dubnovellaunos are the most frequent Phases 6 and 7 and to a lesser extent Phase 8E are all above the east Kent mean There is a tendency towards an early date slowly falling off under Eppillus and Cunobelin possibly indicating greater activity prior to say c ad 15ndash25 rather than after This might also suggest that much of the imported coinage arrived before the turn of the century or at the latest very shortly afterwards However this can only be speculation in the absence of any stratified coins from the site There may be some parallel here with coin loss at Goodnestone (see below Site 7) at least in as much as struck bronze forms most of the assemblage

No genuine gold or silver coins have been recorded from Archers Low Farm There is however a bronze core of a contemporary forgery of a quarter-stater of Cunobelin with the reverse design being laterally reversed Another forgery a bronze core with uncertain designs which was probably originally silver-plated also appears to be of Cunobelin

The high proportion of Gaulish coins and the comparatively large amount of imported pottery together with the low-lying situation of Archers Low Farm all suggest that this site is a strong candidate for having been established as a port in the later Iron Age principally for the purposes of trade and probably before the turn of the millennium The proximity to the Continent and the sheltered nature of the site within the confines of the Wantsum Channel would have made it an ideal location for such a facility There would appear to be some chronological disparity between the coins and the pottery imports many of the coins dating to the mid- to late first century bc but much of the pottery apparently being of Augustan or Tiberian date with further samian imports of slightly later ClaudianNeronian date This can be partly explained if it is accepted that these coins continued to circulate in post-Conquest Gaul for many years before entering Britain at the same time as the pottery but this does not fully explain why the native coins show a similar inclination towards an early date If the site reached a peak in the early first century ad then perhaps more coins of Phase 8E should be present ie if the imports and coins of Phases 6 and 7 were not deposited until Phase 8E then coins of the latter phase although above average for the region might themselves be expected to be more numerous In addition the condition of some of the coins suggests that they had seen comparatively little circulation before their deposition No pottery certainly dating from before the first century bc has been found at the site and the low incidence of potin coins taken in conjunction with the very high levels of struck bronze indicates a date no earlier than perhaps c 30 bc for the start of the main phase of activity in the pre-Conquest period at Archers Low Farm

SITE 3 RICHBOROUGH CASTLE

Background

This internationally important Roman site situated on an island surrounded by drained wetlands that were formerly part of the Wantsum Channel occupies a small hill of Woolwich and Thanet Beds sand rising to a height of almost 20 m above OD44 It stands some 3 km to the north-west of Archers Low Farm and some 35 km to the south of the nearest point of the Isle of Thanet at Ebbsfleet

The Roman site is very well known from the excavation work of 1922ndash1938 but the evidence for its pre-Conquest origins is less than clear Occupation in the early to mid-Iron

44 Hawkes 1968 224

14 DAVID HOLMAN

Age is reasonably well attested45 but the status of the site immediately prior to the Roman invasion remains uncertain Cunliffe stated that there was lsquono trace of Belgic occupationrsquo on the site46 while both Thompson and Pollard have maintained that definite pre-Conquest pottery is generally absent from the excavated material47 A large number of early brooches are known from Richborough but there is no evidence that any of these arrived before ad 43 very few can categorically be shown to be contemporary with the Iron Age coins from the site48 although it should be noted that Iron Age brooches are much rarer finds than coins On the evidence of the coinage Rodwell suggested that there was some kind of pre-Conquest port here49 an idea previously suggested by Allen50 Indeed the fundamental question must be posed as to whether this place would ever have been chosen for a Roman invasion base if it were not already an established port of entry with clear routeways leading into the Kentish hinterland

The coinage

Allen stated that there were between 12 and 14 Iron Age coins from the excavations at Richborough (there was much confusion over the numbering system) and that these included a number of non-local coins including Gaulish imports51 Following reassessment of the site assemblage including non-excavation finds an updated summary list showing a total of 23 coins is provided in Appendix 152

Large numbers of coins have been found at and removed from Richborough over several centuries In the sixteenth century Leland wrote that more Roman coins were found at Richborough than anywhere else in England and that this had been the case for as long as anyone could remember53 Several local notables and antiquaries in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had collections of coins from the site54 It is evident that the total number of Roman coins deposited whether lost or deliberately hoarded at Richborough far exceeds the 56084 recovered during the excavations of 1922ndash193855 and it is probable that Iron Age coins were among those previously removed without record

Looked at in an overall context the 23 Iron Age coins from Richborough show considerable deviation from the general pattern in east Kent (fig 5) There are several unusual features and the group may perhaps be regarded as chronologically typologically and numerically unrepresentative for a number of reasons

a The coin distribution is irregular for an east Kent siteb An unknown number of coins have been removed without record over a long period of time including by recent illegal metal-detector activityc A lack of sanctioned metal detecting because much of the area is scheduledd The collections of local antiquaries could be of a selective nature

45 Bushe-Fox 1949 8ndash11 Cunliffe 1968 116ndash1746 Cunliffe 1968 23247 Thompson 1982 809 Pollard 1988 4448 Bayley and Butcher 200449 Rodwell 1976 22150 Allen 1968 18651 Allen 1968 184ndash852 A further coin from Richborough has been noted by Bean (Bean 2000 178 his type VERC 3-4) However the

Celtic Coin Index record for this coin queries this provenance and it has accordingly been decided not to include it in the site list at Appendix 1

53 Toulmin-Smith 1909 6254 eg Roach-Smith 1850 11955 Reece 1968

15IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

e Large-scale disturbance during the Roman period destroyed earlier layers (although any coins would probably have been re-deposited rather than removed)f There could have been considerable displacement of coins from non-local sources during the earliest Roman phaseg Many coins were probably missed during the excavations (see above)h The 1922ndash1938 excavations concentrated on the area within the Saxon Shore fort but this was not necessarily the centre of any LPRIA settlement A recent magnetometry survey and analysis of aerial photographs have revealed a dense mass of features across the fields around the fort56 many of these are probably of Roman date but the possibility that some are earlier cannot be discounted in the absence of excavation

On current evidence the Iron Age coins from Richborough appear to fall into two groups one ending at the beginning of the first century ad and consisting mainly of types typically found in east Kent and the other being more or less contemporary with the Roman conquest of ad 43 and consisting mainly of types not generally found in east Kent Haselgrove described the Richborough assemblage as superficially impressive but spurious commenting on the large number of Phase 8L coins compared with Canterbury which he suggested was a result of the Roman invasion57 No other site in east Kent bears any similarity to Richborough in Phase 8L when losses are nearly ten times the east Kent mean so it may be inferred that the reason for this is an event specific to Richborough The possibility that at least some of the earlier coins were lost at a later date as suggested by Haselgrove58 cannot be dismissed particularly in view of the lack of securely stratified and undisturbed Iron Age coins from the site the specimens of VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are candidates for this Although there are only three silver coins from Richborough silver is further above the east Kent mean than the bronze but this is entirely down to the appearance of non-local types and is misleading

56 Millett and Wilmott 200457 Haselgrove 1987 15358 Haselgrove 1987 153

fig 5a Richborough coins from site ()fig 5b Richborough set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

16 DAVID HOLMAN

The early group consists mainly of potins Gaulish imports and Kentish uninscribed bronzes together with a slightly later inscribed issue of Sa(m) Both of the coins previously recorded as bronzes of Massalia are actually potins59 The silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are early and both originate from the south coast of England With the exception of these silver coins which may have arrived later this early group fits very well into the general east Kent pattern and seemingly indicates a period of pre-Conquest coin use on the site The low percentage of potin and rather higher percentage of bronze counts against an establishment date much before the middle of the first century bc and it may be that the potins were lost at a later date and that the site was a later first-century bc foundation In favour of this is the fact that Phase 6 coins and continental imports are both above the mean for east Kent indeed Richborough has one of the highest levels of imported pre-Conquest coinage from any site in Britain comprising 304 per cent of the total site assemblage It may be significant that the proportions of Gaulish imports and Phase 6 coinage at Richborough are very similar to Archers Low Farm perhaps hinting at some link between these two sites The imports could have been deposited with the Phase 8L coins during early Roman occupation60 but given the low levels of Phase 7 and 8E coinage the near contemporary Phase 6 coinage seems unlikely to have been deposited as late as Phase 8L

Following an apparent hiatus in coin deposition evidenced by the lack of Eppillus and early Cunobelin issues common finds elsewhere in east Kent a later group becomes evident This consists of late issues of Cunobelin and three coins from the south coast one of Verica and two of the Durotriges Late issues of Cunobelin are greatly outnumbered by early issues elsewhere in east Kent while the three south coast coins suggest a link with the West Sussex Hampshire and Dorset area which is otherwise almost wholly absent in east Kent The southern silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 from the early group may have arrived at Richborough at the same time as the later coins as a result of post-Conquest activity An analogous situation can be seen at a number of sites in France where Gaulish bronzes continued in use into the first century ad61 A second-century bc bronze coin of Cyzicus is on balance more likely to be a Roman than a pre-Roman import in this instance further illustrating the difficulty in determining the date at which such early coins reached Britain62

SITE 4 EBBSFLEET ISLE OF THANET

Background

This site lies some 35 km to the north of Richborough Castle on the southern side of the Isle of Thanet at a mean elevation of 8 m above OD It occupies a low chalk promontory capped with Thanet Beds sand surrounded on three sides by marshlands which were once part of the Wantsum Channel Metal detector surveys by the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association and evaluation trenching by the Trust for Thanet Archaeology in 1990 have demonstrated the presence of extensive prehistoric and Roman occupation in this area63 Settlement in the late Iron Age is represented by a number of features together with significant quantities of pottery and coinage Amongst the pottery much of which is dated to c ad 25ndash5075 is a quantity of

59 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15260 Haselgrove 1987 15361 Haselgrove 1999 16462 There are also three early Mediterranean bronze coins from the foreshore close to the Roman fort at Reculver

at the northern end of the Wantsum Channel one of an uncertain Ptolemy one of Agathocles of Syracuse and one of Mamertini Sicily Reculver has also produced several Iron Age coins including a quarter stater (Sch 7) dating from as early as the third century bc which is potentially a contemporary import

63 Perkins 1992

17IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

imported Gallo-Belgic fineware not all of which is pre-Conquest in date There is also locally produced pottery dating from the mid-first century bc onwards as well as earlier material

The coinage

A total of 43 Iron Age and three other pre-Conquest coins are currently recorded from Ebbsfleet (Appendix 1) A few of these were published by Wren in 199264 but further discoveries have since been made and more information is available concerning the finds

Ebbsfleet has the highest percentage of Kentish Primary potins from any site in east Kent with the exception of lsquoEastryrsquo (see below Site 6) (fig 6) There are also a number of early Flat Linear I potins Overall potins are 23 per cent above the east Kent mean This suggests that the site was established at an early date probably before 100 bc a date also supported by quantities of flint-tempered pottery A relatively high level of coin deposition continued until perhaps the mid-first century bc when like Worth and North Foreland there appears to have been a major reduction in activity A change in local circumstances external factors or the non-relevance of Flat Linear II potins at these three sites are all possible reasons for the lack of Flat Linear II potins but in the absence of evidence other than the coinage itself little can be said without resorting to circular arguments At each of these sites coin deposition subsequently increased again by the early first

64 CR Wren lsquoCoins found at Ebbsfleet during 1990 and 1991rsquo in Perkins 1992 305ndash6

century ad Many of the potins from Ebbsfleet are in very poor condition possibly as a result of intensive agricultural activity in recent years Some may conceivably be Gaulish imports but their condition makes precise classification impossible

Although potins are above the east Kent mean struck bronzes are under-represented There are nine different types among the twelve coins recorded and only one is represented by more than a single specimen The solitary Gaulish struck bronze is unusually not an issue from Belgic Gaul The Siculo-Punic and Ebusus bronzes are potential pre-Conquest imports

There is an above average level of silver at Ebbsfleet a feature also evident at Richborough although very probably for different reasons there being little evidence for early Roman

fig 6a Ebbsfleet coins from site ()fig 6b Ebbsfleet set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

18 DAVID HOLMAN

occupation at Ebbsfleet The ratio of silver to bronze at Ebbsfleet is higher than for any other site in east Kent although this may be down to chance A silver coin regarded as an Atrebatic issue by Bean but not listed by Van Arsdell or Hobbs is now known from several other findspots in Kent and it may be an early Kentish issue although it bears little resemblance to any other Kentish coinage65 It is here regarded as Atrebatic although Atrebatic coinage is generally very rarely found in Kent No gold coins have been recorded from Ebbsfleet other than a contemporary forgery of a Gallo-Belgic E stater with a silver core

The level of Gaulish non-gold imports at Ebbsfleet is low at only 58 per cent of the east Kent mean An even lower level of imports is seen at North Foreland (see below Site 5) and imports are scarce finds in Thanet generally particularly when compared with the adjacent mainland area around Sandwich This is surprising in view of the coastal location and may suggest that the Kentish cross-Channel ports were situated on the mainland rather than on Thanet from where another water crossing would inconveniently be required before accessing any inland routes away from the coastal strip (although Richborough does seem to provide an exception to this) It seems clear that the main circulation area of Gaulish imports in Kent was in the hinterland of the mainland ports

The nature of the site at Ebbsfleet remains unclear but certain parallels with the Worth Temple site suggest that a not dissimilar site may exist here albeit with a significant reduction in coin deposition in Phase 8L which is far less in evidence at Worth The coin distributions at Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet are broadly similar with the exception of a higher level of silver and corresponding lower level of bronze at Ebbsfleet these differences may be more apparent than real when the relative sample sizes are compared Again there is an early peak among the potins and a later peak in Phases 7 and 8E The overall coin distribution at Ebbsfleet appears on current evidence to be marginally earlier than at the Worth Temple site both in its greater incidence of early potins and the higher ratio of Phase 7 coins to those of Phase 8E Other features shared by Ebbsfleet and Worth Temple are that both sites stand on a promontory and both have Roman masonry structures although the lsquomainrsquo Ebbsfleet building apparently of later second-century date is of unknown function66

The total lack of Phase 8L coinage at Ebbsfleet is particularly significant when compared with nearby Richborough and may conceivably represent a temporary abandonment of the site at around the time of the Conquest A marked decline in activity in the early Roman period until a resurgence in the later second century ad based on the comparative scarcity of pottery of early Roman date and the lack of contemporary coinage has previously been noted by Macpherson-Grant67 The implication can be made that the Iron Age coins were mostly if not all deposited before the Conquest or at the latest shortly afterwards

SITE 5 NORTH FORELAND BROADSTAIRS

Background

This site is located on the North Foreland on the Isle of Thanet at the easternmost point of Kent It occupies a ridge of upper Chalk and the eastern slope of the valley immediately to the west where the chalk is sealed by Head Brickearth The highest point of the site is now occupied by the North Foreland lighthouse at an elevation of about 36 m above OD

The existence of a double ditch system apparently enclosing an area of at least 24 ha across the hilltop was revealed by aerial photographs several years ago In 1995 members of the Thanet

65 Bean 2000 237 (his type QsD 3-4)66 Perkins 1992 278ndash8167 N MacPherson-Grant lsquoThe Potteryrsquo in Perkins 1992 301

19IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Archaeological Society investigated the site by cutting several sections across the ditches The outermost of these ditches had cut two earlier ditches one of which appears to have been palisaded68 Ceramic evidence indicated a construction date in the mid- to late Iron Age with infilling of the ditches occurring from the late first century bc onwards The site is currently interpreted as being a possible hillfort although the ditch dimensions are on the small side and the term lsquodefended hilltop enclosurersquo may be more appropriate

The coinage

A total of 81 Iron Age coins (counting a potin hoard as one find) has been recorded from the site at North Foreland the majority of which have been found by metal-detector users (Appendix 1) The two gold coins mentioned by Perkins are of unknown types69 A Gallo-Belgic stater found in the nineteenth century at Stone House immediately to the south of the St Stephenrsquos College site is probably related to the site and has been included here

The site histogram for North Foreland (fig 7) shows that potins are the most common Iron Age coins here with Kentish Primary potins comprising 346 per cent of the total site assemblage the most numerous However the distribution of the potins differs from Worth and Ebbsfleet in that Flat Linear I potins are much further above the east Kent mean than are the Kentish Primary potins This is not a result of the Flat Linear I hoard from the site which is counted as a single

68 Hogwood 1995 475ndash669 Perkins 1993 411ndash13

find rather the hoard complements the other Flat Linear I potins and provides definite evidence of contemporary activity The ratio of Flat Linear I potins to those of the Kentish Primary Series is higher than normal for east Kent and these show an emphasis towards the earlier varieties probably dating from the first quarter of the first century bc

In 1999 an archaeological excavation was undertaken by Canterbury Archaeological Trust and the Trust for Thanet Archaeology prior to the redevelopment of the St Stephenrsquos College site on the ridge-top some 400 m to the south-west of the lighthouse Among the many finds of Iron Age (and earlier) date was a coin hoard containing 62 Flat Linear I potins buried in a

fig 7a North Foreland coins from site ()fig 7b North Foreland set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

20 DAVID HOLMAN

pit Preliminary examination of this hoard indicated that although the coins range from Allenrsquos Class C to Class L approximately half belong to Class G70 The hoard will be reported on elsewhere The excavations also revealed an enclosure provisionally dated on ceramic evidence to the first half of the first century bc ie contemporary with the hoard and a large number of storage pits again of similar date The hoard was located only a short distance from the entrance to the enclosure and its location in the centre of what seems to have been an active site suggests that ritual deposition should be considered as a possible reason for its concealment Given the existence of this hoard the possibility that at least some of the potins recovered as metal-detector finds from the adjacent fields may derive from another now dispersed hoard cannot be discounted although there is no evidence to suggest this

North Foreland shows an apparent reduction in coinage deposition after the mid-first century bc before a later recovery in common with Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet Coins of Phases 6 and 7 are both around half the east Kent mean but a significant increase is evident in Phase 8E which continues into Phase 8L suggesting that the site saw a revival in the early first century ad The 24 struck bronzes recorded slightly below the east Kent mean form a very heterogeneous assemblage with 17 different types represented These are almost exclusively Kentish issues either produced in Kent or elsewhere (apparently) for specific use in Kent71 In view of the coastal location of the site it is interesting to note the appearance of three specimens of the lsquoShiprsquo type (VA 1989) among the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin

The low number of non-local issues is significant given the coastal location Apart from a Gallo-Belgic stater only one import has been recorded contrasting sharply with Archers Low Farm Richborough and Folkestone At only 16 per cent of the east Kent mean this site has the lowest percentage of non-gold imports at any of the major sites discussed in this paper Non-local British issues are also rare here but the coin of Verica is one of only two recorded from Kent

Set against the rest of east Kent potin is the most significant metal type at North Foreland followed by silver marginally ahead of bronze As with some elements of the phasing this is a feature shared with Ebbsfleet and may reflect a common cause North Foreland displays activity at a later date than Ebbsfleet but it is not unreasonable to assume that these sites were in some way related

SITE 6 lsquoEASTRyrsquo

Background

Situated on chalk downland south of Eastry this site has produced an assemblage of 51 pre-Roman coins At the request of the landowner and the finders details of the coins are held in the Celtic Coin Index under the neutral provenance of lsquoNorth-East Kentrsquo72

The coinage

A total of 47 Iron Age and four Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from lsquoEastryrsquo (Appendix 1)

70 C Haselgrove pers comm71 An example of the extremely rare bronze half unit VA 154-11 has been listed here as possibly being an issue

of Eppillus with its designs of a geometric pattern and a capricorn The capricorn on the reverse suggests an Augustan prototype which is probably later in date than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which this type has been attributed by both Mack and Van Arsdell However a clearer specimen is still awaited to prove or disprove this reattribution

72 Not all coins in the Celtic Coin Index with this provenance are necessarily from lsquoEastryrsquo The coins listed are known to be from this site

21IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

lsquoEastryrsquo shows clear signs of early activity with an emphasis on Kentish Primary potins (fig 8) which are 133 per cent above the east Kent mean higher than anywhere else in the region Flat Linear I potins are almost exactly on the mean but again there is an absence of Flat Linear II potins Overall potins are further above the east Kent mean here than at any other major site in the region heavily weighted by the large number of Kentish Primary types Early activity is also suggested by the three Gallo-Belgic staters lsquoEastryrsquo has a higher percentage of gold than most other sites in the region with the exception of Richborough and East Wear Bay Folkestone the latter of which fairly certainly incorporates a large degree of bias among the early finds

Only one silver coin has been recorded and there is also an unusually low number of struck bronzes lower in percentage terms than at any other site discussed in this paper Apart from this the most unusual aspect of the lsquoEastryrsquo coins is the discovery of four Siculo-Punic bronzes all of the same type the largest number of such coins from any site in Kent

The nature of this site is uncertain and the site histogram (fig 8) is irregular The above average representation of coinage in Phases 1ndash5 a very unusual feature for any site is an indicator that this site may have had a particular and possibly specialised function The high ratio of gold to silver and struck bronze may suggest that trade is unlikely to have been a principal function of this site as gold is not likely to have been a common medium of exchange A religious site is a possibility as is a disturbed hoard(s)

A separate report on lsquoEastryrsquo as a possible religiouslsquoritualrsquo site has been published elsewhere73 No further investigation of this site is anticipated

SITE 7 GOODNESTONE

Background

This inland site is located to the south-east of Goodnestone some 11 km south-east of Canterbury It occupies a broad gently sloping ridge of Upper Chalk capped by Head Brickearth at a mean elevation of 55 to 60 m above OD The existence of an Iron Age and Roman site was

73 Holman 2005a 280ndash1

fig 8a lsquoEastryrsquo coins from site ()fig 8b lsquoEastryrsquo set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

22 DAVID HOLMAN

not known until a metal-detector survey of the area carried out from 1994 onwards started to produce substantial quantities of coinage in addition to other artefacts including several pieces of mid-first-century ad Roman military equipment74 In addition to 92 Iron Age coins there are several hundred Roman coins covering the entire period of the Roman occupation Ceramic evidence and quernstones also indicate late Iron Age and Roman occupation

The coinage

The 92 Iron Age coins recorded from Goodnestone are listed in Appendix 1 The majority of these coins are either of Kentish origin or were produced elsewhere apparently for use in Kent the percentage of non-Kentish coinage from the site is lower than usual for east Kent (fig 9)

The low number of potin coins representing just 65 per cent of the site assemblage shows that although the site may have an origin in the first half of the first century bc activity at that time was probably limited The coin evidence suggests that the main phase of activity at Goodnestone started in the final quarter of the first century bc

The majority of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone 902 per cent of the site total are struck bronzes Coins of the Kentish uninscribed Series are the most frequent and are represented by 29 examples including three types not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs One of these a variant of VA 154-1 appears to provide a link between the Kentish uninscribed Series and the early inscribed coinage of Dubnovellaunos The obverse although worn on all three specimens appears to bear the same or a very similar design to the Kentish uninscribed bronze issue VA 154-1 The reverse shows a left-facing version of the horse depicted on the reverse of VA 154-1 and a close parallel for this is seen on the reverse of an inscribed silver coin of Dubnovellaunos (VA 171) It is possible that the same die-cutter was involved with all three types Three of the five known specimens of this variant form of VA 154-1 have come from Goodnestone It is conceivably an early uninscribed issue of Dubnovellaunos but has here been retained within the Kentish uninscribed Series

Coins attributed to Dubnovellaunos are represented by 21 examples at Goodnestone Among

fig 9a Goodnestone coins from site ()fig 9b Goodnestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

74 Bishop 1995 17ndash19

23IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

these are six examples of two uncatalogued but related bronze types known from several other provenances in both Kent and Essex75 A coin of Dubnovellaunos is one of only two silver coins from Goodnestone the other tentatively attributed to Addedomaros by Van Arsdell76 is known from three other provenances in east Kent but a north Thames origin still appears likely on stylistic grounds

Phase 8 coins at Goodnestone are less numerous than those of the Kentish uninscribed Series and Dubnovellaunos Coins of Eppillus are scarcer than expected for east Kent and the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin are represented by only three types all of which have their principal distribution in Kent A quarter-stater of Cunobelin is the only gold coin from Goodnestone and is possibly the latest Iron Age coin from the site although similarly late bronze coins of Amminus are also present Only three Gaulish coins have been recorded just 37 per cent of the site total unusually low for east Kent

The histogram for Goodnestone (fig 9) indicates that the site was established before the end of the first century bc Coins of Phase 6 are the most frequent finds but from then until the Conquest losses steadily decline although remaining above the east Kent mean This decline suggests that the earlier coins at least were largely deposited before the Conquest otherwise it is reasonable to expect that the ratio of Phase 8 coins to those of Phase 6 would be higher Goodnestonersquos nearest parallel among the east Kent sites is Archers Low Farm except for the lack of Gaulish imports which are significantly under-represented at only 45 per cent of the east Kent mean This may be regarded as an expected difference between a probable port site and an inland settlement of uncertain nature seemingly established at around the same time Otherwise both sites have low numbers of potins significant peaks in Phases 6 and 7 and are virtually identical in Phases 8E and 8L The metal types at Goodnestone and Archers Low Farm also have very similar proportions The very high level of struck bronze is indicative of trade and exchange from the latter part of the first century bc The scarcity of Gaulish imports and non-Kentish coinage at Goodnestone suggests that much of the activity here was locally based and that there were no direct links with places further afield A greater number of non-local coins would be expected at a trading centre with wider links such as Canterbury

The state of preservation of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone is generally very poor and ten have not been identified The impression given is that many of these coins had a long circulation life however to add a note of caution late Roman coins of the same type found only a few metres apart at Goodnestone sometimes show a very marked variation in their state of preservation the reason for which is unclear

The adjacent Cherrygarden Lane appears on Ordnance Survey maps as part of a trackway running for several kilometres across the Kentish downland This may well have originated as a main thoroughfare at a very early date A geophysical survey of part of the site revealed the existence of another trackway across the field with probable field boundaries adjoining it The function of the late Iron Age and Roman site at Goodnestone is unclear from the coin evidence alone and is only likely to be clarified by excavation Curteis has discussed a not dissimilar site at Evenley Northamptonshire and suggested either a religious centre andor an occupationaltrading settlement77 A detailed report on Goodnestone incorporating all facets of the site is in preparation78

75 Both types are uninscribed but can be attributed to Dubnovellaunos on stylistic and distributional grounds A Kentish origin for these issues is preferred here particularly in view of the lack of non-Kentish coinage from Goodnestone

76 Van Arsdell 1989 350 (his type VA 1611)77 Curteis 1996 33ndash478 Cross forthcoming

24 DAVID HOLMAN

SITE 8 CANTERBURy (WALLED AREA)

Background

As the Roman civitas capital of Kent and a moderately large town within the province of Britannia Canterbury was an important settlement which has continued to be occupied up to the present day The name by which the settlement was known to the Romans Durovernum Cantiacorum is of Celtic origin translating as lsquothe walled town by the alder swamprsquo79 and perhaps provides an initial clue to a pre-Conquest origin for the site

It has been known since at least the eighteenth century that substantial remains of the Roman town survived below the modern streets During the installation of the sewage system in the 1860s a number of coins were found none was described in detail but some were possibly Iron Age80 In 1871 an Iron Age coin was found in Burgate providing evidence for some type of pre-Conquest occupation in the area However definite remains of late Iron Age settlement were not found until excavations began on bomb-damaged sites in 1946 when work revealed a gully apparently bounding a hut site together with pottery of pre-Conquest date81 Since then a significant number of other sites producing evidence of pre-Roman occupation have been located most notably in the Marlowe car park area situated towards the central part of the Roman walled town where the remains of two circular houses set within a triple-ditched enclosure accompanied by hearths ovens and a well were found82 It now seems that late Iron Age settlement at Canterbury was dispersed across an area of at least 10 ha beside the River Stour fairly certainly focused on a ford but apparently lacking any significant defences The available dating evidence suggests that the later Iron Age settlement began during the mid- to late first century bc although evidence of occupation immediately pre-dating this may still await discovery There is some evidence for early Iron Age settlement in the area

Of particular significance in the context of the later Iron Age settlement is the hillfort of Bigberry Camp located above the Stour valley some 3 km to the west This site represents the only known certain hillfort in eastern Kent Occupation here seems to have begun c 350 bc but the defences do not appear to have been constructed until the second century bc83 The camp appears to have been largely abandoned around 50 bc perhaps as a result of it being stormed by Caesarrsquos troops in 54 bc84 Despite the significant amount of archaeological work at Bigberry no Iron Age coins have been found A few bronze coins have been found at Harbledown 1 km to the north-east Rodwell has previously suggested that the general lack of coinage from the site indicates that it was not of major importance as a permanent settlement85

It is generally accepted that the settlement at Canterbury in some way superseded Bigberry during the mid-first century bc perhaps originating as a river-side trading station of the hillfort86 Blagg has suggested that Canterburyrsquos importance grew after c 15 bc following the establishment of the Rhine frontier87 However there is currently insufficient evidence to show that Canterbury had developed into a major proto-urban centre before the Roman conquest and there appear to have been few changes certainly within the Marlowe area until the Flavian

79 Rivet and Smith 1979 353ndash480 Pilbrow 187181 Frere 1965 682 Blockley et al 199583 Thompson 1983 253ndash9 Blockley and Blockley 1989 245ndash684 Blockley and Blockley 1989 24685 Rodwell 1976 33086 Blockley et al 1995 987 T Blagg in Blockley et al 1995 11

25IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

period88 The Iron Age status of Canterbury has previously been questioned89 and Millett makes the important point that the later Roman development of the site arguably and quite possibly wrongly leads to the perception that the Iron Age settlement was of equal importance90 Nevertheless it is clear from the extent of the known remains the amount of coinage and the quantity of imported fineware pottery including Dressel I amphorae that the settlement here was of some importance The evidence for this as provided by the Iron Age coinage is further considered below

The coinage

By the end of 2003 a total of 163 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) had been recorded from within the area of the later Roman walled town mainly in the area of Longmarket Rose Lane St Margarets Street Watling Street and Beer Cart Lane Significantly fewer Iron Age coins have been found during the recent Whitefriars excavations immediately to the east perhaps indicating the eastern limits of the Iron Age settlement although development pressures meant that only limited excavation of the earliest layers was possible The most important point about these coins is that they have virtually all been found during archaeological excavations Canterbury is the only site considered in this paper which has subsequently been built over in its entirety but it is also the only site with the exception of Richborough that has seen archaeological excavation on a large scale Canterbury is the only major late Iron Age site in east Kent with large numbers of broadly contemporary stratified coin finds This is of considerable importance not only for understanding the origins of the city but also for the study of the circulation deposition and dating of Iron Age coinage in the region as a whole A basic relative chronology for other sites in east Kent can be constructed by considering the numismatic evidence from Canterbury for example the realisation that potin coins predate the struck bronzes which themselves evolved from native-inspired designs into more Romanised types

Archaeological contexts can be questioned if later activity has occurred on the site leading to the inevitable disturbance of earlier features The result is a tendency to date items later than should be the case91 A significant number of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury have been found in post-Conquest deposits and Haselgrove regarded these as a mixture of residual coins disturbed by Roman activity as one would expect in an urban context and coins continuing in use until the mid-first century ad92 Nash considered that the potin coins from the Marlowe excavations were circulating until the later first century ad but appeared to make insufficient concession to residuality93 Some Iron Age coins have been found in medieval and later deposits having clearly arrived there as a result of earlier levels being disturbed During the early Roman period disturbance of the underlying Iron Age deposits would have been much more frequent and therefore more coins would have been displaced It cannot be conclusively shown that the Iron Age coins at Canterbury circulated for any length of time after the Conquest although it is reasonable to suppose that some may have continued to circulate for a few years before being fully supplanted by the new Roman coinage94 The problems caused by residuality have also been discussed by Arthur in relation to the late Republican amphorae from the excavations95

88 Blockley et al 1995 1289 Blockley et al 1995 990 Millett 1996 342ndash391 Haselgrove 1988 103ndash592 Haselgrove 1987 14193 D Nash in Blockley et al 1995 92394 eg Nash 1987 36ndash895 Arthur 1986 240

26 DAVID HOLMAN

Potins account for 479 per cent of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury (fig 10) The near absence of Kentish Primary potins is significant because this implies that they had largely ceased to circulate before Canterbury was established Only two of these coins have been recorded both from post-Conquest contexts and these were previously wrongly identified as a cut-down bronze of Massalia and a Central Gaulish lsquotecircte diaboliquersquo potin96 Given that Kentish Primary potins are the commonest type of Iron Age coin in east Kent it is reasonable to assume that many more would have been found at Canterbury had they still been in circulation in the last 50ndash75 years before the Conquest The possibility remains that the initial nucleus of the settlement may have been situated elsewhere97 but the current evidence supports Haselgroversquos view that early potins had mostly ceased to circulate by the early first century ad98 indeed a date before the turn of the century may now be preferred In France the temple sites at Champlieu and Chilly also provide evidence that potins had virtually disappeared from circulation by the first century ad99

An early cessation date for the circulation of the earlier Flat Linear I potins particularly Allen Classes AndashD can also be surmised from the Canterbury evidence The 21 Flat Linear I potins all belong to Allen Classes jndashL ie late in the series probably dating to around the middle of the first century bc Some of these were deliberately cut100 a feature rarely seen elsewhere although a cut Class L coin has been recorded from the Worth Temple site Elsewhere in east Kent the earlier types form a significant component of the Flat Linear I potins and their absence at Canterbury again suggests that if any settlement existed on the site in the early first century bc it is likely to have been of little importance Haselgrove noted that earlier Flat Linear I types are present at Rochester suggesting that Rochester was a site of some importance at an earlier date than Canterbury101 This may well still hold true for the relative chronology of the earliest phases at Canterbury and Rochester but it now seems likely that Kentish coinage began in the

96 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15397 Blockley et al 1995 898 Haselgrove 1987 15899 Allen 1995 51100 Haselgrove 1988 118101 Haselgrove 1987 151

fig 10a Canterbury (walled area) coins from site ()fig 10b Canterbury (walled area) set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

27IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

east of the county102 and a later commencement date for Canterbury need have no particular relevance in any discussion on Rochester located some 43 km to the north-west

Flat Linear II potins are represented by 50 surviving specimens 307 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (321 per cent of the identified coins) Compared with their general scarcity elsewhere in east Kent with the exception of East Wear Bay Folkestone (see below Site 9) with which some sort of link may have existed this is exceptional a fact well illustrated by fig 10 which shows that the proportion of these coins at Canterbury is more than ten times the mean for the rest of east Kent Recent research on Flat Linear II potins based on hoard evidence and individual findspots is leaning increasingly towards an origin in the region immediately north of London rather than Kent at least for certain classes103 In this case the appearance of so many of these coins at Canterbury cannot be easily explained They passed into the local circulation pool at a much lower rate than other coin types and the scarcity of these coins around Canterbury suggests that their principal purpose may have been related to a specific activity or commodity the nature of which is unknown Alternatively there was a sudden and significant but short-lived increase in activity at Canterbury (and Folkestone) which may again have had a specific cause Either way there must have been a fairly high degree of control to restrict their circulation in this manner A comparison may perhaps be made with the exceptionally high number of Roman coins of the period ad 388ndash402 found at Richborough which is not reflected elsewhere in east Kent and which must represent an event specific to that site in the local record although the contents of several hoards at the site account for a not insignificant proportion of these late coins104 It seems likely that the Flat Linear II potins were used in Canterbury as a low-value coinage as the appearance of so many high-value coins in a non-hoard context would be difficult to explain There may perhaps have been a reliance on these coins to sustain the Canterbury circulation pool for small-scale transactions Haselgrove noted that potins were the commonest issues circulating in Canterbury until Phase 8 (c ad 20)105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role106 although how much of this is a result of residuality cannot be ascertained

Struck bronzes are represented at Canterbury by 69 coins These include ten Gaulish coins 159 per cent of the (identified) struck bronze total There are also five Gaulish potins Overall Gaulish coins at Canterbury are 53 per cent above the east Kent mean Haselgrove commented on possible early links with the Continent107 and Fitzpatrickrsquos suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands108 but coastal sites such as Archers Low Farm and East Wear Bay Folkestone may be regarded as more likely initial points of contact Phase 6 coins are also above the east Kent mean In this respect there is some similarity to Archers Low Farm although the deviation from the mean there both for imports and Phase 6 coins is far greater There are 21 struck bronzes of the Kentish Uninscribed Series and an early lsquoChichester Cockrsquo type The frequency of some of the Kentish Uninscribed types at Canterbury in particular VA 154-3 suggests that minting facilities may have been operating at that time

Bronzes of the dynastic period are represented by 31 coins The nine coins of Dubnovellaunos three of Tasciovanus-Sego and ten of Eppillus are typical for an east Kent site However coins of Cunobelin appear to be significantly under-represented only eight coins of Cunobelin have been recorded from Canterbury and four of these are late types otherwise scarce in east

102 Holman 2000103 Haselgrove 1988 117 G Cottam pers comm104 Reece 1987 84105 Haselgrove 1987 145106 Haselgrove 1993 44107 Haselgrove 1987 143108 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

12 DAVID HOLMAN

the site occurred in the medieval and post-medieval periods when the area was presumably cultivated as it is now It seems certain that the uppermost Roman deposits have been damaged if not destroyed in this process thus archaeological horizons containing coins may once have been much closer to the surface This would imply that at least some of the Iron Age coinage recovered was previously contained within later Roman deposits as residual material suggesting much ancient disturbance of the earlier deposits there being no evidence for the continued use of these coins into the later Roman period No archaeological work or metal detecting has been undertaken since the early 1990s and the site has since changed ownership

The coin list for Archers Low Farm (Appendix 1) shows considerable differences compared with the Worth Temple site as does the site histogram (fig 4) Although the assemblage is much smaller it is sufficient to show the considerable diversity of the coinage present Only five potins have been recorded just 89 per cent of the total of Iron Age coins from the site compared with 504 per cent at Worth Temple of which three appear to be Gaulish imports The absence of Flat Linear potins is notable and suggests that any activity before the mid-first century bc was very limited

The most significant element among the struck bronzes is the unusually high proportion of Gaulish coins These show considerable heterogeneity although issues attributed to the Ambiani are not unexpectedly the most frequent In all Gaulish coins account for 15 of the 54 identified Iron Age coins recorded from Archers Low Farm some 278 per cent of the total nearly four

42 Briggs Haselgrove and King 1992 42ndash343 Haselgrove (in SCBI 42 coin no 427) noted that this type may be a Kentish copy of a continental type Six

examples are currently known five from East Kent and one from the temple site at Bois LrsquoAbbeacute Eu Seine-Maritime (Delestreacutee 1984 fig 88)

times the east Kent mean Only Richborough (304 per cent) among the east Kent sites exceeds this (see below Site 3) and few other sites in Britain can compare with Silchester (306 per cent) and Hayling Island (292 per cent) providing the closest comparisons42 There are also two specimens of an uncatalogued type (UB3) which has been listed here as possibly belonging to the Kentish uninscribed Series but which is conceivably Gaulish in which case the imported coinage would rise to 315 per cent of the total43 There are also three Siculo-Punic bronzes dated c 320ndash280 bc

fig 4a Archers Low Farm Sandwich coins from site ()fig 4b Archers Low Farm set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

13IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

The Kentish uninscribed Series is well represented with ten specimens (twelve including the uncatalogued type UB3) recorded of several different types The diversity of the dynastic coins from Archers Low Farm is very evident Of these coins of Dubnovellaunos are the most frequent Phases 6 and 7 and to a lesser extent Phase 8E are all above the east Kent mean There is a tendency towards an early date slowly falling off under Eppillus and Cunobelin possibly indicating greater activity prior to say c ad 15ndash25 rather than after This might also suggest that much of the imported coinage arrived before the turn of the century or at the latest very shortly afterwards However this can only be speculation in the absence of any stratified coins from the site There may be some parallel here with coin loss at Goodnestone (see below Site 7) at least in as much as struck bronze forms most of the assemblage

No genuine gold or silver coins have been recorded from Archers Low Farm There is however a bronze core of a contemporary forgery of a quarter-stater of Cunobelin with the reverse design being laterally reversed Another forgery a bronze core with uncertain designs which was probably originally silver-plated also appears to be of Cunobelin

The high proportion of Gaulish coins and the comparatively large amount of imported pottery together with the low-lying situation of Archers Low Farm all suggest that this site is a strong candidate for having been established as a port in the later Iron Age principally for the purposes of trade and probably before the turn of the millennium The proximity to the Continent and the sheltered nature of the site within the confines of the Wantsum Channel would have made it an ideal location for such a facility There would appear to be some chronological disparity between the coins and the pottery imports many of the coins dating to the mid- to late first century bc but much of the pottery apparently being of Augustan or Tiberian date with further samian imports of slightly later ClaudianNeronian date This can be partly explained if it is accepted that these coins continued to circulate in post-Conquest Gaul for many years before entering Britain at the same time as the pottery but this does not fully explain why the native coins show a similar inclination towards an early date If the site reached a peak in the early first century ad then perhaps more coins of Phase 8E should be present ie if the imports and coins of Phases 6 and 7 were not deposited until Phase 8E then coins of the latter phase although above average for the region might themselves be expected to be more numerous In addition the condition of some of the coins suggests that they had seen comparatively little circulation before their deposition No pottery certainly dating from before the first century bc has been found at the site and the low incidence of potin coins taken in conjunction with the very high levels of struck bronze indicates a date no earlier than perhaps c 30 bc for the start of the main phase of activity in the pre-Conquest period at Archers Low Farm

SITE 3 RICHBOROUGH CASTLE

Background

This internationally important Roman site situated on an island surrounded by drained wetlands that were formerly part of the Wantsum Channel occupies a small hill of Woolwich and Thanet Beds sand rising to a height of almost 20 m above OD44 It stands some 3 km to the north-west of Archers Low Farm and some 35 km to the south of the nearest point of the Isle of Thanet at Ebbsfleet

The Roman site is very well known from the excavation work of 1922ndash1938 but the evidence for its pre-Conquest origins is less than clear Occupation in the early to mid-Iron

44 Hawkes 1968 224

14 DAVID HOLMAN

Age is reasonably well attested45 but the status of the site immediately prior to the Roman invasion remains uncertain Cunliffe stated that there was lsquono trace of Belgic occupationrsquo on the site46 while both Thompson and Pollard have maintained that definite pre-Conquest pottery is generally absent from the excavated material47 A large number of early brooches are known from Richborough but there is no evidence that any of these arrived before ad 43 very few can categorically be shown to be contemporary with the Iron Age coins from the site48 although it should be noted that Iron Age brooches are much rarer finds than coins On the evidence of the coinage Rodwell suggested that there was some kind of pre-Conquest port here49 an idea previously suggested by Allen50 Indeed the fundamental question must be posed as to whether this place would ever have been chosen for a Roman invasion base if it were not already an established port of entry with clear routeways leading into the Kentish hinterland

The coinage

Allen stated that there were between 12 and 14 Iron Age coins from the excavations at Richborough (there was much confusion over the numbering system) and that these included a number of non-local coins including Gaulish imports51 Following reassessment of the site assemblage including non-excavation finds an updated summary list showing a total of 23 coins is provided in Appendix 152

Large numbers of coins have been found at and removed from Richborough over several centuries In the sixteenth century Leland wrote that more Roman coins were found at Richborough than anywhere else in England and that this had been the case for as long as anyone could remember53 Several local notables and antiquaries in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had collections of coins from the site54 It is evident that the total number of Roman coins deposited whether lost or deliberately hoarded at Richborough far exceeds the 56084 recovered during the excavations of 1922ndash193855 and it is probable that Iron Age coins were among those previously removed without record

Looked at in an overall context the 23 Iron Age coins from Richborough show considerable deviation from the general pattern in east Kent (fig 5) There are several unusual features and the group may perhaps be regarded as chronologically typologically and numerically unrepresentative for a number of reasons

a The coin distribution is irregular for an east Kent siteb An unknown number of coins have been removed without record over a long period of time including by recent illegal metal-detector activityc A lack of sanctioned metal detecting because much of the area is scheduledd The collections of local antiquaries could be of a selective nature

45 Bushe-Fox 1949 8ndash11 Cunliffe 1968 116ndash1746 Cunliffe 1968 23247 Thompson 1982 809 Pollard 1988 4448 Bayley and Butcher 200449 Rodwell 1976 22150 Allen 1968 18651 Allen 1968 184ndash852 A further coin from Richborough has been noted by Bean (Bean 2000 178 his type VERC 3-4) However the

Celtic Coin Index record for this coin queries this provenance and it has accordingly been decided not to include it in the site list at Appendix 1

53 Toulmin-Smith 1909 6254 eg Roach-Smith 1850 11955 Reece 1968

15IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

e Large-scale disturbance during the Roman period destroyed earlier layers (although any coins would probably have been re-deposited rather than removed)f There could have been considerable displacement of coins from non-local sources during the earliest Roman phaseg Many coins were probably missed during the excavations (see above)h The 1922ndash1938 excavations concentrated on the area within the Saxon Shore fort but this was not necessarily the centre of any LPRIA settlement A recent magnetometry survey and analysis of aerial photographs have revealed a dense mass of features across the fields around the fort56 many of these are probably of Roman date but the possibility that some are earlier cannot be discounted in the absence of excavation

On current evidence the Iron Age coins from Richborough appear to fall into two groups one ending at the beginning of the first century ad and consisting mainly of types typically found in east Kent and the other being more or less contemporary with the Roman conquest of ad 43 and consisting mainly of types not generally found in east Kent Haselgrove described the Richborough assemblage as superficially impressive but spurious commenting on the large number of Phase 8L coins compared with Canterbury which he suggested was a result of the Roman invasion57 No other site in east Kent bears any similarity to Richborough in Phase 8L when losses are nearly ten times the east Kent mean so it may be inferred that the reason for this is an event specific to Richborough The possibility that at least some of the earlier coins were lost at a later date as suggested by Haselgrove58 cannot be dismissed particularly in view of the lack of securely stratified and undisturbed Iron Age coins from the site the specimens of VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are candidates for this Although there are only three silver coins from Richborough silver is further above the east Kent mean than the bronze but this is entirely down to the appearance of non-local types and is misleading

56 Millett and Wilmott 200457 Haselgrove 1987 15358 Haselgrove 1987 153

fig 5a Richborough coins from site ()fig 5b Richborough set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

16 DAVID HOLMAN

The early group consists mainly of potins Gaulish imports and Kentish uninscribed bronzes together with a slightly later inscribed issue of Sa(m) Both of the coins previously recorded as bronzes of Massalia are actually potins59 The silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are early and both originate from the south coast of England With the exception of these silver coins which may have arrived later this early group fits very well into the general east Kent pattern and seemingly indicates a period of pre-Conquest coin use on the site The low percentage of potin and rather higher percentage of bronze counts against an establishment date much before the middle of the first century bc and it may be that the potins were lost at a later date and that the site was a later first-century bc foundation In favour of this is the fact that Phase 6 coins and continental imports are both above the mean for east Kent indeed Richborough has one of the highest levels of imported pre-Conquest coinage from any site in Britain comprising 304 per cent of the total site assemblage It may be significant that the proportions of Gaulish imports and Phase 6 coinage at Richborough are very similar to Archers Low Farm perhaps hinting at some link between these two sites The imports could have been deposited with the Phase 8L coins during early Roman occupation60 but given the low levels of Phase 7 and 8E coinage the near contemporary Phase 6 coinage seems unlikely to have been deposited as late as Phase 8L

Following an apparent hiatus in coin deposition evidenced by the lack of Eppillus and early Cunobelin issues common finds elsewhere in east Kent a later group becomes evident This consists of late issues of Cunobelin and three coins from the south coast one of Verica and two of the Durotriges Late issues of Cunobelin are greatly outnumbered by early issues elsewhere in east Kent while the three south coast coins suggest a link with the West Sussex Hampshire and Dorset area which is otherwise almost wholly absent in east Kent The southern silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 from the early group may have arrived at Richborough at the same time as the later coins as a result of post-Conquest activity An analogous situation can be seen at a number of sites in France where Gaulish bronzes continued in use into the first century ad61 A second-century bc bronze coin of Cyzicus is on balance more likely to be a Roman than a pre-Roman import in this instance further illustrating the difficulty in determining the date at which such early coins reached Britain62

SITE 4 EBBSFLEET ISLE OF THANET

Background

This site lies some 35 km to the north of Richborough Castle on the southern side of the Isle of Thanet at a mean elevation of 8 m above OD It occupies a low chalk promontory capped with Thanet Beds sand surrounded on three sides by marshlands which were once part of the Wantsum Channel Metal detector surveys by the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association and evaluation trenching by the Trust for Thanet Archaeology in 1990 have demonstrated the presence of extensive prehistoric and Roman occupation in this area63 Settlement in the late Iron Age is represented by a number of features together with significant quantities of pottery and coinage Amongst the pottery much of which is dated to c ad 25ndash5075 is a quantity of

59 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15260 Haselgrove 1987 15361 Haselgrove 1999 16462 There are also three early Mediterranean bronze coins from the foreshore close to the Roman fort at Reculver

at the northern end of the Wantsum Channel one of an uncertain Ptolemy one of Agathocles of Syracuse and one of Mamertini Sicily Reculver has also produced several Iron Age coins including a quarter stater (Sch 7) dating from as early as the third century bc which is potentially a contemporary import

63 Perkins 1992

17IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

imported Gallo-Belgic fineware not all of which is pre-Conquest in date There is also locally produced pottery dating from the mid-first century bc onwards as well as earlier material

The coinage

A total of 43 Iron Age and three other pre-Conquest coins are currently recorded from Ebbsfleet (Appendix 1) A few of these were published by Wren in 199264 but further discoveries have since been made and more information is available concerning the finds

Ebbsfleet has the highest percentage of Kentish Primary potins from any site in east Kent with the exception of lsquoEastryrsquo (see below Site 6) (fig 6) There are also a number of early Flat Linear I potins Overall potins are 23 per cent above the east Kent mean This suggests that the site was established at an early date probably before 100 bc a date also supported by quantities of flint-tempered pottery A relatively high level of coin deposition continued until perhaps the mid-first century bc when like Worth and North Foreland there appears to have been a major reduction in activity A change in local circumstances external factors or the non-relevance of Flat Linear II potins at these three sites are all possible reasons for the lack of Flat Linear II potins but in the absence of evidence other than the coinage itself little can be said without resorting to circular arguments At each of these sites coin deposition subsequently increased again by the early first

64 CR Wren lsquoCoins found at Ebbsfleet during 1990 and 1991rsquo in Perkins 1992 305ndash6

century ad Many of the potins from Ebbsfleet are in very poor condition possibly as a result of intensive agricultural activity in recent years Some may conceivably be Gaulish imports but their condition makes precise classification impossible

Although potins are above the east Kent mean struck bronzes are under-represented There are nine different types among the twelve coins recorded and only one is represented by more than a single specimen The solitary Gaulish struck bronze is unusually not an issue from Belgic Gaul The Siculo-Punic and Ebusus bronzes are potential pre-Conquest imports

There is an above average level of silver at Ebbsfleet a feature also evident at Richborough although very probably for different reasons there being little evidence for early Roman

fig 6a Ebbsfleet coins from site ()fig 6b Ebbsfleet set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

18 DAVID HOLMAN

occupation at Ebbsfleet The ratio of silver to bronze at Ebbsfleet is higher than for any other site in east Kent although this may be down to chance A silver coin regarded as an Atrebatic issue by Bean but not listed by Van Arsdell or Hobbs is now known from several other findspots in Kent and it may be an early Kentish issue although it bears little resemblance to any other Kentish coinage65 It is here regarded as Atrebatic although Atrebatic coinage is generally very rarely found in Kent No gold coins have been recorded from Ebbsfleet other than a contemporary forgery of a Gallo-Belgic E stater with a silver core

The level of Gaulish non-gold imports at Ebbsfleet is low at only 58 per cent of the east Kent mean An even lower level of imports is seen at North Foreland (see below Site 5) and imports are scarce finds in Thanet generally particularly when compared with the adjacent mainland area around Sandwich This is surprising in view of the coastal location and may suggest that the Kentish cross-Channel ports were situated on the mainland rather than on Thanet from where another water crossing would inconveniently be required before accessing any inland routes away from the coastal strip (although Richborough does seem to provide an exception to this) It seems clear that the main circulation area of Gaulish imports in Kent was in the hinterland of the mainland ports

The nature of the site at Ebbsfleet remains unclear but certain parallels with the Worth Temple site suggest that a not dissimilar site may exist here albeit with a significant reduction in coin deposition in Phase 8L which is far less in evidence at Worth The coin distributions at Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet are broadly similar with the exception of a higher level of silver and corresponding lower level of bronze at Ebbsfleet these differences may be more apparent than real when the relative sample sizes are compared Again there is an early peak among the potins and a later peak in Phases 7 and 8E The overall coin distribution at Ebbsfleet appears on current evidence to be marginally earlier than at the Worth Temple site both in its greater incidence of early potins and the higher ratio of Phase 7 coins to those of Phase 8E Other features shared by Ebbsfleet and Worth Temple are that both sites stand on a promontory and both have Roman masonry structures although the lsquomainrsquo Ebbsfleet building apparently of later second-century date is of unknown function66

The total lack of Phase 8L coinage at Ebbsfleet is particularly significant when compared with nearby Richborough and may conceivably represent a temporary abandonment of the site at around the time of the Conquest A marked decline in activity in the early Roman period until a resurgence in the later second century ad based on the comparative scarcity of pottery of early Roman date and the lack of contemporary coinage has previously been noted by Macpherson-Grant67 The implication can be made that the Iron Age coins were mostly if not all deposited before the Conquest or at the latest shortly afterwards

SITE 5 NORTH FORELAND BROADSTAIRS

Background

This site is located on the North Foreland on the Isle of Thanet at the easternmost point of Kent It occupies a ridge of upper Chalk and the eastern slope of the valley immediately to the west where the chalk is sealed by Head Brickearth The highest point of the site is now occupied by the North Foreland lighthouse at an elevation of about 36 m above OD

The existence of a double ditch system apparently enclosing an area of at least 24 ha across the hilltop was revealed by aerial photographs several years ago In 1995 members of the Thanet

65 Bean 2000 237 (his type QsD 3-4)66 Perkins 1992 278ndash8167 N MacPherson-Grant lsquoThe Potteryrsquo in Perkins 1992 301

19IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Archaeological Society investigated the site by cutting several sections across the ditches The outermost of these ditches had cut two earlier ditches one of which appears to have been palisaded68 Ceramic evidence indicated a construction date in the mid- to late Iron Age with infilling of the ditches occurring from the late first century bc onwards The site is currently interpreted as being a possible hillfort although the ditch dimensions are on the small side and the term lsquodefended hilltop enclosurersquo may be more appropriate

