Britannia XXXVI (2005), 1-54

Iron Age Coinage and Settlement in East Kent

By DAVID HOLMAN

introduction

ntil 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 2,500 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 use.1 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 here.2 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 productive.3
Holman 2000. 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 there. 3 Everitt 1986.
1 2

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

DAVID HOLMAN

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. Eastry; 7. Goodnestone; 8. Canterbury; 9. East Wear Bay, Folkestone. (Contour shows land 100m above OD.)

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 2,502 accurately provenanced Iron Age coins recorded from Kent (counting hoards as one) as at the end of 2003, 1,690 are from east Kent and, of these, 1,629 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
4 Haselgrove 1987, 75101; 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 Thurrock type (hereafter referred to perhaps more accurately as the Kentish Primary Series), has been added.

IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT table 1. phases of iron age coinage in kent Phase P:KP P:FLI P:FLII C (Potin, AE, AR) 15 (AV) 6 7 8E (early) 8L (late) 9 Notes Earliest British potin coinage (Kentish Primary Series) First potin coinage of flat module (Flat Linear I) Latest British potin coinage (Flat Linear II) Imported base metal and silver coinage All imported gold coinage and earliest British types Kentish Uninscribed Series, other uninscribed British types Dubnovellaunos, Sa, Vosenos, Tasciovanus Eppillus, early Cunobelin types Later Cunobelin types, Amminus Latest British coinage (no Kentish types)

Date (+/- 10 Years) Midlate 2nd century b.c. Late 2ndmid 1st century b.c. c.5030 b.c. Mostly c.10030 b.c. Late 3rd centuryc.50 b.c. c.4025 b.c. c.251 b.c. c. a.d. 125 c. a.d. 2540 c. a.d. 40Conquest

precise given the nature of the evidence and most dates should be given a range of plus or minus ten years at least.5 Early references to Iron Age coins from east Kent were made in the eighteenth century by local historians.6 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 types.7 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 recorded.8 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 series.9 As noted by Haselgrove, single coin finds are of particular value in understanding circulation patterns,10 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 in the broadest sense 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 1,690 coin finds recorded from east Kent, 802 come from these nine sites, which are regarded here as major 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 Lincolnshire.11 The remaining 888 coin finds come from a total of more than
Van Arsdell 1989. Lewis 1736, 27, pl. 5; Boys 1792, 869. Haselgrove 1993, 43. Allen 1976, 100. 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 this. 10 Haselgrove 1987, 213. 11 May 1994, 14.
5 6 7 8 9

DAVID HOLMAN

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 lists.12 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.
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 Series UB1 Head right / clumpy-hoofed Pegasus left (AE) UB2a Head right, alternate ring and dot border (neat style)/lion left (AE) UB3 Boar left / five-tailed lion left (AE) US3 Four horses heads / horse left (AR minim) Dubnovellaunos DB1a Long-haired head left / Pegasus right with hatched box below (AE) DB1b Crowned head left / (reverse as DB1a) (AE) DB2 Lion left / horseman right (AE) DS1 Griffin right / seated figure right (AR) Sa/Sam SB1 Horse right / hippogryph left (AE ) Tasciovanus/Sego TB1 Eight-pointed star / bull left (VA 1855/1808 variant) (AE) Eppillus EB1 Boar right / hippogryph left (AE ) Amminus AS1 Head right / biga (AR) Uncertain NS1 Back to back crescents / ?dog right (Eppillus?) as CCI 95.0903 (fig. 2, 1) (Allen 1995, 83, no. 277) as CCI 03.0078 (fig. 2, 2) as CCI 92.0042 (fig. 2, 3) as CCI 99.0362 (fig. 2, 4) (Blockley et al. 1995, 925, no. 41) as CCI 01.0199 (fig. 2, 5) as CCI 02.0075 (fig. 2, 6) as CCI 94.1182 (fig. 2, 7) as CCI 89.0026 (fig. 2,8) as CCI 99.0002 (de Jersey 1997) (fig. 2, 9) as CCI 94.0337 (fig. 2, 10) as CCI 94.0397 (fig. 2, 11) as CCI 97.2069 (fig. 2, 12) as CCI 01.1438 (fig. 2, 13)

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. 1980.13 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.
Mack 1975; Van Arsdell 1989; Hobbs 1996. 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.
12 13

IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

10

11
fig.

12

13

14

15

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

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 eyes only 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 coins.14 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 Thurrock 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 imports.15 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, e.g. 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 15

Boys 1792, 869. e.g. Nash 1978b.

IRON 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, i.e. 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 conclusions.16 An example of the problems which may arise is given by Reece in relation to the Roman coins from the excavations at Richborough.17 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 Arsdell.19 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 compared.20 Individual sites in east Kent show wide variation, attributable to different types of site and dates of commencement, and a normal pattern of coin loss, such as that suggested by Haselgrove for a number of sites north of the Thames,21 cannot be determined. The figures used here do not include the inadequately recorded coins listed by Allen,22 other unreliable provenances, or Greek 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 Rodwell,23 i.e. 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 condition.24 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 (36.1 per cent and 9.3 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 (27.8 per cent and 7.7 per cent respectively). This is illustrated by the comparison histogram (fig. 3b) and may be interpreted as indicating that the level of
e.g. Haselgrove 1992, 126. Reece 1987, 808. e.g. Casey 1980, 28. Van Arsdell 1989. e.g. Haselgrove 1993, 53. Haselgrove 1993, 54. Allen 1960. Rodwell 1976, 314. The site histograms show two different figures; one (n1) for the phase section showing the number of identified coins, and the other (n2) for the metal section showing all coins, including those which cannot be identified but which are certainly Iron Age.
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

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 3.5 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 W.S. Klein in 1925.25 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 site.26 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 6.5 ha. The limited dating evidence suggests that the temple itself was in use, if not constructed, during the fourth century a.d.27 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 b.c. 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 here,28 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 26 27 28

Klein 1928. e.g. Harding 1974, 103. Klein 1928. Haselgrove 1987.

IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

fig.

3b.

