Meggie Macdonald

In a surprising bit of news this morning, the British Museum has announced that a rare gold coin – one of only two known to exist – depicting Brutus, one of Caesar’s assassins, will go on display at the Museum to mark the 2, 054th anniversary of the assassination.

The second of the two gold coins is believed, by experts at the British Museum, to be a forgery so this coin is rightly considered to be a unique addition on loan to the collections.

Brutus would likely have minted these gold and silver denarii in 43 or 42 BC to pay his soldiers.  It is very unusual for a coin to bear the likeness of a living person, something that Susan Headley from About.com sees as counter-intuitive to Brutus’ declaration that he was restoring the Republic by assassinating a tyrant.  In addition, the coin is also stamped with the name of the moneyer who had them made – L. Plaetorius Cestianus – and the inscription EID MAR (for Eidibus Martiis, or Ides of March) flanks a freedman’s cap.  The symbolism is clear:  Brutus wanted his soldiers to know that the Ides of March brought about the freedom of the Republic from tyranny, and that he was the instrument of that liberation.

However, Brutus was unsuccessful in his bid to make his name as a saviour.  He and his fellow conspirators were tracked across the known world by Marc Antony and Octavian Caesar and defeated at Philippi only a few years after the assassination.  Brutus committed suicide rather than be captured by Antony.

According to the Coin Update News, the extensive Bishop’s Wood Hoard is to go up for auction in London in May 2010.  A section of the press release is as follows:

“The extensive hoard was unearthed at Bishop’s Wood, near Ross-on-Wye, just across the Herefordshire border and within the surroundings of the Forest of Dean. Several other, smaller finds, of similar coins had also been found along this route but none as vast or as interesting as this. It was discovered in a rough walling built against the hillside by workmen who were in the process of repairing a road and who struck an earthenware vessel containing the coins. The accidental strike from a pick broke the jar and scattered its contents in various directions.

Details of the hoard were first published in the 1896 edition of the Numismatic Chronicle, and also in the editorial of the Numismatic Circular in November of that year. In both publications a total of 17,550 coins were listed, although a number had already been lifted and dispersed around the region by the time the coins were rescued. Many of these coins were subsequently given to local museums and the portion now being sold by Baldwin’s (containing 1,661 coins and the restored jar that contained them) has remained in the family of the original landowner since they were found in 1895. Included with the hoard is a reprint of the article from the Numsimatic Chronicle of 1896 and a reprint of ‘Notes on a Great Hoard of Roman Coins found at Bishop’s Wood in 1895’ from the “Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society”, vol. XIX, pp. 399-420, both written by Mary Bagnall-Oakeley. The latter also includes the author’s handwritten annotations and a list, dated March 1898, of the museums and institutions that she was aware had received portions of the hoard.

Following the revolts of the usurpers Carausius and Allectus in Britain in the late third century A.D., it is likely that the area in which the hoard was found was occupied by Roman soldiers at the time the coins were deposited. Given its size it is assumed that the Bishop’s Wood Hoard formed part of a military treasure, intended as payment for the legions. There were no banks in Roman Britain, so the usual practice was to hoard large quantities of money and deposit it in the ground for safe-keeping. It is therefore a fascinating primary source of information for the mints employed in supplying Britain with coinage.

The contents of the hoard are composed almost entirely of bronze coins of the Constantinian family and we can surmise that it was deposited after A.D. 337 as there are many coins of Constantius II, who had received the title of Augustus in that year, included within it. The Numismatic Chronicle lists its contents as follows:

• Claudius II, Gothicus (1)
• Diocletian (1)
• Maximian (1)
• Helena (315)
• Theodora (271)
• Licinius I (21)
• Licinius II (7)
• Constantine I (2,455)
• Constantinopolis (3,512)
• Urbs Roma (4,214)
• Crispus (4)
• Delmatius (30)
• Constantine II (3,683)
• Constans (450)
• Constantius II (2,201)
• Illegible (384)

The majority of the coins were minted at Lugdunum (Lyons), Treveri (Trier) and Arelate (Arles). Rome and Aquileia are also present, as well as a sprinkling of coins from Siscia, Thessalonica, Heraclea, Constantinople, Nicomedia, Cyzicus and Antioch. The coins are in very good condition, many of them having seen little or no circulation. They have been expertly cleaned and preserved and the coins, together with the reconstructed vessel, are now housed within a custom-made cabinet with a glass lid.

