Proc Antiqc So Scot, (1997)7 12 , 513-525

Irocoine nScotlanAg n s i d Fraser Hunter*

ABSTRACT A Corieltauvian plated stater recently discovered at Galadean, Borders, is described, and the few other IroncoinAge finds from Scotland summarized.are Attempts madeare explain to the why peoples of northern Britainadoptnot did coinage, termsin of relationships between the area the and coin-using southlatethe pre-Romanin Iron Age.

A CORIELTAUVIAN COIN FROM LAUDERDALE A Corieltauvian gold-plated stater (illus 1) was found in May 1995 by Mr George Burns while metal-detecting on the farm of Galadean, in Lauderdale, Borders. (The grid reference of the farm buildings is NT 56 43; details of the findspot may be obtained from the National Museums of Scotland.) Further detecting produced no associated artefacts, and the coin is best seen as a single declarefinds fine dwa Th . d Treasure Trov allocated ean Nationae th o dt l Museum Scotlanf so d (regnoX.1996.21). The coin is 18.5-19 mm in diameter and weighs 4.76 g. Typologically it falls into Alien's (1963) South Ferriby Type O (Type V811 in Van Arsdell 1989), with a stylized head of Apollo wearing a wreath on the obverse and a horse and six-pointed star on the reverse. Details of the device abov horse eunclearth e visible ear th t ebu ,pelle stald an tk sugges havy ma e t beei t n na 'anchor' (Van Arsdell 1989, 224) type Th .e secone dateth o s t dfirs e halth t f centurfo y BC (May 1992, 98-9; Hobbs 1996 certainls circulatiof ,wa o 28) d t yan ,ou n befor arrivae eth f Romao l n coinage (May 1992, 103). Cleanin findee th s affectey grha b surfacee th d t non-destructivbu , e analysis by Katherine Eremin and Paul Wilthew of the Museum's Analytical Research Section, using qualitative X-ray fluorescenc energy-dispersivd ean e X-ray microanalysis, indicatea s ha t si copper core coated wit hgold/silvea r alloy. e CorieltauvTh i (formerly Coritan Tomli— i n 1983) inhabite e Easth d t Midlandsf o England, broadly correspondin northere th o gt n par Lincolnshiref o t recena n .I t surve theif yo r coinage, May (1994, 11) notes that South Ferriby staters are the commonest type, with plated specimens common. The interpretation of plated coins is uncertain: Van Arsdell (1989, 54-5, 215) plumps unhesitatingly for them as deceitful forgeries, but May (op cit) suggests they could equally be official token issues. The latter view is perhaps more credible for the current example, as Philip de Jersey identifies a die-link between the obverse of the Galadean coin and one of the gold staters from the South Ferriby hoard (Alien 1963, no 270; de Jersey, pers comm), a phenomenon note othen di r specimen Aliey sb n (1963, 35).

Departmen* Archaeologyf to , National Museum Scotlandf o s , Chambers Street, EdinburgF 1J 1 hEH 514 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND

ILLUS 1 Corieltauvian coin from Galadean, obverse and reverse. Scale 1:1. (National Museums of Scotland)

ILLUS 2 Gaulish quinarius from Clarkston, obverse and reverse. Scale 1:1. (Glasgow Museums Galleries)Art and

Examination of aerial photographs in the National Monuments Record of Scotland reveals a large number of probable Iron Age forts and enclosures in the surrounding area, including a possible Galadeaf enclosuro E NN ne m somFar 0 me50 (the NMR 34)E S S,4 numbe5 T N s i r althoug coie hth n itsel apparentls fi y fro off-sitn ma e context fmdspos .It t appears unremarkable today, and it may be a casual loss: however, its exotic nature suggests it would have been a valued item, and it may equally represent a ritual offering in a typical liminal location, in this case the valley zone of the Leader Water. This is a well-attested phenomenon with single coins in southern England (Haselgrove 1996, 76), while exotic metalwork was a common inclusion in votive deposits in the Borders (Hunter 1997).

IRON AGE COINS IN SCOTLAND When Stevenson (1966, 22-4) summarize coinIroe e dth n Ag s from Scotlan seminas hi n di l paper on Iromateriae nAg l culture coule h , d quote four discoveries expandee b w .no Thio dt n sca seven. Apart fro madditionw Galadeanne o anothee tw sar e th , r Corieltauvian stater possibly from near Auchter Alyth, Perthshire, and a central Gaulish quinarius from Glasgow. It is worth reviewing this meagre corpu rathen si r more detail.

Auchter Alyth, Perthshire & Kinross The possible discovery of an Iron Age coin in a souterrain near Auchter Alyth has been reported by Small & Bateson (1995), and little needs adding to this. It is a plated stater of British H type, the earliest of the Corieltauvian series (May 1994 . Whil6) , e entirely consistent wit e acceptehth d datin f souterrainsgo , regrettably it comes from a diverse coin collection, mostly with no good provenance. Hence a question mark must remain ove findspots rit .

