Ancinet Coins at Stonehenge

Danegeld

Have there ever been any coins discovered at or near Stonehenge or on the Salisbury Plain? Celtic, Roman, or any other ancient ones.

Wondering
Ben

Aethelred

Got me.

MSD61

There might have been seeing the Romans occupied this area

References to the ancient past during the Roman period

The Roman military leaders and politicians were not normally interested in maintaining in their Western provinces a cultural memory which gave too much emphasis to the times before the Roman conquest. Instead, they encouraged the 'cultural forgetting' of such a past. As a result, any independent memory of the pre-Roman periods seems in fact to have been missing completely in areas such as Gaul, even though numerous pre-Roman monuments and other remains must have remained visible (Woolf 1996).

There is, however, some evidence in Britain that the local population under Roman control paid attention to earlier monuments which they came across in the landscape. Since similar evidence has also been found in nearby areas which were not under Roman control, such as Ireland, the question arises if the Roman occupation of parts of Britain had an impact on such practices of the native population at all. Later finds from the Roman period at pre-Iron Age prehistoric sites in Britain and Ireland include


pottery and coins (individually and in hoards) as well as altars, shrines, and secondary burials on or in Bronze Age barrows in Britain, Armorica and Ireland (Grinsell 1967: 3-5, 20-5; Dark 1993: 136-7). In Crickley Hill, a Roman brooch and coins were discovered at the bottom of deep holes bored into a prehistoric long mound (Selkirk 1993);
pottery and coins at Neolithic megaliths in Britain and Ireland (Grinsell 1967: 5; Aitchison 1988: 276; Dark 1993: 138). At Newgrange in Ireland, rich hoards of Roman coins and jewellery as well as some tools and a few disc-brooches were found (Carson amd O'Kelly 1977; Raftery 1994: 210); people also seem to have visited and used megaliths in Brittany during the Roman period (André 1961);
pottery and coins at Neolithic henges. A bronze brooch from immediately after the invasion of AD 43 was found at Avebury (Burl 1979: 30). At Stonehenge, Roman pottery, coins, and various small metal items as well as what are likely to be contemporary secondary burials were found (Dark 1993: 138-9; Gardiner 1995: 337-8).
These finds have often been interpreted as votive deposits at prehistoric sites, which may have been seen as entrances to the otherworld or sites of supernatural power. John Thurnam pointed already in 1869 (p. 241) to

"the beliefs and customs of Pagan antiquity, in virtue of which the tumuli were visited by worshippers of the manes, either from motives of natural affection or for the purpose of divination. On those occasions ... it was customary to take libations to pour on the tombs; and it is hence not improbable that many of the fragments of pottery, both primeval and Romano-British, so commonly found near the surface of tumuli, are those of earthen vessels in which such offerings had been carried. This explanation is applicable not merely to chambered long barrows, but doubtless, likewise, to tumuli of all description, both long and round. Such practices would be more or less rife, according as local memories and traditions obtained more or less credence."
The interpretation of the finds as Roman votive deposits can also be found in the work of Grinsell (1967: 2), Carson and O'Kelly (1977: 41, 45, 48), Burl (1979: 30-1), Bradley (1987: 13-14), Aitchison (1988: 277-9), Dark (1993: 141-3); Selkirk (1993), and Raftery (1994: 210). Alternative interpretations for parts of the evidence which have been suggested include


legitimation of a political elite by demonstrating their association with supernatural entities living in ancient sites (Bradley 1987: 14; 1993: 120);
casual loss by visitors (Carson and O'Kelly 1977: 45; Burl 1979: 30; Gardiner 1995: 337);
the need to conceal treasures during periods of unrest (Grinsell 1967: 4; Burl 1979: 31);
deliberately left excavation mementos (coins!) of Roman grave-robbers (Grinsell 1967: 4).
Prehistoric sites such as megaliths were also physically re-used during the Roman period, e.g. as shelters and dwelling places. Roman material has been found in several chambered tombs of northwestern Europe (Daniel 1972: 13-14), and in many of the Sardinian nuraghi from the Bronze Age (Blake 1997). While it is not completely clear in most cases what people associated with these monuments, in one instance in Plou-fragan near Saint-Brieuc, Brittany, there is evidence that a wealthy Gallo-Roman removed one of the roof-slabs to get inside the long megalithic tomb and subsequently adapted it as his dwelling. He converted parts of the grave chamber into a room with a brick floor (Daniels 1972: 14; cf. 22). Another monument that was broken into is 'Hetty Pegler's Tump' in Gloucestershire. Here Roman pottery was found as well as a superficially inserted human skeleton with some coins (Grinsell 1970).