The coinage

A total of 81 Iron Age coins (counting a potin hoard as one find) has been recorded from the site at North Foreland the majority of which have been found by metal-detector users (Appendix 1) The two gold coins mentioned by Perkins are of unknown types69 A Gallo-Belgic stater found in the nineteenth century at Stone House immediately to the south of the St Stephenrsquos College site is probably related to the site and has been included here

The site histogram for North Foreland (fig 7) shows that potins are the most common Iron Age coins here with Kentish Primary potins comprising 346 per cent of the total site assemblage the most numerous However the distribution of the potins differs from Worth and Ebbsfleet in that Flat Linear I potins are much further above the east Kent mean than are the Kentish Primary potins This is not a result of the Flat Linear I hoard from the site which is counted as a single

68 Hogwood 1995 475ndash669 Perkins 1993 411ndash13

find rather the hoard complements the other Flat Linear I potins and provides definite evidence of contemporary activity The ratio of Flat Linear I potins to those of the Kentish Primary Series is higher than normal for east Kent and these show an emphasis towards the earlier varieties probably dating from the first quarter of the first century bc

In 1999 an archaeological excavation was undertaken by Canterbury Archaeological Trust and the Trust for Thanet Archaeology prior to the redevelopment of the St Stephenrsquos College site on the ridge-top some 400 m to the south-west of the lighthouse Among the many finds of Iron Age (and earlier) date was a coin hoard containing 62 Flat Linear I potins buried in a

fig 7a North Foreland coins from site ()fig 7b North Foreland set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

20 DAVID HOLMAN

pit Preliminary examination of this hoard indicated that although the coins range from Allenrsquos Class C to Class L approximately half belong to Class G70 The hoard will be reported on elsewhere The excavations also revealed an enclosure provisionally dated on ceramic evidence to the first half of the first century bc ie contemporary with the hoard and a large number of storage pits again of similar date The hoard was located only a short distance from the entrance to the enclosure and its location in the centre of what seems to have been an active site suggests that ritual deposition should be considered as a possible reason for its concealment Given the existence of this hoard the possibility that at least some of the potins recovered as metal-detector finds from the adjacent fields may derive from another now dispersed hoard cannot be discounted although there is no evidence to suggest this

North Foreland shows an apparent reduction in coinage deposition after the mid-first century bc before a later recovery in common with Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet Coins of Phases 6 and 7 are both around half the east Kent mean but a significant increase is evident in Phase 8E which continues into Phase 8L suggesting that the site saw a revival in the early first century ad The 24 struck bronzes recorded slightly below the east Kent mean form a very heterogeneous assemblage with 17 different types represented These are almost exclusively Kentish issues either produced in Kent or elsewhere (apparently) for specific use in Kent71 In view of the coastal location of the site it is interesting to note the appearance of three specimens of the lsquoShiprsquo type (VA 1989) among the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin

The low number of non-local issues is significant given the coastal location Apart from a Gallo-Belgic stater only one import has been recorded contrasting sharply with Archers Low Farm Richborough and Folkestone At only 16 per cent of the east Kent mean this site has the lowest percentage of non-gold imports at any of the major sites discussed in this paper Non-local British issues are also rare here but the coin of Verica is one of only two recorded from Kent

Set against the rest of east Kent potin is the most significant metal type at North Foreland followed by silver marginally ahead of bronze As with some elements of the phasing this is a feature shared with Ebbsfleet and may reflect a common cause North Foreland displays activity at a later date than Ebbsfleet but it is not unreasonable to assume that these sites were in some way related

SITE 6 lsquoEASTRyrsquo

Background

Situated on chalk downland south of Eastry this site has produced an assemblage of 51 pre-Roman coins At the request of the landowner and the finders details of the coins are held in the Celtic Coin Index under the neutral provenance of lsquoNorth-East Kentrsquo72

The coinage

A total of 47 Iron Age and four Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from lsquoEastryrsquo (Appendix 1)

70 C Haselgrove pers comm71 An example of the extremely rare bronze half unit VA 154-11 has been listed here as possibly being an issue

of Eppillus with its designs of a geometric pattern and a capricorn The capricorn on the reverse suggests an Augustan prototype which is probably later in date than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which this type has been attributed by both Mack and Van Arsdell However a clearer specimen is still awaited to prove or disprove this reattribution

72 Not all coins in the Celtic Coin Index with this provenance are necessarily from lsquoEastryrsquo The coins listed are known to be from this site

21IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

lsquoEastryrsquo shows clear signs of early activity with an emphasis on Kentish Primary potins (fig 8) which are 133 per cent above the east Kent mean higher than anywhere else in the region Flat Linear I potins are almost exactly on the mean but again there is an absence of Flat Linear II potins Overall potins are further above the east Kent mean here than at any other major site in the region heavily weighted by the large number of Kentish Primary types Early activity is also suggested by the three Gallo-Belgic staters lsquoEastryrsquo has a higher percentage of gold than most other sites in the region with the exception of Richborough and East Wear Bay Folkestone the latter of which fairly certainly incorporates a large degree of bias among the early finds

Only one silver coin has been recorded and there is also an unusually low number of struck bronzes lower in percentage terms than at any other site discussed in this paper Apart from this the most unusual aspect of the lsquoEastryrsquo coins is the discovery of four Siculo-Punic bronzes all of the same type the largest number of such coins from any site in Kent

The nature of this site is uncertain and the site histogram (fig 8) is irregular The above average representation of coinage in Phases 1ndash5 a very unusual feature for any site is an indicator that this site may have had a particular and possibly specialised function The high ratio of gold to silver and struck bronze may suggest that trade is unlikely to have been a principal function of this site as gold is not likely to have been a common medium of exchange A religious site is a possibility as is a disturbed hoard(s)

A separate report on lsquoEastryrsquo as a possible religiouslsquoritualrsquo site has been published elsewhere73 No further investigation of this site is anticipated

SITE 7 GOODNESTONE

Background

This inland site is located to the south-east of Goodnestone some 11 km south-east of Canterbury It occupies a broad gently sloping ridge of Upper Chalk capped by Head Brickearth at a mean elevation of 55 to 60 m above OD The existence of an Iron Age and Roman site was

73 Holman 2005a 280ndash1

fig 8a lsquoEastryrsquo coins from site ()fig 8b lsquoEastryrsquo set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

22 DAVID HOLMAN

not known until a metal-detector survey of the area carried out from 1994 onwards started to produce substantial quantities of coinage in addition to other artefacts including several pieces of mid-first-century ad Roman military equipment74 In addition to 92 Iron Age coins there are several hundred Roman coins covering the entire period of the Roman occupation Ceramic evidence and quernstones also indicate late Iron Age and Roman occupation

The coinage

The 92 Iron Age coins recorded from Goodnestone are listed in Appendix 1 The majority of these coins are either of Kentish origin or were produced elsewhere apparently for use in Kent the percentage of non-Kentish coinage from the site is lower than usual for east Kent (fig 9)

The low number of potin coins representing just 65 per cent of the site assemblage shows that although the site may have an origin in the first half of the first century bc activity at that time was probably limited The coin evidence suggests that the main phase of activity at Goodnestone started in the final quarter of the first century bc

The majority of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone 902 per cent of the site total are struck bronzes Coins of the Kentish uninscribed Series are the most frequent and are represented by 29 examples including three types not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs One of these a variant of VA 154-1 appears to provide a link between the Kentish uninscribed Series and the early inscribed coinage of Dubnovellaunos The obverse although worn on all three specimens appears to bear the same or a very similar design to the Kentish uninscribed bronze issue VA 154-1 The reverse shows a left-facing version of the horse depicted on the reverse of VA 154-1 and a close parallel for this is seen on the reverse of an inscribed silver coin of Dubnovellaunos (VA 171) It is possible that the same die-cutter was involved with all three types Three of the five known specimens of this variant form of VA 154-1 have come from Goodnestone It is conceivably an early uninscribed issue of Dubnovellaunos but has here been retained within the Kentish uninscribed Series

Coins attributed to Dubnovellaunos are represented by 21 examples at Goodnestone Among

fig 9a Goodnestone coins from site ()fig 9b Goodnestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

74 Bishop 1995 17ndash19

23IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

these are six examples of two uncatalogued but related bronze types known from several other provenances in both Kent and Essex75 A coin of Dubnovellaunos is one of only two silver coins from Goodnestone the other tentatively attributed to Addedomaros by Van Arsdell76 is known from three other provenances in east Kent but a north Thames origin still appears likely on stylistic grounds

Phase 8 coins at Goodnestone are less numerous than those of the Kentish uninscribed Series and Dubnovellaunos Coins of Eppillus are scarcer than expected for east Kent and the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin are represented by only three types all of which have their principal distribution in Kent A quarter-stater of Cunobelin is the only gold coin from Goodnestone and is possibly the latest Iron Age coin from the site although similarly late bronze coins of Amminus are also present Only three Gaulish coins have been recorded just 37 per cent of the site total unusually low for east Kent

The histogram for Goodnestone (fig 9) indicates that the site was established before the end of the first century bc Coins of Phase 6 are the most frequent finds but from then until the Conquest losses steadily decline although remaining above the east Kent mean This decline suggests that the earlier coins at least were largely deposited before the Conquest otherwise it is reasonable to expect that the ratio of Phase 8 coins to those of Phase 6 would be higher Goodnestonersquos nearest parallel among the east Kent sites is Archers Low Farm except for the lack of Gaulish imports which are significantly under-represented at only 45 per cent of the east Kent mean This may be regarded as an expected difference between a probable port site and an inland settlement of uncertain nature seemingly established at around the same time Otherwise both sites have low numbers of potins significant peaks in Phases 6 and 7 and are virtually identical in Phases 8E and 8L The metal types at Goodnestone and Archers Low Farm also have very similar proportions The very high level of struck bronze is indicative of trade and exchange from the latter part of the first century bc The scarcity of Gaulish imports and non-Kentish coinage at Goodnestone suggests that much of the activity here was locally based and that there were no direct links with places further afield A greater number of non-local coins would be expected at a trading centre with wider links such as Canterbury

The state of preservation of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone is generally very poor and ten have not been identified The impression given is that many of these coins had a long circulation life however to add a note of caution late Roman coins of the same type found only a few metres apart at Goodnestone sometimes show a very marked variation in their state of preservation the reason for which is unclear

The adjacent Cherrygarden Lane appears on Ordnance Survey maps as part of a trackway running for several kilometres across the Kentish downland This may well have originated as a main thoroughfare at a very early date A geophysical survey of part of the site revealed the existence of another trackway across the field with probable field boundaries adjoining it The function of the late Iron Age and Roman site at Goodnestone is unclear from the coin evidence alone and is only likely to be clarified by excavation Curteis has discussed a not dissimilar site at Evenley Northamptonshire and suggested either a religious centre andor an occupationaltrading settlement77 A detailed report on Goodnestone incorporating all facets of the site is in preparation78

75 Both types are uninscribed but can be attributed to Dubnovellaunos on stylistic and distributional grounds A Kentish origin for these issues is preferred here particularly in view of the lack of non-Kentish coinage from Goodnestone

76 Van Arsdell 1989 350 (his type VA 1611)77 Curteis 1996 33ndash478 Cross forthcoming

24 DAVID HOLMAN

SITE 8 CANTERBURy (WALLED AREA)

Background

As the Roman civitas capital of Kent and a moderately large town within the province of Britannia Canterbury was an important settlement which has continued to be occupied up to the present day The name by which the settlement was known to the Romans Durovernum Cantiacorum is of Celtic origin translating as lsquothe walled town by the alder swamprsquo79 and perhaps provides an initial clue to a pre-Conquest origin for the site

It has been known since at least the eighteenth century that substantial remains of the Roman town survived below the modern streets During the installation of the sewage system in the 1860s a number of coins were found none was described in detail but some were possibly Iron Age80 In 1871 an Iron Age coin was found in Burgate providing evidence for some type of pre-Conquest occupation in the area However definite remains of late Iron Age settlement were not found until excavations began on bomb-damaged sites in 1946 when work revealed a gully apparently bounding a hut site together with pottery of pre-Conquest date81 Since then a significant number of other sites producing evidence of pre-Roman occupation have been located most notably in the Marlowe car park area situated towards the central part of the Roman walled town where the remains of two circular houses set within a triple-ditched enclosure accompanied by hearths ovens and a well were found82 It now seems that late Iron Age settlement at Canterbury was dispersed across an area of at least 10 ha beside the River Stour fairly certainly focused on a ford but apparently lacking any significant defences The available dating evidence suggests that the later Iron Age settlement began during the mid- to late first century bc although evidence of occupation immediately pre-dating this may still await discovery There is some evidence for early Iron Age settlement in the area

Of particular significance in the context of the later Iron Age settlement is the hillfort of Bigberry Camp located above the Stour valley some 3 km to the west This site represents the only known certain hillfort in eastern Kent Occupation here seems to have begun c 350 bc but the defences do not appear to have been constructed until the second century bc83 The camp appears to have been largely abandoned around 50 bc perhaps as a result of it being stormed by Caesarrsquos troops in 54 bc84 Despite the significant amount of archaeological work at Bigberry no Iron Age coins have been found A few bronze coins have been found at Harbledown 1 km to the north-east Rodwell has previously suggested that the general lack of coinage from the site indicates that it was not of major importance as a permanent settlement85

It is generally accepted that the settlement at Canterbury in some way superseded Bigberry during the mid-first century bc perhaps originating as a river-side trading station of the hillfort86 Blagg has suggested that Canterburyrsquos importance grew after c 15 bc following the establishment of the Rhine frontier87 However there is currently insufficient evidence to show that Canterbury had developed into a major proto-urban centre before the Roman conquest and there appear to have been few changes certainly within the Marlowe area until the Flavian

79 Rivet and Smith 1979 353ndash480 Pilbrow 187181 Frere 1965 682 Blockley et al 199583 Thompson 1983 253ndash9 Blockley and Blockley 1989 245ndash684 Blockley and Blockley 1989 24685 Rodwell 1976 33086 Blockley et al 1995 987 T Blagg in Blockley et al 1995 11

25IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

period88 The Iron Age status of Canterbury has previously been questioned89 and Millett makes the important point that the later Roman development of the site arguably and quite possibly wrongly leads to the perception that the Iron Age settlement was of equal importance90 Nevertheless it is clear from the extent of the known remains the amount of coinage and the quantity of imported fineware pottery including Dressel I amphorae that the settlement here was of some importance The evidence for this as provided by the Iron Age coinage is further considered below

The coinage

By the end of 2003 a total of 163 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) had been recorded from within the area of the later Roman walled town mainly in the area of Longmarket Rose Lane St Margarets Street Watling Street and Beer Cart Lane Significantly fewer Iron Age coins have been found during the recent Whitefriars excavations immediately to the east perhaps indicating the eastern limits of the Iron Age settlement although development pressures meant that only limited excavation of the earliest layers was possible The most important point about these coins is that they have virtually all been found during archaeological excavations Canterbury is the only site considered in this paper which has subsequently been built over in its entirety but it is also the only site with the exception of Richborough that has seen archaeological excavation on a large scale Canterbury is the only major late Iron Age site in east Kent with large numbers of broadly contemporary stratified coin finds This is of considerable importance not only for understanding the origins of the city but also for the study of the circulation deposition and dating of Iron Age coinage in the region as a whole A basic relative chronology for other sites in east Kent can be constructed by considering the numismatic evidence from Canterbury for example the realisation that potin coins predate the struck bronzes which themselves evolved from native-inspired designs into more Romanised types

Archaeological contexts can be questioned if later activity has occurred on the site leading to the inevitable disturbance of earlier features The result is a tendency to date items later than should be the case91 A significant number of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury have been found in post-Conquest deposits and Haselgrove regarded these as a mixture of residual coins disturbed by Roman activity as one would expect in an urban context and coins continuing in use until the mid-first century ad92 Nash considered that the potin coins from the Marlowe excavations were circulating until the later first century ad but appeared to make insufficient concession to residuality93 Some Iron Age coins have been found in medieval and later deposits having clearly arrived there as a result of earlier levels being disturbed During the early Roman period disturbance of the underlying Iron Age deposits would have been much more frequent and therefore more coins would have been displaced It cannot be conclusively shown that the Iron Age coins at Canterbury circulated for any length of time after the Conquest although it is reasonable to suppose that some may have continued to circulate for a few years before being fully supplanted by the new Roman coinage94 The problems caused by residuality have also been discussed by Arthur in relation to the late Republican amphorae from the excavations95

88 Blockley et al 1995 1289 Blockley et al 1995 990 Millett 1996 342ndash391 Haselgrove 1988 103ndash592 Haselgrove 1987 14193 D Nash in Blockley et al 1995 92394 eg Nash 1987 36ndash895 Arthur 1986 240

26 DAVID HOLMAN

Potins account for 479 per cent of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury (fig 10) The near absence of Kentish Primary potins is significant because this implies that they had largely ceased to circulate before Canterbury was established Only two of these coins have been recorded both from post-Conquest contexts and these were previously wrongly identified as a cut-down bronze of Massalia and a Central Gaulish lsquotecircte diaboliquersquo potin96 Given that Kentish Primary potins are the commonest type of Iron Age coin in east Kent it is reasonable to assume that many more would have been found at Canterbury had they still been in circulation in the last 50ndash75 years before the Conquest The possibility remains that the initial nucleus of the settlement may have been situated elsewhere97 but the current evidence supports Haselgroversquos view that early potins had mostly ceased to circulate by the early first century ad98 indeed a date before the turn of the century may now be preferred In France the temple sites at Champlieu and Chilly also provide evidence that potins had virtually disappeared from circulation by the first century ad99

An early cessation date for the circulation of the earlier Flat Linear I potins particularly Allen Classes AndashD can also be surmised from the Canterbury evidence The 21 Flat Linear I potins all belong to Allen Classes jndashL ie late in the series probably dating to around the middle of the first century bc Some of these were deliberately cut100 a feature rarely seen elsewhere although a cut Class L coin has been recorded from the Worth Temple site Elsewhere in east Kent the earlier types form a significant component of the Flat Linear I potins and their absence at Canterbury again suggests that if any settlement existed on the site in the early first century bc it is likely to have been of little importance Haselgrove noted that earlier Flat Linear I types are present at Rochester suggesting that Rochester was a site of some importance at an earlier date than Canterbury101 This may well still hold true for the relative chronology of the earliest phases at Canterbury and Rochester but it now seems likely that Kentish coinage began in the

96 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15397 Blockley et al 1995 898 Haselgrove 1987 15899 Allen 1995 51100 Haselgrove 1988 118101 Haselgrove 1987 151

fig 10a Canterbury (walled area) coins from site ()fig 10b Canterbury (walled area) set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

27IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

east of the county102 and a later commencement date for Canterbury need have no particular relevance in any discussion on Rochester located some 43 km to the north-west

Flat Linear II potins are represented by 50 surviving specimens 307 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (321 per cent of the identified coins) Compared with their general scarcity elsewhere in east Kent with the exception of East Wear Bay Folkestone (see below Site 9) with which some sort of link may have existed this is exceptional a fact well illustrated by fig 10 which shows that the proportion of these coins at Canterbury is more than ten times the mean for the rest of east Kent Recent research on Flat Linear II potins based on hoard evidence and individual findspots is leaning increasingly towards an origin in the region immediately north of London rather than Kent at least for certain classes103 In this case the appearance of so many of these coins at Canterbury cannot be easily explained They passed into the local circulation pool at a much lower rate than other coin types and the scarcity of these coins around Canterbury suggests that their principal purpose may have been related to a specific activity or commodity the nature of which is unknown Alternatively there was a sudden and significant but short-lived increase in activity at Canterbury (and Folkestone) which may again have had a specific cause Either way there must have been a fairly high degree of control to restrict their circulation in this manner A comparison may perhaps be made with the exceptionally high number of Roman coins of the period ad 388ndash402 found at Richborough which is not reflected elsewhere in east Kent and which must represent an event specific to that site in the local record although the contents of several hoards at the site account for a not insignificant proportion of these late coins104 It seems likely that the Flat Linear II potins were used in Canterbury as a low-value coinage as the appearance of so many high-value coins in a non-hoard context would be difficult to explain There may perhaps have been a reliance on these coins to sustain the Canterbury circulation pool for small-scale transactions Haselgrove noted that potins were the commonest issues circulating in Canterbury until Phase 8 (c ad 20)105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role106 although how much of this is a result of residuality cannot be ascertained

Struck bronzes are represented at Canterbury by 69 coins These include ten Gaulish coins 159 per cent of the (identified) struck bronze total There are also five Gaulish potins Overall Gaulish coins at Canterbury are 53 per cent above the east Kent mean Haselgrove commented on possible early links with the Continent107 and Fitzpatrickrsquos suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands108 but coastal sites such as Archers Low Farm and East Wear Bay Folkestone may be regarded as more likely initial points of contact Phase 6 coins are also above the east Kent mean In this respect there is some similarity to Archers Low Farm although the deviation from the mean there both for imports and Phase 6 coins is far greater There are 21 struck bronzes of the Kentish Uninscribed Series and an early lsquoChichester Cockrsquo type The frequency of some of the Kentish Uninscribed types at Canterbury in particular VA 154-3 suggests that minting facilities may have been operating at that time

Bronzes of the dynastic period are represented by 31 coins The nine coins of Dubnovellaunos three of Tasciovanus-Sego and ten of Eppillus are typical for an east Kent site However coins of Cunobelin appear to be significantly under-represented only eight coins of Cunobelin have been recorded from Canterbury and four of these are late types otherwise scarce in east

102 Holman 2000103 Haselgrove 1988 117 G Cottam pers comm104 Reece 1987 84105 Haselgrove 1987 145106 Haselgrove 1993 44107 Haselgrove 1987 143108 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

13IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

The Kentish uninscribed Series is well represented with ten specimens (twelve including the uncatalogued type UB3) recorded of several different types The diversity of the dynastic coins from Archers Low Farm is very evident Of these coins of Dubnovellaunos are the most frequent Phases 6 and 7 and to a lesser extent Phase 8E are all above the east Kent mean There is a tendency towards an early date slowly falling off under Eppillus and Cunobelin possibly indicating greater activity prior to say c ad 15ndash25 rather than after This might also suggest that much of the imported coinage arrived before the turn of the century or at the latest very shortly afterwards However this can only be speculation in the absence of any stratified coins from the site There may be some parallel here with coin loss at Goodnestone (see below Site 7) at least in as much as struck bronze forms most of the assemblage

No genuine gold or silver coins have been recorded from Archers Low Farm There is however a bronze core of a contemporary forgery of a quarter-stater of Cunobelin with the reverse design being laterally reversed Another forgery a bronze core with uncertain designs which was probably originally silver-plated also appears to be of Cunobelin

The high proportion of Gaulish coins and the comparatively large amount of imported pottery together with the low-lying situation of Archers Low Farm all suggest that this site is a strong candidate for having been established as a port in the later Iron Age principally for the purposes of trade and probably before the turn of the millennium The proximity to the Continent and the sheltered nature of the site within the confines of the Wantsum Channel would have made it an ideal location for such a facility There would appear to be some chronological disparity between the coins and the pottery imports many of the coins dating to the mid- to late first century bc but much of the pottery apparently being of Augustan or Tiberian date with further samian imports of slightly later ClaudianNeronian date This can be partly explained if it is accepted that these coins continued to circulate in post-Conquest Gaul for many years before entering Britain at the same time as the pottery but this does not fully explain why the native coins show a similar inclination towards an early date If the site reached a peak in the early first century ad then perhaps more coins of Phase 8E should be present ie if the imports and coins of Phases 6 and 7 were not deposited until Phase 8E then coins of the latter phase although above average for the region might themselves be expected to be more numerous In addition the condition of some of the coins suggests that they had seen comparatively little circulation before their deposition No pottery certainly dating from before the first century bc has been found at the site and the low incidence of potin coins taken in conjunction with the very high levels of struck bronze indicates a date no earlier than perhaps c 30 bc for the start of the main phase of activity in the pre-Conquest period at Archers Low Farm

SITE 3 RICHBOROUGH CASTLE

Background

This internationally important Roman site situated on an island surrounded by drained wetlands that were formerly part of the Wantsum Channel occupies a small hill of Woolwich and Thanet Beds sand rising to a height of almost 20 m above OD44 It stands some 3 km to the north-west of Archers Low Farm and some 35 km to the south of the nearest point of the Isle of Thanet at Ebbsfleet

The Roman site is very well known from the excavation work of 1922ndash1938 but the evidence for its pre-Conquest origins is less than clear Occupation in the early to mid-Iron

44 Hawkes 1968 224

14 DAVID HOLMAN

Age is reasonably well attested45 but the status of the site immediately prior to the Roman invasion remains uncertain Cunliffe stated that there was lsquono trace of Belgic occupationrsquo on the site46 while both Thompson and Pollard have maintained that definite pre-Conquest pottery is generally absent from the excavated material47 A large number of early brooches are known from Richborough but there is no evidence that any of these arrived before ad 43 very few can categorically be shown to be contemporary with the Iron Age coins from the site48 although it should be noted that Iron Age brooches are much rarer finds than coins On the evidence of the coinage Rodwell suggested that there was some kind of pre-Conquest port here49 an idea previously suggested by Allen50 Indeed the fundamental question must be posed as to whether this place would ever have been chosen for a Roman invasion base if it were not already an established port of entry with clear routeways leading into the Kentish hinterland

The coinage

Allen stated that there were between 12 and 14 Iron Age coins from the excavations at Richborough (there was much confusion over the numbering system) and that these included a number of non-local coins including Gaulish imports51 Following reassessment of the site assemblage including non-excavation finds an updated summary list showing a total of 23 coins is provided in Appendix 152

Large numbers of coins have been found at and removed from Richborough over several centuries In the sixteenth century Leland wrote that more Roman coins were found at Richborough than anywhere else in England and that this had been the case for as long as anyone could remember53 Several local notables and antiquaries in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had collections of coins from the site54 It is evident that the total number of Roman coins deposited whether lost or deliberately hoarded at Richborough far exceeds the 56084 recovered during the excavations of 1922ndash193855 and it is probable that Iron Age coins were among those previously removed without record

Looked at in an overall context the 23 Iron Age coins from Richborough show considerable deviation from the general pattern in east Kent (fig 5) There are several unusual features and the group may perhaps be regarded as chronologically typologically and numerically unrepresentative for a number of reasons

a The coin distribution is irregular for an east Kent siteb An unknown number of coins have been removed without record over a long period of time including by recent illegal metal-detector activityc A lack of sanctioned metal detecting because much of the area is scheduledd The collections of local antiquaries could be of a selective nature

45 Bushe-Fox 1949 8ndash11 Cunliffe 1968 116ndash1746 Cunliffe 1968 23247 Thompson 1982 809 Pollard 1988 4448 Bayley and Butcher 200449 Rodwell 1976 22150 Allen 1968 18651 Allen 1968 184ndash852 A further coin from Richborough has been noted by Bean (Bean 2000 178 his type VERC 3-4) However the

Celtic Coin Index record for this coin queries this provenance and it has accordingly been decided not to include it in the site list at Appendix 1

53 Toulmin-Smith 1909 6254 eg Roach-Smith 1850 11955 Reece 1968

15IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

e Large-scale disturbance during the Roman period destroyed earlier layers (although any coins would probably have been re-deposited rather than removed)f There could have been considerable displacement of coins from non-local sources during the earliest Roman phaseg Many coins were probably missed during the excavations (see above)h The 1922ndash1938 excavations concentrated on the area within the Saxon Shore fort but this was not necessarily the centre of any LPRIA settlement A recent magnetometry survey and analysis of aerial photographs have revealed a dense mass of features across the fields around the fort56 many of these are probably of Roman date but the possibility that some are earlier cannot be discounted in the absence of excavation

On current evidence the Iron Age coins from Richborough appear to fall into two groups one ending at the beginning of the first century ad and consisting mainly of types typically found in east Kent and the other being more or less contemporary with the Roman conquest of ad 43 and consisting mainly of types not generally found in east Kent Haselgrove described the Richborough assemblage as superficially impressive but spurious commenting on the large number of Phase 8L coins compared with Canterbury which he suggested was a result of the Roman invasion57 No other site in east Kent bears any similarity to Richborough in Phase 8L when losses are nearly ten times the east Kent mean so it may be inferred that the reason for this is an event specific to Richborough The possibility that at least some of the earlier coins were lost at a later date as suggested by Haselgrove58 cannot be dismissed particularly in view of the lack of securely stratified and undisturbed Iron Age coins from the site the specimens of VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are candidates for this Although there are only three silver coins from Richborough silver is further above the east Kent mean than the bronze but this is entirely down to the appearance of non-local types and is misleading

56 Millett and Wilmott 200457 Haselgrove 1987 15358 Haselgrove 1987 153

fig 5a Richborough coins from site ()fig 5b Richborough set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

16 DAVID HOLMAN

The early group consists mainly of potins Gaulish imports and Kentish uninscribed bronzes together with a slightly later inscribed issue of Sa(m) Both of the coins previously recorded as bronzes of Massalia are actually potins59 The silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are early and both originate from the south coast of England With the exception of these silver coins which may have arrived later this early group fits very well into the general east Kent pattern and seemingly indicates a period of pre-Conquest coin use on the site The low percentage of potin and rather higher percentage of bronze counts against an establishment date much before the middle of the first century bc and it may be that the potins were lost at a later date and that the site was a later first-century bc foundation In favour of this is the fact that Phase 6 coins and continental imports are both above the mean for east Kent indeed Richborough has one of the highest levels of imported pre-Conquest coinage from any site in Britain comprising 304 per cent of the total site assemblage It may be significant that the proportions of Gaulish imports and Phase 6 coinage at Richborough are very similar to Archers Low Farm perhaps hinting at some link between these two sites The imports could have been deposited with the Phase 8L coins during early Roman occupation60 but given the low levels of Phase 7 and 8E coinage the near contemporary Phase 6 coinage seems unlikely to have been deposited as late as Phase 8L

Following an apparent hiatus in coin deposition evidenced by the lack of Eppillus and early Cunobelin issues common finds elsewhere in east Kent a later group becomes evident This consists of late issues of Cunobelin and three coins from the south coast one of Verica and two of the Durotriges Late issues of Cunobelin are greatly outnumbered by early issues elsewhere in east Kent while the three south coast coins suggest a link with the West Sussex Hampshire and Dorset area which is otherwise almost wholly absent in east Kent The southern silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 from the early group may have arrived at Richborough at the same time as the later coins as a result of post-Conquest activity An analogous situation can be seen at a number of sites in France where Gaulish bronzes continued in use into the first century ad61 A second-century bc bronze coin of Cyzicus is on balance more likely to be a Roman than a pre-Roman import in this instance further illustrating the difficulty in determining the date at which such early coins reached Britain62

SITE 4 EBBSFLEET ISLE OF THANET

Background

This site lies some 35 km to the north of Richborough Castle on the southern side of the Isle of Thanet at a mean elevation of 8 m above OD It occupies a low chalk promontory capped with Thanet Beds sand surrounded on three sides by marshlands which were once part of the Wantsum Channel Metal detector surveys by the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association and evaluation trenching by the Trust for Thanet Archaeology in 1990 have demonstrated the presence of extensive prehistoric and Roman occupation in this area63 Settlement in the late Iron Age is represented by a number of features together with significant quantities of pottery and coinage Amongst the pottery much of which is dated to c ad 25ndash5075 is a quantity of

59 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15260 Haselgrove 1987 15361 Haselgrove 1999 16462 There are also three early Mediterranean bronze coins from the foreshore close to the Roman fort at Reculver

at the northern end of the Wantsum Channel one of an uncertain Ptolemy one of Agathocles of Syracuse and one of Mamertini Sicily Reculver has also produced several Iron Age coins including a quarter stater (Sch 7) dating from as early as the third century bc which is potentially a contemporary import

63 Perkins 1992

17IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

imported Gallo-Belgic fineware not all of which is pre-Conquest in date There is also locally produced pottery dating from the mid-first century bc onwards as well as earlier material

The coinage

A total of 43 Iron Age and three other pre-Conquest coins are currently recorded from Ebbsfleet (Appendix 1) A few of these were published by Wren in 199264 but further discoveries have since been made and more information is available concerning the finds

Ebbsfleet has the highest percentage of Kentish Primary potins from any site in east Kent with the exception of lsquoEastryrsquo (see below Site 6) (fig 6) There are also a number of early Flat Linear I potins Overall potins are 23 per cent above the east Kent mean This suggests that the site was established at an early date probably before 100 bc a date also supported by quantities of flint-tempered pottery A relatively high level of coin deposition continued until perhaps the mid-first century bc when like Worth and North Foreland there appears to have been a major reduction in activity A change in local circumstances external factors or the non-relevance of Flat Linear II potins at these three sites are all possible reasons for the lack of Flat Linear II potins but in the absence of evidence other than the coinage itself little can be said without resorting to circular arguments At each of these sites coin deposition subsequently increased again by the early first

64 CR Wren lsquoCoins found at Ebbsfleet during 1990 and 1991rsquo in Perkins 1992 305ndash6

century ad Many of the potins from Ebbsfleet are in very poor condition possibly as a result of intensive agricultural activity in recent years Some may conceivably be Gaulish imports but their condition makes precise classification impossible

Although potins are above the east Kent mean struck bronzes are under-represented There are nine different types among the twelve coins recorded and only one is represented by more than a single specimen The solitary Gaulish struck bronze is unusually not an issue from Belgic Gaul The Siculo-Punic and Ebusus bronzes are potential pre-Conquest imports

There is an above average level of silver at Ebbsfleet a feature also evident at Richborough although very probably for different reasons there being little evidence for early Roman

fig 6a Ebbsfleet coins from site ()fig 6b Ebbsfleet set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

18 DAVID HOLMAN

occupation at Ebbsfleet The ratio of silver to bronze at Ebbsfleet is higher than for any other site in east Kent although this may be down to chance A silver coin regarded as an Atrebatic issue by Bean but not listed by Van Arsdell or Hobbs is now known from several other findspots in Kent and it may be an early Kentish issue although it bears little resemblance to any other Kentish coinage65 It is here regarded as Atrebatic although Atrebatic coinage is generally very rarely found in Kent No gold coins have been recorded from Ebbsfleet other than a contemporary forgery of a Gallo-Belgic E stater with a silver core

The level of Gaulish non-gold imports at Ebbsfleet is low at only 58 per cent of the east Kent mean An even lower level of imports is seen at North Foreland (see below Site 5) and imports are scarce finds in Thanet generally particularly when compared with the adjacent mainland area around Sandwich This is surprising in view of the coastal location and may suggest that the Kentish cross-Channel ports were situated on the mainland rather than on Thanet from where another water crossing would inconveniently be required before accessing any inland routes away from the coastal strip (although Richborough does seem to provide an exception to this) It seems clear that the main circulation area of Gaulish imports in Kent was in the hinterland of the mainland ports

The nature of the site at Ebbsfleet remains unclear but certain parallels with the Worth Temple site suggest that a not dissimilar site may exist here albeit with a significant reduction in coin deposition in Phase 8L which is far less in evidence at Worth The coin distributions at Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet are broadly similar with the exception of a higher level of silver and corresponding lower level of bronze at Ebbsfleet these differences may be more apparent than real when the relative sample sizes are compared Again there is an early peak among the potins and a later peak in Phases 7 and 8E The overall coin distribution at Ebbsfleet appears on current evidence to be marginally earlier than at the Worth Temple site both in its greater incidence of early potins and the higher ratio of Phase 7 coins to those of Phase 8E Other features shared by Ebbsfleet and Worth Temple are that both sites stand on a promontory and both have Roman masonry structures although the lsquomainrsquo Ebbsfleet building apparently of later second-century date is of unknown function66

The total lack of Phase 8L coinage at Ebbsfleet is particularly significant when compared with nearby Richborough and may conceivably represent a temporary abandonment of the site at around the time of the Conquest A marked decline in activity in the early Roman period until a resurgence in the later second century ad based on the comparative scarcity of pottery of early Roman date and the lack of contemporary coinage has previously been noted by Macpherson-Grant67 The implication can be made that the Iron Age coins were mostly if not all deposited before the Conquest or at the latest shortly afterwards

SITE 5 NORTH FORELAND BROADSTAIRS

Background

This site is located on the North Foreland on the Isle of Thanet at the easternmost point of Kent It occupies a ridge of upper Chalk and the eastern slope of the valley immediately to the west where the chalk is sealed by Head Brickearth The highest point of the site is now occupied by the North Foreland lighthouse at an elevation of about 36 m above OD

The existence of a double ditch system apparently enclosing an area of at least 24 ha across the hilltop was revealed by aerial photographs several years ago In 1995 members of the Thanet

65 Bean 2000 237 (his type QsD 3-4)66 Perkins 1992 278ndash8167 N MacPherson-Grant lsquoThe Potteryrsquo in Perkins 1992 301

19IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Archaeological Society investigated the site by cutting several sections across the ditches The outermost of these ditches had cut two earlier ditches one of which appears to have been palisaded68 Ceramic evidence indicated a construction date in the mid- to late Iron Age with infilling of the ditches occurring from the late first century bc onwards The site is currently interpreted as being a possible hillfort although the ditch dimensions are on the small side and the term lsquodefended hilltop enclosurersquo may be more appropriate

The coinage

A total of 81 Iron Age coins (counting a potin hoard as one find) has been recorded from the site at North Foreland the majority of which have been found by metal-detector users (Appendix 1) The two gold coins mentioned by Perkins are of unknown types69 A Gallo-Belgic stater found in the nineteenth century at Stone House immediately to the south of the St Stephenrsquos College site is probably related to the site and has been included here

The site histogram for North Foreland (fig 7) shows that potins are the most common Iron Age coins here with Kentish Primary potins comprising 346 per cent of the total site assemblage the most numerous However the distribution of the potins differs from Worth and Ebbsfleet in that Flat Linear I potins are much further above the east Kent mean than are the Kentish Primary potins This is not a result of the Flat Linear I hoard from the site which is counted as a single

68 Hogwood 1995 475ndash669 Perkins 1993 411ndash13

find rather the hoard complements the other Flat Linear I potins and provides definite evidence of contemporary activity The ratio of Flat Linear I potins to those of the Kentish Primary Series is higher than normal for east Kent and these show an emphasis towards the earlier varieties probably dating from the first quarter of the first century bc

In 1999 an archaeological excavation was undertaken by Canterbury Archaeological Trust and the Trust for Thanet Archaeology prior to the redevelopment of the St Stephenrsquos College site on the ridge-top some 400 m to the south-west of the lighthouse Among the many finds of Iron Age (and earlier) date was a coin hoard containing 62 Flat Linear I potins buried in a

fig 7a North Foreland coins from site ()fig 7b North Foreland set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

20 DAVID HOLMAN

pit Preliminary examination of this hoard indicated that although the coins range from Allenrsquos Class C to Class L approximately half belong to Class G70 The hoard will be reported on elsewhere The excavations also revealed an enclosure provisionally dated on ceramic evidence to the first half of the first century bc ie contemporary with the hoard and a large number of storage pits again of similar date The hoard was located only a short distance from the entrance to the enclosure and its location in the centre of what seems to have been an active site suggests that ritual deposition should be considered as a possible reason for its concealment Given the existence of this hoard the possibility that at least some of the potins recovered as metal-detector finds from the adjacent fields may derive from another now dispersed hoard cannot be discounted although there is no evidence to suggest this

North Foreland shows an apparent reduction in coinage deposition after the mid-first century bc before a later recovery in common with Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet Coins of Phases 6 and 7 are both around half the east Kent mean but a significant increase is evident in Phase 8E which continues into Phase 8L suggesting that the site saw a revival in the early first century ad The 24 struck bronzes recorded slightly below the east Kent mean form a very heterogeneous assemblage with 17 different types represented These are almost exclusively Kentish issues either produced in Kent or elsewhere (apparently) for specific use in Kent71 In view of the coastal location of the site it is interesting to note the appearance of three specimens of the lsquoShiprsquo type (VA 1989) among the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin

The low number of non-local issues is significant given the coastal location Apart from a Gallo-Belgic stater only one import has been recorded contrasting sharply with Archers Low Farm Richborough and Folkestone At only 16 per cent of the east Kent mean this site has the lowest percentage of non-gold imports at any of the major sites discussed in this paper Non-local British issues are also rare here but the coin of Verica is one of only two recorded from Kent

Set against the rest of east Kent potin is the most significant metal type at North Foreland followed by silver marginally ahead of bronze As with some elements of the phasing this is a feature shared with Ebbsfleet and may reflect a common cause North Foreland displays activity at a later date than Ebbsfleet but it is not unreasonable to assume that these sites were in some way related

SITE 6 lsquoEASTRyrsquo

Background

Situated on chalk downland south of Eastry this site has produced an assemblage of 51 pre-Roman coins At the request of the landowner and the finders details of the coins are held in the Celtic Coin Index under the neutral provenance of lsquoNorth-East Kentrsquo72

The coinage

A total of 47 Iron Age and four Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from lsquoEastryrsquo (Appendix 1)

70 C Haselgrove pers comm71 An example of the extremely rare bronze half unit VA 154-11 has been listed here as possibly being an issue

of Eppillus with its designs of a geometric pattern and a capricorn The capricorn on the reverse suggests an Augustan prototype which is probably later in date than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which this type has been attributed by both Mack and Van Arsdell However a clearer specimen is still awaited to prove or disprove this reattribution

72 Not all coins in the Celtic Coin Index with this provenance are necessarily from lsquoEastryrsquo The coins listed are known to be from this site

21IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

lsquoEastryrsquo shows clear signs of early activity with an emphasis on Kentish Primary potins (fig 8) which are 133 per cent above the east Kent mean higher than anywhere else in the region Flat Linear I potins are almost exactly on the mean but again there is an absence of Flat Linear II potins Overall potins are further above the east Kent mean here than at any other major site in the region heavily weighted by the large number of Kentish Primary types Early activity is also suggested by the three Gallo-Belgic staters lsquoEastryrsquo has a higher percentage of gold than most other sites in the region with the exception of Richborough and East Wear Bay Folkestone the latter of which fairly certainly incorporates a large degree of bias among the early finds

Only one silver coin has been recorded and there is also an unusually low number of struck bronzes lower in percentage terms than at any other site discussed in this paper Apart from this the most unusual aspect of the lsquoEastryrsquo coins is the discovery of four Siculo-Punic bronzes all of the same type the largest number of such coins from any site in Kent

The nature of this site is uncertain and the site histogram (fig 8) is irregular The above average representation of coinage in Phases 1ndash5 a very unusual feature for any site is an indicator that this site may have had a particular and possibly specialised function The high ratio of gold to silver and struck bronze may suggest that trade is unlikely to have been a principal function of this site as gold is not likely to have been a common medium of exchange A religious site is a possibility as is a disturbed hoard(s)

A separate report on lsquoEastryrsquo as a possible religiouslsquoritualrsquo site has been published elsewhere73 No further investigation of this site is anticipated

SITE 7 GOODNESTONE

Background

This inland site is located to the south-east of Goodnestone some 11 km south-east of Canterbury It occupies a broad gently sloping ridge of Upper Chalk capped by Head Brickearth at a mean elevation of 55 to 60 m above OD The existence of an Iron Age and Roman site was

73 Holman 2005a 280ndash1

fig 8a lsquoEastryrsquo coins from site ()fig 8b lsquoEastryrsquo set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

22 DAVID HOLMAN

not known until a metal-detector survey of the area carried out from 1994 onwards started to produce substantial quantities of coinage in addition to other artefacts including several pieces of mid-first-century ad Roman military equipment74 In addition to 92 Iron Age coins there are several hundred Roman coins covering the entire period of the Roman occupation Ceramic evidence and quernstones also indicate late Iron Age and Roman occupation

The coinage

The 92 Iron Age coins recorded from Goodnestone are listed in Appendix 1 The majority of these coins are either of Kentish origin or were produced elsewhere apparently for use in Kent the percentage of non-Kentish coinage from the site is lower than usual for east Kent (fig 9)

The low number of potin coins representing just 65 per cent of the site assemblage shows that although the site may have an origin in the first half of the first century bc activity at that time was probably limited The coin evidence suggests that the main phase of activity at Goodnestone started in the final quarter of the first century bc

The majority of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone 902 per cent of the site total are struck bronzes Coins of the Kentish uninscribed Series are the most frequent and are represented by 29 examples including three types not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs One of these a variant of VA 154-1 appears to provide a link between the Kentish uninscribed Series and the early inscribed coinage of Dubnovellaunos The obverse although worn on all three specimens appears to bear the same or a very similar design to the Kentish uninscribed bronze issue VA 154-1 The reverse shows a left-facing version of the horse depicted on the reverse of VA 154-1 and a close parallel for this is seen on the reverse of an inscribed silver coin of Dubnovellaunos (VA 171) It is possible that the same die-cutter was involved with all three types Three of the five known specimens of this variant form of VA 154-1 have come from Goodnestone It is conceivably an early uninscribed issue of Dubnovellaunos but has here been retained within the Kentish uninscribed Series

Coins attributed to Dubnovellaunos are represented by 21 examples at Goodnestone Among

fig 9a Goodnestone coins from site ()fig 9b Goodnestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

74 Bishop 1995 17ndash19

23IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

these are six examples of two uncatalogued but related bronze types known from several other provenances in both Kent and Essex75 A coin of Dubnovellaunos is one of only two silver coins from Goodnestone the other tentatively attributed to Addedomaros by Van Arsdell76 is known from three other provenances in east Kent but a north Thames origin still appears likely on stylistic grounds

Phase 8 coins at Goodnestone are less numerous than those of the Kentish uninscribed Series and Dubnovellaunos Coins of Eppillus are scarcer than expected for east Kent and the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin are represented by only three types all of which have their principal distribution in Kent A quarter-stater of Cunobelin is the only gold coin from Goodnestone and is possibly the latest Iron Age coin from the site although similarly late bronze coins of Amminus are also present Only three Gaulish coins have been recorded just 37 per cent of the site total unusually low for east Kent

The histogram for Goodnestone (fig 9) indicates that the site was established before the end of the first century bc Coins of Phase 6 are the most frequent finds but from then until the Conquest losses steadily decline although remaining above the east Kent mean This decline suggests that the earlier coins at least were largely deposited before the Conquest otherwise it is reasonable to expect that the ratio of Phase 8 coins to those of Phase 6 would be higher Goodnestonersquos nearest parallel among the east Kent sites is Archers Low Farm except for the lack of Gaulish imports which are significantly under-represented at only 45 per cent of the east Kent mean This may be regarded as an expected difference between a probable port site and an inland settlement of uncertain nature seemingly established at around the same time Otherwise both sites have low numbers of potins significant peaks in Phases 6 and 7 and are virtually identical in Phases 8E and 8L The metal types at Goodnestone and Archers Low Farm also have very similar proportions The very high level of struck bronze is indicative of trade and exchange from the latter part of the first century bc The scarcity of Gaulish imports and non-Kentish coinage at Goodnestone suggests that much of the activity here was locally based and that there were no direct links with places further afield A greater number of non-local coins would be expected at a trading centre with wider links such as Canterbury

The state of preservation of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone is generally very poor and ten have not been identified The impression given is that many of these coins had a long circulation life however to add a note of caution late Roman coins of the same type found only a few metres apart at Goodnestone sometimes show a very marked variation in their state of preservation the reason for which is unclear

The adjacent Cherrygarden Lane appears on Ordnance Survey maps as part of a trackway running for several kilometres across the Kentish downland This may well have originated as a main thoroughfare at a very early date A geophysical survey of part of the site revealed the existence of another trackway across the field with probable field boundaries adjoining it The function of the late Iron Age and Roman site at Goodnestone is unclear from the coin evidence alone and is only likely to be clarified by excavation Curteis has discussed a not dissimilar site at Evenley Northamptonshire and suggested either a religious centre andor an occupationaltrading settlement77 A detailed report on Goodnestone incorporating all facets of the site is in preparation78

75 Both types are uninscribed but can be attributed to Dubnovellaunos on stylistic and distributional grounds A Kentish origin for these issues is preferred here particularly in view of the lack of non-Kentish coinage from Goodnestone

76 Van Arsdell 1989 350 (his type VA 1611)77 Curteis 1996 33ndash478 Cross forthcoming

24 DAVID HOLMAN

SITE 8 CANTERBURy (WALLED AREA)

Background

As the Roman civitas capital of Kent and a moderately large town within the province of Britannia Canterbury was an important settlement which has continued to be occupied up to the present day The name by which the settlement was known to the Romans Durovernum Cantiacorum is of Celtic origin translating as lsquothe walled town by the alder swamprsquo79 and perhaps provides an initial clue to a pre-Conquest origin for the site

It has been known since at least the eighteenth century that substantial remains of the Roman town survived below the modern streets During the installation of the sewage system in the 1860s a number of coins were found none was described in detail but some were possibly Iron Age80 In 1871 an Iron Age coin was found in Burgate providing evidence for some type of pre-Conquest occupation in the area However definite remains of late Iron Age settlement were not found until excavations began on bomb-damaged sites in 1946 when work revealed a gully apparently bounding a hut site together with pottery of pre-Conquest date81 Since then a significant number of other sites producing evidence of pre-Roman occupation have been located most notably in the Marlowe car park area situated towards the central part of the Roman walled town where the remains of two circular houses set within a triple-ditched enclosure accompanied by hearths ovens and a well were found82 It now seems that late Iron Age settlement at Canterbury was dispersed across an area of at least 10 ha beside the River Stour fairly certainly focused on a ford but apparently lacking any significant defences The available dating evidence suggests that the later Iron Age settlement began during the mid- to late first century bc although evidence of occupation immediately pre-dating this may still await discovery There is some evidence for early Iron Age settlement in the area

Of particular significance in the context of the later Iron Age settlement is the hillfort of Bigberry Camp located above the Stour valley some 3 km to the west This site represents the only known certain hillfort in eastern Kent Occupation here seems to have begun c 350 bc but the defences do not appear to have been constructed until the second century bc83 The camp appears to have been largely abandoned around 50 bc perhaps as a result of it being stormed by Caesarrsquos troops in 54 bc84 Despite the significant amount of archaeological work at Bigberry no Iron Age coins have been found A few bronze coins have been found at Harbledown 1 km to the north-east Rodwell has previously suggested that the general lack of coinage from the site indicates that it was not of major importance as a permanent settlement85

It is generally accepted that the settlement at Canterbury in some way superseded Bigberry during the mid-first century bc perhaps originating as a river-side trading station of the hillfort86 Blagg has suggested that Canterburyrsquos importance grew after c 15 bc following the establishment of the Rhine frontier87 However there is currently insufficient evidence to show that Canterbury had developed into a major proto-urban centre before the Roman conquest and there appear to have been few changes certainly within the Marlowe area until the Flavian

79 Rivet and Smith 1979 353ndash480 Pilbrow 187181 Frere 1965 682 Blockley et al 199583 Thompson 1983 253ndash9 Blockley and Blockley 1989 245ndash684 Blockley and Blockley 1989 24685 Rodwell 1976 33086 Blockley et al 1995 987 T Blagg in Blockley et al 1995 11

25IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

period88 The Iron Age status of Canterbury has previously been questioned89 and Millett makes the important point that the later Roman development of the site arguably and quite possibly wrongly leads to the perception that the Iron Age settlement was of equal importance90 Nevertheless it is clear from the extent of the known remains the amount of coinage and the quantity of imported fineware pottery including Dressel I amphorae that the settlement here was of some importance The evidence for this as provided by the Iron Age coinage is further considered below

The coinage

By the end of 2003 a total of 163 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) had been recorded from within the area of the later Roman walled town mainly in the area of Longmarket Rose Lane St Margarets Street Watling Street and Beer Cart Lane Significantly fewer Iron Age coins have been found during the recent Whitefriars excavations immediately to the east perhaps indicating the eastern limits of the Iron Age settlement although development pressures meant that only limited excavation of the earliest layers was possible The most important point about these coins is that they have virtually all been found during archaeological excavations Canterbury is the only site considered in this paper which has subsequently been built over in its entirety but it is also the only site with the exception of Richborough that has seen archaeological excavation on a large scale Canterbury is the only major late Iron Age site in east Kent with large numbers of broadly contemporary stratified coin finds This is of considerable importance not only for understanding the origins of the city but also for the study of the circulation deposition and dating of Iron Age coinage in the region as a whole A basic relative chronology for other sites in east Kent can be constructed by considering the numismatic evidence from Canterbury for example the realisation that potin coins predate the struck bronzes which themselves evolved from native-inspired designs into more Romanised types

Archaeological contexts can be questioned if later activity has occurred on the site leading to the inevitable disturbance of earlier features The result is a tendency to date items later than should be the case91 A significant number of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury have been found in post-Conquest deposits and Haselgrove regarded these as a mixture of residual coins disturbed by Roman activity as one would expect in an urban context and coins continuing in use until the mid-first century ad92 Nash considered that the potin coins from the Marlowe excavations were circulating until the later first century ad but appeared to make insufficient concession to residuality93 Some Iron Age coins have been found in medieval and later deposits having clearly arrived there as a result of earlier levels being disturbed During the early Roman period disturbance of the underlying Iron Age deposits would have been much more frequent and therefore more coins would have been displaced It cannot be conclusively shown that the Iron Age coins at Canterbury circulated for any length of time after the Conquest although it is reasonable to suppose that some may have continued to circulate for a few years before being fully supplanted by the new Roman coinage94 The problems caused by residuality have also been discussed by Arthur in relation to the late Republican amphorae from the excavations95

88 Blockley et al 1995 1289 Blockley et al 1995 990 Millett 1996 342ndash391 Haselgrove 1988 103ndash592 Haselgrove 1987 14193 D Nash in Blockley et al 1995 92394 eg Nash 1987 36ndash895 Arthur 1986 240

26 DAVID HOLMAN

Potins account for 479 per cent of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury (fig 10) The near absence of Kentish Primary potins is significant because this implies that they had largely ceased to circulate before Canterbury was established Only two of these coins have been recorded both from post-Conquest contexts and these were previously wrongly identified as a cut-down bronze of Massalia and a Central Gaulish lsquotecircte diaboliquersquo potin96 Given that Kentish Primary potins are the commonest type of Iron Age coin in east Kent it is reasonable to assume that many more would have been found at Canterbury had they still been in circulation in the last 50ndash75 years before the Conquest The possibility remains that the initial nucleus of the settlement may have been situated elsewhere97 but the current evidence supports Haselgroversquos view that early potins had mostly ceased to circulate by the early first century ad98 indeed a date before the turn of the century may now be preferred In France the temple sites at Champlieu and Chilly also provide evidence that potins had virtually disappeared from circulation by the first century ad99