Clarkston, Glasgow e GlasgoTh w silvea fin f o d r quinariu Aedue th s f r (illuSequano o i ) 2 s f earlieo i r first century BC date, inscribed Q.DOCI SAM.F, came fro mgardea Clarkston ni Toua l 197n ni e r3(d 1992, Type 5405-11; Haselgrove 1978, 127; Bateson 1989, 170; Glasgow Museum t GallerieAr s& s A8512). Although Bateson (1989, 181) viewed it as a modern loss, this need not be the case: Nash (1987, 93) has commented on the widespread dispersal of coins of the Aedui and Sequani, and there is a diffuse scatter of central and southern Gaulish issues in southern Britain (Cunliffe 1981, fig 69). While this example extends the distribution markedly, it should not be summarily dismissed in view of the other finds of broadly contemporary Gaulish coins from Scotland.

516 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND

hemispherical (illus 3b); their composition closes e roune sar th o dt group (wit averags hit e gold contenf o t 67.2%, minimum 56.2%). It seems therefore that the Netherurd coins are of the latest variety. The Saint- Denis-les-Sens hoard, which contains all three types, has been dated on numismatic grounds to the 60s BC (Dhenin & Fischer 1994), but earlier dating now in vogue in France for the associated archaeological material would allow a date up to two decades earlier (Haselgrove, pers comm). Without further evidence, it is probably unwise to pin down the Netherurd coins too precisely within the type's broad date range. It is worth reviewing the other contents of this hoard in a little more detail. The tore terminal and the penannulao tw r twiste type th d ef toreo know e sar n best fro Snettishae mth mproducte ar finds d an f , so eastern England (Megaw & Megaw 1989, 217). While a late first century BC-early first century AD date has been suggested for the style (Megaw & Megaw 1989, 215-18), the coins found with the most recent Snettisham finds push this back inte firs oth e firs t th hal tf o centurf (SteaC yB d 1991, 455). Note that Stevenson (1966, 39) suggests that Feachem (1958) and MacGregor (1976) underestimate the diameter of lose th t tore almosy sb t 50%, mase base th facsimile f sn o do Nationae th n si l Museum Scotlandf so alss i t o.I worth noting that, if the masses are accurate, the tores are much lighter than other Snettisham-type examples ,Ipswice sucth s ha h hoard (Brailsfor Stapled& y 1972, 221). Compariso recordee th f no d masses e hoaroth f d (Lawson 1857) wit e hsurvivin th tha f o t g terminal indicates thae formeth t e slighar r t overestimates: using thi calibratios sa n give terminae mase th sth f Snettisham-type so 11th s a l, 4g e tores sa thire . g th d8 d 23tor22 an 1s eg a finae Th l tore fro hoare mmarkedls th dwa y different, indeed unique (MacGregor 1976, 94). Although Feachem (1958) and MacGregor (1976, no 194) describe it as of square cross-section and twisted (a technique more akin to Middle Bronze Age tores; Coles 1964, 122-4), the original account (Lawson 1857) says simply it was of a single piece which was fluted or twisted. This and the accompanying illustration (Lawson 1857, pi X no 3) suggest some link to the much-debated ribbon tore series (Eogan 1983), whose contentious datin seemw gno s more firmly Iro(Warnee nAg r 1993). While precise parallel flattenede th r sfo , expanded terminal elusivee sar , ther generaa es i l similarit ribbothose yo t th f eo n tore fro Clonmacnoie mth s hoard (Raftery 1983, 170; 1984, 175-81), although thes more ear e three-dimensional separate hollow-cast pieces. This hoard included a Continental buffer tore of late fourth to early third century BC date (Raftery 1983, 169), showing wear whic hwhed suggestol s n buriedwa t si . Ribbon tore foune sar botn di h Scotland and Ireland, and were probably made in both countries, but elaborate terminals are more a feature of the Irish series (Coles 1968, 171). The Netherurd tore is not, however, a conventional ribbon tore: it is markedly heavier than other examples. Its mass, of around 228 g, is almost twice the mass of the heaviest known ribbon tores (Eogan 1994, 130-4). While in part this reflects the more massive solid terminals, the original account records that toree th , whic pieces o founs 'perfectls tw h wa n di wa , y bent'e coulstifd b t an f ,dno implyin gmora e solid construction than the normal, fairly flexible ribbon tore. Such arguments from markedly imperfect 19th-century evidence are inevitably unsatisfactory, if not futile. In defence, it may be argued that claiming the Netherurd tore as a variant of the ribbon tore tradition leave enigmn lest a s i f so a than before suggestd an , pedigresa e which makes locasense th n lei context thif I . s is followed represeny ma t i , t another exotic contac hoarde th n ti , this time Irish. Henc hoare eth d includet sa least two and possibly three separate axes of contact, brought together in one exotic bundle in Peeblesshire some time around the late second to mid-first century BC. The idea of hoarding exotic items is typical for south-east Scotland, as argued elsewhere (Hunter 1997); the nature of the hoard, exclusively gold tores and coins shares ,i d widely across Europ time th et e a (Fitzpatric k 1992b) argued an , somr sfo e sharin beliefsf go ; whil compositioe eth n stresse wide sth e contacts availabl powerfuo et l peopl IroScotlandn e ei nAg d an , warns against adopting too insular a view, particularly when the Clonmacnois hoard cited above includes a tore from the Middle Rhine (Raftery 1984, 177).