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

chronological problems associated with unstratified material,29 the large number of Kentish Primary Series potins 34.7 per cent of the total site assemblage; 36.1 per cent of the identified coins 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 origin.30 The 28 Flat Linear I potins seem to split into two groups: 17 belonging to Allens early types AD; the remainder mostly to the late types JL.31 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 b.c. 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 Kentish.33 The Chichester Cock bronze is regarded here as a Phase 6 issue, but potentially belongs to Phase 5. Some 10.6 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
e.g. de Jersey 1999, 195. Holman 2000, 220. Allen 1971. e.g. Haselgrove 1995, 119. 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.
29 30 31 32 33

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 offering.34 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 origin.35 As on most sites, numbers of coins of Phases 15 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 b.c., intriguingly the same date at which Canterbury appears to have been established (see below, Site 8). Following considerable activity in the mid/late second to mid-first century b.c., coin deposition fell sharply before slowly recovering, until the early first century a.d. (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 b.c. The number of coins recorded must be regarded as providing a representative 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 Harlow,36 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 1.2 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 2.5 km to the north of the Worth Temple site and is situated on farmland
e.g. Briggs, Haselgrove and King 1992, 445. Sir John Evans held in his collection a gold quarter-stater of British Pa type (VA 147) found at Worth, near Sandwich, but the exact findspot is unknown. 36 C. Haselgrove, pers. comm. 37 Holman 2005a, 26575.
34 35

IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

11

immediately to the east of Sandwich. It was discovered by members of the Thanet & 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 here.38 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 2.5 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 Age/Roman shoreline; the sea today lies more than 2 km to the east.39 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 west.40 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 1.50 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 Augustan/Tiberian 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 a.d. 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 & 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 (i.e. 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 times,41 but this cannot represent the complete answer. It is clear from the excavations that some considerable disturbance of

Frere 1988, 484; Frere 1991, 292. Another Roman occupation site located on a second, more extensive, outer coastal sand spit has been located at Dicksons Corner, some 2.5 km to the south-east. No coinage has been found there (Parfitt 2000). 40 D. Perkins, pers. comm. 41 C. Burch, pers. comm.
38 39

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 8.9 per cent of the total of Iron Age coins from the site compared with 50.4 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 b.c. 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 27.8 per cent of the total, nearly four

fig.

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

times the east Kent mean. Only Richborough (30.4 per cent) among the east Kent sites exceeds this (see below, Site 3), and few other sites in Britain can compare, with Silchester (30.6 per cent) and Hayling Island (29.2 per cent) providing the closest comparisons.42 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 31.5 per cent of the total.43 There are also three Siculo-Punic bronzes dated c. 320280 b.c.
Briggs, Haselgrove and King 1992, 423. 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 LAbb, Eu, Seine-Maritime (Delestre 1984, fig. 88).
42 43

IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

13

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. a.d. 1525, 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 b.c. but much of the pottery apparently being of Augustan or Tiberian date, with further samian imports of slightly later Claudian/Neronian 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 a.d., then perhaps more coins of Phase 8E should be present, i.e. 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 b.c. 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 b.c. 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 OD.44 It stands some 3 km to the north-west of Archers Low Farm and some 3.5 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 19221938, 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 attested,45 but the status of the site immediately prior to the Roman invasion remains uncertain. Cunliffe stated that there was no trace of Belgic occupation on the site,46 while both Thompson and Pollard have maintained that definite pre-Conquest pottery is generally absent from the excavated material.47 A large number of early brooches are known from Richborough, but there is no evidence that any of these arrived before a.d. 43; very few can categorically be shown to be contemporary with the Iron Age coins from the site,48 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 here,49 an idea previously suggested by Allen.50 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 imports.51 Following reassessment of the site assemblage, including non-excavation finds, an updated summary list showing a total of 23 coins is provided in Appendix 1.52 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 remember.53 Several local notables and antiquaries in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had collections of coins from the site.54 It is evident that the total number of Roman coins deposited, whether lost or deliberately hoarded, at Richborough far exceeds the 56,084 recovered during the excavations of 19221938,55 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 site; b. An unknown number of coins have been removed without record over a long period of time, including by recent illegal metal-detector activity; c. A lack of sanctioned metal detecting because much of the area is scheduled; d. The collections of local antiquaries could be of a selective nature;

Bushe-Fox 1949, 811; Cunliffe 1968, 11617. Cunliffe 1968, 232. Thompson 1982, 809; Pollard 1988, 44. Bayley and Butcher 2004. Rodwell 1976, 221. Allen 1968, 186. Allen 1968, 1848. 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, 62. 54 e.g. Roach-Smith 1850, 119. 55 Reece 1968.

45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

15

fig.

5b.

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

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 phase; g. Many coins were probably missed during the excavations (see above); h. The 19221938 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 fort;56 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 a.d. and consisting mainly of types typically found in east Kent, and the other being more or less contemporary with the Roman conquest of a.d. 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 invasion.57 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 Haselgrove,58 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 57 58

Millett and Wilmott 2004. Haselgrove 1987, 153. Haselgrove 1987, 153.

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 potins.59 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 b.c. and it may be that the potins were lost at a later date and that the site was a later first-century b.c. 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 30.4 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 a.d.61 A second-century b.c. bronze coin of Cyzicus is on balance more likely to be a Roman than a preRoman import in this instance, further illustrating the difficulty in determining the date at which such early coins reached Britain.62
site 4: ebbsfleet, isle of thanet

Background This site lies some 3.5 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 & 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 area.63 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. a.d. 2550/75, is a quantity of

Allen 1960, 281; Haselgrove 1984, 152. Haselgrove 1987, 153. Haselgrove 1999, 164. 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 b.c. which is potentially a contemporary import. 63 Perkins 1992.
59 60 61 62

IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

17

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 b.c. 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 1992,64 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 Eastry (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 b.c., a date also supported by quantities of flinttempered pottery. A relatively high level of coin deposition continued until perhaps the mid-first century b.c., 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

fig.

6b.

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

century a.d. 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
64

C.R. Wren, Coins found at Ebbsfleet during 1990 and 1991, in Perkins 1992, 3056.

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 coinage.65 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 main Ebbsfleet building, apparently of later second-century date, is of unknown function.66 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 a.d., based on the comparative scarcity of pottery of early Roman date and the lack of contemporary coinage, has previously been noted by MacphersonGrant.67 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 66 67

Bean 2000, 237 (his type QsD 3-4). Perkins 1992, 27881. N. MacPherson-Grant, The Pottery, in Perkins 1992, 301.

IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

19

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 palisaded.68 Ceramic evidence indicated a construction date in the mid- to late Iron Age with infilling of the ditches occurring from the late first century b.c. onwards. The site is currently interpreted as being a possible hillfort, although the ditch dimensions are on the small side and the term defended hilltop enclosure 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 types.69 A Gallo-Belgic stater found in the nineteenth century at Stone House, immediately to the south of the St Stephens 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 34.6 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

fig.

7b.

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

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 b.c. In 1999, an archaeological excavation was undertaken by Canterbury Archaeological Trust and the Trust for Thanet Archaeology prior to the redevelopment of the St Stephens 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
68 69

Hogwood 1995, 4756. Perkins 1993, 41113.