An early cessation date for the circulation of the earlier Flat Linear I potins particularly Allen Classes AndashD can also be surmised from the Canterbury evidence The 21 Flat Linear I potins all belong to Allen Classes jndashL ie late in the series probably dating to around the middle of the first century bc Some of these were deliberately cut100 a feature rarely seen elsewhere although a cut Class L coin has been recorded from the Worth Temple site Elsewhere in east Kent the earlier types form a significant component of the Flat Linear I potins and their absence at Canterbury again suggests that if any settlement existed on the site in the early first century bc it is likely to have been of little importance Haselgrove noted that earlier Flat Linear I types are present at Rochester suggesting that Rochester was a site of some importance at an earlier date than Canterbury101 This may well still hold true for the relative chronology of the earliest phases at Canterbury and Rochester but it now seems likely that Kentish coinage began in the

96 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15397 Blockley et al 1995 898 Haselgrove 1987 15899 Allen 1995 51100 Haselgrove 1988 118101 Haselgrove 1987 151

fig 10a Canterbury (walled area) coins from site ()fig 10b Canterbury (walled area) set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

27IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

east of the county102 and a later commencement date for Canterbury need have no particular relevance in any discussion on Rochester located some 43 km to the north-west

Flat Linear II potins are represented by 50 surviving specimens 307 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (321 per cent of the identified coins) Compared with their general scarcity elsewhere in east Kent with the exception of East Wear Bay Folkestone (see below Site 9) with which some sort of link may have existed this is exceptional a fact well illustrated by fig 10 which shows that the proportion of these coins at Canterbury is more than ten times the mean for the rest of east Kent Recent research on Flat Linear II potins based on hoard evidence and individual findspots is leaning increasingly towards an origin in the region immediately north of London rather than Kent at least for certain classes103 In this case the appearance of so many of these coins at Canterbury cannot be easily explained They passed into the local circulation pool at a much lower rate than other coin types and the scarcity of these coins around Canterbury suggests that their principal purpose may have been related to a specific activity or commodity the nature of which is unknown Alternatively there was a sudden and significant but short-lived increase in activity at Canterbury (and Folkestone) which may again have had a specific cause Either way there must have been a fairly high degree of control to restrict their circulation in this manner A comparison may perhaps be made with the exceptionally high number of Roman coins of the period ad 388ndash402 found at Richborough which is not reflected elsewhere in east Kent and which must represent an event specific to that site in the local record although the contents of several hoards at the site account for a not insignificant proportion of these late coins104 It seems likely that the Flat Linear II potins were used in Canterbury as a low-value coinage as the appearance of so many high-value coins in a non-hoard context would be difficult to explain There may perhaps have been a reliance on these coins to sustain the Canterbury circulation pool for small-scale transactions Haselgrove noted that potins were the commonest issues circulating in Canterbury until Phase 8 (c ad 20)105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role106 although how much of this is a result of residuality cannot be ascertained

Struck bronzes are represented at Canterbury by 69 coins These include ten Gaulish coins 159 per cent of the (identified) struck bronze total There are also five Gaulish potins Overall Gaulish coins at Canterbury are 53 per cent above the east Kent mean Haselgrove commented on possible early links with the Continent107 and Fitzpatrickrsquos suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands108 but coastal sites such as Archers Low Farm and East Wear Bay Folkestone may be regarded as more likely initial points of contact Phase 6 coins are also above the east Kent mean In this respect there is some similarity to Archers Low Farm although the deviation from the mean there both for imports and Phase 6 coins is far greater There are 21 struck bronzes of the Kentish Uninscribed Series and an early lsquoChichester Cockrsquo type The frequency of some of the Kentish Uninscribed types at Canterbury in particular VA 154-3 suggests that minting facilities may have been operating at that time

Bronzes of the dynastic period are represented by 31 coins The nine coins of Dubnovellaunos three of Tasciovanus-Sego and ten of Eppillus are typical for an east Kent site However coins of Cunobelin appear to be significantly under-represented only eight coins of Cunobelin have been recorded from Canterbury and four of these are late types otherwise scarce in east

102 Holman 2000103 Haselgrove 1988 117 G Cottam pers comm104 Reece 1987 84105 Haselgrove 1987 145106 Haselgrove 1993 44107 Haselgrove 1987 143108 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

14 DAVID HOLMAN

Age is reasonably well attested45 but the status of the site immediately prior to the Roman invasion remains uncertain Cunliffe stated that there was lsquono trace of Belgic occupationrsquo on the site46 while both Thompson and Pollard have maintained that definite pre-Conquest pottery is generally absent from the excavated material47 A large number of early brooches are known from Richborough but there is no evidence that any of these arrived before ad 43 very few can categorically be shown to be contemporary with the Iron Age coins from the site48 although it should be noted that Iron Age brooches are much rarer finds than coins On the evidence of the coinage Rodwell suggested that there was some kind of pre-Conquest port here49 an idea previously suggested by Allen50 Indeed the fundamental question must be posed as to whether this place would ever have been chosen for a Roman invasion base if it were not already an established port of entry with clear routeways leading into the Kentish hinterland

The coinage

Allen stated that there were between 12 and 14 Iron Age coins from the excavations at Richborough (there was much confusion over the numbering system) and that these included a number of non-local coins including Gaulish imports51 Following reassessment of the site assemblage including non-excavation finds an updated summary list showing a total of 23 coins is provided in Appendix 152

Large numbers of coins have been found at and removed from Richborough over several centuries In the sixteenth century Leland wrote that more Roman coins were found at Richborough than anywhere else in England and that this had been the case for as long as anyone could remember53 Several local notables and antiquaries in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had collections of coins from the site54 It is evident that the total number of Roman coins deposited whether lost or deliberately hoarded at Richborough far exceeds the 56084 recovered during the excavations of 1922ndash193855 and it is probable that Iron Age coins were among those previously removed without record

Looked at in an overall context the 23 Iron Age coins from Richborough show considerable deviation from the general pattern in east Kent (fig 5) There are several unusual features and the group may perhaps be regarded as chronologically typologically and numerically unrepresentative for a number of reasons

a The coin distribution is irregular for an east Kent siteb An unknown number of coins have been removed without record over a long period of time including by recent illegal metal-detector activityc A lack of sanctioned metal detecting because much of the area is scheduledd The collections of local antiquaries could be of a selective nature

45 Bushe-Fox 1949 8ndash11 Cunliffe 1968 116ndash1746 Cunliffe 1968 23247 Thompson 1982 809 Pollard 1988 4448 Bayley and Butcher 200449 Rodwell 1976 22150 Allen 1968 18651 Allen 1968 184ndash852 A further coin from Richborough has been noted by Bean (Bean 2000 178 his type VERC 3-4) However the

Celtic Coin Index record for this coin queries this provenance and it has accordingly been decided not to include it in the site list at Appendix 1

53 Toulmin-Smith 1909 6254 eg Roach-Smith 1850 11955 Reece 1968

15IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

e Large-scale disturbance during the Roman period destroyed earlier layers (although any coins would probably have been re-deposited rather than removed)f There could have been considerable displacement of coins from non-local sources during the earliest Roman phaseg Many coins were probably missed during the excavations (see above)h The 1922ndash1938 excavations concentrated on the area within the Saxon Shore fort but this was not necessarily the centre of any LPRIA settlement A recent magnetometry survey and analysis of aerial photographs have revealed a dense mass of features across the fields around the fort56 many of these are probably of Roman date but the possibility that some are earlier cannot be discounted in the absence of excavation

On current evidence the Iron Age coins from Richborough appear to fall into two groups one ending at the beginning of the first century ad and consisting mainly of types typically found in east Kent and the other being more or less contemporary with the Roman conquest of ad 43 and consisting mainly of types not generally found in east Kent Haselgrove described the Richborough assemblage as superficially impressive but spurious commenting on the large number of Phase 8L coins compared with Canterbury which he suggested was a result of the Roman invasion57 No other site in east Kent bears any similarity to Richborough in Phase 8L when losses are nearly ten times the east Kent mean so it may be inferred that the reason for this is an event specific to Richborough The possibility that at least some of the earlier coins were lost at a later date as suggested by Haselgrove58 cannot be dismissed particularly in view of the lack of securely stratified and undisturbed Iron Age coins from the site the specimens of VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are candidates for this Although there are only three silver coins from Richborough silver is further above the east Kent mean than the bronze but this is entirely down to the appearance of non-local types and is misleading

56 Millett and Wilmott 200457 Haselgrove 1987 15358 Haselgrove 1987 153

fig 5a Richborough coins from site ()fig 5b Richborough set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

16 DAVID HOLMAN

The early group consists mainly of potins Gaulish imports and Kentish uninscribed bronzes together with a slightly later inscribed issue of Sa(m) Both of the coins previously recorded as bronzes of Massalia are actually potins59 The silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are early and both originate from the south coast of England With the exception of these silver coins which may have arrived later this early group fits very well into the general east Kent pattern and seemingly indicates a period of pre-Conquest coin use on the site The low percentage of potin and rather higher percentage of bronze counts against an establishment date much before the middle of the first century bc and it may be that the potins were lost at a later date and that the site was a later first-century bc foundation In favour of this is the fact that Phase 6 coins and continental imports are both above the mean for east Kent indeed Richborough has one of the highest levels of imported pre-Conquest coinage from any site in Britain comprising 304 per cent of the total site assemblage It may be significant that the proportions of Gaulish imports and Phase 6 coinage at Richborough are very similar to Archers Low Farm perhaps hinting at some link between these two sites The imports could have been deposited with the Phase 8L coins during early Roman occupation60 but given the low levels of Phase 7 and 8E coinage the near contemporary Phase 6 coinage seems unlikely to have been deposited as late as Phase 8L

Following an apparent hiatus in coin deposition evidenced by the lack of Eppillus and early Cunobelin issues common finds elsewhere in east Kent a later group becomes evident This consists of late issues of Cunobelin and three coins from the south coast one of Verica and two of the Durotriges Late issues of Cunobelin are greatly outnumbered by early issues elsewhere in east Kent while the three south coast coins suggest a link with the West Sussex Hampshire and Dorset area which is otherwise almost wholly absent in east Kent The southern silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 from the early group may have arrived at Richborough at the same time as the later coins as a result of post-Conquest activity An analogous situation can be seen at a number of sites in France where Gaulish bronzes continued in use into the first century ad61 A second-century bc bronze coin of Cyzicus is on balance more likely to be a Roman than a pre-Roman import in this instance further illustrating the difficulty in determining the date at which such early coins reached Britain62

SITE 4 EBBSFLEET ISLE OF THANET

Background

This site lies some 35 km to the north of Richborough Castle on the southern side of the Isle of Thanet at a mean elevation of 8 m above OD It occupies a low chalk promontory capped with Thanet Beds sand surrounded on three sides by marshlands which were once part of the Wantsum Channel Metal detector surveys by the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association and evaluation trenching by the Trust for Thanet Archaeology in 1990 have demonstrated the presence of extensive prehistoric and Roman occupation in this area63 Settlement in the late Iron Age is represented by a number of features together with significant quantities of pottery and coinage Amongst the pottery much of which is dated to c ad 25ndash5075 is a quantity of

59 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15260 Haselgrove 1987 15361 Haselgrove 1999 16462 There are also three early Mediterranean bronze coins from the foreshore close to the Roman fort at Reculver

at the northern end of the Wantsum Channel one of an uncertain Ptolemy one of Agathocles of Syracuse and one of Mamertini Sicily Reculver has also produced several Iron Age coins including a quarter stater (Sch 7) dating from as early as the third century bc which is potentially a contemporary import

63 Perkins 1992

17IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

imported Gallo-Belgic fineware not all of which is pre-Conquest in date There is also locally produced pottery dating from the mid-first century bc onwards as well as earlier material

The coinage

A total of 43 Iron Age and three other pre-Conquest coins are currently recorded from Ebbsfleet (Appendix 1) A few of these were published by Wren in 199264 but further discoveries have since been made and more information is available concerning the finds

Ebbsfleet has the highest percentage of Kentish Primary potins from any site in east Kent with the exception of lsquoEastryrsquo (see below Site 6) (fig 6) There are also a number of early Flat Linear I potins Overall potins are 23 per cent above the east Kent mean This suggests that the site was established at an early date probably before 100 bc a date also supported by quantities of flint-tempered pottery A relatively high level of coin deposition continued until perhaps the mid-first century bc when like Worth and North Foreland there appears to have been a major reduction in activity A change in local circumstances external factors or the non-relevance of Flat Linear II potins at these three sites are all possible reasons for the lack of Flat Linear II potins but in the absence of evidence other than the coinage itself little can be said without resorting to circular arguments At each of these sites coin deposition subsequently increased again by the early first

64 CR Wren lsquoCoins found at Ebbsfleet during 1990 and 1991rsquo in Perkins 1992 305ndash6

century ad Many of the potins from Ebbsfleet are in very poor condition possibly as a result of intensive agricultural activity in recent years Some may conceivably be Gaulish imports but their condition makes precise classification impossible

Although potins are above the east Kent mean struck bronzes are under-represented There are nine different types among the twelve coins recorded and only one is represented by more than a single specimen The solitary Gaulish struck bronze is unusually not an issue from Belgic Gaul The Siculo-Punic and Ebusus bronzes are potential pre-Conquest imports

There is an above average level of silver at Ebbsfleet a feature also evident at Richborough although very probably for different reasons there being little evidence for early Roman

fig 6a Ebbsfleet coins from site ()fig 6b Ebbsfleet set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

18 DAVID HOLMAN

occupation at Ebbsfleet The ratio of silver to bronze at Ebbsfleet is higher than for any other site in east Kent although this may be down to chance A silver coin regarded as an Atrebatic issue by Bean but not listed by Van Arsdell or Hobbs is now known from several other findspots in Kent and it may be an early Kentish issue although it bears little resemblance to any other Kentish coinage65 It is here regarded as Atrebatic although Atrebatic coinage is generally very rarely found in Kent No gold coins have been recorded from Ebbsfleet other than a contemporary forgery of a Gallo-Belgic E stater with a silver core

The level of Gaulish non-gold imports at Ebbsfleet is low at only 58 per cent of the east Kent mean An even lower level of imports is seen at North Foreland (see below Site 5) and imports are scarce finds in Thanet generally particularly when compared with the adjacent mainland area around Sandwich This is surprising in view of the coastal location and may suggest that the Kentish cross-Channel ports were situated on the mainland rather than on Thanet from where another water crossing would inconveniently be required before accessing any inland routes away from the coastal strip (although Richborough does seem to provide an exception to this) It seems clear that the main circulation area of Gaulish imports in Kent was in the hinterland of the mainland ports

The nature of the site at Ebbsfleet remains unclear but certain parallels with the Worth Temple site suggest that a not dissimilar site may exist here albeit with a significant reduction in coin deposition in Phase 8L which is far less in evidence at Worth The coin distributions at Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet are broadly similar with the exception of a higher level of silver and corresponding lower level of bronze at Ebbsfleet these differences may be more apparent than real when the relative sample sizes are compared Again there is an early peak among the potins and a later peak in Phases 7 and 8E The overall coin distribution at Ebbsfleet appears on current evidence to be marginally earlier than at the Worth Temple site both in its greater incidence of early potins and the higher ratio of Phase 7 coins to those of Phase 8E Other features shared by Ebbsfleet and Worth Temple are that both sites stand on a promontory and both have Roman masonry structures although the lsquomainrsquo Ebbsfleet building apparently of later second-century date is of unknown function66

The total lack of Phase 8L coinage at Ebbsfleet is particularly significant when compared with nearby Richborough and may conceivably represent a temporary abandonment of the site at around the time of the Conquest A marked decline in activity in the early Roman period until a resurgence in the later second century ad based on the comparative scarcity of pottery of early Roman date and the lack of contemporary coinage has previously been noted by Macpherson-Grant67 The implication can be made that the Iron Age coins were mostly if not all deposited before the Conquest or at the latest shortly afterwards

SITE 5 NORTH FORELAND BROADSTAIRS

Background

This site is located on the North Foreland on the Isle of Thanet at the easternmost point of Kent It occupies a ridge of upper Chalk and the eastern slope of the valley immediately to the west where the chalk is sealed by Head Brickearth The highest point of the site is now occupied by the North Foreland lighthouse at an elevation of about 36 m above OD

The existence of a double ditch system apparently enclosing an area of at least 24 ha across the hilltop was revealed by aerial photographs several years ago In 1995 members of the Thanet

65 Bean 2000 237 (his type QsD 3-4)66 Perkins 1992 278ndash8167 N MacPherson-Grant lsquoThe Potteryrsquo in Perkins 1992 301

19IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Archaeological Society investigated the site by cutting several sections across the ditches The outermost of these ditches had cut two earlier ditches one of which appears to have been palisaded68 Ceramic evidence indicated a construction date in the mid- to late Iron Age with infilling of the ditches occurring from the late first century bc onwards The site is currently interpreted as being a possible hillfort although the ditch dimensions are on the small side and the term lsquodefended hilltop enclosurersquo may be more appropriate

The coinage

A total of 81 Iron Age coins (counting a potin hoard as one find) has been recorded from the site at North Foreland the majority of which have been found by metal-detector users (Appendix 1) The two gold coins mentioned by Perkins are of unknown types69 A Gallo-Belgic stater found in the nineteenth century at Stone House immediately to the south of the St Stephenrsquos College site is probably related to the site and has been included here

The site histogram for North Foreland (fig 7) shows that potins are the most common Iron Age coins here with Kentish Primary potins comprising 346 per cent of the total site assemblage the most numerous However the distribution of the potins differs from Worth and Ebbsfleet in that Flat Linear I potins are much further above the east Kent mean than are the Kentish Primary potins This is not a result of the Flat Linear I hoard from the site which is counted as a single

68 Hogwood 1995 475ndash669 Perkins 1993 411ndash13

find rather the hoard complements the other Flat Linear I potins and provides definite evidence of contemporary activity The ratio of Flat Linear I potins to those of the Kentish Primary Series is higher than normal for east Kent and these show an emphasis towards the earlier varieties probably dating from the first quarter of the first century bc

In 1999 an archaeological excavation was undertaken by Canterbury Archaeological Trust and the Trust for Thanet Archaeology prior to the redevelopment of the St Stephenrsquos College site on the ridge-top some 400 m to the south-west of the lighthouse Among the many finds of Iron Age (and earlier) date was a coin hoard containing 62 Flat Linear I potins buried in a

fig 7a North Foreland coins from site ()fig 7b North Foreland set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

20 DAVID HOLMAN

pit Preliminary examination of this hoard indicated that although the coins range from Allenrsquos Class C to Class L approximately half belong to Class G70 The hoard will be reported on elsewhere The excavations also revealed an enclosure provisionally dated on ceramic evidence to the first half of the first century bc ie contemporary with the hoard and a large number of storage pits again of similar date The hoard was located only a short distance from the entrance to the enclosure and its location in the centre of what seems to have been an active site suggests that ritual deposition should be considered as a possible reason for its concealment Given the existence of this hoard the possibility that at least some of the potins recovered as metal-detector finds from the adjacent fields may derive from another now dispersed hoard cannot be discounted although there is no evidence to suggest this

North Foreland shows an apparent reduction in coinage deposition after the mid-first century bc before a later recovery in common with Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet Coins of Phases 6 and 7 are both around half the east Kent mean but a significant increase is evident in Phase 8E which continues into Phase 8L suggesting that the site saw a revival in the early first century ad The 24 struck bronzes recorded slightly below the east Kent mean form a very heterogeneous assemblage with 17 different types represented These are almost exclusively Kentish issues either produced in Kent or elsewhere (apparently) for specific use in Kent71 In view of the coastal location of the site it is interesting to note the appearance of three specimens of the lsquoShiprsquo type (VA 1989) among the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin

The low number of non-local issues is significant given the coastal location Apart from a Gallo-Belgic stater only one import has been recorded contrasting sharply with Archers Low Farm Richborough and Folkestone At only 16 per cent of the east Kent mean this site has the lowest percentage of non-gold imports at any of the major sites discussed in this paper Non-local British issues are also rare here but the coin of Verica is one of only two recorded from Kent

Set against the rest of east Kent potin is the most significant metal type at North Foreland followed by silver marginally ahead of bronze As with some elements of the phasing this is a feature shared with Ebbsfleet and may reflect a common cause North Foreland displays activity at a later date than Ebbsfleet but it is not unreasonable to assume that these sites were in some way related

SITE 6 lsquoEASTRyrsquo

Background

Situated on chalk downland south of Eastry this site has produced an assemblage of 51 pre-Roman coins At the request of the landowner and the finders details of the coins are held in the Celtic Coin Index under the neutral provenance of lsquoNorth-East Kentrsquo72

The coinage

A total of 47 Iron Age and four Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from lsquoEastryrsquo (Appendix 1)

70 C Haselgrove pers comm71 An example of the extremely rare bronze half unit VA 154-11 has been listed here as possibly being an issue

of Eppillus with its designs of a geometric pattern and a capricorn The capricorn on the reverse suggests an Augustan prototype which is probably later in date than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which this type has been attributed by both Mack and Van Arsdell However a clearer specimen is still awaited to prove or disprove this reattribution

72 Not all coins in the Celtic Coin Index with this provenance are necessarily from lsquoEastryrsquo The coins listed are known to be from this site

21IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

lsquoEastryrsquo shows clear signs of early activity with an emphasis on Kentish Primary potins (fig 8) which are 133 per cent above the east Kent mean higher than anywhere else in the region Flat Linear I potins are almost exactly on the mean but again there is an absence of Flat Linear II potins Overall potins are further above the east Kent mean here than at any other major site in the region heavily weighted by the large number of Kentish Primary types Early activity is also suggested by the three Gallo-Belgic staters lsquoEastryrsquo has a higher percentage of gold than most other sites in the region with the exception of Richborough and East Wear Bay Folkestone the latter of which fairly certainly incorporates a large degree of bias among the early finds

Only one silver coin has been recorded and there is also an unusually low number of struck bronzes lower in percentage terms than at any other site discussed in this paper Apart from this the most unusual aspect of the lsquoEastryrsquo coins is the discovery of four Siculo-Punic bronzes all of the same type the largest number of such coins from any site in Kent

The nature of this site is uncertain and the site histogram (fig 8) is irregular The above average representation of coinage in Phases 1ndash5 a very unusual feature for any site is an indicator that this site may have had a particular and possibly specialised function The high ratio of gold to silver and struck bronze may suggest that trade is unlikely to have been a principal function of this site as gold is not likely to have been a common medium of exchange A religious site is a possibility as is a disturbed hoard(s)

A separate report on lsquoEastryrsquo as a possible religiouslsquoritualrsquo site has been published elsewhere73 No further investigation of this site is anticipated

SITE 7 GOODNESTONE

Background

This inland site is located to the south-east of Goodnestone some 11 km south-east of Canterbury It occupies a broad gently sloping ridge of Upper Chalk capped by Head Brickearth at a mean elevation of 55 to 60 m above OD The existence of an Iron Age and Roman site was

73 Holman 2005a 280ndash1

fig 8a lsquoEastryrsquo coins from site ()fig 8b lsquoEastryrsquo set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

22 DAVID HOLMAN

not known until a metal-detector survey of the area carried out from 1994 onwards started to produce substantial quantities of coinage in addition to other artefacts including several pieces of mid-first-century ad Roman military equipment74 In addition to 92 Iron Age coins there are several hundred Roman coins covering the entire period of the Roman occupation Ceramic evidence and quernstones also indicate late Iron Age and Roman occupation

The coinage

The 92 Iron Age coins recorded from Goodnestone are listed in Appendix 1 The majority of these coins are either of Kentish origin or were produced elsewhere apparently for use in Kent the percentage of non-Kentish coinage from the site is lower than usual for east Kent (fig 9)

The low number of potin coins representing just 65 per cent of the site assemblage shows that although the site may have an origin in the first half of the first century bc activity at that time was probably limited The coin evidence suggests that the main phase of activity at Goodnestone started in the final quarter of the first century bc

The majority of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone 902 per cent of the site total are struck bronzes Coins of the Kentish uninscribed Series are the most frequent and are represented by 29 examples including three types not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs One of these a variant of VA 154-1 appears to provide a link between the Kentish uninscribed Series and the early inscribed coinage of Dubnovellaunos The obverse although worn on all three specimens appears to bear the same or a very similar design to the Kentish uninscribed bronze issue VA 154-1 The reverse shows a left-facing version of the horse depicted on the reverse of VA 154-1 and a close parallel for this is seen on the reverse of an inscribed silver coin of Dubnovellaunos (VA 171) It is possible that the same die-cutter was involved with all three types Three of the five known specimens of this variant form of VA 154-1 have come from Goodnestone It is conceivably an early uninscribed issue of Dubnovellaunos but has here been retained within the Kentish uninscribed Series

Coins attributed to Dubnovellaunos are represented by 21 examples at Goodnestone Among

fig 9a Goodnestone coins from site ()fig 9b Goodnestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

74 Bishop 1995 17ndash19

23IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

these are six examples of two uncatalogued but related bronze types known from several other provenances in both Kent and Essex75 A coin of Dubnovellaunos is one of only two silver coins from Goodnestone the other tentatively attributed to Addedomaros by Van Arsdell76 is known from three other provenances in east Kent but a north Thames origin still appears likely on stylistic grounds

Phase 8 coins at Goodnestone are less numerous than those of the Kentish uninscribed Series and Dubnovellaunos Coins of Eppillus are scarcer than expected for east Kent and the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin are represented by only three types all of which have their principal distribution in Kent A quarter-stater of Cunobelin is the only gold coin from Goodnestone and is possibly the latest Iron Age coin from the site although similarly late bronze coins of Amminus are also present Only three Gaulish coins have been recorded just 37 per cent of the site total unusually low for east Kent

The histogram for Goodnestone (fig 9) indicates that the site was established before the end of the first century bc Coins of Phase 6 are the most frequent finds but from then until the Conquest losses steadily decline although remaining above the east Kent mean This decline suggests that the earlier coins at least were largely deposited before the Conquest otherwise it is reasonable to expect that the ratio of Phase 8 coins to those of Phase 6 would be higher Goodnestonersquos nearest parallel among the east Kent sites is Archers Low Farm except for the lack of Gaulish imports which are significantly under-represented at only 45 per cent of the east Kent mean This may be regarded as an expected difference between a probable port site and an inland settlement of uncertain nature seemingly established at around the same time Otherwise both sites have low numbers of potins significant peaks in Phases 6 and 7 and are virtually identical in Phases 8E and 8L The metal types at Goodnestone and Archers Low Farm also have very similar proportions The very high level of struck bronze is indicative of trade and exchange from the latter part of the first century bc The scarcity of Gaulish imports and non-Kentish coinage at Goodnestone suggests that much of the activity here was locally based and that there were no direct links with places further afield A greater number of non-local coins would be expected at a trading centre with wider links such as Canterbury

The state of preservation of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone is generally very poor and ten have not been identified The impression given is that many of these coins had a long circulation life however to add a note of caution late Roman coins of the same type found only a few metres apart at Goodnestone sometimes show a very marked variation in their state of preservation the reason for which is unclear

The adjacent Cherrygarden Lane appears on Ordnance Survey maps as part of a trackway running for several kilometres across the Kentish downland This may well have originated as a main thoroughfare at a very early date A geophysical survey of part of the site revealed the existence of another trackway across the field with probable field boundaries adjoining it The function of the late Iron Age and Roman site at Goodnestone is unclear from the coin evidence alone and is only likely to be clarified by excavation Curteis has discussed a not dissimilar site at Evenley Northamptonshire and suggested either a religious centre andor an occupationaltrading settlement77 A detailed report on Goodnestone incorporating all facets of the site is in preparation78

75 Both types are uninscribed but can be attributed to Dubnovellaunos on stylistic and distributional grounds A Kentish origin for these issues is preferred here particularly in view of the lack of non-Kentish coinage from Goodnestone

76 Van Arsdell 1989 350 (his type VA 1611)77 Curteis 1996 33ndash478 Cross forthcoming

24 DAVID HOLMAN

SITE 8 CANTERBURy (WALLED AREA)

Background

As the Roman civitas capital of Kent and a moderately large town within the province of Britannia Canterbury was an important settlement which has continued to be occupied up to the present day The name by which the settlement was known to the Romans Durovernum Cantiacorum is of Celtic origin translating as lsquothe walled town by the alder swamprsquo79 and perhaps provides an initial clue to a pre-Conquest origin for the site

It has been known since at least the eighteenth century that substantial remains of the Roman town survived below the modern streets During the installation of the sewage system in the 1860s a number of coins were found none was described in detail but some were possibly Iron Age80 In 1871 an Iron Age coin was found in Burgate providing evidence for some type of pre-Conquest occupation in the area However definite remains of late Iron Age settlement were not found until excavations began on bomb-damaged sites in 1946 when work revealed a gully apparently bounding a hut site together with pottery of pre-Conquest date81 Since then a significant number of other sites producing evidence of pre-Roman occupation have been located most notably in the Marlowe car park area situated towards the central part of the Roman walled town where the remains of two circular houses set within a triple-ditched enclosure accompanied by hearths ovens and a well were found82 It now seems that late Iron Age settlement at Canterbury was dispersed across an area of at least 10 ha beside the River Stour fairly certainly focused on a ford but apparently lacking any significant defences The available dating evidence suggests that the later Iron Age settlement began during the mid- to late first century bc although evidence of occupation immediately pre-dating this may still await discovery There is some evidence for early Iron Age settlement in the area

Of particular significance in the context of the later Iron Age settlement is the hillfort of Bigberry Camp located above the Stour valley some 3 km to the west This site represents the only known certain hillfort in eastern Kent Occupation here seems to have begun c 350 bc but the defences do not appear to have been constructed until the second century bc83 The camp appears to have been largely abandoned around 50 bc perhaps as a result of it being stormed by Caesarrsquos troops in 54 bc84 Despite the significant amount of archaeological work at Bigberry no Iron Age coins have been found A few bronze coins have been found at Harbledown 1 km to the north-east Rodwell has previously suggested that the general lack of coinage from the site indicates that it was not of major importance as a permanent settlement85

It is generally accepted that the settlement at Canterbury in some way superseded Bigberry during the mid-first century bc perhaps originating as a river-side trading station of the hillfort86 Blagg has suggested that Canterburyrsquos importance grew after c 15 bc following the establishment of the Rhine frontier87 However there is currently insufficient evidence to show that Canterbury had developed into a major proto-urban centre before the Roman conquest and there appear to have been few changes certainly within the Marlowe area until the Flavian

79 Rivet and Smith 1979 353ndash480 Pilbrow 187181 Frere 1965 682 Blockley et al 199583 Thompson 1983 253ndash9 Blockley and Blockley 1989 245ndash684 Blockley and Blockley 1989 24685 Rodwell 1976 33086 Blockley et al 1995 987 T Blagg in Blockley et al 1995 11

25IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

period88 The Iron Age status of Canterbury has previously been questioned89 and Millett makes the important point that the later Roman development of the site arguably and quite possibly wrongly leads to the perception that the Iron Age settlement was of equal importance90 Nevertheless it is clear from the extent of the known remains the amount of coinage and the quantity of imported fineware pottery including Dressel I amphorae that the settlement here was of some importance The evidence for this as provided by the Iron Age coinage is further considered below

The coinage

By the end of 2003 a total of 163 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) had been recorded from within the area of the later Roman walled town mainly in the area of Longmarket Rose Lane St Margarets Street Watling Street and Beer Cart Lane Significantly fewer Iron Age coins have been found during the recent Whitefriars excavations immediately to the east perhaps indicating the eastern limits of the Iron Age settlement although development pressures meant that only limited excavation of the earliest layers was possible The most important point about these coins is that they have virtually all been found during archaeological excavations Canterbury is the only site considered in this paper which has subsequently been built over in its entirety but it is also the only site with the exception of Richborough that has seen archaeological excavation on a large scale Canterbury is the only major late Iron Age site in east Kent with large numbers of broadly contemporary stratified coin finds This is of considerable importance not only for understanding the origins of the city but also for the study of the circulation deposition and dating of Iron Age coinage in the region as a whole A basic relative chronology for other sites in east Kent can be constructed by considering the numismatic evidence from Canterbury for example the realisation that potin coins predate the struck bronzes which themselves evolved from native-inspired designs into more Romanised types

Archaeological contexts can be questioned if later activity has occurred on the site leading to the inevitable disturbance of earlier features The result is a tendency to date items later than should be the case91 A significant number of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury have been found in post-Conquest deposits and Haselgrove regarded these as a mixture of residual coins disturbed by Roman activity as one would expect in an urban context and coins continuing in use until the mid-first century ad92 Nash considered that the potin coins from the Marlowe excavations were circulating until the later first century ad but appeared to make insufficient concession to residuality93 Some Iron Age coins have been found in medieval and later deposits having clearly arrived there as a result of earlier levels being disturbed During the early Roman period disturbance of the underlying Iron Age deposits would have been much more frequent and therefore more coins would have been displaced It cannot be conclusively shown that the Iron Age coins at Canterbury circulated for any length of time after the Conquest although it is reasonable to suppose that some may have continued to circulate for a few years before being fully supplanted by the new Roman coinage94 The problems caused by residuality have also been discussed by Arthur in relation to the late Republican amphorae from the excavations95

88 Blockley et al 1995 1289 Blockley et al 1995 990 Millett 1996 342ndash391 Haselgrove 1988 103ndash592 Haselgrove 1987 14193 D Nash in Blockley et al 1995 92394 eg Nash 1987 36ndash895 Arthur 1986 240

26 DAVID HOLMAN

Potins account for 479 per cent of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury (fig 10) The near absence of Kentish Primary potins is significant because this implies that they had largely ceased to circulate before Canterbury was established Only two of these coins have been recorded both from post-Conquest contexts and these were previously wrongly identified as a cut-down bronze of Massalia and a Central Gaulish lsquotecircte diaboliquersquo potin96 Given that Kentish Primary potins are the commonest type of Iron Age coin in east Kent it is reasonable to assume that many more would have been found at Canterbury had they still been in circulation in the last 50ndash75 years before the Conquest The possibility remains that the initial nucleus of the settlement may have been situated elsewhere97 but the current evidence supports Haselgroversquos view that early potins had mostly ceased to circulate by the early first century ad98 indeed a date before the turn of the century may now be preferred In France the temple sites at Champlieu and Chilly also provide evidence that potins had virtually disappeared from circulation by the first century ad99

An early cessation date for the circulation of the earlier Flat Linear I potins particularly Allen Classes AndashD can also be surmised from the Canterbury evidence The 21 Flat Linear I potins all belong to Allen Classes jndashL ie late in the series probably dating to around the middle of the first century bc Some of these were deliberately cut100 a feature rarely seen elsewhere although a cut Class L coin has been recorded from the Worth Temple site Elsewhere in east Kent the earlier types form a significant component of the Flat Linear I potins and their absence at Canterbury again suggests that if any settlement existed on the site in the early first century bc it is likely to have been of little importance Haselgrove noted that earlier Flat Linear I types are present at Rochester suggesting that Rochester was a site of some importance at an earlier date than Canterbury101 This may well still hold true for the relative chronology of the earliest phases at Canterbury and Rochester but it now seems likely that Kentish coinage began in the

96 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15397 Blockley et al 1995 898 Haselgrove 1987 15899 Allen 1995 51100 Haselgrove 1988 118101 Haselgrove 1987 151

fig 10a Canterbury (walled area) coins from site ()fig 10b Canterbury (walled area) set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

27IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

east of the county102 and a later commencement date for Canterbury need have no particular relevance in any discussion on Rochester located some 43 km to the north-west

Flat Linear II potins are represented by 50 surviving specimens 307 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (321 per cent of the identified coins) Compared with their general scarcity elsewhere in east Kent with the exception of East Wear Bay Folkestone (see below Site 9) with which some sort of link may have existed this is exceptional a fact well illustrated by fig 10 which shows that the proportion of these coins at Canterbury is more than ten times the mean for the rest of east Kent Recent research on Flat Linear II potins based on hoard evidence and individual findspots is leaning increasingly towards an origin in the region immediately north of London rather than Kent at least for certain classes103 In this case the appearance of so many of these coins at Canterbury cannot be easily explained They passed into the local circulation pool at a much lower rate than other coin types and the scarcity of these coins around Canterbury suggests that their principal purpose may have been related to a specific activity or commodity the nature of which is unknown Alternatively there was a sudden and significant but short-lived increase in activity at Canterbury (and Folkestone) which may again have had a specific cause Either way there must have been a fairly high degree of control to restrict their circulation in this manner A comparison may perhaps be made with the exceptionally high number of Roman coins of the period ad 388ndash402 found at Richborough which is not reflected elsewhere in east Kent and which must represent an event specific to that site in the local record although the contents of several hoards at the site account for a not insignificant proportion of these late coins104 It seems likely that the Flat Linear II potins were used in Canterbury as a low-value coinage as the appearance of so many high-value coins in a non-hoard context would be difficult to explain There may perhaps have been a reliance on these coins to sustain the Canterbury circulation pool for small-scale transactions Haselgrove noted that potins were the commonest issues circulating in Canterbury until Phase 8 (c ad 20)105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role106 although how much of this is a result of residuality cannot be ascertained

Struck bronzes are represented at Canterbury by 69 coins These include ten Gaulish coins 159 per cent of the (identified) struck bronze total There are also five Gaulish potins Overall Gaulish coins at Canterbury are 53 per cent above the east Kent mean Haselgrove commented on possible early links with the Continent107 and Fitzpatrickrsquos suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands108 but coastal sites such as Archers Low Farm and East Wear Bay Folkestone may be regarded as more likely initial points of contact Phase 6 coins are also above the east Kent mean In this respect there is some similarity to Archers Low Farm although the deviation from the mean there both for imports and Phase 6 coins is far greater There are 21 struck bronzes of the Kentish Uninscribed Series and an early lsquoChichester Cockrsquo type The frequency of some of the Kentish Uninscribed types at Canterbury in particular VA 154-3 suggests that minting facilities may have been operating at that time

Bronzes of the dynastic period are represented by 31 coins The nine coins of Dubnovellaunos three of Tasciovanus-Sego and ten of Eppillus are typical for an east Kent site However coins of Cunobelin appear to be significantly under-represented only eight coins of Cunobelin have been recorded from Canterbury and four of these are late types otherwise scarce in east

102 Holman 2000103 Haselgrove 1988 117 G Cottam pers comm104 Reece 1987 84105 Haselgrove 1987 145106 Haselgrove 1993 44107 Haselgrove 1987 143108 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

15IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

e Large-scale disturbance during the Roman period destroyed earlier layers (although any coins would probably have been re-deposited rather than removed)f There could have been considerable displacement of coins from non-local sources during the earliest Roman phaseg Many coins were probably missed during the excavations (see above)h The 1922ndash1938 excavations concentrated on the area within the Saxon Shore fort but this was not necessarily the centre of any LPRIA settlement A recent magnetometry survey and analysis of aerial photographs have revealed a dense mass of features across the fields around the fort56 many of these are probably of Roman date but the possibility that some are earlier cannot be discounted in the absence of excavation

On current evidence the Iron Age coins from Richborough appear to fall into two groups one ending at the beginning of the first century ad and consisting mainly of types typically found in east Kent and the other being more or less contemporary with the Roman conquest of ad 43 and consisting mainly of types not generally found in east Kent Haselgrove described the Richborough assemblage as superficially impressive but spurious commenting on the large number of Phase 8L coins compared with Canterbury which he suggested was a result of the Roman invasion57 No other site in east Kent bears any similarity to Richborough in Phase 8L when losses are nearly ten times the east Kent mean so it may be inferred that the reason for this is an event specific to Richborough The possibility that at least some of the earlier coins were lost at a later date as suggested by Haselgrove58 cannot be dismissed particularly in view of the lack of securely stratified and undisturbed Iron Age coins from the site the specimens of VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are candidates for this Although there are only three silver coins from Richborough silver is further above the east Kent mean than the bronze but this is entirely down to the appearance of non-local types and is misleading

56 Millett and Wilmott 200457 Haselgrove 1987 15358 Haselgrove 1987 153

fig 5a Richborough coins from site ()fig 5b Richborough set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

16 DAVID HOLMAN

The early group consists mainly of potins Gaulish imports and Kentish uninscribed bronzes together with a slightly later inscribed issue of Sa(m) Both of the coins previously recorded as bronzes of Massalia are actually potins59 The silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are early and both originate from the south coast of England With the exception of these silver coins which may have arrived later this early group fits very well into the general east Kent pattern and seemingly indicates a period of pre-Conquest coin use on the site The low percentage of potin and rather higher percentage of bronze counts against an establishment date much before the middle of the first century bc and it may be that the potins were lost at a later date and that the site was a later first-century bc foundation In favour of this is the fact that Phase 6 coins and continental imports are both above the mean for east Kent indeed Richborough has one of the highest levels of imported pre-Conquest coinage from any site in Britain comprising 304 per cent of the total site assemblage It may be significant that the proportions of Gaulish imports and Phase 6 coinage at Richborough are very similar to Archers Low Farm perhaps hinting at some link between these two sites The imports could have been deposited with the Phase 8L coins during early Roman occupation60 but given the low levels of Phase 7 and 8E coinage the near contemporary Phase 6 coinage seems unlikely to have been deposited as late as Phase 8L

Following an apparent hiatus in coin deposition evidenced by the lack of Eppillus and early Cunobelin issues common finds elsewhere in east Kent a later group becomes evident This consists of late issues of Cunobelin and three coins from the south coast one of Verica and two of the Durotriges Late issues of Cunobelin are greatly outnumbered by early issues elsewhere in east Kent while the three south coast coins suggest a link with the West Sussex Hampshire and Dorset area which is otherwise almost wholly absent in east Kent The southern silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 from the early group may have arrived at Richborough at the same time as the later coins as a result of post-Conquest activity An analogous situation can be seen at a number of sites in France where Gaulish bronzes continued in use into the first century ad61 A second-century bc bronze coin of Cyzicus is on balance more likely to be a Roman than a pre-Roman import in this instance further illustrating the difficulty in determining the date at which such early coins reached Britain62

SITE 4 EBBSFLEET ISLE OF THANET

Background

This site lies some 35 km to the north of Richborough Castle on the southern side of the Isle of Thanet at a mean elevation of 8 m above OD It occupies a low chalk promontory capped with Thanet Beds sand surrounded on three sides by marshlands which were once part of the Wantsum Channel Metal detector surveys by the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association and evaluation trenching by the Trust for Thanet Archaeology in 1990 have demonstrated the presence of extensive prehistoric and Roman occupation in this area63 Settlement in the late Iron Age is represented by a number of features together with significant quantities of pottery and coinage Amongst the pottery much of which is dated to c ad 25ndash5075 is a quantity of

59 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15260 Haselgrove 1987 15361 Haselgrove 1999 16462 There are also three early Mediterranean bronze coins from the foreshore close to the Roman fort at Reculver

at the northern end of the Wantsum Channel one of an uncertain Ptolemy one of Agathocles of Syracuse and one of Mamertini Sicily Reculver has also produced several Iron Age coins including a quarter stater (Sch 7) dating from as early as the third century bc which is potentially a contemporary import

63 Perkins 1992

17IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

imported Gallo-Belgic fineware not all of which is pre-Conquest in date There is also locally produced pottery dating from the mid-first century bc onwards as well as earlier material

The coinage

A total of 43 Iron Age and three other pre-Conquest coins are currently recorded from Ebbsfleet (Appendix 1) A few of these were published by Wren in 199264 but further discoveries have since been made and more information is available concerning the finds

Ebbsfleet has the highest percentage of Kentish Primary potins from any site in east Kent with the exception of lsquoEastryrsquo (see below Site 6) (fig 6) There are also a number of early Flat Linear I potins Overall potins are 23 per cent above the east Kent mean This suggests that the site was established at an early date probably before 100 bc a date also supported by quantities of flint-tempered pottery A relatively high level of coin deposition continued until perhaps the mid-first century bc when like Worth and North Foreland there appears to have been a major reduction in activity A change in local circumstances external factors or the non-relevance of Flat Linear II potins at these three sites are all possible reasons for the lack of Flat Linear II potins but in the absence of evidence other than the coinage itself little can be said without resorting to circular arguments At each of these sites coin deposition subsequently increased again by the early first

64 CR Wren lsquoCoins found at Ebbsfleet during 1990 and 1991rsquo in Perkins 1992 305ndash6

century ad Many of the potins from Ebbsfleet are in very poor condition possibly as a result of intensive agricultural activity in recent years Some may conceivably be Gaulish imports but their condition makes precise classification impossible

Although potins are above the east Kent mean struck bronzes are under-represented There are nine different types among the twelve coins recorded and only one is represented by more than a single specimen The solitary Gaulish struck bronze is unusually not an issue from Belgic Gaul The Siculo-Punic and Ebusus bronzes are potential pre-Conquest imports

There is an above average level of silver at Ebbsfleet a feature also evident at Richborough although very probably for different reasons there being little evidence for early Roman

fig 6a Ebbsfleet coins from site ()fig 6b Ebbsfleet set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

18 DAVID HOLMAN

occupation at Ebbsfleet The ratio of silver to bronze at Ebbsfleet is higher than for any other site in east Kent although this may be down to chance A silver coin regarded as an Atrebatic issue by Bean but not listed by Van Arsdell or Hobbs is now known from several other findspots in Kent and it may be an early Kentish issue although it bears little resemblance to any other Kentish coinage65 It is here regarded as Atrebatic although Atrebatic coinage is generally very rarely found in Kent No gold coins have been recorded from Ebbsfleet other than a contemporary forgery of a Gallo-Belgic E stater with a silver core

The level of Gaulish non-gold imports at Ebbsfleet is low at only 58 per cent of the east Kent mean An even lower level of imports is seen at North Foreland (see below Site 5) and imports are scarce finds in Thanet generally particularly when compared with the adjacent mainland area around Sandwich This is surprising in view of the coastal location and may suggest that the Kentish cross-Channel ports were situated on the mainland rather than on Thanet from where another water crossing would inconveniently be required before accessing any inland routes away from the coastal strip (although Richborough does seem to provide an exception to this) It seems clear that the main circulation area of Gaulish imports in Kent was in the hinterland of the mainland ports

The nature of the site at Ebbsfleet remains unclear but certain parallels with the Worth Temple site suggest that a not dissimilar site may exist here albeit with a significant reduction in coin deposition in Phase 8L which is far less in evidence at Worth The coin distributions at Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet are broadly similar with the exception of a higher level of silver and corresponding lower level of bronze at Ebbsfleet these differences may be more apparent than real when the relative sample sizes are compared Again there is an early peak among the potins and a later peak in Phases 7 and 8E The overall coin distribution at Ebbsfleet appears on current evidence to be marginally earlier than at the Worth Temple site both in its greater incidence of early potins and the higher ratio of Phase 7 coins to those of Phase 8E Other features shared by Ebbsfleet and Worth Temple are that both sites stand on a promontory and both have Roman masonry structures although the lsquomainrsquo Ebbsfleet building apparently of later second-century date is of unknown function66

The total lack of Phase 8L coinage at Ebbsfleet is particularly significant when compared with nearby Richborough and may conceivably represent a temporary abandonment of the site at around the time of the Conquest A marked decline in activity in the early Roman period until a resurgence in the later second century ad based on the comparative scarcity of pottery of early Roman date and the lack of contemporary coinage has previously been noted by Macpherson-Grant67 The implication can be made that the Iron Age coins were mostly if not all deposited before the Conquest or at the latest shortly afterwards

SITE 5 NORTH FORELAND BROADSTAIRS

Background

This site is located on the North Foreland on the Isle of Thanet at the easternmost point of Kent It occupies a ridge of upper Chalk and the eastern slope of the valley immediately to the west where the chalk is sealed by Head Brickearth The highest point of the site is now occupied by the North Foreland lighthouse at an elevation of about 36 m above OD

The existence of a double ditch system apparently enclosing an area of at least 24 ha across the hilltop was revealed by aerial photographs several years ago In 1995 members of the Thanet

65 Bean 2000 237 (his type QsD 3-4)66 Perkins 1992 278ndash8167 N MacPherson-Grant lsquoThe Potteryrsquo in Perkins 1992 301

19IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Archaeological Society investigated the site by cutting several sections across the ditches The outermost of these ditches had cut two earlier ditches one of which appears to have been palisaded68 Ceramic evidence indicated a construction date in the mid- to late Iron Age with infilling of the ditches occurring from the late first century bc onwards The site is currently interpreted as being a possible hillfort although the ditch dimensions are on the small side and the term lsquodefended hilltop enclosurersquo may be more appropriate

The coinage

A total of 81 Iron Age coins (counting a potin hoard as one find) has been recorded from the site at North Foreland the majority of which have been found by metal-detector users (Appendix 1) The two gold coins mentioned by Perkins are of unknown types69 A Gallo-Belgic stater found in the nineteenth century at Stone House immediately to the south of the St Stephenrsquos College site is probably related to the site and has been included here

The site histogram for North Foreland (fig 7) shows that potins are the most common Iron Age coins here with Kentish Primary potins comprising 346 per cent of the total site assemblage the most numerous However the distribution of the potins differs from Worth and Ebbsfleet in that Flat Linear I potins are much further above the east Kent mean than are the Kentish Primary potins This is not a result of the Flat Linear I hoard from the site which is counted as a single

68 Hogwood 1995 475ndash669 Perkins 1993 411ndash13

find rather the hoard complements the other Flat Linear I potins and provides definite evidence of contemporary activity The ratio of Flat Linear I potins to those of the Kentish Primary Series is higher than normal for east Kent and these show an emphasis towards the earlier varieties probably dating from the first quarter of the first century bc

In 1999 an archaeological excavation was undertaken by Canterbury Archaeological Trust and the Trust for Thanet Archaeology prior to the redevelopment of the St Stephenrsquos College site on the ridge-top some 400 m to the south-west of the lighthouse Among the many finds of Iron Age (and earlier) date was a coin hoard containing 62 Flat Linear I potins buried in a

fig 7a North Foreland coins from site ()fig 7b North Foreland set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

20 DAVID HOLMAN

pit Preliminary examination of this hoard indicated that although the coins range from Allenrsquos Class C to Class L approximately half belong to Class G70 The hoard will be reported on elsewhere The excavations also revealed an enclosure provisionally dated on ceramic evidence to the first half of the first century bc ie contemporary with the hoard and a large number of storage pits again of similar date The hoard was located only a short distance from the entrance to the enclosure and its location in the centre of what seems to have been an active site suggests that ritual deposition should be considered as a possible reason for its concealment Given the existence of this hoard the possibility that at least some of the potins recovered as metal-detector finds from the adjacent fields may derive from another now dispersed hoard cannot be discounted although there is no evidence to suggest this

North Foreland shows an apparent reduction in coinage deposition after the mid-first century bc before a later recovery in common with Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet Coins of Phases 6 and 7 are both around half the east Kent mean but a significant increase is evident in Phase 8E which continues into Phase 8L suggesting that the site saw a revival in the early first century ad The 24 struck bronzes recorded slightly below the east Kent mean form a very heterogeneous assemblage with 17 different types represented These are almost exclusively Kentish issues either produced in Kent or elsewhere (apparently) for specific use in Kent71 In view of the coastal location of the site it is interesting to note the appearance of three specimens of the lsquoShiprsquo type (VA 1989) among the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin

The low number of non-local issues is significant given the coastal location Apart from a Gallo-Belgic stater only one import has been recorded contrasting sharply with Archers Low Farm Richborough and Folkestone At only 16 per cent of the east Kent mean this site has the lowest percentage of non-gold imports at any of the major sites discussed in this paper Non-local British issues are also rare here but the coin of Verica is one of only two recorded from Kent

Set against the rest of east Kent potin is the most significant metal type at North Foreland followed by silver marginally ahead of bronze As with some elements of the phasing this is a feature shared with Ebbsfleet and may reflect a common cause North Foreland displays activity at a later date than Ebbsfleet but it is not unreasonable to assume that these sites were in some way related

SITE 6 lsquoEASTRyrsquo

Background

Situated on chalk downland south of Eastry this site has produced an assemblage of 51 pre-Roman coins At the request of the landowner and the finders details of the coins are held in the Celtic Coin Index under the neutral provenance of lsquoNorth-East Kentrsquo72

The coinage

A total of 47 Iron Age and four Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from lsquoEastryrsquo (Appendix 1)

70 C Haselgrove pers comm71 An example of the extremely rare bronze half unit VA 154-11 has been listed here as possibly being an issue

of Eppillus with its designs of a geometric pattern and a capricorn The capricorn on the reverse suggests an Augustan prototype which is probably later in date than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which this type has been attributed by both Mack and Van Arsdell However a clearer specimen is still awaited to prove or disprove this reattribution

72 Not all coins in the Celtic Coin Index with this provenance are necessarily from lsquoEastryrsquo The coins listed are known to be from this site

21IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

lsquoEastryrsquo shows clear signs of early activity with an emphasis on Kentish Primary potins (fig 8) which are 133 per cent above the east Kent mean higher than anywhere else in the region Flat Linear I potins are almost exactly on the mean but again there is an absence of Flat Linear II potins Overall potins are further above the east Kent mean here than at any other major site in the region heavily weighted by the large number of Kentish Primary types Early activity is also suggested by the three Gallo-Belgic staters lsquoEastryrsquo has a higher percentage of gold than most other sites in the region with the exception of Richborough and East Wear Bay Folkestone the latter of which fairly certainly incorporates a large degree of bias among the early finds

Only one silver coin has been recorded and there is also an unusually low number of struck bronzes lower in percentage terms than at any other site discussed in this paper Apart from this the most unusual aspect of the lsquoEastryrsquo coins is the discovery of four Siculo-Punic bronzes all of the same type the largest number of such coins from any site in Kent

The nature of this site is uncertain and the site histogram (fig 8) is irregular The above average representation of coinage in Phases 1ndash5 a very unusual feature for any site is an indicator that this site may have had a particular and possibly specialised function The high ratio of gold to silver and struck bronze may suggest that trade is unlikely to have been a principal function of this site as gold is not likely to have been a common medium of exchange A religious site is a possibility as is a disturbed hoard(s)

A separate report on lsquoEastryrsquo as a possible religiouslsquoritualrsquo site has been published elsewhere73 No further investigation of this site is anticipated

SITE 7 GOODNESTONE

Background

This inland site is located to the south-east of Goodnestone some 11 km south-east of Canterbury It occupies a broad gently sloping ridge of Upper Chalk capped by Head Brickearth at a mean elevation of 55 to 60 m above OD The existence of an Iron Age and Roman site was

73 Holman 2005a 280ndash1

fig 8a lsquoEastryrsquo coins from site ()fig 8b lsquoEastryrsquo set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

22 DAVID HOLMAN

not known until a metal-detector survey of the area carried out from 1994 onwards started to produce substantial quantities of coinage in addition to other artefacts including several pieces of mid-first-century ad Roman military equipment74 In addition to 92 Iron Age coins there are several hundred Roman coins covering the entire period of the Roman occupation Ceramic evidence and quernstones also indicate late Iron Age and Roman occupation