Dunnichen, Angus There is an antiquarian record of the discovery of 'a number of small gold bullets' in the hillfort at Dunnichen (Headrick 1845, 146). Wilson (1851, 520) suggested these represented a second hoard of

518 SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND

• Corieltauvian o "_ non-IronAge loss Other British D j) Gaulish ? Uncertain Hoards

100 km

ILLUS 5 Distribution of Iron Age coin finds in northern Britain. broader distributio Irof coine no nAg northern si n Britain (illu Appendix); s5 . While such maps must always carr caveae yth t that they represent biase botf so h ancient depositio moderd nan n retrieval thad an ,t much metalwor meltine th k t n rathei end gpo p su r tha e groundnth e th , pattern e stilar sl instructive e basi strona Th . f co pictur ge concentratioon s ei south-easn ni t Yorkshire, largely of Corieltauvian issues, and a sparse scatter elsewhere. The Yorkshire evidence has been admirably reviewed by May (1992), who identifies two concentrations within it. The main one is in east Yorkshire, focused perhaps on Redcliff, on the Humber: this area appears to have used coinage quite extensively withiy la Corieltauviae d nth an , n circulation area secone .Th d concentration southern i , n Yorkshire less i , s marked t impliebu , degresa interactiof eo n with Lincolnshire fro firse mth t century BCperhapd an , s even mintin latese th f gto Corieltauvian issues aree inth a afte Romae th r n conques ease th tf Midlando t s (May 1992,105) essencen .I soute ,th h easd an t Yorkshire finds for mhala o aroun coin-mintine dth g area, wher et som a coi e enus level was taking place. Beyond this picture th , sparss ei e indeed. Excluding probable later arrivals (see Appendix), fewer tha findspot0 n2 knowe sar Scotlan n resi e northerf th o t d dan n England, compareo dt aroun south-easn i 0 d6 t Yorkshir hundredd ean s fro coie mth n minting areas (for instance over 2000 Corieltauvian coin knowe sar totaln ni y 1994 . ThiMa ;2) , s stor paralleles yi Walesn di , HUNTER: IRON AGE COINS IN SCOTLAND | 519