At other monuments, it is quite likely that during the Roman period people broke up stones to build new houses. Earlier prehistoric adaptations of the landscape, such as ringwalls and burial mounds, were also convenient for the shelter of whole communities and as 'natural' defences (Burl 1979: 31-2; Bradley 1993: 117). At Knowth in Ireland, at least one house was built at the beginning of the first millennium AD in the middle of the central barrow of the megalithic cemetery, which was transformed into a citadel by digging two concentric ditches (Daniel 1972: 14). At Maumbury Rings, Dorchester, the banks of a henge monument were found suitable for seating and the former ritual site was turned into a Roman amphitheatre (Bradley 1975; see also Daniel 1972: 21-2; Dark 1993: 139).

Finally, there is evidence that during the Roman period people were inspired to re-use ancient objects and copy ancient architecture. Neolithic axes were used as votive offerings in Roman Britain, Gaul and Germany (Adkins and Adkins 1985). Some members of Romano-British society also built huge barrows with grave chambers in South-East Britain as well as in Belgium, which may constitute rough imitations of megaliths or prehistoric barrows (Dunning and Jessup 1936: 47 and passim). Good examples are at Rougham (Henslow n.d.) and on Mersea Island (Warren n.d.). At Crickley Hill, a miniature Roman imitation of a prehistoric long mound has been found nearby (Selkirk 1993). The Nationalmuseet in Copenhagen contains a display (Room 16) about stone grave chambers built as collective burial sites for leading families during the Roman Iron Age. The chambers were up to 3m by 1.5m in size, with the walls made of massive upright stones and a roof consisting of enormous stone blocks. One such megalith was found in Løvel, North Jutland. An interesting discussion of Roman receptions of palaeolithic cave images in northern Spain and Roman reuse of megalithic tombs as burial sites can now be found in Bradley (2002: 116-9).

What lay behind such practices is unclear. Some of it can probably be explained as purely 'functional' re-uses of existing structures for new purposes. But at the same time, this may have had a larger significance too. Emma Blake argued (1997) that the re-use of prehistoric structures on Sardinia may have helped negotiating new identities of different members of the indigenous Sard population during the Roman occupation of the island. Such material culture narratives were about resistance, evasion, or collaboration, depending on context and choices made by the individuals concerned. Blake reckons (1997: 116) that the Romans authorities themselves may have encouraged such narratives, because "a 'little identity was a good thing', if it made the Sards work collectively and effectively."

lordmarcovan

I often wondered that same thing.

Since it's been a tourist attraction for centuries, perhaps even millennia, I'm sure there are many casually-dropped and lost coins there.

As to deliberately-buried hoards, who knows?

My gut instinct is that it's likely.

Almost certain, if you are talking about the whole Salisbury Plain.

Danegeld

I watched something on the discovery channel a week or so ago and they speculated Stonehenge was infact a trading center in the 'breadbasket' of Britian. Long before the stones were hauled in by Merlin there were posts & a circled area therin. Trading of cows, sheep, and slaves occured nodoubt at this location.

0john0

Only one thing to do LM, grab our MDs and head over there.
I'm sure the tourist and site keepers would love it if a bunch of us started to MD and dig around.

lordmarcovan

<< <i>Only one thing to do LM, grab our MDs and head over there. >>



Dude!! I'm so THERE!!

Lemme run home and pack the 'tectors. T'hell with clothes.

Sylvestius

That nice long post a few replies up took me back to my days as an archaeology student.


The exact nature of stonehenge is not entirely known, although i think it would be hard to dispute that in someway it is a site of religious significance (the whole alignment of the site for one, and where they got the stones from). Quite what that nature was though it is unknowable.

The Romans took a practical approach to dealing with the native cultures of the people they conquered. Aspects that were openly against Rome whether it be certain individuals, i.e Boudicca, certain religious aspects which threatened upsetting their own Gods, i.e Monotheism. And other religious that openly practised human sacrifice were quickly dealt with and oppressed.