The coinage

The 92 Iron Age coins recorded from Goodnestone are listed in Appendix 1 The majority of these coins are either of Kentish origin or were produced elsewhere apparently for use in Kent the percentage of non-Kentish coinage from the site is lower than usual for east Kent (fig 9)

The low number of potin coins representing just 65 per cent of the site assemblage shows that although the site may have an origin in the first half of the first century bc activity at that time was probably limited The coin evidence suggests that the main phase of activity at Goodnestone started in the final quarter of the first century bc

The majority of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone 902 per cent of the site total are struck bronzes Coins of the Kentish uninscribed Series are the most frequent and are represented by 29 examples including three types not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs One of these a variant of VA 154-1 appears to provide a link between the Kentish uninscribed Series and the early inscribed coinage of Dubnovellaunos The obverse although worn on all three specimens appears to bear the same or a very similar design to the Kentish uninscribed bronze issue VA 154-1 The reverse shows a left-facing version of the horse depicted on the reverse of VA 154-1 and a close parallel for this is seen on the reverse of an inscribed silver coin of Dubnovellaunos (VA 171) It is possible that the same die-cutter was involved with all three types Three of the five known specimens of this variant form of VA 154-1 have come from Goodnestone It is conceivably an early uninscribed issue of Dubnovellaunos but has here been retained within the Kentish uninscribed Series

Coins attributed to Dubnovellaunos are represented by 21 examples at Goodnestone Among

fig 9a Goodnestone coins from site ()fig 9b Goodnestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

74 Bishop 1995 17ndash19

23IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

these are six examples of two uncatalogued but related bronze types known from several other provenances in both Kent and Essex75 A coin of Dubnovellaunos is one of only two silver coins from Goodnestone the other tentatively attributed to Addedomaros by Van Arsdell76 is known from three other provenances in east Kent but a north Thames origin still appears likely on stylistic grounds

Phase 8 coins at Goodnestone are less numerous than those of the Kentish uninscribed Series and Dubnovellaunos Coins of Eppillus are scarcer than expected for east Kent and the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin are represented by only three types all of which have their principal distribution in Kent A quarter-stater of Cunobelin is the only gold coin from Goodnestone and is possibly the latest Iron Age coin from the site although similarly late bronze coins of Amminus are also present Only three Gaulish coins have been recorded just 37 per cent of the site total unusually low for east Kent

The histogram for Goodnestone (fig 9) indicates that the site was established before the end of the first century bc Coins of Phase 6 are the most frequent finds but from then until the Conquest losses steadily decline although remaining above the east Kent mean This decline suggests that the earlier coins at least were largely deposited before the Conquest otherwise it is reasonable to expect that the ratio of Phase 8 coins to those of Phase 6 would be higher Goodnestonersquos nearest parallel among the east Kent sites is Archers Low Farm except for the lack of Gaulish imports which are significantly under-represented at only 45 per cent of the east Kent mean This may be regarded as an expected difference between a probable port site and an inland settlement of uncertain nature seemingly established at around the same time Otherwise both sites have low numbers of potins significant peaks in Phases 6 and 7 and are virtually identical in Phases 8E and 8L The metal types at Goodnestone and Archers Low Farm also have very similar proportions The very high level of struck bronze is indicative of trade and exchange from the latter part of the first century bc The scarcity of Gaulish imports and non-Kentish coinage at Goodnestone suggests that much of the activity here was locally based and that there were no direct links with places further afield A greater number of non-local coins would be expected at a trading centre with wider links such as Canterbury

The state of preservation of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone is generally very poor and ten have not been identified The impression given is that many of these coins had a long circulation life however to add a note of caution late Roman coins of the same type found only a few metres apart at Goodnestone sometimes show a very marked variation in their state of preservation the reason for which is unclear

The adjacent Cherrygarden Lane appears on Ordnance Survey maps as part of a trackway running for several kilometres across the Kentish downland This may well have originated as a main thoroughfare at a very early date A geophysical survey of part of the site revealed the existence of another trackway across the field with probable field boundaries adjoining it The function of the late Iron Age and Roman site at Goodnestone is unclear from the coin evidence alone and is only likely to be clarified by excavation Curteis has discussed a not dissimilar site at Evenley Northamptonshire and suggested either a religious centre andor an occupationaltrading settlement77 A detailed report on Goodnestone incorporating all facets of the site is in preparation78

75 Both types are uninscribed but can be attributed to Dubnovellaunos on stylistic and distributional grounds A Kentish origin for these issues is preferred here particularly in view of the lack of non-Kentish coinage from Goodnestone

76 Van Arsdell 1989 350 (his type VA 1611)77 Curteis 1996 33ndash478 Cross forthcoming

24 DAVID HOLMAN

SITE 8 CANTERBURy (WALLED AREA)

Background

As the Roman civitas capital of Kent and a moderately large town within the province of Britannia Canterbury was an important settlement which has continued to be occupied up to the present day The name by which the settlement was known to the Romans Durovernum Cantiacorum is of Celtic origin translating as lsquothe walled town by the alder swamprsquo79 and perhaps provides an initial clue to a pre-Conquest origin for the site

It has been known since at least the eighteenth century that substantial remains of the Roman town survived below the modern streets During the installation of the sewage system in the 1860s a number of coins were found none was described in detail but some were possibly Iron Age80 In 1871 an Iron Age coin was found in Burgate providing evidence for some type of pre-Conquest occupation in the area However definite remains of late Iron Age settlement were not found until excavations began on bomb-damaged sites in 1946 when work revealed a gully apparently bounding a hut site together with pottery of pre-Conquest date81 Since then a significant number of other sites producing evidence of pre-Roman occupation have been located most notably in the Marlowe car park area situated towards the central part of the Roman walled town where the remains of two circular houses set within a triple-ditched enclosure accompanied by hearths ovens and a well were found82 It now seems that late Iron Age settlement at Canterbury was dispersed across an area of at least 10 ha beside the River Stour fairly certainly focused on a ford but apparently lacking any significant defences The available dating evidence suggests that the later Iron Age settlement began during the mid- to late first century bc although evidence of occupation immediately pre-dating this may still await discovery There is some evidence for early Iron Age settlement in the area

Of particular significance in the context of the later Iron Age settlement is the hillfort of Bigberry Camp located above the Stour valley some 3 km to the west This site represents the only known certain hillfort in eastern Kent Occupation here seems to have begun c 350 bc but the defences do not appear to have been constructed until the second century bc83 The camp appears to have been largely abandoned around 50 bc perhaps as a result of it being stormed by Caesarrsquos troops in 54 bc84 Despite the significant amount of archaeological work at Bigberry no Iron Age coins have been found A few bronze coins have been found at Harbledown 1 km to the north-east Rodwell has previously suggested that the general lack of coinage from the site indicates that it was not of major importance as a permanent settlement85

It is generally accepted that the settlement at Canterbury in some way superseded Bigberry during the mid-first century bc perhaps originating as a river-side trading station of the hillfort86 Blagg has suggested that Canterburyrsquos importance grew after c 15 bc following the establishment of the Rhine frontier87 However there is currently insufficient evidence to show that Canterbury had developed into a major proto-urban centre before the Roman conquest and there appear to have been few changes certainly within the Marlowe area until the Flavian

79 Rivet and Smith 1979 353ndash480 Pilbrow 187181 Frere 1965 682 Blockley et al 199583 Thompson 1983 253ndash9 Blockley and Blockley 1989 245ndash684 Blockley and Blockley 1989 24685 Rodwell 1976 33086 Blockley et al 1995 987 T Blagg in Blockley et al 1995 11

25IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

period88 The Iron Age status of Canterbury has previously been questioned89 and Millett makes the important point that the later Roman development of the site arguably and quite possibly wrongly leads to the perception that the Iron Age settlement was of equal importance90 Nevertheless it is clear from the extent of the known remains the amount of coinage and the quantity of imported fineware pottery including Dressel I amphorae that the settlement here was of some importance The evidence for this as provided by the Iron Age coinage is further considered below

The coinage

By the end of 2003 a total of 163 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) had been recorded from within the area of the later Roman walled town mainly in the area of Longmarket Rose Lane St Margarets Street Watling Street and Beer Cart Lane Significantly fewer Iron Age coins have been found during the recent Whitefriars excavations immediately to the east perhaps indicating the eastern limits of the Iron Age settlement although development pressures meant that only limited excavation of the earliest layers was possible The most important point about these coins is that they have virtually all been found during archaeological excavations Canterbury is the only site considered in this paper which has subsequently been built over in its entirety but it is also the only site with the exception of Richborough that has seen archaeological excavation on a large scale Canterbury is the only major late Iron Age site in east Kent with large numbers of broadly contemporary stratified coin finds This is of considerable importance not only for understanding the origins of the city but also for the study of the circulation deposition and dating of Iron Age coinage in the region as a whole A basic relative chronology for other sites in east Kent can be constructed by considering the numismatic evidence from Canterbury for example the realisation that potin coins predate the struck bronzes which themselves evolved from native-inspired designs into more Romanised types

Archaeological contexts can be questioned if later activity has occurred on the site leading to the inevitable disturbance of earlier features The result is a tendency to date items later than should be the case91 A significant number of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury have been found in post-Conquest deposits and Haselgrove regarded these as a mixture of residual coins disturbed by Roman activity as one would expect in an urban context and coins continuing in use until the mid-first century ad92 Nash considered that the potin coins from the Marlowe excavations were circulating until the later first century ad but appeared to make insufficient concession to residuality93 Some Iron Age coins have been found in medieval and later deposits having clearly arrived there as a result of earlier levels being disturbed During the early Roman period disturbance of the underlying Iron Age deposits would have been much more frequent and therefore more coins would have been displaced It cannot be conclusively shown that the Iron Age coins at Canterbury circulated for any length of time after the Conquest although it is reasonable to suppose that some may have continued to circulate for a few years before being fully supplanted by the new Roman coinage94 The problems caused by residuality have also been discussed by Arthur in relation to the late Republican amphorae from the excavations95

88 Blockley et al 1995 1289 Blockley et al 1995 990 Millett 1996 342ndash391 Haselgrove 1988 103ndash592 Haselgrove 1987 14193 D Nash in Blockley et al 1995 92394 eg Nash 1987 36ndash895 Arthur 1986 240

26 DAVID HOLMAN

Potins account for 479 per cent of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury (fig 10) The near absence of Kentish Primary potins is significant because this implies that they had largely ceased to circulate before Canterbury was established Only two of these coins have been recorded both from post-Conquest contexts and these were previously wrongly identified as a cut-down bronze of Massalia and a Central Gaulish lsquotecircte diaboliquersquo potin96 Given that Kentish Primary potins are the commonest type of Iron Age coin in east Kent it is reasonable to assume that many more would have been found at Canterbury had they still been in circulation in the last 50ndash75 years before the Conquest The possibility remains that the initial nucleus of the settlement may have been situated elsewhere97 but the current evidence supports Haselgroversquos view that early potins had mostly ceased to circulate by the early first century ad98 indeed a date before the turn of the century may now be preferred In France the temple sites at Champlieu and Chilly also provide evidence that potins had virtually disappeared from circulation by the first century ad99

An early cessation date for the circulation of the earlier Flat Linear I potins particularly Allen Classes AndashD can also be surmised from the Canterbury evidence The 21 Flat Linear I potins all belong to Allen Classes jndashL ie late in the series probably dating to around the middle of the first century bc Some of these were deliberately cut100 a feature rarely seen elsewhere although a cut Class L coin has been recorded from the Worth Temple site Elsewhere in east Kent the earlier types form a significant component of the Flat Linear I potins and their absence at Canterbury again suggests that if any settlement existed on the site in the early first century bc it is likely to have been of little importance Haselgrove noted that earlier Flat Linear I types are present at Rochester suggesting that Rochester was a site of some importance at an earlier date than Canterbury101 This may well still hold true for the relative chronology of the earliest phases at Canterbury and Rochester but it now seems likely that Kentish coinage began in the

96 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15397 Blockley et al 1995 898 Haselgrove 1987 15899 Allen 1995 51100 Haselgrove 1988 118101 Haselgrove 1987 151

fig 10a Canterbury (walled area) coins from site ()fig 10b Canterbury (walled area) set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

27IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

east of the county102 and a later commencement date for Canterbury need have no particular relevance in any discussion on Rochester located some 43 km to the north-west

Flat Linear II potins are represented by 50 surviving specimens 307 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (321 per cent of the identified coins) Compared with their general scarcity elsewhere in east Kent with the exception of East Wear Bay Folkestone (see below Site 9) with which some sort of link may have existed this is exceptional a fact well illustrated by fig 10 which shows that the proportion of these coins at Canterbury is more than ten times the mean for the rest of east Kent Recent research on Flat Linear II potins based on hoard evidence and individual findspots is leaning increasingly towards an origin in the region immediately north of London rather than Kent at least for certain classes103 In this case the appearance of so many of these coins at Canterbury cannot be easily explained They passed into the local circulation pool at a much lower rate than other coin types and the scarcity of these coins around Canterbury suggests that their principal purpose may have been related to a specific activity or commodity the nature of which is unknown Alternatively there was a sudden and significant but short-lived increase in activity at Canterbury (and Folkestone) which may again have had a specific cause Either way there must have been a fairly high degree of control to restrict their circulation in this manner A comparison may perhaps be made with the exceptionally high number of Roman coins of the period ad 388ndash402 found at Richborough which is not reflected elsewhere in east Kent and which must represent an event specific to that site in the local record although the contents of several hoards at the site account for a not insignificant proportion of these late coins104 It seems likely that the Flat Linear II potins were used in Canterbury as a low-value coinage as the appearance of so many high-value coins in a non-hoard context would be difficult to explain There may perhaps have been a reliance on these coins to sustain the Canterbury circulation pool for small-scale transactions Haselgrove noted that potins were the commonest issues circulating in Canterbury until Phase 8 (c ad 20)105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role106 although how much of this is a result of residuality cannot be ascertained

Struck bronzes are represented at Canterbury by 69 coins These include ten Gaulish coins 159 per cent of the (identified) struck bronze total There are also five Gaulish potins Overall Gaulish coins at Canterbury are 53 per cent above the east Kent mean Haselgrove commented on possible early links with the Continent107 and Fitzpatrickrsquos suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands108 but coastal sites such as Archers Low Farm and East Wear Bay Folkestone may be regarded as more likely initial points of contact Phase 6 coins are also above the east Kent mean In this respect there is some similarity to Archers Low Farm although the deviation from the mean there both for imports and Phase 6 coins is far greater There are 21 struck bronzes of the Kentish Uninscribed Series and an early lsquoChichester Cockrsquo type The frequency of some of the Kentish Uninscribed types at Canterbury in particular VA 154-3 suggests that minting facilities may have been operating at that time

Bronzes of the dynastic period are represented by 31 coins The nine coins of Dubnovellaunos three of Tasciovanus-Sego and ten of Eppillus are typical for an east Kent site However coins of Cunobelin appear to be significantly under-represented only eight coins of Cunobelin have been recorded from Canterbury and four of these are late types otherwise scarce in east

102 Holman 2000103 Haselgrove 1988 117 G Cottam pers comm104 Reece 1987 84105 Haselgrove 1987 145106 Haselgrove 1993 44107 Haselgrove 1987 143108 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

16 DAVID HOLMAN

The early group consists mainly of potins Gaulish imports and Kentish uninscribed bronzes together with a slightly later inscribed issue of Sa(m) Both of the coins previously recorded as bronzes of Massalia are actually potins59 The silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 are early and both originate from the south coast of England With the exception of these silver coins which may have arrived later this early group fits very well into the general east Kent pattern and seemingly indicates a period of pre-Conquest coin use on the site The low percentage of potin and rather higher percentage of bronze counts against an establishment date much before the middle of the first century bc and it may be that the potins were lost at a later date and that the site was a later first-century bc foundation In favour of this is the fact that Phase 6 coins and continental imports are both above the mean for east Kent indeed Richborough has one of the highest levels of imported pre-Conquest coinage from any site in Britain comprising 304 per cent of the total site assemblage It may be significant that the proportions of Gaulish imports and Phase 6 coinage at Richborough are very similar to Archers Low Farm perhaps hinting at some link between these two sites The imports could have been deposited with the Phase 8L coins during early Roman occupation60 but given the low levels of Phase 7 and 8E coinage the near contemporary Phase 6 coinage seems unlikely to have been deposited as late as Phase 8L

Following an apparent hiatus in coin deposition evidenced by the lack of Eppillus and early Cunobelin issues common finds elsewhere in east Kent a later group becomes evident This consists of late issues of Cunobelin and three coins from the south coast one of Verica and two of the Durotriges Late issues of Cunobelin are greatly outnumbered by early issues elsewhere in east Kent while the three south coast coins suggest a link with the West Sussex Hampshire and Dorset area which is otherwise almost wholly absent in east Kent The southern silver types VA 355 and Hobbs 578 from the early group may have arrived at Richborough at the same time as the later coins as a result of post-Conquest activity An analogous situation can be seen at a number of sites in France where Gaulish bronzes continued in use into the first century ad61 A second-century bc bronze coin of Cyzicus is on balance more likely to be a Roman than a pre-Roman import in this instance further illustrating the difficulty in determining the date at which such early coins reached Britain62

SITE 4 EBBSFLEET ISLE OF THANET

Background

This site lies some 35 km to the north of Richborough Castle on the southern side of the Isle of Thanet at a mean elevation of 8 m above OD It occupies a low chalk promontory capped with Thanet Beds sand surrounded on three sides by marshlands which were once part of the Wantsum Channel Metal detector surveys by the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association and evaluation trenching by the Trust for Thanet Archaeology in 1990 have demonstrated the presence of extensive prehistoric and Roman occupation in this area63 Settlement in the late Iron Age is represented by a number of features together with significant quantities of pottery and coinage Amongst the pottery much of which is dated to c ad 25ndash5075 is a quantity of

59 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15260 Haselgrove 1987 15361 Haselgrove 1999 16462 There are also three early Mediterranean bronze coins from the foreshore close to the Roman fort at Reculver

at the northern end of the Wantsum Channel one of an uncertain Ptolemy one of Agathocles of Syracuse and one of Mamertini Sicily Reculver has also produced several Iron Age coins including a quarter stater (Sch 7) dating from as early as the third century bc which is potentially a contemporary import

63 Perkins 1992

17IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

imported Gallo-Belgic fineware not all of which is pre-Conquest in date There is also locally produced pottery dating from the mid-first century bc onwards as well as earlier material

The coinage

A total of 43 Iron Age and three other pre-Conquest coins are currently recorded from Ebbsfleet (Appendix 1) A few of these were published by Wren in 199264 but further discoveries have since been made and more information is available concerning the finds

Ebbsfleet has the highest percentage of Kentish Primary potins from any site in east Kent with the exception of lsquoEastryrsquo (see below Site 6) (fig 6) There are also a number of early Flat Linear I potins Overall potins are 23 per cent above the east Kent mean This suggests that the site was established at an early date probably before 100 bc a date also supported by quantities of flint-tempered pottery A relatively high level of coin deposition continued until perhaps the mid-first century bc when like Worth and North Foreland there appears to have been a major reduction in activity A change in local circumstances external factors or the non-relevance of Flat Linear II potins at these three sites are all possible reasons for the lack of Flat Linear II potins but in the absence of evidence other than the coinage itself little can be said without resorting to circular arguments At each of these sites coin deposition subsequently increased again by the early first

64 CR Wren lsquoCoins found at Ebbsfleet during 1990 and 1991rsquo in Perkins 1992 305ndash6

century ad Many of the potins from Ebbsfleet are in very poor condition possibly as a result of intensive agricultural activity in recent years Some may conceivably be Gaulish imports but their condition makes precise classification impossible

Although potins are above the east Kent mean struck bronzes are under-represented There are nine different types among the twelve coins recorded and only one is represented by more than a single specimen The solitary Gaulish struck bronze is unusually not an issue from Belgic Gaul The Siculo-Punic and Ebusus bronzes are potential pre-Conquest imports

There is an above average level of silver at Ebbsfleet a feature also evident at Richborough although very probably for different reasons there being little evidence for early Roman

fig 6a Ebbsfleet coins from site ()fig 6b Ebbsfleet set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

18 DAVID HOLMAN

occupation at Ebbsfleet The ratio of silver to bronze at Ebbsfleet is higher than for any other site in east Kent although this may be down to chance A silver coin regarded as an Atrebatic issue by Bean but not listed by Van Arsdell or Hobbs is now known from several other findspots in Kent and it may be an early Kentish issue although it bears little resemblance to any other Kentish coinage65 It is here regarded as Atrebatic although Atrebatic coinage is generally very rarely found in Kent No gold coins have been recorded from Ebbsfleet other than a contemporary forgery of a Gallo-Belgic E stater with a silver core

The level of Gaulish non-gold imports at Ebbsfleet is low at only 58 per cent of the east Kent mean An even lower level of imports is seen at North Foreland (see below Site 5) and imports are scarce finds in Thanet generally particularly when compared with the adjacent mainland area around Sandwich This is surprising in view of the coastal location and may suggest that the Kentish cross-Channel ports were situated on the mainland rather than on Thanet from where another water crossing would inconveniently be required before accessing any inland routes away from the coastal strip (although Richborough does seem to provide an exception to this) It seems clear that the main circulation area of Gaulish imports in Kent was in the hinterland of the mainland ports

The nature of the site at Ebbsfleet remains unclear but certain parallels with the Worth Temple site suggest that a not dissimilar site may exist here albeit with a significant reduction in coin deposition in Phase 8L which is far less in evidence at Worth The coin distributions at Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet are broadly similar with the exception of a higher level of silver and corresponding lower level of bronze at Ebbsfleet these differences may be more apparent than real when the relative sample sizes are compared Again there is an early peak among the potins and a later peak in Phases 7 and 8E The overall coin distribution at Ebbsfleet appears on current evidence to be marginally earlier than at the Worth Temple site both in its greater incidence of early potins and the higher ratio of Phase 7 coins to those of Phase 8E Other features shared by Ebbsfleet and Worth Temple are that both sites stand on a promontory and both have Roman masonry structures although the lsquomainrsquo Ebbsfleet building apparently of later second-century date is of unknown function66

The total lack of Phase 8L coinage at Ebbsfleet is particularly significant when compared with nearby Richborough and may conceivably represent a temporary abandonment of the site at around the time of the Conquest A marked decline in activity in the early Roman period until a resurgence in the later second century ad based on the comparative scarcity of pottery of early Roman date and the lack of contemporary coinage has previously been noted by Macpherson-Grant67 The implication can be made that the Iron Age coins were mostly if not all deposited before the Conquest or at the latest shortly afterwards

SITE 5 NORTH FORELAND BROADSTAIRS

Background

This site is located on the North Foreland on the Isle of Thanet at the easternmost point of Kent It occupies a ridge of upper Chalk and the eastern slope of the valley immediately to the west where the chalk is sealed by Head Brickearth The highest point of the site is now occupied by the North Foreland lighthouse at an elevation of about 36 m above OD

The existence of a double ditch system apparently enclosing an area of at least 24 ha across the hilltop was revealed by aerial photographs several years ago In 1995 members of the Thanet

65 Bean 2000 237 (his type QsD 3-4)66 Perkins 1992 278ndash8167 N MacPherson-Grant lsquoThe Potteryrsquo in Perkins 1992 301

19IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Archaeological Society investigated the site by cutting several sections across the ditches The outermost of these ditches had cut two earlier ditches one of which appears to have been palisaded68 Ceramic evidence indicated a construction date in the mid- to late Iron Age with infilling of the ditches occurring from the late first century bc onwards The site is currently interpreted as being a possible hillfort although the ditch dimensions are on the small side and the term lsquodefended hilltop enclosurersquo may be more appropriate

The coinage

A total of 81 Iron Age coins (counting a potin hoard as one find) has been recorded from the site at North Foreland the majority of which have been found by metal-detector users (Appendix 1) The two gold coins mentioned by Perkins are of unknown types69 A Gallo-Belgic stater found in the nineteenth century at Stone House immediately to the south of the St Stephenrsquos College site is probably related to the site and has been included here

The site histogram for North Foreland (fig 7) shows that potins are the most common Iron Age coins here with Kentish Primary potins comprising 346 per cent of the total site assemblage the most numerous However the distribution of the potins differs from Worth and Ebbsfleet in that Flat Linear I potins are much further above the east Kent mean than are the Kentish Primary potins This is not a result of the Flat Linear I hoard from the site which is counted as a single

68 Hogwood 1995 475ndash669 Perkins 1993 411ndash13

find rather the hoard complements the other Flat Linear I potins and provides definite evidence of contemporary activity The ratio of Flat Linear I potins to those of the Kentish Primary Series is higher than normal for east Kent and these show an emphasis towards the earlier varieties probably dating from the first quarter of the first century bc

In 1999 an archaeological excavation was undertaken by Canterbury Archaeological Trust and the Trust for Thanet Archaeology prior to the redevelopment of the St Stephenrsquos College site on the ridge-top some 400 m to the south-west of the lighthouse Among the many finds of Iron Age (and earlier) date was a coin hoard containing 62 Flat Linear I potins buried in a

fig 7a North Foreland coins from site ()fig 7b North Foreland set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

20 DAVID HOLMAN

pit Preliminary examination of this hoard indicated that although the coins range from Allenrsquos Class C to Class L approximately half belong to Class G70 The hoard will be reported on elsewhere The excavations also revealed an enclosure provisionally dated on ceramic evidence to the first half of the first century bc ie contemporary with the hoard and a large number of storage pits again of similar date The hoard was located only a short distance from the entrance to the enclosure and its location in the centre of what seems to have been an active site suggests that ritual deposition should be considered as a possible reason for its concealment Given the existence of this hoard the possibility that at least some of the potins recovered as metal-detector finds from the adjacent fields may derive from another now dispersed hoard cannot be discounted although there is no evidence to suggest this

North Foreland shows an apparent reduction in coinage deposition after the mid-first century bc before a later recovery in common with Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet Coins of Phases 6 and 7 are both around half the east Kent mean but a significant increase is evident in Phase 8E which continues into Phase 8L suggesting that the site saw a revival in the early first century ad The 24 struck bronzes recorded slightly below the east Kent mean form a very heterogeneous assemblage with 17 different types represented These are almost exclusively Kentish issues either produced in Kent or elsewhere (apparently) for specific use in Kent71 In view of the coastal location of the site it is interesting to note the appearance of three specimens of the lsquoShiprsquo type (VA 1989) among the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin

The low number of non-local issues is significant given the coastal location Apart from a Gallo-Belgic stater only one import has been recorded contrasting sharply with Archers Low Farm Richborough and Folkestone At only 16 per cent of the east Kent mean this site has the lowest percentage of non-gold imports at any of the major sites discussed in this paper Non-local British issues are also rare here but the coin of Verica is one of only two recorded from Kent

Set against the rest of east Kent potin is the most significant metal type at North Foreland followed by silver marginally ahead of bronze As with some elements of the phasing this is a feature shared with Ebbsfleet and may reflect a common cause North Foreland displays activity at a later date than Ebbsfleet but it is not unreasonable to assume that these sites were in some way related

SITE 6 lsquoEASTRyrsquo

Background

Situated on chalk downland south of Eastry this site has produced an assemblage of 51 pre-Roman coins At the request of the landowner and the finders details of the coins are held in the Celtic Coin Index under the neutral provenance of lsquoNorth-East Kentrsquo72

The coinage

A total of 47 Iron Age and four Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from lsquoEastryrsquo (Appendix 1)

70 C Haselgrove pers comm71 An example of the extremely rare bronze half unit VA 154-11 has been listed here as possibly being an issue

of Eppillus with its designs of a geometric pattern and a capricorn The capricorn on the reverse suggests an Augustan prototype which is probably later in date than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which this type has been attributed by both Mack and Van Arsdell However a clearer specimen is still awaited to prove or disprove this reattribution

72 Not all coins in the Celtic Coin Index with this provenance are necessarily from lsquoEastryrsquo The coins listed are known to be from this site

21IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

lsquoEastryrsquo shows clear signs of early activity with an emphasis on Kentish Primary potins (fig 8) which are 133 per cent above the east Kent mean higher than anywhere else in the region Flat Linear I potins are almost exactly on the mean but again there is an absence of Flat Linear II potins Overall potins are further above the east Kent mean here than at any other major site in the region heavily weighted by the large number of Kentish Primary types Early activity is also suggested by the three Gallo-Belgic staters lsquoEastryrsquo has a higher percentage of gold than most other sites in the region with the exception of Richborough and East Wear Bay Folkestone the latter of which fairly certainly incorporates a large degree of bias among the early finds

Only one silver coin has been recorded and there is also an unusually low number of struck bronzes lower in percentage terms than at any other site discussed in this paper Apart from this the most unusual aspect of the lsquoEastryrsquo coins is the discovery of four Siculo-Punic bronzes all of the same type the largest number of such coins from any site in Kent

The nature of this site is uncertain and the site histogram (fig 8) is irregular The above average representation of coinage in Phases 1ndash5 a very unusual feature for any site is an indicator that this site may have had a particular and possibly specialised function The high ratio of gold to silver and struck bronze may suggest that trade is unlikely to have been a principal function of this site as gold is not likely to have been a common medium of exchange A religious site is a possibility as is a disturbed hoard(s)

A separate report on lsquoEastryrsquo as a possible religiouslsquoritualrsquo site has been published elsewhere73 No further investigation of this site is anticipated

SITE 7 GOODNESTONE

Background

This inland site is located to the south-east of Goodnestone some 11 km south-east of Canterbury It occupies a broad gently sloping ridge of Upper Chalk capped by Head Brickearth at a mean elevation of 55 to 60 m above OD The existence of an Iron Age and Roman site was

73 Holman 2005a 280ndash1

fig 8a lsquoEastryrsquo coins from site ()fig 8b lsquoEastryrsquo set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

22 DAVID HOLMAN

not known until a metal-detector survey of the area carried out from 1994 onwards started to produce substantial quantities of coinage in addition to other artefacts including several pieces of mid-first-century ad Roman military equipment74 In addition to 92 Iron Age coins there are several hundred Roman coins covering the entire period of the Roman occupation Ceramic evidence and quernstones also indicate late Iron Age and Roman occupation

The coinage

The 92 Iron Age coins recorded from Goodnestone are listed in Appendix 1 The majority of these coins are either of Kentish origin or were produced elsewhere apparently for use in Kent the percentage of non-Kentish coinage from the site is lower than usual for east Kent (fig 9)

The low number of potin coins representing just 65 per cent of the site assemblage shows that although the site may have an origin in the first half of the first century bc activity at that time was probably limited The coin evidence suggests that the main phase of activity at Goodnestone started in the final quarter of the first century bc

The majority of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone 902 per cent of the site total are struck bronzes Coins of the Kentish uninscribed Series are the most frequent and are represented by 29 examples including three types not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs One of these a variant of VA 154-1 appears to provide a link between the Kentish uninscribed Series and the early inscribed coinage of Dubnovellaunos The obverse although worn on all three specimens appears to bear the same or a very similar design to the Kentish uninscribed bronze issue VA 154-1 The reverse shows a left-facing version of the horse depicted on the reverse of VA 154-1 and a close parallel for this is seen on the reverse of an inscribed silver coin of Dubnovellaunos (VA 171) It is possible that the same die-cutter was involved with all three types Three of the five known specimens of this variant form of VA 154-1 have come from Goodnestone It is conceivably an early uninscribed issue of Dubnovellaunos but has here been retained within the Kentish uninscribed Series

Coins attributed to Dubnovellaunos are represented by 21 examples at Goodnestone Among

fig 9a Goodnestone coins from site ()fig 9b Goodnestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

74 Bishop 1995 17ndash19

23IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

these are six examples of two uncatalogued but related bronze types known from several other provenances in both Kent and Essex75 A coin of Dubnovellaunos is one of only two silver coins from Goodnestone the other tentatively attributed to Addedomaros by Van Arsdell76 is known from three other provenances in east Kent but a north Thames origin still appears likely on stylistic grounds

Phase 8 coins at Goodnestone are less numerous than those of the Kentish uninscribed Series and Dubnovellaunos Coins of Eppillus are scarcer than expected for east Kent and the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin are represented by only three types all of which have their principal distribution in Kent A quarter-stater of Cunobelin is the only gold coin from Goodnestone and is possibly the latest Iron Age coin from the site although similarly late bronze coins of Amminus are also present Only three Gaulish coins have been recorded just 37 per cent of the site total unusually low for east Kent

The histogram for Goodnestone (fig 9) indicates that the site was established before the end of the first century bc Coins of Phase 6 are the most frequent finds but from then until the Conquest losses steadily decline although remaining above the east Kent mean This decline suggests that the earlier coins at least were largely deposited before the Conquest otherwise it is reasonable to expect that the ratio of Phase 8 coins to those of Phase 6 would be higher Goodnestonersquos nearest parallel among the east Kent sites is Archers Low Farm except for the lack of Gaulish imports which are significantly under-represented at only 45 per cent of the east Kent mean This may be regarded as an expected difference between a probable port site and an inland settlement of uncertain nature seemingly established at around the same time Otherwise both sites have low numbers of potins significant peaks in Phases 6 and 7 and are virtually identical in Phases 8E and 8L The metal types at Goodnestone and Archers Low Farm also have very similar proportions The very high level of struck bronze is indicative of trade and exchange from the latter part of the first century bc The scarcity of Gaulish imports and non-Kentish coinage at Goodnestone suggests that much of the activity here was locally based and that there were no direct links with places further afield A greater number of non-local coins would be expected at a trading centre with wider links such as Canterbury

The state of preservation of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone is generally very poor and ten have not been identified The impression given is that many of these coins had a long circulation life however to add a note of caution late Roman coins of the same type found only a few metres apart at Goodnestone sometimes show a very marked variation in their state of preservation the reason for which is unclear

The adjacent Cherrygarden Lane appears on Ordnance Survey maps as part of a trackway running for several kilometres across the Kentish downland This may well have originated as a main thoroughfare at a very early date A geophysical survey of part of the site revealed the existence of another trackway across the field with probable field boundaries adjoining it The function of the late Iron Age and Roman site at Goodnestone is unclear from the coin evidence alone and is only likely to be clarified by excavation Curteis has discussed a not dissimilar site at Evenley Northamptonshire and suggested either a religious centre andor an occupationaltrading settlement77 A detailed report on Goodnestone incorporating all facets of the site is in preparation78

75 Both types are uninscribed but can be attributed to Dubnovellaunos on stylistic and distributional grounds A Kentish origin for these issues is preferred here particularly in view of the lack of non-Kentish coinage from Goodnestone

76 Van Arsdell 1989 350 (his type VA 1611)77 Curteis 1996 33ndash478 Cross forthcoming

24 DAVID HOLMAN

SITE 8 CANTERBURy (WALLED AREA)

Background

As the Roman civitas capital of Kent and a moderately large town within the province of Britannia Canterbury was an important settlement which has continued to be occupied up to the present day The name by which the settlement was known to the Romans Durovernum Cantiacorum is of Celtic origin translating as lsquothe walled town by the alder swamprsquo79 and perhaps provides an initial clue to a pre-Conquest origin for the site

It has been known since at least the eighteenth century that substantial remains of the Roman town survived below the modern streets During the installation of the sewage system in the 1860s a number of coins were found none was described in detail but some were possibly Iron Age80 In 1871 an Iron Age coin was found in Burgate providing evidence for some type of pre-Conquest occupation in the area However definite remains of late Iron Age settlement were not found until excavations began on bomb-damaged sites in 1946 when work revealed a gully apparently bounding a hut site together with pottery of pre-Conquest date81 Since then a significant number of other sites producing evidence of pre-Roman occupation have been located most notably in the Marlowe car park area situated towards the central part of the Roman walled town where the remains of two circular houses set within a triple-ditched enclosure accompanied by hearths ovens and a well were found82 It now seems that late Iron Age settlement at Canterbury was dispersed across an area of at least 10 ha beside the River Stour fairly certainly focused on a ford but apparently lacking any significant defences The available dating evidence suggests that the later Iron Age settlement began during the mid- to late first century bc although evidence of occupation immediately pre-dating this may still await discovery There is some evidence for early Iron Age settlement in the area

Of particular significance in the context of the later Iron Age settlement is the hillfort of Bigberry Camp located above the Stour valley some 3 km to the west This site represents the only known certain hillfort in eastern Kent Occupation here seems to have begun c 350 bc but the defences do not appear to have been constructed until the second century bc83 The camp appears to have been largely abandoned around 50 bc perhaps as a result of it being stormed by Caesarrsquos troops in 54 bc84 Despite the significant amount of archaeological work at Bigberry no Iron Age coins have been found A few bronze coins have been found at Harbledown 1 km to the north-east Rodwell has previously suggested that the general lack of coinage from the site indicates that it was not of major importance as a permanent settlement85

It is generally accepted that the settlement at Canterbury in some way superseded Bigberry during the mid-first century bc perhaps originating as a river-side trading station of the hillfort86 Blagg has suggested that Canterburyrsquos importance grew after c 15 bc following the establishment of the Rhine frontier87 However there is currently insufficient evidence to show that Canterbury had developed into a major proto-urban centre before the Roman conquest and there appear to have been few changes certainly within the Marlowe area until the Flavian

79 Rivet and Smith 1979 353ndash480 Pilbrow 187181 Frere 1965 682 Blockley et al 199583 Thompson 1983 253ndash9 Blockley and Blockley 1989 245ndash684 Blockley and Blockley 1989 24685 Rodwell 1976 33086 Blockley et al 1995 987 T Blagg in Blockley et al 1995 11

25IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

period88 The Iron Age status of Canterbury has previously been questioned89 and Millett makes the important point that the later Roman development of the site arguably and quite possibly wrongly leads to the perception that the Iron Age settlement was of equal importance90 Nevertheless it is clear from the extent of the known remains the amount of coinage and the quantity of imported fineware pottery including Dressel I amphorae that the settlement here was of some importance The evidence for this as provided by the Iron Age coinage is further considered below

The coinage

By the end of 2003 a total of 163 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) had been recorded from within the area of the later Roman walled town mainly in the area of Longmarket Rose Lane St Margarets Street Watling Street and Beer Cart Lane Significantly fewer Iron Age coins have been found during the recent Whitefriars excavations immediately to the east perhaps indicating the eastern limits of the Iron Age settlement although development pressures meant that only limited excavation of the earliest layers was possible The most important point about these coins is that they have virtually all been found during archaeological excavations Canterbury is the only site considered in this paper which has subsequently been built over in its entirety but it is also the only site with the exception of Richborough that has seen archaeological excavation on a large scale Canterbury is the only major late Iron Age site in east Kent with large numbers of broadly contemporary stratified coin finds This is of considerable importance not only for understanding the origins of the city but also for the study of the circulation deposition and dating of Iron Age coinage in the region as a whole A basic relative chronology for other sites in east Kent can be constructed by considering the numismatic evidence from Canterbury for example the realisation that potin coins predate the struck bronzes which themselves evolved from native-inspired designs into more Romanised types

Archaeological contexts can be questioned if later activity has occurred on the site leading to the inevitable disturbance of earlier features The result is a tendency to date items later than should be the case91 A significant number of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury have been found in post-Conquest deposits and Haselgrove regarded these as a mixture of residual coins disturbed by Roman activity as one would expect in an urban context and coins continuing in use until the mid-first century ad92 Nash considered that the potin coins from the Marlowe excavations were circulating until the later first century ad but appeared to make insufficient concession to residuality93 Some Iron Age coins have been found in medieval and later deposits having clearly arrived there as a result of earlier levels being disturbed During the early Roman period disturbance of the underlying Iron Age deposits would have been much more frequent and therefore more coins would have been displaced It cannot be conclusively shown that the Iron Age coins at Canterbury circulated for any length of time after the Conquest although it is reasonable to suppose that some may have continued to circulate for a few years before being fully supplanted by the new Roman coinage94 The problems caused by residuality have also been discussed by Arthur in relation to the late Republican amphorae from the excavations95

88 Blockley et al 1995 1289 Blockley et al 1995 990 Millett 1996 342ndash391 Haselgrove 1988 103ndash592 Haselgrove 1987 14193 D Nash in Blockley et al 1995 92394 eg Nash 1987 36ndash895 Arthur 1986 240

26 DAVID HOLMAN

Potins account for 479 per cent of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury (fig 10) The near absence of Kentish Primary potins is significant because this implies that they had largely ceased to circulate before Canterbury was established Only two of these coins have been recorded both from post-Conquest contexts and these were previously wrongly identified as a cut-down bronze of Massalia and a Central Gaulish lsquotecircte diaboliquersquo potin96 Given that Kentish Primary potins are the commonest type of Iron Age coin in east Kent it is reasonable to assume that many more would have been found at Canterbury had they still been in circulation in the last 50ndash75 years before the Conquest The possibility remains that the initial nucleus of the settlement may have been situated elsewhere97 but the current evidence supports Haselgroversquos view that early potins had mostly ceased to circulate by the early first century ad98 indeed a date before the turn of the century may now be preferred In France the temple sites at Champlieu and Chilly also provide evidence that potins had virtually disappeared from circulation by the first century ad99

An early cessation date for the circulation of the earlier Flat Linear I potins particularly Allen Classes AndashD can also be surmised from the Canterbury evidence The 21 Flat Linear I potins all belong to Allen Classes jndashL ie late in the series probably dating to around the middle of the first century bc Some of these were deliberately cut100 a feature rarely seen elsewhere although a cut Class L coin has been recorded from the Worth Temple site Elsewhere in east Kent the earlier types form a significant component of the Flat Linear I potins and their absence at Canterbury again suggests that if any settlement existed on the site in the early first century bc it is likely to have been of little importance Haselgrove noted that earlier Flat Linear I types are present at Rochester suggesting that Rochester was a site of some importance at an earlier date than Canterbury101 This may well still hold true for the relative chronology of the earliest phases at Canterbury and Rochester but it now seems likely that Kentish coinage began in the

96 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15397 Blockley et al 1995 898 Haselgrove 1987 15899 Allen 1995 51100 Haselgrove 1988 118101 Haselgrove 1987 151

fig 10a Canterbury (walled area) coins from site ()fig 10b Canterbury (walled area) set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

27IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

east of the county102 and a later commencement date for Canterbury need have no particular relevance in any discussion on Rochester located some 43 km to the north-west

Flat Linear II potins are represented by 50 surviving specimens 307 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (321 per cent of the identified coins) Compared with their general scarcity elsewhere in east Kent with the exception of East Wear Bay Folkestone (see below Site 9) with which some sort of link may have existed this is exceptional a fact well illustrated by fig 10 which shows that the proportion of these coins at Canterbury is more than ten times the mean for the rest of east Kent Recent research on Flat Linear II potins based on hoard evidence and individual findspots is leaning increasingly towards an origin in the region immediately north of London rather than Kent at least for certain classes103 In this case the appearance of so many of these coins at Canterbury cannot be easily explained They passed into the local circulation pool at a much lower rate than other coin types and the scarcity of these coins around Canterbury suggests that their principal purpose may have been related to a specific activity or commodity the nature of which is unknown Alternatively there was a sudden and significant but short-lived increase in activity at Canterbury (and Folkestone) which may again have had a specific cause Either way there must have been a fairly high degree of control to restrict their circulation in this manner A comparison may perhaps be made with the exceptionally high number of Roman coins of the period ad 388ndash402 found at Richborough which is not reflected elsewhere in east Kent and which must represent an event specific to that site in the local record although the contents of several hoards at the site account for a not insignificant proportion of these late coins104 It seems likely that the Flat Linear II potins were used in Canterbury as a low-value coinage as the appearance of so many high-value coins in a non-hoard context would be difficult to explain There may perhaps have been a reliance on these coins to sustain the Canterbury circulation pool for small-scale transactions Haselgrove noted that potins were the commonest issues circulating in Canterbury until Phase 8 (c ad 20)105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role106 although how much of this is a result of residuality cannot be ascertained

Struck bronzes are represented at Canterbury by 69 coins These include ten Gaulish coins 159 per cent of the (identified) struck bronze total There are also five Gaulish potins Overall Gaulish coins at Canterbury are 53 per cent above the east Kent mean Haselgrove commented on possible early links with the Continent107 and Fitzpatrickrsquos suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands108 but coastal sites such as Archers Low Farm and East Wear Bay Folkestone may be regarded as more likely initial points of contact Phase 6 coins are also above the east Kent mean In this respect there is some similarity to Archers Low Farm although the deviation from the mean there both for imports and Phase 6 coins is far greater There are 21 struck bronzes of the Kentish Uninscribed Series and an early lsquoChichester Cockrsquo type The frequency of some of the Kentish Uninscribed types at Canterbury in particular VA 154-3 suggests that minting facilities may have been operating at that time

Bronzes of the dynastic period are represented by 31 coins The nine coins of Dubnovellaunos three of Tasciovanus-Sego and ten of Eppillus are typical for an east Kent site However coins of Cunobelin appear to be significantly under-represented only eight coins of Cunobelin have been recorded from Canterbury and four of these are late types otherwise scarce in east

102 Holman 2000103 Haselgrove 1988 117 G Cottam pers comm104 Reece 1987 84105 Haselgrove 1987 145106 Haselgrove 1993 44107 Haselgrove 1987 143108 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

17IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

imported Gallo-Belgic fineware not all of which is pre-Conquest in date There is also locally produced pottery dating from the mid-first century bc onwards as well as earlier material

The coinage

A total of 43 Iron Age and three other pre-Conquest coins are currently recorded from Ebbsfleet (Appendix 1) A few of these were published by Wren in 199264 but further discoveries have since been made and more information is available concerning the finds

Ebbsfleet has the highest percentage of Kentish Primary potins from any site in east Kent with the exception of lsquoEastryrsquo (see below Site 6) (fig 6) There are also a number of early Flat Linear I potins Overall potins are 23 per cent above the east Kent mean This suggests that the site was established at an early date probably before 100 bc a date also supported by quantities of flint-tempered pottery A relatively high level of coin deposition continued until perhaps the mid-first century bc when like Worth and North Foreland there appears to have been a major reduction in activity A change in local circumstances external factors or the non-relevance of Flat Linear II potins at these three sites are all possible reasons for the lack of Flat Linear II potins but in the absence of evidence other than the coinage itself little can be said without resorting to circular arguments At each of these sites coin deposition subsequently increased again by the early first

64 CR Wren lsquoCoins found at Ebbsfleet during 1990 and 1991rsquo in Perkins 1992 305ndash6

century ad Many of the potins from Ebbsfleet are in very poor condition possibly as a result of intensive agricultural activity in recent years Some may conceivably be Gaulish imports but their condition makes precise classification impossible

Although potins are above the east Kent mean struck bronzes are under-represented There are nine different types among the twelve coins recorded and only one is represented by more than a single specimen The solitary Gaulish struck bronze is unusually not an issue from Belgic Gaul The Siculo-Punic and Ebusus bronzes are potential pre-Conquest imports

There is an above average level of silver at Ebbsfleet a feature also evident at Richborough although very probably for different reasons there being little evidence for early Roman

fig 6a Ebbsfleet coins from site ()fig 6b Ebbsfleet set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

18 DAVID HOLMAN

occupation at Ebbsfleet The ratio of silver to bronze at Ebbsfleet is higher than for any other site in east Kent although this may be down to chance A silver coin regarded as an Atrebatic issue by Bean but not listed by Van Arsdell or Hobbs is now known from several other findspots in Kent and it may be an early Kentish issue although it bears little resemblance to any other Kentish coinage65 It is here regarded as Atrebatic although Atrebatic coinage is generally very rarely found in Kent No gold coins have been recorded from Ebbsfleet other than a contemporary forgery of a Gallo-Belgic E stater with a silver core

The level of Gaulish non-gold imports at Ebbsfleet is low at only 58 per cent of the east Kent mean An even lower level of imports is seen at North Foreland (see below Site 5) and imports are scarce finds in Thanet generally particularly when compared with the adjacent mainland area around Sandwich This is surprising in view of the coastal location and may suggest that the Kentish cross-Channel ports were situated on the mainland rather than on Thanet from where another water crossing would inconveniently be required before accessing any inland routes away from the coastal strip (although Richborough does seem to provide an exception to this) It seems clear that the main circulation area of Gaulish imports in Kent was in the hinterland of the mainland ports

The nature of the site at Ebbsfleet remains unclear but certain parallels with the Worth Temple site suggest that a not dissimilar site may exist here albeit with a significant reduction in coin deposition in Phase 8L which is far less in evidence at Worth The coin distributions at Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet are broadly similar with the exception of a higher level of silver and corresponding lower level of bronze at Ebbsfleet these differences may be more apparent than real when the relative sample sizes are compared Again there is an early peak among the potins and a later peak in Phases 7 and 8E The overall coin distribution at Ebbsfleet appears on current evidence to be marginally earlier than at the Worth Temple site both in its greater incidence of early potins and the higher ratio of Phase 7 coins to those of Phase 8E Other features shared by Ebbsfleet and Worth Temple are that both sites stand on a promontory and both have Roman masonry structures although the lsquomainrsquo Ebbsfleet building apparently of later second-century date is of unknown function66

The total lack of Phase 8L coinage at Ebbsfleet is particularly significant when compared with nearby Richborough and may conceivably represent a temporary abandonment of the site at around the time of the Conquest A marked decline in activity in the early Roman period until a resurgence in the later second century ad based on the comparative scarcity of pottery of early Roman date and the lack of contemporary coinage has previously been noted by Macpherson-Grant67 The implication can be made that the Iron Age coins were mostly if not all deposited before the Conquest or at the latest shortly afterwards

SITE 5 NORTH FORELAND BROADSTAIRS

Background

This site is located on the North Foreland on the Isle of Thanet at the easternmost point of Kent It occupies a ridge of upper Chalk and the eastern slope of the valley immediately to the west where the chalk is sealed by Head Brickearth The highest point of the site is now occupied by the North Foreland lighthouse at an elevation of about 36 m above OD

The existence of a double ditch system apparently enclosing an area of at least 24 ha across the hilltop was revealed by aerial photographs several years ago In 1995 members of the Thanet

65 Bean 2000 237 (his type QsD 3-4)66 Perkins 1992 278ndash8167 N MacPherson-Grant lsquoThe Potteryrsquo in Perkins 1992 301

19IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Archaeological Society investigated the site by cutting several sections across the ditches The outermost of these ditches had cut two earlier ditches one of which appears to have been palisaded68 Ceramic evidence indicated a construction date in the mid- to late Iron Age with infilling of the ditches occurring from the late first century bc onwards The site is currently interpreted as being a possible hillfort although the ditch dimensions are on the small side and the term lsquodefended hilltop enclosurersquo may be more appropriate

The coinage

A total of 81 Iron Age coins (counting a potin hoard as one find) has been recorded from the site at North Foreland the majority of which have been found by metal-detector users (Appendix 1) The two gold coins mentioned by Perkins are of unknown types69 A Gallo-Belgic stater found in the nineteenth century at Stone House immediately to the south of the St Stephenrsquos College site is probably related to the site and has been included here

The site histogram for North Foreland (fig 7) shows that potins are the most common Iron Age coins here with Kentish Primary potins comprising 346 per cent of the total site assemblage the most numerous However the distribution of the potins differs from Worth and Ebbsfleet in that Flat Linear I potins are much further above the east Kent mean than are the Kentish Primary potins This is not a result of the Flat Linear I hoard from the site which is counted as a single

68 Hogwood 1995 475ndash669 Perkins 1993 411ndash13

find rather the hoard complements the other Flat Linear I potins and provides definite evidence of contemporary activity The ratio of Flat Linear I potins to those of the Kentish Primary Series is higher than normal for east Kent and these show an emphasis towards the earlier varieties probably dating from the first quarter of the first century bc

In 1999 an archaeological excavation was undertaken by Canterbury Archaeological Trust and the Trust for Thanet Archaeology prior to the redevelopment of the St Stephenrsquos College site on the ridge-top some 400 m to the south-west of the lighthouse Among the many finds of Iron Age (and earlier) date was a coin hoard containing 62 Flat Linear I potins buried in a

fig 7a North Foreland coins from site ()fig 7b North Foreland set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

20 DAVID HOLMAN

pit Preliminary examination of this hoard indicated that although the coins range from Allenrsquos Class C to Class L approximately half belong to Class G70 The hoard will be reported on elsewhere The excavations also revealed an enclosure provisionally dated on ceramic evidence to the first half of the first century bc ie contemporary with the hoard and a large number of storage pits again of similar date The hoard was located only a short distance from the entrance to the enclosure and its location in the centre of what seems to have been an active site suggests that ritual deposition should be considered as a possible reason for its concealment Given the existence of this hoard the possibility that at least some of the potins recovered as metal-detector finds from the adjacent fields may derive from another now dispersed hoard cannot be discounted although there is no evidence to suggest this

North Foreland shows an apparent reduction in coinage deposition after the mid-first century bc before a later recovery in common with Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet Coins of Phases 6 and 7 are both around half the east Kent mean but a significant increase is evident in Phase 8E which continues into Phase 8L suggesting that the site saw a revival in the early first century ad The 24 struck bronzes recorded slightly below the east Kent mean form a very heterogeneous assemblage with 17 different types represented These are almost exclusively Kentish issues either produced in Kent or elsewhere (apparently) for specific use in Kent71 In view of the coastal location of the site it is interesting to note the appearance of three specimens of the lsquoShiprsquo type (VA 1989) among the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin

The low number of non-local issues is significant given the coastal location Apart from a Gallo-Belgic stater only one import has been recorded contrasting sharply with Archers Low Farm Richborough and Folkestone At only 16 per cent of the east Kent mean this site has the lowest percentage of non-gold imports at any of the major sites discussed in this paper Non-local British issues are also rare here but the coin of Verica is one of only two recorded from Kent

Set against the rest of east Kent potin is the most significant metal type at North Foreland followed by silver marginally ahead of bronze As with some elements of the phasing this is a feature shared with Ebbsfleet and may reflect a common cause North Foreland displays activity at a later date than Ebbsfleet but it is not unreasonable to assume that these sites were in some way related

SITE 6 lsquoEASTRyrsquo

Background

Situated on chalk downland south of Eastry this site has produced an assemblage of 51 pre-Roman coins At the request of the landowner and the finders details of the coins are held in the Celtic Coin Index under the neutral provenance of lsquoNorth-East Kentrsquo72

The coinage

A total of 47 Iron Age and four Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from lsquoEastryrsquo (Appendix 1)

70 C Haselgrove pers comm71 An example of the extremely rare bronze half unit VA 154-11 has been listed here as possibly being an issue

of Eppillus with its designs of a geometric pattern and a capricorn The capricorn on the reverse suggests an Augustan prototype which is probably later in date than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which this type has been attributed by both Mack and Van Arsdell However a clearer specimen is still awaited to prove or disprove this reattribution

