THE CLAUDIAN INVASION OF BRITAIN:
In AD 43, the Roman army arrived in Britain and began to conquer the tribes of the south, lead by the Roman general Aulus Plautius. Over the next four decades, multiple men would proceed to move up Britain, conquering tribes as they went in the name of the ruling Emperor. The most famous act of rebellion from the Britons comes in the form of Boudicca, Queen of the Iceni tribe in modern-day Norfolk, who fought back and burned down the Roman capital of Camulodunum (Colchester), in c. AD 60 - 61. Archaeological finds from the burn layer can be seen at Colchester Castle museum. In fact, the castle itself stands on the foundations of the enormous temple built to Claudius, dedicated to him in AD 54 after his death. The temple burned along with the city in Boudicca’s attack.
Photo courtesy of: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00548xn
WHO WAS MINERVA?
Minerva was an Italian goddess, likened to the Greek Athena, worshipped in the ‘Capitoline triad’ alongside Juno and Jupiter on the Capitoline at Rome. For Greeks, she was a war-goddess, patron of wisdom and handicrafts. For Romans, she adopted the role of ‘goddess of learning’ too, appropriate for the “bookish” nature of Emperor Claudius.
Photo courtesy of: https://mythopedia.com/roman-mythology/gods/minerva/
FORGERY? IMITATION? COPY? IS THERE A DIFFERENCE?
In terms of a standard, Oxford Dictionary definition of each of the words: no, there is little difference. However in the world of ancient coinage, each word has a slight nuance.
Forgery suggests that the action was illegal which, when we consider the socio-economic context of this period, it actually was not.
Imitation suggests inspiration, an attempt by a second party at drawing themes from other coinage they may be interacting with.
Copy is perhaps the most accurate word. A simple, image-for-image copy of coinage that already existed.
However ‘imitation’ and ‘copy’ are used interchangeably by scholars.
Fig 1: Original: Photo from Münzkabnett Online Catalogue.
Claudian bronze dupondius, c. AD 41-50, Italy.
Obverse: Head of Claudius & accompanying titles.
Reverse: Minerva, with helmet, shield and javelin, mark of the senate.
Fig 2: Copy of the above coin. Photo courtesy of Burnett, A (1987).
Note: the design has been badly copied and struck. The metal would be a low quality alloy and the weight would be low because of this.
DID COINAGE EXIST IN BRITAIN BEFORE THE ROMANS INVADED?
Yes! Celtic tribes like the Catuvellauni and Trinovantes of southern Britain minted their own coins, but these were heavily influenced by Roman coinage that made its way to the island through trade or imports. Note the Celtic imagery of horses and wheat but the use Latin legends!
Fig 3: Examples of Celtic coins from before the Roman invasion, at Colchester Castle Museum. Photo courtesy of Chloé Hales.
Cunobelin was dubbed the ‘King of Britons’ before the Romans invaded and took over. Roman writers like Suetonius
mention him in their work on Britain.
HOW DO YOU KNOW A COPY IS A COPY?
It has been generally decided among scholars that there are various categories, called ‘Grades’, applied to coin imitations. Grade I is the best: the imitations are hardly distinguishable in looks to the original coins. Grade III, and in some cases Grade IV, are the worst examples. Usually, the Latin legends are incorrectly spelt (seen in ‘CAISAR’ on the obverse of the coin in Fig 2) or sometimes the die-engraver forgets to engrave in reverse!
Therefore, the weight and metal content of a coin is looked at to determine whether or not it is a copy or an original coin.
Fig 4: Copy of Claudian coin on display in British Museum, found in Britain. Photo courtesy of Chloé Hales.
Obverse: Head of Claudius & accompanying titles.
Reverse: Image of Libertas.
WHY WERE COPIES OF ITALIAN COINS BEING MADE IN ROMAN BRITAIN?
At the time of the invasion, there was a mass shortage of small change: the closure of mints in Gaul and the cessation of bronze coinage production in Rome meant paying soldiers was difficult.
