Is the Piercebridge assemblage a military
votive deposit?
Philippa Walton
Over the past twenty years, an assemblage of approxim
ately 5,400 Roman objects has been recovered from the
bed of the River Tees at Piercebridge, County Durham. The
objects were discovered during campaigns of amateur ar
chaeological survey by two divers from the Northern
Archaeological Group, a local archaeological society. They
were reported to the Portable Antiquities Scheme in 20031
and are currently being processed as potential Treasure un
der the Treasure Act 1997.
THE SITE
The riverine findspot for the assemblage is situated in a
landscape rich in Roman archaeology. Dere Street crosses
the River Tees at Piercebridge where a second century Ro
manoBritish settlement and fort dating to the later third
century AD are known through a combination of survey
and excavation.2 The deposit itself comprises more than
1,300 coins, 4,000 individual artefacts, 40kgs of pottery
and a quantity of animal bone. When the assemblage was
first discovered, there was some suggestion that it repres
ented refuse washed from the river banks. However, both
the location and composition of the assemblage point to
wards an intentional votive act or acts. The distribution of
artefacts found by the divers was relatively limited, being
concentrated in an area measuring 5 metres by 5 metres,
towards the centre of the river. Most objects were coated in
a concretion comprising burned organic material and iron
corrosion products which secured them to the riverbed.
Although the deposition of coins and objects in water is
characteristic of Roman religious practice throughout the
western Roman Empire,3 the range of material deposited at
Piercebridge makes the assemblage unique, with almost
every functional category of RomanoBritish small find
represented. For the sake of brevity, only a small propor
tion of object types will be considered here.4
THE NUMISMATIC ASSEMBLAGE
The numismatic assemblage comprises 1,319 coins, dating
from the Republican period to the early fifth century.5 Al
though there are numerous interesting rare or unpublished
issues, as well as exotic coin finds including an issue of
Juba II of Numidia and a worn Hellenistic piece, it is as an
assemblage that the coins can provide the most informa
tion. They provide an indication of the chronology of
votive deposition at Piercebridge, whilst also potentially
shedding some light on the sectors of RomanoBritish so
ciety involved. Using Applied Numismatic techniques
pioneered by Richard Reece,6 average values for coin loss
in each period have been calculated using Reece periods
(Table 1). These periods separate the Roman period in Bri
tain into 21 divisions, based primarily on emperor’s reigns
and enable a coin assemblage to be displayed graphically
(Fig. 1). It is immediately clear that the profile is dominated
by early Roman coin loss, with particular peaks in issues
dating to Period 7, (AD 138–161), Period 10 (AD 196–222)
and Period 11 (AD 222–238). It is interesting that these
peaks correspond with particular episodes of campaigning
and intense activity on the northern frontier and it is there
fore possible that the deposition of coinage was associated
with troop movements from the legionary fortress at York
northwards. More generally, the emphasis on early Roman
coin loss is characteristic of military installations or early
urban foundations.7 The numismatic evidence may therefore
confirm an extensive military presence in the area prior to
the construction of the Roman fort which is argued to date to
the late 3rd century AD.8
The denominational composition of the coin assemblage
is quite different to that of other votive deposits with large
coin assemblages in Roman Britain. The assemblages from
Coventina’s Well and the Sacred Spring at Bath are almost
entirely composed of bronze denominations, suggesting
that low value coinage was deliberately selected for depos
ition. However, at Piercebridge, the silver denarius is the
dominant denomination. This dominance could be accoun
ted for in a variety of ways. Firstly, it may be a reflection of
the value attached to the cult worshipped at Piercebridge.
The relatively high number of gold and silver items within
the assemblage does demonstrate the willingness of de
votees to deposit valuable artefacts. Secondly, military
provinces, such as Britain, Upper and Lower Germany and
Pannonia, appear to have received more silver coinage than
civilian ones, such as Gaul and Italy and that individual
sites with a military character tend to have greater propor
tions of high value coins than established civil sites.9
JRMES 17 2016, 191–194
192
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 17 2016
Therefore a military element to votive deposition might also
be responsible for this high proportion of silver. Thirdly,
however, the apparent wealth exhibited in the assemblage
may in some part be illusory, with the dominance of the den
arius instead reflecting the composition of the coinage pool
from which the coins were selected for deposition. In the
early third century AD, bronze denominations were not sup
plied to Britain in any quantity and therefore the denarius for
a time represented the lowest value denomination in circula
tion. As there are peaks in coin issues from this period, it
may be that deposition of coinage occurred most frequently
in the early third century AD.
