small silver Roman

[craigy 362]

I assume its a well clipped silliqua under 1600 odd years of crud , as it has been pierced in antiquity it falls under the Treasure act 

[copper123 1,352]

Treasure? In your dreams

[craigy 362]

4 minutes ago, copper123 said:

Treasure? In your dreams

https://finds.org.uk/treasure/advice/piercedcoins

 

https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/727225

Edited November 25, 2017 by craigy

[Ukstu 437]

Strange isn't it. Its a coin but if you stick a hole in it then it becomes jewellery which becomes treasure.  

[copper123 1,352]

I think you would find most coin collectors uninterested by this coin admittedly its quite late roman , but still  poor quality and I would think apart from the interesting story of it being found , would be in a £5 rummage box

[craigy 362]

3 hours ago, copper123 said:

I think you would find most coin collectors uninterested by this coin admittedly its quite late roman , but still  poor quality and I would think apart from the interesting story of it being found , would be in a £5 rummage box

better than a whole mint one in my opinion, the fact a Roman or saxon person or even later made a hole in it for what ever reason, has some real personal contact to it, if that makes sense, i'd say the hole was contemporary with the age of the coin, and not done at a later date as this was from a villa site that i discovered a few years back, 

 

take the Groats of Edward I they always nearly turn up gilded and made into a brooch, rare as hens teeth unaltered 

[copper123 1,352]

32 minutes ago, craigy said:

better than a whole mint one in my opinion, the fact a Roman or saxon person or even later made a hole in it for what ever reason, has some real personal contact to it, if that makes sense, i'd say the hole was contemporary with the age of the coin, and not done at a later date as this was from a villa site that i discovered a few years back, 

 

take the Groats of Edward I they always nearly turn up gilded and made into a brooch, rare as hens teeth unaltered 

How the hell can you tell if or when a hole was put in the coin , I have to be honest and say it could be one of only 1600 years and you could narrow it down to that ,anything else is pure guesswork.

Its true that this coin was handled by whoever yes , can you name them?I doubt it .

[craigy 362]

17 minutes ago, copper123 said:

How the hell can you tell if or when a hole was put in the coin , I have to be honest and say it could be one of only 1600 years and you could narrow it down to that ,anything else is pure guesswork.

Its true that this coin was handled by whoever yes , can you name them?I doubt it .

because the patina is the same around the hole and no other evidence of habitation has come off that field other than roman and neolithic and the coin is still on the ROMAN VILLA AREA, IF IT WAS FOUND AND DONE LATER THE COIN WOULD HAVE BEEN LOST SOMEWHERE ELSE UNLESS ITS PURE COINCIDENCE IT WAS LOST ON A ROMAN VILLA SITE, sorry didnt mean to write in caps, i have no doubt its contemporary 

[copper123 1,352]

Didn't many saxon towns and villages grow up on roman ruins , I am sure this is correct statement - they also reused roman buidings when useful that is why roman london is not available as its under buildings in london .

The hole could have been made at any time up to 200 years ago

The brits have always had jewelry- I must admit the hole looks crudely done

[Peckris 579]

8 hours ago, copper123 said:

Didn't many saxon towns and villages grow up on roman ruins , I am sure this is correct statement - they also reused roman buidings when useful that is why roman london is not available as its under buildings in london .

Some later settlements - e.g. at Wroxeter - were based on Roman towns. Others, like Carlisle, maintained a continuous occupation until the Norse raids. It is more true though to say that Roman stone was pilfered for all kinds of uses, especially up at Hadrians Wall which was several times taller than the present paltry remains.

However, the resettlement of Roman towns (for example Chester, Colchester, Bath, Exeter, York, Cirencester) tended to be a later trend by which time their Roman artefacts were either buried, ruined, pilfered, or what have you. The Saxons did not use Roman money, in fact their use of any money was limited, until later kingdoms when the Saxon kings issued sceats (silver pennies) with a combination of their own image on one side for propaganda purposes, and Christian symbolism on the reverse, usually a cross.

The Saxon and Roman cultures had very little in common, and Roman artefacts tended to be viewed with suspicion for a long time. The closest they came to Rome was the monastic system, and later on, visits to Charlemagne and various Popes, but that wasn't for a few hundred years after the Romans left Britain.

[craigy 362]

1 hour ago, Peckris said:

Some later settlements - e.g. at Wroxeter - were based on Roman towns. Others, like Carlisle, maintained a continuous occupation until the Norse raids. It is more true though to say that Roman stone was pilfered for all kinds of uses, especially up at Hadrians Wall which was several times taller than the present paltry remains.

However, the resettlement of Roman towns (for example Chester, Colchester, Bath, Exeter, York, Cirencester) tended to be a later trend by which time their Roman artefacts were either buried, ruined, pilfered, or what have you. The Saxons did not use Roman money, in fact their use of any money was limited, until later kingdoms when the Saxon kings issued sceats (silver pennies) with a combination of their own image on one side for propaganda purposes, and Christian symbolism on the reverse, usually a cross.

The Saxon and Roman cultures had very little in common, and Roman artefacts tended to be viewed with suspicion for a long time. The closest they came to Rome was the monastic system, and later on, visits to Charlemagne and various Popes, but that wasn't for a few hundred years after the Romans left Britain.

there was a small smattering of late ironage pottery but no coins, this could also be early roman as well, the hole area is covered in roman farmsteads, i have boxes of pottery and ceramic build material, roof tile, hypercaust, floor tile then nothing after the roman period apart from the odd lizzi 1 and a couple of eddies thats it

[Ukstu 437]

55 minutes ago, craigy said:

there was a small smattering of late ironage pottery but no coins, this could also be early roman as well, the hole area is covered in roman farmsteads, i have boxes of pottery and ceramic build material, roof tile, hypercaust, floor tile then nothing after the roman period apart from the odd lizzi 1 and a couple of eddies thats it

Which confirms it was likely done in Roman times. The archaeology seems to support that anyway.