20

DAVID HOLMAN

pit. Preliminary examination of this hoard indicated that, although the coins range from Allens Class C to Class L, approximately half belong to Class G.70 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 b.c., i.e. 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 metaldetector 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 b.c. 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 a.d. 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 Kent.71 In view of the coastal location of the site, it is interesting to note the appearance of three specimens of the Ship 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 GalloBelgic 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: eastry

Background Situated on chalk downland south of Eastry, this site has produced an assemblage of 51 preRoman 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 North-East Kent.72 The coinage A total of 47 Iron Age and four Siculo-Punic coins have been recorded from Eastry (Appendix 1).

C. Haselgrove, pers. comm. 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 Eastry. The coins listed are known to be from this site.
70 71

IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

21

fig.

8b.

fig. 8a. Eastry: coins from site (%). Eastry set against rest of east Kent (mean = 100%).

Eastry 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. Eastry 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 Eastry 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 15, 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 Eastry as a possible religious/ritual site has been published elsewhere.73 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, 2801.

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 a.d. Roman military equipment.74 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).

fig.

9b.

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

The low number of potin coins, representing just 6.5 per cent of the site assemblage, shows that although the site may have an origin in the first half of the first century b.c., 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 b.c. The majority of the Iron Age coins from Goodnestone, 90.2 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
74

Bishop 1995, 1719.

IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

23

these are six examples of two uncatalogued, but related, bronze types known from several other provenances in both Kent and Essex.75 A coin of Dubnovellaunos is one of only two silver coins from Goodnestone; the other, tentatively attributed to Addedomaros by Van Arsdell,76 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 3.7 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 b.c. 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. Goodnestones 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 b.c. 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 and/or an occupational/ trading settlement.77 A detailed report on Goodnestone incorporating all facets of the site is in preparation.78

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, 334. 78 Cross forthcoming.

24
site 8: canterbury (walled area)

DAVID HOLMAN

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 the walled town by the alder swamp,79 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 Age.80 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 date.81 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 found.82 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 b.c., 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 b.c., but the defences do not appear to have been constructed until the second century b.c.83 The camp appears to have been largely abandoned around 50 b.c., perhaps as a result of it being stormed by Caesars troops in 54 b.c.84 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 settlement.85 It is generally accepted that the settlement at Canterbury in some way superseded Bigberry during the mid-first century b.c., perhaps originating as a river-side trading station of the hillfort.86 Blagg has suggested that Canterburys importance grew after c. 15 b.c. following the establishment of the Rhine frontier.87 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 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87

Rivet and Smith 1979, 3534. Pilbrow 1871. Frere 1965, 6. Blockley et al. 1995. Thompson 1983, 2539; Blockley and Blockley 1989, 2456. Blockley and Blockley 1989, 246. Rodwell 1976, 330. Blockley et al. 1995, 9. T. Blagg in Blockley et al. 1995, 11.

IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

25

period.88 The Iron Age status of Canterbury has previously been questioned,89 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 importance.90 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 case.91 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 a.d.92 Nash considered that the potin coins from the Marlowe excavations were circulating until the later first century a.d., but appeared to make insufficient concession to residuality.93 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 coinage.94 The problems caused by residuality have also been discussed by Arthur in relation to the late Republican amphorae from the excavations.95

88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

Blockley et al. 1995, 12. Blockley et al. 1995, 9. Millett 1996, 3423. Haselgrove 1988, 1035. Haselgrove 1987, 141. D. Nash in Blockley et al. 1995, 923. e.g. Nash 1987, 368. Arthur 1986, 240.

26

DAVID HOLMAN

fig.

10b.

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

Potins account for 47.9 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 tte diabolique potin.96 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 5075 years before the Conquest. The possibility remains that the initial nucleus of the settlement may have been situated elsewhere,97 but the current evidence supports Haselgroves view that early potins had mostly ceased to circulate by the early first century a.d.;98 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
a.d.99

An early cessation date for the circulation of the earlier Flat Linear I potins, particularly Allen Classes AD, can also be surmised from the Canterbury evidence. The 21 Flat Linear I potins all belong to Allen Classes JL, i.e. late in the series, probably dating to around the middle of the first century b.c. Some of these were deliberately cut,100 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 b.c., 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 Canterbury.101 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 97 98 99 100 101

Allen 1960, 281; Haselgrove 1984, 153. Blockley et al. 1995, 8. Haselgrove 1987, 158. Allen 1995, 51. Haselgrove 1988, 118. Haselgrove 1987, 151.

IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

27

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, 30.7 per cent of the total number of Iron Age coins from Canterbury (32.1 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 classes.103 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 a.d. 388402 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 coins.104 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. a.d. 20),105 perhaps being used alongside struck bronzes in a changed role,106 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, 15.9 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 Continent,107 and Fitzpatricks suggestion that Canterbury arguably had direct contact with Belgic Gaul still stands,108 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 Chichester Cock 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
102 103 104 105 106 107 108

Holman 2000. Haselgrove 1988, 117; G. Cottam, pers. comm. Reece 1987, 84. Haselgrove 1987, 145. Haselgrove 1993, 44. Haselgrove 1987, 143. Fitzpatrick 1992, 2830.

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 Cunobelins 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 Canterbury,109 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 found.110 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 a.d. (Phase 8E). This denomination is more usually associated with the West Sussex/Hampshire 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 Eppillus 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 b.c. 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 area.111 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 area.112 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 Canterbury. There is currently little evidence that Canterbury was a religious centre in the later Iron Age,
Haselgrove 1987, 145. Blockley et al. 1995, 11. Frere et al. 1987, 4554. 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.
109 110 111 112

IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

29

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 antecedents.114 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 settlement.115 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 purpose,116 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 production.117 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 facilities.118 In Kent, similar moulds are otherwise known only from Rochester.119 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 Haselgrove.120 Trade was probably a principal reason for its establishment. Perhaps starting in the third quarter of the first century b.c., 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 area;121 such shifts did apparently occur at Braughing, Camulodunum,122 and Verulamium.123 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, 114 Holman 2005a, 27980. 115 Haselgrove 1987, 1413. 116 May 1994, 16. 117 Blockley et al. 1995, 923; 11023. 118 Allen 1995, 29. 119 Detsicas 1983, 34. 120 Haselgrove 1987, 144. 121 Haselgrove 1987, 143. 122 Haselgrove 1992, 130. 123 Cunliffe 1991, 1434.

unpublished.