The druids of Britain used to practise human sacrifce by a number of methods, burning alive was one such method, another presumed method which seemingly goes hand in hand with the votive offerings practice at swamps and rivers that gods inhabited was to sacrifice the victim with a blade at the edge in the name of the diety and then throw them in. Although some have raised questions whether this indeed was done for religious reasons of for other social reasons. Regardless though archaeological evidence exists for this, i.e the swamp bodies.

Those aspects of British culture were stamped out in the land that Rome occupied. Other religious aspects that were no threat to Rome were left intact and even conflated with Roman religious culture.

Rome's only rule was to ensure the people of the colonies followed the two basic rules of religion. First and foremost adopt and worship the cult of the Capitoline Triad (basically Jupiter, Juno and Minerva) the three big deities. Secondly to accept the rule of the Emperor and depending upon which emperor it was at the time also to worship the cult of the Emperor, some emperor's pushed their divine nature harder than others.

Every other religious aspect was usually left as it was, adopted by the Romans, or combined with the Roman religion. With the last two think of the Cult of Mithras or the Cult of Isis, one came from Persia the other from Egypt and they were basically just plagerised and brought over rather intact. The Romans took them on quite willingly, not quite sure if this entirely applies to Mithras. There are finds from Hadrian's wall in the North of England (the frontier of Roman power) suggesting that the Middle Eastern cult was throughout the whole Empire.

The last aspect was the combining aspect. As best seen with the Greek religion. The Romans conflated their own deities with the Greek deities (the Romans did this practice often because it was a quick way of blurring the lines between conqueror and conquered). Zeus and Jupiter, Athene-Minerva, Hera and Juno.

In Britain at Bath there was the Cult of the goddess Sulis. Sulis quickly became Sulis-Minerva due to similarities between the two.

So if votive offerings have been found at Stonehenge dating to the Roman period then it suggests the site was one of religious significance that managed to survive the transition and therefore finding votive offerings (and perhaps coins there) will be more likely than site abandoned with the Roman invasion, simply because the site had a longer period of use.

Danegeld

<< <i>That nice long post a few replies up took me back to my days as an archaeology student.

The druids of Britain used to practise human sacrifce by a number of methods, burning alive was one such method, another presumed method which seemingly goes hand in hand with the votive offerings practice at swamps and rivers that gods inhabited was to sacrifice the victim with a blade at the edge in the name of the diety and then throw them in. Although some have raised questions whether this indeed was done for religious reasons of for other social reasons. Regardless though archaeological evidence exists for this, i.e the swamp bodies. >>



Wow, what a great response. I loved it.; I read a book called Dying for Deity or Death for Deity, I can't seem to locate it in the jumble I have in the (Room of the Mind) as I call my study, LOL Pictures attached. Anyway, Julius Caesar was indeed appalled when he saw the Burning of the 'Wicker Man' in Gaul and vowed from that point on to stamp out the barbaric custom of human sacrifice as you pointed out, even thought his genocide of the Gauls was FAR-FAR much worse.




<< <i> Every other religious aspect was usually left as it was, adopted by the Romans, or combined with the Roman religion. With the last two think of the Cult of Mithras or the Cult of Isis, one came from Persia the other from Egypt and they were basically just plagerised and brought over rather intact. The Romans took them on quite willingly, not quite sure if this entirely applies to Mithras. There are finds from Hadrian's wall in the North of England (the frontier of Roman power) suggesting that the Middle Eastern cult was throughout the whole Empire. >>



Well, go figure. Mithras was the god worshiped by a great portion of the legions and they are the ones who manned the wall and the Antonious Wall a bit farther on, but as you know, was "biting off more than they could chew" and withdrew back to Hadrian's Frontier.

Roman and Celtic history is a favorite of mine. Throw in a little Arthurian legend, a couple of Vestal Virgins, and you've got me hooked


>>Dang pictures appear sideways. Well if the same is happening where your at, either rotate your head or computer monitor. edit complete<<

Sylvestius

That picture reminds me of home... i can't find anything either.


Yes Mithras was very popular within the army. I did make that point initially but i cut it out to try and reduce the size of the post. I tend to get carried away and start waffling.

Danegeld

<< <i>That picture reminds me of home... i can't find anything either.