72 Not all coins in the Celtic Coin Index with this provenance are necessarily from lsquoEastryrsquo The coins listed are known to be from this site

21IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

lsquoEastryrsquo shows clear signs of early activity with an emphasis on Kentish Primary potins (fig 8) which are 133 per cent above the east Kent mean higher than anywhere else in the region Flat Linear I potins are almost exactly on the mean but again there is an absence of Flat Linear II potins Overall potins are further above the east Kent mean here than at any other major site in the region heavily weighted by the large number of Kentish Primary types Early activity is also suggested by the three Gallo-Belgic staters lsquoEastryrsquo has a higher percentage of gold than most other sites in the region with the exception of Richborough and East Wear Bay Folkestone the latter of which fairly certainly incorporates a large degree of bias among the early finds

Only one silver coin has been recorded and there is also an unusually low number of struck bronzes lower in percentage terms than at any other site discussed in this paper Apart from this the most unusual aspect of the lsquoEastryrsquo coins is the discovery of four Siculo-Punic bronzes all of the same type the largest number of such coins from any site in Kent

The nature of this site is uncertain and the site histogram (fig 8) is irregular The above average representation of coinage in Phases 1ndash5 a very unusual feature for any site is an indicator that this site may have had a particular and possibly specialised function The high ratio of gold to silver and struck bronze may suggest that trade is unlikely to have been a principal function of this site as gold is not likely to have been a common medium of exchange A religious site is a possibility as is a disturbed hoard(s)

A separate report on lsquoEastryrsquo as a possible religiouslsquoritualrsquo site has been published elsewhere73 No further investigation of this site is anticipated

SITE 7 GOODNESTONE

Background

This inland site is located to the south-east of Goodnestone some 11 km south-east of Canterbury It occupies a broad gently sloping ridge of Upper Chalk capped by Head Brickearth at a mean elevation of 55 to 60 m above OD The existence of an Iron Age and Roman site was

73 Holman 2005a 280ndash1

fig 8a lsquoEastryrsquo coins from site ()fig 8b lsquoEastryrsquo set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

22 DAVID HOLMAN

not known until a metal-detector survey of the area carried out from 1994 onwards started to produce substantial quantities of coinage in addition to other artefacts including several pieces of mid-first-century ad Roman military equipment74 In addition to 92 Iron Age coins there are several hundred Roman coins covering the entire period of the Roman occupation Ceramic evidence and quernstones also indicate late Iron Age and Roman occupation

The coinage

The 92 Iron Age coins recorded from Goodnestone are listed in Appendix 1 The majority of these coins are either of Kentish origin or were produced elsewhere apparently for use in Kent the percentage of non-Kentish coinage from the site is lower than usual for east Kent (fig 9)

The low number of potin coins representing just 65 per cent of the site assemblage shows that although the site may have an origin in the first half of the first century bc activity at that time was probably limited The coin evidence suggests that the main phase of activity at Goodnestone started in the final quarter of the first century bc

The majority of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone 902 per cent of the site total are struck bronzes Coins of the Kentish uninscribed Series are the most frequent and are represented by 29 examples including three types not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs One of these a variant of VA 154-1 appears to provide a link between the Kentish uninscribed Series and the early inscribed coinage of Dubnovellaunos The obverse although worn on all three specimens appears to bear the same or a very similar design to the Kentish uninscribed bronze issue VA 154-1 The reverse shows a left-facing version of the horse depicted on the reverse of VA 154-1 and a close parallel for this is seen on the reverse of an inscribed silver coin of Dubnovellaunos (VA 171) It is possible that the same die-cutter was involved with all three types Three of the five known specimens of this variant form of VA 154-1 have come from Goodnestone It is conceivably an early uninscribed issue of Dubnovellaunos but has here been retained within the Kentish uninscribed Series

Coins attributed to Dubnovellaunos are represented by 21 examples at Goodnestone Among

fig 9a Goodnestone coins from site ()fig 9b Goodnestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

74 Bishop 1995 17ndash19

23IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

these are six examples of two uncatalogued but related bronze types known from several other provenances in both Kent and Essex75 A coin of Dubnovellaunos is one of only two silver coins from Goodnestone the other tentatively attributed to Addedomaros by Van Arsdell76 is known from three other provenances in east Kent but a north Thames origin still appears likely on stylistic grounds

Phase 8 coins at Goodnestone are less numerous than those of the Kentish uninscribed Series and Dubnovellaunos Coins of Eppillus are scarcer than expected for east Kent and the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin are represented by only three types all of which have their principal distribution in Kent A quarter-stater of Cunobelin is the only gold coin from Goodnestone and is possibly the latest Iron Age coin from the site although similarly late bronze coins of Amminus are also present Only three Gaulish coins have been recorded just 37 per cent of the site total unusually low for east Kent

The histogram for Goodnestone (fig 9) indicates that the site was established before the end of the first century bc Coins of Phase 6 are the most frequent finds but from then until the Conquest losses steadily decline although remaining above the east Kent mean This decline suggests that the earlier coins at least were largely deposited before the Conquest otherwise it is reasonable to expect that the ratio of Phase 8 coins to those of Phase 6 would be higher Goodnestonersquos nearest parallel among the east Kent sites is Archers Low Farm except for the lack of Gaulish imports which are significantly under-represented at only 45 per cent of the east Kent mean This may be regarded as an expected difference between a probable port site and an inland settlement of uncertain nature seemingly established at around the same time Otherwise both sites have low numbers of potins significant peaks in Phases 6 and 7 and are virtually identical in Phases 8E and 8L The metal types at Goodnestone and Archers Low Farm also have very similar proportions The very high level of struck bronze is indicative of trade and exchange from the latter part of the first century bc The scarcity of Gaulish imports and non-Kentish coinage at Goodnestone suggests that much of the activity here was locally based and that there were no direct links with places further afield A greater number of non-local coins would be expected at a trading centre with wider links such as Canterbury

The state of preservation of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone is generally very poor and ten have not been identified The impression given is that many of these coins had a long circulation life however to add a note of caution late Roman coins of the same type found only a few metres apart at Goodnestone sometimes show a very marked variation in their state of preservation the reason for which is unclear

The adjacent Cherrygarden Lane appears on Ordnance Survey maps as part of a trackway running for several kilometres across the Kentish downland This may well have originated as a main thoroughfare at a very early date A geophysical survey of part of the site revealed the existence of another trackway across the field with probable field boundaries adjoining it The function of the late Iron Age and Roman site at Goodnestone is unclear from the coin evidence alone and is only likely to be clarified by excavation Curteis has discussed a not dissimilar site at Evenley Northamptonshire and suggested either a religious centre andor an occupationaltrading settlement77 A detailed report on Goodnestone incorporating all facets of the site is in preparation78

75 Both types are uninscribed but can be attributed to Dubnovellaunos on stylistic and distributional grounds A Kentish origin for these issues is preferred here particularly in view of the lack of non-Kentish coinage from Goodnestone

76 Van Arsdell 1989 350 (his type VA 1611)77 Curteis 1996 33ndash478 Cross forthcoming

24 DAVID HOLMAN

SITE 8 CANTERBURy (WALLED AREA)

Background

As the Roman civitas capital of Kent and a moderately large town within the province of Britannia Canterbury was an important settlement which has continued to be occupied up to the present day The name by which the settlement was known to the Romans Durovernum Cantiacorum is of Celtic origin translating as lsquothe walled town by the alder swamprsquo79 and perhaps provides an initial clue to a pre-Conquest origin for the site

It has been known since at least the eighteenth century that substantial remains of the Roman town survived below the modern streets During the installation of the sewage system in the 1860s a number of coins were found none was described in detail but some were possibly Iron Age80 In 1871 an Iron Age coin was found in Burgate providing evidence for some type of pre-Conquest occupation in the area However definite remains of late Iron Age settlement were not found until excavations began on bomb-damaged sites in 1946 when work revealed a gully apparently bounding a hut site together with pottery of pre-Conquest date81 Since then a significant number of other sites producing evidence of pre-Roman occupation have been located most notably in the Marlowe car park area situated towards the central part of the Roman walled town where the remains of two circular houses set within a triple-ditched enclosure accompanied by hearths ovens and a well were found82 It now seems that late Iron Age settlement at Canterbury was dispersed across an area of at least 10 ha beside the River Stour fairly certainly focused on a ford but apparently lacking any significant defences The available dating evidence suggests that the later Iron Age settlement began during the mid- to late first century bc although evidence of occupation immediately pre-dating this may still await discovery There is some evidence for early Iron Age settlement in the area

Of particular significance in the context of the later Iron Age settlement is the hillfort of Bigberry Camp located above the Stour valley some 3 km to the west This site represents the only known certain hillfort in eastern Kent Occupation here seems to have begun c 350 bc but the defences do not appear to have been constructed until the second century bc83 The camp appears to have been largely abandoned around 50 bc perhaps as a result of it being stormed by Caesarrsquos troops in 54 bc84 Despite the significant amount of archaeological work at Bigberry no Iron Age coins have been found A few bronze coins have been found at Harbledown 1 km to the north-east Rodwell has previously suggested that the general lack of coinage from the site indicates that it was not of major importance as a permanent settlement85

It is generally accepted that the settlement at Canterbury in some way superseded Bigberry during the mid-first century bc perhaps originating as a river-side trading station of the hillfort86 Blagg has suggested that Canterburyrsquos importance grew after c 15 bc following the establishment of the Rhine frontier87 However there is currently insufficient evidence to show that Canterbury had developed into a major proto-urban centre before the Roman conquest and there appear to have been few changes certainly within the Marlowe area until the Flavian

79 Rivet and Smith 1979 353ndash480 Pilbrow 187181 Frere 1965 682 Blockley et al 199583 Thompson 1983 253ndash9 Blockley and Blockley 1989 245ndash684 Blockley and Blockley 1989 24685 Rodwell 1976 33086 Blockley et al 1995 987 T Blagg in Blockley et al 1995 11

25IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

period88 The Iron Age status of Canterbury has previously been questioned89 and Millett makes the important point that the later Roman development of the site arguably and quite possibly wrongly leads to the perception that the Iron Age settlement was of equal importance90 Nevertheless it is clear from the extent of the known remains the amount of coinage and the quantity of imported fineware pottery including Dressel I amphorae that the settlement here was of some importance The evidence for this as provided by the Iron Age coinage is further considered below

The coinage

By the end of 2003 a total of 163 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) had been recorded from within the area of the later Roman walled town mainly in the area of Longmarket Rose Lane St Margarets Street Watling Street and Beer Cart Lane Significantly fewer Iron Age coins have been found during the recent Whitefriars excavations immediately to the east perhaps indicating the eastern limits of the Iron Age settlement although development pressures meant that only limited excavation of the earliest layers was possible The most important point about these coins is that they have virtually all been found during archaeological excavations Canterbury is the only site considered in this paper which has subsequently been built over in its entirety but it is also the only site with the exception of Richborough that has seen archaeological excavation on a large scale Canterbury is the only major late Iron Age site in east Kent with large numbers of broadly contemporary stratified coin finds This is of considerable importance not only for understanding the origins of the city but also for the study of the circulation deposition and dating of Iron Age coinage in the region as a whole A basic relative chronology for other sites in east Kent can be constructed by considering the numismatic evidence from Canterbury for example the realisation that potin coins predate the struck bronzes which themselves evolved from native-inspired designs into more Romanised types

Archaeological contexts can be questioned if later activity has occurred on the site leading to the inevitable disturbance of earlier features The result is a tendency to date items later than should be the case91 A significant number of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury have been found in post-Conquest deposits and Haselgrove regarded these as a mixture of residual coins disturbed by Roman activity as one would expect in an urban context and coins continuing in use until the mid-first century ad92 Nash considered that the potin coins from the Marlowe excavations were circulating until the later first century ad but appeared to make insufficient concession to residuality93 Some Iron Age coins have been found in medieval and later deposits having clearly arrived there as a result of earlier levels being disturbed During the early Roman period disturbance of the underlying Iron Age deposits would have been much more frequent and therefore more coins would have been displaced It cannot be conclusively shown that the Iron Age coins at Canterbury circulated for any length of time after the Conquest although it is reasonable to suppose that some may have continued to circulate for a few years before being fully supplanted by the new Roman coinage94 The problems caused by residuality have also been discussed by Arthur in relation to the late Republican amphorae from the excavations95

88 Blockley et al 1995 1289 Blockley et al 1995 990 Millett 1996 342ndash391 Haselgrove 1988 103ndash592 Haselgrove 1987 14193 D Nash in Blockley et al 1995 92394 eg Nash 1987 36ndash895 Arthur 1986 240

26 DAVID HOLMAN

Potins account for 479 per cent of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury (fig 10) The near absence of Kentish Primary potins is significant because this implies that they had largely ceased to circulate before Canterbury was established Only two of these coins have been recorded both from post-Conquest contexts and these were previously wrongly identified as a cut-down bronze of Massalia and a Central Gaulish lsquotecircte diaboliquersquo potin96 Given that Kentish Primary potins are the commonest type of Iron Age coin in east Kent it is reasonable to assume that many more would have been found at Canterbury had they still been in circulation in the last 50ndash75 years before the Conquest The possibility remains that the initial nucleus of the settlement may have been situated elsewhere97 but the current evidence supports Haselgroversquos view that early potins had mostly ceased to circulate by the early first century ad98 indeed a date before the turn of the century may now be preferred In France the temple sites at Champlieu and Chilly also provide evidence that potins had virtually disappeared from circulation by the first century ad99

An early cessation date for the circulation of the earlier Flat Linear I potins particularly Allen Classes AndashD can also be surmised from the Canterbury evidence The 21 Flat Linear I potins all belong to Allen Classes jndashL ie late in the series probably dating to around the middle of the first century bc Some of these were deliberately cut100 a feature rarely seen elsewhere although a cut Class L coin has been recorded from the Worth Temple site Elsewhere in east Kent the earlier types form a significant component of the Flat Linear I potins and their absence at Canterbury again suggests that if any settlement existed on the site in the early first century bc it is likely to have been of little importance Haselgrove noted that earlier Flat Linear I types are present at Rochester suggesting that Rochester was a site of some importance at an earlier date than Canterbury101 This may well still hold true for the relative chronology of the earliest phases at Canterbury and Rochester but it now seems likely that Kentish coinage began in the

96 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15397 Blockley et al 1995 898 Haselgrove 1987 15899 Allen 1995 51100 Haselgrove 1988 118101 Haselgrove 1987 151

fig 10a Canterbury (walled area) coins from site ()fig 10b Canterbury (walled area) set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

27IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

east of the county102 and a later commencement date for Canterbury need have no particular relevance in any discussion on Rochester located some 43 km to the north-west

Flat Linear II potins are represented by 50 surviving specimens 307 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (321 per cent of the identified coins) Compared with their general scarcity elsewhere in east Kent with the exception of East Wear Bay Folkestone (see below Site 9) with which some sort of link may have existed this is exceptional a fact well illustrated by fig 10 which shows that the proportion of these coins at Canterbury is more than ten times the mean for the rest of east Kent Recent research on Flat Linear II potins based on hoard evidence and individual findspots is leaning increasingly towards an origin in the region immediately north of London rather than Kent at least for certain classes103 In this case the appearance of so many of these coins at Canterbury cannot be easily explained They passed into the local circulation pool at a much lower rate than other coin types and the scarcity of these coins around Canterbury suggests that their principal purpose may have been related to a specific activity or commodity the nature of which is unknown Alternatively there was a sudden and significant but short-lived increase in activity at Canterbury (and Folkestone) which may again have had a specific cause Either way there must have been a fairly high degree of control to restrict their circulation in this manner A comparison may perhaps be made with the exceptionally high number of Roman coins of the period ad 388ndash402 found at Richborough which is not reflected elsewhere in east Kent and which must represent an event specific to that site in the local record although the contents of several hoards at the site account for a not insignificant proportion of these late coins104 It seems likely that the Flat Linear II potins were used in Canterbury as a low-value coinage as the appearance of so many high-value coins in a non-hoard context would be difficult to explain There may perhaps have been a reliance on these coins to sustain the Canterbury circulation pool for small-scale transactions Haselgrove noted that potins were the commonest issues circulating in Canterbury until Phase 8 (c ad 20)105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role106 although how much of this is a result of residuality cannot be ascertained

Struck bronzes are represented at Canterbury by 69 coins These include ten Gaulish coins 159 per cent of the (identified) struck bronze total There are also five Gaulish potins Overall Gaulish coins at Canterbury are 53 per cent above the east Kent mean Haselgrove commented on possible early links with the Continent107 and Fitzpatrickrsquos suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands108 but coastal sites such as Archers Low Farm and East Wear Bay Folkestone may be regarded as more likely initial points of contact Phase 6 coins are also above the east Kent mean In this respect there is some similarity to Archers Low Farm although the deviation from the mean there both for imports and Phase 6 coins is far greater There are 21 struck bronzes of the Kentish Uninscribed Series and an early lsquoChichester Cockrsquo type The frequency of some of the Kentish Uninscribed types at Canterbury in particular VA 154-3 suggests that minting facilities may have been operating at that time

Bronzes of the dynastic period are represented by 31 coins The nine coins of Dubnovellaunos three of Tasciovanus-Sego and ten of Eppillus are typical for an east Kent site However coins of Cunobelin appear to be significantly under-represented only eight coins of Cunobelin have been recorded from Canterbury and four of these are late types otherwise scarce in east

102 Holman 2000103 Haselgrove 1988 117 G Cottam pers comm104 Reece 1987 84105 Haselgrove 1987 145106 Haselgrove 1993 44107 Haselgrove 1987 143108 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

18 DAVID HOLMAN

occupation at Ebbsfleet The ratio of silver to bronze at Ebbsfleet is higher than for any other site in east Kent although this may be down to chance A silver coin regarded as an Atrebatic issue by Bean but not listed by Van Arsdell or Hobbs is now known from several other findspots in Kent and it may be an early Kentish issue although it bears little resemblance to any other Kentish coinage65 It is here regarded as Atrebatic although Atrebatic coinage is generally very rarely found in Kent No gold coins have been recorded from Ebbsfleet other than a contemporary forgery of a Gallo-Belgic E stater with a silver core

The level of Gaulish non-gold imports at Ebbsfleet is low at only 58 per cent of the east Kent mean An even lower level of imports is seen at North Foreland (see below Site 5) and imports are scarce finds in Thanet generally particularly when compared with the adjacent mainland area around Sandwich This is surprising in view of the coastal location and may suggest that the Kentish cross-Channel ports were situated on the mainland rather than on Thanet from where another water crossing would inconveniently be required before accessing any inland routes away from the coastal strip (although Richborough does seem to provide an exception to this) It seems clear that the main circulation area of Gaulish imports in Kent was in the hinterland of the mainland ports

The nature of the site at Ebbsfleet remains unclear but certain parallels with the Worth Temple site suggest that a not dissimilar site may exist here albeit with a significant reduction in coin deposition in Phase 8L which is far less in evidence at Worth The coin distributions at Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet are broadly similar with the exception of a higher level of silver and corresponding lower level of bronze at Ebbsfleet these differences may be more apparent than real when the relative sample sizes are compared Again there is an early peak among the potins and a later peak in Phases 7 and 8E The overall coin distribution at Ebbsfleet appears on current evidence to be marginally earlier than at the Worth Temple site both in its greater incidence of early potins and the higher ratio of Phase 7 coins to those of Phase 8E Other features shared by Ebbsfleet and Worth Temple are that both sites stand on a promontory and both have Roman masonry structures although the lsquomainrsquo Ebbsfleet building apparently of later second-century date is of unknown function66

The total lack of Phase 8L coinage at Ebbsfleet is particularly significant when compared with nearby Richborough and may conceivably represent a temporary abandonment of the site at around the time of the Conquest A marked decline in activity in the early Roman period until a resurgence in the later second century ad based on the comparative scarcity of pottery of early Roman date and the lack of contemporary coinage has previously been noted by Macpherson-Grant67 The implication can be made that the Iron Age coins were mostly if not all deposited before the Conquest or at the latest shortly afterwards

SITE 5 NORTH FORELAND BROADSTAIRS

Background

This site is located on the North Foreland on the Isle of Thanet at the easternmost point of Kent It occupies a ridge of upper Chalk and the eastern slope of the valley immediately to the west where the chalk is sealed by Head Brickearth The highest point of the site is now occupied by the North Foreland lighthouse at an elevation of about 36 m above OD

The existence of a double ditch system apparently enclosing an area of at least 24 ha across the hilltop was revealed by aerial photographs several years ago In 1995 members of the Thanet

65 Bean 2000 237 (his type QsD 3-4)66 Perkins 1992 278ndash8167 N MacPherson-Grant lsquoThe Potteryrsquo in Perkins 1992 301

19IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Archaeological Society investigated the site by cutting several sections across the ditches The outermost of these ditches had cut two earlier ditches one of which appears to have been palisaded68 Ceramic evidence indicated a construction date in the mid- to late Iron Age with infilling of the ditches occurring from the late first century bc onwards The site is currently interpreted as being a possible hillfort although the ditch dimensions are on the small side and the term lsquodefended hilltop enclosurersquo may be more appropriate

The coinage

A total of 81 Iron Age coins (counting a potin hoard as one find) has been recorded from the site at North Foreland the majority of which have been found by metal-detector users (Appendix 1) The two gold coins mentioned by Perkins are of unknown types69 A Gallo-Belgic stater found in the nineteenth century at Stone House immediately to the south of the St Stephenrsquos College site is probably related to the site and has been included here

The site histogram for North Foreland (fig 7) shows that potins are the most common Iron Age coins here with Kentish Primary potins comprising 346 per cent of the total site assemblage the most numerous However the distribution of the potins differs from Worth and Ebbsfleet in that Flat Linear I potins are much further above the east Kent mean than are the Kentish Primary potins This is not a result of the Flat Linear I hoard from the site which is counted as a single

68 Hogwood 1995 475ndash669 Perkins 1993 411ndash13

find rather the hoard complements the other Flat Linear I potins and provides definite evidence of contemporary activity The ratio of Flat Linear I potins to those of the Kentish Primary Series is higher than normal for east Kent and these show an emphasis towards the earlier varieties probably dating from the first quarter of the first century bc

In 1999 an archaeological excavation was undertaken by Canterbury Archaeological Trust and the Trust for Thanet Archaeology prior to the redevelopment of the St Stephenrsquos College site on the ridge-top some 400 m to the south-west of the lighthouse Among the many finds of Iron Age (and earlier) date was a coin hoard containing 62 Flat Linear I potins buried in a

fig 7a North Foreland coins from site ()fig 7b North Foreland set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

20 DAVID HOLMAN

pit Preliminary examination of this hoard indicated that although the coins range from Allenrsquos Class C to Class L approximately half belong to Class G70 The hoard will be reported on elsewhere The excavations also revealed an enclosure provisionally dated on ceramic evidence to the first half of the first century bc ie contemporary with the hoard and a large number of storage pits again of similar date The hoard was located only a short distance from the entrance to the enclosure and its location in the centre of what seems to have been an active site suggests that ritual deposition should be considered as a possible reason for its concealment Given the existence of this hoard the possibility that at least some of the potins recovered as metal-detector finds from the adjacent fields may derive from another now dispersed hoard cannot be discounted although there is no evidence to suggest this

North Foreland shows an apparent reduction in coinage deposition after the mid-first century bc before a later recovery in common with Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet Coins of Phases 6 and 7 are both around half the east Kent mean but a significant increase is evident in Phase 8E which continues into Phase 8L suggesting that the site saw a revival in the early first century ad The 24 struck bronzes recorded slightly below the east Kent mean form a very heterogeneous assemblage with 17 different types represented These are almost exclusively Kentish issues either produced in Kent or elsewhere (apparently) for specific use in Kent71 In view of the coastal location of the site it is interesting to note the appearance of three specimens of the lsquoShiprsquo type (VA 1989) among the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin

The low number of non-local issues is significant given the coastal location Apart from a Gallo-Belgic stater only one import has been recorded contrasting sharply with Archers Low Farm Richborough and Folkestone At only 16 per cent of the east Kent mean this site has the lowest percentage of non-gold imports at any of the major sites discussed in this paper Non-local British issues are also rare here but the coin of Verica is one of only two recorded from Kent

Set against the rest of east Kent potin is the most significant metal type at North Foreland followed by silver marginally ahead of bronze As with some elements of the phasing this is a feature shared with Ebbsfleet and may reflect a common cause North Foreland displays activity at a later date than Ebbsfleet but it is not unreasonable to assume that these sites were in some way related

SITE 6 lsquoEASTRyrsquo

Background

Situated on chalk downland south of Eastry this site has produced an assemblage of 51 pre-Roman coins At the request of the landowner and the finders details of the coins are held in the Celtic Coin Index under the neutral provenance of lsquoNorth-East Kentrsquo72

The coinage

A total of 47 Iron Age and four Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from lsquoEastryrsquo (Appendix 1)

70 C Haselgrove pers comm71 An example of the extremely rare bronze half unit VA 154-11 has been listed here as possibly being an issue

of Eppillus with its designs of a geometric pattern and a capricorn The capricorn on the reverse suggests an Augustan prototype which is probably later in date than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which this type has been attributed by both Mack and Van Arsdell However a clearer specimen is still awaited to prove or disprove this reattribution

72 Not all coins in the Celtic Coin Index with this provenance are necessarily from lsquoEastryrsquo The coins listed are known to be from this site

21IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

lsquoEastryrsquo shows clear signs of early activity with an emphasis on Kentish Primary potins (fig 8) which are 133 per cent above the east Kent mean higher than anywhere else in the region Flat Linear I potins are almost exactly on the mean but again there is an absence of Flat Linear II potins Overall potins are further above the east Kent mean here than at any other major site in the region heavily weighted by the large number of Kentish Primary types Early activity is also suggested by the three Gallo-Belgic staters lsquoEastryrsquo has a higher percentage of gold than most other sites in the region with the exception of Richborough and East Wear Bay Folkestone the latter of which fairly certainly incorporates a large degree of bias among the early finds

Only one silver coin has been recorded and there is also an unusually low number of struck bronzes lower in percentage terms than at any other site discussed in this paper Apart from this the most unusual aspect of the lsquoEastryrsquo coins is the discovery of four Siculo-Punic bronzes all of the same type the largest number of such coins from any site in Kent

The nature of this site is uncertain and the site histogram (fig 8) is irregular The above average representation of coinage in Phases 1ndash5 a very unusual feature for any site is an indicator that this site may have had a particular and possibly specialised function The high ratio of gold to silver and struck bronze may suggest that trade is unlikely to have been a principal function of this site as gold is not likely to have been a common medium of exchange A religious site is a possibility as is a disturbed hoard(s)

A separate report on lsquoEastryrsquo as a possible religiouslsquoritualrsquo site has been published elsewhere73 No further investigation of this site is anticipated

SITE 7 GOODNESTONE

Background

This inland site is located to the south-east of Goodnestone some 11 km south-east of Canterbury It occupies a broad gently sloping ridge of Upper Chalk capped by Head Brickearth at a mean elevation of 55 to 60 m above OD The existence of an Iron Age and Roman site was

73 Holman 2005a 280ndash1

fig 8a lsquoEastryrsquo coins from site ()fig 8b lsquoEastryrsquo set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

22 DAVID HOLMAN

not known until a metal-detector survey of the area carried out from 1994 onwards started to produce substantial quantities of coinage in addition to other artefacts including several pieces of mid-first-century ad Roman military equipment74 In addition to 92 Iron Age coins there are several hundred Roman coins covering the entire period of the Roman occupation Ceramic evidence and quernstones also indicate late Iron Age and Roman occupation

The coinage

The 92 Iron Age coins recorded from Goodnestone are listed in Appendix 1 The majority of these coins are either of Kentish origin or were produced elsewhere apparently for use in Kent the percentage of non-Kentish coinage from the site is lower than usual for east Kent (fig 9)

The low number of potin coins representing just 65 per cent of the site assemblage shows that although the site may have an origin in the first half of the first century bc activity at that time was probably limited The coin evidence suggests that the main phase of activity at Goodnestone started in the final quarter of the first century bc

The majority of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone 902 per cent of the site total are struck bronzes Coins of the Kentish uninscribed Series are the most frequent and are represented by 29 examples including three types not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs One of these a variant of VA 154-1 appears to provide a link between the Kentish uninscribed Series and the early inscribed coinage of Dubnovellaunos The obverse although worn on all three specimens appears to bear the same or a very similar design to the Kentish uninscribed bronze issue VA 154-1 The reverse shows a left-facing version of the horse depicted on the reverse of VA 154-1 and a close parallel for this is seen on the reverse of an inscribed silver coin of Dubnovellaunos (VA 171) It is possible that the same die-cutter was involved with all three types Three of the five known specimens of this variant form of VA 154-1 have come from Goodnestone It is conceivably an early uninscribed issue of Dubnovellaunos but has here been retained within the Kentish uninscribed Series

Coins attributed to Dubnovellaunos are represented by 21 examples at Goodnestone Among

fig 9a Goodnestone coins from site ()fig 9b Goodnestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

74 Bishop 1995 17ndash19

23IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

these are six examples of two uncatalogued but related bronze types known from several other provenances in both Kent and Essex75 A coin of Dubnovellaunos is one of only two silver coins from Goodnestone the other tentatively attributed to Addedomaros by Van Arsdell76 is known from three other provenances in east Kent but a north Thames origin still appears likely on stylistic grounds

Phase 8 coins at Goodnestone are less numerous than those of the Kentish uninscribed Series and Dubnovellaunos Coins of Eppillus are scarcer than expected for east Kent and the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin are represented by only three types all of which have their principal distribution in Kent A quarter-stater of Cunobelin is the only gold coin from Goodnestone and is possibly the latest Iron Age coin from the site although similarly late bronze coins of Amminus are also present Only three Gaulish coins have been recorded just 37 per cent of the site total unusually low for east Kent

The histogram for Goodnestone (fig 9) indicates that the site was established before the end of the first century bc Coins of Phase 6 are the most frequent finds but from then until the Conquest losses steadily decline although remaining above the east Kent mean This decline suggests that the earlier coins at least were largely deposited before the Conquest otherwise it is reasonable to expect that the ratio of Phase 8 coins to those of Phase 6 would be higher Goodnestonersquos nearest parallel among the east Kent sites is Archers Low Farm except for the lack of Gaulish imports which are significantly under-represented at only 45 per cent of the east Kent mean This may be regarded as an expected difference between a probable port site and an inland settlement of uncertain nature seemingly established at around the same time Otherwise both sites have low numbers of potins significant peaks in Phases 6 and 7 and are virtually identical in Phases 8E and 8L The metal types at Goodnestone and Archers Low Farm also have very similar proportions The very high level of struck bronze is indicative of trade and exchange from the latter part of the first century bc The scarcity of Gaulish imports and non-Kentish coinage at Goodnestone suggests that much of the activity here was locally based and that there were no direct links with places further afield A greater number of non-local coins would be expected at a trading centre with wider links such as Canterbury

The state of preservation of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone is generally very poor and ten have not been identified The impression given is that many of these coins had a long circulation life however to add a note of caution late Roman coins of the same type found only a few metres apart at Goodnestone sometimes show a very marked variation in their state of preservation the reason for which is unclear

The adjacent Cherrygarden Lane appears on Ordnance Survey maps as part of a trackway running for several kilometres across the Kentish downland This may well have originated as a main thoroughfare at a very early date A geophysical survey of part of the site revealed the existence of another trackway across the field with probable field boundaries adjoining it The function of the late Iron Age and Roman site at Goodnestone is unclear from the coin evidence alone and is only likely to be clarified by excavation Curteis has discussed a not dissimilar site at Evenley Northamptonshire and suggested either a religious centre andor an occupationaltrading settlement77 A detailed report on Goodnestone incorporating all facets of the site is in preparation78

75 Both types are uninscribed but can be attributed to Dubnovellaunos on stylistic and distributional grounds A Kentish origin for these issues is preferred here particularly in view of the lack of non-Kentish coinage from Goodnestone

76 Van Arsdell 1989 350 (his type VA 1611)77 Curteis 1996 33ndash478 Cross forthcoming

24 DAVID HOLMAN

SITE 8 CANTERBURy (WALLED AREA)

Background

As the Roman civitas capital of Kent and a moderately large town within the province of Britannia Canterbury was an important settlement which has continued to be occupied up to the present day The name by which the settlement was known to the Romans Durovernum Cantiacorum is of Celtic origin translating as lsquothe walled town by the alder swamprsquo79 and perhaps provides an initial clue to a pre-Conquest origin for the site

It has been known since at least the eighteenth century that substantial remains of the Roman town survived below the modern streets During the installation of the sewage system in the 1860s a number of coins were found none was described in detail but some were possibly Iron Age80 In 1871 an Iron Age coin was found in Burgate providing evidence for some type of pre-Conquest occupation in the area However definite remains of late Iron Age settlement were not found until excavations began on bomb-damaged sites in 1946 when work revealed a gully apparently bounding a hut site together with pottery of pre-Conquest date81 Since then a significant number of other sites producing evidence of pre-Roman occupation have been located most notably in the Marlowe car park area situated towards the central part of the Roman walled town where the remains of two circular houses set within a triple-ditched enclosure accompanied by hearths ovens and a well were found82 It now seems that late Iron Age settlement at Canterbury was dispersed across an area of at least 10 ha beside the River Stour fairly certainly focused on a ford but apparently lacking any significant defences The available dating evidence suggests that the later Iron Age settlement began during the mid- to late first century bc although evidence of occupation immediately pre-dating this may still await discovery There is some evidence for early Iron Age settlement in the area

Of particular significance in the context of the later Iron Age settlement is the hillfort of Bigberry Camp located above the Stour valley some 3 km to the west This site represents the only known certain hillfort in eastern Kent Occupation here seems to have begun c 350 bc but the defences do not appear to have been constructed until the second century bc83 The camp appears to have been largely abandoned around 50 bc perhaps as a result of it being stormed by Caesarrsquos troops in 54 bc84 Despite the significant amount of archaeological work at Bigberry no Iron Age coins have been found A few bronze coins have been found at Harbledown 1 km to the north-east Rodwell has previously suggested that the general lack of coinage from the site indicates that it was not of major importance as a permanent settlement85

It is generally accepted that the settlement at Canterbury in some way superseded Bigberry during the mid-first century bc perhaps originating as a river-side trading station of the hillfort86 Blagg has suggested that Canterburyrsquos importance grew after c 15 bc following the establishment of the Rhine frontier87 However there is currently insufficient evidence to show that Canterbury had developed into a major proto-urban centre before the Roman conquest and there appear to have been few changes certainly within the Marlowe area until the Flavian

79 Rivet and Smith 1979 353ndash480 Pilbrow 187181 Frere 1965 682 Blockley et al 199583 Thompson 1983 253ndash9 Blockley and Blockley 1989 245ndash684 Blockley and Blockley 1989 24685 Rodwell 1976 33086 Blockley et al 1995 987 T Blagg in Blockley et al 1995 11

25IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

period88 The Iron Age status of Canterbury has previously been questioned89 and Millett makes the important point that the later Roman development of the site arguably and quite possibly wrongly leads to the perception that the Iron Age settlement was of equal importance90 Nevertheless it is clear from the extent of the known remains the amount of coinage and the quantity of imported fineware pottery including Dressel I amphorae that the settlement here was of some importance The evidence for this as provided by the Iron Age coinage is further considered below

The coinage

By the end of 2003 a total of 163 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) had been recorded from within the area of the later Roman walled town mainly in the area of Longmarket Rose Lane St Margarets Street Watling Street and Beer Cart Lane Significantly fewer Iron Age coins have been found during the recent Whitefriars excavations immediately to the east perhaps indicating the eastern limits of the Iron Age settlement although development pressures meant that only limited excavation of the earliest layers was possible The most important point about these coins is that they have virtually all been found during archaeological excavations Canterbury is the only site considered in this paper which has subsequently been built over in its entirety but it is also the only site with the exception of Richborough that has seen archaeological excavation on a large scale Canterbury is the only major late Iron Age site in east Kent with large numbers of broadly contemporary stratified coin finds This is of considerable importance not only for understanding the origins of the city but also for the study of the circulation deposition and dating of Iron Age coinage in the region as a whole A basic relative chronology for other sites in east Kent can be constructed by considering the numismatic evidence from Canterbury for example the realisation that potin coins predate the struck bronzes which themselves evolved from native-inspired designs into more Romanised types

Archaeological contexts can be questioned if later activity has occurred on the site leading to the inevitable disturbance of earlier features The result is a tendency to date items later than should be the case91 A significant number of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury have been found in post-Conquest deposits and Haselgrove regarded these as a mixture of residual coins disturbed by Roman activity as one would expect in an urban context and coins continuing in use until the mid-first century ad92 Nash considered that the potin coins from the Marlowe excavations were circulating until the later first century ad but appeared to make insufficient concession to residuality93 Some Iron Age coins have been found in medieval and later deposits having clearly arrived there as a result of earlier levels being disturbed During the early Roman period disturbance of the underlying Iron Age deposits would have been much more frequent and therefore more coins would have been displaced It cannot be conclusively shown that the Iron Age coins at Canterbury circulated for any length of time after the Conquest although it is reasonable to suppose that some may have continued to circulate for a few years before being fully supplanted by the new Roman coinage94 The problems caused by residuality have also been discussed by Arthur in relation to the late Republican amphorae from the excavations95

88 Blockley et al 1995 1289 Blockley et al 1995 990 Millett 1996 342ndash391 Haselgrove 1988 103ndash592 Haselgrove 1987 14193 D Nash in Blockley et al 1995 92394 eg Nash 1987 36ndash895 Arthur 1986 240

26 DAVID HOLMAN

Potins account for 479 per cent of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury (fig 10) The near absence of Kentish Primary potins is significant because this implies that they had largely ceased to circulate before Canterbury was established Only two of these coins have been recorded both from post-Conquest contexts and these were previously wrongly identified as a cut-down bronze of Massalia and a Central Gaulish lsquotecircte diaboliquersquo potin96 Given that Kentish Primary potins are the commonest type of Iron Age coin in east Kent it is reasonable to assume that many more would have been found at Canterbury had they still been in circulation in the last 50ndash75 years before the Conquest The possibility remains that the initial nucleus of the settlement may have been situated elsewhere97 but the current evidence supports Haselgroversquos view that early potins had mostly ceased to circulate by the early first century ad98 indeed a date before the turn of the century may now be preferred In France the temple sites at Champlieu and Chilly also provide evidence that potins had virtually disappeared from circulation by the first century ad99

An early cessation date for the circulation of the earlier Flat Linear I potins particularly Allen Classes AndashD can also be surmised from the Canterbury evidence The 21 Flat Linear I potins all belong to Allen Classes jndashL ie late in the series probably dating to around the middle of the first century bc Some of these were deliberately cut100 a feature rarely seen elsewhere although a cut Class L coin has been recorded from the Worth Temple site Elsewhere in east Kent the earlier types form a significant component of the Flat Linear I potins and their absence at Canterbury again suggests that if any settlement existed on the site in the early first century bc it is likely to have been of little importance Haselgrove noted that earlier Flat Linear I types are present at Rochester suggesting that Rochester was a site of some importance at an earlier date than Canterbury101 This may well still hold true for the relative chronology of the earliest phases at Canterbury and Rochester but it now seems likely that Kentish coinage began in the

96 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15397 Blockley et al 1995 898 Haselgrove 1987 15899 Allen 1995 51100 Haselgrove 1988 118101 Haselgrove 1987 151

fig 10a Canterbury (walled area) coins from site ()fig 10b Canterbury (walled area) set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

27IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

east of the county102 and a later commencement date for Canterbury need have no particular relevance in any discussion on Rochester located some 43 km to the north-west

Flat Linear II potins are represented by 50 surviving specimens 307 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (321 per cent of the identified coins) Compared with their general scarcity elsewhere in east Kent with the exception of East Wear Bay Folkestone (see below Site 9) with which some sort of link may have existed this is exceptional a fact well illustrated by fig 10 which shows that the proportion of these coins at Canterbury is more than ten times the mean for the rest of east Kent Recent research on Flat Linear II potins based on hoard evidence and individual findspots is leaning increasingly towards an origin in the region immediately north of London rather than Kent at least for certain classes103 In this case the appearance of so many of these coins at Canterbury cannot be easily explained They passed into the local circulation pool at a much lower rate than other coin types and the scarcity of these coins around Canterbury suggests that their principal purpose may have been related to a specific activity or commodity the nature of which is unknown Alternatively there was a sudden and significant but short-lived increase in activity at Canterbury (and Folkestone) which may again have had a specific cause Either way there must have been a fairly high degree of control to restrict their circulation in this manner A comparison may perhaps be made with the exceptionally high number of Roman coins of the period ad 388ndash402 found at Richborough which is not reflected elsewhere in east Kent and which must represent an event specific to that site in the local record although the contents of several hoards at the site account for a not insignificant proportion of these late coins104 It seems likely that the Flat Linear II potins were used in Canterbury as a low-value coinage as the appearance of so many high-value coins in a non-hoard context would be difficult to explain There may perhaps have been a reliance on these coins to sustain the Canterbury circulation pool for small-scale transactions Haselgrove noted that potins were the commonest issues circulating in Canterbury until Phase 8 (c ad 20)105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role106 although how much of this is a result of residuality cannot be ascertained

Struck bronzes are represented at Canterbury by 69 coins These include ten Gaulish coins 159 per cent of the (identified) struck bronze total There are also five Gaulish potins Overall Gaulish coins at Canterbury are 53 per cent above the east Kent mean Haselgrove commented on possible early links with the Continent107 and Fitzpatrickrsquos suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands108 but coastal sites such as Archers Low Farm and East Wear Bay Folkestone may be regarded as more likely initial points of contact Phase 6 coins are also above the east Kent mean In this respect there is some similarity to Archers Low Farm although the deviation from the mean there both for imports and Phase 6 coins is far greater There are 21 struck bronzes of the Kentish Uninscribed Series and an early lsquoChichester Cockrsquo type The frequency of some of the Kentish Uninscribed types at Canterbury in particular VA 154-3 suggests that minting facilities may have been operating at that time

Bronzes of the dynastic period are represented by 31 coins The nine coins of Dubnovellaunos three of Tasciovanus-Sego and ten of Eppillus are typical for an east Kent site However coins of Cunobelin appear to be significantly under-represented only eight coins of Cunobelin have been recorded from Canterbury and four of these are late types otherwise scarce in east

102 Holman 2000103 Haselgrove 1988 117 G Cottam pers comm104 Reece 1987 84105 Haselgrove 1987 145106 Haselgrove 1993 44107 Haselgrove 1987 143108 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

19IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Archaeological Society investigated the site by cutting several sections across the ditches The outermost of these ditches had cut two earlier ditches one of which appears to have been palisaded68 Ceramic evidence indicated a construction date in the mid- to late Iron Age with infilling of the ditches occurring from the late first century bc onwards The site is currently interpreted as being a possible hillfort although the ditch dimensions are on the small side and the term lsquodefended hilltop enclosurersquo may be more appropriate

The coinage

A total of 81 Iron Age coins (counting a potin hoard as one find) has been recorded from the site at North Foreland the majority of which have been found by metal-detector users (Appendix 1) The two gold coins mentioned by Perkins are of unknown types69 A Gallo-Belgic stater found in the nineteenth century at Stone House immediately to the south of the St Stephenrsquos College site is probably related to the site and has been included here

The site histogram for North Foreland (fig 7) shows that potins are the most common Iron Age coins here with Kentish Primary potins comprising 346 per cent of the total site assemblage the most numerous However the distribution of the potins differs from Worth and Ebbsfleet in that Flat Linear I potins are much further above the east Kent mean than are the Kentish Primary potins This is not a result of the Flat Linear I hoard from the site which is counted as a single

68 Hogwood 1995 475ndash669 Perkins 1993 411ndash13

find rather the hoard complements the other Flat Linear I potins and provides definite evidence of contemporary activity The ratio of Flat Linear I potins to those of the Kentish Primary Series is higher than normal for east Kent and these show an emphasis towards the earlier varieties probably dating from the first quarter of the first century bc

In 1999 an archaeological excavation was undertaken by Canterbury Archaeological Trust and the Trust for Thanet Archaeology prior to the redevelopment of the St Stephenrsquos College site on the ridge-top some 400 m to the south-west of the lighthouse Among the many finds of Iron Age (and earlier) date was a coin hoard containing 62 Flat Linear I potins buried in a

fig 7a North Foreland coins from site ()fig 7b North Foreland set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

20 DAVID HOLMAN

pit Preliminary examination of this hoard indicated that although the coins range from Allenrsquos Class C to Class L approximately half belong to Class G70 The hoard will be reported on elsewhere The excavations also revealed an enclosure provisionally dated on ceramic evidence to the first half of the first century bc ie contemporary with the hoard and a large number of storage pits again of similar date The hoard was located only a short distance from the entrance to the enclosure and its location in the centre of what seems to have been an active site suggests that ritual deposition should be considered as a possible reason for its concealment Given the existence of this hoard the possibility that at least some of the potins recovered as metal-detector finds from the adjacent fields may derive from another now dispersed hoard cannot be discounted although there is no evidence to suggest this

North Foreland shows an apparent reduction in coinage deposition after the mid-first century bc before a later recovery in common with Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet Coins of Phases 6 and 7 are both around half the east Kent mean but a significant increase is evident in Phase 8E which continues into Phase 8L suggesting that the site saw a revival in the early first century ad The 24 struck bronzes recorded slightly below the east Kent mean form a very heterogeneous assemblage with 17 different types represented These are almost exclusively Kentish issues either produced in Kent or elsewhere (apparently) for specific use in Kent71 In view of the coastal location of the site it is interesting to note the appearance of three specimens of the lsquoShiprsquo type (VA 1989) among the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin

The low number of non-local issues is significant given the coastal location Apart from a Gallo-Belgic stater only one import has been recorded contrasting sharply with Archers Low Farm Richborough and Folkestone At only 16 per cent of the east Kent mean this site has the lowest percentage of non-gold imports at any of the major sites discussed in this paper Non-local British issues are also rare here but the coin of Verica is one of only two recorded from Kent

Set against the rest of east Kent potin is the most significant metal type at North Foreland followed by silver marginally ahead of bronze As with some elements of the phasing this is a feature shared with Ebbsfleet and may reflect a common cause North Foreland displays activity at a later date than Ebbsfleet but it is not unreasonable to assume that these sites were in some way related

SITE 6 lsquoEASTRyrsquo

Background

Situated on chalk downland south of Eastry this site has produced an assemblage of 51 pre-Roman coins At the request of the landowner and the finders details of the coins are held in the Celtic Coin Index under the neutral provenance of lsquoNorth-East Kentrsquo72

The coinage

A total of 47 Iron Age and four Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from lsquoEastryrsquo (Appendix 1)

70 C Haselgrove pers comm71 An example of the extremely rare bronze half unit VA 154-11 has been listed here as possibly being an issue

of Eppillus with its designs of a geometric pattern and a capricorn The capricorn on the reverse suggests an Augustan prototype which is probably later in date than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which this type has been attributed by both Mack and Van Arsdell However a clearer specimen is still awaited to prove or disprove this reattribution

72 Not all coins in the Celtic Coin Index with this provenance are necessarily from lsquoEastryrsquo The coins listed are known to be from this site

21IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

lsquoEastryrsquo shows clear signs of early activity with an emphasis on Kentish Primary potins (fig 8) which are 133 per cent above the east Kent mean higher than anywhere else in the region Flat Linear I potins are almost exactly on the mean but again there is an absence of Flat Linear II potins Overall potins are further above the east Kent mean here than at any other major site in the region heavily weighted by the large number of Kentish Primary types Early activity is also suggested by the three Gallo-Belgic staters lsquoEastryrsquo has a higher percentage of gold than most other sites in the region with the exception of Richborough and East Wear Bay Folkestone the latter of which fairly certainly incorporates a large degree of bias among the early finds

Only one silver coin has been recorded and there is also an unusually low number of struck bronzes lower in percentage terms than at any other site discussed in this paper Apart from this the most unusual aspect of the lsquoEastryrsquo coins is the discovery of four Siculo-Punic bronzes all of the same type the largest number of such coins from any site in Kent

The nature of this site is uncertain and the site histogram (fig 8) is irregular The above average representation of coinage in Phases 1ndash5 a very unusual feature for any site is an indicator that this site may have had a particular and possibly specialised function The high ratio of gold to silver and struck bronze may suggest that trade is unlikely to have been a principal function of this site as gold is not likely to have been a common medium of exchange A religious site is a possibility as is a disturbed hoard(s)

A separate report on lsquoEastryrsquo as a possible religiouslsquoritualrsquo site has been published elsewhere73 No further investigation of this site is anticipated

SITE 7 GOODNESTONE

Background

This inland site is located to the south-east of Goodnestone some 11 km south-east of Canterbury It occupies a broad gently sloping ridge of Upper Chalk capped by Head Brickearth at a mean elevation of 55 to 60 m above OD The existence of an Iron Age and Roman site was

73 Holman 2005a 280ndash1

fig 8a lsquoEastryrsquo coins from site ()fig 8b lsquoEastryrsquo set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

22 DAVID HOLMAN

not known until a metal-detector survey of the area carried out from 1994 onwards started to produce substantial quantities of coinage in addition to other artefacts including several pieces of mid-first-century ad Roman military equipment74 In addition to 92 Iron Age coins there are several hundred Roman coins covering the entire period of the Roman occupation Ceramic evidence and quernstones also indicate late Iron Age and Roman occupation

The coinage

The 92 Iron Age coins recorded from Goodnestone are listed in Appendix 1 The majority of these coins are either of Kentish origin or were produced elsewhere apparently for use in Kent the percentage of non-Kentish coinage from the site is lower than usual for east Kent (fig 9)

The low number of potin coins representing just 65 per cent of the site assemblage shows that although the site may have an origin in the first half of the first century bc activity at that time was probably limited The coin evidence suggests that the main phase of activity at Goodnestone started in the final quarter of the first century bc

The majority of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone 902 per cent of the site total are struck bronzes Coins of the Kentish uninscribed Series are the most frequent and are represented by 29 examples including three types not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs One of these a variant of VA 154-1 appears to provide a link between the Kentish uninscribed Series and the early inscribed coinage of Dubnovellaunos The obverse although worn on all three specimens appears to bear the same or a very similar design to the Kentish uninscribed bronze issue VA 154-1 The reverse shows a left-facing version of the horse depicted on the reverse of VA 154-1 and a close parallel for this is seen on the reverse of an inscribed silver coin of Dubnovellaunos (VA 171) It is possible that the same die-cutter was involved with all three types Three of the five known specimens of this variant form of VA 154-1 have come from Goodnestone It is conceivably an early uninscribed issue of Dubnovellaunos but has here been retained within the Kentish uninscribed Series

Coins attributed to Dubnovellaunos are represented by 21 examples at Goodnestone Among

fig 9a Goodnestone coins from site ()fig 9b Goodnestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

74 Bishop 1995 17ndash19

23IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

these are six examples of two uncatalogued but related bronze types known from several other provenances in both Kent and Essex75 A coin of Dubnovellaunos is one of only two silver coins from Goodnestone the other tentatively attributed to Addedomaros by Van Arsdell76 is known from three other provenances in east Kent but a north Thames origin still appears likely on stylistic grounds

Phase 8 coins at Goodnestone are less numerous than those of the Kentish uninscribed Series and Dubnovellaunos Coins of Eppillus are scarcer than expected for east Kent and the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin are represented by only three types all of which have their principal distribution in Kent A quarter-stater of Cunobelin is the only gold coin from Goodnestone and is possibly the latest Iron Age coin from the site although similarly late bronze coins of Amminus are also present Only three Gaulish coins have been recorded just 37 per cent of the site total unusually low for east Kent

The histogram for Goodnestone (fig 9) indicates that the site was established before the end of the first century bc Coins of Phase 6 are the most frequent finds but from then until the Conquest losses steadily decline although remaining above the east Kent mean This decline suggests that the earlier coins at least were largely deposited before the Conquest otherwise it is reasonable to expect that the ratio of Phase 8 coins to those of Phase 6 would be higher Goodnestonersquos nearest parallel among the east Kent sites is Archers Low Farm except for the lack of Gaulish imports which are significantly under-represented at only 45 per cent of the east Kent mean This may be regarded as an expected difference between a probable port site and an inland settlement of uncertain nature seemingly established at around the same time Otherwise both sites have low numbers of potins significant peaks in Phases 6 and 7 and are virtually identical in Phases 8E and 8L The metal types at Goodnestone and Archers Low Farm also have very similar proportions The very high level of struck bronze is indicative of trade and exchange from the latter part of the first century bc The scarcity of Gaulish imports and non-Kentish coinage at Goodnestone suggests that much of the activity here was locally based and that there were no direct links with places further afield A greater number of non-local coins would be expected at a trading centre with wider links such as Canterbury

The state of preservation of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone is generally very poor and ten have not been identified The impression given is that many of these coins had a long circulation life however to add a note of caution late Roman coins of the same type found only a few metres apart at Goodnestone sometimes show a very marked variation in their state of preservation the reason for which is unclear

The adjacent Cherrygarden Lane appears on Ordnance Survey maps as part of a trackway running for several kilometres across the Kentish downland This may well have originated as a main thoroughfare at a very early date A geophysical survey of part of the site revealed the existence of another trackway across the field with probable field boundaries adjoining it The function of the late Iron Age and Roman site at Goodnestone is unclear from the coin evidence alone and is only likely to be clarified by excavation Curteis has discussed a not dissimilar site at Evenley Northamptonshire and suggested either a religious centre andor an occupationaltrading settlement77 A detailed report on Goodnestone incorporating all facets of the site is in preparation78

75 Both types are uninscribed but can be attributed to Dubnovellaunos on stylistic and distributional grounds A Kentish origin for these issues is preferred here particularly in view of the lack of non-Kentish coinage from Goodnestone

76 Van Arsdell 1989 350 (his type VA 1611)77 Curteis 1996 33ndash478 Cross forthcoming

24 DAVID HOLMAN

SITE 8 CANTERBURy (WALLED AREA)

Background

As the Roman civitas capital of Kent and a moderately large town within the province of Britannia Canterbury was an important settlement which has continued to be occupied up to the present day The name by which the settlement was known to the Romans Durovernum Cantiacorum is of Celtic origin translating as lsquothe walled town by the alder swamprsquo79 and perhaps provides an initial clue to a pre-Conquest origin for the site