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 year.124 Some re-excavation took place here in 1989.125 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 date.126 In 1974, work on the foreshore below the villa located a shallow pit containing late Iron Ageearly Roman pottery, preserved within a block of stratified soil that had slumped down the cliff-face.127 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 beach.128 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 b.c. to the first century a.d., including Gallo-Belgic fine wares and fragments of Dressel 1B amphorae. A number of unfinished quernstones and two late Iron Age brooches were also recovered.129 A La Tne III silver brooch and chain dating from the first century b.c. was found on the shore here some time before 1891.130 A significant number of Iron Age coins and several further La Tne 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 Winbolt.131 Most of the coins are recent metaldetector finds and chance discoveries from the beach made since the nineteenth century, although four Iron Age coins were found during the 1924 villa excavations.132 It is highly probable that some of the numerous other, poorly recorded, coins with a Folkestone provenance also came from here, but this cannot now be proved and so they have not been included in the site list. The

124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132

Winbolt 1925. Philp 1990, 2069. Keller 1982, 20911. Keller 1982, 211. Keller 1988. Frere 1991, 291. Stead 1976, 406. Winbolt 1925, 7982. Winbolts coins, nos 2 and 2a, are obverse and reverse of the same coin.

IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

31

coins of uncertain provenance include the only Dobunnic coin recorded from Kent and a hoard of six Gallo-Belgic E staters found on the shore near Folkestone some time around 1877.133 Potin coins, comprising 63.9 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 b.c. 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 1979.134

fig.

11b.

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

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 53 per cent above the east Kent mean 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,
133 134

Evans 1890, 435. Holman 2005b.

32

DAVID HOLMAN

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 recorded.135 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 Eastry. The gold coins are a mixture of nineteenth-century finds and more recent chance discoveries.136 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 in the cliff, together with a small gold ingot; details of this discovery were later enclosed with the finds in a locket and shown to the British Museum.137 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 settlement.138 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 19241989.139 If this rate has been maintained over the last 2,000 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 b.c., activity continuing at a lower level thereafter. The lack of Phase 7 coinage

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 Index. 138 Keller 1988 139 Philp 1990, 206.

IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

33

noted by Haselgrove is still evident,140 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, e.g. Maydensole Farm, Sutton;141 Broom Bungalows, Sutton;142 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 lost.144 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 site.145 This would appear to be the case in east Kent, i.e. 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 b.c. 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 15 (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 other coins (fig. 12b) again shows Kentish Primary potins as the most

140 141 142 143 144 145

Haselgrove 1987, 151. A. Redding, pers. comm. A. Redding, pers. comm. D. Perkins, pers. comm. Haselgrove 1993, 50. Rodwell 1976, 314.

34

DAVID HOLMAN

fig.

12a.

East Kent (major sites).

fig.

12b.

East Kent (other finds).

fig.

12c.

East Kent (all coins).

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 15. Conversely, Flat Linear I potins and Phases 78L display generally similar levels to the major sites. Phase 6 issues and continental non-gold imports are much scarcer and have higher major site : other finds 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 other finds are evident when the metal types are compared. Potin forms the majority of the other finds, significantly in excess of bronze. Silver and particularly gold are also both more common among the other finds than at the major sites.

IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT table 3. major sites: other finds ratio

35

Phase/metal
P:KP P:FLI P:FLII C (Potin, AE, AR) 15 (AV) 6 7 8E (early) 8L (late) 9 Potin AE AR AV

Major sites %
22.3 12.0 9.7 10.3 1.7 12.8 11.6 15.8 3.8 0.0 45.0 46.6 5.0 3.4

Other finds %
34.9 11.6 2.4 5.8 9.5 7.8 11.1 13.2 3.5 0.2 49.5 27.5 8.7 14.3

Major : other ratio

0.64 1.03 4.04 1.78 0.18 1.64 1.05 1.20 1.09 0.00 0.91 1.69 0.57 0.24

Potin Potin coins, recorded from 801 specimens (counting hoards as one find), 47.4 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 other finds (49.5 per cent), validating Haselgroves assertion that potins were more common on rural sites, at least in relative if not in actual terms.146 This may be seen as supporting Allens view that potins were linked in some way to early market development,147 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 economy.148 The relative distribution of different types of potin among the other 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 b.c. date,149 form a small but significant proportion of the corpus. Differences in the distribution and perhaps
146 147 148 149

Haselgrove 1987, 157. Allen 1971, 143. e.g. Cunliffe 1981, 2939. Haselgrove 1999, 1323.

36

DAVID HOLMAN

the functions of potin and bronze coinages in Gaul have been noted,150 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-1980s.152 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 b.c. 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 coin.153 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 at least 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 ago.154 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 elsewhere.155 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 1899.156 A comparison may perhaps also be drawn with Roman radiate hoards of the later third century a.d.; although hoarded in vast numbers, the individual coins were of low value. Furthermore, radiates, 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 Gaul,157 save for a solitary coin which may be a round half potin 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, 36.6 per cent of the

150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157

Allen 1995, 34. Allen 1995, 48. Haselgrove 1987, 1578. Allen 1960, 204. Haselgrove 1995, 6. e.g. Haselgrove 1988, 11820; Gruel 1989, 1514; Allen 1995, 489. Scheers 1977, 872. Haselgrove 1995, 48.

IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

37

total. However, unlike the potins, which they replaced both in Britain and Gaul,158 there is a significant difference between the major sites (46.6 per cent) and other finds (27.5 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 exchange.159 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 Belgic 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 mints,160 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 Rodwell.161 Haselgroves comment that Cunobelins 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 impression.163 Silver Silver coins are represented by 117 examples including ten plated pieces, just 6.9 per cent of the total assemblage. Silver is more common than gold on the major sites but the reverse is true for other finds, although these still have a higher proportion of silver (8.7 per cent) than the major sites (5.0 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 Regni.164 This is particularly evident during the reign of Eppillus, whose

Haselgrove 1999, 157. Nash 1978a, 24; Haselgrove 1993, 57. Clogg and Haselgrove 1995. Rodwell 1976, 2746. Haselgrove 1987, 159. 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.
158 159 160 161 162 163

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 minims 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 rainbow-cup 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 county.165 Similar variations are known elsewhere.166 Gold coins, recorded from 154 examples including 17 plated pieces in east Kent, 9.1 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 Rodwell.167 Whereas gold accounts for only 3.4 per cent of the finds on the major sites, with a maximum of 11.5 per cent at East Wear Bay, 14.3 per cent of the other 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, specialpurpose medium, which appears to support Fitzpatricks view that it was not a general-purpose coinage.168 A similar situation is seen in France, at least for the earlier gold coinages.169 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 Thanet.170 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 (359336 b.c.) from Ringwould and another from Alkham, as well as three examples of Gallo-Belgic Xa which

165 166 167 168 169 170

Holman 2000, 2245. e.g. Curteis 1996, 22. Rodwell 1976, 31314. Fitzpatrick 1992, 20. Haselgrove 1999, 124. P. de Jersey, pers. comm.

IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

39

probably date from no later than the early second century b.c.171 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 discussed,172 with the exception of a recent paper by de Jersey,173 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 Greek. 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 b.c. despite the generally earlier date of these coins, many dating to the period after the end of the Gallic War.174 However, many of the Kentish Uninscribed Series types, which are themselves probably pre-Augustan,175 use Gaulish bronzes as their inspiration, showing that imports must have been arriving by around 30 b.c. at the latest. From around 15 b.c., fineware pottery began to be imported in increasing quantities along with other items of Gaulish and Italian origin,176 and it is likely that coinage imports would also have increased at this time. The difficulty of determining the date of arrival of Gaulish nongold 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 a.d. 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 midfirst-century b.c. date, particularly those of Dressel 1B type, and by inference coins, reached Britain.177 Cross-Channel trade routes are implied by Armorican coins found along the central south coast of England.178 Hengistbury Head and Mount Batten both have ample evidence for maritime trade with Armorica and may be regarded as ports.179 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 coinage,180 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
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180

Fitzpatrick 1992, 4. e.g. Allen 1960, 99118. de Jersey 1999. e.g. Haselgrove 1988, 107. Haselgrove 1993, 43. e.g. Cunliffe 1991, 4412. Cunliffe 1991, 4348; Fitzpatrick 1985. Cunliffe 1991, 4348. Cunliffe and de Jersey 1997, 513. Fitzpatrick 1992, 2830.

40

DAVID HOLMAN

before the Conquest has previously been a matter of debate.181 Cunliffe considered that at least some Greek coins could have arrived via the Atlantic trade route from the later second century b.c. 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 subject.183 Dating mostly from between the fourth and second centuries b.c., 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 Scheers.184 Rodwell made the point that the prototypes must have been available to be copied and was of the opinion that early Roman coins, i.e. Republican and early imperial denarii, were known in Britain well before a.d. 43,185 the likelihood of which has increased following metallurgical analysis showing that these coins probably provided the silver for many southern British issues.186 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, Deal.187 Trade routes must have existed which ultimately brought it to Britain and Haselgrove has noted that Belgic Gaul evidently had contact with areas further south.188 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 primitive valuable.190 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 (204181 b.c.) from Winchester which has since been questioned.191 As stated by Haselgrove, a Siculo-Punic coin from the Caburn hillfort in Sussex cannot be unquestionably accepted as an Iron Age loss.192 Fitzpatrick rejected many such coins owing to poor records and dubious provenances while noting that other writers accepted some as ancient imports.193 Similar coins from France have been noted by Nash,194 but again the standard of recording is poor.195 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 a.d. 43. The same problem occurs with Republican denarii. It may be
e.g. Milne 1948; Laing 1968; Laing 1983. Cunliffe 1991, 431. 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 1992. 185 Rodwell 1976, 2856. 186 Northover 1992, 257. 187 Parfitt 1995. 188 Haselgrove 1987, 195. 189 e.g. Hobbs 1996, 9. 190 Dalton 1977. 191 Collis 1975, 478; Reece 1987, 14. 192 Haselgrove 1987, 465. 193 Fitzpatrick 1992, 3. 194 Nash 1987, 118. 195 The only certainly provenanced Balearic coin from northern France is a much later, mid-first-century b.c., issue from St Thomas (Lambot and Casagrande 1997).
181 182 183

IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

41

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 secondcentury b.c. bronze of Cyzicus, has been recorded. Elsewhere in Britain, Mediterranean coins have been found on Roman sites in secure post-Conquest deposits,196 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 b.c., 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 army,197 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 old 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 (e.g. VA 1981, VA 2067 etc.) suggest that they may be products of such a mint, with their common adherence to a CVN/CVN(O) legend, distinctive treatment of the lettering, and the lack of any reference to Camulodunum. Cunobelins ship type (VA 1989) bears an obverse inscription on one die which was apparently altered from CAMV to CVN,199 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 a.d. 30s.200 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 e.g. Carthaginian coins from Caerleon, Colchester, and St Albans (Laing 1983); three coins from Coventinas Well (Milne 1948); and five Greek coins from Caerwent (Milne 1948) from where there is also an early Gaulish potin (Allen 1995, 88, S.343). Milne also mentions several Ptolemaic coins from Roman sites. Interestingly, neither Milne nor Laing listed any coins of Ebusus. 197 e.g. Laing 1968, 17. 198 Haselgrove 1987, 143. 199 Muckelroy et al. 1978, 43944. 200 de Jersey 2001, 67; Holman 1999.

42

DAVID HOLMAN

that these coins are difficult to date and suggests a broad date range of c. a.d. 1535.201 The bronzes are also difficult to date and there could have been more than one period of minting activity. Significantly, the distribution of Cunobelins issues north of the Thames lends support to the existence of a Kentish mint because the Kentish types are much scarcer there than are the Camulodunum or western mint issues; indeed, all the relevant silver coins come from south of the Thames.202 That circulation between regions appears to have been tightly controlled at this time has been noted by Fitzpatrick and de Jersey.203 The location of this proposed mint is unknown, although DVNO, the probable mint name shown on some coins of Amminus, is an obvious candidate.204 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 Kentish types have been retained within Phase 8E in the statistics for this paper, except for the (possibly Kentish) SOLIDV type (VA 2073), which is unquestionably a Phase 8L issue.205
conclusions

In summary, although coinage is only one facet of the historical record, Cunliffes view that Kent had considerable potential for Iron Age studies has now been vindicated.206 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 multidenomination 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 land,207 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 Rodwell.208 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
201 202 203 204 205 206

de Jersey 2001, 30. de Jersey 2001, 24. Fitzpatrick 1992, 28; de Jersey 2001. Holman 1999. de Jersey 2001, 19. Cunliffe 1982, 40. 207 Rodwell 1976, 31316. 208 Rodwell 1981, 43.

IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

43

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 & 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

appendix 1. summary of number of coins of each type found on the nine major sites in east kent (as at 31/12/2003) References Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9

Tribal attribution

Issuer

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

VA 1402-1440; H.660-666 VA 102-133; H.667-713 VA 135-139; H.718-723 -

82 28 1 2

1 1

19 5

28 21 *

28 5

2 2 2

2 21 50

7 9 21

DAVID HOLMAN

1 1 1 1 1 2 1 119 5 5 25 49 2 35 6 78 39 1 1

Uncertain Uncertain / illegible

Sch 185, Cl. II Sch 186 Sch 191 Sch 193 Sch 198 Sch 206 DLT 5368 DLT 5390 etc. Tte diabolique Allen 1995, no. 298 etc. Scheers 1978, type 301 (cf.)

