In March 2018 ‘Treasure’ was found by metal detectorists in Parwich at the site of a possible bronze-age barrow. After a long wait owing to the processing, examination and investigation of the finds, and a little thing called the Covid Pandemic, on Tuesday 24th October we were finally able to present our ‘Treasure’ and welcomed a number of experts to Parwich to tell us more about what was found, where they were found and why they were there…  

Parwich Memorial Hall was the venue for the occasion and the event drew in a sizeable crowd of locals from Parwich, members of neighbouring History Societies and visitors from further afield, all keen to hear more about the finds and to get a glimpse of the ‘Treasure’.

The Treasure

Our evening started with a fantastic illustrated presentation from Natalie Ward, Senior Conservation Archaeologist from the Peak District National Park Authority. Natalie set the scene and gave us background and context to what was found and how the find came to be.

The find was detailed as including 260 copper alloy coins, the majority of which were fourth-century of the denomination known today as the nummus belonging mostly to the AD 330s and 340s with a few earlier and later coins. Following their reporting to the local Finds Liaison Offer at the Portable Antiquities Scheme for recording and identification, the find was officially classified as ‘Treasure’ and because of this, the precise location of the site could not be shared.

https://finds.org.uk/database/search/results/q/DENO-3184D1

Natalie introduced the Treasure Act 1996 and what constitutes ‘Treasure’:

• Gold and silver objects, and groups of 2 or more coins from the same finds, over 300 years old
• Prehistoric base-metal assemblages, 2 or more, any metal
• Any object, whatever it is made of, that is found in the same place as, or had previously been together with, another object that is Treasure
• A find may also be Treasure if it does not, on its own, provide such an insight, but is, when found, part of the same find as one or more other objects, and provides such an insight when taken together with those objects.

So on the balance of probabilities, it was concluded that the find of Parwich coins belonged together as a hoard or votive deposit and constituted a prima facie case of ‘Treasure’ by being bronze coins of an antiquity greater than 300 years and of one find of more than ten pieces. 

The site 

Following the initial report from the Finds Liaison Officer for Notts and Derbyshire, the investigation began with a meet at the site with the detectorists who made the find to understand why they had been drawn to this area.

The detectorists targeted the particular area for their search because of a discovery of coins in the 19^th century having been marked on a historic map, and they were not disappointed, reporting signals across the disturbed area from a shallow depth down to the bedrock.

Professional archaeologists were already aware of the site from a discovery recorded within the Derbyshire Historic Environment Record and the Peak District National Park Authority Historic Buildings, Sites and Monuments Record as Saint’s Hill barrow (MPD293).  It is recorded as the approximate location of a barrow that was disturbed prior to 1849, when a hoard of coins was discovered. Thomas Bateman (1861 Ten Years Digging…) reported making ‘…an examination of the remains of a tumulus near Parwich, which had been destroyed by getting stone for the walls enclosing a plantation, when about 80 small brass coins of the later Roman Emperors were found scattered about the barrow.’

‘Owing to the double destruction caused by the stone getters, and person tempted to search by the discovery of the coins, we were unable to find a single inch of undisturbed ground, and the sole evidence of former internments was afforded by two human teeth and some rats’ bones.’

The site has over time piqued further interest. A survey in 1966 had located a pile of stones and this was assumed to be the site of the barrow that Bateman excavated, and the site was surveyed again in 1989 as part of the Peak District Barrow Survey (J.Barnatt), reporting that the barrow was located on the crest of a broad hilltop, but is now destroyed. The area was searched but there were no obvious traces of the barrow apart from some irregular areas of stones, probably shallow stone quarries for walls. Another possible barrow site was identified nearby during the 1989 Barrow Survey.

From this collective information, Natalie concluded it could be expected that this was once a Late Neolithic/Bronze Age burial mound with evidence of Roman re-use, but that the site was entirely destroyed, (a lost barrow site). She explained that this latest find led them to re-think the site…was it the site of a completely destroyed barrow, or could there still be some archaeological interest there?

Although there are irregular bumps and hollows and a small edge of rock outcropping, which could be evidence of disturbance and quarrying in the mid-19^th century, (as detailed by Bateman), an irregular mound appeared to survive on the hilltop. If the whole area had been completely disturbed then one wouldn’t expect about 250 Roman coins to have gone unnoticed by those who quarried the site, those previously searching for coins, nor by Bateman himself. Did the site still have potential for surviving remains, both in relation to the likely primary function as a Late Neolithic/Bronze Age burial site, and later Roman re-use? 

The site would have had good views to the Neolithic long barrow at Minninglow to the north, across the valley to the south, and towards other barrow sites in the area, making it a prime site for a Bronze Age barrow.