whic thia s nh ha souther n scatte coinf ro s derived from coin-using neighbour western si n England otherwisd an e almost nothing (see map Cunliffn si e 1981, 39-69; recen t altet findno ro this)d s . nature Th thesf eo e sparse find alss si o interesting highls i t i s ya , skewed Britise th l hAl . coine sar Corieltauvian :securo n ther e ear example sabundane eveth f no t southern English inscribed series (all such finds being probable Roman introductions; see Appendix). The coins are also predominantly early: first centur ratheC yB r than first centur Perhap. yAD s most surprising, however, is the number of Gaulish issues, which matches the number of British ones. made b Wha thif o et o s sti scenario limitee ?Th d quantities inhibit extensive interpretation, madepointe b w thie n fe na .Th sca t dustinbu f Corieltauviago n issue unsurprisins si g given that they represent the nearest coin-using area, but the small numbers make it hard to argue for significant interaction Galadeae Th . n furthest-flun e coith s ni g Corieltauvian coi somy ny b ewa (excluding Auchter Alyth), but it does fit into the broader pattern of occasional contact between eastern England and southern Scotland seen in the metalwork record: finds such as the Netherurd tores and various enamelled items of horse harness (MacGregor 1976, maps 3, 4, 7) show connections up the eastern seaboard. The interpretation of these contacts has seen two schools of thought. Earlier writers viewed the diffusionisa mn i t paradigm, with actual settler r refugeeso s from England moving north (Stevenson 1966,24; MacGregor 1976,179-80). More recent papers have preferred to stress the social aspects of the movement of high-quality metalwork, for instanc s gifea t exchang formatioe th n ei f allianceo n s (Fitzpatrick 1989; Hunter 1997): such acces exotico st powerfua s awa l status symbo r somfo l e element f society severydao e th s A . y material culture show signinfluo n sn a f peoplef so x o , this view shoul preferrede db . The Gaulish coins are trickier. Interpretation must cover two points: the disproportionate number of Gaulish issues, to the exclusion of southern English ones (assuming our current small sample is telling a broader story); and the variety of source areas and dates represented. The lack of southern coins suggests direct contacts with Gaul rather than movement north through intermediaries, whil variete eth coinf yo s suggest seeine ar e gsw intermittent rather than sustained connections. The evidence is too slim to suggest what route such contacts may have taken. It seems most plausible tha Netherure tth d 'globule croixa l sa ' represen direca t t powerfulina o kt l Borders individua r grouo l p with wide-ranging connections, perhap n long-distanci s e (and presumably largely symbolic) alliances. Are the others the survivors of similar arrivals from alliances r perhapo , s fro well-wore mth n explanatio f mercenarno y work (Nash 1987, 13-16)? evidence Th frustratingls ei Stevensos ya t vagubu e— n noted s (1966ha ) maket i , 24 , valuablsa e addition to the otherwise sparse evidence for Continental contacts. above Th e discussion lead anotheo st r Irocoine questione w there th nfe Ag ar n si o ey s Wh . north come ?W e herfundamentaa o et l divisio Britisn i h studiesIroe nAg Collis A . s (1996s )ha recently discussed countre th , oftes yi n split 'have-nots'inte 'havese th o th d an ' broan :i d terms, a south with coinage, pottery, oppida, burials and a wealth of artefacts; and a poor-relation north, artefactually impoverished, with settlements and apparently little else. For instance, Cunliffe (1991, 130, 546) divides Britain int osouth-east'core'a , a'periphery othef o ' r coin-using tribes'beyonda d an , ' which cover countrye th rese f sth o t , based primaril thein yo r respective coin use. The core/periphery concept in coin use has been vigorously attacked by May (1994, 5, 20) fro Corieltauviae mth n perspective favouro wh , 'mora s e patchy scen IroBritain'n e i nAg , maked an valie sth d point abou relativise tth valud man e judgements inheren sucn i t h comments: conservatism can represent stability as easily as backwardness. Further north, the sparsity of coins and other imports tends to argue against any role for northern England and Scotland as a 'supply zone'. Such core/periphery models, while of value in some contexts, subsume the complexities of the British Iron Age into a south-centred world view. 0 52 SOCIET ANTIQUARIEF YO SCOTLANF SO D

Ther , howevereis importann a , t archaeological reality behind this over-simple modele Th . norte soutclearlth e hd ar han y different thit bu :s needs investigation t submersio,no regionalln i y biased overarching models Haselgrovs A . e (1996, 67) s recentlha , y stated questioe th , n needs rephrasing people: 'Whthe larga ydid sof e par Britaiof t n apparentl coinagof y rejecuse e the t altogether?' This sees the issue as an active choice rather than a passive, conservative reaction. It wil arguee b l d below that this question throw fundamentase lighth n o t l structur Britise th f eo h later Iron Age. First necessars i t i , revieo yt nature introductioe wth th f eo f coinageno . y Brieflyma e w , tentatively isolate thre factorsy eke outside th : e stimulu coin-usina f so g culture; selectivite th n yi adoption process from this stimulus; and restricted uses of coinage, with circulation largely within culturaa l group. e outsidTh e stimulu s clearli s y documente e Hellenith n di c prototype f Celtio s c coins, probably from Celtic mercenary activities (Nash 1987, 13-19). Within Britaine sees th i t n ni i , stimulus of the Gallo-Belgic prototypes for the British series: while the Gallo-Belgic issues are complex, and some were minted in Britain (Haselgrove 1987, 79-80), the series is based on imports from Belgic Gaul which were then emulate Britain di arean ni s outsid e primareth y distribution (Nash 1987, 122-3). At a later date, the changes in design as a result of Roman contact provide another example (Scheers 1992). Selectivit initiae seee th b n i n l adoptioyca f no prototypes with horse designs (Creighton 1995, 286-9) copyine lated th an ,n ri f Greego d kan Roman coin types whic locad hha l significanc Scheerg e(e s 1992,42-3) finae .Th l point largelf o , y internal or restricted use, is an over-simplification: coins did circulate outside the area of control of the minting authority, in part related to specialized processes such as ritual offerings (seen best t Haylina g Island temple, Hampshire; Brigg alt se 1992). However, whether interna r externalo l , distributione th coinagf so clearle ear y culturally controlled theoreticae : thith s si l basis behind distributiof o e us e th n map constructinn si g coinage areas (Haselgrove 1987 ;tribar 1996o ) l74 , maps (Cunliffe 1991 8.2)g ,fi . doew sHo this relatnon-adoptioe th o et coinagf no northern ei n Britain? Her necessars i t ei y consideo t e otheth r r main evidenc f contaco e t betwee e areanth f IroBritaine o s nAg e th : metalwork describes A . d above, artefacts from southern England, ContinenIrelane th d dan e tar foun Scotlann di northerd dan n England (Stevenson coin e 1966)th sd musan , viewee b t thin di s vein, as exotic metalwork rather than circulating coinage. However, these items form a minority survivine oth f g metalwork, mos f whico t clearls hi y locally made. This local metalwork itself defines zone contactf so , interactio shared nan d tradition, oftesizeabla n no noty e scaleema e W . the well-defined north-east Scottish tradition of 'massive' metalwork, stretching from the Tay to the Moray Firth (MacGregor 1976, 184-5). More germane to the current topic are the shared styles from the Humber to the Forth, seen for instance in Group III and IV swords (Piggott 1950, 12)fig& s6 , beaded tores (Macgregor 1976 15)p ,ma knobbed terrets (MacGrego) r 10 1976 p ,ma and other manifestations of what Leeds (1933, 110) termed the 'boss style'. While no one would argu northere eth n area unifiee sar d tribal hegemonies, the shoo yd w contac interactiod an t n which is markedly stronger than their links to southern areas. Equally, one can quote complementary distributions of metalwork restricted to southern Britain (eg horse and vehicle trappings: Cunliffe 1996, fig 17). The material under discussion is presumably linked to relationships between the higher echelons of society. It seems that contact with the south was relatively rare and socially moderated, perhap levee th politicaf o t l sa l alliance Fitzpatricf s(c k 1989). This gave some access exotio t c status items, whos variee eus differenn di t areas hoare th : d evidence indicates that southern Scottish elites actively used these items in maintenance and justification of their roles, HUNTER: IROCOINE SCOTLANNAG N SI 1 52 | D