Approximately 10% of the coins in the assemblage have
been subject to some form of defacement, piercing, mutila
tion or bending. More than 30 of the denarii, ranging in
date from Neronian to Severan issues have been deliber
ately cut and a further 30 have small semicircular cut outs
on their circumference (Fig 2). Again, interpretation of this
treatment is difficult. Although halved Roman bronzes are
known from several Roman sites throughout the Empire,
including the Roman military spa of Bourbonneles
Bains,10 they have tended to have been interpreted within
an economic context as improvised small change, whereas
the clipping of denarii, where recorded, tend to be ex
plained away as tests for silver content. However, it is also
possible here that the modification of a small percentage of
the coins from Piercebridge has a ritual element, either to
mark them out as specifically votive objects or to render
them useless should anyone attempt to retrieve them from
their watery resting place.11 The abusive treatment of offi
cial coinage and the imperial image may seem unusual,
when it appears that at least some of the devotees making
offerings at the site were soldiers. What might this say
about their attitude to Roman authority?
Table 1: The Piercebridge coin assemblage
MILITARIA
The large number of finds of a military nature also reinforces
the theory that the army were involved in votive deposition
at Piercebridge. Finds include 27 apron pendants, 11 scab
bard slides, two sword chapes and six fragments of shield
edging. There are also 12 portions of lorica squamata com
prising rows of between two and six scales, a lobate hinge
from lorica segmentata accompanied by two possible frag
ments of lorica segmentata. These objects, although
essential elements of military equipment, would all have
been relatively easy to replace. There are sword fittings, but
no swords; there are portions of armour, but no whole suits
or helmets. These explicitly military objects are also accom
panied by more than 40 elements of horse harness and
equipment, including equine pendants, strap slides and stud
mounts. As the horse was an extremely valuable commodity
in the ancient world, these fittings are likely to have fur
nished the horses of soldiers, rather than civilians.
A hint regarding the identity of at least some devotees
may be provided by the small assemblage of lead sealings
Fig. 1: Histogram illustrating the Piercebridge coin
assemblage by Reece period.
Fig. 2: A denarius of Septimius Severus (FASAM21D833),
which has been deliberately cut. Photo: the author.
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 17 2016
193
Fig. 3: A copperalloy Knee brooch (FAPJWFD5267) from the assemblage. Photo: the author.
Fig. 4: A copperalloy ram figurine (NCLDACBB3) from the assemblage. Photo: the author.
recovered from the river. They include eight which read
‘LVI’ (Legio VI Victrix) and a further three which read
‘OVA’. The letters ‘OVA’ have been interpreted as a retro
grade abbreviation for ‘Ala Vocontiorum’ a cavalry unit from
Lower Germany, known from an inscription at Newstead
and lead sealings from Leicester12 and South Shields.13
Tène III, through to third century Divided Bow types. Des
pite the relatively wide date range, late second and third
century brooches are most common. There are 23 examples
of the Knee brooch (Fig. 3) which is not a common form in
Britain, more frequently found in the forts of the German
limes where they are known as ‘Soldatenfibeln’. They are
generally regarded to be a military brooch type.14
OBJECTS OF PERSONAL ADORNMENT OR DRESS
There are also numerous objects which have no obvious
link with the Roman army. Indeed, items of personal ad
ornment such as brooches, finger rings and pins form a
large proportion of the material recovered from the river.
For example, there are more than 70 jewellery elements in
gold and silver as well as two gold and six silver finger
rings. The presence of a relatively large quantity of pre
cious metal comments on the status, wealth and
significance of the votive deposit and the individuals mak
ing offerings, and accords well with the numismatic
evidence. However, the brooch is the most common item of
personal adornment, with 111 examples recovered. The
majority of the brooches survive intact, complete with the
pin and spring mechanism, suggesting deliberate depos
ition rather than discard and range in date from a single La
OBJECTS ASSOCIATED WITH RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND
PRACTICES
There are also a significant number of objects in the as
semblage which have a direct association with religious
beliefs and practices. These include two copperalloy Cu
pid figurines, two fragments of pipeclay Dea Nutrix
figurines and a copperalloy ram (Fig. 4) and tortoise, two
attributes of Mercury.15 Other smaller votive objects are
represented including three miniature brooches and two
minature axes, a silver plaque depicting Jupiter as an eagle
abducting Ganymede and a lead votive plaque of a type
more commonly found on the Danubian limes. There are
also more than 150 rolled lead sheets which may or may
not represent ‘curse tablets’.16
194
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 17 2016
MOTIVATION FOR VOTIVE DEPOSITION
This paper has briefly discussed some aspects of the as
semblage from the River Tees at Piercebridge and has
suggested a military element to the votive activity which oc
curred at the site. However, the discovery of these objects
has raised many questions. For example, why was the de
posit placed in the river at Piercebridge? Was it a response to
a specific event or a particular military campaign? Does the
presence of some Late Iron Age objects17 in the deposit in
dicate that the practice evolved from an earlier Iron Age
focus? Answering these questions effectively is difficult, if
not impossible. However, the location of the deposit at a ma
jor strategic point on the way to the frontier may be
significant. It is possible that the assemblage represent offer
ings made by the military community at large, on their way
from civilisation to Barbaricum. The geographical boundary
of the river may have acted as a sort of trigger, reminding all
who passed that they were entering the frontier zone, where
discourse with the gods was deemed particularly appropriate
or indeed necessary.