Potin Cantiaci Southern/Central Gaul? Central/Northern Gaul? Bellovaci? Leuci Remi Northern Gaul Suessiones? Veliocasses Sequani Turones Aulerci Eburovices Northern Gaul Subtotal

Bronze (AE) Cantiaci

Uninscribed

6 3

2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 5 4 7 9 4 4

VA 154-1; H.2480 VA 154-1 var. (rev. horse left); H.(as CCI 96.1814) VA 154-3; H.2484 VA 154-5; H.2487 VA 154-9; H.2488

Tribal attribution 4 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 4 4 2 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

Issuer

References

Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Site 5

Site 6

Site 7

Site 8

Site 9

Bronze (AE)

Cantiaci? Cantiaci 1 5 4 1 1

Dubnovellaunos

1 4 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2

1 1

2 2 8 9 3 2 1 2 1 2

1 3 1

1 4 3 2 1

IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Trinovantes 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

3 1 2

Sa(m) Eppillus Eppillus? Amminus Dubnovellaunos Tasciovanus Tasciovanus (Sego)

VA 1629; H.401 UB1 (Allen 1995, no.277) (as CCI 95.0903) UB2a (as CCI 03.0078) UB3 (as CCI 92.0042) VA 166; H.2504 VA 180; H.2509 VA 181-1; H.2507 VA 181 var. (rev. full name); H.(as CCI 94.0381) VA 181-1 or var. DB1a (as CCI 01.0199) DB1b (as CCI 02.0075) DB2 (as CCI 94.1182) VA 187; H.2516 SB1 (as CCI 99.0002) VA 450; H.1137 VA 451; H.1139 VA 452; H.1142 VA 453; H.EB1 (as CCI 94.0358) VA 154-11; H.VA 193; H.VA 195; H.2524 VA 1665; H.2461 VA 1705; H.1711 VA 1816; H.1739 VA 1818; H.1685 VA 1855; H.1690 TB1 (as CCI 94.0337) VA 1855 or TB1

45

46

Tribal attribution

Issuer

References

Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Site 5

Site 6

Site 7

Site 8

Site 9

Bronze (AE) 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 6 3 2

1 10 3 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1

DAVID HOLMAN

Atrebates

Cunobelin Uninscribed

Durotriges Suessiones Atrebates Ambiani

Uninscribed Criciru Andobru -

VA 1965; H.1906 VA 1973-1; H.1938 VA 1973-3; H.1943 VA 1977-1; H.1928 VA 1981; H.1935 VA 1987; H.1936 VA 1989; H.2010 VA 2081; H.1909 VA 2083; H.1902 VA 2085; H.1900 VA 2097; H.1972 VA 2101; H.1987 VA 2103; H.1984 VA 2105; H.1998 VA 2107; H.1991 VA 2109; H.2004 VA- ; H.657; Chichester Cock (Cottam 1999, type 2) VA 1290; H.2790 Sch 27 Sch 46, Cl. I Sch 59 Sch 60 Sch 65/160 var. Sch 65, Cl. V var. Sch 65, Cl. VI var. Sch 75 var. Sch 76

Tribal attribution

Issuer

References

Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Site 5

Site 6

Site 7

Site 8

Site 9

Bronze (AE) 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 8 103 2 49 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sch 80a Sch 80b Sch 80c Sch 80d or 80e Sch 80e, var. a Sch 80j Sch 81 Sch 80 or 81 var. Sch 87 Sch 89 Sch 90a Sch 91 var. Sch 93 Sch 109 Sch 109 var. Sch 119 Allen 1995, no. 21 Sch 136 Sch 163 Sch 216 1 DLT 4349 DLT 6088 DLT 7020 Uncertain Gaulish Uncertain / illegible 1

Morini? Veliocasses Treviri

IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

Vaceco Viricius Rubios Germanus Indutilli L Atectori -

Petrocorii Carnutes Aulerci Eburovices Subtotal

13

12

1 24

1 3 7

10 83

2 6 69

1 1 14

47

48

Tribal attribution

Issuer

References

Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Site 5

Site 6

Site 7

Site 8

Site 9

1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 DAVID HOLMAN 1 1 1 1 1

Silver (AR) Cantiaci US3 (as CCI 99.0362) VA 171; H.2499 VA 178; H.2502 DS1 (as CCI 89.0026) DS1 (plated AR/AE) VA 186; H.VA 441; H.1132 VA 443 (FO var.); H.1135 var. (as CCI 88.0099) NS1 (as CCI 99.0003) AS1 (as CCI 92.0994) VA 1644; H.-

Uninscribed Dubnovellaunos Vosenos Eppillus

Cantiaci or Trinovantes Trinovantes Atrebates

Eppillus? Amminus Uninscribed

Addedomaros? Tasciovanus Tasciovanus (Sego) Cunobelin Uninscribed

Atrebates?

Uninscribed Commios Eppillus Verica Uninscribed

Remi Ambiani?

Ateula Ulatos -

VA 1611; H.388 VA 1800; H.1677 VA 1851; H.1684 VA 1949; H.1858 VA 2061; H.1884 VA 2067; H.1891 VA - ; H.1898 VA - ; H.- ; Bean 2000, QsD 3-4 (as CCI 92.0320) VA - ; H.578; Bean 2000, QsT 1-3 VA 355; H.731 VA 420; H.1116 VA 530; H.1360 VA 531; H.1393 VA - ; H.- (as CCI 92.0064) (base) Sch 41 (plated AR/AE) Sch 94 (base)

Tribal attribution 1 1 1 9 1 1 3 5 1 2 13 1 5 1 Sch 105 (base) DLT 4484 (plated AR/Fe) Unc. Gaulish (as CCI 90.0844) Uncertain (plated AR/AE)

Issuer

References

Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Site 5

Site 6

Site 7

Site 8

Site 9

Silver (AR)

Bellovaci? Aedui? Subtotal

Vepotal -

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 236 1 56 2 23 1 43 2 3 81 4 47 1 92 3 163 7 1 1 1 2 1

Gold (AV) Cantiaci Trinovantes VA 147-1; H.437 VA 158; H.371 VA 1925-3; H.1777 VA 1931 (plated AV/AE); H.1784 VA 1935 (plated AV/AE); H.1843 VA 1935 var.; H.1843 var. (as CCI 92.0398) VA 2015; H.1846
VA 2025-3 (plated AV/AE); H.1832