whil northern ei n Englan north-easd dan t Scotland mucthis swa h les (Hunteo s r 1997). Indeed the use of exotic items in the north-east is almost unknown, although the distribution of massive metalwork outsid ares e it origi f ao n show t isolate regioe no sth s ndwa (Ralston 1979 7.70)g ,fi . Given this background to north/south contacts, we can suggest why coins are so rare in the north. This involves discarding the picture of the dominant southern core and its surrounding periphery: theorizrathern ca e w , e that norther southerd nan n groups dealt wit anothee hon s ra equal infrequenn si socialld an t y restricted contacts, linked most probably wit formatioe hth f no alliances, perhaps intermarriage, and the exchange of gifts. In terms of the factors in coinage introduction identified above, the stimulus for coin use was not present: coins had primarily an internal role which was inappropriate to these external contacts. While high-value coinage was used in the south to meet social and political obligations and store wealth (Haselgrove 1996, 67), this was not suitable in dealings with northern chieftains whose needs were more selective — they valued clearly displayable wealth which fitted existing mean f expressino s g status, sucs a h personal ornaments and horse and vehicle trappings. Arguing from negative evidence is dangerous thit ,bu s restrictio dispersae th n i coinag f seee lo b nabsency e alsth e ma on i coinf eo s in the votive deposit from Llyn Cerrig Bach, despite the presence of other items from coin-using southern Britain (Fox 1946 34)g ,fi suggesy :inappropriats againma wa e t i tw , locae th r l efo context. This may in turn explain why we see disproportionate numbers of Gaulish coins in the north subtle Th . e appreciatio f locano l customt presenno s longer-distancn i tswa e contacts— henc parcee eth f Gauliso l h Netherure cointh n i s d hoard, which woul typicaa e db la gifn i t Gaulish context. It is worth carrying the picture forward a little. With the Roman invasion of Scotland there cam estrona g impetu r adoptinfo s g coinage Romad an , n coins were indeea n i t d usebu d— highly selective way. The coins from native sites do not represent the discards of a monetary economy: small denomination bronze disproportionatele sar Robertsoys a rare d ,an n (1975,418) s notedha , ther strona s ei g selectivity earl e fro firsth e ymo th t t thir d century toward highe sth - value gold and silver coins. Whether their native role mirrored the earlier social and political uses of high-value Iron Age coins in the south (Haselgrove 1996, 67), or was as bullion rather than artefact, is unclear on current evidence. However, there is a sophistication in this twisting of the Roman presence to native purposes which mirrors the selectivity in the earlier southern adoption of coinage. concludeo T , thi lasclearle s si th tcontact e t worth y no n do s between norther southerd nan n largn i Britain s e ha measur t I . e been descriptive rather than explanatory questiony ke d an ,s remain as to precisely why there are these basic differences (echoing Fox's (1952) 'Highland' and 'Lowland' zones) in Britain in the later Iron Age. To explain this more fully requires greater effor understandinn i t societiee gdealinth e ar e sw g Scotlann i with d an , t leastda , archaeologists have been sadly remiss in taking up this challenge. However the Iron Age of Scotland and northern England merits poorea seriou s a rightn t rsow no adjunc,s stud it n yi southero t t n Britain f thiI . s pape serves ha r demonstrato dt potentiae e th norther e th f o l n artefact recorn di tackling such issues waywilt e ,i t leassteth a a l .n e pto b

