Bidwell (EAPIT 1, Chapter 4) argues that the 1st-century AD site at St Loye's College was a civilian settlement, while Holbrook (EAPIT 1, Chapter 5) believes that a 2nd-century AD roadside settlement may have existed on the Topsham Road frontage which lay outside the excavated area. A large amount of CBM was recovered (mainly from wells capped in the later 2nd century AD)

and although the majority of this was too fragmented for identifi cation there were still nearly 600 recognisable pieces which split 62% *tegulae*, 19% *imbrices*, 16% fl at tiles (possibly from *pilae*), 3% box fl ue-tile, and one complete face antefi x (Coles and Allan forthcoming). The ratio of *tegulae* to *imbrices* is roughly consistent with the ratio by weight of a complete roof. All of the identifi able *tegula* cutaways took the Group B 2nd-century AD form. We have already seen that most of the sites with CBM in Devon have small amounts of fl ue-tile even though few of them are likely to have had a hypocaust or bath-house. St Loye's College is no exception although 17 pieces of

*Table 13.3.17 Analysis of sites receiving St David's church fabric*

*Fig. 13.3.30 Eight-element PCA of* tegulae *from rural sites with military origins*

flue-tile is more than most and more significant is the presence of 90 pieces of flat, possibly *pilae*, tiles. Such brick was normally used for tiling courses in stone-built walls and for the floors and *pilae* of hypocausts, neither of which were apparent at St Loye's College. Whilst it is possible that some brick could have been used for industrial hearths, the overall CBM assemblage does not seem to be consonant with a 1st-century AD wooden building but could be entirely consistent with a 2nd-century AD roadside settlement.

One further consideration worth examining is the source of the tiles supplied to some of the other former military sites in Devon, namely Okehampton, North Tawton and Bury Barton. Figure 13.3.30 shows the PCA plot for all the tiles tested from these sites together with the 2nd-century AD tiles from the former military sites listed in Table 13.3.17. It is curious that *all* these former military sites should have similar fabric as seen by pXRF and raises the possibility that all of these sites could have been supplied by the St David's church kiln (although it should be noted that the tiles from the Okehampton *vicus* looked visibly different to the other Devon tiles). Encouragement for this possibility comes from Williams (1991b, 281–2) whose thin sections showed similarities between Okehampton, Bolham in Tiverton, and North Tawton.

## *2nd-century AD development in rural Devon*

To provide some context for these developments within Devon, it is useful to compare the timeline of construction activity in Devon against the rest of southern Britain using *tegulae* cutaways as a proxy. Figure 13.3.31 presents the *tegula* cutaways in sequence for the rural sites in Devon and compares them against the 46 rural sites from the rest of southern Britain that have been examined by the author. Just over half the Devon cutaways come from Topsham, but excluding them from the analysis makes virtually no difference to the proportions of cutaway groups other than for the exclusion of the Type 7, Group R cutaways,

which have not been found elsewhere in Devon. There is little 1st-century AD (Group A) activity in either category but the 2nd-century AD profile in Devon differs radically from that of the rest of southern Britain, with Group B cutaways representing 61% of the Devon cutaways compared to 11% in the rest of the South. Of course, the over-representation of Group B *tegulae* in Devon could be due to an under-representation of later villas and hence later *tegulae*; but to reduce the Devon proportion of Group B *tegulae* down to the 11% of the rest of the South would require an additional 253 later *tegulae*, equivalent to an improbable 12-fold increase in late tiles in the county. Other than Topsham, these rural Devon Group B cutaways were found on eight sites which, with the exception of the hardcore at Newenham Abbey, in Axminster, are all attributed to St David's church fabric.

This substantial anomaly requires explanation and it seems likely that the answer must be linked with the unusual distribution of 2nd-century AD St David's church

*Fig. 13.3.31 Comparison of proportions of* tegulae *in Devon and southern Britain*

R 5 9 61 7

Total 56 826

fabric, much of which was sent to former military sites. The obvious explanation is that these were farmsteads, industrial premises or villas that were simply re-utilising abandoned 1st-century AD forts because the ground had already been cleared and transport links were already established. If so, this relative boom compared to the rest of southern Britain dissipated quickly as most of the sites fail to show any continuation into the 3rd century AD. Given that we already believe that Seaton was a 2nd-century AD military, or possibly official, site then an alternative hypothesis would be that a number of former military sites were reoccupied in the 2nd century AD for policy reasons, for example to better supervise mineral extraction in the area, or possibly because of civil unrest. This would fit better both with the unusual upsurge in 2nd-century AD activity within Devon and also explain why this did not continue into the 3rd century AD. It might also explain the pilaster tile noted at St David's church (see online Appendix 13.1) which would have been more appropriate in a *mansio* or military building than a farmstead. In this regard it is worth noting that lead pigs from neighbouring Somerset were still being impressed with imperial stamps at least into the AD 160s (RIB II.1 2404.19–2404.22).

The answer to the above question will also determine whether we should imagine that St David's church was a private tilery established by legionary veterans (based on the style of some of their output) which started by supplying tile to the remaining forts in the period *c*. AD 80–90 and then to the evolving civilian market which was predominately centred on old military bases. Or whether it was a military/official kiln that supplied the immediate post-legionary requirements and was then mothballed until new military/official needs emerged in the middle of the 2nd century AD (EAPIT 1, Chapter 5). Hopefully future excavation on these sites will help elicit whether there actually were masonry structures on some of these sites and, if so, whether they were civil or military/official in character.

## **Summary and conclusions**

## *Evolution of kiln sources*

The conclusions of this work have to be caveated by warnings of the smallness of the sample (just 141 tiles tested by pXRF) and the very broadbrush data that this testing has yielded. Caution is also necessary because of the uncertain impact of chemical leaching both in absolute and relative terms across the county. Nevertheless, the leaching impact seems to be surprisingly small, and the data from Caerleon and Usk in the section on 'Dolphin antefixes and consideration of leaching effects' (above), and the general consistency of results, provides some assurance.

Figure 13.3.32 brings the analysis together in the form of a chart with time along the X axis and locations up the Y axis. The general area north-east of the town incorporating Princesshay was where the first postulated kilns were, initially supplying the legion and then the later civil town. As a result of the new town defences, Princesshay was replaced towards the end of the 2nd century AD by the postulated Central kiln using calcium-light clays which continued the supply to Exeter as well as to a number of sites positioned mainly along the River Exe, whilst the new postulated Eastern kiln supplied a growing number of sites in the east of the county. The St David's church kiln started production towards the end of the 1st century AD after the departure of the legion. It is unclear whether it was a private works run by military veterans or a military kiln replacing the legionary kiln that had been passed over to the civic

*Fig. 13.3.32 Summary of kiln evolution in Devon*

authorities. In either event it mainly supplied former military bases some of which may have continued to have a military or official role for example as *mansiones*. It, in turn, was superseded by the postulated Southern kiln, accessing similar clay to St David's church, which supplied some sites in the south of the county**.** Topsham received imports of tile by sea in the 2nd century AD but later received tiles from the Central kiln. These three kilns continued through the first half of the 3rd century AD but only the Eastern kiln continued production into the second half of the 3rd century AD. By the 4th century AD all of these larger kilns had been superseded by a multiplicity of smaller kilns, including Hatherleigh Moor, some of which appeared to displace or duplicate supplies from the Eastern kiln.

It is perhaps surprising that tile production in Devon appears to be represented by just five tileries until the latter half of the 3rd century AD but this figure probably understates the true number as minor fabrics have generally been ignored in the analysis. Imports also appear to have been restricted and are mainly represented by the 2nd-century AD Topsham tiles. However, consideration should also be given to five *tegulae* found with the regional Group R Type 7 cutaways at Topsham (see Fig. 13.3.44 in online Appendix 13.1) and the late pentagonal tiles found in Exeter. The Type 7 cutaway is a 4th-century AD form that has only previously been found in Hampshire and Sussex together with an isolated pocket in Northamptonshire (Warry 2016, 63). The polygonal ceramic tiles are also very rare 4th-century AD artefacts only previously found in Hampshire and Sussex and neighbouring counties to the north. As neither Type 7 cutaways nor polygonal tiles have been found in the half dozen late sites examined by the author in Dorset, this would suggest that either these tiles or a tile-maker have been imported into Devon.

Villa production of tiles is often cited as a likely source of CBM but there is limited evidence for this in Devon other than the apparent proliferation of small late tile fabrics and, indeed, not a great amount of evidence for it in Britain more widely. Piddington, in Northamptonshire, is probably the best example of a villa type structure with a kiln attached but many of the other candidates may be better described as tileries with farmsteads attached (as evidenced by the number of impressions of farm animals' feet found on the tiles). With the exception of Princesshay we actually know very little about the Devon tileries. The St David's church kiln lies beneath the modern church and the minimal excavation that was possible did not reach the kiln structure or any associated buildings. At Hatherleigh Moor we have the probable location of the kiln but none of the associated infrastructure. The locations of the three postulated kilns – Central, Southern and Eastern – have yet to be pinned down but Dr Machin's thin sections Chapter 13.2 help to identify the geological areas where they are likely to lie.

## *Economic and architectural development*

There are a number of features of Exeter's development that match those of Gloucester as each civil administration assumed control of a vacated legionary fortress towards the end of the 1st century AD and also took possession of the former legionary kiln. Both appear to have excluded the products of other tile makers by granting exclusivity to their own tileries. In the case of Gloucester we know from tile stamps that the tilery was either owned, or at least sponsored, by the civic authorities (Warry 2017) and it would not be unreasonable to assume a similar arrangement in Exeter.

Figure 13.3.33 compares *tegula* lower cutaways recorded in Exeter and Gloucester. Five times as many lower cutaways have been recorded in Gloucester as Exeter which is probably mainly indicative of the number of excavations and retention policies pursued in the two towns rather than the relative number of tiled buildings. Nevertheless, it still suggests that Exeter was less endowed with such buildings than Gloucester, despite the significant size of the town once the new defences were constructed (Holbrook and Bidwell 1991, 282, fig. 136 shows that only 102 kg of *tegulae* had been recovered from Exeter prior to 1991 which compares with over a tonne from Gloucester by that stage).

The relative proportions of the different cutaway forms are instructive: both towns have slightly more than twice the number of Group B cutaways compared to Group A cutaways which demonstrates a significant survival of the legionary roofing stock followed, theoretically, by twice as many early domestic or civic roofs. However, the bigger difference is in the Group C cutaways: only 6% of the Gloucester cutaways were Group C compared with 37% of the Exeter cutaways. The Gloucester data indicate that the town switched from ceramic to stone tiles close to AD 200, if not slightly before, whereas the equality of Group B and C forms at Exeter would suggest that the transition to stone/slate tiles did not occur until nearer AD 250. Although Selwood (1991, 282) states that stone tiles start in Exeter from the late 2nd century AD, he notes they are absent from large dumps of material in the outer fortress ditch dated *c*. AD 160–180. The only evidence for new ceramic tiles entering Exeter in the later 3rd and 4th centuries AD is two damaged but possible Group D *tegulae* at St Catherine's Almshouses and a couple of pentagonal ceramic tiles from Cathedral Close which were intended to imitate the stone tiles. Thus it is probable that Exeter houses were normally wholly covered in stone/slate tiles from the later 3rd century AD onwards (as demonstrated at Trichay Street and Rack Street: Chapters 5 and 8 in this volume). This can also be inferred to be the practice in Gloucester.

It was not possible to quantify the proportions of different CBM product types found within Exeter in any scientific manner but the general impression was that, like Gloucester, there was relatively little flue-tile

*Fig. 13.3.33 Comparison of proportions of* tegula *cutaway in Exeter and Gloucester*

D 2 4 2 1

Total 54 284

(say 10%) suggesting a limited number of hypocausts and bath-houses. There also appeared to be a minimal quantity of flat tile that could have been used as bonding courses in Exeter, especially when compared to Gloucester, which could suggest that fewer Exeter houses had two storeys.

Gloucester and Cirencester were amongst the first towns in the country to move away from ceramic roof tiles and the trend away from ceramic use would seem to have gradually radiated out to other towns from there. However, the tide in the countryside was less strong: some buildings continued to use ceramic tile while others moved to a combination of stone tile on the main roofs and ceramic tile on the aisles, for example as at Meonstoke (King 1996, 64–6); this combination of stone and ceramic tiles is also confirmed by miniature models of buildings – one from Titelberg and another in a private French collection. Roofs in rural Devon would appear to have been consistent with this arrangement.

The evolution of rural Devon, discussed in the section on '2nd-century AD development in rural Devon' above, showed that there was an apparent boom in 2nd-century tile use, primarily on former military sites, which was not sustained into the 3rd century AD. The CBM evidence best fits with a military/official explanation rather than agricultural/industrial cause, but is not conclusive. Also notable in Fig. 13.3.31 is the relative paucity of Group D and R *tegulae* in rural Devon compared to the rest of southern Britain which, even after compensating for the unusual 2nd-century AD peak, supports the often-made observation that villas and other buildings with tiled roofs were much scarcer here than in neighbouring *pays*  further east.

## *Validity of morphology/pXRF methodology*

In this chapter the initial analysis was based on tile (mainly *tegula*) morphology. These tentative results were then validated in a series of pXRF bi-plots and these results

were checked by PCA analysis omitting the potentially mobile potassium element used for the bi-plots, thereby creating a further independent dataset. A further layer of corroboration has been provided by selected thin section analysis. A final check is provided by examining whether the fabric distributions make sense on the ground in terms of geography.