NOTES
1
See www.finds.org.uk for more details about the Portable
Antiquities Scheme and to search their Finds Database.
2
COOL & MASON, 2008.
3
Horace commemorates a sacrifice he made to the spring at
Bandusia (Horace Odes III, 13) and Pliny the Younger dis
cusses the offerings made at the source of the river Clitumnus
(Pliny the Younger, Letters LXXX, 8), whilst deposits of
coins and finds are known from numerous European rivers in
cluding the River Liri in Italy (FRIER & PARKER, 1970;
METCALF, 1974; HOUGHTALIN, 1985) and the Moselle
and the Rhine in Germany (DERKS, 2014, 139–40).
4
See WALTON, 2008 for a broader summary of the assemblage.
5
See CASEY, 1989, 37–42 for a catalogue of 166 of the coins.
A more detailed numismatic analysis of 1021 coins is pub
lished in WALTON, 2012, 152–66. All coins are now
recorded on the Portable Antiquities Scheme database access
ible at www.finds.org.uk.
6
REECE, 1995.
7
LOCKYEAR, 2000, 403–13.
8
COOL & MASON, 2008, 311.
9
HOBLEY, 1998, 128.
10 SAUER, 2005, 58–68.
11 See KIERNAN, 2001 for a preliminary discussion of the
mutilation of coinage from RomanoBritish sites.
12 RIB 2411.90.
13 ALLASON JONES & MIKET, 1985, 328.
14 BAYLEY & BUTCHER, 2004, 179.
15 These figurines find a parallel with the ram & tortoise which
accompany a statue of Mercury found during the excavation
of a cemetery ditch just outside the city walls of Verulami
um (HENIG, 1995, 41).
16 At the time of writing, Sara Brown, a Conservation MSc
student at Cardiff University, has opened six of the lead
17
rolls. Only one was inscribed. Although awaiting confirma
tion from an epigrapher, it appears the inscription comprises
repeated numbers rather than a conventional curse (Brown
pers comm.).
These include a copperalloy La Tène III brooch, an iron
mirror handle and a copperalloy cosmetic grinder.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ALLASON JONES, L. & MIKET, R. 1985: The Catalogue
of Small Finds from South Shields Roman Fort, Mono
graph II of the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon
Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne
BAYLEY, J. & BUTCHER, S. 2004: Roman Brooches in
Britain: a Technological and Typological Study Based
on the Richborough Collection, Reports of the Research
Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London,
London
CASEY, J. 1989: ‘A votive deposit from the River Tees at
Piercebridge’, Durham Archaeological Journal 5, 37–42
COOL, H. & MASON, D. (eds): Roman Piercebridge: Ex
cavations by D. W. Harding and Peter Scott 1969–1981,
Newcastle
DERKS, T. 2014: Gods, Temples and Ritual Practices: The
Transformation of Religious Ideas and Values in Roman
Gaul, Amsterdam Archaeological Studies, Amsterdam
FRIER, B. W. & PARKER, A. 1970: ‘Roman coins from
the River Liri’, Numismatic Chronicle 10, 89–109
KIERNAN, P. 2001: ‘The Ritual Mutilation of Coins on
RomanoBritish Sites’, British Numismatic Journal 71,
18–33
METCALF, W. E. 1974: ‘Roman coins from the River Liri
II’, Numismatic Chronicle 14, 42–53
HENIG, M. 1995: Religion in Roman Britain, London
HOBLEY, A. S. 1998: An Examination of Roman Bronze
Coin Distribution in the Western Empire AD 81–92, BAR
International Series 688, Oxford
HOUGHTALIN, L. 1985: ‘Roman coins from the River Liri
III’, Numismatic Chronicle 145, 67–81
LOCKYEAR, K. 2000: ‘Sitefinds in Roman Britain: A
comparison of techniques’, Oxford Journal of Archae
ology 19 (4), 397–423
REECE, R. 1995: ‘Sitefinds in Roman Britain’, Britannia
26, 179–206
SAUER, E. 2005: Coins, Cult and Cultural Identity: Au
gustan Coins, Hot Springs and the Early Roman Baths
at BourbonnelesBains, Leicester Archaeology Mono
graphs No. 10, Leicester
WALTON, P. 2008: ‘Finds from the River Tees at Pier
cebridge, County Durham’, in H. Cool & D. Mason
(eds), Roman Piercebridge: Excavations by D. W. Hard
ing and Peter Scott 1969–1981, Newcastle, 286–93
WALTON, P. J. 2012: Rethinking Roman Britain: Coinage
and Archaeology, Collection Moneta 137, Wetteren