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Primary thanks are to the finder, George Burns, for his exemplary reporting of this find, and to Walter Elliot assisteo wh , d greatl gratefuthisn ym i a I . Donao t l l Bateson, Trevor Cowie, Philip e Jerseyd , Katherine Eremin, Nick Holmes, Chris Howgego, Jonathan William Paud an s l Wilthe assistancr wfo varioun ei s Davi o wayst d dan , Clarke, Richard Hingley particularld an , y 522 SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND

Colin Haselgrove for commenting on a draft of the manuscript. Photographs were taken by Neil McLea drawingd nan s kindly provide Marioy db n O'Neil.

APPENDIX IRON AGE COINS FROM NORTHERN ENGLAND This Appendix summarizes the Iron Age coin finds from northern England, denned for present purposes as the former counties of Cumberland, Westmorland, Northumberland, Durham, Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cheshire; the single north Welsh find is also included. The old counties are used for ease of comparison with the format of the coin-listing sources. Only those Yorkshire finds which are additional to the catalogue by (1992,105-11y Ma includede )ar , although other relevant non-Corieltauvian finds from Yorkshir listee ear d below the table, and all Yorkshire finds are mapped in illus 5. The southern boundary is inevitably arbitrary: coin-usinlimite e th th f so g group some interesfurthesy y li eke wa presenr e rfo tth souths a t purposebu , s si in northern Englan Scotlandd dan fels i t ti , tha exclusioe tth more th f eno southerly material doe t affecsno t conclusionse th . This compilation is based on the Celtic coin lists of Alien (1961) and Haselgrove (1978; 1984; 1989), with finds since 1987 taken fro Coie mth n Registe Britishe th n ri Numismatic Journal (volume (1987)-67 s5 4 (1994), abbreviate BNJo dt , volum coid ean n numbe lise tth below)n ri . Whil t carrieei normae sth l caveat tha furthee t b ther y rema unpublished material unusuae th , l natur Irocoif e eo n Ag stude findth n ysi area should normally ensure their prompt reporting listine summar.Th a s gi y one; further detailfoune b n n di s ca the reference given for each coin. Coin areas follow those of Haselgrove (1987, fig 4.3); they are preferred to specific tribal attributions ,rise whicanachronisf th ko n hru m (cf. Burnett 1989, 236-7). late Mosth e f southero t n coins come from Roman site arear so s with known Roman activitye ar d an , likelRoman-perioe b o yt d introduction Haselgrovf s(c e 1996, 82). Such find italicizede sar .

FINDSPOT TYPE COMMENTS REFERENCE

Cumberland Nether Denton East — Cunobelinus Roman fort Alien 1961,283

Westmorland Brough area Sout Tincomaruh— s iV^ Likely Roman Alien 1961,210 arriva Flavial— n for t Brouga t h

Northumberland Hexham Gaul — Coriosolites (IV/ V ) JR Alien 1961,273

Durham Durham (near) Gau Gallo-Belgil— c Afy Haselgrove 1978, 124 ('Parish'') Piercebridge North-Eas inscribet— d JV From vicuy sb Haselgrove 1984,144 (ESVP-ASV) Roman fort South Shields East — Tasciovanus JE Probably from Alien 1961,220 Roman fort HUNTER: IRON AGE COINS IN SCOTLAND 523

Yorkshire (additiona 1992y Ma )o lt Barnburgh North-East — type N N Haselgrove 19897 1 , BNJ61.65 Doncaster area Gau earll— y Massalia Haselgrove 19892 7 , imitation potin BNJ58,27 Kirk Smeaton North-East — plated type O Haselgrove 19897 1 , RjN BNJ61.64 Stanwick North-East — type W Si Haselgrove, pers comm York North-Eas prototypt— e M Early type, hence 7 9 , 63 J BN fraction I likely Irorathee nAg r than Roman deposit

Lancashire Liverpool Gaul — Gallo-Belgic JE Found with British Alien 1961,277 ('Ambiani') coins(unrecorded) Manchester North-East — inscribed N Haselgrove 1978, 107 (VEPCORF)

Cheshire Halton Castle North-East — inscribed N Alien 19610 26 , (VOLISIOS) Leek Moor Gau Gallo-Belgil— c JE Alien 1961,277 ('Remi') Meols Gaul — Armorican, two JR Haselgrove 19898 6 , coins Uncertain — Haselgrove 19893 7 ,

North Wales Great Orme North-Eas Britist— N hH Alien 1961,180

Other non-Corieltauvian coins from outwit south-ease hth t Yorkshire concentration (fro 1992y mMa ) are: South ?Verica JV Keighley West ANTED RIG plate Aldborough (the site is a Roman foundation) Gaul Gallo-BelgiN cC Ackworth

The Atrebatic stater of Verica from Keighley (May 1992, 111) has been claimed as more plausibly an inscribed Corieltauvian issue of the VEP-CORF series (Alien & Haselgrove 1979, 14). The original coin is lattee th lostw d r vieno an , preferrews i d here.