The initial results from the morphology/pXRF bi-plots have largely been sustained through each of the validation steps. Some minor adjustments have been made as a result of combined idealised analysis as shown in Table 13.3.15 where, *inter alia*, the thin sections did not support the tentative Hatherleigh Moor grouping. However, the pXRF was able to differentiate between the 1st and 2nd-century AD phases of Princesshay and the two phases of the Eastern kiln, both of which were indistinguishable in thin section. It also provided strong evidence to identify the St David's church kiln output that thin section analysis did not pin down.

Potassium, titanium and calcium may not be the most appropriate elements to use in bi-plot analysis in other geographic regions with different geologies, but the basic methodology used in this research should be applicable to CBM studies more generally and ought to be within the compass of many archaeological organisations. Considerably greater precision and more chemical elements could have been obtained with a superior machine, regular recalibration, longer duration and more sophisticated analytical techniques. However, this paper demonstrates that useful 'broadbrush' conclusions can be achieved with a less precise approach. A more exacting approach would generate more accurate readings but these would not necessarily deliver a sufficiently improved analysis to justify the extra cost and time taken. PCA software is widely available and straight forward to use so this could be added to the analytical arsenal but there should be no need to regularly use thin sections. However, attempting to interpret pXRF or PCA data blind – that is without the morphological analysis employed in this

paper – is unlikely to be successful as exemplified by Figure 13.3.4.

## *Potential future work*

This study has only examined the assemblages contained in the RAMM together with an opportunistic sample of those held elsewhere. Future work to discover and examine assemblages from further rural sites and in particular from Topsham and its environs would be helpful, especially in elucidating the 2nd-century AD position. Further pXRF analysis could be undertaken of the existing assemblages to reinforce (or otherwise) the conclusions reached in this chapter.

It would be helpful if more attention was paid to stone/ slate assemblages and their interaction with ceramic tiles, in particular to quantify the relative weights of these materials from each site. It would also be interesting to look further into Cornwall, Somerset and Dorset to identify at what point tiles from sources outside of Devon begin to appear.

Finally, there would be value in undertaking pXRF on tiles found at Fishbourne and Lake Farm, Dorset to see if the close similarities (same dimensions, same lower cutaway, same rare diagonal upper cutaways) noted between *tegulae* from the early abortive trenches of the Fishbourne villa and the Exeter legionary bath-house reflect tiles made in the same kiln or simply using the same former.

## **Acknowledgments**

This chapter would not have been possible without the generous assistance of Tom Cadbury, Jenny Durrant and Naomi Payne in flagging potential assemblages and extracting them from store; John Davey with pXRF testing; David Gould for production of the maps, context data and also with the pXRF testing; and the wise counsel and advice of Stephen Rippon, Neil Holbrook and Paul Bidwell. I am also grateful to Mark Lewis for access and advice on the tiles held at Caerleon.

## The Querns and Millstones of Roman Exeter: Supplying and Feeding the Fortress and Town

*Ruth Shaffrey*

## **Introduction**

This chapter provides a corpus of all the known rotary querns and millstones from in and around Roman Exeter and incorporates evidence from the wider region. Part 1 considers querns as a commodity: what they are made from and how these items were manufactured and distributed. The geology of the South-West Peninsula is different to any other part of England and this is reflected in the choices of stone for making querns. The evidence indicates a strongly local bias in the exploitation of stone even where it was not of high quality for grinding, while there also appears to be no link between the extraction of stone for major building projects (*e.g.* the town walls) and the working of stone for querns. This section also considers the chronology of rotary quern use and the morphology of the querns. Part 2 uses the data on quern distribution to investigate how grain processing and flour supply was organised in and around the town. By examining the density of quern use and the occurrences of millstones – the only evidence of centralised and intensified milling that consistently survives in the archaeological record – this chapter looks at where grain processing occurred. Comparison is made with the organisation of grain processing for other Roman towns.

Rotary querns are important artefacts for archaeological study because they can tell us about patterns of manufacture and supply as well as the organisation of food production. However, one could be forgiven for thinking that the residents of Roman Exeter never ate bread or drank ale, such is the disregard for rotary querns and millstones as a class of material culture in the study of the town. Until recently, the only published examples of Roman querns were a few examples made from German lava found at Friernhay Street, Rack Street and Holloway Street, published in a petrographical study (Bell and

Bradshaw 1983), and no report was included in Holbrook and Bidwell's (1991) *Roman Finds from Exeter*.

This study into the use of querns in and around Exeter was based upon the examination of examples held at the Royal Albert Memorial Museum (RAMM) in Exeter, Topsham and Torquay Museums, AC Archaeology, Cotswold Archaeology, Wessex Archaeology, and the University of Exeter. To the best of the author's knowledge, this assessment includes all the Roman querns found in Exeter to date. It is not intended to provide exhaustive coverage of all the querns and millstones of Devon, because that was not within the remit of this research, but it is hoped that it will serve as an introduction to the subject and to highlight the benefits of studying these under-appreciated artefacts.

A total of 183 fragments representing 124 items were recorded for this survey. Those that were from certain pre-Roman contexts were omitted from further analysis (although are mentioned in the text where relevant) and only querns and millstones of likely rotary form are included, and so this report analyses 163 fragments from 104 querns and millstones from Exeter and Devon. These were recovered from 41 sites in total. Of these, 11 sites are from inside Exeter's town walls, five are just outside the walls (termed extra-mural in Table 14.1), 11 sites are in Exeter's wider hinterland (within 20 km as the crow flies, see below) and the remaining sites are from further afield in Devon (termed county in Table 14.1). The majority of these sites produced only a single quern each (Table 14.1).

Saddle querns were in use from the Neolithic onwards for the grinding of grains and other foodstuffs. They were superseded by the rotary quern, which was introduced during the Middle Iron Age but it is not uncommon to find saddle querns and rubbers in Roman contexts in southern England. We cannot rule out their continued use *Table 14.1 Romano-British sites in Devon with rotary querns and/or millstones (for excavations within Exeter, the 'Site Number' refers to Chapter 2 above)*

in the processing of grain without developments in residue analysis on the surfaces of querns, which has the potential to give us much needed information on what querns were used for. However, saddle querns were omitted from this study because the original aim was to investigate the production and use of rotary querns and millstones only.

## **Part 1: Querns as a commodity**

Any analysis of querns and millstones such as this can be divided into two parts. The first is an examination of querns as a commodity – a product that was made, distributed, owned, used, often recycled, and eventually discarded. This investigation considers the distribution of querns and millstones of different stone types, both spatially and chronologically, with a view to understanding quern production and supply in the region around Roman Exeter. The second part of this research uses querns and millstones to help us understand how grain processing (and the resulting flour and malt production) was organised in and around the Roman town.

In this section, querns and millstones have been grouped together and are discussed under the following broad lithological groupings: granite, greisen and elvan; Greensand; local basalts from the Exeter Volcanics; other South-Western rocks; and lava imported from the continent. Querns need to be studied in terms of stone type because this helps us identify likely points of stone extraction and quern manufacture. In turn, this provides information about how these tools were supplied.

## *Granite, greisen and elvan* **(Fig. 14.1A)**

Granite, greisen and elvan rotary querns have been found on 14 sites. The granite used for rotary querns in and around Roman Exeter is variable and clearly from multiple sources. It includes non-megacrystic biotite granite, coarse megacrystic granite containing tourmaline, and medium-grained granite with biotite and muscovite (known locally as moorstone). Querns were also made from quartz-porphyry (known colloquially as elvan), and rarely an altered granitic rock known as greisen. Some of the granite could have been sourced on Dartmoor and the elvan may have come from the Roborough elvan, although varieties of both may also have been brought into Devon from Cornwall. There is clearly much work to be done on the provenancing of granite querns in the region, but some observations can be made nonetheless.

Granite querns were used to the west and south of Exeter and within relative proximity to the sources in Dartmoor and Cornwall. Querns of granite have been found at Aller Cross, in Kingskerswell; North Tawton, Clanacombe, in Thurlestone; Choakford Farm, in Sparkwell; Bitbeare Farm, in Winkleigh (which is Iron Age and therefore not listed in Table 14.1); Billany Farm, in Dartington, and Langford Barton/Springfield, in Ugborough. The most easterly point of use appears to have been in Exeter itself,

where they have been found at Rack Street, Valiant Soldier, Friernhay Street, St Stephen's High Street, and St Luke's College (Fig. 14.1A). There is virtually no evidence for the export of granite, greisen and elvan querns to the rest of lowland Roman Britain, although a granite rubber and saddle quern from Bronze Age contexts at Bunford Hollow, in Yeovil (Somerset), probably originated in Devon or Cornwall (Shaffrey pers. obs).

The presence of granite, greisen and elvan querns in Roman Exeter evidences the movement of people and goods from the west, but their absence to the east of the town suggests that the few querns found in Exeter were personal belongings, rather than having been brought into the town for sale or exchange. If the town had functioned as a distribution point in this way, we might reasonably expect to see a different, more evenly spread, distribution pattern around the town. The lack of evidence for secondary distribution of querns via Exeter is in keeping with the idea that towns were not market centres for such goods.

Few of the granite, greisen and elvan querns were recovered from features dated more closely than 'Roman' so establishing a chronology for their production and use is problematic, although the morphology of granite rotary querns suggest that production of them began during the Iron Age and continued through the Roman period. A small bun-shaped quern with lateral handle socket at Bitbeare Farm, for example, was found in an Iron Age context, whilst a rounded quern from North Tawton is probably also of Iron Age origin. Rounded querns of elvan from Berry Down, in Kingsteignton, suggest that rotary querns were also being made from this stone before the Roman period (Fig. 14.2a; Berry Down is an Iron Age site and therefore not listed in Table 14.1). In most of southern Britain, the transition from partly perforated to fully perforated lower stones occurred during the later 1st century BC to 1st century AD. Partially perforated lower stones of elvan and granite with convex grinding surfaces and partially perforated spindle sockets were found at Aller Cross, in Kingskerswell (Fig. 14.2g, h), as well as a similar elvan example at Berry Down (Fig. 14.2i). More certainly Roman forms include examples of disc type with flat parallel faces (as at Friernhay Street, in Exeter). Greisen querns are rare but include one of probable Late Roman date with a projecting collar at Billany Farm, in Dartington (Mudd and Joyce 2014, 110–12).

Three of the querns are on the large size for hand operation at 50 cm, 53 cm and 54 cm, and these examples – from Rack Street, the Valiant Soldier and St Stephens respectively (all in Exeter) – might well have required additional power. Whilst their sizes are at the lower end of what can be classified as a millstone, they are large for the region generally, and large for querns of granite and associated stone types, which measure 29–45 cm diameter and average around 35 cm. This suggests that they might belong to a different class of quern or millstone.

*Fig. 14.1 Distribution of querns by lithology. A: granite, greisen and elvan; B: amygdaloidal basalt; C: lamprophyre; D: Upper Greensand*

## *The Exeter Volcanics*

By far the most popular choice for querns in the Exeter area are the Exeter Volcanics. Figure 14.1B maps all Permian rocks in this region. The Exeter Volcanics occur as extrusive and intrusive rocks at the base of this succession and typically occur as small outcrops, with notable exposures to the north of Exeter around Silverton (at Killerton), Thorverton and Budlake, to the south and west of Exeter near Ide and Dunchideock (Horner *et al.* 2017), as well as well-known exposures close to or in the town itself at Rougemont and Pocombe. Two distinct rock types were used for querns during the Roman period.

## *Amygdaloidal basalt*

The most popular choice for rotary querns in the Exeter area was a reddish-purple porphyritic basaltic lava with feldspar phenocrysts and some quartz filled amygdales, from the Exeter Volcanics (Fig. 14.1B). Although it resembles stone from Pocombe on the western edge of modern-day Exeter, it lacks the distinctive quartz veins of that rock and it does not precisely match any samples collected during fieldwork for this paper. A precise source has therefore not yet been determined, but it is certainly from the Exeter Volcanics and its source is therefore likely to be within proximity of Exeter, to the north, west or south-west. It accounts for 36 querns from 16 sites.

Most of the lower stones have partially perforated sockets indicating likely Late Iron Age production, for example at Topsham, Pomeroy Wood, in Honiton, Bishop's Court near Exeter, and Penns Mount, in Kingsteignton, but an example from Pomeroy Wood is fully perforated which is more typical of Roman querns (Fig. 14.2j). Upper stones are of very varied form suggesting long lived production. They include bun-shaped querns with concave grinding surface and blind side handle socket (Fig. 14.2c) which are typical of Iron Age querns and flat-topped types, sometimes with a kerbed upper surface or wide shallow hopper (Fig. 14.2d) and disc type querns with parallel faces, more typical of Roman querns. Querns in this basalt typically range in size from 30 cm to 40 cm diameter and up to 55 cm diameter, the larger examples possibly representing mechanically powered millstones. As with querns of granite, greisen and elvan, there is almost no evidence for the movement of querns of stone from the Exeter Volcanics outside the local area, although there is a small fragment of bun-shaped upper rotary quern from a context of currently unphased date at Bunford Hollow in Yeovil, Somerset (Shaffrey pers. obs.).