Uninscribed Cunobelin

IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

S. Thames N. Thames Corieltauvi Ambiani Morini Subtotal

Uninscribed Uninscribed Esup Rasu Gallo-Belgic C Gallo-Belgic E Gallo-Belgic Dc Gallo-Belgic Db -

VA 2038 var.; H.- (as CCI 95.0245) VA 1507 (plated AV/AE); H.347 As VA 260 but gold VA 920 (plated AV/AE); H.3269 VA 42-3 (plated AV/AE) VA 44 VA 52-1 VA 52-3 (plated AV/AR) VA 56 VA 69-1 VA 69-3 Uncertain (plated AV/AE) Unknown

1 1

49

Site totals

61

50

Tribal attribution

Issuer

References

Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Site 5

Site 6

Site 7

Site 8

Site 9

1 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 3 0 4 0 0 1 4 1 1 2 4

Mediterranean types (all AE) Massalia Siculo-Punic Ebusus Cyzicus Site totals DLT 1476 (cf.) Calciati, Kartago 20 Calciati, Kartago 21 Villaronga, Ebusus 22 BMC (Mysia) 159

* (site 5) Includes hoard of 62 Flat Linear I potins counted as one find.

DAVID HOLMAN

IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT bibliography abbreviations

51

Ant. J. = Antiquaries Journal Arch. Cant. = Archaeologia Cantiana Arch. J. = Archaeological Journal BAR = British Archaeological Reports BNJ = British Numismatic Journal DLT = De la Tour 1892 H. = Hobbs 1996 KAR = Kent Archaeological Review M. = Mack 1975 N. Circ. = Spink Numismatic Circular NC = Numismatic Chronicle OJA = Oxford Journal of Archaeology OUCA = Oxford University Committee for Archaeology PPS = Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society SCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British Isles Sch. = Scheers 1977 VA = Van Arsdell 1989 Allen, D.F. 1960: The origins of coinage in Britain: a reappraisal, in S.S. Frere (ed.), Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain, London, 97308 Allen, D.F. 1968: The pre-Roman coins, in Cunliffe 1968, 1848 Allen, D.F. 1971: British potin coins; a review, in D. Jesson and D. Hill (eds), The Iron Age and its Hillforts, Southampton, 12754 Allen, D.F. 1976: Did Adminius strike coins?, Britannia 7, 96100 Allen, D.F. 1995: Catalogue of the Celtic Coins in the British Museum; Volume III, Bronze Coins of Gaul (ed. M. Mays), London Arthur, P. 1986: Roman amphorae from Canterbury, Britannia 17, 23958 Bayley, 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, London Bean, S.C. 2000: The Coinage of the Atrebates & Regni, Oxford University School of Archaeology Monograph 50 / Studies in Celtic Coinage 4, Oxford Bishop, M.C. 1995: Some pre-Flavian military equipment from Kent, in ARMA-Newsletter of the Roman Military Equipment Conference 7, nos 1 and 2 Blockley, K., and Blockley, P. 1989: Excavations at Bigberry near Canterbury, 1981, Arch. Cant. 107, 23952 Blockley, K., Blockley, M., Blockley, P., Frere, S.S., and Stow, S. 1995: Excavations in the Marlowe Car Park and Surrounding Areas, Canterbury Boys, W. 1792: Collections for an History of Sandwich, Canterbury Briggs, D., Haselgrove, C., and King, A. 1992: Iron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island temple, BNJ 62, 162 Bushe-Fox, J.P. 1949: Fourth Report on the Excavation at the Roman Fort at Richborough, Kent, Rep. Res. Comm. Soc. Antiq. London 16, London Calciati, R. 1987: Corpus Nummorum Siculorum: The Bronze Coinage (Volume III), Giugno Casey, J. 1980: Roman Coinage in Britain, Princes Risborough Clogg, P., and Haselgrove, C. 1995: Iron Age struck coinage in Eastern England, OJA 14 (1), 4162 Collis, J. 1975: The coin of Ptolemy V from Winchester, Antiquity 49, 478

52

DAVID HOLMAN

Cottam, G.L. 1999: The Cock Bronzes and other related Iron Age bronze coins found predominantly in West Sussex and Hampshire, BNJ 69, 118 Cross, R. (forthcoming): An Iron Age and Roman Site at Goodnestone, Kent Cunliffe, B.W. (ed.) 1968: Fifth Report on the Excavations at the Roman Fort at Richborough, Kent, Rep. Res. Comm. Soc. Antiq. London 23, London Cunliffe, B.W. 1981: Money and society in pre-Roman Britain, in B.W. Cunliffe (ed.), Coinage and Society in Britain and Gaul; some Current Problems, CBA Research Report 38, 2939 Cunliffe, B.W. 1982: Social and economic development in Kent in the pre-Roman Iron Age, in P. Leach (ed.), Archaeology in Kent to AD1500, CBA Research Report 48, 4050 Cunliffe, B.W. 1991: Iron Age Communities in Britain (3rd edn), London Cunliffe, B.W., 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: An analysis of the circulation patterns of Iron Age coins from Northamptonshire, Britannia 27, 1742 Dalton, G. 1977: Aboriginal economies in stateless societies, in T.K. Earle and J.E. Ericson (eds), Exchange Systems in Prehistory, London, 191212 de Jersey, P. 1997: SA and SAM: one and the same?, N. Circ., May 1997, 11415 de Jersey, P. 1999: Exotic Celtic Coinage in Britain, OJA 18 (2), 189216 de Jersey, P. 2001: Cunobelins silver, Britannia 32, 144 de la Tour, H. 1892: Atlas de monnaies gauloises, Paris Delestre, L.P. 1984: Les monnaies gauloises de Bois LAbb (Eu, Seine-Maritime), Paris Detsicas, A. 1983: The Cantiaci, Gloucester Evans, J. 1890: The Coins of the Ancient Britons: Supplement, London Everitt, A. 1986: Continuity and Colonization; the Evolution of Kentish Settlement, Leicester Fitzpatrick, A. 1985: The distribution of Dressel I amphorae in North West Europe, OJA 4 (3), 30540 Fitzpatrick, A. 1992: The roles of Celtic coinage in South East England, in Mays 1992, 132 Frere, S.S. 1965: Roman Canterbury: The City of Durovernum (4th edn), Canterbury Frere, S.S. (ed.) 1988: Roman Britain in 1987, Britannia 19, 484 Frere, S.S. (ed.) 1991: Roman Britain in 1990, Britannia 22, 2912 Frere, S.S., Bennett, P., Rady, J., and Stow, S. 1987: The Whitehall Road area, in The Archaeology of Canterbury, Vol. VIII, Canterbury Excavations: Intra- and Extra-mural Sites 194955 and 19804, 4554 Gruel, K. 1989: La monnaie chez les Gaulois, Paris Gunstone, A.J.H. 1992: Sylloge of Coins of the British Isles, Vol. 42: South-Eastern Museums, Oxford Harding, D.W. 1974: The Iron Age in Lowland Britain, London Haselgrove, C. 1984: Celtic Coins found in Britain, 197782, Institute of Archaeology Bulletin 20, London Haselgrove, C. 1987: Iron Age Coinage in South-East England: The Archaeological Context, BAR British Series 174, Oxford Haselgrove, C. 1988: The archaeology of British potin coinage, Arch. J. 145 (1988), 99122 Haselgrove, C. 1992: Iron Age coinage and archaeology, in Mays 1992, 12337 Haselgrove, C. 1993: The development of British Iron Age coinage, NC 153 (1993), 3163 Haselgrove, C. 1995: Potin coinage in Iron Age Britain: archaeology and chronology, Gallia Archologie de la France antique 52, 11727 Haselgrove, C. 1999: The development of Iron Age coinage in Belgic Gaul, NC 159, 11168 Hawkes, S.C. 1968: Richborough the physical geography, in Cunliffe 1968, 22431 Hobbs, R. 1996: British Iron Age Coins in the British Museum, London Hogwood, P. 1995: Investigations at North Foreland Hill, Arch. Cant. 115, 4756 Holman, D.J. 1999: SEGO and DUNO: reassessment and reinterpretation, BNJ 69, 1968 Holman, D.J. 2000: Iron Age coinage in Kent: a review of current knowledge, Arch. Cant. 120, 20533