REFERENCES Alien 196F D , 1 'The origin f coinagso Britainn ei reappraisala : Freren i (ed), 'S S , , Problems Irone oth f Age in Southern Britain. London (= Inst of Archaeol Occas Pap 11). Alien 196 F Coins e ,D 3 Th Coritani.e oth f London: British Academy (Syllog Coinf Britise eo th f so h Isles). HaselgroveAlien& F ,D 197C e ,Gol 9Th d Coinag Verica'f eo , Britannia, (1979)0 1 , 1-17. Bateson 1989'RomaD J , medievad nan l coins foun Scotlandn di 1987'o ,t , Proc Antiqc So Scot, 119(1989), 165-88. | SOCIET 4 52 ANTIQUARIEF YO SCOTLANF SO D

Brailsford Stapley& J , 197 E e Ipswic,J 2Th h tores', Proc Prehist Soc, (1972)8 3 , 219-34. Briggs, D, Haselgrove, C & King, C 1992 'Iron Age and Roman coins from Hayling Island Temple', Brit NumisJ, 62(1992), 1-62. Burnett 198A , 9 'Revie Arsdeln Va f wo l 1989', Brit NumisJ, (1989)9 5 , 235-7. Champion, T C & Collis, J R 1996 The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: recent trends. Sheffield. Coles 196M ,J 4 'Scottish middle Bronz metalwork'e eAg , Proc Antiqc So Scot, (1963-4)7 9 , 82-156. Coles, J M 1968 'The 1857 Law Farm hoard', Antiq J, 48 (1968), 163-74. Collis 199,J 6 'Acros Greae sth t Divide' Champion i , Collin& s (eds), 1-4. Creighton, J 1995 'Visions of power: imagery and symbols in Late Iron Age Britain', Britannia, 26 (1995), 285-301. Cunliffe, B (ed) 1981 Coinage and Society in Britain and Gaul: some current problems. London (=Counc Brit ArchaeolResRep38). Cunliffe, B 1991 Iron Age Communities in Britain. 3rd edn. London. Cunliffe, B 1996 The Celtic chariot: a footnote', in Raftery, B (ed), Sites and Sights of the Iron Age: essays on fieldwork and museum research presented to lan Mathieson Stead. Oxford (= Oxbow Monogr 56). Davidson, J 1948 'Coin finds in Dumfriesshire and Galloway', Trans Dumfriesshire Galloway Natur Hist Antiq Soc, ser d (1947-8)6 3r ,2 , 100-13. Jerseye d 199,P 4 Coinage IronArmorica.e n i Ag Oxfor Oxfor= d( d Univ Comm Archaeol Monogr 39). de la Tour, H 1992 Atlas de Monnaies Gauloises. 2nd edn (ed B Fisher). Paris. Dhenin, M & Fischer, B 1994 'Le tresor de 1'autoroute', in Durand-Godiveau, M & Gagliano, V (eds), Decouvertes Archeologiques 1'autorouter su (Archeologia,5 A Hor s, 44-5 Seri3) o .en Eogan 198G , 3 'Ribbon tore Britain si Ireland'd nan O'Connorn i , Clarke& (ed)A ,V D ,, From Stonee th Age to the 'Forty-Five, 87-126. Edinburgh. Eogan 199G Accomplished,e 4Th Art: GoldGold-workingd an Britainn i Irelandd an during Bronzee th e Ag (c 2300-650 DC) . Oxford (= Oxbow Monogr 42). Evans 186J , Coinse 4Th Anciente oth f Britons. London. Feachem 195W e "Cairnmuir 8Th R , " hoard from Netherurd, Peeblesshire', Proc Antiqc So Scot,1 9 (1957-8), 112-16. Fitzpatrick 198 P e submissioA ,9 Th Orknee th f no y island Claudiuso st evidence?'w ne : , Scott Archaeol .Rev, 6(1989), 24-33. Fitzpatrick 1992P rolee ,A aCeltiTh f so c coinag south-easn ei t England' MayM n ,i s (ed), 1-32. Fitzpatrick P 1992 e SnettishamA , bTh , Norfolk, hoard f torquese Iroo s nAg : sacre r profane?'o d , Antiquity, 66 (1992), 395-8. Fox, C 1946 A find of the Early Iron Age from Llyn Cerrig Bach, Anglesey. Cardiff. Fox 195 C Personality, 2The of Britain. edn4th . Cardiff. Haselgrove 197C , 8 Supplementary Gazetteer of Find-spots f Celtico Coins Britain,n i 1977. London (=Inst Archaeol Occala)1 p . sPa Haselgrove,C 1984'Celtic Coins Foun Britainn di , 1977-82', Bull Inst Archaeol London, 20 (1984), 107-54. Haselgrove 198C , 7 IronCoinagee Ag South-Eastn i England: Archaeologicale Th Contest. Oxford (=BAR Brit Ser, 174). Haselgrove 198C , 9 'Celtic Coins Foun Britainn di , 1982-7', Bull Inst Archaeol London, (1989)6 2 , 1-75. Haselgrove, C 1996 'Iron Age Coinage: recent work' in Champion & Collis (eds), 67-85. Headrick ,184J 5 'Paris Dunnichen'f ho Statisticalw Ne e Th , Account of Scotland, , 142-5711 . Edinburgh. Hobbs 199R , 6 British IronBritishCoinse e th Ag n i Museum. London. Hunter, F 1997 'Iron Age hoarding in Scotland and northern England', in Gwilt, A & Haselgrove, C (eds), Reconstructing Iron Age Societies. Oxford (= Oxbow Monogr 71, 108-33). Lawson, J 1857 'Letter from John Lawson of Cairnmuir, Esq, to Sir Walter Scott, Baronet, describing some Golden Ornaments foun Marcn di h 1806, Cairnmuirnea w house Ne th r f eo , Peeblesshire', Archaeol Scotica, 4 (1857), 217-19. Leeds 193T ,E 3 Celtic Ornament Britishe th n i Isles 700. downD A Oxfordo t . MacGregor, M 1976 Early Celtic Art in North Britain. Leicester. HUNTER: IRON AGE COINS IN SCOTLAND | 525