It is thought that these copies were struck on authority of the Roman army for their own use. The presence of the army in Britain alone increased the need for more coinage. The geographical distribution of the coins match this too: large quantities of Claudian copies were found at 1st century forts, like Colchester, Norfolk, Kent and Richborough. There is also evidence for more coinage being found at miliatry sites than civil sites (towns), (Casey, 1980), supporting the idea that the imitations were minted by the army themselves.
However, the use of copper/other base alloys and the poor striking of dies suggests local involvement, thus giving credence to the popular phrase of ‘barbarous imitations’ used by scholars. The need for such coinage meant local copies were tolerated, if not even encouraged. The imitations can be seen as a sign of the local population taking measures to secure a strong, small-scale economy for smooth running of everyday transactions.
We have no real way of knowing who exactly minted these copies – it could have been both locals and the army if the need for small change was as dire as the sources suggest. You can decide which theory you like best!
Many copies were also found in coin hoards deposited in the 2nd or 3rd century, suggesting the longevity of using these coins and their integration into the economic system of Britain,, despite coin reforms implemented by later emperors. As it is, Claudian copies continued to be minted into the reign of Nero.
WERE ONLY MINVERVA-TYPE COINS FOUND IN BRITAIN?
No! Whilst they are the most common coin type found, due to the many copies made, coins featuring other deities existed too: such as the coin shown in Fig 4, depicting Libertas Augusta. Other coins included victory scenes. For example, Claudius in a chariot, or a triumphal arch with ‘DE BRITANNIS’ on the architrave. Bear in mind that these coins would be ’official’ coins, either from Rome or imported from provinces such as Gaul, as shown in their metal content. Coins featuring the arch are often aureus, pure gold coins, for example. The image of Libertas makes more sense in an Italian context too: though she is found on coins in Britain, it makes no sense for images of the goddess of freedom to be actively minted there. See the table below for more examples!
DENOMINATION | REVERSE LEGEND/IMAGE | TRANSLATION OF LEGEND |
Sestertii | SPES AVGVSTA S EX S C OB CIVES SERVATOS | Imperial hope. By decree of the senate. Approved by the senate, (for) saving the citizens. |
Dupondii | CERES AVGVSTA S C (Obv.) ANTONIA AVGVSTA (Rev.) TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR, etc. | Imperial Ceres (links to Empress). By decree of the senate. Antonia Augusta (mother of Claudius). Tiberius Claudius Caesar. |
Asses | CONSTANTIAE AVGVSTI S C LIBERTAS AVGVSTA S C S C Minerva, with javelin and shield. | Constantia Augusti. By decree of the senate. Imperial Libertas. By decree of the senate. By decree of the senate. |
Bibliography:
Askew, G. (1980). The Coinage of Roman Britain. (2nd edition). (London: Seaby).
Burnett, A. (1987). Coinage in the Roman World. (Seaby: London).
Casey, P.J. (1980). Roman Coinage in Britain. (Shire Publications: Oxford).
Klawans, Z.H. ‘Part II: Reading and Dating Roman Imperial Coins’ in Klawans, Z.H. (1995). Handbook of Ancient Greek and Roman Coins. (Edited by: Bresset, K.E.). (Western Publishing Company: Wisconsin).
Mattingly, D. (2006). An Imperial Possession: Britain in the Roman Empire, 54 BC – AD 409. (Penguin Books Ltd: London).
Melville-Jones, J. (1990). A Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins. (Spink: London).
Millet, M. (1995). English Heritage book of Roman Britain. (B.T. Basford Ltd: London).
Moorhead, S. A History of Roman Coinage in Britain. (Greenlight Publishing: Witham).
Reece, R. (1987). Coinage in Roman Britain. (London: Seaby).
Walton, P.J. (2012). Rethinking Roman Britain: Coinage and Archaeology. (Moneta: Belgium).
For a poster version of this blog, please see here:
Comentários