## *Lamprophyre*

Lamprophyre is a fine-grained, dark, greyish-red or blueish-grey vesicular rock (a minette) containing, in the case of the variants used for the querns, frequent biotite (Fig. 14.1C). The most likely source for the querns is in the area of Killerton but while samples from there show a strong resemblance to the querns (Shaffrey 2017a), the possibility remains that other exposures of lamprophyre were also exploited. Querns from five sites are made of lamprophyre, all in the vicinity of Exeter: Hill Barton, in Pinhoe; Tithe Barn Green, in Monkerton; Pomeroy Wood, in Honiton; Overland, in Thorverton, and Exeter Brickfields.

The most closely dated of these querns were found in features of Late Iron Age to Early Roman date (100 BC– AD 100) at Hill Barton, 4 km to the east of the town. In form, the lamprophyre querns tend towards an Iron Age shape, with rounded profile and sloped or flat grinding surface (Fig. 14.2e). At least two examples have basinshaped hoppers and one has a blind side handle socket. Lower stones are typically partly perforated (Fig. 14.2k). These querns suggest a Late Iron Age phase of production of lamprophyre querns, but the example from Pomeroy Wood of a flat-topped Roman type indicates that production extended beyond the Late Iron Age. The small number of querns indicates a probable ad-hoc exploitation of this rock, rather than an organised industry and the limited distribution reflects this.

## *Vesicular lava*

A very vesicular type of lava was used for querns at Pomeroy Wood. Most only survive as fragments with part of a pecked surface, but at least one substantial fragment of thick flat quern was also recovered. This seems a poor choice for a quern material as the vesicles in the rock are so substantial in size that flour and grain are likely to have fallen into the holes, necessitating regular removal of the upper stone, so that the lower stone could be cleaned. Its presence is difficult to explain.

## *Upper Greensand*

Although the majority of querns in the Exeter area were made from igneous rock types, sandstone was also used to manufacture querns and the main source of these is in the Upper Greensand (Fig. 14.1D). The Greensand used is typically greyish-brown in colour due to the weathering of the glauconite and can have obvious traces of silicified shell. It is likely that this rock originates in the Blackdown Hills of eastern Devon (Pollard 1974, 152; Watts and Taylor 2014) but fieldwork to collect samples for comparison has not been carried out and it is not possible to be more precise on provenance at present. The Blackdown Hills were an area rich in natural resources, with an important iron industry (Griffith and Weddell 1996) and recently recognised Romano-British pottery (Chapter 12 above) and tile production (Chapter 13 above). A link between the production and export of querns and other natural resources is a logical conclusion. In the Forest of Dean, quern manufacture was associated with ironworking at the Chesters Villa, and distribution patterns of the iron and the querns from the area suggest similar mechanisms of distribution (Fulford and Allen 1992; Shaffrey 2006). A link might also be postulated between quern production and lead extraction in the Mendips (Shaffrey 2006, 77).

Rotary querns of Upper Greensand have been identified at seven sites: Princesshay, in Exeter; Exeter Crematorium and St Loye's College just to the east of the town; and Shortlands Lane, in Cullompton; Holcombe, in Uplyme; Honeyditches, in Seaton and Pomeroy Wood, in Honiton. All these sites are near to or east of Exeter, reflecting the easterly location of the outcrops. No rotary querns of Upper Greensand have been recovered from pre-Roman contexts in Devon and those that are securely dated were found in features of 3rd to 4th-century AD date as at Holcombe, in Uplyme and Pomeroy Wood, in Honiton, suggesting that a minor industry manufacturing querns from Upper Greensand was operating during the Late Roman period. The querns are also of Roman or Late Roman form, being large in diameter (ranging from 40–95 cm in diameter) and typically either of flat-disc type, or projecting-hopper type (Fig. 14.2b). One example from Honeyditches in Seaton is unusual in that it has a kerbed upper surface, a feature not common on nativemade querns, and is probably an imitation of continental lava querns. Examples from Holcombe, in Uplyme, and

*Fig. 14.2 Devon's quern morphology. 2a: Berry Down (after Gallant and Silvester 1985, fig. 4.2); 2b: St Loye's College; 2c: Exe Street; 2d: Pomeroy Wood (after Loader 1999, fig. 148.3); 2e: Hill Barton (after Mudd 2017, fig. 24d); 2f: Tithe Barn Green; 2g and h: Aller Cross (after Quinnell 2015b, fig. 34); 2i Berry Down (after Gallant and Silvester 1985, fig. 4.1); 2j Pomeroy Wood (after Loader 1999, fig 148.4); 2k Hill Barton (after Mudd 2017, fig. 24c); 2l: Pomeroy Wood (after Loader 1999, fig. 148.2)*

Exeter Crematorium are large enough to have required additional power (Pollard 1974, 152; Payne and Passmore 2016, 3).

## *Other South-Western sources*

A number of other minor sources were also used for the production of querns. One probable quern fragment of Dawlish sandstone was found at Pomeroy Wood, in Honiton. Dawlish sandstone outcrops in a band running north-south to the north and east of Exeter as well as either side of the River Exe south of Exeter towards the coast. Dawlish sandstone is typically quite soft and not particularly well suited to use for grinding, but this stone was presumably selected as an usually well-cemented variety, suitable for grinding. Two querns of Hangman Grit were found in 2nd-century AD contexts at Bray Valley, in Brayford. They are of Late Iron Age/Early Roman form with partially perforated sockets. Hangman Point (from where the stone came) is located some 16 km north-west of the site (Best 2005, 4). Querns of other sandstones include typical partially perforated lower stones (Fig. 14.2l) and less typical forms such as one from Tithe Barn Green, in Monkerton, of rounded form but with a rynd chase set into the hopper (Fig. 14.2f).

## *Continental lava*

Lava from the continent is a grey vesicular rock that was in use in Roman Britain from the time of the Conquest (Fitzpatrick 2017). It is light and easy to transport and was therefore a popular choice, particularly among the military. Analysis during the 1980s suggested that most of the lava used in Britain was imported from the Eifel region of Germany and that is the assumption made here, although French sources in Volvic, in Auvergne, and elsewhere in Europe should not be ruled out. No further analysis has been carried out for this chapter, but the most advanced XRF (X-ray fluorescence) analysis is now able to provenance lava querns precisely, not only to a region, but to a specific lava flow (Gluhak and Hofmeister 2011) and the potential exists for the Exeter querns to be subjected to this analysis in the future.

Lava querns have been found on seven excavations in Devon, five of which are within Exeter (Trichay Street, Rack Street, Friernhay Street, Goldsmith Street and Holloway Street). Outside of Exeter, lava querns have been found only at Wessex Close, in Topsham, and at Pomeroy Wood, in Honiton. Few of the lava querns have been found in closely dated contexts but one quern from Pomeroy Wood (in ten fragments), one from Rack Street, and two from Friernhay Street were found in contexts dating to the military occupation (Bell and Bradshaw 1983, 130). Lava querns were noted during the excavations at Goldsmith Street and Trichay Street (Paul Bidwell pers. comm.) but these were either never retained or are now missing. Lava querns from Rack Street, in Exeter, and Wessex Close, in Topsham, are from 2nd and 3rd-century

AD contexts but all are fragmentary (Quinnell 2018a, 46) and so may be residual rather than providing evidence for the continued use of imported lava into the 3rd century AD. Fragments of quern identified as possibly Mayen lava were also found at an 8th-century AD site at Berry Meadow, in Kingsteignton (Allan 1987, 94): it is possible they are residual Roman material but were found in an 8th-century AD ditch.

The recovery of lava querns from predominantly military sites, or civilian sites with military origins, is striking, although survival of lava querns is poor in the acidic soils of the South-West, and they often survive as undiagnostic fragments, recognisable only by the stone type. The possibility that these are missed during excavation or not retained due to a perception that little can be learned from them is therefore high and we should perhaps be careful not to read too much into their 'absence'.

Few of the lava querns survive in large enough pieces for much to be said about their form, but one from Friernhay Street has the kerb and elbow-shaped handle socket typical of these querns (Crawford and Röder 1955, Type 4). Interestingly the grinding surface of this quern was worn right down to the underneath of the handle socket by the time it was deposited – during the latest occupation of the fortress now dated to the late AD 70s/ early 80s (EAPIT 1, Chapter 5) – illustrating the relatively short life-span of these querns. Three examples – the querns from 1st-century AD contexts at Rack Street and Friernhay Street – have measurable diameters, and these are 38, 38 and 40 cm diameter.

## *Discussion*

The pattern of stone exploitation for querns in the Exeter area and wider region indicates a number of small-scale industries each producing and distributing only over a relatively limited area. Although there was clearly movement of querns from Cornwall into Devon (*e.g.* elvan and probably some granite), no querns were brought into Devon from the rest of southern Britain and none of the major quern producers of the south are represented (Greensand from Pen Pits in Somerset, Lodsworth in West Sussex, or Folkestone in Kent; Old Red Sandstone from the Mendips, Bristol or Wye Valley; puddingstone from Hertfordshire or Worms Heath near Croydon in Surrey). There are also no querns of Millstone Grit, which were widely used across the rest of southern England during the Roman period. Millstone Grit outcrops extensively across a wide geographical area in Derbyshire and South Yorkshire. Rotary querns and millstones are known to have been manufactured during the Roman period at Wharncliffe in South Yorkshire, at Rivelin on the outskirts of modern-day Sheffield, and at Blackbrook in Derbyshire (Pearson and Oswald 2000; Palfreyman and Ebbins 2007; Newman 2016, 29). Not all querns can be directly provenanced to these quarries, however, and it is likely that many more quarries were in operation during the Roman period. Some of these absences are a result of geography: querns of Folkestone Beds Greensand were manufactured in eastern Kent and puddingstone from Hertfordshire and Surrey are not found in any of the westernmost counties; greensand querns from Pen Pits in Somerset are absent because these reached only a relatively small area of Somerset and Wiltshire; and Lodsworth Greensand querns from West Sussex, although distributed widely across the south, have been found only as far west as Devizes and Wanborough in Wiltshire (Buckley 2001). Both Millstone Grit and Old Red Sandstone, the two principal British stone types used for querns in southern Roman Britain, are, however, also absent. Millstone Grit querns occur on a number of sites in Somerset including at Bath (Bath Museum Acc: BATRM 1986.116), while Old Red Sandstone, which outcrops in Somerset, is the most common quern material in that county (Shaffrey 2006). Its absence in Devon is particularly noteworthy since its distribution northwards and eastwards is much greater.

In addition, with the exception of Mayen lava querns, continental imports are also absent. Querns of rocks sourced on mainland Europe or the Channel Islands are not common in Britain but are increasingly being identified, with Alderney sandstone and French puddingstone querns now known to have been used. These almost certainly arrived in Britain at ports along the south coast with French puddingstone querns being used south of the River Thames, and Alderney sandstone querns and ballast of the same rock found on the Isle of Wight and at Fishbourne palace harbour respectively, as well as further inland at Wantage in Oxfordshire (Watts 2003; Allen 2013; Green 2017; Shaffrey pers. obs.). The absence of querns from continental Europe in Exeter is therefore potentially noteworthy.

At an individual site level there seems to be broadly much less interplay between the different stone types. This is at least partly a reflection of the very small assemblage sizes; the larger assemblages at sites such as Pomeroy Wood, in Honiton, or Dainton Elms Cross, in Ipplepen, contain querns from multiple sources, and it is noteworthy that both were roadside settlements. However, it is also clear that even at these two sites with a larger number of querns, the people followed the broad pattern of choosing querns from local suppliers or those passing through, so the querns from the civilian phases at Pomeroy Wood are of Greensand/sandstone, rock from the Exeter Volcanics (those described as Permian lava and Permian volcanic in the published report) and Mayen lava. Fragments of possible quern of other sandstones were recorded in the published report (Fitzpatrick *et al*. 1999, tab. 79) but these are not certainly from querns. Those at Dainton Elms Cross, in Ipplepen, to the south-west of Exeter are all of granite, elvan or basalt from the Exeter Volcanics. Whilst it is clear, however, that in Roman Devon querns were being produced for local use, it is likely that the user of the quern had some choice over which material their

*Fig. 14.3 Map showing broad distribution areas of quern lithologies*

quern was made from. In southern and western Devon, households typically had a choice of querns from the range of granite examples being produced as well as those of elvan, greisen and basalt from the Exeter Volcanics. North and east of Exeter, households had the choice of using querns of Greensand, lamprophyre or basalt from the Exeter Volcanics (Fig. 14.3). A single quern of continental lava was found in a Late Roman Phase 4i context at Pomeroy Wood, in Honiton, but may be residual from earlier, military phases.

Analysis of the use of different stone types in the immediate proximity of Exeter itself is also very revealing (Fig. 14.4). The only querns found within the defences of the fortress (in both stratified military phase deposits and in later contexts associated with the Roman and medieval towns) are made of Mayen lava, a lithology scarcely seen outside the fortress. In contrast, within the town walls and just outside the town walls there are querns of granite, greensand and basalt from the Exeter Volcanics. Unfortunately, the dating of few of these querns is sufficiently close for an assessment to be made of how much of this pattern represents chronological differences and the sample sizes are small. The absence of other stone types, and the overall distribution patterns of querns of different stone types also indicates that Exeter did not function as a secondary distribution point for querns. Since most querns were used 'locally' to their point of manufacture, an additional step in their distribution process was presumably not required. Interestingly, it is also worth noting that the production of querns seems not to have been connected to other more intensive stone exploitation. The town walls

*Fig. 14.4 Map of all rotary querns and millstones by number. A: Mayen Lava; B: other stone types*

in Exeter, for example, are made of Rougemont stone, but so far no querns of this stone have been found nor of Pocombe stone, which outcrops to the south-west of Exeter and its distinctive quartz veins are not observed in other types of rock from the Exeter Volcanics.