There are many coins of interest included and careful viewing of the lots is recommended. For more information about any of the other lots or to make an appointment to view the hoard please contact Paul Hill on +44 (0)20 7930 9450 or at paul@baldwin.co.uk.”

Following my brief post regarding film footage from MEON HDTV Productions about the recent discovery of the source of Trajan’s Aqueduct, I was surprised and very pleased to be contacted by Director Ted O’Neill who, together with Producer Michael O’Neill, Professor Lorenzo Quilici and Professor Rabun Taylor, comprised the team that announced this stunning find.

Ted O’Neill was kind enough to forward the press release issued from Rome in January 2010, an excerpt of which is found below:

“An ancient water source in Etruscan times, the web of springs was encapsulated by the Roman engineers in a vaulted, three-chambered semicircular ‘nymphaeum’, which served as a springhouse and probably contained the statue of a Roman river god or nymph. The ancient water source was commemorated by a sestertius coin minted by the Emperor Trajan when he inaugurated his aqueduct and his public baths in the centre of Rome, 1900 years ago.

For more than a thousand years, Trajan’s sacred water source was hidden under a Christian Church, now ruined and dismantled.  The ancient aqueduct still emerges from under the church’s meagre remains.  The water collection chamber of the Caput Aquae (headwaters) and 125 metres of the Roman Aqueduct gallery are still in pristine condition as compared with many crumbling ruins in the centre of Rome.

Ancient evidence and Papal records confirm that this shrine is almost certainly the primary water source of Trajan’s aqueduct:  the vaulted ceilings are all richly decorated with expensive Egyptian blue pigment, which strongly suggests that the great Emperor Trajan, proclaimed Optimus Princeps, almost certainly was here personally for his aqueduct’s inauguration.

Until recently, this water source was considered by some to be a local, regional aqueduct of eighteenth-century origin.

However, a descent below the chapel with powerful lights for  filming of the underground galleries revealed that the brickwork and waterproof hydraulic cement lining the tunnels is absolutely characteristic of the Trajanic age.” (Provincia di Roma:  Commune di Bracchiano, Commune di Manziana, and MEON HDTV Productions, 2010).

This discovery has raised many new questions and avenues for further exploration about the history of this massive construction effort from the early second century AD/CE.  Why was a Christian Church built over the water source and nymphaeum?  Was it purely because the foundations already in place cut down on construction costs?  Or is there any evidence that local knowledge of a clean water source prompted an association with religious cleansing centuries later? 

What can be learned about the unique architectural techniques utilized in the construction of this aqueduct?  Were Trajan’s workers the most advanced engineers the Roman world had ever seen?  What information can be drawn from the Aqua Paola, the seventeenth-century restoration by Pope Paul V, about the original aqueduct? 

What new literary references can be identified to support our knowledge of this discovery? 

What geological information is available on the site about the nature of the springs that supplied Rome with fresh water? 

Can the producers’ theory that the famous Trajanic coin represents the nymphaeum rather than the fountain on the Janiculum Hill be proved beyond question, and reflect a poetic conclusion to this wonderful discovery?

It is hard to imagine that this archaeological project is still in its early stages – the aqueduct source has been identified but the long-term research on engineering and construction methods, the history of the site and its socio-cultural significance have yet to be explored, published and debated.  To the project and its restoration and conservation efforts, I say happy hunting!