IRON AGE COINAGE AND SETTLEMENT IN EAST KENT

53

Holman, D.J. (2005a): Iron Age coinage from Worth, Kent and other possible evidence of ritual deposition in Kent, in C. Haselgrove and D. Wigg-Wolf (eds), Iron Age Coinage and Ritual Practices, Studien zu Fundmunzen der Antike 20, Mainz, 26585 Holman, D.J. (2005b): The Folkestone potin hoard of 1979, Arch. Cant. 125 Keller, P. 1982: Rescue excavations in Folkestone from 1973, KAR 69, 20911 Keller, P. 1988: The evidence for ancient quern production at Folkestone, KAR 93, 5968 Klein, W.G. 1928: Roman temple at Worth, Kent, Ant. J. 8, 7686 Laing, L. 1968: A Greek tin trade with Cornwall?, Cornish Archaeology 7, 1523 Laing, L. 1983: A Mediterranean trade with Wirral in the Iron Age, Cheshire Arch. Bulletin 9, 68 Lambot, B., and Casagrande, P. 1997: Une monnaie dEbusus sur loppidum de Vieux Laon St Thomas, Aisne, Bull. Soc. Arch. Champenoise 90, 1629 Lewis, J. 1736: The History of Tenet in Kent, London Mack, R.P. 1975: The Coinage of Ancient Britain, London May, J. 1994: Coinage and the settlements of the Corieltauvi in East Midland Britain, BNJ 64, 121 Mays, M. (ed.) 1992: Celtic Coinage: Britain and Beyond, BAR British Series 222, Oxford Millett, M. 1996: Review of Blockley et al. 1995 in Arch. Cant. 116, 3416 Millett, M., and Wilmott, T. 2004: Rethinking Richborough, in P. Wilson (ed.), The Archaeology of Roman Towns: Studies in Honour of John S. Wacher, Oxford, 18494 Milne, J.G. 1948: Finds of Greek Coins from the British Isles, Oxford Muckelroy, K., Haselgrove, C., and Nash, D. et al. 1978: A pre-Roman coin from Canterbury and the ship represented on it, PPS 44, 43944 Nash, D. 1978a: Plus a change: currency in Central Gaul from Caesar to Nero, in R. Carson and C. Kraay (eds), Scripta Nummaria Romana: Essays Presented to Humphrey Sutherland, London, 1231 Nash, D. 1978b: Five first century coins from Gaul found recently in East Kent, Arch. Cant. 95, 2989 Nash, D. 1987: Coinage in the Celtic World, London Northover, P. 1992: Material issues in the Celtic coinage in Mays 1992, 23599 Parfitt, K. 1982: A Roman occupation site near Sandwich, KAR 67, 1509 Parfitt, K. 1995: Iron Age Burials from Mill Hill, Deal, London Parfitt, K. 2000: A Roman settlement site at Dicksons Corner, Arch. Cant. 120, 10748 Perkins, D.R.J. 1992: Archaeological evaluations at Ebbsfleet in the Isle of Thanet, Arch. Cant. 110, 269311 Perkins, D.R.J. 1993: North Foreland Avenue, Broadstairs, Arch. Cant. 113, 41113 Philp, B. 1990: Excavations on the Roman Villa at Folkestone, 1989, KAR 99, 2069 Pilbrow, J. 1871: Discoveries made during excavations at Canterbury in 1868, Archaeologia 43, 15164 Pollard, R.J. 1988: The Roman Pottery of Kent, Kent Archaeological Society Monograph 5, Maidstone Reece, R. 1968: The Roman coins, in Cunliffe 1968, 20017 Reece, R. 1987: Coinage in Roman Britain, London Rivet, A., and Smith, C. 1979: The Place Names of Roman Britain, London Roach-Smith, C. 1850: The Antiquities of Richborough, Reculver and Lymne, London Rodwell, W. 1976: Coinage, oppida and the rise of Belgic power in South-Eastern Britain, in B. Cunliffe and T. Rowley (eds), Oppida in Barbarian Europe, BAR S 11, 181367 Rodwell, W. 1981: Lost and found: the archaeology of findspots of Celtic coins, in Cunliffe 1981, 4352 Scheers, S. 1977: La Gaule Belgique: trait de numismatique celtique II, Paris Scheers, S. 1978: Monnaies gauloises de Seine-Maritime, Rouen Scheers, S. 1992: Celtic coin types in Britain and their Mediterranean origins, in Mays 1992, 3346 Stead, I. 1976: The earliest burials of the Aylesford culture, in G. de G. Sieveking, I.H. Longworth and K.E. Wilson (eds), Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology, London, 40116 Symons, D. 1990: Celtic coinage of Britain: some amendments and additions, N. Circ. March 1990, 4850 Thompson, F.H. 1983: Excavations at Bigberry near Canterbury, 197980, Ant. J. 63, 23778

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 15351543, vol. 4, part 8, London Van Arsdell, R. 1989: Celtic Coinage of Britain, London Villaronga, L. 1994: Corpus Nummorum Hispaniae Ante Augusti Aetatem, Madrid Winbolt, S.E. 1925: Roman Folkestone, London