## *Conclusion*

Analysis of the querns from Exeter and across Devon reveals a pattern of mainly local exploitation that is in stark contrast to the rest of the Roman south. The centre of Exeter has seen as much excavation as many other Roman towns, and so the relatively small numbers of querns could be a genuine phenomenon (albeit possibly exacerbated by non-rigorous retention of quern fragments in the 1970s). Even factoring this in, however, the number and variation in the typology of querns of each lithology suggest long-lived and probable ad-hoc exploitation, rather than organised quarries and quern makers. The limited evidence for the exporting of Devon-made querns outside the region supports this conclusion. The absence of querns imported from other sources in Roman Britain may be the result of a lack of engagement with the wider quern distribution networks, and the occurrence of Mayen lava querns almost exclusively on sites with military origins could indicate that a reluctance to move away from local quern sources extended to lava querns, which in other parts of the Roman south appear to have filtered down into general circulation.

## **Part 2: Querns as comestibles**

In addition to their ability to inform us about the movement and trade of goods, querns and millstones also provide important details about where and how grain was processed, which in turn is a crucial strand of evidence in our quest to understand how the supply of food and drink to towns was structured. The more grain that was processed into flour within the town, the less processing was required in the surrounding environs and vice versa. Grain could be processed using hand-powered rotary querns or mechanically powered millstones. Millstones are simply rotary querns that were too unwieldy to be operated by hand and required additional operational power (such as water, animals, or multiple people) and more leverage than a simple handle. In southern England, they are classified as being stones greater than 57 cm diameter. In practice, however, stones over 50 cm diameter are also likely to have had mechanised power if they do not retain evidence for a handle socket (Shaffrey 2015), and so the threshold of 50 cm is used here. Since structural evidence for watermills is scant, and rarely found, and we are still uncertain as to the precise nature of the structure of animal powered mills in this country, millstones are the most reliable archaeological evidence for the existence of mills.

At a simple level, the larger the quern or millstone, the greater the quantity of grain that could be processed but estimating the amount of flour that could be produced is virtually impossible. Output would depend on the type of power being used, the number of stones in operation, the size of the stones, and the duration each day in which the stones were running. However, the recovery of rotary querns at a site is evidence of the processing of grain at a household level, or, perhaps, at a small commercial premises, such as a bakery or brewhouse. A very high number of rotary querns is likely to indicate a significant

level of grain processing, depending on the size of the excavated area and the nature of the site. The appearance of millstones during the 1st century AD, but more commonly from the 2nd century AD, is evidence for the intensification of arable production and the associated centralisation of grain processing (Booth *et al.* 2007, 298; Rees 2011, 112; Shaffrey 2015), both consequences of the development of urban communities. Their recovery is therefore particularly important to our understanding of how grain processing and supply of the resultant products was organised.

Current evidence suggests that some towns had urban mills at which a portion of their flour supply was centralised, but that other towns sourced some or most of their flour externally (Cruse and Heslop 2015; Shaffrey 2018). These conclusions have been drawn based on the distribution of mills, as evidenced by the millstones. However, some of the grain processing indicated by the millstones might have been concerned with the crushing of sprouted grains (malt) for brewing, and querns and millstones were probably also used to process other substances such as legumes and animal feed. Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine what was being ground on querns and millstones as we currently rely on the analysis of charred and waterlogged plant remains to distinguish between flour and malt production. In the case of Exeter, there are few plant remains to help with this issue, and where they do exist, there is scant evidence for the processing of cereals (Straker *et al*. 1984; and see EAPIT1, Chapter 3). Whilst we could also turn to phytolith or starch analysis of deposits preserved on the surfaces of querns, this is in its very early stages and not yet commonplace. In the absence of these strands of evidence, we can therefore only make an assumption that the querns and millstones of Exeter and the surrounding areas mainly represent flour production, but we must consider and remember the other functions to which they could have been put.

## *Cereal processing in and around Exeter*

The lack of close dating for many querns from Exeter and its hinterland hinders a chronological consideration of the organisation of grain processing. Querns associated with military phases of activity, for example, have only been identified at Rack Street and Friernhay Street in the city and at Pomeroy Wood, in Honiton, but this apparent lack of early querns is most likely a reflection of the absence of context information associated with many of the other known querns, rather than an actual absence of Early Roman querns. Using querns and millstones as direct evidence for the processing of cereals, it is still possible to make several observations.

Previous studies looking at the distribution of querns and millstones around urban centres have calculated 20 km as a reasonable distance that might have been travelled in a day (Cruse and Heslop 2015; Shaffrey 2018; in prep). Whilst it is accepted that this is a simplification

*Fig. 14.5 Density of rotary querns and millstones found at Late Iron Age and Roman sites in Devon*

that does not take topography into account, it is a useful tool allowing a study area to be defined. It is hoped that over time the distribution of rotary querns and millstones will be sufficiently well understood that such artificial divisions will not be necessary. The geographical area represented by the 20 km mark is indicated by the circle on Fig. 14.5.

Despite the relatively poor recovery of quern fragments from Roman Exeter, 1st-century AD military phase grain processing in the town is represented by the small number of closely dated lava querns from Rack Street and Friernhay Street. These querns provide clear evidence of grinding within the fortress and as querns were a component of military equipment, essential to feed the army and associated personnel, their recovery from sites with military occupation is to be expected. Additionally, four fragments of probable Roman millstones have been identified from Rack Street, St Stephens High Street, Valiant Soldier and Holloway Street. None of the millstones exceed 55 cm diameter (at 50, 53, 54 and 55 cm), but they are noticeably larger in size than typical rotary querns in the town (usually measuring 30–40 cm diameter) and therefore likely to have required greater power. Their presence suggests that some centralisation of grain processing occurred in the Roman town. Unfortunately, it is not possible to be sure at what time this occurred because none of the millstones are closely dated (other than having been found on Roman sites).

During later, civilian, phases of activity there is strong evidence for grain processing at Exeter as well as at nearby Topsham and Pomeroy Wood, in Honiton, with millstones and/or numerous querns from all three locations. Two millstones were also found at the Late Roman bakery site at Topsham (Morris *et al.* 1938, 77–8). At 51 and 55 cm diameter, these are similar in size to the millstones from the town. The small town at Topsham (see EAPIT 1, Chapter 6) was evidently a centre for crop processing, as in addition to these two millstones a relatively high number of querns have been found at sites in or close to Topsham including five at the bakery and a probable five at two phases of excavations at Wessex Close (Kendall 2014, 7; Quinnell 2018a, 46) where a substantial building was probably used for crop processing amongst other things (Quinnell 2018a; Rainbird and Farnell 2019). The combined evidence suggests that during the later Roman period cereals were brought into Topsham and that some of these were ground there, and the flour (and malt?) subsequently used in its bakery or bakeries. Some of these baked (or brewed?) products may have been distributed onwards to Exeter although it is likely that baking and brewing also occurred in the city, as indicated by a comparable Late Roman bakery at Rack Street. Querns and millstone were also found at Rack Street, although the absence of context information means it is impossible to determine if they were connected to a possible bakery there.

A further millstone was also found at Exeter Crematorium – adjacent to the excavated site at St Loye's College (EAPIT 1, Chapters 5 and 6) – where it had been used in a 19th-century surface associated with a mill leat. It was interpreted as probably Roman, and because of its large size at 95 cm diameter, if it was Roman it indicates the existence of a substantial, probable water-powered, mill between Topsham and Exeter. Medieval corn mills were in operation at Countess Wear (Martin Watts pers. comm.) and it is possible these reflect a long-running tradition of milling that extends back to the Roman period. Millstones measuring in excess of 90 cm are, however, not common from Roman contexts, with only 4% of millstones in the author's database exceeding 94 cm diameter, and it is therefore doubtful that the millstone from the Crematorium is Roman in date.

As well as the likelihood that Topsham was a centre for crop processing throughout the Roman period, the roadside settlement at Pomeroy Wood, in Honiton, was also important for the processing of agricultural produce. This site is located just outside Exeter's arbitrary 20 km zone but was on the main road between Dorchester and Exeter, and all the archaeological evidence points towards significant cereal processing there. The site has produced the single largest assemblage of querns from any Roman site in Devon, including 23 identifiable querns in 52 fragments plus a further 58 fragments thought to derive from rotary querns (Loader 1999, 281). One of these may be from a small millstone, which would indicate further intensification of crop processing. It is of a comparably small size to all the millstones from Exeter and Topsham (50 cm).

The emphasis on grain processing in the roadside settlement at Pomeroy Wood suggested by the high number of querns and small millstone is supported by the structural remains of corn driers associated with the civilian phases (Fitzpatrick *et al.* 1999, 255–9). Corn dryers are generally scant in Devon (EAPIT 1, Chapter 3; Brindle 2016) but might have been used for both drying grain and the roasting of sprouted grains for malting (Van der Veen 1989, 316). As the dearth of corn dryers across the South-West Peninsula suggests that arable farming was practiced at more of a subsistence level than in other parts of central-southern England (Lodwick 2017, 21), we can assume that crop processing was an important activity where they are found (especially in conjunction with querns and millstones). Further evidence for an emphasis on crop processing in the civilian phase at Pomeroy Wood is provided by two 4-post structures interpreted as having been used for grain storage, and by the archaeobotanical evidence. Analysis of the charred plant remains indicated that semi-cleaned spikelets were brought onto site for the final stages of processing and that spelt wheat was the most dominant crop (Clapham 1999, 370). Some contexts contained mostly sprouted grains, which were assumed to be for animal feed (Clapham 1999, 346), but could plausibly represent the production of ale or malted drinks, the necessary sprouted grains being crushed using querns, some of which may have been sent on to the city.

Relatively few millstones have been found in the Roman town of Exeter, and the area surrounding it, and, with the exception of the unstratified example from Exeter Crematorium, they are all small stones. It seems unlikely that any of these would have required a substantial water source to power them. It is possible that some or all of them were powered by two or more people instead, as for the 50 cm+ sized pushing mills seen in Iberia (Alonso and Frankel 2017). If so, the increase in output compared to rotary querns is likely to have been low, but significant nonetheless and their presence does indicate a greater emphasis on crop processing in the area close to which they were found than would have been achieved with rotary querns alone. Using these, and concentrations of rotary querns, it would appear as though the main areas for crop processing were inside the town itself, in the small town of Topsham, and at the roadside settlements at Pomeroy Wood and Dainton Elms Cross. Flour (and baked products), plus possibly ale (and malted drinks) would have been produced inside Exeter for immediate consumption and outside the town for both local consumption and possibly for transfer to the urban population.

The generally low numbers of querns and millstones seen in Exeter and close by is mirrored in the rest of Devon. The only other site with evidence for centralised crop processing is the villa at Holcombe, in Uplyme, which has produced fragments from two separate local Greensand millstones, including one of comparably small size to the other Devon examples, and one larger millstone of 74 cm diameter. Overall, the occurrence and form of the quern and millstones from across Devon gives the overall impression that crop processing was not a major activity in the region.

## **Conclusions**

The querns and millstones from Exeter and Devon demonstrate a range of forms that is typical of the Roman south, but a much more limited range of stone types. Here, very local stones were typically used to manufacture querns but in small numbers over relatively long time periods, so that production appears to have been generally ad-hoc. There are only three sites – Topsham, and the roadside settlements at Pomeroy Wood and Dainton Elms Cross – with a clear emphasis on crop processing and the quern assemblages from these, although significant, are not as substantial as from comparable sites in other regions. In addition, most other rural sites have produced only one or two quern fragments and together the evidence suggests that crop processing was not a major activity in the region. If this data is a genuine reflection of the levels of activity, the lack of imported querns from the rest of southern Britain may be a result of simple economics. The low numbers of querns required could easily be met by ad-hoc manufacture locally, meaning that there was little market for imported querns other than the lava querns initially brought by the military and their associated personnel.

## **Acknowledgements**

Research on querns is heavily dependent on access to museum archives and the author is extremely grateful to all the museums and their staff who helped with this paper. Thanks must go to Thomas Cadbury of the Royal Albert Memorial Museum in Exeter for arranging access to the museum's collection. Also to Claire Howe and Barry Chandler at Torquay Museum for access to the Rocombe querns and to Anna Adcock of Topsham Museum who kindly opened up the museum during the closed season so that querns in their care could be examined. Thanks also to Naomi Payne of AC Archaeology who allowed examination and sampling of the querns in their possession, and to Susan and Martin Watts for helpful comments on the text. Particular thanks must go, however, to Roger Taylor who used his considerable expertise to advise on petrographical matters. All errors, of course, remain the responsibility of the author. All figures are by the author, with the geology based on Devon County Council's 2004 'Devon County Minerals Local Plan'.

## Can Analysis of Claudian Bronze Coins Found at Exeter Usefully Contribute to the Debate for an 'Earlier' or 'Later' Claudio-Neronian Origin for the Legionary Fortress?

*Robert Kenyon*

## **Introduction**

This chapter sets out to consider whether the supply of bronze coins of Claudius I (AD 41–54) issued as part-payment of salary to Roman troops in newly-invaded Britain, with their subsequent dispersal in circulation at military bases and attendant *vici* or *canabae*, can offer a primary feature to the discussion for determining a date of origin and occupation of a particular site.