It has been known since at least the eighteenth century that substantial remains of the Roman town survived below the modern streets During the installation of the sewage system in the 1860s a number of coins were found none was described in detail but some were possibly Iron Age80 In 1871 an Iron Age coin was found in Burgate providing evidence for some type of pre-Conquest occupation in the area However definite remains of late Iron Age settlement were not found until excavations began on bomb-damaged sites in 1946 when work revealed a gully apparently bounding a hut site together with pottery of pre-Conquest date81 Since then a significant number of other sites producing evidence of pre-Roman occupation have been located most notably in the Marlowe car park area situated towards the central part of the Roman walled town where the remains of two circular houses set within a triple-ditched enclosure accompanied by hearths ovens and a well were found82 It now seems that late Iron Age settlement at Canterbury was dispersed across an area of at least 10 ha beside the River Stour fairly certainly focused on a ford but apparently lacking any significant defences The available dating evidence suggests that the later Iron Age settlement began during the mid- to late first century bc although evidence of occupation immediately pre-dating this may still await discovery There is some evidence for early Iron Age settlement in the area

Of particular significance in the context of the later Iron Age settlement is the hillfort of Bigberry Camp located above the Stour valley some 3 km to the west This site represents the only known certain hillfort in eastern Kent Occupation here seems to have begun c 350 bc but the defences do not appear to have been constructed until the second century bc83 The camp appears to have been largely abandoned around 50 bc perhaps as a result of it being stormed by Caesarrsquos troops in 54 bc84 Despite the significant amount of archaeological work at Bigberry no Iron Age coins have been found A few bronze coins have been found at Harbledown 1 km to the north-east Rodwell has previously suggested that the general lack of coinage from the site indicates that it was not of major importance as a permanent settlement85

It is generally accepted that the settlement at Canterbury in some way superseded Bigberry during the mid-first century bc perhaps originating as a river-side trading station of the hillfort86 Blagg has suggested that Canterburyrsquos importance grew after c 15 bc following the establishment of the Rhine frontier87 However there is currently insufficient evidence to show that Canterbury had developed into a major proto-urban centre before the Roman conquest and there appear to have been few changes certainly within the Marlowe area until the Flavian

79 Rivet and Smith 1979 353ndash480 Pilbrow 187181 Frere 1965 682 Blockley et al 199583 Thompson 1983 253ndash9 Blockley and Blockley 1989 245ndash684 Blockley and Blockley 1989 24685 Rodwell 1976 33086 Blockley et al 1995 987 T Blagg in Blockley et al 1995 11

25IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

period88 The Iron Age status of Canterbury has previously been questioned89 and Millett makes the important point that the later Roman development of the site arguably and quite possibly wrongly leads to the perception that the Iron Age settlement was of equal importance90 Nevertheless it is clear from the extent of the known remains the amount of coinage and the quantity of imported fineware pottery including Dressel I amphorae that the settlement here was of some importance The evidence for this as provided by the Iron Age coinage is further considered below

The coinage

By the end of 2003 a total of 163 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) had been recorded from within the area of the later Roman walled town mainly in the area of Longmarket Rose Lane St Margarets Street Watling Street and Beer Cart Lane Significantly fewer Iron Age coins have been found during the recent Whitefriars excavations immediately to the east perhaps indicating the eastern limits of the Iron Age settlement although development pressures meant that only limited excavation of the earliest layers was possible The most important point about these coins is that they have virtually all been found during archaeological excavations Canterbury is the only site considered in this paper which has subsequently been built over in its entirety but it is also the only site with the exception of Richborough that has seen archaeological excavation on a large scale Canterbury is the only major late Iron Age site in east Kent with large numbers of broadly contemporary stratified coin finds This is of considerable importance not only for understanding the origins of the city but also for the study of the circulation deposition and dating of Iron Age coinage in the region as a whole A basic relative chronology for other sites in east Kent can be constructed by considering the numismatic evidence from Canterbury for example the realisation that potin coins predate the struck bronzes which themselves evolved from native-inspired designs into more Romanised types

Archaeological contexts can be questioned if later activity has occurred on the site leading to the inevitable disturbance of earlier features The result is a tendency to date items later than should be the case91 A significant number of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury have been found in post-Conquest deposits and Haselgrove regarded these as a mixture of residual coins disturbed by Roman activity as one would expect in an urban context and coins continuing in use until the mid-first century ad92 Nash considered that the potin coins from the Marlowe excavations were circulating until the later first century ad but appeared to make insufficient concession to residuality93 Some Iron Age coins have been found in medieval and later deposits having clearly arrived there as a result of earlier levels being disturbed During the early Roman period disturbance of the underlying Iron Age deposits would have been much more frequent and therefore more coins would have been displaced It cannot be conclusively shown that the Iron Age coins at Canterbury circulated for any length of time after the Conquest although it is reasonable to suppose that some may have continued to circulate for a few years before being fully supplanted by the new Roman coinage94 The problems caused by residuality have also been discussed by Arthur in relation to the late Republican amphorae from the excavations95

88 Blockley et al 1995 1289 Blockley et al 1995 990 Millett 1996 342ndash391 Haselgrove 1988 103ndash592 Haselgrove 1987 14193 D Nash in Blockley et al 1995 92394 eg Nash 1987 36ndash895 Arthur 1986 240

26 DAVID HOLMAN

Potins account for 479 per cent of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury (fig 10) The near absence of Kentish Primary potins is significant because this implies that they had largely ceased to circulate before Canterbury was established Only two of these coins have been recorded both from post-Conquest contexts and these were previously wrongly identified as a cut-down bronze of Massalia and a Central Gaulish lsquotecircte diaboliquersquo potin96 Given that Kentish Primary potins are the commonest type of Iron Age coin in east Kent it is reasonable to assume that many more would have been found at Canterbury had they still been in circulation in the last 50ndash75 years before the Conquest The possibility remains that the initial nucleus of the settlement may have been situated elsewhere97 but the current evidence supports Haselgroversquos view that early potins had mostly ceased to circulate by the early first century ad98 indeed a date before the turn of the century may now be preferred In France the temple sites at Champlieu and Chilly also provide evidence that potins had virtually disappeared from circulation by the first century ad99

An early cessation date for the circulation of the earlier Flat Linear I potins particularly Allen Classes AndashD can also be surmised from the Canterbury evidence The 21 Flat Linear I potins all belong to Allen Classes jndashL ie late in the series probably dating to around the middle of the first century bc Some of these were deliberately cut100 a feature rarely seen elsewhere although a cut Class L coin has been recorded from the Worth Temple site Elsewhere in east Kent the earlier types form a significant component of the Flat Linear I potins and their absence at Canterbury again suggests that if any settlement existed on the site in the early first century bc it is likely to have been of little importance Haselgrove noted that earlier Flat Linear I types are present at Rochester suggesting that Rochester was a site of some importance at an earlier date than Canterbury101 This may well still hold true for the relative chronology of the earliest phases at Canterbury and Rochester but it now seems likely that Kentish coinage began in the

96 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15397 Blockley et al 1995 898 Haselgrove 1987 15899 Allen 1995 51100 Haselgrove 1988 118101 Haselgrove 1987 151

fig 10a Canterbury (walled area) coins from site ()fig 10b Canterbury (walled area) set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

27IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

east of the county102 and a later commencement date for Canterbury need have no particular relevance in any discussion on Rochester located some 43 km to the north-west

Flat Linear II potins are represented by 50 surviving specimens 307 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (321 per cent of the identified coins) Compared with their general scarcity elsewhere in east Kent with the exception of East Wear Bay Folkestone (see below Site 9) with which some sort of link may have existed this is exceptional a fact well illustrated by fig 10 which shows that the proportion of these coins at Canterbury is more than ten times the mean for the rest of east Kent Recent research on Flat Linear II potins based on hoard evidence and individual findspots is leaning increasingly towards an origin in the region immediately north of London rather than Kent at least for certain classes103 In this case the appearance of so many of these coins at Canterbury cannot be easily explained They passed into the local circulation pool at a much lower rate than other coin types and the scarcity of these coins around Canterbury suggests that their principal purpose may have been related to a specific activity or commodity the nature of which is unknown Alternatively there was a sudden and significant but short-lived increase in activity at Canterbury (and Folkestone) which may again have had a specific cause Either way there must have been a fairly high degree of control to restrict their circulation in this manner A comparison may perhaps be made with the exceptionally high number of Roman coins of the period ad 388ndash402 found at Richborough which is not reflected elsewhere in east Kent and which must represent an event specific to that site in the local record although the contents of several hoards at the site account for a not insignificant proportion of these late coins104 It seems likely that the Flat Linear II potins were used in Canterbury as a low-value coinage as the appearance of so many high-value coins in a non-hoard context would be difficult to explain There may perhaps have been a reliance on these coins to sustain the Canterbury circulation pool for small-scale transactions Haselgrove noted that potins were the commonest issues circulating in Canterbury until Phase 8 (c ad 20)105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role106 although how much of this is a result of residuality cannot be ascertained

Struck bronzes are represented at Canterbury by 69 coins These include ten Gaulish coins 159 per cent of the (identified) struck bronze total There are also five Gaulish potins Overall Gaulish coins at Canterbury are 53 per cent above the east Kent mean Haselgrove commented on possible early links with the Continent107 and Fitzpatrickrsquos suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands108 but coastal sites such as Archers Low Farm and East Wear Bay Folkestone may be regarded as more likely initial points of contact Phase 6 coins are also above the east Kent mean In this respect there is some similarity to Archers Low Farm although the deviation from the mean there both for imports and Phase 6 coins is far greater There are 21 struck bronzes of the Kentish Uninscribed Series and an early lsquoChichester Cockrsquo type The frequency of some of the Kentish Uninscribed types at Canterbury in particular VA 154-3 suggests that minting facilities may have been operating at that time

Bronzes of the dynastic period are represented by 31 coins The nine coins of Dubnovellaunos three of Tasciovanus-Sego and ten of Eppillus are typical for an east Kent site However coins of Cunobelin appear to be significantly under-represented only eight coins of Cunobelin have been recorded from Canterbury and four of these are late types otherwise scarce in east

102 Holman 2000103 Haselgrove 1988 117 G Cottam pers comm104 Reece 1987 84105 Haselgrove 1987 145106 Haselgrove 1993 44107 Haselgrove 1987 143108 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

20 DAVID HOLMAN

pit Preliminary examination of this hoard indicated that although the coins range from Allenrsquos Class C to Class L approximately half belong to Class G70 The hoard will be reported on elsewhere The excavations also revealed an enclosure provisionally dated on ceramic evidence to the first half of the first century bc ie contemporary with the hoard and a large number of storage pits again of similar date The hoard was located only a short distance from the entrance to the enclosure and its location in the centre of what seems to have been an active site suggests that ritual deposition should be considered as a possible reason for its concealment Given the existence of this hoard the possibility that at least some of the potins recovered as metal-detector finds from the adjacent fields may derive from another now dispersed hoard cannot be discounted although there is no evidence to suggest this

North Foreland shows an apparent reduction in coinage deposition after the mid-first century bc before a later recovery in common with Worth Temple and Ebbsfleet Coins of Phases 6 and 7 are both around half the east Kent mean but a significant increase is evident in Phase 8E which continues into Phase 8L suggesting that the site saw a revival in the early first century ad The 24 struck bronzes recorded slightly below the east Kent mean form a very heterogeneous assemblage with 17 different types represented These are almost exclusively Kentish issues either produced in Kent or elsewhere (apparently) for specific use in Kent71 In view of the coastal location of the site it is interesting to note the appearance of three specimens of the lsquoShiprsquo type (VA 1989) among the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin

The low number of non-local issues is significant given the coastal location Apart from a Gallo-Belgic stater only one import has been recorded contrasting sharply with Archers Low Farm Richborough and Folkestone At only 16 per cent of the east Kent mean this site has the lowest percentage of non-gold imports at any of the major sites discussed in this paper Non-local British issues are also rare here but the coin of Verica is one of only two recorded from Kent

Set against the rest of east Kent potin is the most significant metal type at North Foreland followed by silver marginally ahead of bronze As with some elements of the phasing this is a feature shared with Ebbsfleet and may reflect a common cause North Foreland displays activity at a later date than Ebbsfleet but it is not unreasonable to assume that these sites were in some way related

SITE 6 lsquoEASTRyrsquo

Background

Situated on chalk downland south of Eastry this site has produced an assemblage of 51 pre-Roman coins At the request of the landowner and the finders details of the coins are held in the Celtic Coin Index under the neutral provenance of lsquoNorth-East Kentrsquo72

The coinage

A total of 47 Iron Age and four Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from lsquoEastryrsquo (Appendix 1)

70 C Haselgrove pers comm71 An example of the extremely rare bronze half unit VA 154-11 has been listed here as possibly being an issue

of Eppillus with its designs of a geometric pattern and a capricorn The capricorn on the reverse suggests an Augustan prototype which is probably later in date than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which this type has been attributed by both Mack and Van Arsdell However a clearer specimen is still awaited to prove or disprove this reattribution

72 Not all coins in the Celtic Coin Index with this provenance are necessarily from lsquoEastryrsquo The coins listed are known to be from this site

21IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

lsquoEastryrsquo shows clear signs of early activity with an emphasis on Kentish Primary potins (fig 8) which are 133 per cent above the east Kent mean higher than anywhere else in the region Flat Linear I potins are almost exactly on the mean but again there is an absence of Flat Linear II potins Overall potins are further above the east Kent mean here than at any other major site in the region heavily weighted by the large number of Kentish Primary types Early activity is also suggested by the three Gallo-Belgic staters lsquoEastryrsquo has a higher percentage of gold than most other sites in the region with the exception of Richborough and East Wear Bay Folkestone the latter of which fairly certainly incorporates a large degree of bias among the early finds

Only one silver coin has been recorded and there is also an unusually low number of struck bronzes lower in percentage terms than at any other site discussed in this paper Apart from this the most unusual aspect of the lsquoEastryrsquo coins is the discovery of four Siculo-Punic bronzes all of the same type the largest number of such coins from any site in Kent

The nature of this site is uncertain and the site histogram (fig 8) is irregular The above average representation of coinage in Phases 1ndash5 a very unusual feature for any site is an indicator that this site may have had a particular and possibly specialised function The high ratio of gold to silver and struck bronze may suggest that trade is unlikely to have been a principal function of this site as gold is not likely to have been a common medium of exchange A religious site is a possibility as is a disturbed hoard(s)

A separate report on lsquoEastryrsquo as a possible religiouslsquoritualrsquo site has been published elsewhere73 No further investigation of this site is anticipated

SITE 7 GOODNESTONE

Background

This inland site is located to the south-east of Goodnestone some 11 km south-east of Canterbury It occupies a broad gently sloping ridge of Upper Chalk capped by Head Brickearth at a mean elevation of 55 to 60 m above OD The existence of an Iron Age and Roman site was

73 Holman 2005a 280ndash1

fig 8a lsquoEastryrsquo coins from site ()fig 8b lsquoEastryrsquo set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

22 DAVID HOLMAN

not known until a metal-detector survey of the area carried out from 1994 onwards started to produce substantial quantities of coinage in addition to other artefacts including several pieces of mid-first-century ad Roman military equipment74 In addition to 92 Iron Age coins there are several hundred Roman coins covering the entire period of the Roman occupation Ceramic evidence and quernstones also indicate late Iron Age and Roman occupation

The coinage

The 92 Iron Age coins recorded from Goodnestone are listed in Appendix 1 The majority of these coins are either of Kentish origin or were produced elsewhere apparently for use in Kent the percentage of non-Kentish coinage from the site is lower than usual for east Kent (fig 9)

The low number of potin coins representing just 65 per cent of the site assemblage shows that although the site may have an origin in the first half of the first century bc activity at that time was probably limited The coin evidence suggests that the main phase of activity at Goodnestone started in the final quarter of the first century bc

The majority of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone 902 per cent of the site total are struck bronzes Coins of the Kentish uninscribed Series are the most frequent and are represented by 29 examples including three types not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs One of these a variant of VA 154-1 appears to provide a link between the Kentish uninscribed Series and the early inscribed coinage of Dubnovellaunos The obverse although worn on all three specimens appears to bear the same or a very similar design to the Kentish uninscribed bronze issue VA 154-1 The reverse shows a left-facing version of the horse depicted on the reverse of VA 154-1 and a close parallel for this is seen on the reverse of an inscribed silver coin of Dubnovellaunos (VA 171) It is possible that the same die-cutter was involved with all three types Three of the five known specimens of this variant form of VA 154-1 have come from Goodnestone It is conceivably an early uninscribed issue of Dubnovellaunos but has here been retained within the Kentish uninscribed Series

Coins attributed to Dubnovellaunos are represented by 21 examples at Goodnestone Among

fig 9a Goodnestone coins from site ()fig 9b Goodnestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

74 Bishop 1995 17ndash19

23IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

these are six examples of two uncatalogued but related bronze types known from several other provenances in both Kent and Essex75 A coin of Dubnovellaunos is one of only two silver coins from Goodnestone the other tentatively attributed to Addedomaros by Van Arsdell76 is known from three other provenances in east Kent but a north Thames origin still appears likely on stylistic grounds

Phase 8 coins at Goodnestone are less numerous than those of the Kentish uninscribed Series and Dubnovellaunos Coins of Eppillus are scarcer than expected for east Kent and the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin are represented by only three types all of which have their principal distribution in Kent A quarter-stater of Cunobelin is the only gold coin from Goodnestone and is possibly the latest Iron Age coin from the site although similarly late bronze coins of Amminus are also present Only three Gaulish coins have been recorded just 37 per cent of the site total unusually low for east Kent

The histogram for Goodnestone (fig 9) indicates that the site was established before the end of the first century bc Coins of Phase 6 are the most frequent finds but from then until the Conquest losses steadily decline although remaining above the east Kent mean This decline suggests that the earlier coins at least were largely deposited before the Conquest otherwise it is reasonable to expect that the ratio of Phase 8 coins to those of Phase 6 would be higher Goodnestonersquos nearest parallel among the east Kent sites is Archers Low Farm except for the lack of Gaulish imports which are significantly under-represented at only 45 per cent of the east Kent mean This may be regarded as an expected difference between a probable port site and an inland settlement of uncertain nature seemingly established at around the same time Otherwise both sites have low numbers of potins significant peaks in Phases 6 and 7 and are virtually identical in Phases 8E and 8L The metal types at Goodnestone and Archers Low Farm also have very similar proportions The very high level of struck bronze is indicative of trade and exchange from the latter part of the first century bc The scarcity of Gaulish imports and non-Kentish coinage at Goodnestone suggests that much of the activity here was locally based and that there were no direct links with places further afield A greater number of non-local coins would be expected at a trading centre with wider links such as Canterbury

The state of preservation of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone is generally very poor and ten have not been identified The impression given is that many of these coins had a long circulation life however to add a note of caution late Roman coins of the same type found only a few metres apart at Goodnestone sometimes show a very marked variation in their state of preservation the reason for which is unclear

The adjacent Cherrygarden Lane appears on Ordnance Survey maps as part of a trackway running for several kilometres across the Kentish downland This may well have originated as a main thoroughfare at a very early date A geophysical survey of part of the site revealed the existence of another trackway across the field with probable field boundaries adjoining it The function of the late Iron Age and Roman site at Goodnestone is unclear from the coin evidence alone and is only likely to be clarified by excavation Curteis has discussed a not dissimilar site at Evenley Northamptonshire and suggested either a religious centre andor an occupationaltrading settlement77 A detailed report on Goodnestone incorporating all facets of the site is in preparation78

75 Both types are uninscribed but can be attributed to Dubnovellaunos on stylistic and distributional grounds A Kentish origin for these issues is preferred here particularly in view of the lack of non-Kentish coinage from Goodnestone

76 Van Arsdell 1989 350 (his type VA 1611)77 Curteis 1996 33ndash478 Cross forthcoming

24 DAVID HOLMAN

SITE 8 CANTERBURy (WALLED AREA)

Background

As the Roman civitas capital of Kent and a moderately large town within the province of Britannia Canterbury was an important settlement which has continued to be occupied up to the present day The name by which the settlement was known to the Romans Durovernum Cantiacorum is of Celtic origin translating as lsquothe walled town by the alder swamprsquo79 and perhaps provides an initial clue to a pre-Conquest origin for the site

It has been known since at least the eighteenth century that substantial remains of the Roman town survived below the modern streets During the installation of the sewage system in the 1860s a number of coins were found none was described in detail but some were possibly Iron Age80 In 1871 an Iron Age coin was found in Burgate providing evidence for some type of pre-Conquest occupation in the area However definite remains of late Iron Age settlement were not found until excavations began on bomb-damaged sites in 1946 when work revealed a gully apparently bounding a hut site together with pottery of pre-Conquest date81 Since then a significant number of other sites producing evidence of pre-Roman occupation have been located most notably in the Marlowe car park area situated towards the central part of the Roman walled town where the remains of two circular houses set within a triple-ditched enclosure accompanied by hearths ovens and a well were found82 It now seems that late Iron Age settlement at Canterbury was dispersed across an area of at least 10 ha beside the River Stour fairly certainly focused on a ford but apparently lacking any significant defences The available dating evidence suggests that the later Iron Age settlement began during the mid- to late first century bc although evidence of occupation immediately pre-dating this may still await discovery There is some evidence for early Iron Age settlement in the area

Of particular significance in the context of the later Iron Age settlement is the hillfort of Bigberry Camp located above the Stour valley some 3 km to the west This site represents the only known certain hillfort in eastern Kent Occupation here seems to have begun c 350 bc but the defences do not appear to have been constructed until the second century bc83 The camp appears to have been largely abandoned around 50 bc perhaps as a result of it being stormed by Caesarrsquos troops in 54 bc84 Despite the significant amount of archaeological work at Bigberry no Iron Age coins have been found A few bronze coins have been found at Harbledown 1 km to the north-east Rodwell has previously suggested that the general lack of coinage from the site indicates that it was not of major importance as a permanent settlement85

It is generally accepted that the settlement at Canterbury in some way superseded Bigberry during the mid-first century bc perhaps originating as a river-side trading station of the hillfort86 Blagg has suggested that Canterburyrsquos importance grew after c 15 bc following the establishment of the Rhine frontier87 However there is currently insufficient evidence to show that Canterbury had developed into a major proto-urban centre before the Roman conquest and there appear to have been few changes certainly within the Marlowe area until the Flavian

79 Rivet and Smith 1979 353ndash480 Pilbrow 187181 Frere 1965 682 Blockley et al 199583 Thompson 1983 253ndash9 Blockley and Blockley 1989 245ndash684 Blockley and Blockley 1989 24685 Rodwell 1976 33086 Blockley et al 1995 987 T Blagg in Blockley et al 1995 11

25IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

period88 The Iron Age status of Canterbury has previously been questioned89 and Millett makes the important point that the later Roman development of the site arguably and quite possibly wrongly leads to the perception that the Iron Age settlement was of equal importance90 Nevertheless it is clear from the extent of the known remains the amount of coinage and the quantity of imported fineware pottery including Dressel I amphorae that the settlement here was of some importance The evidence for this as provided by the Iron Age coinage is further considered below

The coinage

By the end of 2003 a total of 163 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) had been recorded from within the area of the later Roman walled town mainly in the area of Longmarket Rose Lane St Margarets Street Watling Street and Beer Cart Lane Significantly fewer Iron Age coins have been found during the recent Whitefriars excavations immediately to the east perhaps indicating the eastern limits of the Iron Age settlement although development pressures meant that only limited excavation of the earliest layers was possible The most important point about these coins is that they have virtually all been found during archaeological excavations Canterbury is the only site considered in this paper which has subsequently been built over in its entirety but it is also the only site with the exception of Richborough that has seen archaeological excavation on a large scale Canterbury is the only major late Iron Age site in east Kent with large numbers of broadly contemporary stratified coin finds This is of considerable importance not only for understanding the origins of the city but also for the study of the circulation deposition and dating of Iron Age coinage in the region as a whole A basic relative chronology for other sites in east Kent can be constructed by considering the numismatic evidence from Canterbury for example the realisation that potin coins predate the struck bronzes which themselves evolved from native-inspired designs into more Romanised types

Archaeological contexts can be questioned if later activity has occurred on the site leading to the inevitable disturbance of earlier features The result is a tendency to date items later than should be the case91 A significant number of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury have been found in post-Conquest deposits and Haselgrove regarded these as a mixture of residual coins disturbed by Roman activity as one would expect in an urban context and coins continuing in use until the mid-first century ad92 Nash considered that the potin coins from the Marlowe excavations were circulating until the later first century ad but appeared to make insufficient concession to residuality93 Some Iron Age coins have been found in medieval and later deposits having clearly arrived there as a result of earlier levels being disturbed During the early Roman period disturbance of the underlying Iron Age deposits would have been much more frequent and therefore more coins would have been displaced It cannot be conclusively shown that the Iron Age coins at Canterbury circulated for any length of time after the Conquest although it is reasonable to suppose that some may have continued to circulate for a few years before being fully supplanted by the new Roman coinage94 The problems caused by residuality have also been discussed by Arthur in relation to the late Republican amphorae from the excavations95

88 Blockley et al 1995 1289 Blockley et al 1995 990 Millett 1996 342ndash391 Haselgrove 1988 103ndash592 Haselgrove 1987 14193 D Nash in Blockley et al 1995 92394 eg Nash 1987 36ndash895 Arthur 1986 240

26 DAVID HOLMAN

Potins account for 479 per cent of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury (fig 10) The near absence of Kentish Primary potins is significant because this implies that they had largely ceased to circulate before Canterbury was established Only two of these coins have been recorded both from post-Conquest contexts and these were previously wrongly identified as a cut-down bronze of Massalia and a Central Gaulish lsquotecircte diaboliquersquo potin96 Given that Kentish Primary potins are the commonest type of Iron Age coin in east Kent it is reasonable to assume that many more would have been found at Canterbury had they still been in circulation in the last 50ndash75 years before the Conquest The possibility remains that the initial nucleus of the settlement may have been situated elsewhere97 but the current evidence supports Haselgroversquos view that early potins had mostly ceased to circulate by the early first century ad98 indeed a date before the turn of the century may now be preferred In France the temple sites at Champlieu and Chilly also provide evidence that potins had virtually disappeared from circulation by the first century ad99

An early cessation date for the circulation of the earlier Flat Linear I potins particularly Allen Classes AndashD can also be surmised from the Canterbury evidence The 21 Flat Linear I potins all belong to Allen Classes jndashL ie late in the series probably dating to around the middle of the first century bc Some of these were deliberately cut100 a feature rarely seen elsewhere although a cut Class L coin has been recorded from the Worth Temple site Elsewhere in east Kent the earlier types form a significant component of the Flat Linear I potins and their absence at Canterbury again suggests that if any settlement existed on the site in the early first century bc it is likely to have been of little importance Haselgrove noted that earlier Flat Linear I types are present at Rochester suggesting that Rochester was a site of some importance at an earlier date than Canterbury101 This may well still hold true for the relative chronology of the earliest phases at Canterbury and Rochester but it now seems likely that Kentish coinage began in the

96 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15397 Blockley et al 1995 898 Haselgrove 1987 15899 Allen 1995 51100 Haselgrove 1988 118101 Haselgrove 1987 151

fig 10a Canterbury (walled area) coins from site ()fig 10b Canterbury (walled area) set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

27IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

east of the county102 and a later commencement date for Canterbury need have no particular relevance in any discussion on Rochester located some 43 km to the north-west

Flat Linear II potins are represented by 50 surviving specimens 307 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (321 per cent of the identified coins) Compared with their general scarcity elsewhere in east Kent with the exception of East Wear Bay Folkestone (see below Site 9) with which some sort of link may have existed this is exceptional a fact well illustrated by fig 10 which shows that the proportion of these coins at Canterbury is more than ten times the mean for the rest of east Kent Recent research on Flat Linear II potins based on hoard evidence and individual findspots is leaning increasingly towards an origin in the region immediately north of London rather than Kent at least for certain classes103 In this case the appearance of so many of these coins at Canterbury cannot be easily explained They passed into the local circulation pool at a much lower rate than other coin types and the scarcity of these coins around Canterbury suggests that their principal purpose may have been related to a specific activity or commodity the nature of which is unknown Alternatively there was a sudden and significant but short-lived increase in activity at Canterbury (and Folkestone) which may again have had a specific cause Either way there must have been a fairly high degree of control to restrict their circulation in this manner A comparison may perhaps be made with the exceptionally high number of Roman coins of the period ad 388ndash402 found at Richborough which is not reflected elsewhere in east Kent and which must represent an event specific to that site in the local record although the contents of several hoards at the site account for a not insignificant proportion of these late coins104 It seems likely that the Flat Linear II potins were used in Canterbury as a low-value coinage as the appearance of so many high-value coins in a non-hoard context would be difficult to explain There may perhaps have been a reliance on these coins to sustain the Canterbury circulation pool for small-scale transactions Haselgrove noted that potins were the commonest issues circulating in Canterbury until Phase 8 (c ad 20)105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role106 although how much of this is a result of residuality cannot be ascertained

Struck bronzes are represented at Canterbury by 69 coins These include ten Gaulish coins 159 per cent of the (identified) struck bronze total There are also five Gaulish potins Overall Gaulish coins at Canterbury are 53 per cent above the east Kent mean Haselgrove commented on possible early links with the Continent107 and Fitzpatrickrsquos suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands108 but coastal sites such as Archers Low Farm and East Wear Bay Folkestone may be regarded as more likely initial points of contact Phase 6 coins are also above the east Kent mean In this respect there is some similarity to Archers Low Farm although the deviation from the mean there both for imports and Phase 6 coins is far greater There are 21 struck bronzes of the Kentish Uninscribed Series and an early lsquoChichester Cockrsquo type The frequency of some of the Kentish Uninscribed types at Canterbury in particular VA 154-3 suggests that minting facilities may have been operating at that time

Bronzes of the dynastic period are represented by 31 coins The nine coins of Dubnovellaunos three of Tasciovanus-Sego and ten of Eppillus are typical for an east Kent site However coins of Cunobelin appear to be significantly under-represented only eight coins of Cunobelin have been recorded from Canterbury and four of these are late types otherwise scarce in east

102 Holman 2000103 Haselgrove 1988 117 G Cottam pers comm104 Reece 1987 84105 Haselgrove 1987 145106 Haselgrove 1993 44107 Haselgrove 1987 143108 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

21IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

lsquoEastryrsquo shows clear signs of early activity with an emphasis on Kentish Primary potins (fig 8) which are 133 per cent above the east Kent mean higher than anywhere else in the region Flat Linear I potins are almost exactly on the mean but again there is an absence of Flat Linear II potins Overall potins are further above the east Kent mean here than at any other major site in the region heavily weighted by the large number of Kentish Primary types Early activity is also suggested by the three Gallo-Belgic staters lsquoEastryrsquo has a higher percentage of gold than most other sites in the region with the exception of Richborough and East Wear Bay Folkestone the latter of which fairly certainly incorporates a large degree of bias among the early finds

Only one silver coin has been recorded and there is also an unusually low number of struck bronzes lower in percentage terms than at any other site discussed in this paper Apart from this the most unusual aspect of the lsquoEastryrsquo coins is the discovery of four Siculo-Punic bronzes all of the same type the largest number of such coins from any site in Kent

The nature of this site is uncertain and the site histogram (fig 8) is irregular The above average representation of coinage in Phases 1ndash5 a very unusual feature for any site is an indicator that this site may have had a particular and possibly specialised function The high ratio of gold to silver and struck bronze may suggest that trade is unlikely to have been a principal function of this site as gold is not likely to have been a common medium of exchange A religious site is a possibility as is a disturbed hoard(s)

A separate report on lsquoEastryrsquo as a possible religiouslsquoritualrsquo site has been published elsewhere73 No further investigation of this site is anticipated

SITE 7 GOODNESTONE

Background

This inland site is located to the south-east of Goodnestone some 11 km south-east of Canterbury It occupies a broad gently sloping ridge of Upper Chalk capped by Head Brickearth at a mean elevation of 55 to 60 m above OD The existence of an Iron Age and Roman site was

73 Holman 2005a 280ndash1

fig 8a lsquoEastryrsquo coins from site ()fig 8b lsquoEastryrsquo set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

22 DAVID HOLMAN

not known until a metal-detector survey of the area carried out from 1994 onwards started to produce substantial quantities of coinage in addition to other artefacts including several pieces of mid-first-century ad Roman military equipment74 In addition to 92 Iron Age coins there are several hundred Roman coins covering the entire period of the Roman occupation Ceramic evidence and quernstones also indicate late Iron Age and Roman occupation

The coinage

The 92 Iron Age coins recorded from Goodnestone are listed in Appendix 1 The majority of these coins are either of Kentish origin or were produced elsewhere apparently for use in Kent the percentage of non-Kentish coinage from the site is lower than usual for east Kent (fig 9)

The low number of potin coins representing just 65 per cent of the site assemblage shows that although the site may have an origin in the first half of the first century bc activity at that time was probably limited The coin evidence suggests that the main phase of activity at Goodnestone started in the final quarter of the first century bc

The majority of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone 902 per cent of the site total are struck bronzes Coins of the Kentish uninscribed Series are the most frequent and are represented by 29 examples including three types not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs One of these a variant of VA 154-1 appears to provide a link between the Kentish uninscribed Series and the early inscribed coinage of Dubnovellaunos The obverse although worn on all three specimens appears to bear the same or a very similar design to the Kentish uninscribed bronze issue VA 154-1 The reverse shows a left-facing version of the horse depicted on the reverse of VA 154-1 and a close parallel for this is seen on the reverse of an inscribed silver coin of Dubnovellaunos (VA 171) It is possible that the same die-cutter was involved with all three types Three of the five known specimens of this variant form of VA 154-1 have come from Goodnestone It is conceivably an early uninscribed issue of Dubnovellaunos but has here been retained within the Kentish uninscribed Series

Coins attributed to Dubnovellaunos are represented by 21 examples at Goodnestone Among

fig 9a Goodnestone coins from site ()fig 9b Goodnestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

74 Bishop 1995 17ndash19

23IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

these are six examples of two uncatalogued but related bronze types known from several other provenances in both Kent and Essex75 A coin of Dubnovellaunos is one of only two silver coins from Goodnestone the other tentatively attributed to Addedomaros by Van Arsdell76 is known from three other provenances in east Kent but a north Thames origin still appears likely on stylistic grounds

Phase 8 coins at Goodnestone are less numerous than those of the Kentish uninscribed Series and Dubnovellaunos Coins of Eppillus are scarcer than expected for east Kent and the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin are represented by only three types all of which have their principal distribution in Kent A quarter-stater of Cunobelin is the only gold coin from Goodnestone and is possibly the latest Iron Age coin from the site although similarly late bronze coins of Amminus are also present Only three Gaulish coins have been recorded just 37 per cent of the site total unusually low for east Kent

The histogram for Goodnestone (fig 9) indicates that the site was established before the end of the first century bc Coins of Phase 6 are the most frequent finds but from then until the Conquest losses steadily decline although remaining above the east Kent mean This decline suggests that the earlier coins at least were largely deposited before the Conquest otherwise it is reasonable to expect that the ratio of Phase 8 coins to those of Phase 6 would be higher Goodnestonersquos nearest parallel among the east Kent sites is Archers Low Farm except for the lack of Gaulish imports which are significantly under-represented at only 45 per cent of the east Kent mean This may be regarded as an expected difference between a probable port site and an inland settlement of uncertain nature seemingly established at around the same time Otherwise both sites have low numbers of potins significant peaks in Phases 6 and 7 and are virtually identical in Phases 8E and 8L The metal types at Goodnestone and Archers Low Farm also have very similar proportions The very high level of struck bronze is indicative of trade and exchange from the latter part of the first century bc The scarcity of Gaulish imports and non-Kentish coinage at Goodnestone suggests that much of the activity here was locally based and that there were no direct links with places further afield A greater number of non-local coins would be expected at a trading centre with wider links such as Canterbury

The state of preservation of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone is generally very poor and ten have not been identified The impression given is that many of these coins had a long circulation life however to add a note of caution late Roman coins of the same type found only a few metres apart at Goodnestone sometimes show a very marked variation in their state of preservation the reason for which is unclear

The adjacent Cherrygarden Lane appears on Ordnance Survey maps as part of a trackway running for several kilometres across the Kentish downland This may well have originated as a main thoroughfare at a very early date A geophysical survey of part of the site revealed the existence of another trackway across the field with probable field boundaries adjoining it The function of the late Iron Age and Roman site at Goodnestone is unclear from the coin evidence alone and is only likely to be clarified by excavation Curteis has discussed a not dissimilar site at Evenley Northamptonshire and suggested either a religious centre andor an occupationaltrading settlement77 A detailed report on Goodnestone incorporating all facets of the site is in preparation78

75 Both types are uninscribed but can be attributed to Dubnovellaunos on stylistic and distributional grounds A Kentish origin for these issues is preferred here particularly in view of the lack of non-Kentish coinage from Goodnestone

76 Van Arsdell 1989 350 (his type VA 1611)77 Curteis 1996 33ndash478 Cross forthcoming

24 DAVID HOLMAN

SITE 8 CANTERBURy (WALLED AREA)

Background

As the Roman civitas capital of Kent and a moderately large town within the province of Britannia Canterbury was an important settlement which has continued to be occupied up to the present day The name by which the settlement was known to the Romans Durovernum Cantiacorum is of Celtic origin translating as lsquothe walled town by the alder swamprsquo79 and perhaps provides an initial clue to a pre-Conquest origin for the site

It has been known since at least the eighteenth century that substantial remains of the Roman town survived below the modern streets During the installation of the sewage system in the 1860s a number of coins were found none was described in detail but some were possibly Iron Age80 In 1871 an Iron Age coin was found in Burgate providing evidence for some type of pre-Conquest occupation in the area However definite remains of late Iron Age settlement were not found until excavations began on bomb-damaged sites in 1946 when work revealed a gully apparently bounding a hut site together with pottery of pre-Conquest date81 Since then a significant number of other sites producing evidence of pre-Roman occupation have been located most notably in the Marlowe car park area situated towards the central part of the Roman walled town where the remains of two circular houses set within a triple-ditched enclosure accompanied by hearths ovens and a well were found82 It now seems that late Iron Age settlement at Canterbury was dispersed across an area of at least 10 ha beside the River Stour fairly certainly focused on a ford but apparently lacking any significant defences The available dating evidence suggests that the later Iron Age settlement began during the mid- to late first century bc although evidence of occupation immediately pre-dating this may still await discovery There is some evidence for early Iron Age settlement in the area

Of particular significance in the context of the later Iron Age settlement is the hillfort of Bigberry Camp located above the Stour valley some 3 km to the west This site represents the only known certain hillfort in eastern Kent Occupation here seems to have begun c 350 bc but the defences do not appear to have been constructed until the second century bc83 The camp appears to have been largely abandoned around 50 bc perhaps as a result of it being stormed by Caesarrsquos troops in 54 bc84 Despite the significant amount of archaeological work at Bigberry no Iron Age coins have been found A few bronze coins have been found at Harbledown 1 km to the north-east Rodwell has previously suggested that the general lack of coinage from the site indicates that it was not of major importance as a permanent settlement85

It is generally accepted that the settlement at Canterbury in some way superseded Bigberry during the mid-first century bc perhaps originating as a river-side trading station of the hillfort86 Blagg has suggested that Canterburyrsquos importance grew after c 15 bc following the establishment of the Rhine frontier87 However there is currently insufficient evidence to show that Canterbury had developed into a major proto-urban centre before the Roman conquest and there appear to have been few changes certainly within the Marlowe area until the Flavian

79 Rivet and Smith 1979 353ndash480 Pilbrow 187181 Frere 1965 682 Blockley et al 199583 Thompson 1983 253ndash9 Blockley and Blockley 1989 245ndash684 Blockley and Blockley 1989 24685 Rodwell 1976 33086 Blockley et al 1995 987 T Blagg in Blockley et al 1995 11

25IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

period88 The Iron Age status of Canterbury has previously been questioned89 and Millett makes the important point that the later Roman development of the site arguably and quite possibly wrongly leads to the perception that the Iron Age settlement was of equal importance90 Nevertheless it is clear from the extent of the known remains the amount of coinage and the quantity of imported fineware pottery including Dressel I amphorae that the settlement here was of some importance The evidence for this as provided by the Iron Age coinage is further considered below

The coinage

By the end of 2003 a total of 163 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) had been recorded from within the area of the later Roman walled town mainly in the area of Longmarket Rose Lane St Margarets Street Watling Street and Beer Cart Lane Significantly fewer Iron Age coins have been found during the recent Whitefriars excavations immediately to the east perhaps indicating the eastern limits of the Iron Age settlement although development pressures meant that only limited excavation of the earliest layers was possible The most important point about these coins is that they have virtually all been found during archaeological excavations Canterbury is the only site considered in this paper which has subsequently been built over in its entirety but it is also the only site with the exception of Richborough that has seen archaeological excavation on a large scale Canterbury is the only major late Iron Age site in east Kent with large numbers of broadly contemporary stratified coin finds This is of considerable importance not only for understanding the origins of the city but also for the study of the circulation deposition and dating of Iron Age coinage in the region as a whole A basic relative chronology for other sites in east Kent can be constructed by considering the numismatic evidence from Canterbury for example the realisation that potin coins predate the struck bronzes which themselves evolved from native-inspired designs into more Romanised types

Archaeological contexts can be questioned if later activity has occurred on the site leading to the inevitable disturbance of earlier features The result is a tendency to date items later than should be the case91 A significant number of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury have been found in post-Conquest deposits and Haselgrove regarded these as a mixture of residual coins disturbed by Roman activity as one would expect in an urban context and coins continuing in use until the mid-first century ad92 Nash considered that the potin coins from the Marlowe excavations were circulating until the later first century ad but appeared to make insufficient concession to residuality93 Some Iron Age coins have been found in medieval and later deposits having clearly arrived there as a result of earlier levels being disturbed During the early Roman period disturbance of the underlying Iron Age deposits would have been much more frequent and therefore more coins would have been displaced It cannot be conclusively shown that the Iron Age coins at Canterbury circulated for any length of time after the Conquest although it is reasonable to suppose that some may have continued to circulate for a few years before being fully supplanted by the new Roman coinage94 The problems caused by residuality have also been discussed by Arthur in relation to the late Republican amphorae from the excavations95

88 Blockley et al 1995 1289 Blockley et al 1995 990 Millett 1996 342ndash391 Haselgrove 1988 103ndash592 Haselgrove 1987 14193 D Nash in Blockley et al 1995 92394 eg Nash 1987 36ndash895 Arthur 1986 240

26 DAVID HOLMAN

Potins account for 479 per cent of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury (fig 10) The near absence of Kentish Primary potins is significant because this implies that they had largely ceased to circulate before Canterbury was established Only two of these coins have been recorded both from post-Conquest contexts and these were previously wrongly identified as a cut-down bronze of Massalia and a Central Gaulish lsquotecircte diaboliquersquo potin96 Given that Kentish Primary potins are the commonest type of Iron Age coin in east Kent it is reasonable to assume that many more would have been found at Canterbury had they still been in circulation in the last 50ndash75 years before the Conquest The possibility remains that the initial nucleus of the settlement may have been situated elsewhere97 but the current evidence supports Haselgroversquos view that early potins had mostly ceased to circulate by the early first century ad98 indeed a date before the turn of the century may now be preferred In France the temple sites at Champlieu and Chilly also provide evidence that potins had virtually disappeared from circulation by the first century ad99

An early cessation date for the circulation of the earlier Flat Linear I potins particularly Allen Classes AndashD can also be surmised from the Canterbury evidence The 21 Flat Linear I potins all belong to Allen Classes jndashL ie late in the series probably dating to around the middle of the first century bc Some of these were deliberately cut100 a feature rarely seen elsewhere although a cut Class L coin has been recorded from the Worth Temple site Elsewhere in east Kent the earlier types form a significant component of the Flat Linear I potins and their absence at Canterbury again suggests that if any settlement existed on the site in the early first century bc it is likely to have been of little importance Haselgrove noted that earlier Flat Linear I types are present at Rochester suggesting that Rochester was a site of some importance at an earlier date than Canterbury101 This may well still hold true for the relative chronology of the earliest phases at Canterbury and Rochester but it now seems likely that Kentish coinage began in the

96 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15397 Blockley et al 1995 898 Haselgrove 1987 15899 Allen 1995 51100 Haselgrove 1988 118101 Haselgrove 1987 151

fig 10a Canterbury (walled area) coins from site ()fig 10b Canterbury (walled area) set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

27IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

east of the county102 and a later commencement date for Canterbury need have no particular relevance in any discussion on Rochester located some 43 km to the north-west

Flat Linear II potins are represented by 50 surviving specimens 307 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (321 per cent of the identified coins) Compared with their general scarcity elsewhere in east Kent with the exception of East Wear Bay Folkestone (see below Site 9) with which some sort of link may have existed this is exceptional a fact well illustrated by fig 10 which shows that the proportion of these coins at Canterbury is more than ten times the mean for the rest of east Kent Recent research on Flat Linear II potins based on hoard evidence and individual findspots is leaning increasingly towards an origin in the region immediately north of London rather than Kent at least for certain classes103 In this case the appearance of so many of these coins at Canterbury cannot be easily explained They passed into the local circulation pool at a much lower rate than other coin types and the scarcity of these coins around Canterbury suggests that their principal purpose may have been related to a specific activity or commodity the nature of which is unknown Alternatively there was a sudden and significant but short-lived increase in activity at Canterbury (and Folkestone) which may again have had a specific cause Either way there must have been a fairly high degree of control to restrict their circulation in this manner A comparison may perhaps be made with the exceptionally high number of Roman coins of the period ad 388ndash402 found at Richborough which is not reflected elsewhere in east Kent and which must represent an event specific to that site in the local record although the contents of several hoards at the site account for a not insignificant proportion of these late coins104 It seems likely that the Flat Linear II potins were used in Canterbury as a low-value coinage as the appearance of so many high-value coins in a non-hoard context would be difficult to explain There may perhaps have been a reliance on these coins to sustain the Canterbury circulation pool for small-scale transactions Haselgrove noted that potins were the commonest issues circulating in Canterbury until Phase 8 (c ad 20)105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role106 although how much of this is a result of residuality cannot be ascertained

Struck bronzes are represented at Canterbury by 69 coins These include ten Gaulish coins 159 per cent of the (identified) struck bronze total There are also five Gaulish potins Overall Gaulish coins at Canterbury are 53 per cent above the east Kent mean Haselgrove commented on possible early links with the Continent107 and Fitzpatrickrsquos suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands108 but coastal sites such as Archers Low Farm and East Wear Bay Folkestone may be regarded as more likely initial points of contact Phase 6 coins are also above the east Kent mean In this respect there is some similarity to Archers Low Farm although the deviation from the mean there both for imports and Phase 6 coins is far greater There are 21 struck bronzes of the Kentish Uninscribed Series and an early lsquoChichester Cockrsquo type The frequency of some of the Kentish Uninscribed types at Canterbury in particular VA 154-3 suggests that minting facilities may have been operating at that time

Bronzes of the dynastic period are represented by 31 coins The nine coins of Dubnovellaunos three of Tasciovanus-Sego and ten of Eppillus are typical for an east Kent site However coins of Cunobelin appear to be significantly under-represented only eight coins of Cunobelin have been recorded from Canterbury and four of these are late types otherwise scarce in east

102 Holman 2000103 Haselgrove 1988 117 G Cottam pers comm104 Reece 1987 84105 Haselgrove 1987 145106 Haselgrove 1993 44107 Haselgrove 1987 143108 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

22 DAVID HOLMAN

not known until a metal-detector survey of the area carried out from 1994 onwards started to produce substantial quantities of coinage in addition to other artefacts including several pieces of mid-first-century ad Roman military equipment74 In addition to 92 Iron Age coins there are several hundred Roman coins covering the entire period of the Roman occupation Ceramic evidence and quernstones also indicate late Iron Age and Roman occupation

The coinage

The 92 Iron Age coins recorded from Goodnestone are listed in Appendix 1 The majority of these coins are either of Kentish origin or were produced elsewhere apparently for use in Kent the percentage of non-Kentish coinage from the site is lower than usual for east Kent (fig 9)

The low number of potin coins representing just 65 per cent of the site assemblage shows that although the site may have an origin in the first half of the first century bc activity at that time was probably limited The coin evidence suggests that the main phase of activity at Goodnestone started in the final quarter of the first century bc

The majority of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone 902 per cent of the site total are struck bronzes Coins of the Kentish uninscribed Series are the most frequent and are represented by 29 examples including three types not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs One of these a variant of VA 154-1 appears to provide a link between the Kentish uninscribed Series and the early inscribed coinage of Dubnovellaunos The obverse although worn on all three specimens appears to bear the same or a very similar design to the Kentish uninscribed bronze issue VA 154-1 The reverse shows a left-facing version of the horse depicted on the reverse of VA 154-1 and a close parallel for this is seen on the reverse of an inscribed silver coin of Dubnovellaunos (VA 171) It is possible that the same die-cutter was involved with all three types Three of the five known specimens of this variant form of VA 154-1 have come from Goodnestone It is conceivably an early uninscribed issue of Dubnovellaunos but has here been retained within the Kentish uninscribed Series

Coins attributed to Dubnovellaunos are represented by 21 examples at Goodnestone Among

fig 9a Goodnestone coins from site ()fig 9b Goodnestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

74 Bishop 1995 17ndash19

23IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

these are six examples of two uncatalogued but related bronze types known from several other provenances in both Kent and Essex75 A coin of Dubnovellaunos is one of only two silver coins from Goodnestone the other tentatively attributed to Addedomaros by Van Arsdell76 is known from three other provenances in east Kent but a north Thames origin still appears likely on stylistic grounds

Phase 8 coins at Goodnestone are less numerous than those of the Kentish uninscribed Series and Dubnovellaunos Coins of Eppillus are scarcer than expected for east Kent and the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin are represented by only three types all of which have their principal distribution in Kent A quarter-stater of Cunobelin is the only gold coin from Goodnestone and is possibly the latest Iron Age coin from the site although similarly late bronze coins of Amminus are also present Only three Gaulish coins have been recorded just 37 per cent of the site total unusually low for east Kent

The histogram for Goodnestone (fig 9) indicates that the site was established before the end of the first century bc Coins of Phase 6 are the most frequent finds but from then until the Conquest losses steadily decline although remaining above the east Kent mean This decline suggests that the earlier coins at least were largely deposited before the Conquest otherwise it is reasonable to expect that the ratio of Phase 8 coins to those of Phase 6 would be higher Goodnestonersquos nearest parallel among the east Kent sites is Archers Low Farm except for the lack of Gaulish imports which are significantly under-represented at only 45 per cent of the east Kent mean This may be regarded as an expected difference between a probable port site and an inland settlement of uncertain nature seemingly established at around the same time Otherwise both sites have low numbers of potins significant peaks in Phases 6 and 7 and are virtually identical in Phases 8E and 8L The metal types at Goodnestone and Archers Low Farm also have very similar proportions The very high level of struck bronze is indicative of trade and exchange from the latter part of the first century bc The scarcity of Gaulish imports and non-Kentish coinage at Goodnestone suggests that much of the activity here was locally based and that there were no direct links with places further afield A greater number of non-local coins would be expected at a trading centre with wider links such as Canterbury

The state of preservation of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone is generally very poor and ten have not been identified The impression given is that many of these coins had a long circulation life however to add a note of caution late Roman coins of the same type found only a few metres apart at Goodnestone sometimes show a very marked variation in their state of preservation the reason for which is unclear

The adjacent Cherrygarden Lane appears on Ordnance Survey maps as part of a trackway running for several kilometres across the Kentish downland This may well have originated as a main thoroughfare at a very early date A geophysical survey of part of the site revealed the existence of another trackway across the field with probable field boundaries adjoining it The function of the late Iron Age and Roman site at Goodnestone is unclear from the coin evidence alone and is only likely to be clarified by excavation Curteis has discussed a not dissimilar site at Evenley Northamptonshire and suggested either a religious centre andor an occupationaltrading settlement77 A detailed report on Goodnestone incorporating all facets of the site is in preparation78

75 Both types are uninscribed but can be attributed to Dubnovellaunos on stylistic and distributional grounds A Kentish origin for these issues is preferred here particularly in view of the lack of non-Kentish coinage from Goodnestone

76 Van Arsdell 1989 350 (his type VA 1611)77 Curteis 1996 33ndash478 Cross forthcoming

24 DAVID HOLMAN

SITE 8 CANTERBURy (WALLED AREA)

Background

As the Roman civitas capital of Kent and a moderately large town within the province of Britannia Canterbury was an important settlement which has continued to be occupied up to the present day The name by which the settlement was known to the Romans Durovernum Cantiacorum is of Celtic origin translating as lsquothe walled town by the alder swamprsquo79 and perhaps provides an initial clue to a pre-Conquest origin for the site

It has been known since at least the eighteenth century that substantial remains of the Roman town survived below the modern streets During the installation of the sewage system in the 1860s a number of coins were found none was described in detail but some were possibly Iron Age80 In 1871 an Iron Age coin was found in Burgate providing evidence for some type of pre-Conquest occupation in the area However definite remains of late Iron Age settlement were not found until excavations began on bomb-damaged sites in 1946 when work revealed a gully apparently bounding a hut site together with pottery of pre-Conquest date81 Since then a significant number of other sites producing evidence of pre-Roman occupation have been located most notably in the Marlowe car park area situated towards the central part of the Roman walled town where the remains of two circular houses set within a triple-ditched enclosure accompanied by hearths ovens and a well were found82 It now seems that late Iron Age settlement at Canterbury was dispersed across an area of at least 10 ha beside the River Stour fairly certainly focused on a ford but apparently lacking any significant defences The available dating evidence suggests that the later Iron Age settlement began during the mid- to late first century bc although evidence of occupation immediately pre-dating this may still await discovery There is some evidence for early Iron Age settlement in the area

Of particular significance in the context of the later Iron Age settlement is the hillfort of Bigberry Camp located above the Stour valley some 3 km to the west This site represents the only known certain hillfort in eastern Kent Occupation here seems to have begun c 350 bc but the defences do not appear to have been constructed until the second century bc83 The camp appears to have been largely abandoned around 50 bc perhaps as a result of it being stormed by Caesarrsquos troops in 54 bc84 Despite the significant amount of archaeological work at Bigberry no Iron Age coins have been found A few bronze coins have been found at Harbledown 1 km to the north-east Rodwell has previously suggested that the general lack of coinage from the site indicates that it was not of major importance as a permanent settlement85

It is generally accepted that the settlement at Canterbury in some way superseded Bigberry during the mid-first century bc perhaps originating as a river-side trading station of the hillfort86 Blagg has suggested that Canterburyrsquos importance grew after c 15 bc following the establishment of the Rhine frontier87 However there is currently insufficient evidence to show that Canterbury had developed into a major proto-urban centre before the Roman conquest and there appear to have been few changes certainly within the Marlowe area until the Flavian

