Meggie Macdonald

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!

Continuing excavations in Egypt have head to the identification of three sites with the potential of housing the remains of two of the most famous lovers in history:  the Egyptian Pharaoh Cleopatra, and the Roman General and triumvir Marc Antony. 

An article from The Toronto Star seems to be caught between reporting on plans for archaeological work and discussing the aesthetic value of one of ancient history’s most beguiling figures. 

The three sites are all near Alexandria, the Ptolemaic capitol of Egypt, and home of the famous Library where Cleopatra and Antony committed suicide following their defeat at Actium by the future Roman emperor Augustus in 31BC. 

The issue of the Pharaoh Queen’s beauty is and will continue to be hotly contested.  Coins from the period show a rather mannish profile, which some suggest accurately reflected Cleopatra’s looks.  Others, more rightly so in the opinion of this writer, suggest that the coinage profile took on the attributes of the Ptolemaic dynasty to lend legitimacy to each ruler.  Thus, if you consider all the coins available showing the face of any Ptolemy, you will likely note that they are all very similar.  Ptolemy I was a Macedonian general under Alexander the Great who took Egypt as his kingdom and took the name of Pharaoh after Alexander’s death in 323BC.  Cleopatra bears a truly remarkably resemblance to the first Macedonian Pharaoh, with physical characteristics that were unlikely to have been purely genetic.

This writer is much more interested to see what the Egyptian digs unearth, particularly if the body of Marc Antony is conclusively identified.  Neither Antony nor Cleopatra will likely be anything like what anyone expects, but they will certainly still be the great lovers who faced oblivion rather than slavery to Rome.