Scholars inspecting excavated and stray coin-finds have commented frequently, since the early 19th century in Britain, on the occurrence of bronze coins struck in imitation of orthodox issues of Claudius I. In addition, it has been long recognised that the widespread and common occurrence of crude imitations of bronze coins in Britain contrasted with the limited presence of orthodox Claudian *aes*, that is bronze coins struck in the imperial mint of Rome. More recently, an exhaustive study – employing stylistic and metallographic analyses – of an enormous deposit of Roman coins found in the riverbed at Gué de Saint-Léonard, in France (Besombes 2004), identified Claudian *aes* that the author proposed were struck at Roman imperial subsidiary mints located in Gaul and on the Iberian Peninsula. These coins were of comparable size and weight to those struck at the mint of Rome, but were stylistically 'provincial' in appearance: many of these imperial bronze coins would previously have been described as 'good' copies. Those provincially-struck imperial coins, issued in AD 41–2, soon became the subject for imitation, first in Gaul and then in Britain after the invasion by legionary and auxiliary troops in AD 43: those bronze imitations have long been described as 'Claudian copies'.

Excavated and stray coin-finds in Britain suggest that the proposed imperial subsidiary mints, operating in the early years of the reign of Claudius I, provided the bronze coins necessary to pay troops stationed in Britain and the North-Western provinces of the Empire. The extreme rarity, among British coin-finds, of Claudian *aes* bearing legends ending *P(ater) P(atriae)*, an honorific title bestowed by the Senate on Claudius in AD 42, would suggest that payment for troops in the early years following the invasion was with coins of the first Claudian issue only, that is those struck AD 41/42.

The scarcity in Britain of the second issue of Claudian *aes*, *i.e.* those struck in AD 42–43, with legends ending *P(ater) Patriae)*, provides strong numismatic and archaeological evidence for the cessation of supply of Claudius *aes* from the imperial subsidiary mints to Roman troops and administrative officials in Britain. Furthermore, it has long been recognised that Claudian *aes* struck at the central mint of Rome rarely occur as coin-finds in Britain; this absence can be seen as corroborating evidence for the supply of coins from provincial subsidiary mints.

It is feasible that those official supplies, struck in the Gallic and Hispanic imperial subsidiary mints, were stockpiled as part of the advance preparation for the invasion of Britain (cf. Kemmers 2004, 45–7 where she suggests forts on the Lower Rhine as possible locations for a supply line in support of the Roman invasion). However, once payment to troops exhausted the stockpile – and in an absence of supplies of further orthodox *aes* – 'unofficial' coins, whether from military or civilian sources, would be required to provide the wherewithal for the small change. This was to be the state of affairs in Britain and Gaul for more than 20 years. The belated first issue by Nero (AD 54–68) of bronze coins from the mint of Lyon, *Lugdunum*, in AD 64/66 addressed the hiatus in supply of fresh imperial bronze coins to pay troops and officials in Britain, Gaul and Lower Germany.

With regard to the supply of Claudian *aes* in the 20-plus years following the invasion of Britain, it may be conjectured that an 'unofficial' moneyer's requirement for a ready and constant supply of copper to produce new copies locally would lead to the removal and melting down of early imperial and Claudian *aes* from a fort's or town's circulation pool. In order for this operation to be profitable, larger coins would need to be withdrawn, melted down and a higher number of new (slightly) smaller blanks to be cast from the molten copper as fresh blanks ready for striking with 'unofficial' dies. Inspection of Claudian bronze coinfinds in Britain shows that coining dies were often freshly cut to a reduced module to better suit the size of the blank. The progressive reduction of the coin-module over time throughout the Claudian period, and without doubt into the Neronian period, would account for a lower number of larger coins and a higher number of smaller coins occurring as finds at sites that were being developed in the later Claudio-Neronian period. Conversely, a higher proportion of larger module coins and very few coins of medium/ smaller module would indicate a period of origin and occupation limited to the early Claudian era. It is therefore worth considering whether the relative relationship of Claudian copies of different modules (large, medium and small) might offer a secondary aid to determining a proposed date for a site's Roman occupancy.

## **A method**

Hypothetically, in the absence of knowledge of a coin's archaeological context and in ignorance of any other form(s) of archaeological evidence at a site, it would be interesting to consider whether analysis of finds of Claudian *aes* might suggest a narrower date of loss and deposition at a fort or town than the broad 'Claudio-Neronian/early Vespasianic period' generally attributed to circulation of those early coins. This would offer a contribution to the discussion for determining a probable date for a site's Roman origin. The varied appearance of Claudian *aes* (size, weight, design, etc.) found in Britain encourages a view that analysis of such coin-finds at a site might allow further refinement in determining its period of Roman origin and occupation.

Analysis of 124 stratified Claudian bronze coin-finds from excavations in the 1970s at Colchester (Kenyon 1987) offered the opportunity to compare those coins with Colchester's clear archaeological contexts for: the foundation and development of the Roman fortress established near the Trinovantian tribal-centre Camulodunum (AD 43/4–49); the conversion of the fortress into a *colonia* for retired legionary soldiers (AD 49–50+); the destruction of both the Roman *colonia* and the Trinovantian settlement during the Boudican revolt (AD 60/1) and the rebuilding of the Roman town shortly afterwards. A high level of confidence may be attributed to stratified Claudian coinfinds at Colchester where 'In contrast with other coins listed … over half the Claudian coins (54 percent) turn out to be in their expected levels…Many of the pre-Boudican levels were very substantial and well preserved, with comparatively few later features cutting into them' (P. Crummy 1987, 13).

The large majority of Claudian *aes* found at Colchester, from excavations of the 1970s and earlier, may be described as tolerably accurate copies that are generally of reduced module. A similar, simple description would apply also to the profile of Claudian bronze coin-finds from other Claudio-Neronian sites across Britain. Conversely, those tolerably accurate coins, with their literate legends, were complemented from the earliest period by locally-produced, much less accurate copies with incomplete or malformed legends that would be struck in increasing number in the later Claudio-Neronian period.

The very large number of broadly accurate, but undersize, Claudian copies occurring as excavated site-finds and metal-detector finds across Britain would suggest that the necessary casting of copper-alloy blanks and striking of coins must have taken place collectively on an industrial scale. Furthermore, the vast output of coins of competent workmanship would suggest that an organised, rather than *ad hoc,* arrangement would have been required for the manufacture and supply of coins on such a large scale.

Analysis of the better-preserved Claudian *aes* from excavations at Colchester, informed by their stratified context, suggested that there were principally three phases or periods of production (early/mid AD 40s, mid/late AD 40s and early/mid AD 50s) of imitations at progressively reduced module, with a fourth period (mid/late AD 50s) for even smaller module coins that are invariably local copies. The regular requirement for fresh supplies of bronze coins at Colchester, and other Roman military centres, may be attached to the demand for lower denominations to function as small change at the beginning of January, May and September when the three instalments of pay, or *stipendia*, were made to troops across the new province of *Britannia*. An outline of the sizes/weights of coin-modules, predominant at Colchester, and their suggested corresponding periods of manufacture is offered as a framework against which Claudian *aes* from Exeter and other sites may be compared. For the purpose of this exercise, it is presumed that troops stationed at different centres across the new province received fresh bronze coins of similar module at approximately the same time. Of course, troops and their followers may well have carried older, larger coins with them from their previous station, and undoubtedly those coins would have entered the pool of currency in circulation alongside the newly supplied coins in what was becoming an increasingly monetised background.

A complementary factor that might be of relevance when considering the possible date of loss of a coin is the amount of wear of the surface of the coin. It is generally held that assessing the degree of wear evident on a coin offers a broad guiding influence in determining its period of loss: for example, little wear on a coin would suggest it was lost relatively soon after being struck and introduced into circulation; conversely, a heavily-worn coin would suggest many years of frequent use in circulation before its loss. However, for Claudian *aes*, many of which are 'copies' and the products of clandestine mints in Britain and Gaul, a degree of caution is advised as not all coins would have been produced to the same high standard as those from an orthodox mint: for example, a weakly-struck copy, with its shallow impression, might exhibit the misleading appearance of having been in circulation for very many years when that was not the case.

Notwithstanding that cautionary note, with particular regard to Claudian copies, the derivative nature of imitation both in terms of the size/weight of coins and the quality of reproduction of imagery may offer further guidance to determining the period of loss. A coin that is approximately full-size/weight (*e.g.* an *as*, *c*. 30 mm in diameter and weighing 11.0 g) and accurate in design is likely to be a product of one of the imperial subsidiary mints in Gaul or the Iberian Peninsula and will have been struck in AD 41–42 (cf. Besombes and Barrandon 2000). A slightly smaller contemporary copy of those coins is likely to have been struck within two or three years of the Roman invasion of Britain. Both the orthodox coin and its close copy can be designated as being of 'early' manufacture, whereas a coin of greatly reduced module (*c*. 20–25 mm in diameter and weighing 4.5–6.0 g) that purports to be a Claudian issue can be appropriately described as a 'later' copy, struck from the early AD 50s (see Kenyon 1987 for evidence of stratified coin-finds at Colchester to support this chronologically-based observation). It follows that coins of medium-size module (*c*. 26–27 mm in diameter and weighing 8.0–9.5 g) were struck in the intervening period, that is from the *c.* mid AD 40s to the early AD 50s. In addition, the less accurate and stylistically more rudimentary copies, those that have been described elsewhere as 'Native Copies' (Bowsher and Kenyon forthcoming), can generally be considered as 'later' issues. It should be noted that 'early' copies, described above, can often be difficult to separate stylistically from coins of orthodox issue.

It might be argued that it is difficult to imagine a smaller *as* being accepted at the same value in the market place as a larger *as*. Clearly, these coins were tolerated and accepted, unless one views all coin-finds as discards, but we have no evidence for appreciating what value might have been placed upon an individual coin in the marketplace. However, it is not beyond reason to expect that haggling would take place with the trader, perhaps not only over the given price for goods or services but also over an acceptable value for the coins being offered.

Bronze coins were essential not only for the payment of troops and officials, but also for exchange in the developing extra-mural settlements and market-places. It is suggested that this demand for bronze coins would have been met primarily in two ways:

On a smaller scale, locally produced coin-dies were also used to overstrike existing coins.

Recent chemical analysis of 35 bronze coins of Claudius I from excavations at the Bloomberg site in London by Dr. Matthew Ponting (University of Liverpool) indicates the use of metal from different sources for the imitative *aes* of Claudius I: zinc-rich copper was used to strike the competent copies at unidentified clandestine mints, and recycled metal, that certainly included bronze coins, was employed for the local imitations (Ponting forthcoming). These findings confirm those arrived at by J.-N. Barrandon for similar Claudian bronze coins from the very large deposit at a river-crossing near Saint-Léonard, in Brittany (Besombes and Barrandon 2000).

It is pertinent to note that a likely source of zinc-rich copper at this time was the mines of Anglesey and North Wales. The results of the metallurgical analyses, referred to above may therefore encourage the view that the zinc-rich copper used for coins minted by the clandestine mint-operators in Britain and Gaul may have been obtained from the independent copper mines of Anglesey and North Wales in the territory of *Ordovices* before Roman assimilation there in AD 60/61 placed the mines under Roman control.

It might be expected, as described above, that the use of recycled copper would involve the removal of larger coins of each denomination from circulation for melting down and re-coining in local 'mints'. The extraction of full-size and full-weight coins from the circulation pools at forts and towns of Britain in the years following Roman occupation together with the cessation of Claudian *aes* from imperial subsidiary mints in Gaul and the Iberian Peninsula would explain the relative paucity of orthodox coins struck by Claudius I. Their replacement with issues of 'unofficial' coins of gradually diminishing size soon entered the money-stream in and around the military bases either as part of the pay issued to troops or via *nummularii*  exchanging a soldier's *denarii* for small change.

Relating the visible wear of a coin's surface to the length of time a coin has been in circulation is perhaps certain to produce an inexact result: an estimate of a period of years at best rather than a specific year for a coin's loss. However, inspection of the wear evident on Claudian *aes* found in hoards that include relatively little worn Neronian and/or Vespasianic bronze coins may help to indicate what wear might be expected for Claudian coins that circulated for a lengthy period until at least the Neronian/Vespasianic period. This evidence-informed approach, limited in scope though it may be, provides an initial standard for wear against which other excavated coin-finds might be compared.

The more accumulations of this type that are inspected, the better the evidence-base that can be built for comparison. In the case of this note, two hoards will be reviewed: Lincoln's Castle Hill hoard (Petch 1958, 104–6; Robertson 2000, cat. no. 53) and the dispersed hoard found during excavations at the Valiant Soldier and Acorn Roundabout sites, Exeter (Sites 44 and 94; Shiel 1991, 32; Robertson 2000, cat. no. 52). Each of these two groups, located geographically at opposite ends of the strategic Fosse Way, are found in legionary bases: at Exeter where *legio II Augusta* maintained overview of the South-West and at Lincoln where *legio IX Hispana* were based in the north-eastern Midlands.