Yes Mithras was very popular within the army. I did make that point initially but i cut it out to try and reduce the size of the post. I tend to get carried away and start waffling. >>



On leave/vacation in 1986 I was fortunate to get to great Britian and spent two weeks there. Wish I'd been fortunate to have been stationed there. I spent most of my time in europe all around the UK but never there Besides Hadrians Wall, Stonehenge, and the standard tourist spots we got to visit BLACKPOOL!!!

While at Windsor I was able to pick up a reproduction map of Roman Britian in one of the shops across the street from the castle. Wonderful memories

Take Care
Ben

Sylvestius

If you ever visit the UK again i heartly recommend York, Lincoln and maybe Chester.

I suspect Norwich and Winchester are nice too. But i've never been to either of those as of yet.


In the Roman period and early Saxon period Winchester was rather important, during Alfred the Great's reign i do believe it was also the Capital of his kingdom.

Sylvestius

Blackpool... man i haven't been there since, well since i was very young. I'd say the 1980s.

Danegeld

My wife (girlfriend then) wanted to go to the north (Yorkshire) because she is a big James Herriot fan from the 'All Creatures, Great and Small' fame. Alas, Too much to do and not enough time. Ah yes, Alfred the Great a great proponent of the English language, maybe it's savior! I've heard about the great golden crown found. Have you ever seen it?

Take care
Ben

Sylvestius

<< <i>My wife (girlfriend then) wanted to go to the north (Yorkshire) because she is a big James Herriot fan from the 'All Creatures, Great and Small' fame. Alas, Too much to do and not enough time. Ah yes, Alfred the Great a great proponent of the English language, maybe it's savior! I've heard about the great golden crown found. Have you ever seen it?

Take care
Ben >>




I know he commissioned the Anglo-Saxon chronicle in the vernacular.

But what's this about a golden crown? I feel you have me on that one...



Although i did hear the other day that they've found the oldest door in the United Kingdom in Westminster Abbey and that it dates back to the Anglo-Saxon period and as such is the only surviving Anglo-Saxon door anywhere. Surprised they didn't find that out sooner to be honest.

Danegeld

Apparently, there is a golden crown which was (buried) and discovered with his name in English on it. It is in some rather small museum I understand. I would love to see it in person or on the net...

Take Care
Ben

Sylvestius

<< <i>Apparently, there is a golden crown which was (buried) and discovered with his name in English on it. It is in some rather small museum I understand. I would love to see it in person or on the net...

Take Care
Ben >>




Hmm i shall have to look this one up.

Danegeld

<< <i>

<< <i>Apparently, there is a golden crown which was (buried) and discovered with his name in English on it. It is in some rather small museum I understand. I would love to see it in person or on the net...

Take Care
Ben >>




Hmm i shall have to look this one up. >>



Well, it's been great chatting with you on this topic. I feel information on this crown is as scarce as a Celtic first hand account of the torching of a 'Wicker Man'.

Regards Sir
Ben

goldrush00013

Here's a small excavation excerpt that mentions coins being found in the upper strata

Whether they were ancient or not isn't mentioned.

Danegeld

<< <i>and many objects were found, including chippings and lumps of the stones, stone tools, bones, and (in the upper strata) coins and fragments of pottery. Nearly 100 stone implements were excavatedaxes, hammer axes, stone hammers and maulswhich, according to Dr Gowland, who superintended the work, had been used not only for breaking the rude blocks into regular forms, but also for working down their faces to a level or curved surface. No light was thrown, however, on the transport of the blocks. >>



WOW, I wonder where the coins are at now. That would be awsome to know and see...

Thanks for the post
Ben

goldrush00013

<< <i>WOW, I wonder where the coins are at now. That would be awsome to know and see... >>



Probably in the same place a lot of other artifacts and treasures end up. In storage locked away for noone to see or study.

BigAlan

That picture reminds me of home... i can't find anything either.

Looks like my living room...before my mother came to visit. Now everyting is nice and neat, just don't open a closet.

Danegeld

<< <i>That picture reminds me of home... i can't find anything either.

Looks like my living room...before my mother came to visit. Now everyting is nice and neat, just don't open a closet. >>



LOL, the STUDY is my area where I can ponder big things. It's morphed over time into a "user frtiendly" safe zone, crafted specially for me. no women allowed BTW, that's only 1/3 of it. Here is the rest.