79 Rivet and Smith 1979 353ndash480 Pilbrow 187181 Frere 1965 682 Blockley et al 199583 Thompson 1983 253ndash9 Blockley and Blockley 1989 245ndash684 Blockley and Blockley 1989 24685 Rodwell 1976 33086 Blockley et al 1995 987 T Blagg in Blockley et al 1995 11

25IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

period88 The Iron Age status of Canterbury has previously been questioned89 and Millett makes the important point that the later Roman development of the site arguably and quite possibly wrongly leads to the perception that the Iron Age settlement was of equal importance90 Nevertheless it is clear from the extent of the known remains the amount of coinage and the quantity of imported fineware pottery including Dressel I amphorae that the settlement here was of some importance The evidence for this as provided by the Iron Age coinage is further considered below

The coinage

By the end of 2003 a total of 163 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) had been recorded from within the area of the later Roman walled town mainly in the area of Longmarket Rose Lane St Margarets Street Watling Street and Beer Cart Lane Significantly fewer Iron Age coins have been found during the recent Whitefriars excavations immediately to the east perhaps indicating the eastern limits of the Iron Age settlement although development pressures meant that only limited excavation of the earliest layers was possible The most important point about these coins is that they have virtually all been found during archaeological excavations Canterbury is the only site considered in this paper which has subsequently been built over in its entirety but it is also the only site with the exception of Richborough that has seen archaeological excavation on a large scale Canterbury is the only major late Iron Age site in east Kent with large numbers of broadly contemporary stratified coin finds This is of considerable importance not only for understanding the origins of the city but also for the study of the circulation deposition and dating of Iron Age coinage in the region as a whole A basic relative chronology for other sites in east Kent can be constructed by considering the numismatic evidence from Canterbury for example the realisation that potin coins predate the struck bronzes which themselves evolved from native-inspired designs into more Romanised types

Archaeological contexts can be questioned if later activity has occurred on the site leading to the inevitable disturbance of earlier features The result is a tendency to date items later than should be the case91 A significant number of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury have been found in post-Conquest deposits and Haselgrove regarded these as a mixture of residual coins disturbed by Roman activity as one would expect in an urban context and coins continuing in use until the mid-first century ad92 Nash considered that the potin coins from the Marlowe excavations were circulating until the later first century ad but appeared to make insufficient concession to residuality93 Some Iron Age coins have been found in medieval and later deposits having clearly arrived there as a result of earlier levels being disturbed During the early Roman period disturbance of the underlying Iron Age deposits would have been much more frequent and therefore more coins would have been displaced It cannot be conclusively shown that the Iron Age coins at Canterbury circulated for any length of time after the Conquest although it is reasonable to suppose that some may have continued to circulate for a few years before being fully supplanted by the new Roman coinage94 The problems caused by residuality have also been discussed by Arthur in relation to the late Republican amphorae from the excavations95

88 Blockley et al 1995 1289 Blockley et al 1995 990 Millett 1996 342ndash391 Haselgrove 1988 103ndash592 Haselgrove 1987 14193 D Nash in Blockley et al 1995 92394 eg Nash 1987 36ndash895 Arthur 1986 240

26 DAVID HOLMAN

Potins account for 479 per cent of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury (fig 10) The near absence of Kentish Primary potins is significant because this implies that they had largely ceased to circulate before Canterbury was established Only two of these coins have been recorded both from post-Conquest contexts and these were previously wrongly identified as a cut-down bronze of Massalia and a Central Gaulish lsquotecircte diaboliquersquo potin96 Given that Kentish Primary potins are the commonest type of Iron Age coin in east Kent it is reasonable to assume that many more would have been found at Canterbury had they still been in circulation in the last 50ndash75 years before the Conquest The possibility remains that the initial nucleus of the settlement may have been situated elsewhere97 but the current evidence supports Haselgroversquos view that early potins had mostly ceased to circulate by the early first century ad98 indeed a date before the turn of the century may now be preferred In France the temple sites at Champlieu and Chilly also provide evidence that potins had virtually disappeared from circulation by the first century ad99

An early cessation date for the circulation of the earlier Flat Linear I potins particularly Allen Classes AndashD can also be surmised from the Canterbury evidence The 21 Flat Linear I potins all belong to Allen Classes jndashL ie late in the series probably dating to around the middle of the first century bc Some of these were deliberately cut100 a feature rarely seen elsewhere although a cut Class L coin has been recorded from the Worth Temple site Elsewhere in east Kent the earlier types form a significant component of the Flat Linear I potins and their absence at Canterbury again suggests that if any settlement existed on the site in the early first century bc it is likely to have been of little importance Haselgrove noted that earlier Flat Linear I types are present at Rochester suggesting that Rochester was a site of some importance at an earlier date than Canterbury101 This may well still hold true for the relative chronology of the earliest phases at Canterbury and Rochester but it now seems likely that Kentish coinage began in the

96 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15397 Blockley et al 1995 898 Haselgrove 1987 15899 Allen 1995 51100 Haselgrove 1988 118101 Haselgrove 1987 151

fig 10a Canterbury (walled area) coins from site ()fig 10b Canterbury (walled area) set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

27IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

east of the county102 and a later commencement date for Canterbury need have no particular relevance in any discussion on Rochester located some 43 km to the north-west

Flat Linear II potins are represented by 50 surviving specimens 307 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (321 per cent of the identified coins) Compared with their general scarcity elsewhere in east Kent with the exception of East Wear Bay Folkestone (see below Site 9) with which some sort of link may have existed this is exceptional a fact well illustrated by fig 10 which shows that the proportion of these coins at Canterbury is more than ten times the mean for the rest of east Kent Recent research on Flat Linear II potins based on hoard evidence and individual findspots is leaning increasingly towards an origin in the region immediately north of London rather than Kent at least for certain classes103 In this case the appearance of so many of these coins at Canterbury cannot be easily explained They passed into the local circulation pool at a much lower rate than other coin types and the scarcity of these coins around Canterbury suggests that their principal purpose may have been related to a specific activity or commodity the nature of which is unknown Alternatively there was a sudden and significant but short-lived increase in activity at Canterbury (and Folkestone) which may again have had a specific cause Either way there must have been a fairly high degree of control to restrict their circulation in this manner A comparison may perhaps be made with the exceptionally high number of Roman coins of the period ad 388ndash402 found at Richborough which is not reflected elsewhere in east Kent and which must represent an event specific to that site in the local record although the contents of several hoards at the site account for a not insignificant proportion of these late coins104 It seems likely that the Flat Linear II potins were used in Canterbury as a low-value coinage as the appearance of so many high-value coins in a non-hoard context would be difficult to explain There may perhaps have been a reliance on these coins to sustain the Canterbury circulation pool for small-scale transactions Haselgrove noted that potins were the commonest issues circulating in Canterbury until Phase 8 (c ad 20)105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role106 although how much of this is a result of residuality cannot be ascertained

Struck bronzes are represented at Canterbury by 69 coins These include ten Gaulish coins 159 per cent of the (identified) struck bronze total There are also five Gaulish potins Overall Gaulish coins at Canterbury are 53 per cent above the east Kent mean Haselgrove commented on possible early links with the Continent107 and Fitzpatrickrsquos suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands108 but coastal sites such as Archers Low Farm and East Wear Bay Folkestone may be regarded as more likely initial points of contact Phase 6 coins are also above the east Kent mean In this respect there is some similarity to Archers Low Farm although the deviation from the mean there both for imports and Phase 6 coins is far greater There are 21 struck bronzes of the Kentish Uninscribed Series and an early lsquoChichester Cockrsquo type The frequency of some of the Kentish Uninscribed types at Canterbury in particular VA 154-3 suggests that minting facilities may have been operating at that time

Bronzes of the dynastic period are represented by 31 coins The nine coins of Dubnovellaunos three of Tasciovanus-Sego and ten of Eppillus are typical for an east Kent site However coins of Cunobelin appear to be significantly under-represented only eight coins of Cunobelin have been recorded from Canterbury and four of these are late types otherwise scarce in east

102 Holman 2000103 Haselgrove 1988 117 G Cottam pers comm104 Reece 1987 84105 Haselgrove 1987 145106 Haselgrove 1993 44107 Haselgrove 1987 143108 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

23IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

these are six examples of two uncatalogued but related bronze types known from several other provenances in both Kent and Essex75 A coin of Dubnovellaunos is one of only two silver coins from Goodnestone the other tentatively attributed to Addedomaros by Van Arsdell76 is known from three other provenances in east Kent but a north Thames origin still appears likely on stylistic grounds

Phase 8 coins at Goodnestone are less numerous than those of the Kentish uninscribed Series and Dubnovellaunos Coins of Eppillus are scarcer than expected for east Kent and the ten bronze coins of Cunobelin are represented by only three types all of which have their principal distribution in Kent A quarter-stater of Cunobelin is the only gold coin from Goodnestone and is possibly the latest Iron Age coin from the site although similarly late bronze coins of Amminus are also present Only three Gaulish coins have been recorded just 37 per cent of the site total unusually low for east Kent

The histogram for Goodnestone (fig 9) indicates that the site was established before the end of the first century bc Coins of Phase 6 are the most frequent finds but from then until the Conquest losses steadily decline although remaining above the east Kent mean This decline suggests that the earlier coins at least were largely deposited before the Conquest otherwise it is reasonable to expect that the ratio of Phase 8 coins to those of Phase 6 would be higher Goodnestonersquos nearest parallel among the east Kent sites is Archers Low Farm except for the lack of Gaulish imports which are significantly under-represented at only 45 per cent of the east Kent mean This may be regarded as an expected difference between a probable port site and an inland settlement of uncertain nature seemingly established at around the same time Otherwise both sites have low numbers of potins significant peaks in Phases 6 and 7 and are virtually identical in Phases 8E and 8L The metal types at Goodnestone and Archers Low Farm also have very similar proportions The very high level of struck bronze is indicative of trade and exchange from the latter part of the first century bc The scarcity of Gaulish imports and non-Kentish coinage at Goodnestone suggests that much of the activity here was locally based and that there were no direct links with places further afield A greater number of non-local coins would be expected at a trading centre with wider links such as Canterbury

The state of preservation of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone is generally very poor and ten have not been identified The impression given is that many of these coins had a long circulation life however to add a note of caution late Roman coins of the same type found only a few metres apart at Goodnestone sometimes show a very marked variation in their state of preservation the reason for which is unclear

The adjacent Cherrygarden Lane appears on Ordnance Survey maps as part of a trackway running for several kilometres across the Kentish downland This may well have originated as a main thoroughfare at a very early date A geophysical survey of part of the site revealed the existence of another trackway across the field with probable field boundaries adjoining it The function of the late Iron Age and Roman site at Goodnestone is unclear from the coin evidence alone and is only likely to be clarified by excavation Curteis has discussed a not dissimilar site at Evenley Northamptonshire and suggested either a religious centre andor an occupationaltrading settlement77 A detailed report on Goodnestone incorporating all facets of the site is in preparation78

75 Both types are uninscribed but can be attributed to Dubnovellaunos on stylistic and distributional grounds A Kentish origin for these issues is preferred here particularly in view of the lack of non-Kentish coinage from Goodnestone

76 Van Arsdell 1989 350 (his type VA 1611)77 Curteis 1996 33ndash478 Cross forthcoming

24 DAVID HOLMAN

SITE 8 CANTERBURy (WALLED AREA)

Background

As the Roman civitas capital of Kent and a moderately large town within the province of Britannia Canterbury was an important settlement which has continued to be occupied up to the present day The name by which the settlement was known to the Romans Durovernum Cantiacorum is of Celtic origin translating as lsquothe walled town by the alder swamprsquo79 and perhaps provides an initial clue to a pre-Conquest origin for the site

It has been known since at least the eighteenth century that substantial remains of the Roman town survived below the modern streets During the installation of the sewage system in the 1860s a number of coins were found none was described in detail but some were possibly Iron Age80 In 1871 an Iron Age coin was found in Burgate providing evidence for some type of pre-Conquest occupation in the area However definite remains of late Iron Age settlement were not found until excavations began on bomb-damaged sites in 1946 when work revealed a gully apparently bounding a hut site together with pottery of pre-Conquest date81 Since then a significant number of other sites producing evidence of pre-Roman occupation have been located most notably in the Marlowe car park area situated towards the central part of the Roman walled town where the remains of two circular houses set within a triple-ditched enclosure accompanied by hearths ovens and a well were found82 It now seems that late Iron Age settlement at Canterbury was dispersed across an area of at least 10 ha beside the River Stour fairly certainly focused on a ford but apparently lacking any significant defences The available dating evidence suggests that the later Iron Age settlement began during the mid- to late first century bc although evidence of occupation immediately pre-dating this may still await discovery There is some evidence for early Iron Age settlement in the area

Of particular significance in the context of the later Iron Age settlement is the hillfort of Bigberry Camp located above the Stour valley some 3 km to the west This site represents the only known certain hillfort in eastern Kent Occupation here seems to have begun c 350 bc but the defences do not appear to have been constructed until the second century bc83 The camp appears to have been largely abandoned around 50 bc perhaps as a result of it being stormed by Caesarrsquos troops in 54 bc84 Despite the significant amount of archaeological work at Bigberry no Iron Age coins have been found A few bronze coins have been found at Harbledown 1 km to the north-east Rodwell has previously suggested that the general lack of coinage from the site indicates that it was not of major importance as a permanent settlement85

It is generally accepted that the settlement at Canterbury in some way superseded Bigberry during the mid-first century bc perhaps originating as a river-side trading station of the hillfort86 Blagg has suggested that Canterburyrsquos importance grew after c 15 bc following the establishment of the Rhine frontier87 However there is currently insufficient evidence to show that Canterbury had developed into a major proto-urban centre before the Roman conquest and there appear to have been few changes certainly within the Marlowe area until the Flavian

79 Rivet and Smith 1979 353ndash480 Pilbrow 187181 Frere 1965 682 Blockley et al 199583 Thompson 1983 253ndash9 Blockley and Blockley 1989 245ndash684 Blockley and Blockley 1989 24685 Rodwell 1976 33086 Blockley et al 1995 987 T Blagg in Blockley et al 1995 11

25IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

period88 The Iron Age status of Canterbury has previously been questioned89 and Millett makes the important point that the later Roman development of the site arguably and quite possibly wrongly leads to the perception that the Iron Age settlement was of equal importance90 Nevertheless it is clear from the extent of the known remains the amount of coinage and the quantity of imported fineware pottery including Dressel I amphorae that the settlement here was of some importance The evidence for this as provided by the Iron Age coinage is further considered below

The coinage

By the end of 2003 a total of 163 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) had been recorded from within the area of the later Roman walled town mainly in the area of Longmarket Rose Lane St Margarets Street Watling Street and Beer Cart Lane Significantly fewer Iron Age coins have been found during the recent Whitefriars excavations immediately to the east perhaps indicating the eastern limits of the Iron Age settlement although development pressures meant that only limited excavation of the earliest layers was possible The most important point about these coins is that they have virtually all been found during archaeological excavations Canterbury is the only site considered in this paper which has subsequently been built over in its entirety but it is also the only site with the exception of Richborough that has seen archaeological excavation on a large scale Canterbury is the only major late Iron Age site in east Kent with large numbers of broadly contemporary stratified coin finds This is of considerable importance not only for understanding the origins of the city but also for the study of the circulation deposition and dating of Iron Age coinage in the region as a whole A basic relative chronology for other sites in east Kent can be constructed by considering the numismatic evidence from Canterbury for example the realisation that potin coins predate the struck bronzes which themselves evolved from native-inspired designs into more Romanised types

Archaeological contexts can be questioned if later activity has occurred on the site leading to the inevitable disturbance of earlier features The result is a tendency to date items later than should be the case91 A significant number of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury have been found in post-Conquest deposits and Haselgrove regarded these as a mixture of residual coins disturbed by Roman activity as one would expect in an urban context and coins continuing in use until the mid-first century ad92 Nash considered that the potin coins from the Marlowe excavations were circulating until the later first century ad but appeared to make insufficient concession to residuality93 Some Iron Age coins have been found in medieval and later deposits having clearly arrived there as a result of earlier levels being disturbed During the early Roman period disturbance of the underlying Iron Age deposits would have been much more frequent and therefore more coins would have been displaced It cannot be conclusively shown that the Iron Age coins at Canterbury circulated for any length of time after the Conquest although it is reasonable to suppose that some may have continued to circulate for a few years before being fully supplanted by the new Roman coinage94 The problems caused by residuality have also been discussed by Arthur in relation to the late Republican amphorae from the excavations95

88 Blockley et al 1995 1289 Blockley et al 1995 990 Millett 1996 342ndash391 Haselgrove 1988 103ndash592 Haselgrove 1987 14193 D Nash in Blockley et al 1995 92394 eg Nash 1987 36ndash895 Arthur 1986 240

26 DAVID HOLMAN

Potins account for 479 per cent of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury (fig 10) The near absence of Kentish Primary potins is significant because this implies that they had largely ceased to circulate before Canterbury was established Only two of these coins have been recorded both from post-Conquest contexts and these were previously wrongly identified as a cut-down bronze of Massalia and a Central Gaulish lsquotecircte diaboliquersquo potin96 Given that Kentish Primary potins are the commonest type of Iron Age coin in east Kent it is reasonable to assume that many more would have been found at Canterbury had they still been in circulation in the last 50ndash75 years before the Conquest The possibility remains that the initial nucleus of the settlement may have been situated elsewhere97 but the current evidence supports Haselgroversquos view that early potins had mostly ceased to circulate by the early first century ad98 indeed a date before the turn of the century may now be preferred In France the temple sites at Champlieu and Chilly also provide evidence that potins had virtually disappeared from circulation by the first century ad99

An early cessation date for the circulation of the earlier Flat Linear I potins particularly Allen Classes AndashD can also be surmised from the Canterbury evidence The 21 Flat Linear I potins all belong to Allen Classes jndashL ie late in the series probably dating to around the middle of the first century bc Some of these were deliberately cut100 a feature rarely seen elsewhere although a cut Class L coin has been recorded from the Worth Temple site Elsewhere in east Kent the earlier types form a significant component of the Flat Linear I potins and their absence at Canterbury again suggests that if any settlement existed on the site in the early first century bc it is likely to have been of little importance Haselgrove noted that earlier Flat Linear I types are present at Rochester suggesting that Rochester was a site of some importance at an earlier date than Canterbury101 This may well still hold true for the relative chronology of the earliest phases at Canterbury and Rochester but it now seems likely that Kentish coinage began in the

96 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15397 Blockley et al 1995 898 Haselgrove 1987 15899 Allen 1995 51100 Haselgrove 1988 118101 Haselgrove 1987 151

fig 10a Canterbury (walled area) coins from site ()fig 10b Canterbury (walled area) set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

27IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

east of the county102 and a later commencement date for Canterbury need have no particular relevance in any discussion on Rochester located some 43 km to the north-west

Flat Linear II potins are represented by 50 surviving specimens 307 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (321 per cent of the identified coins) Compared with their general scarcity elsewhere in east Kent with the exception of East Wear Bay Folkestone (see below Site 9) with which some sort of link may have existed this is exceptional a fact well illustrated by fig 10 which shows that the proportion of these coins at Canterbury is more than ten times the mean for the rest of east Kent Recent research on Flat Linear II potins based on hoard evidence and individual findspots is leaning increasingly towards an origin in the region immediately north of London rather than Kent at least for certain classes103 In this case the appearance of so many of these coins at Canterbury cannot be easily explained They passed into the local circulation pool at a much lower rate than other coin types and the scarcity of these coins around Canterbury suggests that their principal purpose may have been related to a specific activity or commodity the nature of which is unknown Alternatively there was a sudden and significant but short-lived increase in activity at Canterbury (and Folkestone) which may again have had a specific cause Either way there must have been a fairly high degree of control to restrict their circulation in this manner A comparison may perhaps be made with the exceptionally high number of Roman coins of the period ad 388ndash402 found at Richborough which is not reflected elsewhere in east Kent and which must represent an event specific to that site in the local record although the contents of several hoards at the site account for a not insignificant proportion of these late coins104 It seems likely that the Flat Linear II potins were used in Canterbury as a low-value coinage as the appearance of so many high-value coins in a non-hoard context would be difficult to explain There may perhaps have been a reliance on these coins to sustain the Canterbury circulation pool for small-scale transactions Haselgrove noted that potins were the commonest issues circulating in Canterbury until Phase 8 (c ad 20)105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role106 although how much of this is a result of residuality cannot be ascertained

Struck bronzes are represented at Canterbury by 69 coins These include ten Gaulish coins 159 per cent of the (identified) struck bronze total There are also five Gaulish potins Overall Gaulish coins at Canterbury are 53 per cent above the east Kent mean Haselgrove commented on possible early links with the Continent107 and Fitzpatrickrsquos suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands108 but coastal sites such as Archers Low Farm and East Wear Bay Folkestone may be regarded as more likely initial points of contact Phase 6 coins are also above the east Kent mean In this respect there is some similarity to Archers Low Farm although the deviation from the mean there both for imports and Phase 6 coins is far greater There are 21 struck bronzes of the Kentish Uninscribed Series and an early lsquoChichester Cockrsquo type The frequency of some of the Kentish Uninscribed types at Canterbury in particular VA 154-3 suggests that minting facilities may have been operating at that time

Bronzes of the dynastic period are represented by 31 coins The nine coins of Dubnovellaunos three of Tasciovanus-Sego and ten of Eppillus are typical for an east Kent site However coins of Cunobelin appear to be significantly under-represented only eight coins of Cunobelin have been recorded from Canterbury and four of these are late types otherwise scarce in east

102 Holman 2000103 Haselgrove 1988 117 G Cottam pers comm104 Reece 1987 84105 Haselgrove 1987 145106 Haselgrove 1993 44107 Haselgrove 1987 143108 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

24 DAVID HOLMAN

SITE 8 CANTERBURy (WALLED AREA)

Background

As the Roman civitas capital of Kent and a moderately large town within the province of Britannia Canterbury was an important settlement which has continued to be occupied up to the present day The name by which the settlement was known to the Romans Durovernum Cantiacorum is of Celtic origin translating as lsquothe walled town by the alder swamprsquo79 and perhaps provides an initial clue to a pre-Conquest origin for the site

It has been known since at least the eighteenth century that substantial remains of the Roman town survived below the modern streets During the installation of the sewage system in the 1860s a number of coins were found none was described in detail but some were possibly Iron Age80 In 1871 an Iron Age coin was found in Burgate providing evidence for some type of pre-Conquest occupation in the area However definite remains of late Iron Age settlement were not found until excavations began on bomb-damaged sites in 1946 when work revealed a gully apparently bounding a hut site together with pottery of pre-Conquest date81 Since then a significant number of other sites producing evidence of pre-Roman occupation have been located most notably in the Marlowe car park area situated towards the central part of the Roman walled town where the remains of two circular houses set within a triple-ditched enclosure accompanied by hearths ovens and a well were found82 It now seems that late Iron Age settlement at Canterbury was dispersed across an area of at least 10 ha beside the River Stour fairly certainly focused on a ford but apparently lacking any significant defences The available dating evidence suggests that the later Iron Age settlement began during the mid- to late first century bc although evidence of occupation immediately pre-dating this may still await discovery There is some evidence for early Iron Age settlement in the area

Of particular significance in the context of the later Iron Age settlement is the hillfort of Bigberry Camp located above the Stour valley some 3 km to the west This site represents the only known certain hillfort in eastern Kent Occupation here seems to have begun c 350 bc but the defences do not appear to have been constructed until the second century bc83 The camp appears to have been largely abandoned around 50 bc perhaps as a result of it being stormed by Caesarrsquos troops in 54 bc84 Despite the significant amount of archaeological work at Bigberry no Iron Age coins have been found A few bronze coins have been found at Harbledown 1 km to the north-east Rodwell has previously suggested that the general lack of coinage from the site indicates that it was not of major importance as a permanent settlement85

It is generally accepted that the settlement at Canterbury in some way superseded Bigberry during the mid-first century bc perhaps originating as a river-side trading station of the hillfort86 Blagg has suggested that Canterburyrsquos importance grew after c 15 bc following the establishment of the Rhine frontier87 However there is currently insufficient evidence to show that Canterbury had developed into a major proto-urban centre before the Roman conquest and there appear to have been few changes certainly within the Marlowe area until the Flavian

79 Rivet and Smith 1979 353ndash480 Pilbrow 187181 Frere 1965 682 Blockley et al 199583 Thompson 1983 253ndash9 Blockley and Blockley 1989 245ndash684 Blockley and Blockley 1989 24685 Rodwell 1976 33086 Blockley et al 1995 987 T Blagg in Blockley et al 1995 11

25IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

period88 The Iron Age status of Canterbury has previously been questioned89 and Millett makes the important point that the later Roman development of the site arguably and quite possibly wrongly leads to the perception that the Iron Age settlement was of equal importance90 Nevertheless it is clear from the extent of the known remains the amount of coinage and the quantity of imported fineware pottery including Dressel I amphorae that the settlement here was of some importance The evidence for this as provided by the Iron Age coinage is further considered below

The coinage

By the end of 2003 a total of 163 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) had been recorded from within the area of the later Roman walled town mainly in the area of Longmarket Rose Lane St Margarets Street Watling Street and Beer Cart Lane Significantly fewer Iron Age coins have been found during the recent Whitefriars excavations immediately to the east perhaps indicating the eastern limits of the Iron Age settlement although development pressures meant that only limited excavation of the earliest layers was possible The most important point about these coins is that they have virtually all been found during archaeological excavations Canterbury is the only site considered in this paper which has subsequently been built over in its entirety but it is also the only site with the exception of Richborough that has seen archaeological excavation on a large scale Canterbury is the only major late Iron Age site in east Kent with large numbers of broadly contemporary stratified coin finds This is of considerable importance not only for understanding the origins of the city but also for the study of the circulation deposition and dating of Iron Age coinage in the region as a whole A basic relative chronology for other sites in east Kent can be constructed by considering the numismatic evidence from Canterbury for example the realisation that potin coins predate the struck bronzes which themselves evolved from native-inspired designs into more Romanised types

Archaeological contexts can be questioned if later activity has occurred on the site leading to the inevitable disturbance of earlier features The result is a tendency to date items later than should be the case91 A significant number of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury have been found in post-Conquest deposits and Haselgrove regarded these as a mixture of residual coins disturbed by Roman activity as one would expect in an urban context and coins continuing in use until the mid-first century ad92 Nash considered that the potin coins from the Marlowe excavations were circulating until the later first century ad but appeared to make insufficient concession to residuality93 Some Iron Age coins have been found in medieval and later deposits having clearly arrived there as a result of earlier levels being disturbed During the early Roman period disturbance of the underlying Iron Age deposits would have been much more frequent and therefore more coins would have been displaced It cannot be conclusively shown that the Iron Age coins at Canterbury circulated for any length of time after the Conquest although it is reasonable to suppose that some may have continued to circulate for a few years before being fully supplanted by the new Roman coinage94 The problems caused by residuality have also been discussed by Arthur in relation to the late Republican amphorae from the excavations95

88 Blockley et al 1995 1289 Blockley et al 1995 990 Millett 1996 342ndash391 Haselgrove 1988 103ndash592 Haselgrove 1987 14193 D Nash in Blockley et al 1995 92394 eg Nash 1987 36ndash895 Arthur 1986 240

26 DAVID HOLMAN

Potins account for 479 per cent of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury (fig 10) The near absence of Kentish Primary potins is significant because this implies that they had largely ceased to circulate before Canterbury was established Only two of these coins have been recorded both from post-Conquest contexts and these were previously wrongly identified as a cut-down bronze of Massalia and a Central Gaulish lsquotecircte diaboliquersquo potin96 Given that Kentish Primary potins are the commonest type of Iron Age coin in east Kent it is reasonable to assume that many more would have been found at Canterbury had they still been in circulation in the last 50ndash75 years before the Conquest The possibility remains that the initial nucleus of the settlement may have been situated elsewhere97 but the current evidence supports Haselgroversquos view that early potins had mostly ceased to circulate by the early first century ad98 indeed a date before the turn of the century may now be preferred In France the temple sites at Champlieu and Chilly also provide evidence that potins had virtually disappeared from circulation by the first century ad99

An early cessation date for the circulation of the earlier Flat Linear I potins particularly Allen Classes AndashD can also be surmised from the Canterbury evidence The 21 Flat Linear I potins all belong to Allen Classes jndashL ie late in the series probably dating to around the middle of the first century bc Some of these were deliberately cut100 a feature rarely seen elsewhere although a cut Class L coin has been recorded from the Worth Temple site Elsewhere in east Kent the earlier types form a significant component of the Flat Linear I potins and their absence at Canterbury again suggests that if any settlement existed on the site in the early first century bc it is likely to have been of little importance Haselgrove noted that earlier Flat Linear I types are present at Rochester suggesting that Rochester was a site of some importance at an earlier date than Canterbury101 This may well still hold true for the relative chronology of the earliest phases at Canterbury and Rochester but it now seems likely that Kentish coinage began in the

96 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15397 Blockley et al 1995 898 Haselgrove 1987 15899 Allen 1995 51100 Haselgrove 1988 118101 Haselgrove 1987 151

fig 10a Canterbury (walled area) coins from site ()fig 10b Canterbury (walled area) set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

27IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

east of the county102 and a later commencement date for Canterbury need have no particular relevance in any discussion on Rochester located some 43 km to the north-west

Flat Linear II potins are represented by 50 surviving specimens 307 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (321 per cent of the identified coins) Compared with their general scarcity elsewhere in east Kent with the exception of East Wear Bay Folkestone (see below Site 9) with which some sort of link may have existed this is exceptional a fact well illustrated by fig 10 which shows that the proportion of these coins at Canterbury is more than ten times the mean for the rest of east Kent Recent research on Flat Linear II potins based on hoard evidence and individual findspots is leaning increasingly towards an origin in the region immediately north of London rather than Kent at least for certain classes103 In this case the appearance of so many of these coins at Canterbury cannot be easily explained They passed into the local circulation pool at a much lower rate than other coin types and the scarcity of these coins around Canterbury suggests that their principal purpose may have been related to a specific activity or commodity the nature of which is unknown Alternatively there was a sudden and significant but short-lived increase in activity at Canterbury (and Folkestone) which may again have had a specific cause Either way there must have been a fairly high degree of control to restrict their circulation in this manner A comparison may perhaps be made with the exceptionally high number of Roman coins of the period ad 388ndash402 found at Richborough which is not reflected elsewhere in east Kent and which must represent an event specific to that site in the local record although the contents of several hoards at the site account for a not insignificant proportion of these late coins104 It seems likely that the Flat Linear II potins were used in Canterbury as a low-value coinage as the appearance of so many high-value coins in a non-hoard context would be difficult to explain There may perhaps have been a reliance on these coins to sustain the Canterbury circulation pool for small-scale transactions Haselgrove noted that potins were the commonest issues circulating in Canterbury until Phase 8 (c ad 20)105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role106 although how much of this is a result of residuality cannot be ascertained

Struck bronzes are represented at Canterbury by 69 coins These include ten Gaulish coins 159 per cent of the (identified) struck bronze total There are also five Gaulish potins Overall Gaulish coins at Canterbury are 53 per cent above the east Kent mean Haselgrove commented on possible early links with the Continent107 and Fitzpatrickrsquos suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands108 but coastal sites such as Archers Low Farm and East Wear Bay Folkestone may be regarded as more likely initial points of contact Phase 6 coins are also above the east Kent mean In this respect there is some similarity to Archers Low Farm although the deviation from the mean there both for imports and Phase 6 coins is far greater There are 21 struck bronzes of the Kentish Uninscribed Series and an early lsquoChichester Cockrsquo type The frequency of some of the Kentish Uninscribed types at Canterbury in particular VA 154-3 suggests that minting facilities may have been operating at that time

Bronzes of the dynastic period are represented by 31 coins The nine coins of Dubnovellaunos three of Tasciovanus-Sego and ten of Eppillus are typical for an east Kent site However coins of Cunobelin appear to be significantly under-represented only eight coins of Cunobelin have been recorded from Canterbury and four of these are late types otherwise scarce in east

102 Holman 2000103 Haselgrove 1988 117 G Cottam pers comm104 Reece 1987 84105 Haselgrove 1987 145106 Haselgrove 1993 44107 Haselgrove 1987 143108 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

25IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

period88 The Iron Age status of Canterbury has previously been questioned89 and Millett makes the important point that the later Roman development of the site arguably and quite possibly wrongly leads to the perception that the Iron Age settlement was of equal importance90 Nevertheless it is clear from the extent of the known remains the amount of coinage and the quantity of imported fineware pottery including Dressel I amphorae that the settlement here was of some importance The evidence for this as provided by the Iron Age coinage is further considered below

The coinage

By the end of 2003 a total of 163 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) had been recorded from within the area of the later Roman walled town mainly in the area of Longmarket Rose Lane St Margarets Street Watling Street and Beer Cart Lane Significantly fewer Iron Age coins have been found during the recent Whitefriars excavations immediately to the east perhaps indicating the eastern limits of the Iron Age settlement although development pressures meant that only limited excavation of the earliest layers was possible The most important point about these coins is that they have virtually all been found during archaeological excavations Canterbury is the only site considered in this paper which has subsequently been built over in its entirety but it is also the only site with the exception of Richborough that has seen archaeological excavation on a large scale Canterbury is the only major late Iron Age site in east Kent with large numbers of broadly contemporary stratified coin finds This is of considerable importance not only for understanding the origins of the city but also for the study of the circulation deposition and dating of Iron Age coinage in the region as a whole A basic relative chronology for other sites in east Kent can be constructed by considering the numismatic evidence from Canterbury for example the realisation that potin coins predate the struck bronzes which themselves evolved from native-inspired designs into more Romanised types

Archaeological contexts can be questioned if later activity has occurred on the site leading to the inevitable disturbance of earlier features The result is a tendency to date items later than should be the case91 A significant number of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury have been found in post-Conquest deposits and Haselgrove regarded these as a mixture of residual coins disturbed by Roman activity as one would expect in an urban context and coins continuing in use until the mid-first century ad92 Nash considered that the potin coins from the Marlowe excavations were circulating until the later first century ad but appeared to make insufficient concession to residuality93 Some Iron Age coins have been found in medieval and later deposits having clearly arrived there as a result of earlier levels being disturbed During the early Roman period disturbance of the underlying Iron Age deposits would have been much more frequent and therefore more coins would have been displaced It cannot be conclusively shown that the Iron Age coins at Canterbury circulated for any length of time after the Conquest although it is reasonable to suppose that some may have continued to circulate for a few years before being fully supplanted by the new Roman coinage94 The problems caused by residuality have also been discussed by Arthur in relation to the late Republican amphorae from the excavations95

88 Blockley et al 1995 1289 Blockley et al 1995 990 Millett 1996 342ndash391 Haselgrove 1988 103ndash592 Haselgrove 1987 14193 D Nash in Blockley et al 1995 92394 eg Nash 1987 36ndash895 Arthur 1986 240

26 DAVID HOLMAN

Potins account for 479 per cent of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury (fig 10) The near absence of Kentish Primary potins is significant because this implies that they had largely ceased to circulate before Canterbury was established Only two of these coins have been recorded both from post-Conquest contexts and these were previously wrongly identified as a cut-down bronze of Massalia and a Central Gaulish lsquotecircte diaboliquersquo potin96 Given that Kentish Primary potins are the commonest type of Iron Age coin in east Kent it is reasonable to assume that many more would have been found at Canterbury had they still been in circulation in the last 50ndash75 years before the Conquest The possibility remains that the initial nucleus of the settlement may have been situated elsewhere97 but the current evidence supports Haselgroversquos view that early potins had mostly ceased to circulate by the early first century ad98 indeed a date before the turn of the century may now be preferred In France the temple sites at Champlieu and Chilly also provide evidence that potins had virtually disappeared from circulation by the first century ad99

An early cessation date for the circulation of the earlier Flat Linear I potins particularly Allen Classes AndashD can also be surmised from the Canterbury evidence The 21 Flat Linear I potins all belong to Allen Classes jndashL ie late in the series probably dating to around the middle of the first century bc Some of these were deliberately cut100 a feature rarely seen elsewhere although a cut Class L coin has been recorded from the Worth Temple site Elsewhere in east Kent the earlier types form a significant component of the Flat Linear I potins and their absence at Canterbury again suggests that if any settlement existed on the site in the early first century bc it is likely to have been of little importance Haselgrove noted that earlier Flat Linear I types are present at Rochester suggesting that Rochester was a site of some importance at an earlier date than Canterbury101 This may well still hold true for the relative chronology of the earliest phases at Canterbury and Rochester but it now seems likely that Kentish coinage began in the

96 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15397 Blockley et al 1995 898 Haselgrove 1987 15899 Allen 1995 51100 Haselgrove 1988 118101 Haselgrove 1987 151

fig 10a Canterbury (walled area) coins from site ()fig 10b Canterbury (walled area) set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

27IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

east of the county102 and a later commencement date for Canterbury need have no particular relevance in any discussion on Rochester located some 43 km to the north-west

Flat Linear II potins are represented by 50 surviving specimens 307 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (321 per cent of the identified coins) Compared with their general scarcity elsewhere in east Kent with the exception of East Wear Bay Folkestone (see below Site 9) with which some sort of link may have existed this is exceptional a fact well illustrated by fig 10 which shows that the proportion of these coins at Canterbury is more than ten times the mean for the rest of east Kent Recent research on Flat Linear II potins based on hoard evidence and individual findspots is leaning increasingly towards an origin in the region immediately north of London rather than Kent at least for certain classes103 In this case the appearance of so many of these coins at Canterbury cannot be easily explained They passed into the local circulation pool at a much lower rate than other coin types and the scarcity of these coins around Canterbury suggests that their principal purpose may have been related to a specific activity or commodity the nature of which is unknown Alternatively there was a sudden and significant but short-lived increase in activity at Canterbury (and Folkestone) which may again have had a specific cause Either way there must have been a fairly high degree of control to restrict their circulation in this manner A comparison may perhaps be made with the exceptionally high number of Roman coins of the period ad 388ndash402 found at Richborough which is not reflected elsewhere in east Kent and which must represent an event specific to that site in the local record although the contents of several hoards at the site account for a not insignificant proportion of these late coins104 It seems likely that the Flat Linear II potins were used in Canterbury as a low-value coinage as the appearance of so many high-value coins in a non-hoard context would be difficult to explain There may perhaps have been a reliance on these coins to sustain the Canterbury circulation pool for small-scale transactions Haselgrove noted that potins were the commonest issues circulating in Canterbury until Phase 8 (c ad 20)105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role106 although how much of this is a result of residuality cannot be ascertained

Struck bronzes are represented at Canterbury by 69 coins These include ten Gaulish coins 159 per cent of the (identified) struck bronze total There are also five Gaulish potins Overall Gaulish coins at Canterbury are 53 per cent above the east Kent mean Haselgrove commented on possible early links with the Continent107 and Fitzpatrickrsquos suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands108 but coastal sites such as Archers Low Farm and East Wear Bay Folkestone may be regarded as more likely initial points of contact Phase 6 coins are also above the east Kent mean In this respect there is some similarity to Archers Low Farm although the deviation from the mean there both for imports and Phase 6 coins is far greater There are 21 struck bronzes of the Kentish Uninscribed Series and an early lsquoChichester Cockrsquo type The frequency of some of the Kentish Uninscribed types at Canterbury in particular VA 154-3 suggests that minting facilities may have been operating at that time

Bronzes of the dynastic period are represented by 31 coins The nine coins of Dubnovellaunos three of Tasciovanus-Sego and ten of Eppillus are typical for an east Kent site However coins of Cunobelin appear to be significantly under-represented only eight coins of Cunobelin have been recorded from Canterbury and four of these are late types otherwise scarce in east

102 Holman 2000103 Haselgrove 1988 117 G Cottam pers comm104 Reece 1987 84105 Haselgrove 1987 145106 Haselgrove 1993 44107 Haselgrove 1987 143108 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

26 DAVID HOLMAN

Potins account for 479 per cent of the Iron Age coins from Canterbury (fig 10) The near absence of Kentish Primary potins is significant because this implies that they had largely ceased to circulate before Canterbury was established Only two of these coins have been recorded both from post-Conquest contexts and these were previously wrongly identified as a cut-down bronze of Massalia and a Central Gaulish lsquotecircte diaboliquersquo potin96 Given that Kentish Primary potins are the commonest type of Iron Age coin in east Kent it is reasonable to assume that many more would have been found at Canterbury had they still been in circulation in the last 50ndash75 years before the Conquest The possibility remains that the initial nucleus of the settlement may have been situated elsewhere97 but the current evidence supports Haselgroversquos view that early potins had mostly ceased to circulate by the early first century ad98 indeed a date before the turn of the century may now be preferred In France the temple sites at Champlieu and Chilly also provide evidence that potins had virtually disappeared from circulation by the first century ad99

An early cessation date for the circulation of the earlier Flat Linear I potins particularly Allen Classes AndashD can also be surmised from the Canterbury evidence The 21 Flat Linear I potins all belong to Allen Classes jndashL ie late in the series probably dating to around the middle of the first century bc Some of these were deliberately cut100 a feature rarely seen elsewhere although a cut Class L coin has been recorded from the Worth Temple site Elsewhere in east Kent the earlier types form a significant component of the Flat Linear I potins and their absence at Canterbury again suggests that if any settlement existed on the site in the early first century bc it is likely to have been of little importance Haselgrove noted that earlier Flat Linear I types are present at Rochester suggesting that Rochester was a site of some importance at an earlier date than Canterbury101 This may well still hold true for the relative chronology of the earliest phases at Canterbury and Rochester but it now seems likely that Kentish coinage began in the

96 Allen 1960 281 Haselgrove 1984 15397 Blockley et al 1995 898 Haselgrove 1987 15899 Allen 1995 51100 Haselgrove 1988 118101 Haselgrove 1987 151

fig 10a Canterbury (walled area) coins from site ()fig 10b Canterbury (walled area) set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

27IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

east of the county102 and a later commencement date for Canterbury need have no particular relevance in any discussion on Rochester located some 43 km to the north-west

Flat Linear II potins are represented by 50 surviving specimens 307 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (321 per cent of the identified coins) Compared with their general scarcity elsewhere in east Kent with the exception of East Wear Bay Folkestone (see below Site 9) with which some sort of link may have existed this is exceptional a fact well illustrated by fig 10 which shows that the proportion of these coins at Canterbury is more than ten times the mean for the rest of east Kent Recent research on Flat Linear II potins based on hoard evidence and individual findspots is leaning increasingly towards an origin in the region immediately north of London rather than Kent at least for certain classes103 In this case the appearance of so many of these coins at Canterbury cannot be easily explained They passed into the local circulation pool at a much lower rate than other coin types and the scarcity of these coins around Canterbury suggests that their principal purpose may have been related to a specific activity or commodity the nature of which is unknown Alternatively there was a sudden and significant but short-lived increase in activity at Canterbury (and Folkestone) which may again have had a specific cause Either way there must have been a fairly high degree of control to restrict their circulation in this manner A comparison may perhaps be made with the exceptionally high number of Roman coins of the period ad 388ndash402 found at Richborough which is not reflected elsewhere in east Kent and which must represent an event specific to that site in the local record although the contents of several hoards at the site account for a not insignificant proportion of these late coins104 It seems likely that the Flat Linear II potins were used in Canterbury as a low-value coinage as the appearance of so many high-value coins in a non-hoard context would be difficult to explain There may perhaps have been a reliance on these coins to sustain the Canterbury circulation pool for small-scale transactions Haselgrove noted that potins were the commonest issues circulating in Canterbury until Phase 8 (c ad 20)105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role106 although how much of this is a result of residuality cannot be ascertained

Struck bronzes are represented at Canterbury by 69 coins These include ten Gaulish coins 159 per cent of the (identified) struck bronze total There are also five Gaulish potins Overall Gaulish coins at Canterbury are 53 per cent above the east Kent mean Haselgrove commented on possible early links with the Continent107 and Fitzpatrickrsquos suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands108 but coastal sites such as Archers Low Farm and East Wear Bay Folkestone may be regarded as more likely initial points of contact Phase 6 coins are also above the east Kent mean In this respect there is some similarity to Archers Low Farm although the deviation from the mean there both for imports and Phase 6 coins is far greater There are 21 struck bronzes of the Kentish Uninscribed Series and an early lsquoChichester Cockrsquo type The frequency of some of the Kentish Uninscribed types at Canterbury in particular VA 154-3 suggests that minting facilities may have been operating at that time

Bronzes of the dynastic period are represented by 31 coins The nine coins of Dubnovellaunos three of Tasciovanus-Sego and ten of Eppillus are typical for an east Kent site However coins of Cunobelin appear to be significantly under-represented only eight coins of Cunobelin have been recorded from Canterbury and four of these are late types otherwise scarce in east

102 Holman 2000103 Haselgrove 1988 117 G Cottam pers comm104 Reece 1987 84105 Haselgrove 1987 145106 Haselgrove 1993 44107 Haselgrove 1987 143108 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

27IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

east of the county102 and a later commencement date for Canterbury need have no particular relevance in any discussion on Rochester located some 43 km to the north-west

Flat Linear II potins are represented by 50 surviving specimens 307 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (321 per cent of the identified coins) Compared with their general scarcity elsewhere in east Kent with the exception of East Wear Bay Folkestone (see below Site 9) with which some sort of link may have existed this is exceptional a fact well illustrated by fig 10 which shows that the proportion of these coins at Canterbury is more than ten times the mean for the rest of east Kent Recent research on Flat Linear II potins based on hoard evidence and individual findspots is leaning increasingly towards an origin in the region immediately north of London rather than Kent at least for certain classes103 In this case the appearance of so many of these coins at Canterbury cannot be easily explained They passed into the local circulation pool at a much lower rate than other coin types and the scarcity of these coins around Canterbury suggests that their principal purpose may have been related to a specific activity or commodity the nature of which is unknown Alternatively there was a sudden and significant but short-lived increase in activity at Canterbury (and Folkestone) which may again have had a specific cause Either way there must have been a fairly high degree of control to restrict their circulation in this manner A comparison may perhaps be made with the exceptionally high number of Roman coins of the period ad 388ndash402 found at Richborough which is not reflected elsewhere in east Kent and which must represent an event specific to that site in the local record although the contents of several hoards at the site account for a not insignificant proportion of these late coins104 It seems likely that the Flat Linear II potins were used in Canterbury as a low-value coinage as the appearance of so many high-value coins in a non-hoard context would be difficult to explain There may perhaps have been a reliance on these coins to sustain the Canterbury circulation pool for small-scale transactions Haselgrove noted that potins were the commonest issues circulating in Canterbury until Phase 8 (c ad 20)105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role106 although how much of this is a result of residuality cannot be ascertained

Struck bronzes are represented at Canterbury by 69 coins These include ten Gaulish coins 159 per cent of the (identified) struck bronze total There are also five Gaulish potins Overall Gaulish coins at Canterbury are 53 per cent above the east Kent mean Haselgrove commented on possible early links with the Continent107 and Fitzpatrickrsquos suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands108 but coastal sites such as Archers Low Farm and East Wear Bay Folkestone may be regarded as more likely initial points of contact Phase 6 coins are also above the east Kent mean In this respect there is some similarity to Archers Low Farm although the deviation from the mean there both for imports and Phase 6 coins is far greater There are 21 struck bronzes of the Kentish Uninscribed Series and an early lsquoChichester Cockrsquo type The frequency of some of the Kentish Uninscribed types at Canterbury in particular VA 154-3 suggests that minting facilities may have been operating at that time

Bronzes of the dynastic period are represented by 31 coins The nine coins of Dubnovellaunos three of Tasciovanus-Sego and ten of Eppillus are typical for an east Kent site However coins of Cunobelin appear to be significantly under-represented only eight coins of Cunobelin have been recorded from Canterbury and four of these are late types otherwise scarce in east

102 Holman 2000103 Haselgrove 1988 117 G Cottam pers comm104 Reece 1987 84105 Haselgrove 1987 145106 Haselgrove 1993 44107 Haselgrove 1987 143108 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

28 DAVID HOLMAN

Kent The high ratio of late to early types differs from the rest of the region where early types form the largest component of Cunobelinrsquos coinage Even including the slightly earlier coins of Eppillus coins of Phase 8E are 22 per cent below the east Kent mean not what might be expected if the settlement was expanding This might be no more than statistical chance but it might also suggest that the proposed east Kent mint of Cunobelin (see below) was not located at Canterbury Haselgrove also noted the low incidence of coins of Cunobelin and attributed this to a decline in the importance of Canterbury109 a view which is now supported by other finds from east Kent however reduced coin supply and near cessation of regional minting do not appear to be the principal reasons for this since such factors would also have affected sites such as Worth Temple where Phase 8E coins are plentiful Perhaps significantly Canterbury also displays an apparent hiatus in the amphora supply at around the same time and no contemporary brooches have yet been found110 Conversely fineware imports seem to indicate continuing trade activity This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence

Analysis of the coin metal types shows that silver and bronze are both slightly further above the east Kent mean than potin although the differences are small The thirteen silver coins from Canterbury are of considerable interest as they include several unusual types and a relatively high number of contemporary plated forgeries and debased pieces The coin of Vosenos (VA 186) is known from only one other specimen The two uncatalogued silver coins tentatively attributed to the Sussex coast region are notable as such coins are rarely found in Kent The three Gaulish coins are all either forgeries or very debased There are also two types of fractional unit (minim) one of which (uS3) is apparently unique and appears to be a Phase 6 issue The other (NS1) although rare is known from several other specimens mostly found in Kent although uninscribed it is likely to date to the early first century ad (Phase 8E) This denomination is more usually associated with the West SussexHampshire region but neither of the above coins stylistically appears to belong to any of the series produced in that region and it seems likely that they are Kentish types A silver coin of Eppillusrsquo Atrebatic series from Canterbury is the only minim of that series recorded from Kent

Of the three gold coins known from within the walled area only one is not a contemporary forgery although two further mid-first-century bc gold coins have been found nearby There is also a nineteenth-century record of a North Thames stater of Dubnovellaunos The general lack of gold coins from the major sites of east Kent is notable and it may be that these high-value coins were of limited use in a trading centre or in a day-to-day context It may also be significant that the distribution of gold in Kent is different to that of other metals (see below)

There is a further small group of coins from the west bank of the river at Whitehall Road beyond the walled area111 These have been included in the east Kent statistics owing to the likelihood of this area being related to the settlement on the east bank Interestingly despite there being only four coins these include two examples of the common bronze Cunobelin type VA 1973-1 only one less than the total of this type from the walled area112 A few other isolated extramural finds have been made at St Augustines Ingoldsby Road and Broad Street the latter only just outside the city walls There is also a small number of coins provenanced only to lsquoCanterburyrsquo

There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age

109 Haselgrove 1987 145110 Blockley et al 1995 11111 Frere et al 1987 45ndash54112 There is also an example of the very rare silver minim VA 154-13 until recently believed to be a struck bronze

type The style of this coin suggests that it is later than the Kentish uninscribed Series to which it has been ascribed by Van Arsdell (1989 97) and it is here regarded as a Phase 8E type possibly of Eppillus The obverse design suggests that it may be related to the silver minim type NS1

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

29IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

although architectural fragments found during the Cakebread Robey excavations113 hint at the existence of a major Roman classical-style temple here which may or may not have had Iron Age antecedents114 The 18 Iron Age coins from Cakebread Robey are chronologically very mixed More than half are struck bronzes and the remainder are potins except for a plated stater of Cunobelin However there is no such thing as a standard coin distribution for a temple site or indeed any other class of site and these coins offer no firm evidence either way The 15 coins from the adjacent Blue Boy yard site show a completely different distribution and those from the nearby Marlowe excavations are different again These variations may be the result of chronological shifts as much as functional differences and the existence of an Iron Age temple must remain only an hypothesis at present As noted by Haselgrove the area around the Marlowe site has the earliest coin distribution within Canterbury with a higher percentage of potins than elsewhere and this was probably the primary focus of the new settlement115 Cakebread Robey has fewer potins and Blue Boy yard none

Part of a clay mould bearing small circular depressions containing traces of copper was found during the Marlowe excavations This type of mould has been found elsewhere in Britain on late Iron Age sites and is generally regarded as having been used for the production of coin blank pellets Evidence from Old Sleaford where large numbers of these moulds were found suggests that they were indeed used for this purpose116 but they may also have been used for other purposes Both Bayley and Nash state that the pellets produced from these moulds were not necessarily used for coin production117 The existence of an Iron Age mint here must at present remain open to question and the clay mould does not provide a definitive answer Allen noted that coin moulds are known from open settlements as well as oppida in Gaul so the size and status of a settlement may have had little influence on minting facilities118 In Kent similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester119

The dating evidence from Canterbury both ceramic and numismatic suggests that this site was a comparatively late foundation among the major sites of east Kent Intensive occupation is evident soon after its inception as noted by Haselgrove120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century bc it was seemingly deliberately located on a river crossing to replace (eventually) the earlier hillfort settlement at nearby Bigberry where one would expect to find the early potin coins absent from Canterbury and perhaps some early gold coins Coins from Bigberry would be of considerable use in determining whether the new site in the valley was indeed intended to replace the hillfort That the location of the principal settlement focus may have shifted is discussed by Haselgrove in terms of differences in the coin distribution within the walled area121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing Camulodunum122 and Verulamium123

In chronological terms the Canterbury assemblage is sufficiently large to say that it is probably representative of the site as a whole but the likelihood that an unknown number of coins were missed during earlier excavations in the city (see above) suggests that the true level of coinage

113 Canterbury Archaeological Trust excavations unpublished114 Holman 2005a 279ndash80115 Haselgrove 1987 141ndash3116 May 1994 16117 Blockley et al 1995 923 1102ndash3118 Allen 1995 29119 Detsicas 1983 3ndash4120 Haselgrove 1987 144121 Haselgrove 1987 143122 Haselgrove 1992 130123 Cunliffe 1991 143ndash4

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

30 DAVID HOLMAN

circulation and deposition in Canterbury in the late Iron Age was perhaps significantly greater than can be ascertained from the existing evidence It is also considered likely that a number of coins found on farmland to the south of Canterbury may have arrived there as a result of rubbish deposition from the city in the medieval and post-medieval periods

SITE 9 EAST WEAR BAy FOLKESTONE

Background

This extensive sea-eroded site lies at the foot of the North Downs escarpment on the Gault clay cliffs of East Wear Bay at Folkestone on the south Kent coast There has been a significant amount of excavation on the site mainly focused upon a major Roman villa complex discovered in 1923 and extensively dug the following year124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989125 Traces of pre-villa occupation have been recorded finds including late Iron Age cremation burials pottery and coins

