Iron Age Coinage in South-East England, Parts i and ii: The Archaeological Context

Iron Age Coin Deposition at Harlow Temple, Essex

“…This assumes that, despite redeposition in later layers, the overall pattern of coin associations is largely resistant to distortion, a conclusion which the general case supports. Coins of different phases can be readily seriated according to their associations with other dated artefact types (Haselgrove 1987a). A similar chronological pattern ought to hold for Harlow (despite the coins being offerings rather than casual losses as at the settlements) since the mint condition of many of the brooches and other items leaves little doubt that they too were votive offerings.…”

“…In all, 20 pre-temple contexts contained Iron Age coins with datable associations (Haselgrove 1987a).I0 Eleven of these deposits were without recognisably post-Conquest pre-Flavian material amongst the identifiable objects (55 %). The other nine contained recognisably post-Conquest pottery and other finds, including in one case, an us of Titus (45 %).…”

“…The picture from the brooch associations is similar, from a slightly larger sample (17 brooches). At Harlow, the Iron Age coins were most often found with Colchester derivative brooch types (Figure 4), whereas elsewhere, the types most commonly associated with coins of Tasciovanus and Cunobelinus are the earlier Langton Down, Thistle and especially Colchester and iron and copper-alloy Nauheim derivative types (Haselgrove 1987a , fig 5:8). The latter types, which go back to at least the early first century AD, are, however, reasonably common at Harlow (28%), as can be seen from the overall first century AD brooch assemblage (Figure 4).…”

“…Either explanation suggests a pattern of first century AD deposition different from the tem~1e.I~ In fact, the Holbrooks coin assemblage compares very closely to the mean for Iron Age coin losses on major settlements in the Central District as a whole (Figure 5 ) . Sites like Baldock and Braughing have a history of continuous occupation from the mid first century BC to the mid first century AD and should thus present a representative sample of the coin losses through time expected from a coin circulation pool of continuously changing composition (Haselgrove 1987a , fig 3:2b). Coins with Tasciovanus legends were always apparently more common in the Central District than his successor's issues (Allen 1967(Allen , 1968Haselgrove forthcoming), and this is reflected in the site finds, particularly at the rural settlements.…”

“…The same is true of the brooches. For this reason alone, the observation that developed issues of Cunobelinus are almost invariably found in post-Conquest deposits everywhere else (Haselgrove 1987a) is not relevant to the date at which the same types were used as offerings at Harlow. If they were offerings fresh from the mint, a pre-Conquest date of deposition cannot be ruled out, even for the very latest of Cunobelinus' types.…”