BTW, the rest of the house is normal and when we have company my wife feels compelled to show the guests my area??? Again, you may need to rotate your monitor or head...

In Research
Ben

ddink

<< <i>The Romans took a practical approach to dealing with the native cultures of the people they conquered. Aspects that were openly against Rome whether it be certain individuals, i.e Boudicca, certain religious aspects which threatened upsetting their own Gods, i.e Monotheism >>



Actually, during the Republic and later during Augustus' reign, the Romans were highly tolerant of Judaism. It was only under later emporers that Judaism and eventually Christianity would be persecuted. The former due to the Jewish rebellion and the latter due to the insanity of Nero and Poppea Sabina.

Sylvestius

<< <i>

<< <i>The Romans took a practical approach to dealing with the native cultures of the people they conquered. Aspects that were openly against Rome whether it be certain individuals, i.e Boudicca, certain religious aspects which threatened upsetting their own Gods, i.e Monotheism >>



Actually, during the Republic and later during Augustus' reign, the Romans were highly tolerant of Judaism. It was only under later emporers that Judaism and eventually Christianity would be persecuted. The former due to the Jewish rebellion and the latter due to the insanity of Nero and Poppea Sabina. >>




The main problems with Judaism and Christianity from the Roman perspective were two things;

1] Both were rather secretive sects and the Romans didn't like not knowing what was going on. Just as people in the modern age don't like the idea of small religious sects out of the mainstream. People get suspicious.

2] Both only worshipped one god and denied the existence of all of the others. Including the three principal Roman deities. The Romans were very worried that allowing and turing a blind eye to people that denied any existence of Jupiter, Juno, Minerva and Vesta amongst others would be betraying their own Gods and they were fearful of angering their own because the supreme might venge their anger on this heresy on both the Roman part for ignoring the monotheists and on the monotheist parts for dismissing the gods. Looking at Pompei you can see why the rational Romans were deeply concerned. Nero on the other hand well he did as his shadow told him, or was it a voice in his head?


If the Christians and Jews had accepted the Capitoline Triad and incorporated it into their own religious beliefs the Romans would have left them be and accepted them. But of course what the Romans couldn't understand is that this was a complete conflict of interests. As monotheists cannot worship more than one god. They can admit the existance of other deities but they are not bound by them. Or at least that's my thoughts on it, but i'm a polytheist anyway.

Danegeld

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>The Romans took a practical approach to dealing with the native cultures of the people they conquered. Aspects that were openly against Rome whether it be certain individuals, i.e Boudicca, certain religious aspects which threatened upsetting their own Gods, i.e Monotheism >>



Actually, during the Republic and later during Augustus' reign, the Romans were highly tolerant of Judaism. It was only under later emporers that Judaism and eventually Christianity would be persecuted. The former due to the Jewish rebellion and the latter due to the insanity of Nero and Poppea Sabina. >>




The main problems with Judaism and Christianity from the Roman perspective were two things;

1] Both were rather secretive sects and the Romans didn't like not knowing what was going on. Just as people in the modern age don't like the idea of small religious sects out of the mainstream. People get suspicious.

2] Both only worshipped one god and denied the existence of all of the others. Including the three principal Roman deities. The Romans were very worried that allowing and turing a blind eye to people that denied any existence of Jupiter, Juno, Minerva and Vesta amongst others would be betraying their own Gods and they were fearful of angering their own because the supreme might venge their anger on this heresy on both the Roman part for ignoring the monotheists and on the monotheist parts for dismissing the gods. Looking at Pompei you can see why the rational Romans were deeply concerned. Nero on the other hand well he did as his shadow told him, or was it a voice in his head?


If the Christians and Jews had accepted the Capitoline Triad and incorporated it into their own religious beliefs the Romans would have left them be and accepted them. But of course what the Romans couldn't understand is that this was a complete conflict of interests. As monotheists cannot worship more than one god. They can admit the existance of other deities but they are not bound by them. Or at least that's my thoughts on it, but i'm a polytheist anyway. >>



The Pagan Romans wanted fighting men. Christians didn't want to fight the Roman fight, so sadly they became part of the entertainment...

Glad Those Days are Behind Us
Ben