In 1973 excavations undertaken on an allotment garden about 100 m inland from the villa revealed a series of ditches and gullies of late Iron Age and Roman date126 In 1974 work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Agendashearly Roman pottery preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face127 Other slumped stratified deposits were revealed nearby and these included a layer of greensand dust This was fairly certainly associated with the manufacture of quernstones of which numerous examples many unfinished have been picked up from the beach128 In 1990 further investigations of freshly slumped deposits on the beach were undertaken before their final destruction by the sea Limited excavation of these produced much pottery mainly dating from the first century bc to the first century ad including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered129

A La Tegravene III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century bc was found on the shore here some time before 1891130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tegravene III brooches have also been recovered from the beach and Iron Age and Roman pottery continues to erode from the base of the slumped cliff but it is clear that much else has been swept away by the sea

THE COINAGE

A total of 61 Iron Age coins (Appendix 1) can certainly be provenanced to the East Wear Bay site six of which were listed and illustrated by Winbolt131 Most of the coins are recent metal-detector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other poorly recorded coins with a lsquoFolkestonersquo provenance also came from here but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list The

124 Winbolt 1925125 Philp 1990 206ndash9126 Keller 1982 209ndash11127 Keller 1982 211128 Keller 1988129 Frere 1991 291130 Stead 1976 406131 Winbolt 1925 79ndash82132 Winboltrsquos coins nos 2 and 2a are obverse and reverse of the same coin

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

31IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found lsquoon the shore near Folkestonersquo some time around 1877133

Potin coins comprising 639 per cent of the site assemblage (fig 11) are the most common finds and form a mixed group including two early Gaulish imports The frequency of the British types relative to one another is particularly significant The number of Kentish Primary potins is low for east Kent suggesting that this site did not become fully established until well into the first century bc That these coins were extant in large numbers in the Folkestone area is shown by the discovery above the town of a hoard containing 67 coins in 1979134

133 Evans 1890 435134 Holman 2005b

The Flat Linear I potins three of which were recovered during the 1924 villa excavations show a tendency towards the later stages of the series At more than seven times the east Kent mean the 21 Flat Linear II potins are the most significant feature of the Iron Age coinage at Folkestone not only because they form the largest component of the assemblage but because of their scarcity elsewhere in east Kent except at Canterbury where the proportion is similarly very high perhaps suggesting some sort of link between these two sites and a level of control which prevented these coins from circulating in any quantity elsewhere in east Kent The fragility of Flat Linear II potins also makes it likely that they are if anything under-represented at Folkestone several of the coins recorded are in a very poor state of preservation due to the hostile environment

The high proportion of imports among the struck bronze coins is notable with five of the thirteen identifiable coins being Gaulish Given the location it is perhaps not surprising that Gaulish imports are 59 per cent above the east Kent mean and the possibility of a port here cannot be discounted In view of the possible link between Folkestone and Canterbury seen in the high number of Flat Linear II potins it may also be significant that Canterbury has a very similar level of imports mdash 53 per cent above the east Kent mean mdash although the subsequent phases there are higher than at Folkestone

The British struck bronzes from East Wear Bay tend towards an early date although the sample is sufficiently small as to give reason for caution Phase 6 coins are on the east Kent mean but Phase 7 is significantly low No coins later than Phase 8E which is also very low

fig 11a East Wear Bay Folkestone coins from site ()fig 11b East Wear Bay Folkestone set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100)

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

32 DAVID HOLMAN

135 One reason for the low recovery rate of bronze coins must be the acidic nature of the local clay subsoil which combined with the corrosive effects of sea water leads to a much faster rate of disintegration than is seen on inland sites a factor noted by Rodwell (1981 48) This is evidenced by the discovery on the foreshore of several early twentieth-century farthings which are already extremely corroded and barely legible

136 The quarter-stater VA 260 has been listed as silver by both Mack and Van Arsdell but is in fact gold (P de jersey pers comm)

137 Information from Celtic Coin Index138 Keller 1988139 Philp 1990 206

are currently known from the site The Kentish Uninscribed Series is represented by five coins perhaps contemporary with the circulation period of the Gaulish coins Only three later bronzes of Phases 7 and 8E have been recorded135

Only one silver coin probably of Gaulish origin has been recorded from East Wear Bay but gold is relatively well represented This is the only major site in east Kent where the proportion of gold coinage is above the east Kent mean although the relatively high level of Gallo-Belgic gold is a feature shared by lsquoEastryrsquo The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries136 Of the early finds a Gallo-Belgic E stater found in 1865 was recorded by Winbolt in 1925 after he was shown it by a descendant of the finder In 1870 two quarter-staters (Gallo-Belgic Db and Dc) were found lsquoin the cliffrsquo together with a small gold ingot details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum137 A gold coin of Cunobelin is one of only four later (Phases 7 and 8E) Iron Age coins from the site The comparatively high incidence of gold may be explained to some extent by a combination of bias towards gold among the early finds and the lower than normal survival rate of bronze coins

It seems certain from the work undertaken at East Wear Bay that a site of some considerable importance and complexity existed here Its precise character however remains unclear Evidence of pre-Conquest occupation has been discovered on many Romano-British villa sites and the Gallo-Belgic pottery amphorae (including Dressel 1B) brooches and a large number of coins all suggest a site of some status The evidence for the production of quernstones seemingly starting in the late Iron Age and continuing into the Roman period which were traded both locally and farther afield demonstrates that there was a significant industrial element to the settlement138 A small cremation cemetery existed on the site of the villa itself

It is clear that much archaeology has been lost to coastal erosion as the cliff must have been eroded by a considerable distance since the late Iron Age a process which continues today Philp noted that the average annual rate of erosion at the villa site was 15 cm over the period 1924ndash1989139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2000 years then the cliff face in the late Iron Age may have been some 300 m east of its current position

The location of the site situated at one of the shortest crossing points of the English Channel is also significant Assuming that a sheltered bay has always existed in the area and taking into account the high proportion of imports amongst the struck bronze coinage other imported material and the coastal location with views across to Gaul it seems quite possible that the pre-Roman settlement was associated with some kind of port facility Movement of the large numbers of heavy quernstones being manufactured on the site would also best be effected by water whenever possible One major pre-requisite of any port site is a well-established communication system with the adjacent hinterland It seems to be no coincidence therefore that the long-distance prehistoric North Downs trackway terminated at the top of the North Downs scarp immediately above East Wear Bay A possible connection with Canterbury has been mentioned above The numismatic evidence suggests that the site peaked during the mid- to late first century bc activity continuing at a lower level thereafter The lack of Phase 7 coinage

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

33IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

noted by Haselgrove is still evident140 with only one coin recorded but occupation of some sort is likely to have continued

OTHER SITES AND ISOLATED DISCOVERIES IN EAST KENT

Apart from the major sites discussed above several other sites in east Kent have produced small numbers of Iron Age coins during archaeological excavations and metal-detector surveys eg Maydensole Farm Sutton141 Broom Bungalows Sutton142 Manston (The Loop)143 In addition to these sites Iron Age coins are also often found in areas where no site focus is apparent with significant concentrations at Ringwould and Waldershare Park north of Dover There are also many apparently single isolated finds No doubt there are sites still awaiting discovery but many of these coins would appear to be casual losses or mixed in with manure or rubbish thrown onto the fields as was seemingly the case in later periods Some may even be deliberate (single) offerings The distribution of Iron Age coins is comparable to that of Roman and medieval coins in that they are found everywhere from major sites down to isolated finds As such they provide important information about the circulation and use of coinage across the whole region rather than just on specific sites and enable the patterns of coin deposition or loss at those sites to be compared with the surrounding region An exception may perhaps be made for some of the gold coins Haselgrove considered that even a single isolated gold coin may have been deliberately deposited for some ritual purpose rather than accidentally lost144 This is however impossible to prove owing to the absence of any associated finds with such coins although it may be significant that Iron Age gold coins are far more frequently found than those of Roman or medieval date

DISCuSSION

COIN-METAL TyPES IN EAST KENT

It has previously been noted that there are no significant differences in the coin-metal yields of different classes of site145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent ie potin and bronze are always more common than silver and gold but individual sites exhibit a degree of variation depending on the chronology level of activity and type of site Overall high early coin losses reduced sharply around the middle of the first century bc before increasing later in the century a steady increase being maintained until Phase 8E after which there was a terminal decline Potin is more common than bronze and gold is more common than silver (fig 12c)

The combined histogram (fig 12a) for the major sites of east Kent shows Kentish Primary potins as the most commonly found coin type followed much later by coins of Phase 8E The other phases with the exception of 1ndash5 (early gold) 8L and 9 are fairly evenly spread although the Flat Linear II potins are heavily influenced by the Canterbury and Folkestone finds Struck bronze is marginally the most abundant metal type followed by potin with silver and gold in far smaller quantities

The histogram for lsquootherrsquo coins (fig 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 Haselgrove 1987 151141 A Redding pers comm142 A Redding pers comm143 D Perkins pers comm144 Haselgrove 1993 50145 Rodwell 1976 314

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

34 DAVID HOLMAN

common coins followed by Phase 8E However there is greater variation than at the major sites and there are significant differences for Flat Linear II potins and Phases 1ndash5 Conversely Flat Linear I potins and Phases 7ndash8L display generally similar levels to the major sites Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher lsquomajor site other findsrsquo ratios than for any other phase except Flat Linear II potins (Table 3) which are largely concentrated at two sites This could suggest that the circulation of these coins was more restricted than that of those with a more equal distribution between major sites and the rural background although not to the extent evident for the Flat Linear II potins The overall distribution of non-gold imports in Kent which are mostly found in the far east of the county is more restricted than for most local issues which again suggests a degree of control in their circulation Greater differences between major sites and lsquootherrsquo finds are evident when the metal types are compared Potin forms the majority of the lsquootherrsquo finds significantly in excess of bronze Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the lsquootherrsquo finds than at the major sites

fig 12b East Kent (other finds)

fig 12c East Kent (all coins)

fig 12a East Kent (major sites)

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

35IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Potin

Potin coins recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find) 474 per cent of the total are the most commonly found Iron Age coins in east Kent They occur all over the region with the exception of Romney Marsh on both major and minor sites and as isolated finds Although some of the major sites in east Kent have large numbers of potins proportionally they are slightly scarcer overall at those sites (45 per cent) than among lsquootherrsquo finds (495 per cent) validating Haselgroversquos assertion that potins were more common on rural sites at least in relative if not in actual terms146 This may be seen as supporting Allenrsquos view that potins were linked in some way to early market development147 rather than being used just as a special purpose high-value medium As with the later struck bronze it is likely that the potins first appeared at the major sites subsequently became widespread across the region and were lost as their circulation increased The volume and distribution of the Kentish Primary potins in particular implies that they circulated in much the same way as the struck bronze and perhaps with greater freedom although occasional hoarding and a number of outliers suggests that they may also have been used for a particular unknown purpose something which is less evident in the bronze coinage A basic coin-using economy in some form perhaps already existed in east Kent prior to the introduction of struck bronze which has itself sometimes been seen as relating to the development of such an economy148

The relative distribution of different types of potin among the lsquootherrsquo finds generally reflects that seen at the major sites although the proportion of Kentish Primary potins is significantly higher in the former Flat Linear II potins appear to be more frequent on the major sites but this is misleading for reasons already stated Gaulish potins many of second-century bc date149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus Differences in the distribution and perhaps

TABLE 3 MAjOR SITES OTHER FINDS RATIO

Phasemetal Major sites Other finds Major other ratio

PKP 223 349 064PFLI 120 116 103PFLII 97 24 404C (Potin AE AR) 103 58 1781ndash5 (AV) 17 95 0186 128 78 1647 116 111 1058E (early) 158 132 1208L (late) 38 35 1099 00 02 000

Potin 450 495 091AE 466 275 169AR 50 87 057AV 34 143 024

146 Haselgrove 1987 157147 Allen 1971 143148 eg Cunliffe 1981 29ndash39149 Haselgrove 1999 132ndash3

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

36 DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted150 but the statement that potins are concentrated at major sites in Gaul151 is open to question because the lack of recording of metal-detector finds there has inevitably led to a bias towards major sites with the rural background pattern being little known giving a distorted view of the overall situation

The considerable increase in the number of recorded Kentish Primary potins and to a lesser extent early Flat Linear I potins suggests a situation somewhat different to that envisaged by Haselgrove as recently as the mid-1980s152 The information then available was of a limited and selective nature Canterbury being too late a foundation to include the earlier types and Richborough showing only slight evidence of sufficiently early occupation Kentish Primary potins were yet to be recognised as British The coinage from most of the other sites in this paper and the rural distribution has only become evident since 1991 The information now available suggests that the Kentish Primary and early Flat Linear I potins both originated in east Kent and were produced in large quantities The lack of Kentish Primary potins at Canterbury implies that their main period of use had already ended by the third quarter of the first century bc

There are three certain potin hoards from east Kent The largest of these is the Birchington (Quex Park) hoard of 1853 which contained several hundred Flat Linear I potins and one unique coin153 The 1979 Kentish Primary hoard from near Folkestone and the Flat Linear I hoard from the North Foreland site have been mentioned above A hoard containing lsquoat leastrsquo 35 Flat Linear I and II potins associated with a Kentish uninscribed struck bronze and remains of casting moulds was reportedly found near Deal a few years ago154 Such a combination of types in a hoard seems unlikely There is no local knowledge of this find and the doubtful circumstances have led to it being excluded from the statistics

Whether potins were high- or low-value coins and what they were used for has been discussed elsewhere155 Numerous hoards both in Britain and on the Continent show that potins were produced in vast quantities and consideration should perhaps be given to the possibility that they were originally traded by weight rather than used as individual pieces which may have been their subsequent use The large number of potins from east Kent suggests that a low value was attached to individual coins That potins were hoarded need not militate against this There is no suggestion that struck bronzes were of high value even though they are also known from hoards in France such as that found at Amiens in 1899156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman lsquoradiatersquo hoards of the later third century ad although hoarded in vast numbers the individual coins were of low value Furthermore lsquoradiatesrsquo like potins circulated in a period when they were probably the only type of coin available to most people thus giving little choice in what was available for hoarding Despite the appearance of a few deliberately cut Flat Linear I potins there appears to be no evidence of different potin denominations an analogous situation to that in Gaul157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round lsquohalf potinrsquo derived from the Kentish Primary Series Whether this coin was an official issue or a copy is open to question

Struck bronze

Struck bronze coins from east Kent are represented by 618 examples 366 per cent of the

150 Allen 1995 34151 Allen 1995 48152 Haselgrove 1987 157ndash8153 Allen 1960 204154 Haselgrove 1995 6155 eg Haselgrove 1988 118ndash20 Gruel 1989 151ndash4 Allen 1995 48ndash9156 Scheers 1977 872157 Haselgrove 1995 48

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

37IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

total However unlike the potins which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (466 per cent) and lsquootherrsquo finds (275 per cent) It has been suggested that bronze coinage at major sites in Gaul was produced to finance the running of those sites and that these coins subsequently made their way into wider circulation in the surrounding region (although perhaps to a lesser extent than the potins) perhaps indicating increasing trade and exchange159 The concentration of bronze at the major sites in east Kent suggests that a similar situation may have occurred here Bronze quickly became the principal medium of exchange once it had become established and the greater emphasis on coin use at the major sites perhaps hints at changes in the way coinage was used

Many new struck bronze types and variants have been recorded in recent years The east Kent corpus now includes a number of Kentish bronze half units and the majority of the coins of Tasciovanus-Sego There are also a large number of Gaulish coins mostly from lsquoBelgicrsquo Gaul but including a few coins from further afield together with numerous Mediterranean imports It has been suggested that different metallic compositions may denote different denominations or mints160 but few Kentish bronze coins have so far been analysed and no firm conclusions can yet be drawn from this aspect of the coinage

Kentish issues and certain types of Cunobelin perhaps intended primarily for use in Kent dominate the bronze assemblage One type of Cunobelin (VA 1973-1) with 48 examples from east Kent is by far the most frequently found struck bronze type It has a strongly Kentish distribution despite apparently having being minted at Camulodunum and was perhaps among the first issues of Cunobelin to circulate in Kent following his presumed takeover This type is often poorly struck and one obverse shows signs of the die having been repaired for continued use giving the impression that it was produced quickly and on a large scale The Victory design on the reverse is a theme common to those bronze issues of Cunobelin most often found in Kent and may allude to Cunobelin gaining power there a parallel for which has been suggested for the Verulamium region by Rodwell161 Haselgroversquos comment that Cunobelinrsquos gold coins were more common than his bronze coins in Kent162 has emphatically now been shown not to be the case Comparatively few bronze coins had been recorded before 1991 giving a misleading impression163

Silver

Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces just 69 per cent of the total assemblage Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for lsquootherrsquo finds although these still have a higher proportion of silver (87 per cent) than the major sites (50 per cent) The fact that silver is scarcer overall than gold suggests that silver coinage played a relatively minor role in the Kentish monetary system where bronze provided the small change in contrast to those tribal regions which used fractional silver instead of bronze such as the Atrebates and Regni164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus whose

158 Haselgrove 1999 157159 Nash 1978a 24 Haselgrove 1993 57160 Clogg and Haselgrove 1995161 Rodwell 1976 274ndash6162 Haselgrove 1987 159163 This illustrates the danger of drawing conclusions from a small and perhaps biased sample and shows how

interpretations can change significantly once sufficient numbers of coins have been recorded It may be that continued recording will result in some changes to the distribution patterns outlined in this paper but those patterns are now much more firmly established and it is likely that any future changes would be on a much smaller scale than has previously been the case

164 Bean 2000

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

38 DAVID HOLMAN

Kentish bronze coinage was clearly produced to fit into the local currency system Whereas his Kentish silver coins are much scarcer than the bronze the Atrebatic coins minted in his name at Calleva (Silchester) were mostly of silver again relevant to the local currency system and included no bronze Fractional silver lsquominimsrsquo were occasionally introduced into the Kentish currency system with such coins known for the Kentish uninscribed Series and Amminus and at least two further types (VA 154-13 and NS1) which cannot at present be classified with any certainty but which are possibly both (Kentish) issues of Eppillus

The silver coinage is extremely varied with more than 50 different types being represented among the 117 coins recorded Kentish types are the most frequently found and include a number of types and variants not listed by Mack Van Arsdell or Hobbs Coins of the Atrebates Corieltauvi Dobunni Durotriges and Iceni are all represented in small numbers Continental silver coins unlike the struck bronzes are conspicuous by their general absence in east Kent but these include two Armorican coins from Sandgate which probably derive from a single deposit and a Germanic base silver lsquorainbow-cuprsquo stater The discovery of two Eastern Gaulish coins of Togirix reportedly in conjunction with two Roman Republican denarii is potentially significant but the exact circumstances of this discovery have not been verified

Gold

The distribution of gold is different to that of other metals gold being far more common along the north coast of Kent than in the east of the county165 Similar variations are known elsewhere166 Gold coins recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent 91 per cent of the total assemblage are far more common as isolated discoveries and in hoards than from known sites reflecting the situation noted by Rodwell167 Whereas gold accounts for only 34 per cent of the finds on the major sites with a maximum of 115 per cent at East Wear Bay 143 per cent of the lsquootherrsquo coins are gold The lack of gold on settlement sites and the uneven distribution suggest that it functioned differently from other metals being more of a high-value special-purpose medium which appears to support Fitzpatrickrsquos view that it was not a general-purpose coinage168 A similar situation is seen in France at least for the earlier gold coinages169 This is to some extent down to recording bias as a disproportionate number of the isolated gold coins were found in the pre-detector era when antiquaries tended to focus on gold coins

Only two certain gold hoards are known from east Kent one containing six Gallo-Belgic E staters found c 1877 near Folkestone and another containing (to date) nine Gallo-Belgic E staters found near Chilham in 1999 The discovery of one Gallo-Belgic C and two Gallo-Belgic E staters at Elham in 1840 is strongly suggestive of a hoard as are three Gallo-Belgic C staters reportedly found near Aylesham in the late 1990s A number of Dubnovellaunos staters which have appeared in the numismatic trade in recent years are also thought to be from an unreported hoard containing at least fifteen coins which is believed to have been found at Sarre on the Isle of Thanet170

The majority of gold coins found in Kent are Gallo-Belgic imports most Kentish issues being very rare There are two early coins imitating the staters of Philip II of Macedon (359ndash336 bc) from Ringwould and another from Alkham as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic xa which

165 Holman 2000 224ndash5166 eg Curteis 1996 22167 Rodwell 1976 313ndash14168 Fitzpatrick 1992 20169 Haselgrove 1999 124170 P de jersey pers comm

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

39IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

probably date from no later than the early second century bc171 Later gold coins of the dynastic period include the extremely rare issues of Tasciovanus-Sego Vosenos and Eppillus together with a few coins of Dubnovellaunos and Cunobelin Gold coinage of the outlying British tribes is rarely found in Kent with the Corieltauvi Durotriges and Iceni represented by three one and one specimens respectively The few coins of these tribes which have been recorded from Kent have a generally coastal distribution perhaps suggesting coastal trade routes

CONTINENTAL COINAGE IN KENT

Gaulish imports

Although Gallo-Belgic gold coinage imports have been much discussed172 with the exception of a recent paper by de jersey173 comparatively little attention has been given to the imported non-gold coinage including coins from the Mediterranean region commonly referred to under the catch-all classification of lsquoGreekrsquo Gold imports are far more commonly found away from the major sites but the reverse is true of non-gold imports At Canterbury and elsewhere non-gold imports are often regarded as mostly arriving after 10 bc despite the generally earlier date of these coins many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War174 However many of the Kentish uninscribed Series types which are themselves probably pre-Augustan175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 bc at the latest From around 15 bc fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish non-gold coins has been mentioned above (Site 2) but it would appear that they arrived from an early date and some were deposited shortly after their arrival with deposition continuing for many years probably until well into the first century ad

The Seine basin Belgic Gaul the lower Rhine and the Atlantic have all been suggested by previous writers as potential trade routes by which Italian wine amphorae of early to mid-first-century bc date particularly those of Dressel 1B type and by inference coins reached Britain177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports179 It is reasonable to assume that similar links existed between Kent and the Pas-de-Calais at the shortest sea crossing particularly in view of the large number of Gaulish base metal coins recorded from east Kent Fitzpatrick suggested that many of the British coins found in Gaul were pre-Conquest exports which circulated alongside the local coinage180 a situation reflected in east Kent with certainly the Gaulish and possibly also the Mediterranean coins

Mediterranean imports

Whether or not base metal coinage from the Mediterranean region arrived in Britain in quantity

171 Fitzpatrick 1992 4172 eg Allen 1960 99ndash118173 de jersey 1999174 eg Haselgrove 1988 107175 Haselgrove 1993 43176 eg Cunliffe 1991 441ndash2177 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8 Fitzpatrick 1985178 Cunliffe 1991 434ndash8179 Cunliffe and de jersey 1997 51ndash3180 Fitzpatrick 1992 28ndash30

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

40 DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century bc onwards 182 The discovery of early coins of Mediterranean origin particularly issues of Carthaginian Sicily and Ebusus (Ibiza) in east Kent provides an opportunity for a fresh look at the subject183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries bc they are known from sites containing both Iron Age and Roman coins and as isolated finds The possibility of Greek prototypes for British Iron Age coin types has been discussed by Scheers184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins ie Republican and early imperial denarii were known in Britain well before ad 43185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues186

One type of exotic commodity which had presumably passed through the Mediterranean at some point and which reached Britain well before the Conquest was the coral used as decoration on Iron Age metalwork such as that from Mill Hill Deal187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south188 The most likely explanation for the appearance in Britain of many of the Mediterranean coins is that they arrived with traders probably via intermediaries Other suggestions such as mercenary payments189 cannot be discounted but it seems unlikely that mercenaries would have accepted as payment bronze coins which would have been of little use in Britain at the time of their production except perhaps as a lsquoprimitive valuablersquo190

It remains the case that no pre-Conquest coin from the Mediterranean region has yet been found securely stratified in an Iron Age context in Britain apart from a bronze of Ptolemy V (204ndash181 bc) from Winchester which has since been questioned191 As stated by Haselgrove a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash194 but again the standard of recording is poor195 Suggestions that ancient Mediterranean coins largely arrived in the pockets of eighteenth-century and later travellers can be all but discounted in the case of the east Kent finds as the locations and circumstances of their discovery make this highly unlikely

The lack of Mediterranean coins in pre-Conquest deposits cannot be used to state definitively that they all arrived after ad 43 The same problem occurs with Republican denarii It may be

181 eg Milne 1948 Laing 1968 Laing 1983182 Cunliffe 1991 431183 The types most frequently found are Calciati Kartago 20 (15 specimens) (fig 2 14) and Villaronga Ebusus 22

(7 specimens) (fig 2 15) both common types There is no evidence that the Kentish finds are locally produced copies the shape of the flans which are flatter than Celtic coins tend to be and the fact that the designs remain unadapted suggest that they are not

184 Scheers 1992185 Rodwell 1976 285ndash6186 Northover 1992 257187 Parfitt 1995188 Haselgrove 1987 195189 eg Hobbs 1996 9190 Dalton 1977191 Collis 1975 47ndash8 Reece 1987 14192 Haselgrove 1987 465193 Fitzpatrick 1992 3194 Nash 1987 118195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later mid-first-century bc issue

from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997)

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

41IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

that they were early Roman introductions but this does not satisfactorily explain their virtual absence from the major early Roman site at Richborough where only one such coin a second-century bc bronze of Cyzicus has been recorded Elsewhere in Britain Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits196 although it cannot be conclusively shown that they were not already in Britain before the Conquest only subsequently coming into the possession of Roman military personnel rather than arriving with them The evidence from Archers Low Farm suggests that although these coins are unlikely to have arrived before the first century bc they cannot be precluded from having arrived at an earlier date only being deposited much later either way this implies that many of them were already very old by the time of their deposition This problem cannot be resolved on current evidence and more work needs to be undertaken on the subject particularly with regard to finds from Gaul

On balance it appears likely that although many Mediterranean coins perhaps arrived with the Roman army197 a not insignificant number are likely to have already been in circulation in south-east England alongside the native currency readily accepted by the local population owing to their broad similarity to the locally produced coinage for which they are frequently mistaken by their finders As such they provide a potential new dimension for research into trade between Britain and Europe in the late Iron Age

A POSSIBLE KENTISH MINT OF CUNOBELIN

The later classically developed issues of Cunobelin are conspicuous by their scarcity in Kent a feature noted at Canterbury by Haselgrove198 which has now been shown to be the case across the whole county Phase 8E coins of Cunobelin are five times as numerous as those of Phase 8L in east Kent The rarity and apparent low production level of the contemporary coinage of Amminus suggests that this could not have filled the shortfall by itself and it appears that Kent was forced to use lsquooldrsquo coins presumably earlier dynastic types and Gaulish imports An alternative possibility is that some of the supposedly early issues of Cunobelin are later than has generally been considered In particular this may apply to the products of a possible mint in Kent The distribution and comparatively plain style of certain issues of Cunobelin (eg VA 1981 VA 2067 etc) suggest that they may be products of such a mint with their common adherence to a CVNCVN(O) legend distinctive treatment of the lettering and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum Cunobelinrsquos lsquoshiprsquo type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN199 bringing it into line with other types associated with Kent and possibly indicating that although the die was produced at Camulodunum the coins struck from it were produced elsewhere Whatever the reason it seems clear that CAMV was not the intended legend and this is confirmed by other dies showing CVNO and (unaltered) CVN

As far as dating is concerned two silver types apparently produced by the same die-cutter share certain features with coins of Amminus which are likely to date from well into the ad 30s200 Despite their relative simplicity compared with the more accomplished classical designs minted at Camulodunum these may therefore be late rather than early types De jersey states

196 eg Carthaginian coins from Caerleon Colchester and St Albans (Laing 1983) three coins from Coventinarsquos Well (Milne 1948) and five lsquoGreekrsquo coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995 88 S343) Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites Interestingly neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus

197 eg Laing 1968 17198 Haselgrove 1987 143199 Muckelroy et al 1978 439ndash44200 de jersey 2001 6ndash7 Holman 1999

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

42 DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c ad 15ndash35201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity Significantly the distribution of Cunobelinrsquos issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the lsquoKentishrsquo types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or lsquowestern mintrsquo issues indeed all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de jersey203

The location of this proposed mint is unknown although DVNO the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus is an obvious candidate204 A number of sites may have had minting facilities at some point Apart from certain issues of Cunobelin the distribution of some other types particularly those of Tasciovanus-Sego and Amminus also shows a degree of clustering but the lack of any recovered dies militates against a definite conclusion as to mint location The Tasciovanus-Sego coins could either have been struck at Verulamium for use in Kent or in Kent itself by a peripatetic moneyer working for Tasciovanus

A full die study of the coinage not only of Cunobelin but also his contemporaries is required to resolve the chronological problems This however is beyond the scope of this paper and such a study must await future investigation The lsquoKentishrsquo types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper except for the (possibly Kentish) lsquoSOLIDVrsquo type (VA 2073) which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue205

CONCLuSIONS

In summary although coinage is only one facet of the historical record Cunliffersquos view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated206 East Kent has been shown to have a chronologically and functionally wide range of presumably related sites and a broad distribution of coinage across much of the region suggesting widespread and varied use and acceptance both for daily activities such as trade (although bartering doubtless accounted for many if not most transactions) and specialised activities such as ritual deposition A multi-denomination currency system such as appears to have existed in Kent suggests a degree of sophistication in the production and control of coinage

Although many of the coins are unstratified and allowing for the fact that their distribution as we see it is partly the result of modern collecting patterns and the availability of land207 the quantity and distribution of coins across east Kent suggest that similar inter-site research elsewhere in Britain notably the region to the north of the Thames and in Gaul could lead to a greatly increased understanding of the production circulation function and deposition of coinage in the late Iron Age and a fresh perspective on the economic and political situation The potential for this has previously been realized by Rodwell208 The level of recording in those areas would however need to be increased substantially The large number of coins now recorded from east Kent although probably only a very small fraction of what was produced far exceeds the levels originally anticipated by the writer prior to 1991 when bulk recording of metal-detector finds commenced making this region in an overall context with its mixture of

201 de jersey 2001 30202 de jersey 2001 24203 Fitzpatrick 1992 28 de jersey 2001204 Holman 1999205 de jersey 2001 19206 Cunliffe 1982 40207 Rodwell 1976 313ndash16208 Rodwell 1981 43

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

43IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

productive sites rural background and isolated losses arguably the most fully recorded and understood area of Iron Age coin circulation and use in Britain

Being at the end of a peninsula east Kent is often regarded today as isolated However in the late Iron Age this very location would have made it a major strategic hub for the exchange of ideas and goods with continental Europe Control of trade and the resulting wealth may be sufficient reason for viewing the east Kent region as a significant element in the development of late Iron Age Britain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the many metal-detector users in east Kent who have willingly reported their discoveries and made their coins available for recording in particular members of the Thanet amp Wantsum Relic Association White Cliffs Metal Detecting Club Royal Phoenix Metal Detector Club and the Romney Marshland Metal Detecting Club together with individuals too numerous to mention also to those farmers who by giving permission to detect have contributed to this increase in our knowledge of Iron Age Kent

Thanks are also due to Keith Parfitt who provided much helpful guidance and information on several of the sites discussed to Dr Philip de jersey and Geoff Halliwell for reading through and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and to the numerous contributors listed in the footnotes Dr de jersey also kindly provided a number of photographs of coins from the Celtic Coin Index

18 St Barts Road Sandwich Kent CT13 0BG

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

44 DAVID HOLMAN A

PPEN

DIx

1 S

UM

MA

Ry O

F N

UM

BER

OF

CO

INS

OF

EAC

H T

yPE

FO

UN

D O

N T

HE

NIN

E M

AjO

R S

ITES

IN E

AST

KEN

T

(AS

AT 3

112

200

3)

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Potin

Can

tiaci

-VA

140

2-14

40 H

660

-666

822

119

2828

22

7ldquo

-VA

102

-133

H6

67-7

1328

15

21

52

219

ldquo-

VA 1

35-1

39 H

718

-723

12

5021

Sout

hern

Cen

tral

Gau

l-

-2

1

Cen

tralN

orth

ern

Gau

l-

-2

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 18

5 C

l II

1Le

uci

-Sc

h 18

61

Rem

i-

Sch

191

1N

orth

ern

Gau

l-

Sch

193

1Su

essi

ones

-

Sch

198

11

Velio

cass

es-

Sch

206

1Se

quan

i-

DLT

536

81

ldquo-

DLT

539

0 et

c1

Turo

nes

-Tecirc

te d

iabo

lique

11

1-

-A

llen

1995

no

298

etc

1

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-Sc

heer

s 197

8 ty

pe 3

01 (c

f)1

Nor

ther

n G

aul

-u

ncer

tain

2-

-U

ncer

tain

ill

egib

le1

2Su

btot

al11

95

525

4935

678

39

Bro

nze

(AE

)C

antia

ciu

nins

crib

edVA

154

-1 H

248

02

21

16

32

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-1

var

(re

v h

orse

left)

H-

(a

s CC

I 96

1814

)3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-3

H2

484

25

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-5

H2

487

14

42

ldquoldquo

VA 1

54-9

H2

488

22

11

74

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

45IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquoldquo

VA 1

629

H4

01

41

11

2ldquo

ldquoU

B1

(Alle

n 19

95 n

o27

7) (a

s CC

I 95

090

3)1

11

11

11

ldquoldquo

UB

2a (

as C

CI 0

300

78)

1C

antia

ci

ldquoU

B3

(as C

CI 9

200

42)

12

1C

antia

ciD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

66 H

250

45

31

4ldquo

ldquoVA

180

H2

509

43

14

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

-1 H

250

71

12

2ldquo

ldquoVA

181

var

(re

v fu

ll na

me)

H-

(a

s CC

I 94

0381

)1

23

3

ldquoldquo

VA 1

81-1

or v

ar

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1a

(as

CC

I 01

0199

)4

1ldquo

ldquoD

B1b

(as

CC

I 02

0075

)2

ldquoldquo

DB

2 (a

s CC

I 94

1182

)1

ldquoSa

(m)

VA 1

87 H

251

62

11

12

ldquoldquo

SB1

(as C

CI 9

900

02)

2ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

50 H

113

78

12

1ldquo

ldquoVA

451

H1

139

92

21

14

ldquoldquo

VA 4

52 H

114

23

13

ldquoldquo

VA 4

53 H

-2

21

13

ldquoldquo

EB1

(as C

CI 9

403

58)

12

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

154

-11

H-

1ldquo

Am

min

usVA

193

H-

11

11

ldquoldquo

VA 1

95 H

252

43

1Tr

inov

ante

sD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

665

H2

461

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

705

H1

711

1ldquo

ldquoVA

181

6 H

173

91

ldquoldquo

VA 1

818

H1

685

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

5 H

169

01

13

ldquoldquo

TB1

(as C

CI 9

403

37)

21

1ldquo

ldquoVA

185

5 or

TB

11

2

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

46 DAVID HOLMAN

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

965

H1

906

1ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-1

H1

938

101

42

63

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

3-3

H1

943

31

2ldquo

ldquoVA

197

7-1

H1

928

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

1 H

193

51

21

3ldquo

ldquoVA

198

7 H

193

61

1ldquo

ldquoVA

198

9 H

201

04

31

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

1 H

190

91

1ldquo

ldquoVA

208

3 H

190

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

085

H1

900

1ldquo

ldquoVA

209

7 H

197

21

ldquoldquo

VA 2

101

H1

987

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

3 H

198

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

105

H1

998

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

7 H

199

11

1ldquo

ldquoVA

210

9 H

200

42

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

657

C

hich

este

r Coc

k (C

otta

m 1

999

type

2)

11

Dur

otrig

esu

nins

crib

edVA

129

0 H

279

02

Sues

sion

esC

riciru

Sch

271

Atre

bate

sA

ndob

ruSc

h 46

Cl

I1

Am

bian

i-

Sch

591

2ldquo

-Sc

h 60

1ldquo

-Sc

h 65

160

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

var

1

ldquo-

Sch

65 C

l V

I var

1

ldquo-

Sch

75 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 76

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

47IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

ldquo-

Sch

80a

11

ldquolsquoV

acec

orsquoSc

h 80

b2

11

ldquo-

Sch

80c

1ldquo

-Sc

h 80

d or

80e

11

ldquo-

Sch

80e

var

a1

ldquo-

Sch

80j

1ldquo

-Sc

h 81

21

11

ldquo-

Sch

80 o

r 81

var

1ldquo

-Sc

h 87

1ldquo

-Sc

h 89

1ldquo

-Sc

h 90

a1

ldquo-

Sch

91 v

ar

1ldquo

-Sc

h 93

1ldquo

Viri

cius

Sch

109

1ldquo

ldquoSc

h 10

9 va

r1

ldquo-

Sch

119

1ldquo

-A

llen

1995

no

21

1M

orin

iR

ubio

sSc

h 13

61

1Ve

lioca

sses

-Sc

h 16

31

Trev

iriG

erm

anus

Indu

tilli

LSc

h 21

61

21

Petro

corii

Ate

ctor

iD

LT 4

349

1C

arnu

tes

-D

LT 6

088

11

Aul

erci

Eb

urov

ices

-D

LT 7

020

1

--

unc

erta

in G

aulis

h1

21

--

Unc

erta

in

illeg

ible

82

13

106

1Su

btot

al10

349

1312

247

8369

14

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Bro

nze

(AE

)

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

48 DAVID HOLMAN

Silv

er (A

R)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

uS3

(as

CC

I 99

0362

)1

ldquoD

ubno

vella

unos

VA 1

71 H

249

92

1ldquo

ldquoVA

178

H2

502

11

ldquoldquo

DS1

(as

CC

I 89

0026

)1

1ldquo

ldquoD

S1 (

plat

ed A

RA

E)1

ldquoVo

seno

sVA

186

H-

1ldquo

Eppi

llus

VA 4

41 H

113

21

ldquoldquo

VA 4

43 (F

O v

ar)

H1

135

var

(as

(as

CC

I 88

0099

)1

ldquoEp

pillu

sN

S1 (

as C

CI 9

900

03)

11

ldquoA

mm

inus

AS1

(as

CC

I 92

0994

)1

Can

tiaci

or

Trin

ovan

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

644

H-

1

Trin

ovan

tes

Add

edom

aros

VA

161

1 H

388

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus

VA 1

800

H1

677

1ldquo

Tasc

iova

nus (

Sego

)VA

185

1 H

168

41

ldquoC

unob

elin

VA 1

949

H1

858

1ldquo

ldquoVA

206

1 H

188

41

ldquoldquo

VA 2

067

H1

891

3ldquo

ldquoVA

- H

189

81

Atre

bate

su

nins

crib

edVA

- H

- B

ean

2000

QsD

3-4

(a

s CC

I 92

0320

)1

ldquou

nins

crib

edVA

- H

578

Bea

n 20

00 Q

sT 1

-3

1ldquo

Com

mio

sVA

355

H7

311

ldquoEp

pillu

sVA

420

H1

116

1ldquo

Veric

aVA

530

H1

360

1ldquo

ldquoVA

531

H1

393

1A

treba

tes

uni

nscr

ibed

VA -

H-

(as

CC

I 92

0064

) (b

ase)

2

Rem

iA

teul

a u

lato

sSc

h 41

(pl

ated

AR

AE)

1A

mbi

ani

-Sc

h 94

(ba

se)

1

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

49IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Bel

lova

ci

-Sc

h 10

5 (b

ase)

1A

edui

Ve

pota

lD

LT 4

484

(pla

ted

AR

Fe)

1-

-u

nc G

aulis

h (a

s CC

I 90

0844

)1

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d A

RA

E)1

1Su

btot

al9

13

55

12

131

Gol

d (A

V)

Can

tiaci

uni

nscr

ibed

VA 1

47-1

H4

371

ldquoldquo

VA 1

58 H

371

1Tr

inov

ante

sC

unob

elin

VA 1

925-

3 H

177

71

ldquoldquo

VA 1

931

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

178

41

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

(pla

ted

AVA

E) H

184

31

ldquoldquo

VA 1

935

var

H1

843

var

(as C

CI

920

398)

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

015

H1

846

1

ldquoldquo

VA 2

025-

3 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H1

832

1ldquo

ldquoVA

203

8 va

r H

- (a

s CC

I 95

024

5)1

S T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edVA

150

7 (p

late

d AV

AE)

H3

471

N T

ham

esu

nins

crib

edA

s VA

260

but

gol

d1

Cor

ielta

uvi

Esup

Ras

uVA

920

(pl

ated

AV

AE)

H3

269

1A

mbi

ani

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c C

VA 4

2-3

(pla

ted

AVA

E)1

ldquoldquo

VA 4

41

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c E

VA 5

2-1

1ldquo

ldquoVA

52-

3 (p

late

d AV

AR

)1

ldquoldquo

VA 5

61

11

Mor

ini

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

cVA

69-

11

1ldquo

Gal

lo-B

elgi

c D

bVA

69-

32

--

Unc

erta

in (p

late

d AV

AE)

1-

-u

nkno

wn

2Su

btot

al5

12

13

41

37

Site

tota

ls23

656

2343

8147

9216

361

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

Silv

er (A

R)

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

50 DAVID HOLMAN

Med

iterr

anea

n ty

pes (

all A

E)

Mas

salia

-D

LT 1

476

(cf)

1Si

culo

-Pun

ic-

Cal

ciat

i K

arta

go 2

01

21

4ldquo

-C

alci

ati

Kar

tago

21

1Eb

usus

-V

illar

onga

Ebu

sus 2

22

21

Cyz

icus

-B

MC

(Mys

ia) 1

591

Site

tota

ls4

31

30

40

01

(s

ite 5

) Inc

lude

s hoa

rd o

f 62

Flat

Lin

ear I

pot

ins c

ount

ed a

s one

find

Trib

al

attr

ibut

ion

Issu

erR

efer

ence

sSi

te

1Si

te

2Si

te

3Si

te

4Si

te

5Si

te

6Si

te

7Si

te

8Si

te

9

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

51IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

BIBLIOGRAPHy

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant J = Antiquaries Journal Arch Cant = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch J = Archaeological JournalBAR = British Archaeological ReportsBNJ = British Numismatic JournalDLT = De la Tour 1892H = Hobbs 1996KAR = Kent Archaeological ReviewM = Mack 1975N Circ = Spink Numismatic CircularNC = Numismatic ChronicleOJA = Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOuCA = Oxford university Committee for ArchaeologyPPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British IslesSch = Scheers 1977VA = Van Arsdell 1989

Allen DF 1960 lsquoThe origins of coinage in Britain a reappraisalrsquo in SS Frere (ed) Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain London 97ndash308

Allen DF 1968 lsquoThe pre-Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 184ndash8Allen DF 1971 lsquoBritish potin coins a reviewrsquo in D jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its Hillforts

Southampton 127ndash54Allen DF 1976 lsquoDid Adminius strike coinsrsquo Britannia 7 96ndash100Allen DF 1995 Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum Volume III Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed

M Mays) LondonArthur P 1986 lsquoRoman amphorae from Canterburyrsquo Britannia 17 239ndash58Bayley j and Butcher S 2004 Roman Brooches in Britain a Technological and Typological Study based

on the Richborough Collection Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 68 LondonBean SC 2000 The Coinage of the Atrebates amp Regni Oxford university School of Archaeology

Monograph 50 Studies in Celtic Coinage 4 OxfordBishop MC 1995 lsquoSome pre-Flavian military equipment from Kentrsquo in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman

Military Equipment Conference 7 nos 1 and 2Blockley K and Blockley P 1989 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1981rsquo Arch Cant 107

239ndash52Blockley K Blockley M Blockley P Frere SS and Stow S 1995 Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park

and Surrounding Areas CanterburyBoys W 1792 Collections for an History of Sandwich CanterburyBriggs D Haselgrove C and King A 1992 lsquoIron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island templersquo BNJ

62 1ndash62Bushe-Fox jP 1949 Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep Res

Comm Soc Antiq London 16 LondonCalciati R 1987 Corpus Nummorum Siculorum The Bronze Coinage (Volume III) GiugnoCasey j 1980 Roman Coinage in Britain Princes RisboroughClogg P and Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoIron Age struck coinage in Eastern Englandrsquo OJA 14 (1) 41ndash62Collis j 1975 lsquoThe coin of Ptolemy V from Winchesterrsquo Antiquity 49 47ndash8

52 DAVID HOLMAN

Cottam GL 1999 lsquoThe ldquoCock Bronzesrdquo and other related Iron Age bronze coins found predominantly in West Sussex and Hampshirersquo BNJ 69 1ndash18

Cross R (forthcoming) An Iron Age and Roman Site at Goodnestone Kent Cunliffe BW (ed) 1968 Fifth Report on the Excavations at the Roman Fort at Richborough Kent Rep

Res Comm Soc Antiq London 23 London Cunliffe BW 1981 lsquoMoney and society in pre-Roman Britainrsquo in BW Cunliffe (ed) Coinage and Society

in Britain and Gaul some Current Problems CBA Research Report 38 29ndash39Cunliffe BW 1982 lsquoSocial and economic development in Kent in the pre-Roman Iron Agersquo in P Leach

(ed) Archaeology in Kent to AD1500 CBA Research Report 48 40ndash50Cunliffe BW 1991 Iron Age Communities in Britain (3rd edn) LondonCunliffe BW and de jersey P 1997 Armorica and Britain Cross-Channel Relationships in the Late First

Millennium BC Oxford University School of Archaeology Monograph 45 Studies in Celtic Coinage 3 Oxford

Curteis M 1996 lsquoAn analysis of the circulation patterns of Iron Age coins from Northamptonshirersquo Britannia 27 17ndash42

Dalton G 1977 lsquoAboriginal economies in stateless societiesrsquo in TK Earle and jE Ericson (eds) Exchange Systems in Prehistory London 191ndash212

de jersey P 1997 lsquoSA and SAM one and the samersquo N Circ May 1997 114ndash15de jersey P 1999 lsquoExotic Celtic Coinage in Britainrsquo OJA 18 (2) 189ndash216de jersey P 2001 lsquoCunobelinrsquos silverrsquo Britannia 32 1ndash44 de la Tour H 1892 Atlas de monnaies gauloises ParisDelestreeacute LP 1984 Les monnaies gauloises de Bois LrsquoAbbeacute (Eu Seine-Maritime) ParisDetsicas A 1983 The Cantiaci GloucesterEvans j 1890 The Coins of the Ancient Britons Supplement LondonEveritt A 1986 Continuity and Colonization the Evolution of Kentish Settlement Leicester Fitzpatrick A 1985 lsquoThe distribution of Dressel I amphorae in North West Europersquo OJA 4 (3) 305ndash40Fitzpatrick A 1992 lsquoThe roles of Celtic coinage in South East Englandrsquo in Mays 1992 1ndash32Frere SS 1965 Roman Canterbury The City of Durovernum (4th edn) CanterburyFrere SS (ed) 1988 lsquoRoman Britain in 1987rsquo Britannia 19 484Frere SS (ed) 1991 lsquoRoman Britain in 1990rsquo Britannia 22 291ndash2Frere SS Bennett P Rady j and Stow S 1987 lsquoThe Whitehall Road arearsquo in The Archaeology of

Canterbury Vol VIII Canterbury Excavations Intra- and Extra-mural Sites 1949ndash55 and 1980ndash4 45ndash54Gruel K 1989 La monnaie chez les Gaulois ParisGunstone AjH 1992 Sylloge of Coins of the British Isles Vol 42 South-Eastern Museums OxfordHarding DW 1974 The Iron Age in Lowland Britain LondonHaselgrove C 1984 Celtic Coins found in Britain 1977ndash82 Institute of Archaeology Bulletin 20

LondonHaselgrove C 1987 Iron Age Coinage in South-East England The Archaeological Context BAR British

Series 174 OxfordHaselgrove C 1988 lsquoThe archaeology of British potin coinagersquo Arch J 145 (1988) 99ndash122Haselgrove C 1992 lsquoIron Age coinage and archaeologyrsquo in Mays 1992 123ndash37Haselgrove C 1993 lsquoThe development of British Iron Age coinagersquo NC 153 (1993) 31ndash63Haselgrove C 1995 lsquoPotin coinage in Iron Age Britain archaeology and chronologyrsquo Gallia ndash Archeacuteologie

de la France antique 52 117ndash27Haselgrove C 1999 lsquoThe development of Iron Age coinage in Belgic Gaulrsquo NC 159 111ndash68Hawkes SC 1968 lsquoRichborough ndash the physical geographyrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 224ndash31Hobbs R 1996 British Iron Age Coins in the British Museum LondonHogwood P 1995 lsquoInvestigations at North Foreland Hillrsquo Arch Cant 115 475ndash6Holman Dj 1999 lsquoSEGO and DUNO reassessment and reinterpretationrsquo BNJ 69 196ndash8Holman Dj 2000 lsquoIron Age coinage in Kent a review of current knowledgersquo Arch Cant 120 205ndash33

53IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Holman Dj (2005a) lsquoIron Age coinage from Worth Kent and other possible evidence of ritual deposition in Kentrsquo in C Haselgrove and D Wigg-Wolf (eds) Iron Age Coinage and Ritual Practices Studien zu Fundmunzen der Antike 20 Mainz 265ndash85

Holman Dj (2005b) lsquoThe Folkestone potin hoard of 1979rsquo Arch Cant 125Keller P 1982 lsquoRescue excavations in Folkestone from 1973rsquo KAR 69 209ndash11Keller P 1988 lsquoThe evidence for ancient quern production at Folkestonersquo KAR 93 59ndash68Klein WG 1928 lsquoRoman temple at Worth Kentrsquo Ant J 8 76ndash86Laing L 1968 lsquoA Greek tin trade with Cornwallrsquo Cornish Archaeology 7 15ndash23Laing L 1983 lsquoA Mediterranean trade with Wirral in the Iron Agersquo Cheshire Arch BulletinBulletin 9 6ndash8Lambot B and Casagrande P 1997 lsquoUne monnaie drsquoEbusus sur lrsquooppidum de Vieux Laon agrave St Thomas

Aisnersquo Bull Soc Arch ChampenoiseArch Champenoise 90 16ndash29Lewis j 1736 The History of Tenet in Kent LondonMack RP 1975 The Coinage of Ancient Britain LondonMay j 1994 lsquoCoinage and the settlements of the Corieltauvi in East Midland Britainrsquo BNJ 64 1ndash21Mays M (ed) 1992 Celtic Coinage Britain and Beyond BAR British Series 222 OxfordMillett M 1996 Review of Blockley et al 1995 in Arch Cant 116 341ndash6Millett M and Wilmott T 2004 lsquoRethinking Richboroughrsquo in P Wilson (ed) The Archaeology of Roman

Towns Studies in Honour of John S Wacher Oxford 184ndash94 Milne jG 1948 Finds of Greek Coins from the British Isles OxfordMuckelroy K Haselgrove C and Nash D et al 1978 lsquoA pre-Roman coin from Canterbury and the ship

represented on itrsquo PPS 44 439ndash44Nash D 1978a lsquoPlus ccedila change currency in Central Gaul from Caesar to Nerorsquo in R Carson and C Kraay

(eds) Scripta Nummaria Romana Essays Presented to Humphrey Sutherland London 12ndash31Nash D 1978b lsquoFive first century coins from Gaul found recently in East Kentrsquo Arch Cant 95 298ndash9Nash D 1987 Coinage in the Celtic World LondonNorthover P 1992 lsquoMaterial issues in the Celtic coinagersquo in Mays 1992 235ndash99Parfitt K 1982 lsquoA Roman occupation site near Sandwichrsquo KAR 67 150ndash9Parfitt K 1995 Iron Age Burials from Mill Hill Deal LondonParfitt K 2000 lsquoA Roman settlement site at Dicksons Cornerrsquo Arch Cant 120 107ndash48Perkins DRj 1992 lsquoArchaeological evaluations at Ebbsfleet in the Isle of Thanetrsquo Arch Cant 110

269ndash311Perkins DRj 1993 lsquoNorth Foreland Avenue Broadstairsrsquo Arch Cant 113 411ndash13Philp B 1990 lsquoExcavations on the Roman Villa at Folkestone 1989rsquo KAR 99 206ndash9Pilbrow j 1871 lsquoDiscoveries made during excavations at Canterbury in 1868rsquo Archaeologia 43 151ndash64Pollard Rj 1988 The Roman Pottery of Kent Kent Archaeological Society Monograph 5 MaidstoneReece R 1968 lsquoThe Roman coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1968 200ndash17Reece R 1987 Coinage in Roman Britain LondonRivet A and Smith C 1979 The Place Names of Roman Britain LondonRoach-Smith C 1850 The Antiquities of Richborough Reculver and Lymne LondonRodwell W 1976 lsquoCoinage oppida and the rise of Belgic power in South-Eastern Britainrsquo in B Cunliffe and

T Rowley (eds) Oppida in Barbarian Europe BAR S 11 181ndash367Rodwell W 1981 lsquoLost and found the archaeology of findspots of Celtic coinsrsquo in Cunliffe 1981 43ndash52Scheers S 1977 La Gaule Belgique traiteacute de numismatique celtique II ParisScheers S 1978 Monnaies gauloises de Seine-Maritime RouenScheers S 1992 lsquoCeltic coin types in Britain and their Mediterranean originsrsquo in Mays 1992 33ndash46Stead I 1976 lsquoThe earliest burials of the Aylesford culturersquo in G de G Sieveking IH Longworth and KE

Wilson (eds) Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology London 401ndash16Symons D 1990 lsquoCeltic coinage of Britain some amendments and additionsrsquo N Circ March 1990

48ndash50Thompson FH 1983 lsquoExcavations at Bigberry near Canterbury 1979ndash80rsquo Ant J 63 237ndash78

54 DAVID HOLMAN

Thompson I 1982 Grog-tempered Belgic Pottery of South-Eastern England BAR British Series 108 Oxford

Toulmin-Smith L (ed) 1909 The Itinerary of John Leland in or about the years 1535ndash1543 vol 4 part 8 London

Van Arsdell R 1989 Celtic Coinage of Britain LondonVillaronga L 1994 Corpus Nummorum Hispaniae Ante Augusti Aetatem MadridWinbolt SE 1925 Roman Folkestone London

54 DAVID HOLMAN

Thompson I 1982 Grog-tempered Belgic Pottery of South-Eastern England BAR British Series 108 Oxford

Toulmin-Smith L (ed) 1909 The Itinerary of John Leland in or about the years 1535ndash1543 vol 4 part 8 London

Van Arsdell R 1989 Celtic Coinage of Britain LondonVillaronga L 1994 Corpus Nummorum Hispaniae Ante Augusti Aetatem MadridWinbolt SE 1925 Roman Folkestone London