The Castle Hill 'purse group', found by workmen in 1957, is one example of a hoard of mixed Claudian, Neronian and Vespasianic *aes*. It provides clear evidence for the continued use of Claudian *aes* into the reign of Vespasian (AD 69–79) at Lincoln, if one accepts that those coins were taken from circulation at the same time. The hoard comprises seven Claudian *aes* (a *dupondius*, five *asses* and a hybrid (Tiberius/Minerva) *as*), one Neronian *dupondius* and two Vespasianic *aes* (a *dupondius* and an *as*) and one illegible bronze coin. The Claudian *aes* are all copies and, as might be expected, all exhibit signs of significant wear, whereas the Neronian and Vespasianic *aes* do not: the detail of hair of the emperor on the latter three coins may be clearly seen and the lettering of the legend is sharp, particularly on the Vespasian *dupondius* struck AD 71/72. The most worn coin, a Claudian copy *dupondius*, (*RIC* Ceres reverse-type*)*, at 27 mm diameter, a 'medium'-sized coin, is in a state of wear that may be described as 'poor/very poor'. No detail features are discernible and only the outline shapes of both obverse and reverse designs remain. The 'large' Claudian copy *as* (*RIC*  Minerva reverse-type*)*, at 29 mm, is in 'very worn/poor' condition and is, unusually, a large example of a 'Native Copy', *i.e.* a coin bearing crudely-rendered images/lettering in the obverse and reverse designs. The last-mentioned coin is possibly an 'overstrike' (*i.e.* where coin-dies were used on an existing coin rather than a new blank disc of metal). This would account for its large size as 'Native Copies' are mostly 'smaller' sized coins. The remaining four Claudian copy *asses* are also of the Minerva reverse-type: three, at 23–25 mm diameter are what may be described as of 'small' size and one, at 26 mm, as of 'medium'-size. They are all 'very worn' and generally of rudimentary fashion in terms of design and production. The least worn of the Claudian *aes* is the hybrid copy *as* with its laureated Tiberius obverse (presumably copied from the *Lugdunum* Altar series) and Minerva reverse design. This last coin is in 'worn' condition.

Using photographs of this Lincoln 'purse group' as a sample standard measure of the relationship of a coin's wear to its length of time in circulation, it is possible to observe that larger coins that had circulated for perhaps almost 30 years became so worn that the obverse designs were worn flat, while the smaller coins that were in circulation for less time up to loss/burial(?) exhibited signs of less, but still significant, wear.

Exeter's dispersed group of 13 bronze coins of Claudius, Nero and Vespasian excavated at the Valiant Soldier and Acorn Roundabout sites is available for visual inspection at the Royal Albert Memorial Museum's (RAMM) database https://rammcollections.org.uk, accession number: 1/1991 (unfortunately, only the obverses of these coins can be clearly seen due to accession numbers obliterating the reverse images of each coin). The composition of this group suggests it should be considered as a savings group of ten higher-value brass coins (three little worn *sestertii* – one of Nero and two of Vespasian – and seven little-worn *dupondii* of Vespasian) and three very worn copper *asses* of Claudius I. This dispersed accumulation, originally hidden as a group of 14 bronze coins (although currently one Claudian copy *as* is mislaid), differs in the composition of its featured denominations from Lincoln's purse-group that was perhaps lost while in use rather than after being hidden. However, there is a similarity in the degree of wear on the Claudian-Vespasianic *aes* of the two groups suggesting they were both deposited/lost at a similar period during Vespasian's reign.

The above guiding factors – sizes/weights, degree of wear, and type of copy – offer indicators that can contribute to the discussion for the attribution of a probable period of loss for excavated Claudian *aes* found at a British site, but taken separately they are not compelling. Other contributory factors should also be considered such as the relative proportion of Claudian denominations found and the presence/absence of pre-Claudian imperial *aes*. The characteristics outlined above and those following are intended to offer guidance for determining a narrower period when the Claudian coins were lost rather than the broad 25 year 'Claudio-Neronian period' that is usually ascribed to their use.

Typically, sites of the 'earlier' (military) Claudian period (*c*. AD 43–late 40s) are likely to have coin-lists that include some or all of the following:

(it is generally thought that the countermark *PROB* is a brief version of *PROB(atum)* denoting the coin has been 'approved' for (continued?) use in circulation. However, it is difficult to appreciate why newly-struck coins issued at the beginning of Claudius's reign by an imperial subsidiary mint should require approval. Nevertheless, it is beyond the scope of this brief note to begin to consider alternative expansions for this countermark);

• Republican and early imperial *denarii*.

Sites of 'later' (military/civilian) Claudian/Neronian/ Vespasianic period (*c*. AD 53–75) are likely to have coinlists that include some or all of the following:

## **Analysis**

Fifty bronze coins (*aes*) of Claudius I (AD 41–54) were found during excavations at Exeter in the 1970s-early 80s. Those coins, together with 16 bronze coins of Claudius of local provenance in the collection of the RAMM, were recorded in 1983 on a visit to Exeter. Thirty-five of those coins were photographed and these were complemented by a photograph, taken by a member of RAMM staff, of a countermarked *sestertius* of local provenance that had been on display on the occasion of my visit. A summary of that recorded information and photographs of those coins can be found in the author's thesis (Kenyon 1992).

In addition, four other earlier imperial bronze coins – two copy *asses* of Augustus (27 BC–AD 14), an *as* of Agrippa issued by Gaius (AD 37–41), and a copy Agrippa *as* – were noted as excavated finds. Site-finds elsewhere show that examples of those bronze coins often occur in the same archaeological contexts as Claudian *aes*. It is perhaps useful to note that *asses* of the Agrippa type, in particular, and also Augustan *asses* were subject to copying, and that hybrid coins (*e.g.* coins that have an obverse of Claudius and a reverse of Neptune from an Agrippa *as*) indicate that pre-Claudian prototypes were also copied

in the Claudio-Neronian era. The wear evident on these coins indicates that they had circulated for a considerable time before being lost or discarded.

Recent re-inspection of those photographs and records allowed the opportunity to reappraise the bronze coins of Claudius I (AD 41–54) and consider whether they can make a useful contribution to the discussion about the origin of Roman Exeter. All 67 Claudian *aes*, with the exception of one *as*, from Exeter Museums Archaeological Field Unit's (EMAFU) assemblage of excavated coins exhibit clear evidence of wear from circulation; a copy *as* (noted above) in 'excellent', virtually unworn condition and three copy *asses* in 'good' condition; nine are described as 'worn'; 16, as 'very worn'; 12 are described as being in 'poor' condition and 26, in 'very poor' condition. All 67 coins have legible features with sufficient detail to be readily identifiable. Eight illegible bronze coins were judged by appearance and fabric to be 'probably copy *asses* of Claudius', but they are not included in this analysis.

If wear on a coin is to be considered as a factor in determining a date for its loss, then a broadly defined period (*e.g.* three to six years) might be considered a more tolerable observation than an exact date. And it may be assumed that *asses* and *dupondii*, being of the lower denominations, were used more frequently than *sestertii* in any marketplace serving a military post (the lowest denomination is the *quadrans*, worth a quarter of an *as*, but the rarity of finds of *quadrantes* of Claudius I in Britain indicates they were not issued to Roman troops and officials in this new province). It may reasonably be assumed therefore that the wear on a *sestertius* would be less than that recorded on the surface of a *dupondius* which in turn would be less than that evident on an *as* for any given length of time in circulation.

The four coins that are in better than 'worn' condition are all copy *asses* of the most common reverse type, Minerva advancing right.

	- i One coin, also, exhibits the rudimentary design features attributed to 'Native Copies', and may also be identified as a 'later' copy that was likely to have been struck in the first half of the AD 50s. Its condition suggests it was lost after perhaps 4–8 years of circulation, *c*. AD 57–61, that is during

the emperor Nero's reign, but before his issues of *aes* from *Lugdunum* (Lyon) were struck and issued to troops in Britain.

ii The other two coins having seen limited circulation are copies of products of the subsidiary mints in Gaul and the Iberian Peninsula and at 26 mm/6.5 g and 27 mm/8.25 g may be attributed to the middle period of issue (late AD 40s to early AD 50s) with four–eight years of circulation suggesting loss in *c*. AD 52–60.

The above observations regarding the four least worn coins from Exeter would suggest a 'later' Claudio-Neronian' origin (mid AD 50s-early 60s) with perhaps more emphasis on an early Neronian origin based on the copy *as* in 'excellent' condition excavated by EMAFU.

This proposal for an early Neronian origin at Exeter is supported by the following observation. Of the remaining 63 coins: nine have been described as 'worn' and 16, as 'very worn'; the others, as 'poor' or 'very poor'. While close analysis of the amount of wear on those coins cannot contribute much to dating the origin of Exeter, their degraded condition, supported by a further reduction in module of coin to 21 mm/3.75 g for the latest issues of copies suggests their continued circulation at Exeter into the reign of Vespasian (AD 69–79).

Other notable features of Exeter's list of bronze coins of Claudius I are:

A further noteworthy and pertinent feature of Exeter's coin list, recently brought to my attention, is the hoard of 22 early imperial bronze coins excavated in 2008 at Mount Dinham, Exeter (Site 154; Leins 2013). Nine Claudian *aes* and one probable Augustan *as* are identified among this heavily-mineralised group; the remaining 12 coins are too corroded to allow identification but are considered likely to be pre-Neronian issues. Of the nine Claudian *aes*, one is confirmed as an *as* and four are *dupondii*, with another almost certainly a *dupondius* described as 'seated figure, left' among the three 'Illegible (head of Claudius)' coins. Furthermore, it would not be stretching credibility to suggest that at least one, at 9.18 g, of the remaining two of those particular illegible coins is also a *dupondius*. A 'possible Claudius' coin completes the list of identified coins. Among the 12 unidentified, extremely fragile and illegible bronze coins are others whose weights are comparable with the identified Claudian *dupondii* and therefore may also be *dupondii*, but that cannot be confirmed here. What can be said is that this is a mixed *dupondii/asses* group deposited before Neronian bronze coins were issued (*c*. AD 64/66) and available at Exeter.

## **Conclusion**

The above observations and analysis of the classification and metrology of the excavated 67 Claudian *aes*, together with the Mount Dinham group of 22 pre-Neronian *dupondii* and *asses* that includes low weight coins (*c*. 3 g) of probable Neronian issue, indicate the legionary base at Exeter was unlikely to have been established in the Claudian period. Furthermore, the observations regarding the general degree of wear from circulation evident on the Claudian bronze coins suggest a 'later' period of coin-use. This is supported by Exeter's coin-list profile (*i.e.* the relationship between full-, medium- and smallsize copies at 5%:33%:62% respectively, the occurrence of very worn, countermarked *sestertii* and the relationship between orthodox coins and their copies and also between accurate and rudimentary copies) which better fits a 'later' period of coin-use such as might be expected of a military establishment at Exeter, and its attendant *vici* or *canabae,* operating during the early Neronian to mid Vespasianic era (*c*. AD 55–75).

The result of the above reconsideration of Exeter's bronze coins of Claudius I complements and confirms the summary evidence, previously published (Kenyon 1987, 36–9), suggesting a profile of later circulation for those coins than that for Claudian *aes* from the Early Roman sites of Colchester and Richborough. That evidence was set out in scatter-diagram form of the sizes and weights of coins in worn or better condition and was used as comparative material – along with similar diagrams for coin-finds from Wroxeter, Gloucester, Cirencester and Sea Mills – against finds of Claudian *aes* from those earlier Roman sites in south-eastern Britain.

Recent reanalyses of the different 'modules' (*i.e.* size and weight of flan) used for 'Claudian copies' found at the above-mentioned Roman centres in the neighbouring territories of the Dobunni and Cornovii to the north of that of the Dumnonii (Table 15.1) provide some comparative data for the coins from Exeter. Those reanalyses offer a narrowly-focused survey of just one element of the

*Table 15.1 Classification of 'Claudian copies' from sites in the territories of the Dumnonii, Dobunni and Cornovii by module (Kenyon, 1987, 36–40). Coins in better condition are noted alongside their relevant 'module' in the Table*

Module 1, issued *c*. AD 43–44: Size and weight close to that of an official *as* (*c*. 30–31 mm, 10–11.5 g), *dupondius* (30–31 mm, 13–15 g) and *sestertius* (34–36 mm, 27–30 g)

Module 2, issued *c*. AD 44–49: Size and weight of an *as* (*c*. 26–28 mm, 8–9.5 g), *dupondius* (*c*. 27–28 mm, 10–11 g) and *sestertius* (*c*. 31–33 mm, 20–23 g)

Module 3, issued *c*. AD 50–54: Size and weight of an *as* (*c*. 25 mm, 4.5–6 g), *dupondius* (*c*. 23–25 mm, 8–9 g) and *sestertius* (*c*. 28–30 mm, 16–18 g)

Module 4, issued *c*. AD 55–60: Size and weight of an *as* (*c*. 20–23 mm, 3.5 g)

archaeological evidence, *i.e.* the metrology of the bronze coins of Claudius I found at the particular sites, without the contextual information that can be gleaned from the close inspection of individual coins, as demonstrated above, and therefore should be treated with some caution. However, with that *caveat* strongly underlined, this 'snapshot' of coin-supply and use would seem to suggest that Claudian bronze coins were supplied to a military

presence at Exeter at about the same time as they were being used at Cirencester and the port of Sea Mills, but perhaps at some time after coins were supplied to troops at Wroxeter and Gloucester/Kingsholm.