Mack, R P 1975 The Coinage of Ancient Britain. 3rd edn. London. May, J 1992 'Iron Age coins in Yorkshire', in Mays, M(ed), 93-111. May, J 1994 'Coinage and the settlements of the Corieltauvi in East Midland Britain', Brit Numis J, 64 (1994), 1-21. Mays, M (ed) 1992 Celtic coinage: Britain and beyond. Oxford (=BAR Brit Ser, 222). Megaw, R & Megaw, V 1989 Celtic Art: from its beginnings to the Book ofKells. London. Nash 198,D 7 Coinage Celtice th n i World. London. Northover, J P 1992 'Materials issues in the Celtic coinage', in Mays, M (ed), 235-99 Piggott, S 1950 'Swords and scabbards of the British early Iron Age', Proc Prehist Soc, 16 (1950), 1-28. Raftery 198B , 3CatalogueA of Irish IronAntiquities.e Ag Marburg. Raftery, B 1984 La Tene in Ireland: problems of origin and chronology. Marburg. Ralston, I B M 1979 'The Iron Age (c 600 BC-AD 200): Northern Britain', in Megaw, J V S & Simpson, D D A (eds), Introduction to British Prehistory, 446-501. Leicester Robertson 197S A ,5 'The Roman Nortn si h Britain coie th :n evidence' Temporinin i , (ed)H , , Aufstiegd un Niedergang der Romisches Welt, II.3, 364-426. Scheers 198S , Gaulea 3L Belgique Numismatique Celtique. ednd 2n . Louvain. Scheers, S 1992 'Celtic coin types in Britain and their Mediterranean origins', in Mays, M (ed), 33-46. Sim, G 1862 'Notes on an Ancient British gold coin inscribed "BODVOC", Proc Soc Antiq Scot, 4 (1860-2), 432-6. Small, A & Bateson, J D 1995 'Some possible dating evidence for a souterrain near Alyth, Perthshire', Proc Soc Antiq Scot, (1995)5 12 , 673-6. Stead, I M 1991 'The Snettisham treasure: excavations in 1990', Antiquity, 65 (1991), 447-65. Stevenson KB , R 196, 6 'Metal-wor somd kan e other object Scotlann si theid dan r cultural affinities'n i , Rivet, A L F (ed) 1966, The Iron Age in Northern Britain, 17-44. Edinburgh. Tomlin 198O S 3 'NoR , n Coritan Corieltauvi'd ise , Antiq (1983)3 6 , J , 353-5. Van Arsdell, R D 1989 Celtic Coinage of Britain. London. Warner, R B 1993 'Irish prehistoric goldwork: a provisional analysis', Archeomaterials, 7 (1993), 101-13. Wilson 185 ArchaeologyD ,e 1Th Prehistoricd an Annals of Scotland. Edinburgh.