The site once again piqued interest and raised several questions, not least whether it was worthy of protection, and the only way to answer all the questions was to examine the mounds through survey and controlled archaeological investigation. The PDNPA cultural heritage teams were able to gather sufficient funding to appoint a professional archaeological firm to carry out the investigation with support of the landowner, the detectorists and the local community.  

Getting our hands dirty

Anna Badcock, Cultural Heritage Team Manager, PDNPA then presented a talk prepared by Rowan May of York Archaeology (previously ArchHeritage), providing details of their archaeological investigation of two mounds at the site in November 2018, carried out on behalf of the Peak District National Park Authority. 

Anna explained the aims of the investigation as being to:

• Understand the context of the coin hoard recovered by metal detectorists
• Assess the nature and condition of the features, in order to help inform their future management

The investigations took the form of a topographic survey of each of the mounds, followed by the excavation of three trial trenches. Trenching fieldwork was supervised by York Archaeology, with the assistance of volunteers from Parwich, the Peak District National Park Authority, Derby Museum, Dr Phil Hughes from the University of Nottingham and Professor Melanie Giles from the University of Manchester.

The following extracts from Rowan’s presentation provide a snapshot of the dig, carried out over 3 trenches made across the 2 mounds at the site:

The dig concluded Mound 2 to be a natural limestone outcrop, but the investigation of Mound 1 was inconclusive, and while it could be a heavily disturbed barrow, it could equally be a natural outcrop that has been affected by quarrying.

Whatever the nature of the mounds, they have clearly been the focus for prehistoric to Roman activity, including the manufacture of late Mesolithic to early Neolithic flint artefacts, and the probable ritual deposition of Bronze Age to Iron Age pottery and the late Roman coin hoard. So, these two near-summit outcrops/mounds can be considered to have been significant places in the past.

Show me the money

Sarah Chubb from the Buxton Museum and Art Gallery presented next to provide more information and detail on the actual hoard found by the detectorists at the site.

Sarah shared that the Parwich hoard came to the Buxton Museum and Art Gallery in 2021, who were grateful to one of their volunteers, Patrick Sutton, a coin expert for providing all the information we know about them, surmised from their age and their condition.

Sarah explained that whilst the hoard is considered a large one, most of the coins within it are common ones, and of small denominations (mainly ‘nummi’ – low value copper coins). The detectorists described finding the coins individually and in small groups and stacks in close proximity. Because of their value, their physical condition and the anecdotal descriptions of exactly where they were and how they were found, they are not technically a ‘hoard’ – i.e. a collection of coins that has been buried for safe keeping, but instead are more likely to be votive offerings.

Some of the coins are in very good condition, indicating they have been in a very dry area such as deep inside a wall away from the ground and rain penetration. Others appear to have been more exposed, some with one side of the coin better preserved than the other, depending on which side was exposed to the elements. These factors support the suggestion they were deposited in different areas of the walls of the barrow, each coin being placed one at a time or a small number as a votive offering.

They generally show very little wear indicating they were deposited at the time the coins were circulating and were possibly newly minted. The majority fall within the 330s-340s AD, suggesting a peak of interest in the site that then rapidly tailed off, all within a 20-40 year period.

Sarah talked us through some of the coins in the find in more detailing, demonstrating the clear and visible effect of the environment: 

These three coins show different conditions from different environments. They are all the same coin from the time of Emperor Constantine I (306-337 AD):

DERSB : 2021.2.1.19 – Was stored in a dry environment and is in good condition.

DERSB – 2021.2.1.6 – This shows a coin which had its obverse (head) in a dry condition, but the reverse (standard) was in a more humid environment and shows more corrosion. 

DERSB – 2021.2.1.22 – Was in a wet environment and is heavily corroded.

These two coins show no corrosion and are examples from a dry environment. They are in extremally good condition and were probably tucked right inside a wall. This condition is sometimes called desert patination. 

DERSB : 2021.2.1.7 – Shows Emperor Constantius II (337-361 AD)

DERSB : 2021.2.1.1.136 – Shows Theodora (wife of Constantius I) 337-340

These are images of the reverse side of the same coins:

DERSB : 2021.2.1.7 – Emperor Constantius II 337-361: this side shows two standards in middle flanked by a pair of soldiers leaning on their spears

DERSB : 2021.2.1.1.136 –Theodora (wife of Constantius I) 337-340: this side appears to show Pietas standing and holding a child.

These three coins evidence they have been stored in a wetter environment. 

DERSB : 2021.2.1.159 – This coin from Emperor Constantine II (337-340) has been stored in a reasonable environment.

DERSB : 2021.2.1.160 – This is another coin from Constantine II but it has been stored in a wetter environment and is now hard to identify.

DERSB : 2021.2.2.11 – This coin has been cleaned and conserved so some of the information on its condition has now been lost. 