Finally, and to give a broader view of Roman military presence in the territory of the Dumnonii, it is worth setting the Neronian-Vespasianic period of coin-use at Exeter against what seems to be clear evidence for much earlier Claudian coin loss further south-west along the Peninsula in the area approaching Plymouth. The Claudian hoard of nine *sestertii* found at Roborough, near Plymouth (Holbrook and Shiel 2002), is a superb example of an early Claudian bronze coin group with its inclusion of a *sestertius* of the emperor Gaius (Caligula) (AD 37–41), rarely found in Britain, together with a *PROB* countermarked specimen among the eight 'little worn' *sestertii* of Claudius I that were issued by the provincial subsidiary mints operating in Gaul and on the Iberian Peninsula in AD 41–42. The little amount of wear evident from the illustration of these coins in that excellent report indicates an early post-invasion date for the group's deposition or loss that would pre-date the legionary presence in Exeter (see Chapter 16 below).

## **Acknowledgements**

I am grateful to Richard Reece for recently asking a question that prompted me to think about how close consideration of the bronze coins of Claudius I (AD 41–54) found at an excavated site might suggest a date of origin for that site, and to Neil Holbrook for later asking me to consider applying the approach that developed from that consideration to the excavated Claudian coin-finds from Exeter.

## The Roman Coins from Exeter and its Hinterland

*Andrew Brown and Sam Moorhead*

## **Introduction**

In recent years there have been an increasing number of studies of Roman coin finds in different parts of the country. Most of these have been in the core territory of the Province, or the Lowland Zone as some scholars call it. The South-West, beyond the Blackdown Hills, and Exeter itself, however, present a very different pattern of coin-loss from the heartlands of *Britannia* which demands rigorous interrogation to understand why this region diverges from other parts of the Province. Many of the Roman coins from Exeter have been discussed by Norman Shiel and Richard Reece, notably in *Roman Finds from Exeter* (Holbrook and Bidwell 1991, 24–38) which listed 1,625 examples found across the modern city. Since then, Shiel has catalogued another substantial assemblage of 146 coins from the 1997–2006 excavations at Princesshay (Site 156; Steinmetzer, Allan and Orme forthcoming) and a hoard of 22 early imperial *aes* has been recovered from excavations at Mount Dinham (Site 154; Leins 2013; 2008T102/PAS: IARCH-4072D1).1 In addition, it is now possible to gain a comprehensive overview of all the Roman coin hoards from Exeter as a result of a Leicester University and British Museum project investigating Iron Age and Roman hoards.2 Probably the major contribution this chapter can make is in providing a much broader context for the Exeter coin finds by using the British Museum's Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS; finds.org.uk) Roman coin data from Devon and the broader South-West (*i.e.* including Dorset and Somerset). The PAS data include a substantial number of the detector finds from the excavations at the roadside settlement at Dainton Elms Cross, in Ipplepen, which now provides a major numismatic assemblage which can be compared to Exeter's. It is therefore now possible to discuss Exeter in relation to its immediate hinterland and the wider South-West, rather than seeing the town as an island of Roman activity in a region largely devoid of significant comparative data.

This chapter therefore consists of two major sections. The first will consider the coins from Exeter and compare them with a selection of other urban sites in Roman Britain, while the second will introduce the PAS data for Roman coins from Devon and discuss the county's profile in relation to Exeter. This will then enable a series of broad conclusions.

## **The coins from Exeter**

## *Excavation and stray finds*

At present, there appear to be 1,769 Roman coins available for study, which can be summarised as follows (the lettering of each group corresponds to the columns in Tables 16.1 and 16.2, and Figs 16.1 and 16.2):

*Fig. 16.1 Bar chart* (per mill) *showing Group A (pre-1942 coins), Groups B–D, Group E (Princesshay excavations), and profile for all coins from Exeter*

*Fig. 16.2 All Exeter Roman coins versus the British Mean (Reece 1995)* (per mill)

which includes an *addenda* not used in Reece's listing (Reece 1991a, 34, tab. 7 column 4). In this article, 408 coins are noted which can be assigned to Reece Periods.

E: 146 coins, catalogued by Shiel (forthcoming) from the 1997–2006 excavations at Princesshay, in Exeter (Site 156), of which 137 can be assigned to Reece Periods. Some of these coins come from within the fortress, some within the town defences, and others from outside the town walls.

It should be noted that Reece (1991b, sites 10–12) lists three groups of coins from Exeter in his *Roman Coins from*  *140 Sites in Britain*: No. 10 is 102 coins from Exeter excavations 1971; No. 11 is 128 coins from Exeter excavations 1972; and No. 12 is 99 coins from various sites in Exeter. These listings are superseded by the totals listed in Reece 1991a. Also note that in this chapter we follow the convention introduced by Reece of expressing coin finds as *per mill* (thousand) rather than percent (see Reece 1987, chapter 5).

## *Roman coin hoards from Exeter*

As a result of the Leicester University/British Museum project (see above), we are able to list nine (or possibly ten) potential hoards from Exeter (Hoards 9 and 10 might actually be two different records of the same find),

*Table 16.3 Roman coin hoards from Exeter (Site Numbers refer to Chapter 2 above)*

although the information for individual finds varies enormously. The hoards are listed in Table 16.3 in probable chronological order, according to the *terminus post quem*  of the coins (although in many cases an exact *tpq* is not possible to ascertain).

## **A study group of Roman towns as comparanda for Exeter**

It is interesting to compare Exeter's coin profile with those of other urban centres in the South and West of the province, and Colchester in the South-East (Tables 16.4–16.5 and Figs 16.3–16.5). Of course, every Roman town has a different history and one is not necessarily comparing like with like. Colchester, Cirencester and Gloucester are similar to Exeter in having Roman military origins. Silchester has pre-Roman origins, whilst Dorchester, and possibly Winchester, appear to be foundations carefully placed to supplant existing British centres. Caerwent is a later, 2nd-century AD, foundation, whereas Ilchester only really thrives as a town in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. Patterns do, however, emerge in coin-loss across these urban centres and they provide useful comparanda for Exeter. For this purpose, statistics for the seven towns (listed below) have been taken from Reece's listing (Reece 1991b),3 and while he often provides several different assemblages for each town, in this study all finds have been amalgamated to provide a single profile.

## *Discussion of the Exeter coin assemblages, making comparison with other urban centres*

The largest single group of coins is that of the pre-1942 pieces, collated by R.G. Goodchild and published by Lady Aileen Fox in 1952a (Group A). An initial comparison of this group with the others does suggest that it is quite plausible as a reliable sample of coins found in Exeter. However, without extensive research, we cannot be sure which coins were found inside the confines of the legionary fortress and early town, and those which were discovered within the larger later town perimeter or even in its environs (see Fig. 16.1). The finds do immediately warn us that different excavations will often produce very different chronological coin profiles.

There are 25 pre-Claudian coins from Exeter, pieces which would have arrived with the military after the Claudian invasion. To these coins, one can add an *as* of Augustus found in a hoard with Claudian coins at Mount Dinham (Hoard 2). Figure 16.1 shows how the majority of coin groups display high proportions of issues from the Claudian to Flavian periods. Robert Kenyon has fully explained the nature of the Claudian coins from Exeter in this volume (see above, Chapter 15), arguing for a foundation of the fortress *c*. AD 55. That the fortress remained in use into the early Flavian period is suggested by the coin finds and by a dispersed hoard with a *terminus*  *post quem* of AD 72/73 found during excavations at the Valiant Soldier and Acorn Roundabout sites (Sites 44 and 94; Hoard 3). There appears to be another hoard of 40 silver *denarii* secluded in the Flavian period, but details are lacking (Hoard 4).

There is a drop in coin-loss during the Trajanic period and a lower coin-loss for most of the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, up until AD 260. This needs to be examined a little closer. Firstly, if one considers the major excavations from 1945–79 (Groups B–D) there are very few coins between AD 96 and 260 (36 from 579 = 6.2%). It is a similar picture at Princesshay (8 from 137 = 5.8%) although there is a peak in Period 7 (AD 161–80) which interestingly mirrors many rural sites across Britain (Moorhead 2013, 92). In the pre-1942 group, however, there are many more coins from AD 96–260 (187 from 1053 = 17.7%), and when these coins are considered they do bring Exeter to around the British Mean for Reece Periods 5–12 (see Fig. 16.2). Furthermore, Exeter has a generally similar profile for this Period as many other towns in Roman Britain (see Tables 16.4 and 16.5, and Figs 16.3–16.5). The discrepancy between the different groups in Exeter is hard to explain: it could be a problem with the reliability of the pre-1942 sample, but it could also be that coins were found across a wider range of sites, thus providing a more balanced picture than that provided by excavation in the region of the legionary fortress. Antonine hoards are quite common in Britain, but there is only one poorly recorded find of 30 or more gold and silver coins, buried sometime after AD 161 (Hoard 5). We have to be careful about reading too much significance into the dearth of coins for Periods 11–12 (AD 222–260) because pieces from this Period are scarcer across the entire province, the graph effectively reflecting a fall in coin supply to *Britannia*.

The major upturn in coin-loss for 'radiate' coins in Periods 13–14 (AD 260–75) is typical on sites across Britain and should not be seen as indicating any significant activity or change at Exeter; the coins in question were increasingly debased and were struck in copious quantities. However, although there is a notable peak at Princesshay in Period 13 (343 *per mill*), the averages for Periods 13 (125 *per mill*) and 14 (111 *per mill*) are just below the national average (see Fig. 16.2). When compared to other towns, Exeter does lag behind Dorchester, Silchester and Winchester, but compares favourably with the other towns in the study group (see Tables 16.4 and 16.5, and Figs 16.3–16.5). There are only two radiate hoards (numbers 6 and 7) from Exeter which is not a large number when one considers that there are over 650 hoards from this Period from across the province. The coin record for Periods 15–17 (AD 294–348) is quite in line with sites across Britain (see Fig 16.2) and with most of the towns in the study group (Tables 16.4 and 16.5, and Figs 16.3–16.5). The highest peak in Period 17 (AD 330–48) is seen at sites across Britain, it generally

*Fig. 16.3 Roman coins from Exeter, Gloucester, Cirencester and Colchester* (per mill). *These are towns with Roman military origins*

*Fig. 16.4 Roman coins from Exeter, Dorchester and Ilchester* (per mill). *These are the two closest major towns to Exeter*

*Fig. 16.5 Roman coins from Exeter, Caerwent, Silchester and Winchester* (per mill). *Caerwent is a 2nd-century AD foundation; Silchester has Iron Age antecedents*

being the period of most coin-loss on British sites. It is possible that two or three hoards (numbers 8–10 below) belong to this Period, one possibly being slightly later (Hoard 10).

Exeter does, however, show a marked decline in Periods 18–19 (AD 348–78) and then a near total collapse in coin-loss (only one coin recorded!) for Periods 20–21 (AD 378–402). Although this does happen at a number of rural sites in Britain, it is most unusual for urban sites. Dorchester, Caerwent, Silchester, Winchester and Colchester also experience a drop in coin-loss after AD 348, but they all have quite a strong showing in Period 21 (AD 388–402) indicating more monetary activity at these towns in the last decades of Roman Britain. Caerwent only has 17.8 *per mill* coin loss for single finds in Period 21 (AD 388–402), but over 10,000 Theodosian *nummi* of this period in several hoards were found in excavations at the site (see IARCH-B91A6A; IARCH-92308D; IARCH-E8BAE4; IARCH-50AC09; IARCH-762A25; IARCH-A20516; IARCH-58FB56). Indeed, Caerwent is second only to Richborough (over 22,800) for the number of Theodosian coins found, a stunning contrast to the one coin found at Exeter. At Ilchester, the pattern is quite the opposite from Exeter with coin-loss in Periods 19 (AD 364–78) and 21 (AD 388–402) exceeding that of Period 17 (AD 330–48). This locks Ilchester into a network of sites with high coin-loss in the Valentinianic Period (19: AD 364–78) which appear to be connected with official activity, probably the extraction of taxes in kind, much of which was probably exported to the continent (Moorhead 2001, 90–5; Moorhead and Stuttard 2012, 206–8, 226–7; and see discussion below in 'Chronological review' section on AD 364–378, Reece Period 19). Gloucester and Cirencester also belong to this group with Ilchester and Cirencester also showing a very high coin-loss in Period 21 (AD 388–402). For coin-loss after AD 378, Exeter stands alone with its single Theodosian coin. It has been shown how, in this Period, bronze coin use shrunk down to military and urban centres, and nodal points on the road network, probably reflecting that base metal coinage was only used in quantity by the military and officials (Walton 2012, 109; Moorhead and Walton 2014, 104–112). It does seem that the general population were prepared to go on using silver *siliquae*, but eschewed the bronze *nummi*, as *siliquae* are proportionally much more common on rural than on military and urban sites (Moorhead and Walton 2014, 112, tab. 2). This strongly suggests that Exeter had ceased to be an important centre for the late Roman administration.

To summarise the coin finds from Exeter and their comparison with other similar urban sites, it is clear that Exeter has two distinct characteristics, separated by a long phase of relative normality. In the 1st century AD, from the Claudian to Flavian periods, Exeter has the highest proportional coin-loss of any settlement in Britain, reflecting the legionary presence from *c*. AD 55 into the Flavian period. If the pre-1942 coin records are reliable, we can say that the coin records for the 2nd century AD up to *c*. AD 348 are relatively consistent with other towns in the study group. However, after a decline in coin-loss from AD 348 to 378, there is an almost complete collapse after AD 378 which singles Exeter out as the only town with next to no coin-loss in the Theodosian period. The lights appear to go out early.

## **Portable Antiquities Scheme Roman coins recorded for Devon**

## *The data set*

The landscape of Roman coinage in Britain has changed dramatically since Reece (1991b) published his 140 sites in 1991. The increase in metal detected finds recorded as a result of the introduction of the new Treasure Act (1996) and subsequent advent of the PAS has resulted in an exponential rise in the numbers of Roman coins recorded annually. As of December 2019, the PAS contains almost 319,000 Roman coins in 287,547 database records covering all periods of Roman coin use and loss in Britain (Fig. 16.6). To this can be added more than 3,000 Roman coin hoards ranging in size from single precious metal coins to the largest Roman coin hoards known from Roman Britain: the Cunetio Hoard of 54,951 coins (Besly and Bland 1983) and the Frome Hoard of *c*. 52,500 coins dating to the 3rd century AD (Moorhead *et al*. 2010).

At a very general level, Devon is a notable area of low coin use and loss, particularly in comparison with regions further to the north and east. Some of this is likely affected by access to the landscape itself, for example in

*© OpenStreetMap contributors)*

the two National Parks where metal detecting is illegal, but the paucity of material elsewhere is striking and appears to represent a definite lack of coin use in the South-West Peninsula generally. The PAS records 1,012 single Roman coins for Devon in 1,007 database records, with additional examples from the Unitary Authorities of Torbay (6 coins) and Plymouth (5 coins), to give a total of 1,023 coins. This number includes 234 recently discovered coins from Dainton Elms Cross, in Ipplepen, that will be added to the PAS in due course (at present, only the early detector finds are on the PAS database). It should be noted that only 772 coins in Devon have been assigned a Reece period, but a significant proportion that remain impossible to closely identify are of 1st to 2nd-century AD date. *Denarii* of the second half of the 2nd century BC (*e.g.* DEV-0E6CE2, DEV-2F6E66, and SOM-C5DB54) are the earliest Roman types represented, with nine Theodosian coins from AD 388–402 (Reece Period 21) marking the end of coin use in the region. In addition to the single finds, over 45 coin hoards of Roman date have been recorded, the largest being the Seaton Down Hoard of *c*. 22,000 4th-century AD *nummi* (PAS-D7EA4C). The focus of PAS material is for the most part to the east and south of Dartmoor, and south of Exeter, with only sparse coin finds around the western edge of the National Park, and fewer examples still in the northern and western regions of the county (Fig. 16.7). This is not simply a reflection of where metal detecting is most prevalent, possible, or reported in Devon but appears to be a genuine representation of the Roman landscape, since if we plot all PAS finds for the County (Fig. 16.8) the range of finds is much more widespread, particularly in the north-west.

Of the 1,023 Roman coins recorded in Devon, 772 have been assigned Reece Periods that allow for the reconstruction of Devon's coin loss profile (Fig. 16.9). The Early Roman period is well-attested, notably with relatively high numbers of coins (*per mill*) recorded up to the end of the Flavian period (AD 69–96) and then with large increases into the Antonine period of *c*. AD 138–180 (Reece Periods 7 and 8). Spikes in coin usage are seen in the mid 3rd century AD (Reece Period 13), the Constantinian period (AD 330–348; Reece Period 17), and the Valentinian period (AD 364–378; Reece Period 19). A small, but not negligible, spike is seen at the end of the Roman period with the Theodosian coinage (AD 388–402; Reece Period 21).

The Devon profile demonstrates very clear differences when considered alongside neighbouring counties (Figs 16.9–16.12). Compared to the 791 Roman coins recorded through the PAS in Cornwall, Devon has comparatively fewer coins *per mill* in the Flavian through Antonine periods but is considerably better attested in the Late Roman period when Cornwall rapidly tails off (Fig. 16.11). Both of these profiles are notably different to, for example, Dorset and Somerset whose very similar *Fig. 16.6 Roman coin finds on the PAS as of 2019 (map data:*

*Fig. 16.7 Roman coin finds in Devon recorded through the PAS (map data: © OpenStreetMap contributors)*

*Fig. 16.8 All finds recorded in Devon through the PAS. Dark green indicates all Devon PAS finds; light green indicates all Roman period finds (map data: © OpenStreetMap contributors)*

*Fig. 16.9 Reece Period analysis for Devon*

coin profiles demonstrate little activity in the Early Roman period but intensive coin use in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD between *c*. AD 260–378 (Reece Periods 13–19; Fig. 16.12). This is much closer to the national picture given by the British Means defined by Richard Reece (1991b), Philippa Walton (2012, 36–7) and the PAS dataset (Walton 2012, 31–37). At a regional level, Devon and Cornwall are both clearly divergent from what might be generally expected.

## *The PAS coins by district4*

Analysis of Roman coinage by modern local authority district within Devon highlights clear differences around the County (Table 16.6). The very small numbers of PAS

*Fig. 16.10 The Devon PAS coin profi le against Reece's British Mean (Reece 1995) and Walton's British Mean (Walton 2012, 233, tab. 7) excluding Richborough which skews the overall picture enormously because of its huge volume of Theodosian coinage, likely to be the result of dispersed hoarding, which gives a false impression for the province as a whole*

*Fig. 16.11 Reece period analyses of Cornwall and Devon combined*

*Fig. 16.12 Reece Period analyses of Dorset and Somerset*

*Fig. 16.13 Map of Devon districts and sites mentioned in the text (map data: © OpenStreetMap contributors; Boundary data: Offi ce for National Statistics licensed under the Open Government Licence v.3.0, Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2017)*

*Table 16.6 Number of PAS coins by Devon district*

coins in Exeter, North Devon, Torridge and West Devon are not statistically useful in defining coin use and loss here, although they do highlight the comparative paucity of material in the north and west of the region. In contrast, the 80 coins from Mid Devon demonstrate some activity in the first half of the Roman period, followed by clear peaks in the mid 3rd century AD (Reece Period 13: AD 260–75; Fig. 16.14) and again in the Constantinian period (Reece Periods 16 and 17: AD 317–348).

The most notable assemblages are focussed in the east and south of the county. The 628 coins from East Devon, South Hams and Teignbridge clearly highlight a substantial early phase of activity, most notably a gradual increase in coin use and loss running up to a peak in the Antonine period, *c*. AD 161–180 (Reece Period 8; Fig. 16.15). The South Hams has notable coin losses in Reece Period 2, *c*.  East Devon and Teignbridge have broadly similar trends in the Early Roman period, but the very obvious difference lies in the comparatively huge numbers of Constantinian and Valentinianic coins represented in Teignbridge during Reece Periods 17 (AD 330–48) and 19 (AD 364–378).

## *PAS sites with major Roman coin assemblages*

There are few parishes in Devon with discrete coin scatters recorded through the PAS that are statistically viable for analysis and which might point towards more clearly defined Roman settlements (Table 16.7). Ipplepen is clearly the largest after Exeter, but several smaller sites have increasing numbers of coins that help fill out the picture (Fig. 16.13). What is notable is that the sites in the north (Halberton and Broadclyst; Fig. 16.16) generally reflect Late Roman activity in the 3rd to 4th centuries AD, a profile not dissimilar to the combined material from Exeter with its peaks in Reece Periods 13, 14, 17 and 19 (this is not surprising as they lie relatively close to Exeter). Further to the south, the two nearby sites of Dainton Elms Cross, in Ipplepen, and Denbury/Torbryan have evidence for early activity, particularly in the Antonine period, but still with notable Late Roman phases, most obviously in the Constantinian period (Reece Period 17) at Dainton Elms Cross and the Valentinian period (Reece Period 19) at Denbury/Torbryan (Fig. 16.17). The most notable difference lies with the remaining three south-eastern sites of Salcombe, South Brent and Stoke Gabriel, and the comparable site just over the Tamar from Plymouth near Maker-with-Rame (Fig. 16.18). There is a clear emphasis on the late 1st to 2nd centuries AD through to the late Antonine period (Reece Period 9) at Stoke Gabriel. South Brent behaves perhaps more like Ipplepen

*Fig. 16.14 PAS coins from Mid Devon* (per mill)

*Fig. 16.15 PAS coins from East Devon, South Hams and Teignbridge* (per mill)

*Table 16.7 PAS sites with significant assemblages of Roman coins*

1 The remaining 16 coins from Salcombe that could not be attributed to one Reece period are all early bronze issues of the 1st or 2nd centuries AD.

2 A number of coins have been recorded near Maker-with-Rame in Cornwall, on the opposite side of the Tamar estuary to Plymouth. Their proximity to other southern and eastern Devon sites makes them an interesting comparison, especially given that modern county boundaries would not have been a factor in antiquity.

and Denbury with less emphasis on the early period and peaks in the late 3rd century AD (Reece Periods 13 and 14) and Constantinian period (Reece Period 17). It is worth noting, too, that both South Brent and Maker-with-Rame have very clear Theodosian spikes in Reece Period 21 (AD388–402) that are only hinted at in Ipplepen but seemingly nowhere else. South Brent has also produced one of just two Late Roman crossbow brooches recorded through the PAS (DEV-E1A6A8, the other from Exeter: LEIC-EEE688), again hinting at activity here towards the end of the Roman period.

The individual sites, much like the regional distributions, demonstrate what seems to be a shift in Roman coin use and loss within Devon during the Roman period. In the north and west, and at least as far as Exeter, coin use is sparse, but with an apparent greater emphasis on the latter stages of the Roman period in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. South and east of Exeter, perhaps as far as South Brent, this late 3rd and 4th century AD presence is clear, but increasingly with larger volumes of early material most notably of the Flavian through to the Antonine periods. In the most southern and eastern sites, however, the situation is almost reversed and the emphasis is clearly on early coinage with large peaks in the Antonine period more reminiscent of the general coin profile for Devon as a whole. Of course, this may be a slight chicken and egg scenario in that the Devon coin profile is substantially populated by material from the southern and eastern assemblages.

## *A broad comparison of the Devon PAS data with Exeter*

The PAS data provides a significant and useful background that enables Exeter to be placed in its regional setting from a Roman numismatic perspective (Figs 16.19–16.21). It should be noted, though, that the total number of coins from each region is significantly smaller than for Exeter and that any new finds could significantly change the proportions. Of immediate interest is that pre-AD 43 coins (Period 1) make up a higher proportion of finds

*Fig. 16.16 PAS Roman coins from Broadclyst and Halberton* (per mill)

*Fig. 16.17 PAS Roman coins from Ipplepen and Denbury/Torbryan*

*Fig. 16.18 PAS Roman coins from Salcombe, South Brent, Stoke Gabriel and Maker-with-Rame* (East Cornwall)

in the regions than in Exeter, although they are all, bar one *sestertius* of Agrippina (see below), Republican and Augustan *denarii* that could have been lost at any time in the 1st century AD or later. Exeter, as expected, is much better represented in the Claudian and Neronian Periods (Reece Periods 2 and 3: AD 41–54), but in the early 2nd century AD (Hadrianic and Antonine periods, Reece Periods 6–9: AD 96–192) is superseded by Devon as a whole. Both demonstrate slight peaks in the later 3rd century AD (Reece Periods 13 and 14: AD 260–75), but the higher totals at Exeter are to be expected as urban centres tend to have a higher proportion of radiates than rural ones (Reece 1987, 94). Periods 15 and 16 (AD 294–330) are much better represented in Devon than at Exeter, although it should be noted that these coins are quite prolifi c at Dainton Elms Cross and Halberton (a large number of Period 15 (AD 294–317) and Period 16 (AD 317–330) coins have been found on the southern part of the site at Dainton Elms Cross: it is possible that they are a dispersed hoard, moved over signifi cant distances by the plough, but no epicentre has been found to prove this hypothesis). In Period 17 (AD 330–48), Exeter has a higher total than Devon, but in the last periods (Reece Periods 18–21: AD 348–402), Exeter falls behind. It is notable that there are nine Theodosian coins of Period 21 (AD 388–402) in Devon, as compared to the single specimen at Exeter.

## **A chronological review of Roman coin-fi nds from Devon**

## *The Claudian conquest, AD 43–late 40s (Reece Period 2)*

Evidence for the Claudian invasion in Britain is increasingly attested from a numismatic perspective, most notably in hoards like the fi nd of 37 *aurei* datable to AD 41–2 from Bredgar in Kent (IARCH-75460A; Robertson 2000, 6, no. 22) and mixed conquest-period coin groups like the Owermoigne Purse Hoard from Dorset (PAS-6AA253; 2010 T404) that contains Early Roman silver and bronze issues alongside local Iron Age (Durotrigan) types. In Britain, Claudian and earlier *sestertii* are typically scarce but invariably associated with areas of military activity. The around 50 examples recorded through the PAS (Fig. 16.22) include fi ndspots along the south coast as far as Devon and may plausibly indicate the early movement of the Roman military in south-western Britain in the years immediately following the Claudian invasion.

Small clusters of Claudian bronze coinage are apparent in Devon, most notably between Exeter and Plymouth and particularly in the area around South Brent/Dean Prior (Fig. 16.23). The nine *sestertii* dating to *c*. AD 42 from the Roborough hoard (Plymouth: Holbrook and Shiel 2002) and four *sestertii* from the Dean Prior hoard, probably dating to around the same period as Roborough5 (see

*Fig. 16.19 Exeter (all coins) versus the PAS Devon totals* (per mill)

*Fig. 16.20 Exeter (all coins) versus the Devon regions: East Devon, Mid Devon and Teignbridge*