This group of coins are outliers, they suggest they are random losses because they fall outside of the 330-340 AD period. 

DERSB : 2021.2.1.1 – This early coin dates to 194 AD and the emperor Septimius Severus.  It’s a ‘lucky’ denarius, a silver plated contemporary forgery.  Under close examination you can see holes in the silver plating.

DERSB : 2021.2.1.219 – Emperor Magnentius (350-355 AD). This coin has been in fairly dry conditions and has zero wear, you can even see the original sheen, suggesting it hadn’t been in use very long when it was lost/deposited.

DERSB : 2021.2.1.216 – This was described as a lead token and it is likely to be a lead barbarous copy. There were lots of copies of official coins, they were usually smaller than the originals and this is particularly tiny. 

These are images of the reverse side of the same coins:

DERSB : 2021.2.1.1 – The back looks like a goddess holding a cornucopia or perhaps a flower.

DERSB : 2021.2.1.219 – The back shows two winged victories standing and holding a wreath.

DERSB : 2021.2.1.216 – The back reveals little detail of the lead token.

As well as the coins, a number of other finds were discovered at the site and were on display at the event:

Roman re-use of ancient monuments

Our final presenter was Professor Melanie Giles (on behalf of Dr Phil Hughes), who gave a fascinating presentation on the Roman practice of re-use of ancient monuments, sharing examples from the Peak District.

Melanie shared her knowledge about sites across the White Peak and the Dark Peak areas, providing further insight into the prehistoric barrows in the Peak District and the importance of work by Thomas Bateman in the mid 19th century, which focused upon the White Peak. 

The image shows the location of prehistoric barrows in this area (Hughes 2020: 201).

Melanie shared insights and findings of Dr Phil Hughes’ work on “the reuse of prehistoric barrows”. The insertion or burial of coins is one of the more common uses, but Romans did also open up barrows to bury their own dead, and copied the structures themselves.

Parwich is located quite close to known significant Roman sites, such as Royston Grange and Minninglow, as well as the lead mining and distribution centre near Carsington and associated Roman roads. Barrows at both Roystone Grange and Minninglow contained evidence of Roman funerals and coin offerings.

Further findings and wider context to this historical practice was shared

Melanie went on to share knowledge about the practice of coin hoards, stating that a peak of over 700 hoards are known from the period from AD 253–296 in Britain, but that coin hoards are more of a ‘global’ phenomenon. Whilst the exact reason for such hoards cannot be truly given, there are many explanations that can help us make sense of them, including economic reasons, (redundancy, circulation and saving), a practice during times of conflict and for safekeeping, religious and even ritual reasons. This time period was towards the end of Roman occupation of Britain and things were already very unsettled – it is easy to imagine that local people would want to seek protection from the gods – or just make a wish, like throwing coins in a fountain today.

Melanie then posed some questions and suggestions to get us to think about our own Parwich Hoard and why these coins were deposited at the specific site:

• Even if there was no Bronze Age barrow here, the knoll resembles a ‘barrow’ and contains small fissures and openings rife for small offerings to be given up
• Unlikely to be hidden wealth with the intention of recovery: marking of rites of passage, anticipatory or propitiatory gifts 
• Exchange economies: coins have more than monetary value – spiritual debts need to be repaid too
• 3rd-4th centuries CE, specifically Constantinian period: pagan revitalisation or Christian appropriation (solar cults): conversion in 312 CE cf coin dates 330-348 CE – an era of religious turmoil and Civil War, in which the north of Britannia played a significant role

And she left us with some final thoughts from Dr Phil Hughes to take away and consider…

• What did it mean to live here in Parwich, during those times? 
• ‘Discrepant identity’ (Mattingly): no such thing as a Roman Briton! Varies with gender, age, role, status, life experience… 
• How did these different groups of people ‘cope’ with the magnitude of change to their lives?
• Let’s not ask what did this mean, but what did it do? 
• Imagery refers to ‘Roman’ values – power, victory, success, triumph, martial identity, fate and ferocity but also nurture and upbringing (wolf)
• Scale of this performance: small, secret, repetitive but it begins to ‘make’ a special place (Roman ‘genius loci’ – the protective spirit of a place)
• Was this their own kind of ‘heritage work’: negotiating the experience of coming to live in a place and learning how to respect it, through their own kind of ‘archaeology’ and appropriate offerings?

Dr Hughes was sorry he could not attend the event in person but has shared a link to his work in this area.

Summary

The event aimed to share details of the finds, the subsequent investigation and dig, and to provide an opportunity to see some of the key items and coins up close and personal. We wanted to provide access to the experts and those involved, to share some of the knowns and present the as yet unanswered for us to consider and come to our own conclusions about how and why the coins were discovered where they were, and to ponder what their relationship and meaning is to Parwich.